Month: December 2014
Even good things won’t make 2015 a good year
Mark Leon Goldberg wrote just before Christmas that 2015 might be one of those rare years that shakes up the international system, he thought for the better. His hopes are based on
- adoption next September of the Sustainable Development Goals and
- conclusion of a treaty on climate change before the end of the year.
I’m not optimistic, even if both these hopes are realized.
Mark is correct that the Millennium Development Goals, which expire in 2015, have been a significant success. But unfortunately that is unlikely to be repeated with the follow-on Sustainable Development Goals. Success has encouraged overreach. The MDGs were restrained and reachable. There were only eight of them:
The current draft of the SDGs is ridiculously over-ambitious and unrealistic. They start with “end poverty in all its forms everywhere.” They repeat that sweeping over-ambition for hunger, health, education, gender equality, water, energy, economic growth, employment, infrastructure, inequality (within and between countries), cities, oceans, terrestrial ecosystems, justice and sustainable development. Seventeen goals in all. This is a catalog of the developed world’s current concerns, not a set of achievable goals for countries and organizations with limited capacity and even more limited resources.
Unless a real effort is made to prune and prioritize, the SDGs risk irrelevance or worse. There is certainly no risk they will be achieved if they remain in their current formulation. A real effort should be made in the next few months to pare them back, both in number and ambition. A tighter and shorter set of goals would bode much better for implementation.
I too am optimistic about a climate change treaty concluded in 2015. But unfortunately there is no hope it will be strong enough to avoid truly serious impacts of global warming. We are well on our way to breaching the 2 degrees centigrade rise over pre-industrial levels that is generally regarded as a benchmark, albeit an arbitrary one, signalling serious problems due to irreversible melting of major ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. The way I read this World Bank report, we are likely to double that figure before the end of the century. You have to believe that countries will all meet their current pledges and tight new ones will be made in order to avoid it.
I’m not a climate disaster monger. But I do have a long memory. What I remember is that the “greenhouse effect” (which is what causes the fossil fuel contribution to global warming) was already an issue at the 1972 (first) UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. I was a young staffer on the secretariat and amazed that human activity could affect the entire planet. Our collective failure to do anything serious about it in the more than forty years since suggests that we will need some real disasters before acting. New York City is building up its coastal defenses, in response to the massive flooding that occurred due to Hurricane Sandy, and other big cities have invested heavily (London has floodgates, Venice is getting them). The Netherlands has its dikes. But much of Asia is at serious risk, as are lots of islands. Bangladesh, Mauritius and Vietnam can’t afford the defenses that New York and the Dutch build.
We’ve likely already seen some of the disasters and their consequences. Climate variation caused heightened conflict between pastoralists and agriculturalists in Darfur and drought in Syria, where an influx of farmers into urban areas was contributed to the rebellion against Bashar al Assad. We are going to see a lot more such climate-induced violent conflicts as competition for resources–especially water–grows and productive land area shrinks. The United Arab Emirates can afford to desalinate sea water. Egypt much less so, but its needs will soon exceed what the Nile will provide.
So no, I am not sanguine. Even good things won’t make 2015 a good year.
Looking for improvement
Armend Kadriu of Pristina daily Kosova Sot asked me to contribute once again a New Year’s piece scheduled for publication in Albanian today. Here it is in English:
2014 was not a great year for Kosovo. Implementation of its agreements with Belgrade lagged. International recognition slowed. June elections produced a lengthy standoff between a party with a plurality and a coalition with a majority. The government that eventually emerged has a lot of familiar faces. Only two of Kosovo’s many serious women were included in the cabinet. We’ll have to wait and see if it is a forward-looking coalition ready to clean up corruption and move the country snappily towards its European future.
Kosovo’s governance record since independence in 2008 is mixed. The World Bank says there has been progress in some areas but stagnation or worse in others. “Voice and accountability,” “rule of law” and “government effectiveness” have marginally improved but “political stability and absence of violence” has taken a dive. “Control of corruption” and “regulatory quality” have worsened. Citizens have noticed. Seventy-three per cent said corruption increased between 2007 and 2010. In 2014, Kosovo ranked 110 out of 175 in the Transparency International Corruptions Perception Index, sharing the lowest score in the Balkans with Albania.
