Tag: United States
Giving thanks
Thanksgiving seems to me the most widely observed of American holidays. It is also among the most American of our widely observed holidays. Canadians do their own on the second Monday of October, but that is the proverbial exception that proves the rule: Canadians are also “Americans”–inhabitants of North America–and some don’t like that term being used only for citizens of the United States. July 4 is not a holiday that appeals to our northern neighbors, and it is not observed with the same broad familial enthusiasm.
I passed up two opportunities to travel abroad this week that would have interfered in the family get-together in Savannah, where my wife’s mother was born and cousins still live. We’ll assemble here from Atlanta, El Paso, New York, New Haven and DC. Sons and daughters in law, nieces, nephews, cousins, uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents: a dense web of family relations who don’t see each other more than a few times a year any longer. I’ve of course been abroad for many Thanksgivings during a Foreign Service career, but it would never be my choice, and we always sought while living in Geneva, Rome and Brasilia to accommodate as many American travelers as possible for the occasion. For me, the year would not be complete without a Thanksgiving meal, and I know lots of fellow Americans who feel the same way.
The mood this year seems to me no better and not much worse than many others. Recession still lingers. The country is feeling less than satisfied. The world is full of many problems but lacks one great big one. America’s role seems more challenging to define than in the past. We are finding it hard to solve problems and easy to create them. Witness the Republican “national security” debate last night, which focused on terrorists who have done precious little damage to the United States in recent years, while our effort to fight them has arguably done a good deal more. Or the difficulties of Afghanistan, where the soldiers and marines of whom we are justifiably proud (and to whom we are certainly grateful) face complexities that no troops should be asked to unravel.
Americans–those whose responsibilities permit–will pause this week to watch a lot of football, eat a lot of turkey, enjoy the family, salute the troops, pause for a nap and contemplate our blessings. They are many. I enjoy an immense feeling of gratitude that comes from seeing two sons realize careers for which they have prepared for many years. And a wife, nieces and a daughter in law who are likewise pursuing their dreams with talent, commitment and energy–and many fewer barriers than women faced in the past.
I am also thankful for those unnamed multitudes who have risen this year in revolt against regimes that have oppressed them for far too long. People in the streets of Cairo, Damascus, Sanaa and Manama are showing us the consequences of our ideals and shouldering an enormous responsibility for setting things right. Gratitude is in order.
I’ll hope to finish my book–on the role of the United States in the world after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars–before Christmas and send it off to publishers early in the new year. I am grateful for the year that enabled its writing as well as the launching of www.peacefare.net Not to mention the good health that allows me still to run 25 miles a week and enough mental acuity to tweet, though not with anything like the cleverness of my fellow tweeps. I can only hope that you, too, have a good deal to be grateful for and that you will join the rest of the country in giving thanks, and overeating, tomorrow.
Then Friday we can get back to worrying about the terrorists and our civil liberties (whichever is your preference), protecting American national security and making the world a better place for lots more people. That last especially would be a good way to show gratitude.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Waffling, weak-kneed, paltry stuff
Carl Bildt, Sweden’s able foreign minister, today tweeted this “good conclusion” from the Euroepean Union meeting today:
In the light of the new IAEA report, which is to be considered by the IAEA Board of Governors, the Council expresses its increasing concerns over the Iranian nuclear programme and the lack of progress in diplomatic efforts. It condemns the continuous expansion of Iran’s,enrichment programme, and expresses particular concerns over the findings of the IAEA Director General report on Iranian activities relating to the development of military nuclear technology. Iran has been found in violation of international obligations, including six UNSC and ten IAEA Board Resolutions. We urge Iran to address the international concerns over the nature of its nuclear programme
through full cooperation with the IAEA and by demonstrating readiness to engage seriously in concrete discussions on confidence building steps, as proposed by the HR on behalf of the E3+3. The Council recalled the latest European Council conclusions inviting it to prepare new restrictive measures against Iran. The Council will continue to examine possible new and reinforced measures and revert to this issue at its next meeting, taking into account Iran’s actions.
There may of course be something lurking here that is not spelled out: we can hope that there will in fact be “new and reinforced” measures out of the next meeting. But on the face of it, this is waffling, weak-kneed, paltry stuff from people who should know better and by now be ready to act.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Why I skipped Veterans’ Day
I skipped a Veterans’ Day post, as I find it difficult to imagine what I could say in tribute to the troops that hasn’t been said by others. But this from ThinkProgress has provoked me:
The speaker is Tennessee State Representative Womick, yes speaking on Veterans’ Day.
