Turning the clock back
I received this long letter (only slightly edited for spelling and other minor errors) from a group of people listed at the end. I was amused by its accusation that I favor Republika Srpska, since the authorities in that part of Bosnia and Herzegovina regard me as one of its sworn enemies. That said, the letter raises interesting questions about the validity of the Dayton constitution, without however offering any practical alternative in my view.
We are writing to you following the interview you gave to Aljazeera Balkans of June this year where you made a number of claims and statements in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina that we find unacceptable, and some of them also untrue and incorrect.
As you also used a pronoun ‘we’ in the same interview, we would like to ask you to confirm to us if you were speaking on behalf of the US State Department or if it was just a ‘slip of the tongue’? The way you presented your views and analysis to the critical judgement of the public in the interview left us under the impression that you were trying to impose them on the public as the only possible solutions. One would have expected you to act as an independent and well-meaning analyst. However, given the way you made your claims we felt that you were favoring Serbia and its interests of safeguarding the genocidal creation called Republika Srpska (further referred to as RS).
We would like to reflect on some of the claims you made during the interview:
– You claimed that the genocidal entity called RS was in the state of ‘transitional democracy’. We have never known a language where ‘transitional democracy’ is synonymous to Fascism and Neonazism, neither of which bear even a slightest resemblance to even the most primitive form of democracy. Therefore, apart from that claim of yours being untrue and incorrect, we find it also to be a very damaging and unacceptable promotional stunt favoring RS.
– You claimed that the Dayton Constitution has to be amended (or ‘reformed’). As someone who worked closely with Richard Holbrooke on creating Dayton Peace Accords one would expect you to reflect on it over the time, and to admit to yourself, at least from this time distance, what we all already know. And we have known for long that Dayton Peace Accords are a criminal agreement in that it rewarded genocide, war crimes, and aggression, and suspended the only legal Constitution – the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that had already extsted. It was a move that nobody had either a moral or legal right to make. We believe that you are familiar with the fact that the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was confirmed by the majority vote of the Bosnian citizens at the referendum of 29 February and 1 March 1992 as an expression of the highest level of democracy.
On the other hand, Annex IV of Dayton Peace Accords, which is considered to be the Bosnian Constitution at present, is illegal as it has ever been endorsed by the Bosnian Parliament, and as it is being breached by everybody, and in particular by Dodik on a regular basis.
We believe that you are well aware that Dayton Peace Accords, and Dayton ‘Constitution’ alike, are completely dysfunctional. Therefore, we are struggling to understand why you still continue to persist on it? The only reason we can see behind it could be that it is the only way to preserve the genocidal creation called RS as Serbia’s criminal war gain. So, we would like to ask you to put forward the arguments in your response to us that would prove us wrong with respect to those intents.
One cannot talk of any changes or ‘reforms’ to the Dayton ‘Constitution’ as the ‘Constitution’ itself is contrary to the basic international laws, Conventions, and the UN Charter. Such a ‘Constitution’ is contrary to the human rights and freedoms which explains why it has been defeated, and in effect, terminated several times at the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg.
It may be that due to the way you feel about Dayton Peace Accords as its co-author you don’t seem to want to concede that Dayton Peace Accords, and ultimately Dayton ‘Constitution’, are the main and only obstacles to any progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina including the progress towards the Euro-Atlantic integrations which, at the same time you yourself (sic!) seem to be favoring.
– It is an unbeatable fact that Dayton ‘Constitution’ has to be terminated, and not changed or ‘reformed’ as you say, as it is morally and legally unacceptable, and as much as the whole of Dayton Peace Accords, it is the main obstacle to any progress of our country. Besides, the International Community have meant [the] Dayton Peace Accords to be only a temporary solution that was to stop the war. Please don’t try to affirm it as a permanent solution.
– In the same interview of June you were staunchly defending the April Package of the constitutional changes that you also co-authored. That was a ‘package’ of requests made by Milorad Dodik which the US State Department tried to push through via McElhaney and some of our politicians led by Sulejman Tihic. Its one and only aim was to preserve the genocidal RS, and to give it a right to veto as well as the decision-making powers that would be based on ethnicity which would have copper-fastened the genocidal entity, and made Bosnia and Herzegovina dissolve.
Although the Bosnian Parliament rejected the April Package, given your criticism of Haris Silajdzic in your interview of June this year, it appears that you still intend on continuing to pursue the April Package. And, we believe that you are well aware of the facts that the April Package would have copper-fastened the genocidal apartheid called RS. Therefore, all of us who took part in preventing an attempt to copper-fasten the genocidal creation called RS, strongly condemn and fully reject any such criticism of yours.
