Month: July 2012
The proof is in the pudding
Belgrade finally has a new government, formed more than two and a half months after the May 6 election. It is an unabashedly nationalist government, with Interior Minister Ivica Dačić at the helm. The governing coalition will include his “socialists,” President Nikolic’s “progressives” as well as Mlađan Dinkić’s United Regions of Serbia.
Initial signals are that this will be a “Serbia first” government that aims for economic revival above all else. Dačić, who will hold on to the Interior Ministry, told parliament:
The new government’s priority is the economic recovery of the country. All other key goals of this government, such as Serbia’s European future, the solving of the Kosovo issue, regional cooperation, combating crime and corruption, heath care, education, and others, will depend on whether or not we will be able to secure our country’s economic survival.
This is strikingly sensible and responsive to the views of Serbia’s voters. Dinkić will play the key role as economy and finance minister. Suzana Grubješić, whom I guess I know as Suzana Mrgic, will be in charge of EU integration and a deputy prime minister.
Kosovo has been demoted from ministerial rank to a mere office. The new government is pledging to implement agreements already reached with Pristina, which is a good thing and if carried out a big change. Aleksandar Vučić is a deputy prime minister in charge of defense, security, combat against corruption and crime, and defense minister. This will make him, in addition to the prime minister, an important player in dealing with the thorny issues arising in northern Kosovo, where Serbian security structures, passionate rejection of Pristina’s authority and illegal trafficking of many different sorts make a combustible mix.
The new Foreign Minister, Ivan Mrkić, is a professional foreign service officer (formerly state secretary) who served the Milosevic regime in the 1990s as ambassador to Cyprus. Whatever his role in serving Milosevic’s requirements, this should give him a very good idea of why partition of Kosovo is a really bad idea.
So what do I think about all this? I think it is about as good as could be expected: a newish government that reflects the election results, which defeated a somewhat less nationalist and more liberal government that also had good economic intentions but found it difficult to deliver.
The proof is in the pudding, which the American way of saying that we have to wait to see the results. Serbs will be most interested in the economic results. Internationals like me will be interested in what all this means for peace and stability in the Balkans. A quick move to establish the integrated boundary/border management foreseen in one of the agreements with Pristina would be a good step in the right direction. If they don’t like that one, there are several other agreements whose implementation awaits a willing Belgrade government.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The amateur tour can get serious
A day after a Mitt Romney adviser told the Daily Telegraph that he would pay special attention to the special relationship with his Anglo-Saxon confrères (“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special”), the candidate himself blew up that relationship with remarks about London’s lack of preparedness for the Olympics and popular lack of enthusiasm for the games. Things reportedly went better at a fundraiser attended mainly by American expat financiers, who may actually be more Mitt’s type than (Conservative) Prime Minister David Cameron. Or mayor of London Boris Johnson:
Even for an Obamista like me, it is too much to hope that Romney’s awkward performance will be repeated in Poland and Israel, where Mitt is headed next. But there are some ripe possibilities: in Jerusalem, there is the touchy issue of where Christ will reappear on earth. I’m no expert on Mormon theology, but Missouri seems to play a role that makes things awkward for Romney and may surprise many Christians (as well as those Jews still waiting for the Messiah). I won’t even try to guess what gaffes are possible in Warsaw. It is a city so full of both human horror and musical glory that there are lots of possibilities. I hope Romney knows he is supposed to like Chopin.
I’m all in favor of the growing tradition of American presidential candidates going abroad. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have lived in foreign countries (principally France and Indonesia, respectively), which is refreshing for those of us who have lived a good part of our lives abroad (mine in Geneva, Rome, Brasilia and the Balkans). Foreigners don’t vote, but Americans should get some idea of how a candidate will project in other countries.
Then there is the Americans abroad constituency, which is substantial in all three countries Romney is stopping in. More than six million Americans are thought to live abroad. This is a serious number, more than 2% of the American citizenry, a number that could possibly determine the election outcome.
