Tag: United States
Territorial claims or good neighbors
Serbian President Nikolic said today:
We are not giving Kosovo away. And [the] Bundestag should think about what kind of a decision it would make if it were about Germany.
This is a good point, whose meaning is precisely the opposite of what Nikolic intended. My guess is that many members of the Bundestag know full well that Germany has given up many territorial claims since 1945: to Alsace-Loraine (now part of France), to the Sudetenland (now part of the Czech Republic), and to a big chunk of Poland. Not to mention its pretensions to rule as an empire over Russia, France, Britain, North Africa and much of the Middle East.
Where would Germany be today if it had not given up these ambitions but instead, like Serbia, continued to maintain them in principle? It would not be the largest and most prosperous member of a large and prosperous Europe, albeit one with current economic and financial problems. It would not have been allowed to return to military prominence. It would not be a key ally of the United States or a major player in the world’s most successful military and political alliance. It likely would have been involved in several more wars and reduced to rubble many times. Or maybe it would have won one of the wars, thus enabling it to preside over an expanded Germany struggling to protect itself from hostile neighbors and domestic insurgency.
So if the Germans ask for Serbia to give up its claim to Kosovo, or at least to the north of Kosovo, it is asking no more than successive German governments have been prepared to do with claims to far more extensive and valuable territory, in order to secure peace and prosperity. Nikolic’s argument might be more compelling if it were addressed to the American Congress, which has presided over vast expansions of territory during the past 225 years or so. But it cuts precisely the opposite way when used against the Germans, who learned the hard way that territory is far less valuable than good neighborly relations.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ten things the president should be doing
Herewith my short list of ten international issues more worthy of presidential attention than the issues that are getting it this week:
- Drones: Apparently the President is preparing to address how and why he uses them soon.
- Syria: Secretary of State Kerry and the Russians are ginning up a peace conference next month, while Moscow strengthens Syrian defenses against Western intervention.
- Iraq: The Syrian war is spilling over and posing serious challenges to the country’s political cohesion.
- Egypt: President Morsi is taking the Arab world’s most populous country in economically and politically ruinous directions.
- Israel/Palestine: With the peace process moribund, the window is closing on the opportunity to reach a two-state outcome.
- Libya: The failure to establish the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force leaves open the possibility of further attacks on Americans (and on the Libyan state).
- Afghanistan: The American withdrawal is on schedule, but big questions remain about what will be left behind.
- Pakistan: Nawaz Sharif’s hat trick provides an opportunity for improved relations, if managed well.
- Iran: once its presidential election is over (first round is June 14, runoff if needed June 21), a last diplomatic effort on its nuclear ambitions will begin.
- All that Asia stuff: North Korean nukes, maritime jostling with China, Trans-Pacific Partnership, transition in Myanmar (how about trying for one in Vietnam?), Japan’s economic and military revival…
In the good old days, presidents in domestic trouble headed out on international trips. Obama doesn’t seem inclined in that direction. He really does want to limit America’s commitments abroad and restore its economy at home. Bless him. But if things get much worse, I’ll bet on a road trip.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
CYA*
I repeat what I said yesterday: “The editing of the Benghazi talking points strikes me as unworthy of a news story on an inside page.” But if you want to understand what happened, here is as clear an account as I have seen, extracted from the emails the White House made public yesterday:
It is not clear who wrote this, but it was sent to Ambassador Susan Rice at the US mission to the UN on September 15 at 1:23 pm, apparently along with the approved talking points for her to use the next day. By way of explication, the SVTS is a classified videoconference, Morell was deputy director of the CIA, Rhodes and McDonough were top White House aides. They deferred to Sullivan at the State Department.
Morell’s “heavy editing hand” shows clearly on the marked up document:
It is clear from the other emails that Tori Nuland at State had objected to some of the items excised, but it is also clear that CIA carried the bulk of the drafting and excising responsibility. This is logical, as the facility in Benghazi was not a normal diplomatic post but principally a CIA facility. CIA had at least as much reason as State to get rid of references to prior warnings and extremists. While the White House deferred to State, CIA did the actual excising.
To make a long story short, this was a CYA* editing job, to which Susan Rice appears to have contributed nothing. She was the unwitting victim of a bureaucratic exercise of no particular interest or merit. Would it not have been better to spend the time and energy wasted on this issue instead on whether the U.S. should have done more to help establish rule of law in Libya after Qaddafi fell? Come to think of it, that would still be a good question on which to expend some time and effort.
