Month: September 2012
שנה טובה! لله أكبر
It is Rosh Hashanah, the first day of the seventh month, when Jews celebrate the new year and creation of the world. Don’t ask me how or why the world was created in the seventh month. I have no idea.
I’d like to wish a happy new year (שנה טובה, shana tova) to all my readers: it was a beautiful fall morning in Washington, one that belies the horrors of the repression in Syria, the murderous attack in Benghazi, the violence against American embassies, consulates and bases in Tunis, Cairo, Khartoum and elsewhere. We are fortunate indeed to enjoy a peaceful capital, one that approaches the November election with some anxiety but no real fear. I can write what I like, say what I like, publish what I like, worrying only about who might sue me rather than who might kill or arrest me. This is not my privilege, but my right.
I talked yesterday with a Venezuelan who left her country because of a well-founded fear of persecution and found asylum in the United States. She anticipates Chavez will win again in her country’s elections next month. I’ve seen her look of pain and longing for home in the eyes of Bosnians, Kosovars, Palestinians, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians and I don’t know how many other nationalities. My immigrant grandparents never had it though: they were glad to leave places that are now in eastern Poland and Belarus for a better life, as they had previously left Russia, and likely Spain before that. My grandmother refused to tell me where she was born. When I came back and asked what her native language was, she told me (in heavily accented New Yorkese), “Don’t be smart. I told you I did not want to talk about that!”
I feel reasonably safe in predicting that the year ahead will see many more people displaced and unable to return home. Some will be fortunate enough to find asylum in the U.S. or some other decent place. Some may even adopt my grandmother’s attitude: I’m better off now, why should I look back? But all too many will not. They will suffer violence, brutality, poverty, hunger, thirst, dislocation, discrimination, abuse. They will fight for their rights, rebel against oppression, flee for their lives. If you believe the statistics, the world is a good deal more peaceful and a good deal more democratic than it was in the last century. But there are a lot more people and a lot of bad things are still happening to a substantial percentage of them.
Jews devote most of the new year to worship of the deity. The basic message is the same as the Muslim one:
الله أكبر
Allahu akhbar. God is great.
But it is not a god who creates the problems that lead to mistreatment of people, or a god who will solve them. Sometimes nature contributes with a drought, a storm, an earthquake or something of that sort. But most of the problems that still plague large parts of the world are man-made. Even worse, they are often made with good intentions. All the people I know who have committed war crimes can give you decent rational explanations of why the did what they did: to protect their own people, to prevent massacres in the future, to respond to provocations. Their reasoning often hides greed for money or power. It almost always requires that they not be judged by the standards they use to judge others.
So the part of this morning’s synagogue service I liked the best was not the praise of our common, much-praised deity, but this part:
When will redemption come?
When we master the violence that fills our world.
When we look upon others as we would have them look upon us.
When we grant to every person the rights we claim for ourselves.
שנה טובה الله أكبر
Happy new year. God is great.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
A relatively light week as fall begins, with development, diplomacy and peacekeeping in the limelight:
1. Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Afghanistan, Monday September 17, 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speaker: Ryan Crocker
In his first public event since returning from Kabul, Ambassador Ryan Crocker will deliver an address at Carnegie on the challenges and opportunities ahead in Afghanistan. Ashley J. Tellis will moderate.
Register for this event here.
2. The Role of Democratic Accountability in Development Assistance, Monday September 17, 1:00 PM – 4:00 PM, Open Society Foundations
Venue: Open Society Foundations, 1730 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC, 20006, 7th Floor
Speakers: David Kramer, Daniel Yohannes, Brian Atwood
A panel discussion will precede a keynote speech on measuring democratic accountability and the way those measurements can shape effective development assistance. The conversation will be informed by the newly released findings of Freedom House’s “Countries at the Crossroads 2012,” as well as the practical application of such research by the Millennium Challenge Corporation and USAID. The panel will be moderated by Morton H. Halperin, Senior Advisor, Open Society Foundations.
Register for this event here.