Romney will be focusing on Israel’s many Americans, who provide a goodly number of the settlers in the West Bank. It will not be hard for him to fish for votes among them. All he needs to do is make noises of stronger-than-Obama support for Israel’s security and forget to mention the two-state solution, blaming the failure of negotiations on the Palestinians. This will align him with the settlers who see themselves as the solution, not the problem.
That is a snare and a delusion. Here is where an amateur tour of the world gets serious and dangerous. We can all laugh at a candidate’s advisor who thinks it is important that Romney is more Anglo-Saxon than Barack Obama, who himself has lots of “Anglo-Saxon” genes in him (certainly more than I do!). We can enjoy the gaffe about the Olympics. I’ll even giggle if Romney says Chopin is boring. But if he in effect abandons the two-state solution and lines up with Sheldon Adelson’s settler friends, that will put America at serious risk of electing a president committed to perpetual war with the Palestinians and the Arab world.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
First rung on the ladder
The incomparable Bill Durch at Stimson is looking for unpaid interns. I know that’s not what you want or deserve, but these days that’s how almost everyone is starting out.
Those interested should send a cover note indicating any particular area of interest (peace operations, rule of law, and/or civilians in conflict), together with a CV and short writing sample, jointly to Michelle Ker (mker@stimson.org) and Aditi Gorur (agorur@stimson.org).
Here’s the announcement:
Future of Peace Operations Internship
The Future of Peace Operations (FOPO) program at Stimson is offering unpaid internships for fall semester 2012. Stimson is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to enhancing international peace and security. FOPO addresses challenging analytical questions on peace operations, considers their relationship to current policy issues, and tries to build a broader dialogue on what peace operations can and should do.
A FOPO internship is an excellent opportunity for individuals seeking to build upon prior experience relevant to peace operations and conflict mitigation as well as for those with little experience but who can articulate a strong interest in the field. Interns are a vital part of FOPO, working closely with the program’s four member staff. They also engage in the life of Stimson overall, interacting with staff from other Stimson programs and participating in the Center’s events. An internship with FOPO advances participants’ knowledge and skill base and strengthens their understanding of peace operations, conflict resolution, and broader foreign policy issues.
FOPO interns should be prepared to assume administrative and organizing duties as well as research, writing, and editing.
Specific responsibilities can include:
- Providing research support to program staff.
- Creating fact sheets and assisting in the drafting of various documents.
- Proofreading, editing, and assisting in the distribution of FOPO publications.
- Representing FOPO at events around DC and writing meeting summaries.
- Helping to maintain the FOPO project website.
FOPO interns will assist FOPO with its work on:
- Developing a computational model for peacekeeping and peacebuilding
- Engaging community perspectives on security and protection actors
- Measures of effectiveness for peace operations.
- Building the rule of law in post-conflict states.
- Protecting civilians from mass atrocities.
- Tracking US policy toward the UN (particularly US contributions to peace operations and related activities).
Requirements:
- Demonstrated interest in conflict resolution/prevention, international affairs, foreign policy, defense/security policy, humanitarian issues, and/or human rights.
- Research abilities and the ability to communicate clearly and effectively both in writing and speaking.
- The ability to follow multi-step directions and take initiative in doing complex research.
- Attention to research methodology and ability to organize materials logically.
- Attention to detail and commitment to high-quality work.
- Flexibility to work effectively both as part of a team and independently.
- Initiative, maturity, and professionalism.
- Computer skills relevant to an office setting.
Preferred:
- Familiarity with peace operations and their activities.
- Previous research and work experience.
- Familiarity with Microsoft Excel, Access, computer programming, and/or web design.
- Proficiency in French, with the ability to quickly and accurately conduct French-language research.
- International experience.
We welcome applications from undergraduate, graduate, and professional candidates.
Applicants must be able to commit to a minimum of 20 hours per week. Preference is often given to those available 30+ hours per week.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Knock knock
It doesn’t happen often, but it did this morning: 0 pageviews, even at 9 am European time. The Middle East had been up for hours. The Balkans and the rest of Europe for an hour or so. Yet somehow no one had found it necessary to read peacefare.net. How disappointing!
