Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
This is called retrenchment
We all anticipated this State of the Union speech would not focus on international issues, but here is my short list of more important things not mentioned or glossed over:
- West Bank settlements (or Palestinians)
- North Korea
- Euro crisis
- Africa or Latin America (not even Cuba),
- Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, virtually no Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen
- China (except as an unfair competitor)
- Turkey, Mexico, Brazil, India or even Russia (except as an emerging market)
- Pakistan (except as an Al Qaeda haven)
- Strait of Hormuz
That’s a pretty spectacular list, even without noting the absence of NATO, Japan, allies, Europe, the UN…
A few notable items that were mentioned:
- Strong on regime change in Syria (putting Assad in the same sentence with Qaddafi could have implications) and on exporting democracy and free markets in general
- Positive about peaceful resolution of the dispute with Iran over nuclear weapons, while keeping all options on the table
- Trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia
- Burma as the hope of the Pacific!
Of course the President also mentioned withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, security cooperation with Israel, blows delivered against Al Qaeda, and the troops (no mention of civilians serving abroad this time around I’m afraid).
If this is a prelude to the campaign, as rightly it should be, it presages an ever more economically focused foreign policy, with security issues narrowed to a few top priorities and little focus on diplomacy except on a few specific issues. This is a vision for restoring American economic strength at home, not increasing–or perhaps even maintaining–its commitments abroad. This is called retrenchment.
PS: I should have mentioned that Richard Haas calls it “restoration.” That’s a more positive word, but the substance is the same.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Governing well is the best revenge
I was asked to speak on a panel this afternoon (2-3 pm) about the evolution of democracy in the Balkans at the AID Democracy and Governance conference at George Washington University. Here are my instructions from the organizers, and the notes I plan to use, though I confess I often depart from them:
Balkans Democracy
GWU, 12 December 2011
Organizers’ instructions: We will be looking for your views on the common challenges and opportunities for democratization within your designated sub-region. What have been the obstacles or inhibitors of democratization? To what extent does the ‘neighborhood’ itself influence possibilities for political liberalization? What are realistic goals and/or scenarios for improvement on democracy and governance in the near to medium term? Are there region-specific approaches that should be considered? What might assistance efforts and democracy, human rights and governance programs do to address key challenges in this sub-region?
1. Looked at in a 20-year time frame, democracy in the Balkans has to be judged as a success.
2. In 1991, Slovenia and Croatia were at war, Bosnia was close, Serbia was a somewhat liberal autocracy, Montenegro and Kosovo were under Milosevic’s thumb, Macedonia was shaky, Albania was just emerging from a miserable dictatorship, Romania and Bulgaria were not much better off.
3. Let me count the ways things have improved: four of these countries are EU members or about to be, five are members of NATO (two more are qualified).
4. Two use the Euro, at least two others have their own currency pegged to the Euro.
5. Only Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia remain in a kind of uncertain transition phase, even if Albania, Romania and Bulgaria continue to have problems meeting European expectations.
6. How did this happen? The big obstacles to democracy disappeared: Tudjman succumbed to natural causes, Milosevic to an election, Ceausescu to execution, the Bulgarian communist regime to a series of see-saw elections.
7. The neighborhood was unquestionably a big influence: Slovenia set out with determination to become an EU member, European and American assistance to Montenegro had a big influence inside Serbia, international intervention worked somewhat well in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Christmas warning and UNPREDEP gave Macedonia the breathing space it needed, Italian assistance saved Albania more than once.
8. Above all: the prospect of membership in NATO and the EU, while sometimes too weak to overcome domestic political strife, has proven a magnet that never entirely stops working, even if it at times seems inadequate.
9. The remaining problems can be solved: Bosnia needs constitutional reform, Serbia needs to acknowledge the loss of Kosovo, Kosovo needs treat its Serbs and other minorities well and reintegrate the north in a cooperative effort with Belgrade.
10. There is no reason why all those who want to be NATO members should not be within five years.
11. For the EU, it will take longer: Montenegro in less than 5 years, Serbia and Albania in 5-10 years, Kosovo in 15 and Bosnia in 10 years from whenever it fixes its constitution.