*For my non-American readers, that’s “cover your ass.”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What me worry?
I have a skeptical reaction to the current Washington scandals. The editing of the Benghazi talking points strikes me as unworthy of a news story on an inside page. Why is the Internal Revenue Service’s close scrutiny of a flood of patriotic “tea party” registrations not viewed as a rigorous effort to carry out its mandate in the face of potentially fraudulent tax exemptions? How come politicians who called for vigorous prosecution of the AP leak of information about a foiled terrorist plot are now upset that the Justice Department is pursuing the investigation with vigor?
These are not Watergate-league affairs, yet. No one has connected the President to any of them. He referred to the Benghazi incident as a terrorist attack the next day. The inspector general at the IRS found no evidence of White House involvement, even if Washington-based political appointees did know about the matter. The AP investigation is a Justice Department responsibility, from which the Attorney General recused himself because the FBI had at one point questioned him as a possible source of the leak.
The IRS affair is potentially the most serious of these scandals. The inspector general’s report documents mismanagement in responding to a sharp increase in applications for tax exemptions from Tea Party and other right wing groups. What it does not show is whether this response was out of the ordinary. Would a sharp increase in environmental organization applications for tax exemption have triggered a similar response? No one should be unhappy to see the IRS closely scrutinizing organizations that ask for tax exemptions. I might even crack a smile to hear tea partiers suggesting that the IRS should have hired more employees if it had trouble reviewing all the applications for tax exemptions. It is is the implied political bias, still unproven, that is most disturbing.
Massaging of talking points is a bureaucratic art unworthy of serious attention. Susan Rice should have known better than to use them.
The AP leak is troubling mainly because a government investigation of this sort could have a chilling effect on confidential sources for journalists. But I confess to surprise that confidential informants are still using telephones to spill the beans, or even to make appointments to spill the beans. And it would be best if the culprit were found.
No one is (yet) blaming the Administration for the military’s various sexual abuse scandals, which seem somehow to involve disproportionately those responsible for preventing sexual abuse. Fixing the culture from which these incidents grow will not be easy.
Yesterday’s international embarrassment came in Moscow. The Russians appear to have caught a CIA agent red-handed in an attempt to recruit a Russian agent of their Federal Security Service. Rarely does Moscow go so far as to release video of an agent with his bozotic tradecraft tools: wigs, eyeglasses, a map of Moscow. He lacked only false moustaches. This does not bode well for budding cooperation with the Russians on Syria, though it likely won’t derail their help with the withdrawal from Afghanistan or their participation in the nuclear talks with Iran.
The news media are delighted that so much is happening to embarrass the Obama administration at a time when other news is lacking. The president was already on the ropes. Gun background checks have failed in Congress, immigration reform at best is moving slowly, and the budget won’t be ripe for serious negotiation until the Feds bump up against the budget ceiling again in the fall. This is weeks later than anticipated, as revenues are running ahead of projections and the deficit falling more rapidly than anticipated. I’ll let you know when someone decides to celebrate that.
The international significance of all this is that it puts the administration off balance in dealing with foreign policy issues. A president who had convinced Congress to pass gun background checks, could be confident Congress would pass immigration reform and could hope for a budget deal would be in a stronger position internationally as well as domestically. It would be even better if the president were not defending himself from charges of downplaying terrorism, using the IRS to discomfit his domestic opponents and infringing on freedom of the press.
There are serious international questions out there requiring American leadership. Will it be possible to move ahead on a Middle East peace process that stalled in Obama’s first term? Will Russia and the US find a way to manage a political process to end the Syrian civil war? Can the administration bring to conclusion big Atlantic and Pacific trade agreements? Will Afghanistan survive the withdrawal of the Americans and their international coalition partners from combat roles? Can the administration somehow end nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran without military action?
So yes, I do worry, even if Alfred E. Neuman would advise against it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Guatemala leads, will anyone follow?
The genocide conviction of general and coup leader Efraín Ríos Montt for his scorched earth campaign against the Ixil Mayans is remarkable in the Guatemalan context. More than 30 years after his cruel campaign of extermination, which murdered 5.5% of their population, a Guatemalan court sentenced the 86-year-old dictator to 80 years in prison and ordered the Guatemalan government to make “fair restitution” by asking the Ixil Mayans for forgiveness and making available public funds. It’s not over. Ríos Montt is expected to appeal.