Kosovo has not yet made the transition from what Croatian Foreign Minister Vesna Pusic calls the “heroic politics” of national identity to the “boring politics” of providing quality and cost-effective government services that meet constituents’ expectations. Kosovo’s biggest infrastructure project so far, the road from Durres in Albania to Pristina, is a monument to Albanian nationalism and American contracting. It is ironic but fitting that the best bet to make it economically more beneficial is extension to Nis, where it would benefit from flows to and from the Serbian marketplace.
Kosovo is still a young country, even if its majority Albanian population can claim to be an ancient people. States are not made overnight, or even in a decade or two. Certainly there has been progress since independence in 2008: street crime is low, economic growth has been good, relations with the few remaining Serbs are much better than many imagined they could ever be, and the first Kosovo-wide election with their participation in June was well run. Pristina, once a grim capital unable to erase its Socialist frown, now smiles, at least when the sun shines. Unlike most of the graying Balkans, young parents and their children enliven the main street, which echoes with their laughter and aspirations.
I can hope that 2015 will be better year for that post-war generation, their parents and grandparents. The government will be under a lot of pressure to deliver improvements from a vigorous opposition. The international community will press for creation of a special court to try war crimes. Transparency and accountability should increase. The new power plant the country needs badly should begin to get built. The many agreements with Belgrade should start functioning on all cylinders. So too should the Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU. I hope Kosovo will join the Schengen visa liberalization. Its youth will start visiting Europe more. And Europe’s long recession should begin to come to an end.
If I am even half right, that will make 2015 a serious improvement over the year that is ending.
Tehran’s interest in Havana
Hamid Bayati of the Tehran Times asked me some questions about Cuba. I answered:
Q. After more than 5 decade US end his invade policy toward Cuba, how do you evaluate this event?
A. I think this is a good development. It ends a policy that wasn’t working and raises the odds of a peaceful democratic transition in Cuba, which is very much in the interest of both Cubans and Americans.
Q. US president said the policy to isolate Cuba do not have any specific results but why [doe]s Washington has same policy toward Countries such as Russia, Iran or N. Korea?
A. The Cuba embargo is a unilateral policy. Other countries don’t participate or support it. The sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea are widely supported and therefore have a much stronger effect.
Q. Why [do] Republicans in US criticize Obama decision to normalize relation with Cuba?
A. Some Republicans (and some Democrats) see the decision as rewarding the autocratic Castro regime. It certainly will provide the regime with some marginal benefits, but it will also encourage the private sector and relieve a good deal of individual suffering.
Q. Some experts say Obama wants to end his presidency with good events and changing diplomacy toward Cuba happened in this frame, what is your idea on this issue?
A. The President had loosened restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba a great deal already. Normalization of diplomatic relations was a natural next step. It is also a politically savvy one, as younger Cuban Americans strongly support it.
Q. Some experts say the US has been to blame for Cuba’s economic problems, which include crumbling infrastructure, low levels of foreign investment and …. Does this event (new relation between US and Cuba) help Cuba improve economy?
A. It may mean some marginal improvements in the economy, but Cuba’s economic problems are mostly due to its own mismanagement, lack of respect for property rights, restrictions on foreign investment and lack of respect for the rights of Cubans. Until those things change, there won’t be a big change in the economy.
Q. Raúl Castro, Cuba President, said this new relation does not change Cuba old policy especially on socialism, so is it possible we see change in Havana policies in coming years?
A. Everything the Castros do is done in the name of socialism. That is a bit of a joke. Raúl has allowed the growth of a vibrant private sector. That is likely to prevail over the state sector sooner rather than later, but Cubans overwhelmingly want to preserve some aspects of socialism: their free health care and education, for example. That is their right, though it is unclear whether the state will have the resources required.
Top 10 and more
Here are peacefare’s top ten posts of the year, determined by numbers of clicks. Heavy on Balkans, but with a reasonable scattering of Middle East and North Africa, Ukraine and other issues.
Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Serbia–the remaining trouble spots in the Balkans–still attract lots of readers. I’m not indifferent to them myself, though I (and my Middle East Institute interns) write about them much less often than about the Middle East and North Africa, where the problems are still burdgeoning.
