Month: April 2013
Fool me twice, shame on me
The discussion Monday at the Wilson Center of “The Media and Iran’s Nuclear Program: An Analysis of US and UK Coverage, 2009-12” began with the familiar litany of complaints about the media’s pre-Iraq war coverage: lack of critical analysis, an over reliance on White House sources, lack of precise wording and a narrow pre-war context. Are we falling into the same trap with Iran?
The panel discussed a new report from the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland. Co-author Jonas Siegel laid out the reports major findings:
- The media’s coverage of the Iranian nuclear program lacks context and diversity of sources.
Newspapers relied heavily on government officials. A narrow range of sources leads to a narrow set of policy options. Alternative approaches to conflict resolution are often overlooked. The media ignore the wider context of the crisis and rarely discusses Iran’s domestic politics or security needs. Panelist John Steinbruner of the University of Maryland agreed that the media ignores the obvious diplomatic solution of allowing Iran to enrich uranium under international supervision. Iran has good reason to feel threatened, he added, and exercise of military options would further solidify Iran’s resolve in pursuing a nuclear program. - The media use imprecise language and hawkish rhetoric. The most common terms used on average in press coverage of Iran are “nuclear program” and “nuclear weapon.” This usage affects the reader’s assumptions and essentially jumps to the conclusion that Iran wants or already has a nuclear weapon.
- The media increasingly use commentary as the story, instead of in-depth journalism. The majority of coverage on Iran consisted of “he said, she said” stories about policy makers. News articles increasingly covered the nuclear debate instead of the nuclear issues, emphasizing stories about US or Israeli reactions to Iran and the implementation of sanctions.
- The media place the burden of resolution in Iran. “Iran needs to accept…” was a staple line in news articles. The media rarely discusses compromise from the American side and most often uses “negotiations” as code for Iranian concessions to US demands. Policy makers rely on news coverage for information on foreign affairs. Questions of Iran’s motives, intentions and capabilities should be at the center of the media’s coverage, but they are worryingly absent.
Panelist Walter Pincus of the Washington Post was critical of the report. He thought the authors had shown their own bias toward the issues while also giving their prescription for how the press should act. Every newspaper need not provide deep coverage of an issue. The press should represent one side of a discussion and leave it to the citizen to reach an informed conclusion. Commentary from the audience reflected Pincus’ point: “How can the media be held to such a high standard when dealing with an issue like Iran that no one can get to the truth of?”
Steinbruner concluded with a general point. This report is an indication that our discussion of Iran’s nuclear program is defective and prone to political mis-coverage. Sensationalist and selective reporting has far reaching and damaging repercussions. He ended saying, “that’s not really who we are, and in this situation, that’s not how we want to be.”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Between Iraq and a hard place
World Politics Review published this piece I did for them on Iraq this morning, under the heading “Politically Exposed, Iraq’s Maliki Cracks Down.” They asked that I put up on peacefare.net only a few paragraphs, so I am afraid you have to go to their website to read the rest (you should be able to read it without paying):
While details remain uncertain about who started the fighting and exactly who did what to whom, last week saw a marked escalation in rhetoric and violence between mostly Sunni Arab protesters and Iraqi government forces under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s control. Peaceful protests turned into armed camps. Dozens were killed in the most intense clashes with security forces since Iraq’s virtual civil war in 2006-2007.
The Iraqi state is today much better equipped to hold its own against armed adversaries than it was six or seven years ago, when the U.S. played a crucial role in ending sectarian fighting, not least by negotiating to bring Sunni “Awakening” forces over to the government’s side. Maliki’s approach is less nuanced — his political coalition is not called “State of Law” for nothing. He feels justified using the state’s monopoly on the legitimate means of violence to subdue protesters who take up arms, even as he also promises investigations into any abuses.