12. The best assistance efforts can do now is to support civil society, in particular watchdog functions.
13. However long it takes, whatever the obstacles and disappointments, governing well is the best revenge.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Next week’s “peace picks”
1. Looking to the Future of Pakistan
Event Information
When
Monday, December 05, 2011
2:00 PM to 4:00 PM
Where
Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC
Map
Email: events@brookings.edu
Phone: 202.797.6105
RELATED CONTENT
Out of the Nuclear Loop
Stephen P. Cohen
The New York Times
February 16, 2004
Armageddon in Islamabad
Bruce Riedel
The National Interest
July/August 2009
The Pakistan Time Bomb
Stephen P. Cohen
The Washington Post
July 3, 2007
2:00 PM — Opening Remarks
Stephen P. Cohen
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, 21st Century Defense Initiative
2:10 PM — Panel 1 – Paradoxical Pakistan
Moderator: Teresita C. Schaffer
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, 21st Century Defense Initiative
C. Christine Fair
Assistant Professor
Georgetown University
William Milam
Senior Scholar
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Shuja Nawaz
Director, South Asia Center
The Atlantic Council
Moeed Yusuf
South Asia Adviser
U.S. Institute of Peace
3:10 PM — Panel 2 – Pakistan: Where To?
Moderator: John R. Schmidt
Professorial Lecturer
The George Washington University
Pamela Constable
Staff Writer
The Washington Post
Bruce Riedel
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
Marvin Weinbaum
Scholar-in-Residence
Middle East Institute
Joshua T. White
Ph.D. Candidate
Johns Hopkins University, SAIS
2. Which Way Forward for Egypt?
New America Foundation
Washington, DC 20036
Egypt’s first parliamentary elections since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak began on November 28th. The vote for the People’s Assembly will stretch over six weeks into January 2012.
An outpouring of enthusiastic voters has for the moment raised a note of optimism in Egypt. Yet following days of mass protest over the military’s continued rule, state violence, and deepening political and social polarization, it appears that Egypt’s transition will be long and rocky.
Join us for a conversation co-hosted by the Egyptian American Rule of Law Association about the election’s impact, transitional prospects, and implications for the wider MENA region and U.S. foreign policy.
A light lunch will be served.
Participants
Featured Speakers
Randa Fahmy
Vice President, Egyptian American Rule of Law Association
Nathan Brown
Professor, Political Science & International Affairs, George Washington University
Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Michael Wahid Hanna
Fellow, The Century Foundation (will have just returned from Egypt)
Moderator
Leila Hilal
Co-Director, Middle East Task Force
New America Foundation
3. Islamist Terrorism and Democracy in the Middle East
A Book Launch for a USIP-funded study by Katerina Dalacoura
Wednesday, December 7 from 3:00-4:30
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Choate Room
1779 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20036
The putative relationship between political repression and terrorism remains a matter of active debate in scholarly and policymaking circles. Based on investigations into individual Islamist movements and the political environments in which they operate, this study assesses whether the emergence of Islamist terrorism is linked to the absence of political participation and repression.
The U.S. Institute of Peace is pleased to sponsor an in-depth discussion with Dalacoura centered on her recently-published work.
Funded by a grant from USIP, the volume draws on a series of case studies that include al Qa’eda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Groupe Islamique Armé, Gamaa Islamiyya, the Jordanian and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhoods, the Tunisian Nahda Movement, the Turkish Justice and Development Party, and Iranian Islamist movements.
“Drawing on her deep knowledge of Middle East politics, Dalacoura powerfully challenges past assumptions about a simple link between democratic deficits and the spread of Islamist terrorism,” said Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Conceptually rigorous, empirically rich, incisive and searching, this is a major study.”
