Tag: United States
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:
Covering CIA’s rear
Yesterday’s hearing on the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans last September 11/12 failed to live up to hyped expectations. Republicans are trying to demonstrate higher-level culpability for not foreseeing the attack, for its consequences, and for Susan Rice’s television appearances claiming it grew out of a demonstration and was not necessarily a terrorist attack.
Let me make clear from the start: as soon as I heard Ambassador Rice’s account, I knew it was wrong. So did the President, as he demonstrated in the third debate with Mitt Romney. He had already referred to it several days before Ambassador Rice’s appearances as a terrorist attack. And I disagree with Hillary Clinton, who asked “what difference does it make?” when testifying in Congress. Of course it makes a difference whether the attack was a demonstration that went bad or a concerted terrorist act.
The higher-level culpability for the inadequate physical security at the Benghazi facility has already been established in the report of the Accountability and Review Board. Diplomatic Security, the responsible part of the State Department, has moved several people as a result. That may not be sufficient, but it is hard to imagine that culpability for the height of the perimeter wall or the strength of the exterior gate extends to the Secretary of State. There are few American diplomatic facilities anywhere in the world that could withstand an attack like the one that occurred in Benghazi. But in most other places we can rely on the host government security forces to respond.
If you want to hold someone responsible for not foreseeing the attack, best to focus on the Ambassador himself. He met with a Libyan political science professor that morning who had given me a few months before a thorough account of the radical groups in the Cyrenaica region (in which Benghazi is the principal metropolis). I have no doubt the professor would have been at least as forthcoming with Chris Stevens, who will have spoken to him in Arabic, than he was to me in English. But knowing that there are extremists in the region and anticipating an attack on a particular day are of course two different things.
The understandably emotional testimony of the deputy chief of mission (DCM) revealed little. Yes, he had asked for military support, but it was not available in a time frame that would have been meaningful. I dread to think what would have happened had the four special forces people available arrived from Tripoli in time to confront the dozens of attackers in Benghazi. The death toll might have been higher. But there was no way to get them there in time. The DCM may have assumed it was a terrorist attack, but he knew little about it and only found out the Ambassador was dead when the Libyan prime minister told him so. The embassy had thought him alive in a hospital.
The Republicans’ best shot at higher level responsibility arises from Susan Rice’s press appearances. She used cleared talking points. Why would she be given talking points that denied terrorist involvement, or at least offered a different explanation?
I don’t of course know. But the Weekly Standard has published what I take to be an accurate account, with various drafts of the talking points. In this, it is clear that CIA made the changes, the Weekly Standard would have you believe in response to State Department pressure. But that is an interpretation. It would be unusual. If State wants changes, it usually suggests them itself.
CIA had its own reasons to reduce the references to extremists in the talking points. The Benghazi facility was mainly a CIA station, not a consulate. The State Department presence there was mid-level and minimal. Fig leaf is the phrase that comes to mind. The former prime minister of Libya (the same one who called the ambassador’s deputy that night) told me a couple of months ago that the Libyans had no idea how many people were at the facility, which was known to the Libyan government but undeclared. They were astonished to discover that it was dozens.
CIA would not want it known publicly that terrorists had without warning attacked a place that housed dozens of its personnel. What are they supposed to be doing if not detecting such efforts? CIA stations are nominally secret. No one would want to acknowledge this one (and to my knowledge no one explicitly has).
So what we’ve got here may include still unproven high-level distortion of the facts, but it likely also includes bureaucratic tail-covering. I’ll know Congress is conducting serious oversight when it calls responsible CIA officials who made the changes and cleared Susan Rice’s talking points to testify. Chairman Issa has said there is more to come. Let it be that.
