Tag: China
Energy interdependence is increasing
As the political and social dynamics in the Middle East continue to evolve as a result of the Arab Spring, attention has been devoted to China’s growing economic role in the region. China now imports nearly 1.5 million barrels of Iraqi oil each day. On Tuesday, NDN, a DC-based think tank, hosted a discussion with Dr. Gawdat Bahgat and I-wei Jennifer Chang to explore shifting energy realities and how they will affect the political landscape of the Middle East.
Bahgat, a professor at the National Defense University and an expert on Middle East energy policy, set out to debunk several prevalent myths concerning US policy in the Middle East. He rejected the “oil for security” tradeoff between the US and its Middle Eastern allies. As the argument goes, Middle Eastern exporters provide the US with oil at reasonable prices and in return the US provides military assistance and aids in those countries’ stability. Taking a more realist approach, Bahgat instead believes that each actor is simply acting in their own best interest. A decrease of Middle Eastern oil will not cause the US to recede from its other commitments in the region. Instead, the US presence in the Middle East will not significantly change in the foreseeable future. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Power, Power and Rice
While some are predicting (or hoping for) big changes in American foreign policy in the liberal interventionist/human rights first direction with the appointments of Susan Rice as national security adviser and Samantha Power as UN ambassador, I doubt it.
Both have already left marks on US foreign policy, Samantha through the Atrocities Prevention Board and Susan in the Libya intervention and many other efforts at the UN, including the successful use of its Human Rights Commission to report on atrocities in Syria. I wouldn’t suggest these are enormous departures from the past, but they certainly reflect the view that saving foreigners from mass atrocity has its place in US p0licy and needs to be given due consideration along with more traditional national interests of the military, political and economic varieties.
The main “to intervene or not” issue today is Syria. Susan and Samantha have both already been involved in internal debates on Syria, where President Obama ignored the advice of Hillary Clinton, David Petraeus and Leon Panetta. They all advised a more interventionist stance. It is the president, not the advisers, who is choosing not to try to stop the Syrian civil war, largely because of issues unrelated to Syria: Russian support on the withdrawal from Afghanistan and in the nuclear negotiations with Iran, not to mention the American public’s war weariness and the parlous budget situation. No doubt someone at the Pentagon is also telling him that allowing extremist Sunnis and Shia to continue killing each other in Syria is in the US interest. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Odd duck
I livetweeted Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s appearance in Washington at SETA (a Turkish thinktank for political, economic social research) yesterday, but the performance merited more. Maybe my numerous Turkish readers will find it interesting, even if the Americans don’t. I rarely attend such high-level public events, as little new gets said.
But Erdogan did not disappoint. Speaking in Turkish (I was listening to the simultaneous translation), his main theme was this:
no justice means no humanity, no dignity, and no peace.
He went on to talk about the “bottom billion” living on less than $1 per day, most of whom are innocent children, as well as the suffering in Somalia and Darfur. Personally moved by starvation and circumcision done with a simple knife on several children, he underlined the injustice of racism and discrimination, referring in particular to violence against Muslims in Myanmar.
Lack of justice in one place is a threat to justice elsewhere. Palestine is not a territorial issue but a justice issue. Israeli settlements are making a two-state solution impossible. Israel should release Palestinian prisoners and end the blockade. Hamas will have to be at the negotiating table. It was elected and then denied the right to govern. Israel has apologized for its raid on the Turkish aid flotilla. Compensation is under discussion. Then Turkey will press for an end to the occupation.
The twentieth century was one of war and injustice. The twenty-first century should be one of peace and justice. Turkish policy is based on justice and humanity. This is why Turkey supported the people in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria. But the UN Security Council is doing nothing. The system is blocked, and wrong. Humanity cannot be in the hands of one or two countries; the system has to be changed. Events like those of the 1990s in Bosnia and Rwanda are happening again, but the Security Council is doing nothing.
