Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
The gulf with the Gulf
Yesterday was Gulf day. I spent part of the morning reading Christopher Davidson, who thinks the Gulf monarchies are headed for collapse due to internal challenges, their need for Western support, Iran’s growing power and their own disunity. Then I turned to Greg Gause, who attributes their resilience to the oil-greased coalitions and external networks they have created to support their rule. He predicts their survival.
At lunch I ambled across the way to CSIS’s new mansion to hear Abdullah al Shayji, chair of political science at Kuwait University and unofficial Gulf spokeperson, who was much exorcised over America’s response to Iran’s “charm offensive,” which he said could not have come at a worse time. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was already at odds with the US. The Gulf was not warned or consulted about the phone call between Iranian President Rouhani and President Obama. Saudi Arabia’s refusal to occupy the UN Security Council seat it fought hard to get was a signal of displeasure. The divergences between the GCC and the US range across the Middle East: Syria, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq and Palestine, in addition to Iran.
On top of this, US oil and gas production is increasing. China is now a bigger oil importer than the US and gets a lot more of its supplies from the Gulf. Washington is increasingly seen as dysfunctional because of its partisan bickering. Its budget problems seem insoluble. American credibility is declining. The Gulf views the US as unreliable. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wise words from an elder statesman
For 48 years, UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson has been a key player in global diplomacy, with previous stints as Swedish ambassador to the United States and Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs. On Wednesday, Eliasson spoke about the current state of global diplomacy and the UN’s post-2015 development strategy, to a large crowd at Brookings.
Eliasson described this year’s meeting of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) as unusually productive. In the current age of “a la carte multilateralism,” there is always a new pressing issue that confronts the international community. Today, such issues as the Syrian refugee crisis, Iran’s nuclear program, and the immigration disaster off the coast of Italy are all part of a day’s work for the UN.
The major discussion at the UNGA this year revolved around Syria. The Assad regime has taken a positive step towards dismantling its chemical weapons arsenal, but “action against chemical weapons is just one step on the road to peace in Syria.” The next step to resolving the conflict lies in increased aid to the millions of people displaced inside and outside the country. In order to tackle this issue, the regime must give the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations access to the people inside Syria’s borders. With 1 million children displaced by the crisis and the cold winter months fast approaching, the time to act is now. Without a ceasefire, the international community can only do so much to help the Syrian people.
The UNGA also saw positive developments with the newly elected Iranian leadership and its nuclear program. Iranian President Rouhani has opened up to the international community since his election, making clear his willingness to negotiate with the P5+1 on the future of the nuclear program. But Eliasson hopes Rouhani’s opening to the West is tested and verified. The sanctions placed on Iran have been successful at crippling the country’s economy, and it will be vital to the negotiations to lift those sanctions only when a significant deal is reached.
Eliasson also discussed the UN Millennium Development goals, which were established in 2000 with the objective of achieving objectives in global health, poverty eradication, education, gender equality, sustainability, and development funding by 2015. With the deadline approaching, the United Nations has made significant progress—global poverty has been cut in half, education for girls in Africa has become more available, and malaria deaths have decreased substantially. But there are also areas that require more attention, such as maternal health, sanitation, and clean drinking water.
As the UN continues to make progress toward the Millennium Development goals, a new set of objectives will look to address sustainability, human rights and rule of law, climate change, and the eradication of extreme poverty. Looking ahead, prevention is going to be key to the success of the UN development agenda. Eliasson said that human rights violations are a major sign that a crisis is imminent. The UN needs to have a way to react quickly to prevent major conflicts.
Reaching into his back pocket to pull out his mini version of the UN Charter, Eliasson said he is convinced that there is unharnessed potential in chapter six of the document, “The Pacific Settlement of Disputes.” It highlights the use of diplomacy, in contrast to chapter seven’s possible use of military force. The military actions of the last decade have caused people to become numb to the effects of the use of force. We have forgotten about the benefits of diplomatic negotiations. Eliasson ended by sharing his four reasons why diplomacy succeeds or fails:
- The careful use of words can make or break diplomatic talks. Words are the diplomat’s most important tool.
- Timing is key. We most often do things too late.
- Everyone involved in negotiations must be culturally sensitive, by respecting the culture, history, and traditions of the groups involved.
- Personal relations are the most important aspect to diplomacy.
Trust is vital. It is crucial to create and build upon personal relationships in order to succeed. Eliasson has practiced what he preaches.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Sweet reason
Former Serbian Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic stopped by SAIS yesterday afternoon to talk about the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC), the Balkans organization that took over the legacy of the Stability Pact. That was the organization launched in 1999 to give the Balkans “a European perspective.” A solid anti-nationlist who began his distinguished career in Belgrade’s Center for Antiwar Action (we are talking Milosevic’s time), Goran was a member of the Civic Alliance, foreign minister 2000-2004, an official of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and a consistent voice of reason in a part of the world that has known its share of madness.
Sweet reason was what he dispensed here. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ever thus
Last Thursday afternoon’s star-studded academic panel at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) convened to “reconsider” democratic transitions focused mainly on the Arab uprisings since early 2011. The only solid conclusion–offered with a smile and a nod to NED President Carl Gershman in the front row–was that NED should get more money, which wasn’t surprising given the its strong links to the panelists and moderator Marc Plattner. But the discussion raised lots of issues, as academics like to do.