One more thing: The DCM thinks he was punished with a desk officer job. Considering the current over-staffing of state, someone coming home “off cycle,” as he did, is lucky to do that well. I have no doubt the powers that be snubbed him–that’s what happens at State to people who aren’t regarded as being with the program. He was not, and he is entitled not to be. But an off-cycle desk officer job hardly constitutes serious retaliation.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What happens in Syria doesn’t stay in Syria
These are the speaking notes I used yesterday at USIP’s event on “Amidst Iraq’s Turmoil: What Can We Do?” The Q and A afterwards focused on whether Iraq really is a constitutional democracy (former Ambassador James Jeffrey made that claim, not me), how Prime Minister Maliki might be constrained from his worst instincts, the impact of his recent agreement with Kurdistan President Barzani, Maliki’s capacity to conduct dialogue and the significance of non-military cooperation in US relations with Iraq.
I’ve been asked to look at Syria and what it means for Iraq. What I see is not a single picture, but at least a triple one: Maliki’s, which is widely shared in the Shia community, Barzani’s view from Erbil and a Sunni perspective. There is an important common thread: all see Syria and Iraq as a single theater of political and military operations and are prepared to act accordingly. What happens in Syria doesn’t stay in Syria!
1. Maliki sees in Syria an extremist-led Sunni rebellion that could be a serious threat to Iraq if it succeeds in Syria. Even if he had not spent years in Damascus as an exile, Maliki would see in Bashar al Assad someone with whom he shares an interest in beating back Sunni challengers. It therefore is not surprising that Baghdad allows Iranian overflights, but it is also not all that important, as the survival of the Assad regime does not depend on materiel delivered by air.
Maliki’s main concern is with what comes after Assad. He imagines that the most likely outcome is a Sunni Islamist-led government that views Iraq’s Shia as enemies and is prepared to support the Sunni protests and insurgency against it. This concern with the “after Assad” puts him in good company: Washington and Moscow, each in its own way, is also concerned.
2. The Iraqi Kurds, especially President Barzani, see in Syria an opportunity and a risk. The opportunity is to get for the Syrian Kurds something like the federal arrangement that the Iraqi Kurds achieved after the fall of Saddam Hussein. This is difficult, because the Syrian Kurds are much less concentrated geographically than the Iraqi Kurds. But that may change with the massive population movements now occurring inside Syria.
The risk is that Iraqi Kurdish support for the Syrian Kurds may offend the Turks. They are fine with a federal arrangement that lines their border with a secular Kurdish buffer zone against the Shia world, but will not want things to go further in the direction of independence for either Iraqi Kurdistan, a future Syrian Kurdistan or some combination of the two.
3. Sunnis inside Iraq are hoping for a clear opposition victory in Syria. Some would see that as a counterbalance to the Shia-led regime in Iraq. Others might hope that a Sunni Islamist regime in Syria will support Sunni protests and even rebellion in Iraq.
Sunni jihadis have as a goal restoration of the caliphate. If this means anything, it means the destruction of the state structures in the Levant, whose borders were drawn by European colonialists. The border between Iraq and Syria is already dissolving, with arms and people flowing in both directions.
There are real risks in the Levant of maelstrom: a powerful downward vortex that ends in chaos. Avoiding this will require far more and better communication among Iraqis and between Iraqis and the surrounding countries than we have seen so far.
Some believe The United States should play a leading role in making this happen. Ryan Crocker, for example. I don’t. The primary responsibility lies with the Iraqis, along with Syrians, Turks, Lebanese and Jordanians. But I do believe we should play a strong supporting role. It is time for all concerned to look into the abyss, as they did in 2006/7, and take a step backwards.
The single most important factor in holding Iraq together is oil. My informants tell me northern Iraq could today be bringing in another $40 billion in oil revenue. The existing pipeline to Turkey could export an additional 1.2 million barrels per day. But to do this Kurds, Shia and Sunni have to sit down and decide to enlarge the pie.
That doesn’t seem so hard to me. But it is definitely hard for them. That’s where the Americans can play a role: in improving communications and helping the Iraqis to see the better future they can forge by focusing on getting their natural resources out of the ground and out of Iraq, especially to the north and west. That would tie Iraq closer to Europe and the West. As goes oil, so goes Iraq.
