Month: September 2012
“Make or break” Pakistan elections
The upcoming Pakistani general elections will be a “make or break event,” Samina Ahmed said at Tuesday’s Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event on “Elections, Stability, and Security in Pakistan.” Ahmed, project director of the South Asia program at the International Crisis Group, supported her claim with an analysis of the challenges and opportunities this election presents. More of her thoughts on this issue can be read here, and the full International Crisis Group policy briefing on election reform in Pakistan can be read here.
Though it is not yet clear when the Pakistani elections will be called, as they could occur at the end of the normal five year term or be called early, preparations suggest these elections could be the first in Pakistan’s history when leadership passes from an elected government to the next in accordance with the constitution. If the Pakistan Peoples Party serves its full five year term, it will be the first democratically elected government to do so in Pakistan since 1977.
Recent decades have not included the opportunity for credible elections: a military regime was in power, previous election committees have been complicit in rigging elections, or the voter registration and identification system allowed millions of fraudulent votes.
Recent legislative changes, however, make possible a legitimate transfer of power. Cooperation between the party in power, the Pakistan Peoples Party, and its primary opposition, Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim Party (PML-N), has prevented the exploitation of political tension in order to rig elections. The recently passed 18th Amendment, which restores the country to a parliamentary republic by undoing some of the changes General Pervez Musharraf made to the constitution, deprives the president of the power to appoint the chief of the election committee. Instead, a committee made up of members of the main party and its opposition decide. The tenure of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) members has been increased from three to five years, and the responsibilities of the chief are now shared by the rest of the commission.
In addition to changes in the ECP, the process for establishing a temporary caretaker government has changed. The president no longer has the whole responsibility for its appointment, responsibility for which is shared with the opposition.
Technological changes also bring hope that this election will be more legitimate than previous ones. All Pakistanis will be required to have computerized national identity cards. These cards include security features that will make them difficult to duplicate. All voter information will now be stored in a central location. An SMS-based system will allow Pakistanis to contact the election commission in order to confirm they are registered and find out where they must vote.
Despite the exciting opportunities this election presents for increased democracy and stability, Ahmed noted serious challenges and risks. Though the process for establishing a caretaker government has been improved, the main party and its opposition have not yet been able to agree on a leader. If a consensus is not reached soon, this might allow spoilers the opportunity to interfere with the electoral process. Additionally, the reforms have not yet addressed the staff of polling locations, who have been implicated in rigging elections. There is still need for reform of the election tribunals, infamous for their corruption and sluggish settlements.
Two potential sources of electoral interference are the military and the judiciary. The judiciary has a history of dismissing elected government officials such as former Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, who was removed by the Supreme Court because he did not open charges of money laundering against President Asif Ali Zardari. The military has also intervened repeatedly in the political process. Both institutions have pushed back against reform attempts.
Ahmed views the elections as a “make or break event,” but the recent reforms, party cooperation and time in office of the current government already suggest some progress in Pakistan.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
“Not ready for prime time”
That was the response of an unnamed former aide to Senator McCain to Governor Romney’s botched reaction to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Romney would have done better to crib from the tweet of the new prime minister of Libya, @MustafaAG:
I condemn these barbaric acts in the strongest possible terms. This is an attack on America, Libya and free people everywhere.
The question is not whether Romney is now ready to be commander-in-chief, but whether he is capable of getting ready. I don’t see much evidence of that. His insensitivities are legion: the denigration of Great Britain’s preparations for the Olympics, his attributing lack of success to Palestinian culture, his telling poor students they should borrow money from their parents to start a business, his mention of a possible need to sell stock to meet financial obligations when he was a student, his failure to mention U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan during his convention speech, his touting of the successful Salt Lake City Olympics without ever mentioning the Federal funding that helped him save the day. Those are just the items I remember off the top of my head. This is a guy who simply does not have the experience needed to empathize with others and understand how others will view him.
This should not be surprising. Romney has lived in a wealthy and protected bubble all his life. He really could borrow lots of money from his father, unlike many Americans. He has never lacked resources. Even as a young missionary in Paris, he lived well and was regarded as a candidate for president. He has not much needed the good opinion of others. He cultivates it by switching his positions to suit the audience, tying himself in knots over whether he does or does not support Obamacare, for example.
I wouldn’t be the first to suggest that Romney has already flubbed the 3 am phone call test. But it is much worse than that. He fails the breakfast, lunch and dinner tests as well. The pundits like to suggest that President Obama is more “likable,” as if that is a small thing. It is not. If Americans can’t picture themselves enjoying a beer with Romney and don’t believe he understands their problems, how can they elect him?