Donald Horowitz, now at NED as a fellow, views “transition” not as a paradigm or a model but rather as a category. Quick to say “pactology,” the dependence of transitions on political pacts, had been carried too far, he underlined two propositions:
- The “tyranny of starting conditions”: the course of transitions depends a great deal on the context in which they occur;
- The “fortuity of early institutional choices”: this is in a way a corollary of the first proposition that underlines the importance of first elections, like the Egyptian presidential runoff won by Morsi, or the underrepresentation of Cyrenaica in Libya’s Grand National Congress.
Predictions, Horowitz suggested, are bound to be lousy because of the difficulty of understanding all the many variables involved in determining the course of a transition, including the starting conditions. Standard “best practices” like transparency and public participation in constitution-making (in favor of which there is not a scintilla of evidence), are also a mistake, because context matters.
Stanford’s Larry Diamond was keener on the importance of political pacts and less keen on the importance of starting conditions. As Burma suggests, the only real precondition for a democratic transition is a set of elites who want it for the state they control. Yemen is moving in the right direction with a lot of UN support. Egypt might benefit from a neutral mediator who is able to convince the conflicting elites there to abandon their “winner take all” approach. The focus in transition should be on the capacity to deliver services to the population, whose commitment to democracy is an important factor in driving a transition in that direction. Consolidation is an important idea, but it does not rule out decay. There are democracies that deteriorate, so continued assistance is necessary, beyond what is normally done. American leadership is important, but it should be more often embedded in a multilateral context like the Community of Democracies.
Frank Fukuyama, also Stanford, thought consolidation not a useful concept. Decay is always possible. What counts is institutionalization. In the early stages, formal constraints on power are not as important as those imposed by social mobilization. Democracy assistance like that provided by NED should focus less on civil society and more on building up political parties and the public administration, which do not emerge magically out of the kind of mass movements that have produced recent transitions. US influence is decreasing because our own democracy is in trouble and not producing the kind of demonstration effect that it once did.
Striking to observers was the wide gap between this academic discussion and a morning session with greater practitioner involvement. The prominent professors focused on ideas. Practitioners have more questions about how to make things work and produce desirable outcomes. I suppose it will ever be thus. Much as I enjoyed the professorial discussion (I count as one of them these days) I like to think that the gap could be narrowed a bit more than it was.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
To whom it may concern
The Egyptian April 6 Movement yesterday sent around this note, which merits reading:
To whom it may concern, April 6 movement is one of the first movements that fought against Mubarak regime and fought against political corruption and despotism since its inception in 2008 . It’s main purpose was to establish a state based on the principles of freedom, dignity, democracy, justice, equality and citizenship .
April 6 movement had a major role in the spark of January 25, 2011 and the revolution against injustice and corruption. April 6 Movement faced a great challenges and severe attack from the SCAF (Supreme Council of Armed Force) who took power after the resign of Mubarak. The conflict with us started when the movement criticized the ruling military council at that time, which led the military council to start a huge media campaigns and distortion against April 6 movement at that time. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, August 12-16
Just a few events in DC during a quiet mid-August week:
1. Between War & Peace: Do We Need New Tools For Messy Transitions?
| Date | Tuesday, August 13, 2013 |
| Time | 9:30 – 11 a.m. |
| Location | 1111 19th Street NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 |
The office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction issued its final lessons learned report earlier this year. Among the recommendations was a call for establishing a new U.S. Office for Contingency Operations, for planning and implementing the diverse activities required in post-conflict deployments, not necessarily of the scale or purpose of the Iraq situation. Our panel will discuss the requirement for such a capability in the U.S. system, consider options to achieve greater planning and execution effectiveness, and also look at what tools and processes reside in the UN system.
Speakers:
Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
James A. Schear, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Partnership Strategy and Stability Operations
William Durch, Stimson Senior Associate and Co-director of the Future of Peace Operations program
Moderator:
Ellen Laipson, President and CEO, Stimson Center
2. How Perception Dictates Actions in Ambiguous Situations: Game Theory Analysis of the Third North Korean Nuclear Crisis
Jung Joo Kwon, Korea Foundation Junior Scholar, will present the results of her research conducted at the Wilson Center on the third North Korean nuclear crisis. Arguing that the perception of decision-makers plays as an important role in determining policy agenda as factors such as internal, external and systemic settings, Kwon suggests that it is important to analyze how perceptions and images are formed. Game theory provides a valid analytical tool to explore the decision-making process in international relations in general and in the case of North Korea in particular. Through game theory analysis, Kwon identifies the patterns of perception/misperception around the third North Korean nuclear crisis in order to understand the shift of powers and policies at the time.
James Person, Senior Program Associate with the History and Public Policy Program, will chair and comment on Kwon’s discussion.
Jung Joo Kwon is presently a Korea Foundation Junior Scholar in residence at the Wilson Center. Kwon is completing a master’s degree in International Affairs and Governance at the University of St. Gallen St. Gallen, Switzerland, working on a thesis entitled “Escaping Middle Income Trap in Asia through the National Innovative Capacity: Focused on the Case of South Korea.” She previously earned a Master’s of Arts in International Management from the Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University, and a Bachelor’s of Arts in Business Administration from Hanyang University.
Location:
RSS - Posts