PS: Here is the video of the event:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A former rebel leader comes to Washington
Ali Ahmeti, former leader of the National Liberation Army (NLA) that fought the Macedonian state in 2001, is visiting Washington for the first time this week. The Ohrid agreement of 2001 ended the NLA insurgency. Ahmeti is now the leader of the largest Albanian party in Macedonia. With colleague Mike Haltzel presiding, I commented on Ahmeti’s presentation yesterday at the Center for Translatlantic Relations of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
The softspoken Ahmeti opened by underlining the big difference the Ohrid agreement made. Before 2001, Albanians were not included in decisionmaking in the Macedonian state, to which they did not feel close. The state, in order to gain the loyalty of its citizens, needs to be loyal to them.
The Ohrid agreement changed this situation. It raised the political and juridical status of the Albanians in Macedonia, making them not just “renters” but “owners.” Macedonia, Ahmeti said, is now my state. It is committed to treating everyone equally, even if that promise has not been entirely fulfilled. Albanian higher education has improved, their presence in the public administration is greater and they are entitled to use their “national” symbols. Albanian is an official language of the state, but there are still some differences on when it can be used. Such differences can now be solved through dialogue, with international community assistance. Stability in Macedonia depends on interethnic relations, which have improved.
The major issue now is the dispute with Greece over the country’s name. Albanians are the one group in the Balkans who have never challenged the identity of the Macedonians, with whom they share an unhappy history. The Albanians of Macedonia want the “name” issue resolved, so that Macedonia can enter NATO and the European Union. Those memberships are the ultimate guarantees of security for the citizens of Macedonia.
Compromise is necessary and possible. If France and Germany can settle their differences after horrible wars and atrocities, Macedonia and Greece can as well, without recourse to force. There are no deep differences between the governing coalition parties (which include Ahmeti’s) in Macedonia on the name issue, but solving it will require difficult decisions.
In the Q and A, Ahmeti was at pains to make some additional points:
- Macedonia has no claims on Greek territory,
- the idea of Greater Albania is not one the Albanians of Macedonia adhere to,
- the Albanians of Macedonia display the Albanian flag because of its ethnic significance but have no problem with the state flag of Macedonia,
- the Macedonian government’s use of police force in December against the parliamentary opposition was not wise and is being investigated by a commission of inquiry.
This was a fine performance. Some of my correspondents wonder why Ahmeti, who was once excluded from obtaining a visa, was able to enter the US. The answer is clear.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks, May 6th-May 10th
Lots of Egypt, Pakistan and other interesting events in DC this week:
1. Where is the Cultural Revolution in Egypt Headed? Monday, May 6 / 12:00pm – 1:00pm , Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: Margot Badran
Drawing on her experience and observations in Egypt over the past two and a half years since the outbreak of the revolution, Badran will look at changes in the everyday lives of Egyptians. She will focus on gender ideas and practices as part of the process of cultural and religious transformation underway and place this in the shifting political contexts.
Register for the event here:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/where-the-cultural-revolution-egypt-headed
2. Egypt in Transition, Monday, May 6 / 12:15pm – 1:45pm, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Ahmed Maher, Jawad Nabulsi, Leila Hilal, Peter Bergen
As Egypt’s revolutionary process derails, a myriad of political actors are struggling to form a new consensus about how to resolve the current political crisis and start rebuilding the state. The country’s uprising gave birth to a new generation of leaders that are working to seize this transformative moment to redefine their country.
Please join New America’s Middle East Task Force for a conversation with two prominent members of Egypt’s civil society. We will discuss the turmoil facing Egypt, the upcoming legislative elections, next steps for the ‘youth of Tahrir,’ and Egypt’s future trajectory.
Register for the event here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/egypt_in_transition
3. Amidst Iraq’s Turmoil: What Can We Do?/ Monday, May 6 / 2:00pm – 3:30pm, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: James Jeffrey, Dan Serwer, Mike Pillinger, Sarhang Hamasaeed, Manal Omar
For well over a year, Iraq’s political, security, economic, and social well-being continues to be shaken by internal and external events that have implications for stability in the country and the region. Despite gains, recent events on the ground have taken a swift turn. Internal displacement, the rise of armed groups, and recourse to violence present serious challenges in maintaining peace and sustained development within the country. As international attention has shifted to Syria and North Africa, the hurdles that Iraq faces internally need to be considered in light of these regional circumstances. Cross-border migration, a large number of returnees, and a growing influx of Syrian refugees too have a destabilizing force in Iraq.