The protesters feel equally justified. They view Maliki as increasingly sectarian and authoritarian. Torture is common in Iraq’s prisons. Iraq’s media are under pressure. Maliki has bypassed official processes to appoint personally loyal military commanders and undermined the independence of the central bank, the judiciary, anti-corruption investigators and other countervailing institutions. Several Sunni politicians have been accused of supporting terrorism and their personal security details subjected to arrest, with at least one guard dying in detention under suspicious circumstances…[go here Politically Exposed, Iraq’s Maliki Cracks Down for the rest]
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks April 29-May 3
Too many good events in DC this week:
1. The Media & Iran’s Nuclear Program: An analysis of US and UK coverage, 2009-2012, Monday, April 29 / 9:00am – 10:30am, Woodrow Wilson Center
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004 5th Floor Conference Room
Speakers: Jonas Siegel, Saranaz Barforoush, John Steinbruner, Susan Moeller, Reza Marashi, Walter Pincus
How does news coverage of Iran’s nuclear program affect public understanding and policy outcomes? News media traditionally play an important role in communicating about foreign policy is this the case with coverage of Irans nuclear program? How specifically are news media framing the relevant issues? To answer these questions, researchers from the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) undertook a topical analysis of English-language newspaper coverage from 2009 through 2012, a period in which there was considerable public discussion about how the United States and others could and should resolve the dispute.
Register for the event here:
(http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/rsvp?eid=27221&pid=112)
2. Iran-Azerbaijan Relations and Strategic Competition in the Caucasus, Monday, April 29 / 9:00am – 11:30am, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006 Basement Level Conference Rooms A & B
Speakers: Andrew C. Kuchins, Farhad Mammadov, Asim Mollazade, Heydar Mirza, Alex Vatanka, Sergey Markedonov and more
Despite common cultural and religious heritage, relations between Iran and Azerbaijan remain tumultuous. Issues ranging from the status Iran’s ethnic Azeri minority to the frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh to relations with Israel all complicate bilateral ties between Baku and Tehran. Iran-Azerbaijan relations also shape larger geopolitical questions related to the strategic balance in the Caucasus and the role of major regional powers Turkey and Russia. With tensions over Iran’s nuclear program again in the spotlight, the CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program is hosting a discussion about the current dynamics of Iran-Azerbaijan relations and their regional and international implications.
Register for the event here:
(http://csis.org/event/iran-azerbaijan-relations-and-strategic-competition-caucasus)
3. Why the United States Should Err on the Side of Too Many (Not Too Few) Nuclear Weapons, Monday, April 29 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052 Lindner Family Commons
Speakers: Matt Kroenig, Assistant Professor of Government, Georgetown University
Enthusiasm for nuclear reductions is driven by three beliefs about arsenal size widely held by experts in Washington: First, a secure, second-strike capability is sufficient for deterrence and nuclear warheads in excess of this requirement can be cut with little loss to our national security. Second, proliferation to rogue states and terrorist networks is a greater threat than nuclear war with great powers, and reductions can advance our nonproliferation objectives in Iran and elsewhere. Third, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear weapons since 1945 and, in a time of budget austerity, reductions will result in cost savings. There is just one problem: all three beliefs are incorrect. A more pragmatic assessment suggests that the United States should not engage in additional nuclear reductions and should instead make the necessary investments to maintain a robust nuclear infrastructure for decades to come.
Register for the event here:
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDYwNmFlbk41QjZlZ1pySHUxNklHZFE6MA#gid=0)
4. Political Islam and the Struggle for Democracy in Egypt, Monday, April 29 / 6:30pm – 8:00pm, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS – Bernstein-Offit Building 1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. Room 500
Speakers: Michele Dunne, Nathan Brown
During this panel, our participant speakers will discuss the political situation in Egypt two years after the revolution. They will consider the results achieved, met and unmet objectives, and political reforms enacted since the spring of 2010. Furthermore, they will indicate the roles of the Muslim Brotherhood as a ruling party and President Morsi. They will discuss the recent happenings and unrest in Egypt and future scenarios.
RSVP to:
menaclub.sais@gmail.com
5. The Bread Revolutions of 2011 and the Political Economies of Transition, Tuesday April 30/ 10:00am – 11:30am, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars-1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 200046th Floor Flom Auditorium
Speakers: Pete Moore, Holger Albrecht, Haleh Esfandiari
The Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center and the United States Institute of Peace Present The Bread Revolutions of 2011 and the Political Economies of Transition. During the 2011 uprisings, Arab protestors channeled decades of discontent with failed economic policy. However, the demise of leaders will not be enough to answer this discontent nor ensure productive development. Scholarship on the political determinates of economic development finds that the common recipe of expanding the private sector and increasing trade openness may be valuable, but alone are not sufficient for successful development. The Arab World’s economic path to 2011 included implementation in these areas, yet reform in underlying socio-economic structures and interests lagged. Addressing these conditions constitutes one of the most serious challenges facing Arab economies and politics.