The conviction is also remarkable in the international context. This is the first time a head of state (de facto, not de jure) has been convicted of genocide in his own country.
But what effect will this have? Is Adama Dieng, the UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide, justified in hoping this case sets an example to countries “that have failed to hold accountable those individuals responsible for serious and massive human rights violations.”
I doubt it. I might hope that President Omar al Bashir of Sudan will be tried one day in a Sudanese court, but it seems highly unlikely. I might hope even more that President Bashar al Asad of Syria be tried in Damascus, but the odds aren’t good for that either. I doubt one-tenth of those tried and convicted in The Hague at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia over the past 20 years would have been tried in their home countries, and possibly many fewer.
The more interesting question is how chiefs of state will behave in response to the Guatemalan decision. Will they constrain their genocidal instincts? Will they be more careful about claiming to control their troops? Will their lieutenants refuse to carry out orders? Will they outsource murder to paramilitaries? There are many ways of evading what happened to Ríos Montt, who left not only lots of documentation but even video of himself claiming to have complete command of the Guatemalan military.
Ríos Montt was popular in Washington with President Reagan. He was, after all, supposedly fighting Communists, which in the Central America of the 1980s could get you a blank check to do just about anything you wanted. Things have changed, but of course American support for leaders who torture and kill alleged Al Qaeda enemies is still with us. It isn’t genocide, but it isn’t pretty either. A good deal of effort goes into making sure we don’t get the full picture, including about our own government’s misdeeds.
This brings me to where I started: the Guatemalans have done themselves proud. But whether they have set a good precedent, or discouraged others from misbehavior, will be determined by what brave people in other countries, including our own, do to follow the Guatemalan lead. I’m not confident others can match their lead.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks May 13-17
1. Exploring Tunisia’s Investment Climate, Monday, May 13 / 11:00am – 12:30pm, Aspen Institute
Venue: Aspen Institute, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036
SPEAKERS: Don De Amicis, Daniela Gressani, Ziad Oueslati, Tom Speechley
Two years after the revolution, Tunisia’’s economy is at a turning point. The new government is struggling to address high levels of continued unemployment, while trying to attract increased international investment. With unemployment at 17% nation-wide and 30% in the interior, Tunisia must create jobs and investment in key sectors such as hospitality, agriculture, energy and technology. Partners for a New Beginning welcomes you to join us for a discussion on the opportunities and challenges to Tunisia’’s economic future. Panelists will explore the role of the international community and local government and private sector in supporting Tunisia’’s economic transition.
Register for the event here:
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/2013/05/13/exploring-tunisias-investment-climate
2. Egypt’s Litigious Transition, Monday, May 13 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm , Atlantic Council
Venue: Atlantic Council of the United States, 1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
SPEAKERS: Mahmoud Hamad, Yussef Auf
The judiciary has profoundly shaped Egypt’s transition by prosecuting former regime figures, restructuring government institutions, and reshaping a fluid legal framework. Judges blocked executive orders and dissolved the Islamist dominated parliament, drawing the ire of Islamist forces in power who now view the judiciary as a political enemy. Legal maneuvering, such as President Mohamed Morsi’s replacement of the prosecutor general and the Islamist led Shura Council’s debate over a judicial authority law that would severely curtail judicial influence, has heightened tensions between the judges and the government. What implications does this dynamic hold for the future of Egypt’s transition? Does the judiciary exert a moderating influence over the political process or has hyper-partisanship tainted its objectivity? Please join us for a discussion of these issues with Mahmoud Hamad, author of the new Atlantic Council issue brief, Egypt’s Litigious Transition, and Yussef Auf, a nonresident fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center.
Register for the event here:
http://www.acus.org/event/egypts-litigious-transition
3. Building on Progress in Afghanistan: 2014 and Beyond, Monday, May 13 / 2:00pm – 3:00pm , Center for Strategic and International Studies
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006
B1 Conference Center
SPEAKERS: Ajay Chhibber
Ajay Chhibber is United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and UNDP Assistant Administrator in UNDP’s Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific, managing UNDP programs in 39 countries, including Afghanistan. Representing UNDP’s unique perspective on development in Afghanistan, Mr. Chhibber will discuss the challenges and opportunities for Afghanistan’s development, particularly with the 2014 transition approaching.