The Romney campaign seems to have wound itself up to challenge Obama on everything. They are pretty close to challenging him effectively on nothing. I had a debate last night on whether he was the Michael Dukakis or the John Kerry of the Republican party. That is not winning company to find yourself in.
Of course the election isn’t tomorrow, and things could change. So I’ll reserve final judgment and stick for now with “not ready for prime time,” yet.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Death in Benghazi
The murder of four U.S. officials in Benghazi yesterday will anger Americans, adding to the cycle of resentment that began with posting on the internet in the United States of a film offensive to Muslims. The United States and NATO saved Benghazi from Muammar Qaddafi’s homicidal intentions. Riot and murder, Americans will think, is no way to show gratitude.
I’ve been in Benghazi twice in the past year, once in September 2011 and again in July 2012. I did not spend my time with the upper echelons. I never met Ambassador Chris Stevens. I walked and talked with people in the street, in polling places, at the drug store, in the market places, in restaurants, at airline ticket counters, at political party offices–anywhere I could find indigenous voices. The Libyans were warm and welcoming, especially after learning that I was an American. During my first trip, I had to duck a few hugs on the street. I’m not the huggy type.
My impression is that most Libyans would agree that America saved them from Qaddafi’s worst instincts. It is not most Libyans who attacked the consulate in Benghazi (or the embassy in Egypt) yesterday. It is a self-selected few. It is also a self-selected few people in America who make anti-Muslim films.
The difference is clear: the right to make offensive films is protected in the United States; there is no right to use violence either in the United States or in Libya. The U.S. government cannot block the making of films, but both the U.S. and Libyan governments are obligated to block and prosecute violent acts.
By all reports, Chris Stevens is a big loss to Libya as well as to the United States. He was a mainstay of international support to the Libyan revolution. I know nothing about his three colleagues killed, but my 21 years of experience in the U.S. Foreign Service tell me the odds are high that they too were credits to their homeland and assets to Libya as well. I did meet our young Consul in Benghazi in July. I am praying for his safety (the names of two of those killed have not been released yet).
These deaths are likely to have an out-sized impact on American relations with Libya as well as the security posture of American diplomatic posts worldwide. This is unfortunate. Our understandable reaction will be to pull our people back into the fortresses we call embassies and consulates, and strengthen their perimeter defenses. That degrades our interactions with the countries in which we are stationed. Nor is there real safety in that direction, as rockets, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades can breach even high and thick walls.
The right approach is to lean more heavily on host governments to provide security. Accounts of the demonstrations in Benghazi and Cairo yesterday suggest less diligence than the Libyan and Egyptian governments are obligated to provide. We would also do ourselves a favor by reducing our excessive numbers of officials stationed abroad and by working more anonymously, but those are subjects for another day.
Today we should mourn those who died, condemn those who killed them, and insist that those who have benefited from American support exert control over the extremists who discredit their revolutions.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
GOP critique: Russia and Latin America
This is the fifth installment of a series responding to the Romney campaign’s list of ten failures in Obama’s foreign and national security policies.
Failure #7: A “Reset” With Russia That Has Compromised U.S. Interests & Values
The “reset” with Russia has certainly not brought great across the board benefits to the United States, but things were pretty bad between Washington and Moscow at the end of the Bush Administration, which had started in friendly enough fashion with George W. getting good vibes from Putin’s soul. Bush 43 ended his administration with a Russian invasion of a country the president wanted to bring into NATO. Neither our interests nor our values were well-served by that. But there was nothing we could do, so he did nothing.
A reset was in order. With Putin back in the presidency, it should be no surprise that it hasn’t gotten us far, but certainly it got us a bit more cooperation during Medvedev’s presidency on Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan than we were getting in 2008. The Russians are still being relatively helpful in the P5+1 talks with Iran and the “six-party” talks on and occasionally with North Korea. Their cooperation has been vital to the Northern Distribution Network into Afghanistan.
The Republicans count as demerits for President Obama his abandonment of a missile defense system in Europe, without mentioning that a more modest (and more likely to function) system is being installed. They also don’t like “New START,” which is an arms control treaty that has enabled the U.S. to reduce its nuclear arsenal.