A world in which babies are slaughtered is not a religious world. This is not honorable and it makes me mad. When you witness things of this sort, you have a responsibility. Why is the media not covering the slaughter in Banias (Syria)? The babies dying are not only their parents, but also ours. You have to act. You have to stop these things. Society shares responsibility for this evil. There is a need for global conscience and justice. We have to see that the elements bringing us together are stronger than those that drive us apart. We have to help the poor and the weak. We cannot step on each other and remain connected to our ideals and faith.
Somewhere around this point, Erdogan took a diversion that I wasn’t able to capture tweeting but I’ll try to reproduce here. God’s justice, he said, is ever present but manifests itself at different times and places. He reminded the audience of the Koranic phrase
Bismillah al rahman al rahim
This is generally translated
In the name of God, most Gracious, most Compassionate
But, Erdogan said, its real meaning is that God has two aspects. The first he shows to everyone on earth during their lifetimes. This is the same for everyone (most Gracious). The second is reserved for the faithful in the afterlife (most Compassionate). I’m no theologian, but this struck me as a millenarian concept rather similar to that of the raptured Christians or the Puritans’ “elect.” No ecumenism in this second aspect. Only true believers enter heaven.
I imagine some aide in the front row was figuratively urging him to move on at this point, which is what he did. Turkey will fulfill its obligations, Erdogan said. We want to see more countries concerned about Syria, where the regime does not control much of the territory but uses its weapons to fire on the population. Asad has fired hundreds of missiles and used sarin gas.
President Obama is trying to do the right thing, but what is needed is UN Security Council action, which would accelerate the process. Russia needs to step forward. Turkey will continue to cooperate with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
In the Q and A, Erdogan said he would go soon to Gaza and the West Bank (he did not mention Israel). He is against war, but sometimes justice requires it. The clergy should help us avoid getting to that point by reaching across borders. An EU/US trade agreement is a fine idea, but it will need to take into account Turkey’s interests, as Turkey has a customs union with the EU. Turkey will continue to press China on respecting the rights of the Uighurs.
The session ended without questions about Kurds inside Turkey, imprisonment of journalists or other human rights violations. As questions were submitted in writing, the moderator presumably tossed those.
This is an odd duck: a religious and social conservative who has instituted vigorous free market economic reforms but also holds liberal internationalist views on the world, while ignoring those views when it comes to internal politics and human rights.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pakistan hat trick
This is pretty dramatic. That’s Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) in the lead, by a wide margin. More knowledgeable people are predicting he’ll have little difficulty getting installed for the third time as prime minister, relying if necessary on independent votes rather than a coalition with one of the other major parties.
There is a lot of reason for celebration. Turnout was high. Though the election was marred in some places by mainly Pakistani Taliban violence, it was peaceful in much of the country. The margin of victory makes allegations of irregularities relatively unimportant to the result, even if they undermine public confidence in some places. A good deal of effort went into purging the voter rolls and establishing the independence of the electoral commission. If the process proceeds as anticipated, Pakistan will accomplish its first transition from one elected government to another since independence.
Best as always to look the gift horse in the mouth. There are big problems. The largest by far arise from Pakistan’s parlous economic situation, which will require for its cure a major effort to ensure payment for electricity, deregulation of energy prices, an International Monetary Fund loan, a pickup in global demand and wise management of the budget on Nawaz Sharif’s part. The odds are bad for all of that happening smoothly while Pakistan suffers attacks from insurgent groups and completion of the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, ending an important boost to the Pakistani economy and a good reason for the Americans to be cooperative.
Nawaz Sharif’s victory came overwhelmingly from Punjab, Pakistan’s most populous province (more than half the population lives there, and more than half the parliament is elected there). His most noisy rival, star cricketeer Imran Khan, did well in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly the Northwest Province). The Pakistan Peoples Party, which holds a plurality of seats in the current parliament, looks likely to finish a weak second or possibly third in Saturday’s polling.
The main issues in the campaign were economic. The Express Tribune gave a “B” to Nawaz Sharif’s center-right party manifesto on economic issues, in particular energy, fiscal responsibility, reducing regulatory hurdles, and improving government efficiency. Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice) also got a “B,” with the PPP and other parties lagging far behind. Of course party platforms are no more serious as an indication of how the parties will govern than they are in many other countries. It is perhaps indicative that no grade was given on corruption, which is a serious problem at all levels in Pakistan.