Not really, and the moment did not last, but it does make me wonder whether the effort is worthwhile. I admit that what I publish on peacefare is not much more than what I am thinking at the moment, plus any more serious reflections that have found their way into print elsewhere. And now also wonderful contributions from my Middle East Institute interns, currently the very capable and assiduous Gregor Nazarian and Ilona Gerbakher. They have been writing up Washington events, something I find very helpful since it is impossible to get to all the interesting ones.
The question is whether this is a worthwhile effort. While my WordPress software and Google Analytics provide lots of data on visitors and pageviews, they don’t provide a feel for what people are thinking. Nor do they tell me when you are reading peacefare.net on an RSS feed or an email subscription. I get some feedback in the comments on peacefare and appreciate it, even when it is sharply critical. But often I don’t hear back much, except for the occasional hit on the “like” button or the several tweets per day referencing peacefare, which are always appreciated.
So this post, on what promises to be a slow day, is a plea I guess for a bit more vibe back from readers. There are lots of ways: the like button is the simplest (but not the most nuanced), comments are always welcome (even when they specify that I am an idiot, provided there is good supporting argumentation), tweets (citing @DanielSerwer) and emails (to daniel@peacefare.net) make their way to me, citations and links to peacefare.net are terrific.
What do want you to hear more about? What less? How is what you are reading here useful or interesting? How is it boring or annoying? How could it be improved?
Most of all, I would like to hear from those of you with something to contribute. I never intended peacefare.net to be a one-voice outlet. But I have failed, with some few and warmly welcomed exceptions, to get others to pitch in. Posts are not hard: 500-800 words, focused on a compelling thought or current event connected to peace and war. Send them to me: daniel@peacefare.net I can’t promise to publish everything I get, but I can promise to read it and seriously consider it, with of course the possibility of editorial changes.
Knock knock. Who’s there? Peacefare.net, hoping to hear from YOU!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Conserving American dominance
Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars is getting slammed on both the right and left. There are two problems with Romney’s approach. One is the absence of specific ideas about how he would approach foreign policy issues, including Iran, China, Afghanistan, Egypt and other serious challenges. The other is his one big idea: that good old American resolve and strength will be sufficient to meet any challenge.
The poverty of specific ideas is profound. Nowhere does Romney tell us how he would do what he claims to be capable of. Iran will not get a nuclear weapon or even uranium enrichment. But there are no hints as to how this will be achieved. China must stop exploiting an artificially weak currency, but how they are to be convinced (and the fact that China has revalued its currency dramatically during the Obama administration) is omitted. The war in Afghanistan will be pursued to a successful conclusion in the same time frame foreseen by Barack Obama, but what is to be done differently? Aid to Egypt is to be made conditional, but on what is not clear.
The one big idea is even more troubling. I would be tempted to call it “triumph of the will” if that rubric had not already been used by others:
It’s a mistake — and sometimes a tragic one — to think that firmness in American foreign policy can only bring tension or conflict. The surest path to danger is always weakness and indecision. In the end, it is resolve that moves events in our direction, and strength that keeps the peace.
Without hints as to how they will be applied to specific issues, vague appeals to American strength and resolve are almost guaranteed to lead America into the kind of over-extension of its power that the George W. Bush administration indulged in. The budget-draining eight years of occupation in Iraq and thirteen years of war in Afghanistan were the unfortunate consequences. Romney’s implication that more defense spending will somehow improve America’s economic position is just hogwash.
Mitt Romney and those who write his foreign policy speeches have not faced up to the facts of life: resolve is a virtue only under particular circumstances, costly military power is less important in much of the world than it once was, power today takes many non-military forms and American dominance will persist for most of the next century no matter who is president come January 2013. The question the next president faces is not so much about where to use American power, but rather how to husband and preserve it for instances in which our national interests are truly at stake.
I confess to thinking that Barack Obama has understood this rather better than Mitt Romney, who shows every sign of being willing to be drawn into prolonged displays of American resolve against adversaries who do not threaten vital American interests. The country is in no mood for that: across the political spectrum, Americans are looking forward to containing defense expenditures, not expanding them in a time of budget stringency.