Speakers
- Daniel Brumberg, Chair
U.S. Institute of Peace - Katerina Dalacoura, Author
London School of Economics and Political Science - Dafna Rand
Department of State - Eric Goldstein
Human Rights Watch
4. The Arab Spring: Implications for US Policy and Interests
A publication launch and discussion featuring
Allen Keiswetter
Charles Dunne
Amb. Art Hughes
Thursday, December 8, 2011
12:00pm-1:30pm
SEIU Building, Room 2600
2nd Floor
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
*Please note that this event is not being held at MEI. An ID is required for entrance into the building.*
Thursday, December 8, 2011
9:00 AM – 4:30 PM
Grand Ballroom, 3rd Floor
Marvin Center, 800 21st Street, NW
To mark International Human Rights Day 2011, George Washington University, the UN Global Compact US Network, and the US Institute of Peace will host a one day conference on the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. These principles, approved by the UN Human Rights Council in June, are designed to help business monitor its human rights impact. These guidelines clarified both the human rights responsibilities of states and firms and made them clear and actionable. Our speakers, representing business, civil society, the US Government, and academia, will focus on practical approaches to implementing the Guiding Principles (the GPs).
9:00-9:10 – Welcoming Remarks
Stephen C. Smith, Professor of Economics and International Affairs; Director, Institute for International Economic Policy, GW
Dave Berdish, Manager of Sustainable Business Development, Ford Motor Company
9:10-9:45 – “Why Firms Should Advance Human Rights: Manpower’s Approach”
David Arkless, President, Corporate and Government Affairs, ManpowerGroup
9:45-11:15 – Panel 1 – “Addressing the Problems of Slavery and Human Trafficking”
Brenda Schultz, Manager of Responsible Business, Carlson Hotels Worldwide Samir Goswami, Director of Corporate Responsibility, Rule of Law, Lexis Nexis
Jean Baderscheider, Vice President, Global Procurement, Exxon Mobil
Indika Samarawickreme, Executive Director, Free the Slaves
Moderator:
Pamela Passman, President and CEO, CREATe
11:15-11:30 – Coffee Break
11:30-1:00 – Panel 2 – “How Business Should Operate in Conflict Zones”
Bennett Freeman, Senior Vice President for Social research and Policy, Calvert Group
Charlotte Wolff, Corporate Responsibility Manager, Arcellor Mittal
Olav Ljosne, Regional Director of Communications, Africa, Shell Corporation
Moderator:
Raymond Gilpin, Director, Center for Sustainable Economies, U.S. Institute of Peace
1:00-2:15 – Luncheon Keynote
Ursula Wynhoven, General Counsel, UN Global Compact
Gerald Pachoud, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary General, UN and former Senior Advisor, Special Representative on Business and Human Rights
2:15-3:45 – Panel 3: General Implementation of the Guiding Principles Is it difficult to get buy in? Is it costly? What recommendations or roadblocks have you found?
Mark Nordstrom, Senior Labor & Employment Counsel, General Electric
Dave Berdish, Manager of Sustainable Business
Brenda Erskine, Director of Stakeholder and Community Relationships, Suncor
Meg Roggensack, Senior Advisor for Business and Human Rights, Human Rights First
Moderator:
Susan Aaronson, Associate Research Professor of International Affairs, GW
3:45-4:30 – General Discussion: What should policymakers do to encourage adoption of the GPs?
RSVP at: http://tiny.cc/guidingprinciples
Sponsored by Institute for International Economic Policy, U.S. Institute for Peace, U.N. Global Compact, and the U.S. Network
- Start: Friday, December 9, 2011 4:30 PM
End: Friday, December 9, 2011 6:00 - You are cordially invited to a book lecture with author Daniel R. Green for his new book
The Valley’s Edge: A Year with the Pashtuns in the Heartland of the Taliban Friday, December 9
4:30 PMThe Institute of World Politics
1521 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036 - Please RSVP to kbridges@iwp.edu.This event is sponsored by IWP’s Center for Culture and Security.
About the author
Daniel R. Green is a Soref Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and is pursuing a PhD in political science at the George Washington University. For his work in Afghanistan in 2005-2006, he received the U.S. Department of State’s Superior Honor Award, the U.S. Army’s Superior Civilian Honor Award, and a personal letter of commendation from then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace. He has also received the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Exceptional Public Service Award and in 2007 served with the U.S. military in Fallujah, Iraq. He lives in Washington, D.C.
About the book
In this gripping, firsthand account, Daniel Green tells the story of U.S. efforts to oust the Taliban insurgency from the desolate southern Afghan province of Uruzgan. Nestled between the Hindu Kush mountains and the sprawling wasteland of the Margow and Khash Deserts, Uruzgan is a microcosm of U.S. efforts to prevent Afghanistan from falling to the Taliban insurgency and Islamic radicalism.