This event will be the fourth in a series of five papers and presentations on “Reshaping the Strategic Culture of the Middle East.
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the…
6. The Imperatives of the Inter-Religious Dialogue in Nigeria, Tuesday April 30/ 2:00pm-3:30pm, Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: H.E. Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi, Sa’Adu Abubakar, John Onaiyekan
This dialogue seeks to ascertain the true nature and scope of religious tensions in Nigeria, as well as elaborate possible ways forward.
The Wilson Center’s Africa Program continues to monitor Nigeria’s progress and welcomes the opportunity to hear from a panel of such respected government and religious leaders.
Speakers:
H.E. Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi, Governor of the Rivers State, Nigeria
Sa’adu Abubakar, Sultan of Sokoto and President of the Society for the Victory of Islam
John Onaiyekan, Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Abuja
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the…
7. Ten Years After Saddam, Tuesday April 30/ 2:00pm-3:00pm, Center for International Media Assistance
Venue: National Endowment for Democracy, 1025 F Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: Abir Awad, Tim Eaton, Theo Dolan, Shameem Rassam
It is a decade since the U.S.-led coalition troops entered Iraq in March 2003. “The years that have followed have been turbulent for an Iraq riven by divisions and sectarian violence, as elites have battled one another for control,” according to a policy briefing by BBC Media Action, The media of Iraq ten years on: The problems, the progress, the prospects. “It remains a country that is anything but stable and united.” The report, which the panelists will present and discuss, examines one element of Iraq’s journey over the last ten years: that of its media reform. The paper makes the point that while the Iraqi media landscape of 2013 may not be the free, pluralistic, and professional fourth estate that many in the West had envisioned in 2003, it nonetheless has real strengths. Those strengths–as well as weaknesses– reflect the complexity and reality of modern Iraq.
Website: http://cima.ned.org/events/upcoming-e…
8. Future of US Ground Forces Report Roll-out Event, Wednesday May 1 / 9:00am-10:30am, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006
Speakers: David J. Berteau, Nathan Freier, Barry Pavel, James Dubik, Frank Hoffman
The Center for Strategic and International Studies presents the roll-out event for the report
Beyond the Last War: Balancing Ground Forces and Future Challenges Risk in USCENTCOM and USPACOM with introductory remarks by
David J. Berteau
CSIS Senior Vice President and Director, International Security Program
followed by a discussion with
Nathan Freier
Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies
and
Barry Pavel
Director, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, The Atlantic Council
and
Lieutenant General James Dubik
U.S. Army (Ret.), Senior Fellow, Institute for the Study of War
and
Frank Hoffman
Senior Research Fellow, Institute for National Strategic Studies,
National Defense University
9. Drones and the Rule of Law and War, Wednesday May 1 / 10:00 am-11:15 am, Bipartisan Policy Center
Venue: Bipartisan policy Center, 1225 I Street, NW Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: John Bellinger, Dafna Linzer, Hina Shamsi, Philip Zelikow
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) Homeland Security Project will host a discussion convening legal and policy experts on the rule of law and war to discuss the use of drones and targeted killings. Join us as panelists evaluate issues like the current frameworks regarding the use of drones, the ramifications of a ‘drone court,’ the targeting of U.S. citizens abroad, and whether Congress should examine what these policies mean for the country.
Thomas Kean
Former Governor of New Jersey
Co-chair, 9/11 Commission
Co-chair, BPC Homeland Security Project
John Bellinger
Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP
Former Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State
Former Legal Adviser, National Security Council
Dafna Linzer
Managing Editor, MSNBC.com
Follow @DafnaLinzer
Hina Shamsi
Director, ACLU’s National Security Project
Follow @HinaShamsi
Philip Zelikow
Associate Dean, University of Virginia’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
Former Counselor, U.S. Department of State
John Farmer
Dean, Rutgers School of Law
For viewing purposes, we recommend the latest version of the following browsers: Google Chrome, Safari or Internet Explorer.
Having trouble viewing the webcast player below? Please click here.
If you are experiencing issues, please visit the webcast troubleshooter page here. Conduct a firewall test (see the side menu on the troubleshooter page) if the test video does not play.
Homeland Security Project
Website: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/20…
10. Afghanistan after 2014: Regional Impact, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Wednesday May 1/ 2pm-5pm, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: Noah Coburn, Marlène Laruelle, Simbal Khan
Spotlight on Central Eurasia Series //
This event explores local and regional perspectives on the future of Afghanistan against the backdrop of the planned NATO withdrawal of military forces from the region. The first session focuses on local politics and governance in Afghanistan, and the second session investigates the ways in which Afghanistan’s neighbors have been discussing and planning for the upcoming changes.