We would like to invite you to work hard on terminating the genocidal creation called RS, being led and guided by the international laws and Convention on Genocide Prevention and Punishment. Although we believe that you are well familiar with the International Court of Justice Judgement of 27 February 2007 which declared RS guilty of act of genocide, we would still like to remind you of it. Anything that has been created on genocide cannot continue to exist as it is legally invalid and void. Article 297. of the Judgement reads as follows:
297. The Court concludes that acts committed in Srebrenica, which fall within Article II(a) and (b) of the Convention, had been carried out with a specific intention to destroy in part a group of Bosnian Muslims as such; and accordingly, those represent acts of genocide which were committed by the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) in Srebrenica and the surrounding area starting on 13 Juy 1995.
Based on that Judgement the genocidal entity RS is legally untenable – bearing in mind the ius cogens principle, the UN Charter, and the Convention on Genocide Prevention and Punishment, and with genocide having been committed in all of the country, and not just in Srebrenica. The fact that Annex VII of Dayton Peace Accords has been breached due to the Fascism and apartheid that is being carried out by the genocidal creation RS, only means that genocide continues. The fact that one of the key conditions of Dayton Peace Accords continues to be breached makes Dayton Peace Accords legally void and voidable as per Contract law.
According to both the country’s and international laws, the citizens have every right to revert to the previous Constitution which is the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no need to reform that Constitution as it is a civilian and European one, and as it is based on civil rights and freedoms.
– At 13:57 minute of your interview of June, speaking of the ‘constitutional reforms’ you contradicted yourself by saying:
‘We need to strengthen the government in Sarajevo’, and ‘That also means devolution of powers to entitites, cantons, and municipalities’.
Do not those two statements exclude each other?
Your statement on ‘devolution of powers’ led us to conclude that you support not only the preservation of the genocidal RS, but that you are also very much in favor of further decentralization of the Federation, which is unacceptable, and leads to the total destruction of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and gettoization of its Bosniak-Muslim majority population which would be squeezed to live on 24% of its territory till they finally disappear. At the same time RS would remain unitarian, monoethnic creation built on genocide of Bosniaks and Bosnian Catholics.
– In the same interview you also stated that you would ask Serbia for help with devolution of powers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is both unacceptable and illegitimate for anyone to ask or encourage a foreign country to interfere or intervene in our internal affairs. And, to make it sound even worse than it already is such an ‘invite’ is being made to the country that committed an act of aggression on us, and occupied half of our territory having also committed genocide in the process. Is not inviting Serbia to interfere in our country in any way, including ‘help with devolution of powers’ an act of aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina? Having signed Dayton Peace Accords, both Serbia and Croatia in effect admitted to committing an act of aggression on our country. By signing Dayton Peace Accords they both agreed to respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of our country, and not to continue the aggression on our country. Or, perhaps you are inclined to interpret their signatures as their right to intervene and interfere in our country any way they want- be it as they please or with the help and encouragement of the international community? Does that not constitute an act of aggression in international law?
Never in its 1,000 years old history has any part of our country been part of Serbia. But Sandzak which is now part of Serbia historically has been part of our country. Applying the same logic of ‘asking for help with devolution of powers’ would mean that we have even a much greater (and historically well founded) right to interfere in the internal affairs of Serbia and the way it should be organised as a state. Finally, given that for us Serbia is an aggressor, and still a Fascist country (judging by who sits in its government and Parliament), we would like to ask if you would find it acceptable for Nazi Germany (if it, hypothetically, still existed) to be a ‘tutor’ to one of the countries with the majority Jewish population, that it had occupied, and where it had committed Holocaust and war crimes?
– We would like to remind you of the historic fact that no Serbs or Croats ever lived in our country until the second half of the 19th century. There was only one people- Bosniaks of three different confessions that also welcomed Sephardic Jews from Spain who settled in our country, and have been living with us since. And our country was never part of either Croatian or Serbian territory. Unlike Serbia, we do not base our history on myths and lies, but on the actual historical facts and documents that nobody has any right to either deny or disregard. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks July 5 – July 14
- The Path to Power in Brazil | Wednesday, July 6th | 12:30 pm | The Atlantic Council | Click HERE to RSVP. | Brazil’s current political earthquake makes projecting the future of power and politics in the country a very risky enterprise. But, we’re going to try anyway. The Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center has engaged Brazil’s best thinkers and behind-the-scenes players to place their bets and analyze what current trends tell us about the next months and years. The event will include input from the former Brazilian Minister of Finance, former Governor of Ceará State and former presidential candidate Ciro Gomes, as well as Nonresident Senior Brazil Fellow, Ricardo Sennes, and Brazilian pollster Mauricio Moura. During the event, the Atlantic Council will also launch results of its exclusive opinion poll questions about the direction of Brazilian politics and our latest policy brief, The Path to Power in Brazil.