Green, who served in Uruzgan from 2005 to 2006 as a U.S. Department of State political adviser to a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT), reveals how unrealistic expectations, a superficial understanding of the Afghans, and a lack of resources contributed to the Taliban’s resurgence in the area. He discusses the PRT’s good-governance efforts, its reconstruction and development projects, the violence of the insurgency, and the PRT’s attempts to manage its complex relationship with the local warlord cum governor of the province.
Upon returning to Afghanistan in 2009 with the U.S. military and while working at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul until 2010, Green discovered that although many improvements had been made since he had last served in the country, the problems he had experienced in Uruzgan continued despite the transition from the Bush administration to the Obama administration.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Zimbabwe: peaceful transition?
One more interesting session at the Achebe Colloquium today at Brown. The original subtitle was “Prospects for a Stable Democracy or Dictatorship.” Robert Rotberg proposed the refocus to peaceful transition, which seems to me right. One way or another the Mugabe dictatorship is finished.
Alex Vines, Chatham House: The economy is improved (inflation down), but the political situation is highly uncertain. The peace agreement of 2008 has run its course. Any election by 2013 will be a tight contest. Mugabe, now 89, likely to stand again (!). SADC (the Southern African Development Community) is underperforming economically, which is one reason South Africa is engaging on Zimbabwe. SADC election observers are a good idea.
Blair Rutherford, Carleton University: Who opposes democratic state? “Those with horns are hard to hide behind grass”: security forces, diamond and land tycoons, dominant culture of national politics (“politics is war”). These forces will continue to shape the results.
John Campbell, Council on Foreign Relations: Elections in Zimbabwe will likely occur in the first half of 2012, followed by bloodletting. What does the U.S. do to avoid this? American leverage is weak, maybe nonexistent. Zimbabwe is a marginal issue in Washington. Zimbabwe does however impinge on South Africa, where demands for expropriation of white-owned land are growing. Washington should be engaging with South Africa, SADC and China. American NGOs and U.S. government should object to Mugabe’s exclusion of international election observers. USG should commit to holding individuals perpetrating electoral violence accountable. This would be a policy of skim milk: words and symbols, no sticks and stones.
Robert Rotberg, Harvard: The dictatorship will not continue in its current form. We need a strengthened dialogue and accountability, as suggested by Campbell. What is happening that suggests a peaceful transition is possible? Eighty-ninety per cent of the country supports MDC (Movement for Democratic Change), which has serious talent able to run a democracy. ZANU-PF (Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front, Mugabe’s political party) loses in anything like a fair election. The country has diamonds and infrastructure, even if it has lost two-thirds of its GDP per capita. Still it has the best-educated population in Africa. SADC is more active, Mugabe is aging and ill, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is interested. But Mugabe is still alive and killing his opposition, corruption is rife, diamonds make it possible, the Chinese help ZANU-PF, media are government controlled, there is no constitution, ZANU-PF will is experienced and accomplished at rigging elections (especially the count). Net assessment: at best mildly hopeful, until SADC takes a firmer stand.
Chitsaka Chipaziwa, Zimbabwe ambassador to the UN: No-show. No surprise.
Vivian Nkechinyere Enomoh, Nigerian Independent Electoral Commission: Need truly independent electoral commission, fully funded by the international community.
Emeka Anyaoku, Former Secretary General The Commonwealth: Speaking from the floor, he underlined the historical role of Mugabe, the centrality of the land issue and the resulting support for Mugabe both inside Zimbabwe and in the rest of Africa. It is not clear that he will lose the election. Chinua Achebe concurred in that view.
Bottom line: Prospects for free and fair elections and peaceful transition are uncertain. It is up to AU, SADC and the Chinese to counter ZANU-PF securicrats and ensure it happens.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Responding to the Islamist wave
Islamists have now won pluralities in recent Tunisia, Morocco and the first round of the Egyptian elections. There is every reason to believe they will continue to do well in Egypt and in Libya. How should the U.S. and Europe respond?
