Month: April 2014
Obama’s foreign policy can still surprise
Monday President Obama defended his foreign policy by emphasizing his reluctance to use force, except as a last resort. Here is the press conference at which he spoke in the Philippines (the relevant remarks begin about minute 33 and go on for six more):
Knowledgeable defenders are also out in force: Steven Cook and Michael Brooks absolve him of responsibility for what ails the Middle East, while Heather Hurlburt ponders his legacy.
I think it is too early to make definitive judgments about Obama’s foreign policy. As we know only too well from the history of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, early judgments of success or failure are often premature. The President is right to emphasize that foreign policy requires lots of singles and doubles (not to mention walks) as well as home runs. It also takes the full nine innnings. Certainly on Ukraine it will be a decade or more to see how things work out. Ditto Egypt.
But that doesn’t mean I’m prepared to suspend judgment when the Administration strikes out. That’s what is happening in Syria. Somehow the President sees no viable options there besides American boots on the ground and arming the opposition. The former he correctly rules out as unacceptable to virtually everyone. The latter he pooh-poohs, but there are ample signs he is doing it, or at least more of it, than in the past.
But that does not exhaust the options in Syria. As Fred Hof points out, we could recognize the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the legitimate government of Syria and provide the resources required to help it govern. We could play a stronger role in coordinating and marshalling international assistance. We could also ground the Syrian air force, which is a major factor in preventing liberated areas from governing effectively.
In Egypt, too, the Administration is swinging and missing. It continues to pretend that there is a democratic transition in progress. That is far from true. Egypt’s election next month will coronate Field Marshall Sisi as president, restoring the military autocracy. His secular and Islamist opponents are jailed, hundreds condemned to death in one-day trials for which “show” would be a compliment. The media is under his control. The election, while “free and fair” at the polls, will be conducted in an atmosphere that does not allow open political competition. The Administration needs to find a way to acknowledge reality, even if it thinks continuing aid to Egypt is necessary for national security reasons.
The much-predicted failure of John Kerry’s efforts to revive the Israel/Palestine peace process does not, in my way of thinking, count heavily against the Administration. He was right to try. The stars were not well aligned on either side: the split between Hamas and the Palestinian authority as well as the heavy representation of settler and other right-wing interests in Netanyahu’s coalition militated against an agreement from the first. The supposed unity coalition on the Palestinian side–yet to emerge–will not improve the situation, so long as Hamas refuses to recognize Israel and Netanyahu insists that the recognition be of an explicitly “Jewish” state.
One key to Obama’s foreign policy legacy lies in the talks with Iran. If he is able to push Tehran back from nuclear weapons, putting at least a year between a decision to make them and an actual bomb, that will be a big achievement, provided there is iron-clad verification. Whether the Congress will go along with lifting sanctions in exchange is still a big question.
Another big piece of Obama’s foreign policy legacy could come from an unexpected direction: trade talks. In his first term, the president contented himself with ratification of free trade pacts that had been negotiated by his predecessor (with the Republic of Korea, Colombia and Panama). That was small beer compared to the two massive free trade negotiations he has pursued in the second term: the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Dwarfing even the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, these are giant trade deals, involving dozens of countries with potentially big impacts on trade, economic growth, and international relations.
Trade folks agree that President Obama has not yet demonstrated the kind of strong commitment to these negotiations that will be required to complete them and get them approved in Congress. But if he wants to have a serious legacy, he will turn to them as soon as the mid-term elections are over in November and try to conclude at least TTIP well before campaigning starts for the 2016 presidential contest. That would shore up America’s alliance with Europe (among other things by facilitating US energy exports), make the TTP more likely to happen, and align most of the world with the US as challenges arise from Russia and China.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The perils of Sonja and Jelena
Ratko Dmitrović, Director and Editor in Chief of Serbia’s daily Večernje Novosti, writes (translation courtesy of the Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies):
How are the views of Kristijan Golubović [a convicted armed robber, extortionist, drug and arms trafficker] and his biography more dangerous for Serbian society than the views and biography of Sonja Biserko?
What are Sonja Biserko’s sins? This is what Dmitrović cites:
…she testified at the Hague in order to prove the genocidal proneness of the State of Serbia, making lists snitching Serbian intellectuals, professors, public figures…
Dmitrović puts Jelena Milic in the same category. Her sins? According to him, she
…claims that Serbia should have been bombed in 1999. That was, as she explains, the only way to prevent Milosevic’s crimes in Kosovo in 1998/1999.