Womick is following in a long tradition. As California Attorney General Earle Warren (yes, the one who was later Chief Justice) put it when he advocated internment of Japanese Americans during World War II:
The Japanese situation as it exists in this state today may well be the Achilles heel of the entire civilian defense effort.
Japanese Americans went on to fight courageously for the United States in World War II, including many whose families were interned. The Japanese American 442nd Regimental Combat Team was highly decorated regiment, including 21 Medal of Honor recipients.
Womick’s sentiments are not uniquely American. Bashar al Assad feels the same way about protesters against his regime (as Qaddafi did), though admittedly torturing and killing them is worse than expelling them from the U.S. Army or interning them.
Worse, but only in degree. The underlying sentiment is the same: distrust of people because of who they are, no matter what they do (or do not do). This is gross intolerance, and it is far more pervasive today than we like to admit.
I’m sure Mr. Womick gives a rousing Veterans’ Day speech. I was glad not to post it.
PS: As luck(?) would have it, someone sent me this today:
I repeat: gross intolerance, far more pervasive today than we like to admit. Here is the antidote:
In case there is doubt, I am referring to the first minute or two of this clip, not the endorsement of Barack Obama in the last minute or so.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria still needs nonviolence
Today’s suspension of Syria from the Arab League will be seen by some as irrelevant, even risible. Who would even want to be a member of an organization as feckless as the one that 10 days ago reached an agreement with President Bashar al Assad to end the violence, only to see him turn around and gun down hundreds of protesters? Nor does the Arab League have a great record of achievement elsewhere, and many of its members would arguably respond to protesters in much the same way as Bashar has.
But that misses the point. The key to ending Bashar al Assad’s reign of terror in Syria is to attack his legitimacy. Anything that contributes, even marginally, to that end has to be counted as positive. International legitimacy is important to autocrats. Bashar certainly doesn’t care much about the Arab League–if he did he would not have so blatantly violated the agreement he reached with it–but if the League did not act at this point it would certainly redound to his benefit.
Assistant Secretary of State Feltman testified this week with admirable clarity about U.S. goals and strategy: we want to see protesters protected, Bashar out, and a transition to democracy begun. But he was also appropriately modest about our capacity to get what we want. Our primary leverage is through the European oil embargo, which seems to be holding, and other, mainly financial, sanctions, which are beginning to bite. There is not, at the level of goals, much of a gap between the Administration and outside experts like Andrew Tabler, who also testified.
But Andrew did have some specific policy suggestions worthy of consideration: formation of a Syria contact group, development of a strategy to peel away the regime’s supporters, helping the opposition unify and begin planning for transition, pushing for human rights monitors, preparing for military action and pressing for a Security Council resolution.
The Administration is certainly pursuing several of these already. Feltman made it clear that international monitors is among them, as is helping the opposition. Surely they already are thinking in terms of a strategy to peel away the regime’s supporters and are beginning to press again for Security Council action.
The one that gives me pause, and likely does likewise Feltman, is preparing for military action. It would certainly be justified against a regime that is taking military action against its own citizens, but any visible preparation for international military action will encourage violent resistance inside Syria. That is a bad idea. As Feltman makes amply clear, Bashar al Assad is intentionally encouraging violent resistance, as it solidifies the security forces as well as his political support and gives him every reason to crack down forcefully.
Just as important: there is not likely to be any military protection for the protesters, apart from welcoming those who flee along the border with Turkey. Russia will block any authorization in the Security Council, the Europeans are exhausted after Libya and preoccupied with the euro crisis, and the Arab League is still far from asking for the use of force. The Americans stand to gain a great deal from peaceful regime change in Syria, but violent change will risk ethnic and sectarian warfare with wide and potentially devastating regional consequences.
Bashar is finished, sooner or later. We need to worry about making sure that what comes after is a democratic regime prepared to allow all Syrians a say in how they are governed. That will be far easier to accomplish if the protests can be kept peaceful, no matter how violent the regime gets. For those who doubt this proposition, I can only recommend Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Water, food, oil, gas: many problems, or one?
Last week, the Transatlantic Academy gathered a plethora of academics and policy makers to discuss the global competition for natural resources. Among several pressing issues, the panel placed particular emphasis on the interaction between different resources and the political and economic outcomes emerging from that “nexus.”