This event is free and open to the public but requires event registration. Please RSVP.
Cosponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute and Asia Program, and the Central Asia Program, George Washington University.
Speakers:
Noah Coburn, Professor, Bennington College, and author, ‘Bazaar Politics: Pottery and Power in an Afghan Market Town’ (2011)
Marlène Laruelle, Research Professor and Director, Central Asia Program, IERES, George Washington University
Simbal Khan, Director, Afghanistan and Central Asia, Institute for Strategic Studies, Islamabad, Pakistan
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/afg…
11. The Strategic Environment in Southern Asia, Wednesday, May 1 / 3:30pm – 5:00pm, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Frederic Grare, C. Raja Mohan, C. Uday Bhaskar
The strategic environment in Southern Asia is rapidly changing. Over the next decade, the United States, China, and India will form a critical strategic triangle while the individual relationships of these three nations with ASEAN, Iran, and Pakistan will have significant regional and global implications. Although globalization will lead to more robust engagement among the major actors, this will inevitably result in dissonances that pose complex challenges in the southern Asian security domain. Please join Uday Bhaskar and C. Raja Mohan as they discuss the critical role of the United States and China in dealing with the delicate strategic framework in South Asia. Carnegie’s Frederic Grare will moderate.
Website: http://carnegieendowment.org/events/?…
12. The Nuclear Security Summit in 2014: Challenges and Opportunities, Thursday, May 2 / 9:00am – 10:30am, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace , 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Togzhan Kassenova, Piet De Klerk
Following the Nuclear Security Summits in Washington in 2010 and Seoul in 2012, the Netherlands will host the next summit in The Hague on March 24 and 25, 2014. The summit process, begun in 2010, is a response to growing awareness of the risk that weapons-usable fissile material might be acquired by non-state actors and terrorist groups. It seeks to further the goal of securing all nuclear material worldwide through engagement with key heads of state and international organizations. Please join Ambassador Piet de Klerk for a discussion of the continued importance of nuclear security, how the Summit in The Hague will build on the meetings in Washington and Seoul, challenges for the future, the expectations for 2014 and the Dutch role in this process. Togzhan Kassenova will moderate.
Website: http://carnegieendowment.org/events/?…
13. The Road to Damascus: U.S.-Turkish Cooperation Towards a Post-Assad Syria, Bipartisan Policy Center, Thursday, May 2 / 10:30am – 12:00pm
Venue: Bipartisan Policy Center, 1225 I Street, NW Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Mort Abramowitz, Eric S. Edelman, Alan Makovsky
Ridding Syria of President Bashar al-Assad has been the goal of the United States for almost two years. Should this objective be achieved, however, an enormous challenge will still remain: stabilizing and rebuilding Syria in a way that advances U.S. strategic goals and values. However, this will require the cooperation of Turkey—a U.S. ally with keen interests in Syria. Ankara’s interests, however, do not perfectly match Washington’s, posing the challenge for policymakers of finding the right tools to align more closely the two countries’ visions of Syria’s future.
Join BPC as it announces the creation of its Turkey Task Force, co-chaired by former Ambassadors to Turkey Morton Abramowitz and Eric Edelman, and releases a paper on the opportunities and obstacles to U.S.-Turkish cooperation towards a post-Assad Syria.
Read the press release here.
Mort Abramowitz
Co-chair, BPC Turkey Task Force
Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey
Ambassador Eric S. Edelman
Co-chair, BPC Turkey Task Force
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey
Alan Makovsky
Senior Professional Staff Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee
Paula Dobriansky
Former Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs
Press Release
Foreign Policy Project
Website: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/20…
14. Africa and The Global Arms Trade Treaty, Thursday, May 2 / 12:00pm – 2:00pm, Institute for Policy Studies,
Venue: Institute for Policy Studies, 1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20036 Conference Room
Speakers: Rachel Stohl, Adotei Akwei
Join us for a remarkable panel discussion on the impact and future of the small arms trade in Africa.
Can an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) help? How can world leaders and national governments both within and without Africa best help leverage the ATT to help deal with existing small arms violence and prevent violence in the future?