How are Iraqis coping with the current crisis, and how can they be better engaged by the international community? What policy levers do the U.S. or other international actors have to help promote stability? What lessons can be applied across the increasingly porous and insecure boundaries of the Middle East?
The International Organization for Migration and the U.S. Institute of Peace invite you to a panel discussion on these urgent issues on May 6th from 2:00pm to 3:30pm.
Register for the event here:
http://www.usip.org/events/amidst-iraq-s-turmoil-what-can-we-do
4. The Drone Next Door, Tuesday, May 7 / 9:00am – 1:45pm, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Will Saletan, Paul Gosar, Rosa Brooks, Missy Cummings, Michael Toscano, Shane Harris and more
Drones have become essential to the American way of war. They’ve given the military nearly constant surveillance from the sky, and allow for quick attacks from afar. And now, like countless other technologies forged in the heat of battle, drones are making their way to the home front, pressed into civilian service. Call them drones, unmanned aerial vehicles, or remote-control planes; these high-tech devices have appealed to Border Patrol and local law enforcement, but also to conservationists, journalists, hobbyists, and more. How do we decide who gets to have their own set of eyes in the skies? What does it mean for your privacy and safety if your neighbors get their own drone?
Register here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/the_drone_next_door
5. Pakistan’s General Elections 2013: Stakes and Prospects, Tuesday, May 7 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Simbal Khan, Daniel Markey, Malik Akbar, Steve Inskeep
On May 11, 2013, for the first time in Pakistan’s history, the country will hold general elections after a legislature has completed its term. While much attention has been paid to security’s effects on the elections, other key factors, such as demography, will also influence the outcome. Of Pakistan’s 90 million voters, 40 million will be voting for the first time. This makes the election seem more open than ever. Simbal Khan, Malik Siraj Akbar, and Daniel Markey will discuss the key factors the stakes and prospects for Pakistan’s elections. Steve Inskeep, host of NPR’s Morning Edition, will moderate.
Register here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/07/pakistan-s-general-elections-2013-stakes-and-prospects/g1os
6. The International Response to Syria’s Humanitarian Catastrophe, Tuesday, May 7 / 12:15pm – 1:15pm, Middle East Institute
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, Choate Room
Speaker: Valerie Amos
The Middle East Institute is pleased to welcome Valerie Amos, the UN under-secretary-general for Humanitarian Affairs, for a discussion about the humanitarian crisis inside Syria. Now in its second year, the Syrian conflict has generated more than 1.3 million refugees and left 4.25 million internally displaced. According to the UN, some 6.8 million people are in desperate need of assistance. And yet security limitations on the ground in Syria have made the delivery of emergency relief extremely challenging. Amos will lay out the current conditions inside Syria as well as put forward suggestions for what more the international community can be doing to alleviate the crisis.
http://www.mei.edu/events/international-response-syrias-humanitarian-catastrophe
7. Religion and Politics in Revolutionary Egypt, Wednesday, May 8 / 9:00am – 10:30am, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Nathan J. Brown, Jonathan Brown, Jocelyne Cesari
In the wake of Egypt’s revolution, a sea change is undeniably under way: Islam is playing a different and more powerful role in Egyptian public life. But focusing on the growing influence of Islamic forces masks an unpredictable evolution proceeding underneath the surface. The Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, and a host of state institutions dedicated to Islam are themselves being reshaped by their growing involvement in politics, often in ways that are difficult to predict and even more difficult for their leaders to control. Join us for a discussion at the Carnegie Endowment where Nonresident Senior Associate Nathan J. Brown will present his new paper Islam and Politics in the New Egypt. Jocelyn Cesari of Harvard University and Jonathan A. C. Brown of Georgetown University will offer their comments.