- Delivering on the Future of Submarine Warfare | Friday, July 8th | 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM | Center for Strategic & International Studies | Click HERE to RSVP | The Maritime Security Dialogue brings together CSIS and USNI, two of the nation’s most respected non-partisan institutions. The series is intended to highlight the particular challenges facing the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, from national level maritime policy to naval concept development and program design. Given budgetary challenges, technological opportunities, and ongoing strategic adjustments, the nature and employment of U.S. maritime forces are likely to undergo significant change over the next ten to fifteen years. The Maritime Security Dialogue provides an unmatched forum for discussion of these issues with the nation’s maritime leaders. Panelists include Rear Admiral Charles A. Richard, USN, Director of the Undersea Warfare Division (N97) and Rear Admiral Michael E. Jabaley, USN, Program Executive Officer for Submarines. The discussion will be moderated by Dr. Kathleen Hicks, Senior Vice President, Henry A. Kissinger Chair, and Director of the International Security Program, CSIS.
- How to Defeat Terrorism in Iraq | Monday, July 11th | 1:00 PM | The Institute for World Politics | Click here to RSVP | Sheikh Jamal al-Dhari will share his vision for his country: a political re-crafting of the existing government structure away from sectarianism and towards a new constitution based on Iraqi national citizenship and inclusive of participation from all sectarian communities. HE Sheikh Jamal al-Dhari is the Chairman of the Iraq National Project and President of Peace Ambassadors for Iraq (PAFI). One of the leaders of the al-Zoba tribe in Iraq, he is the nephew of the late Islamic scholar and religious leader Sheikh Harith al-Dhari. Jamal was born in the Abu Ghraib district of Iraq on July 16, 1965. He grew up within the al-Zoba tribe and in the 1970s he attended the Hafsa School. In the 1980s, Jamal was conscripted into the Iraqi Army to fight in the Iran- Iraq War. During his time on the frontline, he fought alongside both Sunni and Shia officers and friends, in the Iraqi Republican Guard. Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by coalition forces, Jamal was a strong proponent of Iraqi nationalism and self-rule. In 2005, he and his family fought against al-Qaeda’s occupation of Iraqi territory and, as a consequence, Jamal lost 70 members of his family in the struggle. In 2014, Jamal helped to establish the nonprofit think tank Peace Ambassadors for Iraq, whose purpose is to advocate for a renewed system of government in Iraq, to determine the best policies to fully eliminate ISIS/Daesh and other terrorist forces from Iraq, and to build international support for an all-inclusive Iraq. Presently, Jamal is working for a renewal in Iraq by forging a non-sectarian and inclusive settlement for all Iraqis.
- Blasphemy Laws and Censorship by States and Non-State Actors: Examining Global Threats to Freedom of Expression | Thursday, July 14th | 2:00 PM | Room TBD, click HERE for event details | The Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission | The Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission will hold a hearing that will examine blasphemy laws, state censorship, actions by non-state actors, and other threats to freedom of expression around the world. This hearing will examine these issues, while seeking to provide concrete recommendations for how U.S. policy makers can most effectively encourage the protection of freedom of expression around the globe. This hearing will be open to members of Congress, congressional staff, the interested public and the media. The event will be hosted by Joseph R. Pitts, M.C. and Co-Chairman, TLHRC. James P. McGovern, M.C. and Co-Chairman, TLHRC.
Panel I:
- David N. Saperstein, Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State
Panel II:
- Rev. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., Chairman, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
Panel III:
- Ms. Vanessa Tucker, Vice President for Analysis, Freedom House
- Ms. Nina Shae, Director, Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom
- Dr. Karin Karlekar, Director of Free Expression Programs, PEN America
- Dr. Courtney C. Radsch, Advocacy Director, Committee to Protect Journalists
- Mr. Wael Aleji, Spokesperson, Syrian Network for Human Rights
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
240 years ago
Hard to do better than this, 240 years after its signature:
|
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. |
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Why war
My review of Michael C. Horowitz, Allan C. Stam and Cali M. Ellis, Why Leaders Fight (Cambridge University Press, 2015) went up on War on the Rocks under the title He Who Lets Slip the Dogs of War today. Here is are the teaser first two paragraphs:
This is a book that should have been unnecessary. Its main argument is that leaders, particularly chiefs of state and government, are important to the decision to go to war. As the authors argue repeatedly, we all know this. Hitler made a difference to history that some other leader of Germany might not have. People matter. Human agency should not be ignored. Why do we have to prove it?