Let me renew my appeal for more contributors: peacefare was never meant to represent only my views. I enormously appreciate the contributions and comments from my interns, colleagues, former students, and knowledgeable people I have never met. Registered users can comment directly on peacefare.net. I moderate all comments and try to eliminate those that are blatantly commercial, repetive or truly offensive. If you want to contribute a post, just give me an idea of what you want to write about before you do it. The best email address to use for that is daniel@serwer.org
It has been a tough year for those of us who once hoped the Arab uprisings would succeed in improving the lot of citizens throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The year hasn’t seen many improvements in the Balkans either. I hope, but doubt, that 2015 will be a huge year for humanity. I’ll write about those doubts in the next day or so.
I take comfort from smaller things: a run this morning in Rock Creek Park, listening to Amahl and the Night Visitors, and now to Beethoven’s nine symphonies. Grandson Ethan will arrive late today or tomorrow, accompanied by his parents, and I’ll meet up tomorrow with two talented friends from grade school. We’ll visit the Hale Woodruff Rising Up exhibit wife Jackie co-curated at the National Museum of American History. Alas, the new building of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, where she is chief curator, won’t open until 2016, but you can see it rising now on the Mall:
That is something to look forward to!
I hope your 2014 holiday matches such pleasures and prepares you well for the new year!
Jewish Christmas
The best part of Dan Drezner’s plaint about Gentiles horning in on Jewish Christmas traditions, like going to the movies and eating in Chinese restaurants, is this from Saturday Night Live:
We’ll be having Indian food. All traditions need occasional updating.
Why ransom is wrong
The United States government does not allow its citizens to negotiate with terrorists who have kidnapped loved ones. Dana Milbank in this morning’s Washington Post criticizes this policy, saying:
…but the hard-line stance clearly hasn’t stopped terrorists from seizing Americans; it means only that these Americans are more likely to die.
This is sloppy thinking, on several grounds.
Extremist groups in the Middle East and worldwide kidnap Americans in far smaller numbers than might be expected, given the country’s prominence in leading efforts against them. There is no reason I know of to imagine that this is anything but the result of the policy against paying ransom. The impact is felt in two ways:
- Americans aware of the policy are more careful about exposing themselves to risk than Europeans and others whose governments do pay ransom.
- Kidnappers know that their likelihood of turning a profit on an American is significantly less than their likelihood of turning a profit on a kidnapped Italian, so they prefer to kidnap Italians.
It may be true that once kidnapped an American is more likely to be killed, but that is a small part of story. It is far more important that Americans are less likely to be kidnapped. That only four of the 23 Islamic State Western captives have been Americans is remarkable. US citizens are being more careful than others and will provide their would-be kidnappers with less benefit.
Milbank makes other sloppy errors as well. He makes no distinction between kidnapped official Americans and private citizens. The cases of negotiated exchanges he refers to all involve official Americans, sent into danger by their government. There is good reason for the US government to treat their cases differently from those of private citizens, who take risks without informing the US government and often against its explicit advice.
I am one of those who has repeatedly ignored US government warnings to travel in conflict zones. I take what precautions seem judicious, consulting widely with people who have traveled recently to the prohibited destination. I also comply with the requirements of whatever organization I am working for. I do this with care, as I have no expectation that my government will ante up or allow my family to do so. If I did have such an expectation, I might be more inclined to take more risks. That is not something you as a tax payer should want me to do.
I hasten to add that it would be difficult, even impossible, for the US government to enforce with criminal penalties its restrictions on families paying ransom. Nor do I know of a case in which they have tried to do so. Some families surely do make an effort to negotiate. But there are precious few cases in which they succeed. Milbank cites only one.
The issue of negotiation is my view distinct from the issue of ransom. The fact is that the US government does talk, when it can do so safely and out of the public eye, with kidnappers. I see no harm in that, so long as it does not convey legitimacy, finances or other benefits to criminal activity. The reason ransom is wrong is that it provides a benefit that incentivizes further kidnapping.
Even discussion of changing the “no ransom” policy is in my view a slippery slope, one that could slide quickly into heightened risks for Americans. We need to be clear and unequivocal about the official policy, even if there are families that manage to circumvent it, talk with the kidnappers, and attempt to pay ransom. Precious few are likely to succeed.