Join IPS’ Foreign Policy In Focus for a panel discussion examining the ATT and its implications for Africa with a specific focus on what the ATT is and what it is not, as well as what is next to help the treaty come in to force. Key areas of concern, such as conflict, commission of human rights abuses, the impact of the unauthorized/illicit arms sales on development and security in Africa will also be addressed.
Panelists:
Rachel Stohl, Senior Associate with Managing Across Boundaries initiative, Stimson Center and
Adotei Akwei, Managing Director for Government Relations, Amnesty International
Co-sponsors: Travis Roberts – Founder of Fight Back/Rebuilt campaign, Carl LeVan – IPS Associate Fellow and professor in the School of International Studies at American University, Estelle Bougna Fomeju – Senior at American University and Sciences Po Paris, Intern for IPS’ Foreign Policy in Focus.
Website: http://www.ips-dc.org/events/africa_a…
15. Turkey’s Peace Process, Thursday, May 2 / 3:00pm – 4:30pm, SETA Foundation at Washington DC
Venue: SETA Foundation at Washington, DC1025 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Suite 1106, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Henri Barkey, Erol Cebeci, Kadir Ustun
Resolution of Turkey’s Kurdish question has been the subject of much debate. Today, there is more hope about the prospects of success than ever before with the ongoing peace talks with Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). This latest attempt comes after previous initiatives such as the so-called “Democratic Opening” of 2009 and the following secret talks dubbed the “Oslo Process.” In the wake of heightened stakes in the Middle East, a possible end to PKK violence and resolution of the Kurdish question through democratic means could have dramatic implications for regional security and Turkey’s democratization. What are the possibilities and limits of finally resolving the Kurdish question?
Join us for a discussion with Henri Barkey, professor of international relations at Lehigh University, and Erol Cebeci, executive director of the SETA Foundation at Washington, DC, moderated by Kadir Ustun, research director at the SETA Foundation.
Website: http://setadc.org/events/50-upcoming-…
16. Israel’s Periphery Doctrine: Then and Now, Thursday, May 2 / 3:30pm – 4:30pm, International Institute for Strategic Studies
Venue: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2121 K Street, NWSuite 801
Speakers: Yossi Alpher
During its first three decades, Israel employed a grand strategy whereby it leapfrogged over the ring of hostile Arab neighboring states and forged partnerships with non-Arab and non-Muslim countries and minorities in the region. Most well known are Israel’s alliances with Iran and Turkey and its aid to the Iraqi Kurds. Beginning in the late 1970s, the peace process and the collapse of friendly periphery regimes rendered the doctrine of secondary importance. Now, with Islamists and even Salafists threatening to surround Israel, is a new periphery strategy viable?
Yossi Alpher
Co-editor, The Bitterlemons Guide to the Arab Peace Initiative
17. The Way of the Knife, Friday, May 3 / 12:00pm – 1:00pm, Center for American Progress
Venue: Center for American Progress, 1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Mark Mazzetti, Ken Gude
In his most recent book, Mark Mazzetti argues that the most momentous change in American warfare over the past decade has taken place away from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq in the corners of the world where large armies can’t go. The Way of the Knife is the untold story of that shadow war—a campaign that has blurred the lines between soldiers and spies and lowered the bar for waging war across the globe. The United States has pursued its enemies with armed drones and special operations troops, trained local assets to set up clandestine spying networks, and relied on mercurial dictators, untrustworthy foreign intelligence services, and proxy armies.
Please join us for a discussion with Pulitzer Prize-winning author Mark Mazzetti on his provocative new book.
Copies of The Way of the Knife will be available for purchase.
Featured author:
Mark Mazzetti, author, The Way of the Knife; correspondent, The New York Times
Moderated by:
Ken Gude, Chief of Staff, Vice President, Center for American Progress
A light lunch will be served at 11:30 a.m.
Website: http://www.americanprogress.org/event…
18. Post-2014 Afghanistan: Pakistan’s Concerns, Anxieties and Expectations: A Conversation with Ambassador Sherry Rehman, Friday, May 3 / 5:30pm – 7:00pm, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Venue: Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 1619 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. Rome Auditorium
Speakers: Sherry Rehman
Pakistani Ambassador to the US will speak about post 2014 Afghanistan. Question and answer session to follow Ambassador’s remarks.