Flag-waving has great virtue in American political campaigns. No doubt Obama will indulge as much as Romney. But we need foreign policy restraint and limits on defense commitments today more than we need to set out bold claims to a century of American dominance. That dominance will last longer if we show restraint. Resolve needs to be reserved for the instances in which there are real threats to vital American interests. Certainly that is not the case with Iran’s enrichment of uranium to the levels required for commercial reactor operations. Nor are China’s currency manipulation and software piracy causes that requires military mobilization.
Romney needs to learn to modulate his excessive enthusiasm for the exercise of American power. Dominance requires that America conserve, not waste, its considerable strength.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Bad chemistry
Regular readers will have noticed that I am not overly exercised about the risk of Syrian use of chemical weapons. There are a number of reasons why I think the press hype about this is excessive, though obviously it is a legitimate international concern. I agree with those who say we should warn Syria explicitly that use of chemical weapons will cross a redline and precipitate an external military intervention. I just don’t think the Syrians are likely that dumb.
Why? First, because use of chemical weapons really would be likely to precipitate intervention, including by the U.S. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which includes 188 states notes:
Syria is not a Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and hence is not legally committed to the Convention’s prohibitions against the development, production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons. Therefore, the OPCW currently has no legal mandate to conduct inspections in the country to verify the possible existence of chemical weapons or related activities.
Conversely, Syria is a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which bans the use of chemical and bacteriological methods of warfare. It ratified the Protocol in 1968 without reservations, except for the proviso that the protocol did not represent recognition of Israel. Thus, Syria has formally renounced both first and retaliatory use of chemical or biological weapons against any State.
The prohibition on use of chemical weapons is by now so deeply engrained that only the most heinous pariah states are even suspected of planning to use them, as Saddam Hussein notoriously did against the Iraqi Kurds in 1988 and against Iranian forces before then. That did not precipitate international intervention, but there are lots of people who wish it had.
Syria’s announcement, quickly retracted, that it would use chemical weapons only against foreigners is bozotic (look it up–good word!). If there is ever foreign intervention in Syria, it is far more likely to be from the air than on the ground. In any case, American ground troops come equipped for defense against chemical weapons, which seemed a real possibility in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It isn’t fun to wear the equipment required in 110 degree heat, but our troops can and do if necessary.
I have my doubts that the Syrian troops asked to use chemical weapons would feel confident the equipment provided would prevent the stuff from felling them all. Nor can I think of anything more likely than a chemical attack to precipitate a mass uprising aimed at tearing Bashar al Asad limb from limb.
The only overt foreign military intervention we are seeing in Syria so far is by Russia and Iran, both of which are supporting the regime. Iran declined to use chemical weapons even after Saddam Hussein had used them against Iranian forces during the Iran/Iraq war. That may have been a reflection of their utility as well as moral revulsion. The Russians, already on the wrong side of history in Syria, are not likely to want their putative allies crossing an international community redline.
It is true of course that you can kill a lot of people quickly with chemical weapons. What you can’t do is control whom they kill. Bashar al Asad is already in the 100-200 people per day range. He could well boost his totals to 1000 per day, but it would likely do his cause little good.
The chemical weapons talk seems to me more a sign of desperation, and over-estimation of the likelihood of foreign military intervention, than serious military planning. But if I am wrong–rumint suggests that bad people are being trained to use the stuff–I will not be surprised if someone decides to strike hard and long against not just the chemical weapons but also against the command and control structure that orders them used.
We’ve got other things to worry about in the meanwhile: the Syrian air force has sent its fighters into action against the rebellion in Aleppo. This is in addition to the frequent use of helicopters in recent weeks. I’m not a big fan of no-fly zones, which require a lot of military action to achieve a marginal result. But I’m not a fan at all of aircraft targeting civilians. Once again I’d rather see it taken out on the command and control, not on the pilots.
RSS - Posts