Particularly in the raw materials industry, resources are used in abundance to extract others, or in some cases to create new ones. Water is used to extract oil and gas. These three resources are used to raise corn, which itself is used to produce ethanol. And all the aforementioned resources are used to extract minerals. The web is obviously larger, but even this small picture illustrates what scholars and policy makers have come to label a “nexus of resources.”
In a world where resources are scarce, this interconnectivity presents problems for the global economy and creates political complications. Spikes in oil or food prices have ripple effects, and for this reason it is no longer appropriate to analyze resource markets in isolation. A nexus-driven approach must now be the standard.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the market for food, particularly agricultural goods. As the situation stands today, food production rates must increase dramatically to keep pace with projected population growth and dietary changes related to the rise of the middle class. And yet, for years, as Julie Howard from USAID points out, large fluctuations in food prices failed to capture the attention of policy makers as important political events. Only with the onset of the 2008-09 price spikes did governments begin to truly appreciate the impact of food security on international and intra-state politics.
Numerous factors account for the recent spikes in food prices, but several reports emphasize the role of the biofuels industry in particular. Paul Faeth, a fellow at CNA Corporation, points out that the amount of corn available for consumption compared to that used for ethanol production has decreased by 15% in the last ten years. Increasing demand for corn in the U.S. ethanol industry has contributed to global food shortages, and a recent UN report tacitly implicates this practice in the price spikes many associate with uprisings in the Arab world. Leaving the efficacy of biofuels aside, Howard insists this reality nonetheless begs for the elevation of food security to a higher rung on governments’ list of international assistance priorities.
Food security is also closely related to water supplies. Especially in arid regions such as the Middle East and North Africa, heavy agricultural irrigation can create what Andrew Martin of the New York Times called a twisted “quandary, as [countries] are forced to choose between growing more crops to feed an expanding population or preserving their already scant supply of water.” As a result, MENA countries have become dependent on food imports, exposing citizens to cruel scenarios in the event of sudden global food price increases.
Another high usage area for water is in oil and gas extraction. With the recent developments in fracking technology used in the shale gas industry, water footprints are expanding. The issue here, as Robert Kleinberg of Schlumberger-Doll points out, isn’t waste necessarily, since 100% of the water taken out of the ground after fracking can be sanitized and reused, although Kleinberg does mention that only 1/3 of water put in the ground is actually recoverable.
But as far as water waste goes, the natural gas industry pales in comparison to agriculture. The real problems with fracking are the environmental hazards associated with the process of extraction. Trucks spewing emissions transport water to extraction sites, which themselves suffer surface erosion. And, fracking leaves highly saline and often radioactive water in the ground, which can cycle into farm irrigation systems and other water supplies. For these reasons, as both Faeth and Kleinberg seem to accept, the astronomical potential of natural gas as a profitable and clean(er) fossil fuel must be harnessed to a regulatory scheme that requires producers to meet environmental standards, or else pay for the negative externalities.
Though I missed the final session on the geopolitics of energy, I can imagine that Faeth and Kleinberg also recognize shale’s strategic potential given the large reserves in the U.S. They seem to agree that energy independence is less important that efficiency, but domestic natural gas production could address both these issues.
Strategic considerations also abound when it comes to food security and regime stability in the Arab world. For all the concern about ethnic and sectarian tensions in MENA—undoubtedly fundamental sources of conflict in the region—perhaps Mathew Burrows from the National Intelligence Council is correct to argue that resource scarcity could be the deciding factor, tipping these frictions in the wrong direction.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Context matters, and so does U.S. support
I gave a talk yesterday at West Virginia University’s Law School on U.S. policy towards democracy-seeking rebellions. The star attraction at the conference was Erica Chenoweth, co-author of Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. Some of you will have seen my tweets summarizing her talk, which I won’t try to reproduce here. Suffice it to say that she provides hard statistical evidence that nonviolent civil resistance really does work, even against the most repressive regimes, and she gives a coherent rationale for why. She also notes that foreign monetary assistance does not appear to work well.
I was asked to address the U.S. policy response, in particular to the Arab Spring. Here are my speaking notes, which of course do not represent exactly what I said:
West Virginia University
November 10, 2011
1. While I am an admirer of Dr. Chenoweth’s quantitative methodology, I am going to rely today on the much less impressive techniques of the historian and diplomat: stories, I would call them, rather than “cases.”