I count both moves as pluses, though I admit readily that I don’t think any anti-missile system yet devised will actually work under wartime conditions. Nor do I think Iran likely to deliver a nuclear weapon to Europe on a missile. It would be much easier in a shipping container.
The fact that the Russians could, theoretically, increase their nuclear arsenal under New START is just an indication of how far behind the curve we’ve gotten in reducing our own arsenal and how easy it should be to go farther. The Romneyites don’t see it that way, but six former Republican secretaries of state and George H. W. Bush backed New START.
The GOPers are keen on “hot mic” moments that allegedly show the President selling out America. This is the foreign policy wonk version of birtherism. In this instance, they are scandalized that he suggested to then Russian President Medvedev that the U.S. could be more flexible on missile defense after the November election. The Republicans see this as “a telling moment of weakness.” I see it as a statement of the screamingly obvious. Neither party does deals with the Russians just before an election for some not-so-difficult to imagine reason.
More serious is the charge that President Obama has soft-pedaled Russia’s backsliding on democracy and human rights. I think that is accurate. The Administration sees value in the reset and does not want to put it at risk. The arguments for targeted visa bans and asset freezes against human rights abusers are on the face of it strong.
The problems are in implementation: if someone is mistreated in a Russian prison, are we going to hold Putin responsible? The interior minister? The prison warden? The prison guards? How are you going to decide about culpability for abuses committed ten thousand miles away? And if the Russians retaliate for mistreatment of an American citizen in a Louisiana State penitentiary, what do we do then? While many of the people involved may not care about visas and asset freezes, where would the tit-for-tat bans end up?
Russia has unquestionably been unhelpful on Syria, blocking UN resolutions and shipping arms to the Asad regime. The Russians have also supported Hugo Chávez and used harsh rhetoric towards the United States. But what Romney would do about these things is unclear. His claim that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe is more likely to set the relationship with Moscow back than help us to get our way.
Failure #8: Emboldening The Castros, Chávez & Their Cohorts In Latin America
I’m having trouble picturing how the octogenarian Castros have been emboldened–to the contrary, they are edging towards market reforms. Obama’s relaxation of travel and remittance restrictions has encouraged that evolution. It would be foolhardy to predict the end of the Castro regime, but cautious opening of contacts is far more likely to bring good results than continuation of an embargo that has never achieved anything.
I’d have expected the Republicans to compliment Obama on getting the stalled trade agreements with Colombia and Panama approved, but instead they complain that he waited three years while negotiating improvements to them that benefit U.S. industry. Given the difficulty involved in getting these things ratified, it is unsurprising that President Obama doesn’t want to reach any new trade agreements in the region, or apparently anywhere else.
Hugo Chávez looms large for the Republicans. They view him as a strategic threat. Obama thinks he has not “had a serious national security impact note on us.” That Chávez is virulently anti-American there is no doubt. But to suggest that he seriously hinders the fight against illicit drugs and terrorism, or that his relationship with Hizbollah is a threat we can’t abide, is to commit what the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead called the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness.” We’ve got a lot bigger drug and terrorism challenges than those Venezuela is posing.
Except for Mexico, Obama has not paid a lot of attention to Latin America. That’s because things are going relatively well there. If Chávez goes down to defeat in the October 7 election and a peaceful transition takes place, it will be another big plus, one that will redound to Obama’s credit. There are other possibilities, so I’d suggest the Administration focus on making that happen over all the other things the GOP is concerned about.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Principles and practicalities
Allison Stuewe reports from Georgetown’s Bunn Intercultural Center:
The auditorium was crowded and the audience excited. Despite the hype, Dennis Ross did not disappoint last Thursday speaking on “The Arab Awakening and Its Implications.”
Ross began by discussing the meaning of “awakening” as a metaphor for the revolutions in the Middle East. “Arab Spring” connotes fleeting, rosey and easy. “Arab Awakening,” on the other hand, implies a longer struggle, self-realization and transformation. Participants in an Arab Awakening will behave differently in the long-term. Awakened citizens get to make demands of those who lead them whereas subjects do not expect reciprocity.
Citizenship also entails the acceptance of a leader’s justification for holding power. All leaders must justify their right to lead. For a monarch, the justification is inherent to the institution, whether it comes in the form of a narrative about a blood line or a divine right to rule. For a citizen of a state that is not a monarchy, the justification for leadership is based on an exchange of obligations.