Register for the event here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/08/religion-and-politics-in-revolutionary-egypt/g0n8
8. Case Study: Regulating the Private Health Sector in Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 8 / 12:00pm – 1:00pm, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law
Venue: Georgetown University Law Center, 111 G Street, NW ∙ Washington, DC 20001, E.B. Williams Library, Room 358
Speakers: Michele Forzley
Afghanistan is transitioning from a system in which government provides services to one in which government is the regulator of a changing public health care system and a new emerging private health sector. In the years since the Taliban era ended, the Government of Afghanistan has taken many steps to encourage the development of a market economy and in 2012 its Cabinet passed a law to regulate the private health sector. This law empowered and directed the Ministry of Public Health, (MoPH) to undertake the regulatory functions of licensing, setting standards, monitoring, evaluating performance of private health actors and enforcing the law with sanctions. To implement this new law, many of the departments of the MoPH will have to develop new procedures and forms and undertake additional or new regulatory functions. In accordance with the current national health policy objective of good governance, these new procedures and functions must reflect good governance and rule of law principles. Since last year, Professor Forzley has been working as a consultant and legal advisor to assist the Afghanistan MoPH to implement the new law in accordance with rule of law and good governance principles. Her presentation will cover a background on Afghanistan, its health system and the new private sector, the main functions of the new law, how procedures and systems are being developed to reflect good governance principle and future planned work.
More info here:
Click to access May8_MicheleForzleyBrownBag.pdf
9. Auditing Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 8 / 12:15pm – 1:45pm, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: John F. Sopko, Peter Bergen
The United States has spent tens of billions of dollars on the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, and making sure that money goes where it is supposed to go has been one of the toughest jobs of the conflict. As America transitions control of security operations and other governance processes to the Afghans, this job will become even harder.
The New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program is pleased to welcome the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) John F. Sopko on May 8 for a discussion on Afghanistan’s upcoming transition, and some of the most worrying trends he sees in the way U.S. taxpayer dollars are used in the country.
Register here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/auditing_afghanistan
10. The Future of American-Iraqi Relations, Wednesday, May 8 / 7:00pm, Al-Hewar Center
Venue: Vienna Community Center, 120 Cherry Street, S.E., Vienna, VA
Speakers: Phebe Marr
A conversation with Dr. Phebe Marr, a prominent American historian of modern Iraq with the Middle East Institute, about “The Future of American-Iraqi Relations.”
Dr. Marr has been research professor at the National Defense University and is a retired professor of history at University of Tennessee and Stanislaus State University in California.
More info here:
http://www.alhewar.com/newevents.html
11. Human Rights in Tunisia’s Transition: A View from the Field, Thursday, May 9 / 10:00am – 11:30am, Project on Middle East Democracy
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Amel Azzouz, Amna Guellali, Daniel Brumberg, Stephen McInerney, Joyce Kasee
Between 2012-2013, Tunisia’s political scene has witnessed increasing polarization and occasional violence, culminating in the assassination of Chokri Belaid in February 2013. In this context, Tunisia’s National Constituent Assembly is considering the third and perhaps final draft of its proposed constitution. The constitution-writing process has been protracted by disagreements about allusions to Islam and cultural values, and the primacy of human rights as they are internationally defined.
As Tunisia is led by a provisional government, how does the country rank on human rights, addressing political violence by intolerant groups, protecting freedom of expression and the rights of women and minorities, and writing a constitution that safeguards the rights of all Tunisians?
Register here:
http://www.usip.org/events/human-rights-in-tunisia-s-transition-view-the-field
12. Governance Opportunities and Challenges for the Incoming Pakistani Administration, Thursday, May 9 / 2:00pm – 3:30pm , Atlantic Council
Venue: Atlantic Council of the United States, 1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Alex Thier
Please join the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center for “Governance Opportunities and Challenges for the Incoming Pakistani Administration,” a conversation with Alex Thier, assistant to the administrator, Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs, US Agency for International Development.
Pakistan’s General Election is set for May 11 and regardless of which party comes to power, the next administration will face a number of daunting challenges related to successful governance. High unemployment, circular debt in Pakistan’s energy sector, and widespread corruption only hit the tip of the iceberg when it comes to severe challenges that Pakistan is facing. The election results could also bring a shift in the central government’s relationship not only with the provinces but also with the people. Despite this, every challenge also presents an opportunity for Pakistan.
