Tag: Turkey

The Cory Remsburg metaphor

The President’s State of the Union speech last night broke little new ground on foreign policy.  He is pleased to be finishing two wars and will resist getting the United States involved in other open-ended conflicts.  He may leave a few troops in Afghanistan to train Afghans and attack terrorists.  Al Qaeda central is largely defeated but its franchises are spreading in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Mali.  He will limit the use of drones, reform surveillance policies and get us off a permanent war footing.  He wants to close Guantanamo, as always, and fix immigration, as always.

He will use diplomacy, especially in trying to block Iran verifiably from obtaining a nuclear weapons and in resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict, but also in destroying Syria’s chemical weapons capability.  He will support the moderate Syrian opposition.  He will veto new Iran sanctions in order to give diplomacy a chance to work, maintain the alliance with Europe, support democracy in Ukraine, development in Africa, and trade and investment across the Pacific.  America is exceptional both because of what it does and because of its ideals.

The President didn’t mention Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia or Japan.  He skipped North Korea too.  His mother must have taught him that when you don’t have anything nice to say you shouldn’t say anything at all.  Those countries might merit mention, but all have in one way or another been doing things that we prefer they not do.  He mentioned China, but only as an economic rival, not a military one.  He skipped the pivot to Asia as well as Latin America.  For my Balkans readers:  you are not even on his screen. Read more

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Peace picks, January 13-17

A bit late, but as good as ever:

1. Battlefield Earth: Reassessing U.S. Responses to Terrorist Threats

Monday, January 13 | 12:15 – 1:45pm

New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW Suite 400

REGISTER TO ATTEND

In 2001, the U.S. Congress authorized the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” This Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) set no limits on time, location, or target.

In just the last 12 months, the AUMF was invoked in support of the war in Afghanistan, but also unconventional operations in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and possibly elsewhere — operations such as targeted killings using drones, raids and captures by U.S. Special Forces, and, in all probability, cyber warfare.

As Heather Hurlburt writes in “Battlefield Earth” in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas’ Winter 2014 issue, out this month: “public debate over the use of force in Syria and the revelations concerning National Security Agency surveillance suggest that Americans are increasingly uncomfortable with actions being undertaken in their name. President Obama appeared to acknowledge this reality in May [2013] when he said he looked forward ‘to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate.’”

With combat in Afghanistan winding down at the end of the year, does the AUMF continue to authorize force against any terror suspect linked to al-Qaeda, anywhere? Will Congress or the Administration move to “refine” or “repeal” it, and if so, how?

Join the New America Foundation’s National Security Program and Democracy for a panel discussion assessing the politics, legal alternatives, and policy implications of a 13-year-old piece of legislation that makes the planet an open-ended battlefield.

Read more

Tags : , , , , , ,

How to stay out of trouble

It would be easy to be pessimistic about 2014.  But as Adam Gopnik cleverly illustrates it is really impossible to know whether we are on the Titanic, destined for disaster, or its twin the Olympic, which plied the seas for two more decades without faltering.

The question is what will keep America out of trouble?  How do we avoid the icebergs of contemporary international relations?  Gopnik suggests avoiding challenges to honor and face and worrying little about credibility or position.  This seems to me wise.  The question of reputation in international affairs is fraught, but anyone of the Vietnam generation will want to be skeptical about claims the United States needs to intervene in the world to prevent its reputation from being sullied or to prove its primacy.

Hubris is the bigger danger.  I, along with many others, don’t like the Obama Administration’s aloof stance towards Syria.  But the least good reason for intervention there is to meet the Russian challenge, reassert primacy in the Arab world or prevent others from thinking America weak.  We are not weak.  We are strong, arguably far stronger than we would have been had we intervened in Syria a year ago and gotten stuck with enhanced responsibilities there.  The reasons for intervention in Syria are more substantial:  the threat of a terror-exporting Sunni extremist regime either in Damascus or in some portion of a partitioned Syria as well as the risk to neighboring states (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Israel) from Syrian collapse. Read more

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The 2013 vintage in the peace vineyard

2013 has been a so-so vintage in the peace vineyard.

The Balkans saw improved relations between Serbia and Kosovo, progress by both towards the European Union and Croatian membership.  Albania managed a peaceful alternation in power.  But Bosnia and Macedonia remain enmired in long-running constitutional and nominal difficulties, respectively.  Slovenia, already a NATO and EU member, ran into financial problems, as did CyprusTurkey‘s long-serving and still politically dominant prime minister managed to get himself into trouble over a shopping center and corruption.

The former Soviet space has likewise seen contradictory developments:  Moldova‘s courageous push towards the EU, Ukraine‘s ongoing, nonviolent rebellion against tighter ties to Russia, and terrorist challenges to the Sochi Winter Olympics. Read more

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jail time

The news is full of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s release from jail of former rival Mikhail Khodorkovsky and members of the punk rock band Pussy Riot.  All concerned were due to be released soon anyway.  Their early release signals that Putin is feeling confident.  Neither Khodorkovsky nor Pussy Riot is likely to mount a serious challenge to his position and power anytime soon.  Russia’s pro-democracy protest movement has withered in the years since it fielded large crowds in Moscow.

Less noticed is the sentencing in Egypt of human rights activists, including my friend Ahmed Maher, to three years hard labor and substantial fines for organizing a demonstration defying a decree issued by the military-backed government that took over after this summer’s coup.  The tough sentences indicate that the military is not confident of its power and position.  It needs high turnout and high approval in the January 14-15 referendum on its recently proposed constitution before it can be certain the secular activists won’t be able to mobilize large protests.  Once their political edge is removed, they too may be released early or even pardoned. Read more

Tags : , , , , , ,

A decent Syrian election: result, not prelude

Jimmy Carter and Robert Pastor propose an election to resolve Syria’s civil war.  They suggest three principles that would have to be accepted as preconditions for negotiating the war’s end:

● Self-determination: The Syrian people should decide on the country’s future government in a free election process under the unrestricted supervision of the international community and responsible nongovernmental organizations, with the results accepted if the elections are judged free and fair;

● Respect: The victors should assure and guarantee respect for all sectarian and minority groups; and

● Peacekeepers: To ensure that the first two goals are achieved, the international community must guarantee a robust peacekeeping force.

And they spell out first steps: Read more

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Tweet