Given the lack of any significant secular political presence outside of Mubarak’s government, it is not surprising that Islamists have come to power after the recent awakening. Hosni Mubarak ensured that this would be true when he limited the ability of secular groups to organize politically. Furthermore, secular groups are often viewed as elitist and have been tainted due to their perceived association with Mubarak’s failed regime.
Though Mubarak also suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood, he allowed the mosque to be used as a place to decry the ills of society, challenge authority, and build an alternative infrastructure to assuage the hardships many Muslims face in Egypt. When Mubarak’s regime fell, the Muslim Brotherhood, unlike any secular group, was well-positioned to fill the leadership void.
What now? The people who have united in Egypt are aware of their rights as citizens and are still thinking about the obligations of a legitimate leader. It is too early to determine if there will be an “Islamist Winter” simply replacing the Mubarak regime. The Muslim Brotherhood has positioned itself as an organization that takes care of the citizens in Egypt, which means the Brotherhood has significant obligations that it must live up to if it wants to maintain its legitimacy.
As for the implications of the Arab awakening for the United States, Ross highlighted American “principles,” or the values that make up our own justification for power: rights for minorities and women, protection of free speech, and duty to the international community. He said that we must stick to our principles in our relations with Egypt, which stands to gain aid and support from powerful countries if it sticks to them as well.
Ross concluded with a few practical notes about Iran, Israel, and Palestine. Dealing with the Iranian nuclear program will require bringing unrelenting pressure to bear. He likewise emphasized practical steps for Israel and Palestine to restore confidence in each other and foster stability in a tumultuous period.
Ross identified six steps for Israel and six for Palestine, which are described here, and an additional step for each: both countries must socialize their children to understand each other differently. Israeli children must have frequent positive interactions with Palestinians and Palestinian children must have positive experiences with Israelis.
“Principles” and “practicalities”, value-laden ideals and pragmatic decisions, were fundamental Ross’s presentation. Successful political action requires a sophisticated understanding of when it is right to invoke one category and when to utilize the other.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No better way
Here is the dilemma: either the man I enjoyed talking with when he sat in Baghdad as vice president of Iraq is a murderer, or nine Iraqi judges have reached an unjust conclusion under political pressure. And condemned him to death.
Tariq al Hashemi is a good political conversationalist. A single open-ended question like “how are things going in Iraqi politics?” would open a floodgate of interesting information on who was doing what to whom, who was up and who was down, his party priorities and his view of other party priorities.
After 45 minutes or so of this one day I noted he had not mentioned the hydrocarbons law, which everyone in Washington thought was uppermost on his mind because he would want to ensure the Sunnis their fair share of oil revenue. No, he responded, that is an American priority. The oil revenue was in fact being shared according to population. His priority was to ensure the bulk of it went to the central government in Baghdad. He feared passing the law too soon (we were talking I think in 2007 or 2008) would put the bulk of the revenue in regional and provincial pockets. He was anxious to avoid a premature hydrocarbons law that would weaken the national government.
This was all very reasonable and logical, stated with occasional laughter and constant good humor. His staff had called an hour before the meeting asking that we arrive early. That is an unusual request–vice presidents are late a good deal more often then early–so I asked his assistant why. He replied that the vice president wanted to get rid of the prior guest. “Who was that?” I asked. The American ambassador as it turned out.
Of course the issues at stake are bigger than personalities and diplomatic chit-chat. The question is whether we have left in Iraq a system that can evolve in a democratic direction, protected by the rule of law. Or, have we left an increasingly autocratic system now capable of condemning an innocent man to death for political reasons? Friends in government tell me I shouldn’t assume the charges against Tariq al Hashemi are false. I once went to the wrong building to meet him and found myself among his drivers and body guards, who did not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. They are the alleged physical perpetrators of the crimes he is accused of, or so I understand from the press reporting.
I’ve met a number of people later convicted–in courts more reliably fair than an Iraqi one–of war crimes and crimes against humanity. I know that you really can’t tell who is capable of such crimes. Some war criminals wear the ugliness of their crimes on their faces, but many do not. Almost all of them think their crimes are necessary ways of protecting themselves, their friends and their sectarian or ethnic group. Few people really embody evil. Almost everyone thinks such crimes are committed for good purposes.
I don’t want to choose yet what I think of Tariq al Hashemi, who has denied the accusations. There are allegations that witnesses against him were tortured. It seems to me he still deserves the benefit of doubt. There will be an appeal. If the verdict was unjust, there is no real reason to expect the appeal to be any better. But there is no better way to decide these things.
RSS - Posts