3. The New Geopolitics of Energy, Monday September 17, 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Lindner Family Commons
Speaker: Steve Levine
What potential does the discovery of new oil and gas deposits in North America, Israel, and East Africa have in disrupting the current geopolitical landscape? Do advancements in battery technology have the potential to curb the United States oil-guzzling habits? If so, will the United States, China, Germany or Japan lead the way? Looking at geopolitics through the lens of energy, author Steve LeVine will offer insight on the shifts in geopolitical power in the 21st century as it relates to previously untapped sources of existing fossil fuels, advancements in new energy technology, and the countries and corporations competing to dominate these markets.
Register for this event here.
4. Exploring a Comprehensive Approach to Public Diplomacy, Tuesday September 18, 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM, Heritage Foundation
Venue: Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002, Lehrman Auditorium
Speakers: Christopher Lamb, Fletcher Schoen
Public Diplomacy is the process of government and individual outreach to citizens of other nations. As such, public diplomacy is an important tool in impacting the perceptions and view that others have of the United States. In a new report by Dr. Christopher Lamb and Fletcher Schoen, the authors describe the importance of a comprehensive public diplomacy effort that utilizes capabilities across the government.
Specifically, their report lays out an effective inter-agency approach to promoting U.S. security and image around the world. The report lays out the success of the Active Measures Working Group in combating the disinformation of the Soviet Union during the 1980s. The report comes to the conclusion: “In an increasingly connected age, America will need to protect its public reputation from those who would malign it to weaken our national security. Safeguarding the country’s reputation overseas is a whole-of-government endeavor requiring interagency coordination and collaboration.”
Join us to hear directly from the authors as they examine not only the importance of public diplomacy, but also how to utilize effectively the abilities of different parts of the U.S. government to further our national security.
Register for this event here.
5. Russian Georgian Dialogue, Tuesday September 18, 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM, American University
Venue: American University, SIS Building, Abramson Family Founders Room
Georgian and Russian experts will discuss the future of bilateral relations between the countries
RSVP for this event to tserete@american.edu.
6. Panel on U.S. Personnel in International Peacekeeping, Thursday September 20, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Partnership for Effective Peacekeeping
Venue: 1777 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20006
Speakers: Lynn Holland, Deborah Owens, William Stuebner
GlobalSolutions.org (formerly Citizens for Global Solutions) is continuing our series of events, begun last year, to discuss and determine how the United States could best increase its involvement in international peacekeeping operations. The September 20, 2012 panel will look at the successes and challenges faced in peacekeeping missions today and use recommendations drawn from our recent peacekeeping report as a framework for the discussion. This reception is made possible thanks to generous support from The Compton Foundation. Lunch will be provided.
Register for this event here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
GOP critique: trade and Iraq
This is the sixth installment in a series responding to the Romney campaign’s list of ten failures in Obama’s foreign and national security policies. Here is a list of the previous posts:
1. Taking the Romney critique seriously
2. GOP critique: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan
3. GOP critique: leaks and cuts
4. GOP critique: Israel and Syria
5. GOP critique: Russia and Latin America
I’ll likely do one more to wrap up.
Failure #9: Getting Beaten Badly By Competitors On Trade
Beating up President Obama about trade is difficult. It requires that you ignore a sharp increase in U.S. exports:
Exports of goods and services over the last twelve months totaled $2.171 trillion, which is 37.5 percent above the level of exports in 2009.
U.S. exports have increased for 10 consecutive quarters to a record high. This is one of the truly bright spots in the economic recovery.
Instead, you focus on the lack of new trade agreements and the hyperactivity of our competitors: 46 between the EU and China, nine signed by the European Union and 18 others in negotiation, 4 signed by China and 15 others under negotiation. You worry about the United States not being included in a non-existent Asian economic bloc, even though the United States is not in Asia. And you don’t give any credit for the three trade agreements the Obama administration successfully got ratified in Congress, after renegotiating them to get better deals for U.S. industry.
I don’t get it: how do signed trade agreements get valued more than actual goods and services exported? If it were the other way around, with a dozen trade agreements signed but exports constant or declining, would the GOP be happily praising Obama?