These allegedly odious views make the two women as morally repugnant to Dmitrović as Kristijan Golubović, a notorious convicted criminal. Dmitrović can’t abide the two women having more access to the media than Golubović does.
Let’s leave aside whether Jelena and Sonja, both of whom I know and esteem for their courage and conviction, actually did and said what Dmitrović claims. They can answer better on that score than I can. The question is whether the editor of a major Belgrade newspaper is unable to distinguish between the moral effect of criticizing the (Milosevic) government’s behavior and the violent criminal activities of Golubović?
I imagine he can. But he doesn’t want to. He is using his freedom of speech–to which he is as entitled as Jelena and Sonja–to make their lives even more perilous than they already are. The implications seem clear to me. If they are endangering Serbian youth, shouldn’t someone do something about it? If they are more corrosive to Serb values, as he suggests, than the Russian-killing Rambo, shouldn’t someone stop them? Dmitrović is not alone in thinking this way. The Serbian People’s Movement Naši (NSP Naši) lists them among the 30 greatest Serb-haters and traitors among public figures.
I’ll leave it to the Serbian government and courts to decide whether these particular uses of constitutionally protected freedoms violate Serbian law. They certainly violate American sensibilities, which makes little difference under the circumstances. But both the international community and the Serbian government should be stating clearly that they dislike what Dmitrović is saying and regard the safety of Sonja and Jelena, both of whom live and work in Belgrade, as paramount.
Serbia has come a long way in the 13+ years since Milosevic fell. The recent election confirmed its future lies in Europe, where those who know Jelena and Sonja regard them as among Belgrade’s finest. They should not be made martyrs to a European Serbia, or asked to sacrifice their homes in order to be safe and secure.
PS: For more on what Jelena’s organization has to say about Serbia’s relations with Russia, see this. I find it amusing that a former prime minister has forgotten about Russia sanctioning Serbia, but I understand those who take it more seriously.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Fig leaf?
Nabil Fahmy, Egypt’s Foreign Minister, spoke today at CSIS. He was all sweetness and light: civil liberties, transparency, accountability, participation, inclusivity. He snarled, politely, on only two subjects:
- relations with Turkey and Qatar are “not good” because of their interference in internal Egyptian politics (read their support for the Muslim Brotherhood), and
- Egypt will seek to improve relations with Russia, which he averred will be possible without hurting relations with the US.
I might even say he relished using improved relations with Russia as a means of keeping the United States on the hook, but that would be reading between his lines.
The questioners were not so placid. Three or four asked about abuses by Egyptian courts: in condemning hundreds of people to death after show trials, in trying and convicting American and Egyptian democracy advocates, and in jailing journalists. Fahmy hid behind independence of the judiciary, reluctance to speak on any cases still before the courts, rule of law, and insistence that the death sentences were merely recommendations to the Mufti.
I’d have asked about the three-year sentence handed down (and confirmed on appeal) against activists of the April 6 movement, which has now been banned as well, for “tarnishing the image” of Egypt. But I didn’t get the chance. I admit the case seems small in comparison with some of the others raised, much as I am personally committed to trying to free the April 6 prisoners.
Fahmy said the justice system will evolve, like the rest of Egypt, in an open and democratic direction, but like all other countries it needs to deal with terrorism. The Egyptian embassy provided a handy fact sheet on “Terrorism in Egypt” to underline this point. They also provided a fact sheet on “Democratic Elections for a New Government.” Egypt, we are asked to believe, is headed for democracy at its May 26-27 election, despite the strain of the fight against terrorism. Note to the embassy: please post these fact sheets so I can link them!
I wish it were so. But there is a counter-narrative that appears much more likely. Egypt is using the courts to squelch any serious political competition (from the Muslim Brotherhood or secularists) while it cracks down in ways that spawn terrorism and conducts a sham election guaranteed to coronate Field Marshall Sisi as the “civilian” leader of a restored autocracy.
Fahmy, in this alternate narrative, is not the smooth-talking vanguard of eventual democracy all his friends in Washington (he served many years here as ambassador) would like him to be, but rather the urbane fig leaf hiding the ugly reality of a return to military rule. I don’t doubt Fahmy’s sincerity in wanting Egypt to be democratic. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether the military is using him and his sincerity to smooth relations with the US, attract diaspora and foreign investment, and avoid the wrath of those in Congress who think we should end aid to a military coup.