The problem is an academic one. American political science, in particular its international relations theory, pays little attention to the differences leaders make. Academia attributes war to institutional, structural, and internal factors, leaving little intellectual headroom for the voluminous biographies that sell so well in the mass market and fascinate war and peace practitioners like me.
The solution the authors propose to this disconnect is…[click here for the rest]
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No end in sight
How can Daesh (that’s the Islamic State, ISIS or ISIL to the uninitiated) be defeated and what will happen thereafter? If you want the more upbeat official story, read Brett McGurk’s testimony. Here are some thoughts that have crossed my screen lately.
Everyone should expect a generational fight. Though Daesh is losing territory rapidly in Iraq (47% of its maximum) and Syria (20%), it is good at what it does, resilient and adaptable. It has recruited at least 40,000 foreign fighters from 120 other countries. It has overt affiliates in more than half a dozen countries as well as a covert worldwide network devoted to smuggling, finance and terror, as illustrated all too clearly in this week’s Istanbul airport bombing. Even after it has lost all its territory, Daesh will go to ground and continue terrorist attacks of that sort.
The Coalition arrayed against Daesh is large (nominally 66 countries) and organized but still clumsy and far from fully integrated. It will hold a July 20 “summit” in Washington focused on its five “lines of effort”: political/military coordination, blocking foreign fighters, Daesh finance, stabilization of areas retaken from Daesh and counter-messaging. This is in addition to the nine US “lines of effort.”
There are contrasting narratives that avowed opponents of Daesh espouse, leading them to opposing conclusions.
The Russians view Daesh as the product of destabilization of Syrian government institutions, whose maintenance is vital to stem the extremist tide. In order to ensure the survival of state institutions, they support Assad and want reconciliation between him and at least some portion of the opposition. They also think their military intervention has gone pretty well, delivering some Western respect and easing Western pressure on Ukraine. But they are concerned, based on the Chechen precedent, about the enormous cost and difficulties of an Assad victory in Syria. They have flatly refused to pay for any reconstruction when approached by a government-linked expert.
The Saudis have an almost diametrically opposed narrative. They believe Daesh is the product of Iranian-sponsored sectarianism in both Iraq and Syria. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki helped the Islamic State to revive in Iraq after the American withdrawal by governing in a blatantly sectarian way dictated by Iran. ISIS’s ability to gain ground in Syria is attributable to the regime, which released extremist prisoners, has bought oil from Daesh, and focused its military attacks against moderates, all with backing by Iran. The Saudis take the threat of Daesh seriously and believe the fate of Iran’s effort to establish itself as the Middle East hegemon will be determined in Syria. The Kingdom recognizes that its own Wahhabi ideology has contributed to Daesh‘s appeal and is committed to reforms that will change that in the decades to come.
Iraqis are fighting and dying to take turf from Daesh, but the aftermath of victory is a big and unsolved problem. Inclusive governance is what the country needs but seldom gets, in particular in Baghdad. Shia militias were too active in Tikrit in the wake of victory there over Daesh, rendering the town unsafe for Sunni returnees initially. Only once local leaders and reconciliation mechanisms were put in place was the stabilization effort more successful. At Ramadi, the governor has been doing well but there is much more damage and a lot of demining to be done. At Fallujah, there is less destruction but a serious humanitarian crisis, with 85,000 civilians fleeing from the city and living in unacceptable conditions in the desert. UNDP resources are grossly inadequate to the stabilization effort it has been tasked with.
Little planning has been done for stabilization in Syria. What is needed there is a political settlement. Sunni alienation and grievance are the the problem, enormously aggravated by the presence of Hezbollah. Ignoring it gives the impression that the West will support “ABS”: anyone but Sunnis. Post-Daesh, governance needs to be far more inclusive.
The Kurds in both Iraq and Syria are getting a lot of Western support because they are willing to fight Daesh. The support should be more conditional. The US should insist that Iraqi Kurdistan reach a pact with Baghdad and that the Syrian Kurds help with peace talks between Turkey and the PKK, which is closely tied to the Syrian Kurds.