2. Arab spring is far from over yet, but I’ll try to focus on the transition phase: that is, the phase after a regime falls and before a new one has yet emerged.
3. I am thoroughly convinced of the efficacy of what Dr. Chenoweth calls civic resistance in the earlier phase.
4. But things get much more complicated when that resistance has to turn into something more constructive.
5. There are three cases already in the transition phase, more or less: Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Each is quite different.
6. In Tunisia, the autocrat left the scene quickly and the regime was pushed aside fairly easily. First elections have already been held and there is a clear roadmap ahead. A classic, fairly smooth case, with no sign of counter-revolution on the horizon. Good chance of consolidating a democratic regime.
7. In Egypt, the autocrat also left pretty quickly, but the regime was not pushed aside easily and the protesters called on the army to manage the transition. It is doing so, but in a way that consolidates its control over some aspects of governance (security, foreign policy) and a big piece of the economy. I’d say much less likelihood of success in the transition. Might be rather like Serbia, where a similar deal was made with the security forces and the transition has been slow and halting as a result.
8. In Libya, there was a violent revolution that has the advantage of having swept the old regime away completely, with foreign help. There has been good leadership, decent planning and ample resources. I give the Libyans a decent chance at success in consolidating a democracy, albeit less probability than Tunisia.
9. What of Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, all of which are still in progress?
10. Yemen has turned violent, even if the protesters themselves have stuck with nonviolence. The odds of successful transition to democracy seem to be small, because the opposition to Saleh most likely to take power is the violent one, which is no more inclined to democracy than he is.
11. Syria could be headed in the same direction, though there is still some hope of keeping it on a nonviolent course. That’s vital for success. Violence will lead to sectarian and ethnic breakdown (similar to Iraq) that will be difficult to overcome.
12. Bahrain is an odd case. The protesters have been nonviolent, but the crackdown was effective, unlike Syria and Yemen. A lot depends on the Bassiouni commission report: will it revive nonviolent resistance, or will the regime be able to keep the lid on?
13. What of the other monarchies: Morocco and Jordan? Saudi Arabia and Oman?
14. These four, each in its own way, is attempting to preempt resistance with reform, albeit minimal reform in the case of Riyadh. So far, they are largely succeeding.
15. I do think the monarchies have some advantage in this respect: not because they are somehow nicer, but because their legitimacy is understood not to derive from elections but rather from heredity.
16. It is much harder for a republic to claim that there is no need to change who is in power in order to reform the system.
17. But that does not mean the monarchies will succeed forever. The fact that all Saudi Arabia experts agree that it can’t happen there, that the succession is ensured, is a clear earlier indicator that it may well happen there.
18. If I were advising the Saudis and the other monarchies, I would suggest they get ahead of the curve and stay ahead, by taking truly meaningful steps to redistribute power and ensure that their security services are shifting from protecting the rulers to protecting the ruled.
19. If there is one mistake common to all the Arab Spring successes so far—and also to those places where rebellion is still in progress—it is the use of regime violence against the population.
20. These guys need to learn that legitimacy comes from the people, who will be much more inclined to confer it on those who protect them than on those who attack them.
21. We should also be thinking about how we can encourage security sector reform in advance of rebellion and revolution—it would be far cheaper and more effective than doing it after the fact.
22. America should certainly be supporting those who demonstrate nonviolently for their rights, but I confess to doubts that it should be done through embassies.
23. Robert Ford, our ambassador in Syria who has bravely gone to “observe” demonstrations, is the exception that proves the rule.
24. The rule is that embassies need to stay on good terms with the host government, even if it is an autocracy. They cannot be implicated in support to revolutionaries.
25. Assistance to democracy and human rights advocates should flow not through embassies but through nongovernmental organizations, including the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute as well as non-American counterparts.
26. The more these can be made distinct from our official representation, the better.
27. America is condemned to spreading democracy. If you really believe that all people are created equal, you have no choice but to sympathize with those who claim their rights. But the specific modalities for when and how to do it depend a great deal on context.
PS: In answer to a question, I said yes it can happen in Iran, but American efforts to support it there are problematic because of our fraught relationship with Tehran, which includes both concern about nuclear weapons and attempts to foment ethnic strife inside Iran. In the end, I think Obama got the reaction to the Green Movement about right in the end: rhetorical support without repainting it red, white and blue.
RSS - Posts