Failure #10: Putting Our Interests At Risk By Mismanaging The Transition In Iraq
Last but not least: Iraq.
The Romney campaign would have it that the Obama administration failed to negotiate an agreement that would have permitted U.S. forces to stay in Iraq after the end of 2011 to solidify progress. That much is true. The question is whether things would have been better with 10,000 or 20,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq. The U.S. military and the Iraqi military thought so. But popular and elite opinion in both countries was against it. No one but the Kurds spoke up in favor in Iraq. There was ambivalence in both political parties in the U.S. as well. The Iraqi government wasn’t willing to provide the U.S. soldiers with immunity from prosecution, and the U.S. government wasn’t willing to keep them there without it.
The withdrawal of the U.S. troops was not abrupt, as the Republicans claim. It was gradual and proceeded according to elaborate planning, meeting a deadline set by the Bush administration. It is true that “the day after the…withdrawal of U.S. troops, Iraq’s Prime Minister took worrying actions to consolidate power. He leveled terrorism charges against the Sunni Vice President, causing the Vice President to flee the capital and sparking a political crisis that continues to this day. Iraq still faces worrying insurgent attacks. And the encroachment of Iranian influence in Iraq is a threat to our interests in the region.”
It is not clear however that keeping the U.S. troops in Iraq would have prevented any of this. The growth in Iranian influence in Iraq dates from shortly after the U.S. invasion. George W. Bush, the never-mentioned president, deserves most of the credit for that. We had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq for a long time. Did that do much to stop Iranian influence? Iraq does still face worrying insurgent attacks. Would the United States have been better off with tens of thousands of its soldiers still at risk? What would they have done about the judicial charges against the Sunni vice president? I’ve been warned by people in the know not to assume that he is innocent, though I’m personally still inclined towards that presumption, until his appeal is decided. But how and why would U.S. troops have intervened against an indictment by an Iraqi court?
The Republicans think a military training presence and a new U.S. ambassador in Baghdad would fix all of this. There is no U.S. ambassador partly because they did not like the one the President named. Presidents don’t normally “install” ambassadors. They nominate them and get the advice and consent of the Senate before they are sent to post. Until that happens, there is a Charge’ d’affaires–a deputy ambassador–who tends to our interests. There is a substantial military training presence in Iraq still, though I confess I’ve found numbers hard to come by. I’ll bet on its amounting to a few thousand, with contractor support.
I agree that “Iraq is a nation in the heart of a strategically vital region where we spent much precious blood and treasure to protect our security and ensure liberty.” But it was high time that the Iraqis govern and defend themselves.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A reader’s challenge
A reader challenges me:
I was surprised at this statement: “Muslims lost people and respect in the West, where no doubt anti-Muslim extremists will take action against mosques.” Your predictions are usually pretty cautious. The latter implies strong conviction that extremists will attack (?) mosques in the West. Since the West has a pretty good record of actually not reacting in that manner (very limited number of incidents in the U.S., for instance, though not non-existent either), how could one be sure?
There were about 185 hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S. in 2011, according to the FBI. One every two days or so. Is that “very limited”? They don’t seem to keep statistics on mosques per se, but it is clear attacks do occur, some claim with increasing frequency recently. And my expectation was about the West, not only about the United States. The French may be quicker.
Part of the reason I expect such things is that the film that triggered the demonstrations was made in the U.S. by anti-Muslim Christian activists, mainly but not exclusively Egyptian Copts, who seem unlikely to stop at film-making. And even if they stop, the film and yesterday’s events are likely to incite others. Here is what one of my Twitter followers had to say:
No way to compromise with Muslims; your pacifism is weakness and you’d be the 1st to lose your head under Sharia law.
I take this as his wish rather than an analytical prediction. I can’t help but wonder how many Muslim acquaintances he has, how he would treat Muslims who in any way disagreed with him or tried to build a mosque in his neighborhood.
Hate crime statistics do not of course include what I would regard as the hate campaign against the “mosque at ground zero,” which wasn’t a mosque and wasn’t located at ground zero. Campaigns against mosque-building have occurred in many American communities, for example.