Looking ahead, there is a real risk that with Russian and Iranian support the Syrian regime will manage to capture Aleppo as well as Raqqa, form some sort of “national unity” government with elements of the loyal opposition and rewrite parts of the constitution. The US might then declare victory and abandon the field entirely, leaving reconstruction inadequately resourced. This would not really solve anything and would allow grievances to worsen, ungoverned spaces to grow and the conflict to spread, possibly to Lebanon and Jordan.
There is a glimmer of hope for Iraq, but even that is limited. Splits in both the Sunni and Shia communities are opening the possibility of cross-sectarian mobilization in Baghdad. The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) are often viewed as under Tehran’s control, but some of them are not and might join with Sunnis who have also fought against Daesh. The Kurdish issue would still be unresolved, however, which will create problems for the liberation of Mosul. Kurdistan Regional Government President Barzani is entirely dedicated to consolidating his own power, both vis-a-vis other Kurdish political forces and vis-a-vis Baghdad. Without clearer definition of the political end-state, defeat of Daesh could lead to a follow-on civil war pitting Kurds against Arabs.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Good ideas
State-building, the function American presidents love to hate, is the unavoidable foreign policy burden of our times. Without it, the war against the Islamic State and other extremists will last forever. Only when Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Egypt are better governed will they be immune to the extremist infection that has roiled the Middle East.
Fortunately, I’ve got colleagues around DC who not only agree with this proposition but also are thinking hard what to do about it. I prefer not to spend my time and whatever intellectual energies I’ve got left thinking about reforming the US government, which has resisted most such efforts for well over 200 years. But I’m glad others are willing to engage.
Max Boot and Mike Mikclaucic want to reconfigure the US Agency for International Development into a state building agency, giving up most of its programs to international governmental and nongovernmental organizations better suited to the tasks and often better funded. They would toss out “poverty alleviation, global health, biodiversity, women’s empowerment, education, sanitation, and economic and agriculture development.” They want the US agency to focus on ungoverned or inadequately governed spaces, seeking to provide them with security forces, courts, professional civil services, and accountable financial mechanisms. In other words: the essential functions of sovereignty.
They also want AID–or maybe it would be called the US Agency for State Building–to focus on fewer countries, mainly but not exclusively in what some of us think of as the Greater Middle East (Morocco to Pakistan, more or less), plus countries at risk from Russian and Chinese expansionism, with a few Latin American countries thrown in for counternarcotics purposes. The point is to choose them based on their strategic importance to US national security.
John Norris, arguing that our current practices favor rewarding failed states with lots of money and attention, takes what he terms a”better” approach to fragile states. He proposes that willing and able fragile states–not the utterly failed ones–be invited to enter into repeatable 5-year, USAID-administered Inclusion, Growth and Peace compacts, with the aim of developing effective and legitimate institutions over a decade and more. While not proposing a definitive list, he suggests:
Niger, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Lebanon, Uganda, Myanmar, Cameroon, Egypt, Mali, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Nepal, and Rwanda all stand out as countries where a mixture of host country commitment, effective diplomacy, positive leverage, and sound assistance strategies could help move them more permanently out of the fragility category.
Adding Tunisia and Mali for good measure, Norris says the pay-off from focusing more attention on these not-yet-basket cases could be particularly high.
This approach is analogous to one the Millennium Challenge Corporation uses, usually for more consolidated states. Greater flexibility would be required for fragile states, and the money would be focused on improving legitimacy, which is something the host country naturally wants. But it would have to make specific, transparent and accountable commitments in exchange.
Implicitly, the array of current AID objectives that Miclaucic and Boot cite would be at least partly dropped in Norris’ approach as well, though of course improvement in state effectiveness would likely result in some of those objectives being met. Norris proposes specific indicators for his compacts, geared toward the problems of fragile states like return of refugees and internally displaced people, reduction of grievances and increased government effectiveness, among others. He also proposes getting rid of the parallel budgets funded as Overseas Contingency Operations, but only if equivalent amounts are re-inserted into regular appropriations of State, AID and Defense.
That’s about as much budgetese as I am capable and willing to speak. The main point for all three authors is just this: our current foreign assistance is not producing the best results because it is focused on the wrong objectives and countries and because it is spent on the wrong efforts. The stove pipes that rule the foreign assistance world are separating things that belong together, especially where fragile states are concerned. We could do much better if we re-thought the whole package strategically, from ultimate objectives to programs.
As I explained in the book advertised to your upper right, I doubt that can be done with existing institutions, which have proven irremediable. But Norris, Boot and Miclaucic have put forward good ideas worthy of attention.
RSS - Posts