What does the return of Nawaz Sharif mean for Pakistani foreign policy in general and the United States in particular? Ahmed Rashid suggests Pakistan’s neighbors will welcome Sharif back, hope he can heal his relations with Pakistan’s army (which deposed, imprisoned and exiled him last time he was prime minister) and regain some measure of control over Pakistan’s foreign policy, which for years has been left mainly to the security forces. An improved relationship with Afghanistan is particularly important, but Pakistan also faces challenges in dealing with its Chinese ally, which does not appreciate Muslim extremism, and with Iran, from which it hopes to import much-needed natural gas despite US opposition. Anti-American sentiment is running high in Pakistan, in part due to drone strikes, but Sharif will need sympathy in Washington if he is to secure a big ($6-9 billion) IMF loan.
So the hat trick is to be celebrated, but Nawaz Sharif has his work cut out for him.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria’s humanitarian catastrophe
This past Tuesday I moderated the Q and A for a Middle East Institute presentation by Baroness Valerie Amos, the UN’s Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, on “The International Response to Syria’s Humanitarian Catastrophe.” Here is the video, which is also up on the MEI website:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Civilians >> chemical weapons
The “Salon” I did with Stanford’s Lina Khatib yesterday on “Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?” focused mainly on chemical weapons, as all conversations about Syria yesterday did.
Lina, who had published a piece with Larry Diamond on Thursday making the case for military intervention (arms to the rebels plus a no-fly zone but no boots on the ground) in Syria, is concerned not only about chemical weapons use, the evidence for which she regards as “credible,” but about the fertile ground for Islamist extremists and the impact on the region. The longer the fighting lasts, the worse it gets.
I don’t disagree with any of that. But it doesn’t matter whether she and I think the evidence of chemical weapons use is credible. What matters is what the Russians, Chinese, Turks and others think. If there is going to be serious military intervention in Syria by the United States, it is going to need multilateral cover, preferably a UN Security Council resolution as well as an Arab League request. The standards the evidence is going to need to meet are high. The world is in no mood for another Middle East war based on flimsy claims related to weapons of mass destruction.
It is going to take time to assemble the evidence and convince skeptics. Once we are ready, Peter Juul proposes a reasonable course of action to mobilize the UN Security Council and NATO (for both military action and humanitarian relief). If that fails, the US will have to consider unilateral action without multilateral cover, but that is a course of action with many drawbacks.
There is also a credibility issue in the other direction: if the US doesn’t act against Syrian use of chemical weapons, why would the Iranians believe that we would take action against their nuclear program? This is a serious problem, but it should not drive the timetable. Being 100% certain, and trying to convince others, is more important than the timing.
That is a cruel thing to say. Syrians are dying every day. The average is climbing towards 200 per day, 6000 per month. The total by now is well over 70,000. Those are staggering numbers. Few of them are killed by chemical weapons. Bombing, Scuds, artillery and small arms fire are much more common:
The targeting of civilians is a war crime, no matter what the weapons used. Civilians are more important than the weapons that kill them. The standards of proof are easily met. The Syrian security forces and their paramilitaries are attacking and killing civilians daily with conventional weapons.
I would like to see the international community act on those grounds, rather than focusing on a limited (and difficult to prove) use of sarin gas. But this is not the unipolar moment of 1999, when the United States led a NATO intervention in Kosovo without UN Security Council approval. That is unlikely to happen. So we are heading down a long road of difficult proof.
Some, like Leila Hilal on Chris Hayes’ show last night, would prefer a negotiated solution. So would I. But it is not looking as if Bashar al Assad is hurting badly enough to yield to the transition plans that Russia and the United States agreed in Geneva last June. The mutually hurting stalemate that would provide the conditions for that will require that the revolutionaries do a bit better than they have managed so far. More international assistance is going to be needed.
RSS - Posts