Despite obvious shortcomings and many setbacks, Afghanistan has seen significant progress that is often overlooked in discourse on the future of the country. For instance, in just a decade, the number of mobile phones in Afghanistan has increased from zero to over 18 million. Meanwhile, some 3 million girls are attending schools in Afghanistan today-whereas under Taliban rule girls’ education was outlawed.
Please RSVP to PPD@csis.org.
4. Diaspora Engagement: Bridge-Building in Southeast Europe Roundtable, Monday, May 13 / 2:30pm – 6:00pm, United Macedonian Diaspora
Venue: United Macedonian Diaspora, 1510 H Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, D.C.
SPEAKERS: Ambassador Josko Paro, Ambassador Srdjan Darmanovic, Tyson Barker, Robert Benjamin, Steven Bucci, Robert Hand, Ivana Howard
The Third Annual Southeast Europe Coalition Roundtable is being held in conjunction with the Third Annual U.S. Department of State’s Global Diaspora Forum (GDF). It is estimated that over five million Americans claim ancestry from Southeast Europe, or what is commonly known as the Balkans. Keeping in mind with this years GDF theme “Where Ideas Meet Action,” the Southeast Europe Coalition hopes to bring together diplomats, think tank experts, and Diaspora leaders to engage in an open discussion on current trends in the region, as well as how the Diaspora can build bridges among themselves and with U.S. and Southeast Europe stakeholders.
RSVP to:
amilovanovic@umdiaspora.org
5. Conflict Assessment: Comparing Research Methods and Conceptual Frameworks’, Tuesday, May 14 / 9:30am – 11:30am , Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS – Nitze Building, 1740 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Kenney Auditorium
SPEAKERS: Dayna Brown, Neil Levine, Bruce Hemmer, Paul Turner, Lisa Schirch
Dayna Brown, director of the Listening Project at CDA Collaborative Learning; Neil Levine, director of the Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation in USAIDs Office of Democracy and Governance; Bruce Hemmer, a research analyst at the Office of Learning and Training of the U.S. Department of States Bureau for Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO); Paul Turner, a CSO policy analyst; and Lisa Schirch founding director of the Alliance for Peacebuildings 3P Human Security program, will discuss this topic. Note: SAIS will host a live Webcast for this event.
Register for the event here:
http://sais-jhu.edu/events/2013-05-14-093000-2013-05-14-113000/conflict-assessment-comparing-research-methods-and
6. American Foreign Policy in Retreat? A Discussion with Vali Nasr, Tuesday, May 14 / 9:30am – 11:00am, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
SPEAKERS: Martin S. Indyk, Vali Nasr, Robert Kagan
For the past decade, a debate has raged about the future of American power and foreign policy engagement. In his new book, The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat (Knopf Doubleday Publishing, 2013), Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Vali Nasr questions America’s choice to lessen its foreign policy engagement around the world. Nasr argues that after taking office in 2009, the Obama administration let fears of terrorism and political backlash confine its policies to that of the previous administration, instead of seizing the opportunity to fundamentally reshape American foreign policy over the past four years. Meanwhile, China and Russia – rivals to American influence globally – were quietly expanding their influence in places where the U.S. has long held sway. Nasr argues that the Obama administration’s foreign policy decision making could have potentially dangerous outcomes, and, what’s more, sells short America’s power and role in the world.
On May 14, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host Vali Nasr for a discussion on the state of U.S. power globally and whether American foreign policy under the Obama administration is in retreat. Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Kagan will join the discussion, which will be moderated by Vice President Martin Indyk, director of Foreign Policy.
Register for the event here:
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2013/05/14-dispensable-nation-american-foreign-policy?rssid=UpcomingEvents&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BrookingsRSS%2Ftopfeeds%2FUpcomingEvents+%28Brookings+Upcoming+Events%29
7. Drone Wars: Counterterrorism and Human Rights, Tuesday, May 14 / 12:15pm – 1:45pm , New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
SPEAKERS: Ben Emmerson, Peter Bergen
On March 15, Ben Emmerson, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism, released a statement that categorically declared the CIA drone program a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. That statement followed three days of secret meetings with Pakistani officials, who told Emmerson that they had confirmed 400 civilian deaths in drone strikes since the program began in 2004.