19. The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat, Friday, May 3 / 7:00pm – 8:00pm, Politics and Prose
Venue: Politics and Prose, 5015 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008
Speakers: Vali Nasr
As senior advisor to Richard Holbrooke from 2009 to 2011, Nasr, dean of SAIS and author of The Shia Revival, witnessed both how the Obama administration made its foreign policy and how these decisions played out abroad. His book finds that Obama failed to chart a new course in the Middle East, and warns that the next Arab Spring may be an angry uprising against America.
Website: http://www.politics-prose.com/event/b…
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The dark side is the bright side
Here is my answer to the silly Benjamin Alter and Edward Fishman “The Dark Side of Energy Independence” published in the New York Times yesterday. They consider all the bad things that could happen in producing countries if oil prices decline to $50 per barrel because of increasing US production. Let’s leave aside the improbability that such a fall would be caused by relatively high-cost US oil and gas production, or the likelihood that Saudi Arabia and other OPEC producers would restrict their output to boost global prices. Sure, a fall to $50 is possible, especially in a period of slow economic growth.
Let’s instead remember that prices averaged around $60-65 per barrel as recently as 2009. In 1998, they were under $20 per barrel, having declined from nearly $100 (in today’s dollars) in 1980/81. So we have seen in the past even more dramatic oil price declines than Alter and Fishman are projecting. Did anything like the political consequences they dread come about? They predict instability in the Persian Gulf monarchies, especially Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and trouble for Vladimir Putin, who they say might turn to bullying his neighbors.
The short answer is “no.” The Persian Gulf monarchies have survived, and thrived, through many ups and downs in global oil prices. Putin has been at least as inclined to bully his neighbors (and defy the US) with oil prices high than when they were low.
More important: the United States should welcome a situation in which both the Gulf monarchies and Russia need to pay more attention to their populations’ discontents and less to where to invest the mountains of cash they are building up. Alter and Fishman acknowledge this with respect to Russia:
In the long run, of course, America would welcome a Russia that is more beholden to its people’s wishes than to fluctuations in energy markets. Washington should be under no illusions, however, that the transition to that point will be either smooth or linear, and it should prepare for turbulence along the way.
It seems to me it is Moscow that should prepare for turbulence along the way, not Washington. Manama and Riyadh should also worry.
What we should be doing is preparing for the next increase in oil prices, which is inevitable even if unpredictable. This means refilling at lower prices the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and maintaining our focus on energy conservation (especially fuel efficiency standards for cars) and non-hydrocarbon alternatives. It also means convincing Gulf producers to circumnavigate the strait of Hormuz with pipelines, including from Iraq’s southern oil fields to the north and west and across Saudi Arabia. And it means building the Keystone pipeline, with whatever safety measures are required to ensure environmental protection.
The United States has endured decades of increasing oil imports. Paying for them has weakened our position in the world and enriched antagonists. The only dark side to oil independence we should worry about is letting down our guard. I hope never again to see us pandering to Moscow or Riyadh because dependency on oil imports.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The world turned upside down
Jim Hooper, who is a treasure trove of Balkan experience, wrote to interested friends yesterday (and kindly gave me permission to publish):
It is interesting to watch the battle over the Brussels (i.e. Belgrade/Pristina) agreement. No one in Serbia has ever stood up to the northern Kosovo Serbs this way before. Tadic started, but timidly, during the previous technical talks and after the July 2011 attempt by the Kosovars to seize the northern border posts, but he flinched. The heavy lifting was done by KFOR–and they are used to getting their own way.
The northerners portray themselves as the “conscience of the Nation” on the Kosovo issue and have ready-made allies among the Democratic Party of Serbia (Kostunica’s DSS) and Seselj’s Radicals. They also assume they can tap into the deep emotions of the Serbian people on Kosovo, tug on the heartstrings, and thus shape the agenda. They believe they will have no difficulty, should they wish to continue on their current path, in creating an emotional atmosphere in Belgrade in which violence is possible and indeed likely. They will have sympathizers in the Progressive (SNS) and Socialist (SPS) parties as well as in the security services and military.
The situation bears a modest similarity to what happened in France when DeGaulle returned to power and, against everyone’s expectations, decided to give Algeria its independence. That violent period in France is largely forgotten now, only a distant memory because things all worked out well in the end.
It is hard to make a prediction on whether there will be a referendum in Serbia on the agreement. Vucic is standing firm on a 15-day campaign and the government defining the question:
Do you support the Brussels agreement?
or words to that effect. Whereas the anti-agreement forces want something rather different
Do you agree to allow the regime to betray the birthright of every Serb to keep Kosovo forever as our eternal homeland and resist the rule of the vicious terrorists who seized power in Pristina and duped the international community into supporting their war to steal our beloved homeland?
or words to that effect.