We’ll see if I was right or wrong in expecting “action against mosques,” an admittedly ambiguous phrase that was intended to cover attacks, resistance to mosque-building, demonstrations, incitement, bigoted tweets and the rest. In retrospect, I might have done better to anticipate “action against Muslims.”
I win either way: if I’m wrong, I’ll be glad it didn’t happen. If I’m right, I’ll have the satisfaction, albeit unhappily.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A really bad day
The Muslim world has had a busy Friday trashing U.S. embassies and killing Muslims. The latest death toll I’ve seen is seven, but who knows.
The day was a losing proposition all around. The United States suffered serious damage not only to its embassies but to its international standing. Muslims lost people and respect in the West, where no doubt anti-Muslim extremists will take action against mosques and argue that the day proves that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Al Qaeda got to display its flag amid at least the appearance of popular support.
The Arab awakening took an ugly turn that will reinforce skepticism about it worldwide. Syrians might be the biggest losers in the long term: those who are on the fence about intervention there will not want to risk creating yet another opportunity for extremism. Not that it is better to ignore the homicidal maniac who runs that country, but it is certainly easier than doing anything about him. My Twitter feed is full of Arab commentary about the stupidity of protesting a dumb movie when Bashar al Asad is killing thousands, but that entirely justified sentiment won’t change the import of a truly ugly day.
Ironically but not surprisingly, the one place where dignity prevailed was Libya, where it all started. The president of Libya’s parliament, in essence the chief of state, laid a wreath at the American embassy in honor of the Americans killed in Benghazi. Libyans know perfectly well that the Americans and NATO saved them from the worst depredations of Muammar Qaddafi. Except for the Qaddafi supporters, they are overwhelmingly grateful and friendly. That was amply apparent at the Atlantic Council’s event on Libya yesterday, when the Libyan ambassador (and every other Libyan who spoke) made affection for slain Ambassador Chris Stevens amply evident.
I am afraid the lesson of the day is one we already know: transitions to democracy take time and resources. Our effort to get off cheap and easy in Libya is not working out well. We need to be thinking about how we can help Tripoli gain control of the armed groups on Libyan territory and help the Libyans achieve a measure of reconciliation with those who supported the Qaddafi regime. We also need to work with the Libyans to bring the murderers to justice.
Egypt’s President Morsi has finally come around to recognizing that his hesitancy about blocking the violence was a big mistake. I have some sympathy with those who would use massive U.S. assistance to Egypt–debt forgiveness, military aid and development assistance totalling more than $3 billion–as leverage. There is no way the American public is going to support continuing it unless Cairo starts singing a friendlier tune and reining in extremism, not only in Cairo but also in Sinai. Tunisia is next in line for tough love, though the government’s behavior there has generally been better than in Egypt.
Yemen is a more complicated case. We get lots of support and freedom of action in our war against Al Qaeda in Yemen. No one will want to put that at risk. At the same time, we need to be paying a whole lot more attention to Yemen’s deeper problems: poor governance, underdevelopment, and water shortages. They are what make the country a haven for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Mitt Romney and his acolytes may want to pretend that all these problems can be solved if only the American president is shows resolve and therefore the United States is respected. But as Joe Cirincione pointed out in a tweet, the two worst Muslim terrorist attacks on the United States occurred under Presidents Reagan and Bush. The Romneyites presumably don’t think they lacked resolve, which is something best reserved for top priority conflicts with other states. And those rare moments when you think you know where Osama bin Laden is hiding.
I can well understand Americans who want to turn their backs on the Muslim world and walk away. But that will not work. It will come back to haunt us, as terrorism, oil supply disruption, massive emigration, mass atrocity or in some other expensive and unmanageable form. Muslims, in particular Arabs, are going through a gigantic political transformation, one whose echoes will reverberate for decades. We need to try to help them through the cataclysm to a better place, for them and for us.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
My Libya, the video version
I was on C-Span’s Washington Journal this morning discussing Libya. Here is the video. I don’t watch, but I hope you will!
Here’s an extra treat, a piece done by the local CBS affiliate channel 9:
And just arrived, a surprise extra from the BBC.
RSS - Posts