USAID’s program in Pakistan has been working on transforming a number of these challenges into opportunities, including supporting energy sector reforms, encouraging trade liberalization, and increasing political parties’ responsiveness to constituent concerns. USAID’s Alex Thier will speak to these efforts and offer his insight on how Pakistan, amongst all its transitions, can make the governance choices that will accelerate a positive trajectory of economic and civic growth.
RSVP to:
southasia@acus.org
13. Egypt’s Revolution, Two Years On: Transition in Distress?, Thursday, May 9 / 2:30pm, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Venue: 1150 22nd St NW Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Anwar E. El Sadat and Helmy el-Gazzar
As part of the 2013 Soref Symposium, the Washington Institute will host a conversation with Anwar E. El Sadat, founder and chairman of the El Sadat Association for Social Development & Welfare and a former member of the Egyptian parliament, and Helmy el-Gazzer, from the shura committee of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
This event is open to the press and will also be streamed live at: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/.
14. U.S. Defense Policy in the Middle East, Thursday, May 9 / 7:00pm, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Venue: 1150 22nd St NW Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Chuck Hagel
The keynote address of the 2013 Soref Symposium will feature remarks by U.S. defense secretary Chuck Hagel, as he discusses U.S. military and security policy in the Middle East.
This event is open to members of the media and will be streamed live at https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Game of Drones
The debate over the use of drones falls into three paradigms: legal, practical and moral. The panel hosted on Wednesday by the Bi-Partisan Policy Center (BPC) followed this pattern.
John Bellinger, a lawyer and former adviser to the Department of State, said legally, it is permissible to use Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to kill leaders who plot against the United States. Under international law, use of force is permissible under an imminent threat or during ongoing hostilities.
Hina Shamsi of the ACLU replied that the United States does not conduct drone strikes under those guidelines. No evidence is required that a plot is taking place. During wartime, Thomas Kean, the co-chair of the BPC’s Homeland Security Project, we may suspend civil rights and take otherwise illegal actions, but the US drone program is going beyond that and conducting actions illegal even in wartime.
A crucial problem is lack of transparency. The Obama administration needs to prove that what they are doing is lawful. So far they have not succeeded. Who is making the decisions? What are the legal standards? Who are the targets and why? Restricted access to White House legal memos on the drone program inhibits Congress from constructing an adequate legal framework and from conducting oversight. Bellinger posed the question, once meant to be a controversial joke, now an impending reality: “Will drones be Obama’s Guantanamo [controversial legacy]?” Shamsi warned that transparency is necessary for a healthy democracy. The drone program threatens our democracy’s health.
Philip Zelikow, former counselor at the Department of State under George W. Bush, presented a defense and explanation of how the administration approaches the use of UAVs. The argument centers on how to conduct warfare with a group like Al Qaeda, a non-state actor, spread out over multiple nations. First, he explained, you need to define a doorway that once entered allows you to kill people. Having passed through the doorway, you ask ‘which people can I kill?’ You have to set standards. Zelikow advocated a: “rule of law” approach. The doorway should be public, debated and discussed, to ensure a healthy democracy. Who you can kill should be defined carefully as someone who directly participates in hostilities.
Bellinger pointed out that the rest of the world operates within a human rights paradigm. The drone issue heavily affects international response and regional blowback. No other nation has publicly agreed with our drone program. To others, the US appears indifferent to civilian casualties. The perception of America as ruthless undermines our legitimacy as a world power. Shamsi added that America needs to be concerned about the precedent it sets for the rest of the world. Sooner or later, other countries and non-state actors will get drone technology. “We need to consider,” she added, “if we want to live in the world that we are currently defining.”
Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times posed the question of how and why drones are used in countries where American is not at war. Is the bar different for targeted killings in Yemen or Pakistan? What does this new style of war mean for regional repercussions and blowback? Drone strikes gone awry, in these areas especially, generate fear and hatred. They also lead to increased radicalization and motivate extremism.
The time has come for a renewed debate on the use of military force, including drones. The enemies are not conventional ones. We need public discussion on what is permissible, legally, practically and morally.
RSS - Posts