In Pakistan, popular support for CIA drone strikes is virtually non-existent. Although public opinion in favor of drone strikes remains quite high in the United States, the targeted killing campaign has come under increasing fire of late from human rights organizations, Congress, and even former U.S. government officials. The New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program is pleased to invite you to a conversation with Emmerson about his work investigating human rights violations in the war on terror, particularly in relation to the CIA drone program.
Register for the event here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/drone_wars_human_rights
8. Pakistan’s 2013 Elections: Assessing the Results and Impacts, Tuesday, May 14 / 2:00pm – 3:30pm, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
SPEAKERS: Safiya Ghori-Ahmad, Arif Rafiq, Moeed Yusuf, Andrew Wilder
Pakistan’s general election scheduled for May 11th, 2013, will mark a further milestone in the country’s democratic development. While previous elected governments in Pakistan have completed their full terms in office, and political power has been peacefully transferred, expectations have been high that the 2013 elections would be the most free and fair ever in Pakistan’s history. This is in part due to the greater independence of the Election Commission of Pakistan, as well as the relatively ‘hands off’ role being played by the Pakistan military and intelligence agencies relative to past elections. However, the dramatic increase this past month in attacks by Islamist militant groups on candidates, political party workers and election offices, primarily targeting political parties viewed as ‘secular’ in the Pakistan contest – in particular the Awami National Party (ANP), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) – are now raising serious questions about how free and fair the elections will actually be.
Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace on May 14, 2013 from 2:00pm until 3:30pm, for a panel discussion on the results of Pakistan’s May 11th elections, and the implications of these results for both for Pakistan, as well as U.S.-Pakistan relations. This event will be webcasted live beginning at 2:00pm on May 14.
Register for the event here:
http://www.usip.org/events/pakistans-elections-hopeful-future-or-unstable-one
9. U.S.-Pakistan Security Relations: From 9/11 to 2011, with an Eye on 2014, Tuesday, May 14 / 4:00pm – 5:15pm , Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
SPEAKERS: Simbal Khan
Soon after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States and Pakistan entered into a wide-ranging security partnership. The deal ushered in an era of volatile relations between Washington and Islamabad. During her time as the Wilson Centers 2012-13 Pakistan Scholar, Simbal Khan has been researching the U.S.-Pakistan security relationship, and at this event she will highlight her findings. She will also examine what the future may hold for U.S.-Pakistan security ties with the approach of the 2014 international troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Register for the event here:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/us-pakistan-security-relations-911-to-2011-eye-2014
10. U.S. Policy Toward Iran, Wednesday, May 15 / 9:30am , U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Venue: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Constitution Avenue and 1st Street, NE, Washington, DC
Room 419
SPEAKERS: The Honorable Wendy Sherman, The Honorable David S. Cohen
Register for the event here:
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/us-policy-toward-iran-05-15-2013
11. Getting to a Two State Solution: A Regional Perspective, Wednesday, May 15 / 10:00am – 11:30am, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
SPEAKERS: Ghaith Al-Omari, Marwan Muasher, Gilead Sher, Aaron David Miller
Twenty years after the signing of the Oslo Accords, Secretary of State John Kerry,the latest in a series of U.S. envoys,is embarked on a serious effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. How will recent elections in Israel and the resignation of Prime Minister Fayyad influence his prospects? What about the impact of the Iranian nuclear issue and the civil war in Syria? Join us for a discussion with four regional experts with long experience in government, diplomacy, and national security affairs.
Register for the event here:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/getting-to-two-state-solution-regional-perspective
12. A Postmortem on Pakistan’s 2013 Elections, Wednesday, May 15 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm , Middle East Institute
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Choate Room
SPEAKERS: Arif Rafiq, Shamila Chaudhary, Simbal Khan, Daniel Markey, Marvin G. Weinbaum
In the wake of Pakistan’s recently concluded elections, this panel will offer insight and analysis into what the results are likely to mean for the future of the country and region. The speakers will reflect on the possible composition of a new government and the implications of the election for the future of Pakistan’s democratic system. In addition to the election’s domestic ramifications, the panelists will also address the possible effects of the elections for the United States and American foreign policy.
Register for the event here:
http://www.mei.edu/events/postmortem-pakistans-2013-elections
RSS - Posts