I’ll be very glad to see the latter narrative disproven. But I doubt it will be. A year from now, I expect to see the Field Marshall enthroned and an elected parliament firmly in his grip. The Muslim Brotherhood will no doubt still be banned as a terrorist organization. April 6 will be under lock and key. Democracy advocates will be allowed only if they are tame and obedient. Journalists will have to toe the line, or end up in prison.
What will the Americans do? Most likely nothing. Contrary to universal Egyptian belief, Washington has been consistent throughout Egypt’s various twists and turns: it supports whoever gains power. Its overriding priorities in Egypt are maintenance of the peace treaty with Israel, the fight against terrorists and military overflight rights and access to the Suez canal. Whoever helps America with those objectives will be considered acceptable, or better. How Egypt governs itself will be a secondary consideration, rising again in our priorities only if someone new turns up at the top.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The sooner, the better
With Aleksandar Vučić confirmed as prime minister of Serbia on the wave of a strong parliamentary election result last month, questions arise about what the new government should do about Kosovo. On the well-founded principle of doing big but potentially unpopular things you know you will have to do as quickly as possible in a new mandate, here is my advice, composed in response to a colleague’s queries:
Q: Can you give me reasons why the new Serbian government should recognize the independence of Kosovo?
Belgrade has said many times it will not recognize Kosovo’s “unilateral declaration of independence.” But no one “recognizes” independence, which is declared by those wanting it, in this case not unilaterally but rather in close coordination with both Europe and the United States. Britain never “recognized” America’s independence, which was a dramatic and important political rather than a legal act.
Belgrade has already accepted, in the agreement it reached with Pristina last year, the legitimacy of the Kosovo constitutional and legal order on the whole territory of Kosovo. It is not a great leap from there to recognizing Kosovo’s territorial integrity and legitimate authority.
Kosovo is now starting to build its armed forces. They will be designed with Serbia as the main potential threat, since Belgrade does not accept Kosovo as sovereign and continues, despite the Belgrade/Pristina agreement, to say it claims sovereignty over Kosovo’s entire territory. If Belgrade were to recognize, Pristina would be able to reduce its future military commitments and reorient them towards participation in international peacekeeping deployments. That would enable Serbia to do likewise. Kosovo will eventually become a NATO member. Recognition would enable Serbia to become one as well, if it decides to move in that direction.
If Serbia does not want to recognize Kosovo in the near term, the easy way out for now is to allow it to enter the United Nations. That will not be fully satisfactory, as it will not necessarily lead to diplomatic relations, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction. The Kosovars often point to the “two Germanys” precedent. I don’t really think that applies, since on the Pristina side there is no intention whatsoever of reunification, but from Belgrade’s point of view the “two Germanys” precedent should be seen as an attractive one.
How will recognition help the region enter the EU?
The big benefit to Belgrade of recognition, followed by establishment of diplomatic relations with it and border demarcation, would be closing one of the few remaining war and peace issues in the Balkans and thereby removing a major barrier to Serbia’s EU membership. I don’t know two neighboring states without mutual recognition, diplomatic relations and a demarcated border who have good neighborly relations, which are required for EU membership.
The 23 members of the EU that have recognized Kosovo will not accept Serbia as a member without Belgrade recognition and diplomatic relations. Only one EU member taking that position is needed to impose the policy on the rest. I’ve spoken with diplomats from half dozen of those countries who assure me that is their policy. Moreover, even if the governments were tempted their parliaments won’t ratify Serbia’s membership in the EU without recognition.
How will it help economic development in the region?
Kosovo, even under current adverse economic conditions in Europe, is still a relatively dynamic economy, in part due to its young and still growing population. Serbia is aging rapidly and declining in numbers. It would benefit enormously from increased trade with and through Kosovo, which in recent years has relied far more on Macedonia and Albania, to Serbia’s detriment. Completion of the Durres/Pristina road to Nis would bring enormous benefits to both Kosovo and Serbia, but this is unlikely to happen without recognition and diplomatic relations.