Calmly. It is not surprising that relatively well-organized Islamists, who for decades led often underground opposition to nominally secularist and nationalist autocrats in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya (and to the monarchy in Morocco), are doing well in the first sort-of free and fair elections. Yes, relatively secularist youth led the protests earlier this year, but they are not reaping the electoral fruits. There has not been nearly enough time for them to organize, and in Egypt they have been more inclined to protest in Tahrir than to get out to the hustings. Secularism, stained by autocrats and often viewed as synonymous with atheism (not only in Muslim countries), faces a long uphill struggle. Separation of mosque and state is not even on the horizon.
In Tunisia and Morocco, the parties winning pluralities seem determined to avoid the worst excesses of Islamism, but there are going to be constant tussles over veiling, alcohol, status of women and other religious/social issues. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has also been toeing a relatively moderate line, but the far less moderate and Salafist Nour party is also doing well. In all three countries, at least some of the Islamists would like to imitate the success of the ruling Turkish Islamists, who have managed to gain a clear majority by moderating their once more militant views.
The Islamists who do well this year will have an enormous challenge ahead of them, as economic conditions are going to be difficult. This may force some degree of moderation, or at least reduce the saliency of social/religious issues and give secularists some time to get their act together.
The key battleground in my view will be rule of law. Rule of law is where secular regimes in Muslim countries have most obviously failed. It is also the area where many Muslims regard Islamists as offering a credible alternative.
Islamists think Sharia should be the basis of law in Muslim countries, as in fact it nominally was even under supposedly secular autocrats. The question is one of degree and interpretation. If Europe and the United States want the 2011 Arab spring to result in democratic regimes that respect human rights and see eye to eye with the West, they are going to need to engage seriously on rule of law issues. This would mean helping the judiciaries of these countries to rid themselves of corruption and enabling them to establish the kind of independence from executive authority and moderate interpretations of Sharia that might lead to legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
Sincere secularists have advantages in this struggle for hearts and minds. The more than 50 per cent of the population that is female cannot expect equal rights under the more extreme interpretations of Sharia. It is hard to picture the substantial middle classes of Tunisia or Morocco accepting public stoning of adulterers. Egypt’s Christian minority will want a more moderate legal regime.
But to take advantage of these advantages, secularists and more moderate Islamists will need to regroup after these elections and get serious about protecting individual human rights and independence of the judiciary. Their friends in the West should provide support.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Even bad elections may beat none at all
While some worry that an “undemocratic party” will win Egypt’s parliamentary elections and others worry about violence and irregularities in presidential and parliamentary elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), it appears that the voting in both countries Monday and Tuesday went off unexpectedly well.
That is a low bar. There were lots of problems of course–names missing from voter rolls, missing, confusing and inaccurate ballots, campaigning too near polling places, paying for votes–but violence was relatively minor and people were clearly enjoying the opportunity to register their preferences. We of course have to await the considered judgment of observers, and there are several more rounds to go, but it is looking as if this first phase of elections in Egypt will be credible. DRC is less certain. Four opposition presidential candidates have already rejected the results, but Kabila’s main opponent, Etienne Tshisekedi wa Mulumba, has not yet spoken. He seems still to harbor hopes of winning.
If it happens, something like credible elections in these two countries would be excellent news, whoever wins.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt certainly advocates things I find distasteful, including applications of sharia that are blatant violations of human rights. But that does not really make them undemocratic. It wasn’t so long ago in the United States that politicians regularly advocated segregation, which we now recognize as a blatant human rights violation. I shouldn’t even mention capital punishment.
DRC President Joseph Kabila, who is likely to win the first-past-the-post contest in DRC for a second term, is also not my kind of guy. In office for 10 years, he has not managed to move DRC from its unenviable position at the very bottom of the development scale. But what counts now is not the results but the process, which for the first time is being administered by the DRCers themselves. If the population believes the election was even remotely acceptable, that would be a big step forward.
I’m not keen on elections as a way of solving problems. Egypt will have just as many next week as it had last week, as will DRC. But as a marker of change, and an opportunity for citizens to participate and express their preferences, elections have virtue. Just look at Burma: its grossly unfree and unfair elections in 2010 have opened the door to reforms that were unthinkable only a few years before. Even bad elections may beat none at all.
RSS - Posts