Vucic is insisting that for any referendum to take place, opponents of the deal would have to agree in advance to abide by the outcome, which obviously would be anathema to the northern Kosovo Serbs, Kostunica and the Radicals.
The parliamentary debate on Friday went well for the government. The vote was overwhelming in support of the agreement. Neither the Progressives nor Socialists has split on the agreement. The Democratic Party and most of the smaller parties joined them to vote in favor. Vucic, Dacic and Nikolic have all taken firm supportive positions in public on the deal moving forward. So far, things appear under control in Belgrade.
So far. A referendum won by the government that did not lead to significant violence would be another watershed for the Serbs. It would enable them to move forward on Kosovo and EU accession without constantly looking over their shoulders prepared to flinch whenever a northern Kosovo Serb mayor began clearing his throat. Such an outcome would delegitimize the “Kosovo forever” crowd in Serbia and leave them as outliers rather than major players with a future.
A referendum won by opponents of the agreement would obviously have different repercussions. In the Serbian context, this is a titanic struggle, though not much noticed outside Serbia. It may turn out that there is no referendum, but that the debate and political battle over whether there will be a referendum will become the proxy for the referendum itself. The stakes in all this are pretty high in Serbia, and of some importance for Kosovo and Bosnia, the region in general, the EU and the US.
I continue to be amazed that it is the Progressives who are leading this fight and standing up to the anti-agreement extremist forces. One has to get used to the world turned upside down.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Turkey: rising influence, eroding freedoms
Turkey has been talking the talk of democratic reform, but has not been walking the walk. This was the conclusion reached on Friday afternoon as the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) gathered to discuss Turkey’s contradictory position as a leader of democracy in the region, while still struggling with human rights abuses and suppressing freedom of expression.
Moderator Susan Corke of Freedom House optimistically introduced the topic, claiming this is a moment of opportunity and positive transformation in Turkey. The Turkish government has been progressively addressing serious issues such as constitutional reform, peace the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and improved relations with Iraqi Kurdistan. Despite this hopeful tone, Turkey needs to fulfill its democratic promise by becoming more aware of its problems with societal inclusion and suppression of free speech.
Howard Eissenstat, professor at St. Lawrence University, emphasized the need to center the conversation on human rights issues in Turkey. Turkey has a successful economy, educational system and democratic institutions but still harbors grave faults. He elaborated on three of Turkey’s biggest problems:
- Turkish democracy is illiberal. A culture of militarism and hesitancy about diversity reinforce this. Progress has been made on societal inclusion, but Armenians and Kurds do not feel like full members of society.
- Prime Minister Erdogan and his party (AKP) have created a powerful political machine. Its political success is so great that Turkish democracy lacks a legitimate opposition party. The AKP’s dominance and political patronage is stunting Turkish democracy.
- International pressure, not domestic requirements, drives reform. Turkey continues to pass laws to protect freedom of expression, religion and the press, with the government instituting multiple reform packages. The motive however is not an intrinsic desire for reform, but rather international acceptance.
Turkey has a big appetite for reform legislation, but actual practice is minimalist.
Yigal Schleifer, an independent journalist and analyst, explained how Turkey’s faults affect its relations with the wider region. The AKP portrays itself as the fresh face of reform but in reality it has been in power for so long that it has become the big state that it once fought against.
The AKP has reinvented its foreign policy in the past few years. Relations with the US are less rocky, the relationship with NATO has been renewed and, most significantly, negotiation with the Kurds continues. The underlying interest is stronger and safer ties to the US and other Western allies.
Continuation of the EU accession process is important. Despite the waning prospects for Turkey to join the EU, the process is an engine for reform that helps Turkey and the EU grow politically and diplomatically.
How should the US and allies help Turkey fulfill its democratic promise?
Eissenstat stressed that the US should push Turkey to adopt more inclusive reform packages that protect freedom of expression. Erdogan’s brusque personality and strong sense of honor partially account for the large number of defamation cases that activists and journalist face. President Obama should use his good relationship with Erdogan to criticize the AKP’s restrictive policies and to push for serious reforms. Corke noted that if Turkey wants to be an international player, they need a thicker skin for criticism.
RSS - Posts