Serbia is central not only to the geography of the Balkans but also to its fate. But it cannot stand in the way of Kosovo’s progress without hurting its own EU prospects. Leaving this issue unresolved for another four years will mean less growth, fewer jobs, lower investment and reduced pensions for Serbia and its citizens. Recognition and establishment of diplomatic relations are bitter pills for Serbian politicians, but accompanied by protection of Serbs and Serbian sites in Kosovo they are needed to cure what ails the region. The sooner, the better.
PS: For analysis of the Serbian election campaign and results, try NDI’s Letter from Belgrade.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks April 28 – May 2
1. American Energy Prowess in a Strategic Foreign Policy Perspective
Monday, April 28 | 12 – 4:30pm
12th floor, The Atlantic Council; 1030 15th Street NW
The Atlantic Council and the Hungarian Presidency of the Visegrad Group invite you to an upcoming two-day conference titled American Energy Prowess in a Strategic Foreign Policy Perspective. The aim of the conference is to discuss and debate the strategic foreign policy aspects of the American shale gas revolution and its effect on the transatlantic relationship and the Central and Eastern European region. The Ukraine crisis has brought European energy security back into the forefront. The conference will bring together leaders from the US government, Central and Eastern Europe, and the energy industry to determine ways to strengthen European energy security and the transatlantic alliance through reinforced energy ties.
The conference begins with a luncheon discussion on Monday, April 28 at the Atlantic Council. The following day, participants will continue over breakfast on Capitol Hill to engage with key congressional decision-makers.
A full agenda of the event can be found here
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pyramid schemes
The systematic looting of archeological sites and artifacts has reached crisis proportions in Egypt over the last three years. Thursday afternoon the Middle East Institute hosted Deborah Lehr, founder of the International Coalition for the Protection of Egyptian Antiquities, for a discussion about the sharp rise of cultural racketeering in Egypt. Kate Seelye, senior vice president of the Middle East Institute, moderated.
The world’s most precious sites are being senselessly looted, Lehr said. Egypt is not a unique case. Looting is a crime of global proportions. According to the FBI, art and cultural property crime is one of the top five international crimes. Unlike other illicit crimes, however, there hasn’t been a global effort to stop it. In Egypt, cultural theft has reached crisis proportions in the midst of its rocky transition to democracy. The country’s first priorities need to be its economy and electing a new president, but the ongoing art theft is tragic. Moreover, it puts the country’s economic recovery at risk.
Looting is particularly hard to stop in difficult economic times. In Egypt every archeological site has been subjected to some form of looting, which has increased since 2011 by 500-1000% percent. Some looters use major construction equipment to dig beneath the sand, destroying the historical context as they look for treasure. Conducted by criminal organizations, the looting is organized and systematic. The same groups that traffic guns, humans, and drugs deal also in art. Art theft is a very profitable trade.
At the local level, Egyptian youth have been campaigning using social media to protect sites and raise awareness of looting. In 2011, Egyptian protesters created a human shield around the Egyptian Museum. Nevertheless, looters have been successful in stealing valuable archeological items. Last year the famous Mallawi Museum was ransacked by Muslim Brotherhood supporters. They stole the majority of the museum artifacts and burned the remaining ones. Rising instability and insecurity in Egypt have caused tourism revenues to plummet. Last year was the worst in modern history. Tourism revenue is down when Egypt needs it most to protect archeological sites and artifacts.
Using satellite imagery to track looting, archeologists guess that sales in local Egyptian markets for stolen artifacts are estimated at $3 billion since the revolution began. Many think the number is closer to $10 billion. Behind guns and drugs, art theft is the most profitable crime in the black market. Many items are smuggled through the Sinai and diplomatic pouches. Switzerland and Israel are consolidation centers for distribution of stolen artifacts to the US, Japan, and other parts of the Middle East. Israel has acquired hundreds of stolen items, but has not yet returned them to Egypt.
Locals do not really benefit much from the international sale. Most of the financial gain goes to the middlemen in these transactions. The US government should take a leadership role to help save Egypt’s cultural heritage. Major institutions and organizations such as the UN need to take a comprehensive approach to address this crisis. Domestic governments need to increase security at archeological sites and other governments need to be ready to lend support as needed. Cultural racketeering may seem like an archeological crisis, but economics is at the root of the problem.
Photo credit: Dr. Sarah Parcak, University of Alabama-Birmingham
Photo credit: TheAntiquitiesCoalition.org
RSS - Posts
