Tag: United States
Next week’s “peace picks”
Relatively slim pickings this week, at least in numbers. Not sure why.
1. In the Eye of the Storm: Turkish Foreign Policy in an Age of Domestic Realignment, Brookings, October 25, 2:30-3:30 pm
Panelists
Ümit Boyner
Chair
Turkish Industry and Business Association (TÜSİAD)
Soli Özel
Professor
Kadir Has University, Istanbul
2. A Roadmap for Effective Economic Reconstruction in Conflict-Affected Areas, USIP, October 26, 9 am-1 pm
The event will include two panels which will address structural as well as programmatic aspects of economic reconstruction, including: risk-aversion in donor institutions, inter-agency and international collaboration and cooperation, monitoring and evaluation, and the role of entrepreneurship and public/private partnerships.
Panelists will glean lessons from relevant case-studies and begin to chart the roadmap to peace and prosperity that World Bank President Robert Zoellick called for with the launch of the 2011 World Development Report.
Speakers
- Fred Tipson, Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow
U.S. Institute of Peace - Basel Saleh, Assistant Professor of Economics
Radford University - Jomana Amara, Assistant Professor of Economics
Naval Postgraduate School - Sharon Morris, Director of the Conflict Management Group
Mercy Corps - Robert Aten, Senior International Economics
Ret. U. S. Agency for International Development - Gary Milante, World Development Report Core Team Member
World Bank - Graciana del Castillo, Co-founding Partner
Macroeconomic Advisory Group - John Simon, Founding Partner
Total Impact Advisors - Del Fitchett
Independent Economics Consultant - Raymond Gilpin, Director of the Center for Sustainable Economies
U.S. Institute of Peace
The Carnegie Endowment and the North-South Institute will host a discussion on the complexities of electoral support in conflict contexts and examine two compelling case studies—the recent elections in Afghanistan and Kenya. The event will also mark the launch of a new book by the North-South Institute, Elections in Dangerous Places.
Radwan Ziadeh, director of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies, and Ammar Abdulhamid, founder of the Tharwa Foundation and a human rights activist, will discuss this topic. For more information and to RSVP, contact katarina@jhu.edu.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tehran’s options
While the world debates the significance of the Hamas/Israel prisoner exchange, let me turn back to something that really counts for the United States: Iran’s nuclear program. In the aftermath of the Iran(Car)Tel plot, friend Rashad Mahmood, formerly of Cairo, asks “What would be reasonable Iranian policy to having their nuclear scientists killed (by admittedly much finer spycraft since they haven’t aired any proof of who has done it)?”
This is a reasonable question with some scary answers. Let’s look at some of the (not mutually exclusive) options:
1. They can respond by killing the nuclear scientists of those countries they think responsible for the attacks on their own (presumably Israel, but as Rashad says there is no proof in the public domain). I assume they’ve tried this and haven’t succeeded, or at least we haven’t heard about it.
2. They can accelerate their nuclear program, hide it better, protect the people who work in it and try to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible. They may be trying, but they appear to be failing.
3. They can begin to wonder whether the nuclear program is worth the trouble it is causing and reach an arrangement that reassures friends and foe alike that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons even if it acquires the “fuel cycle” technology required to do so. President Ahmedinejad has proposed something along these lines, but no one is taking him seriously yet, so far as I can tell.
4. They can kill diplomats or citizens of third countries, say Saudi Arabia, that may have little to do with the killing of the Iranians but are hated enemies anyway.
My impression is that they’ve tried at one time or another Nos. 1-3, so far without success. No. 4 doesn’t make any sense to me, but maybe it does to someone in Tehran (and certainly it does to some in DC). The jury is still out on the extent of official Iranian involvement in the IranTel plot.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration seems to me to be doing the right thing: keeping the focus on the nuclear program and ratcheting up sanctions implementation. This may not bring immediate results, but at least it provides some incentive for no. 3. The trick is knowing when to take Ahmedinejad’s proposition seriously. It is really difficult for outsiders to judge when the right moment comes–we are going to have to trust the White House to call that shot.
Here is the version of what Ahmedinejad has said about limiting uranium enrichment published by the Washington Post:
Q: I understand that you were in favor of the deal you had reached with the United States in 2009, according to which the U.S. would sell you 20-percent-enriched uranium in exchange for Iran exporting low-enriched uranium. But you were attacked by your critics and came under assault and people here could not reach a consensus and the deal fell apart.
Ahmedinejad: In Iran, people are free to express their views. Every day some people criticize the policies of the government. This doesn’t mean that the government is going to abandon their policies. We felt that they wouldn’t give us the fuel required here for our reactor. There were some political leaders who gave interviews in the United States and Europe and they said they want to keep Iran from having access to such fuel. So we realized that they wouldn’t give us that fuel so we had to do it ourselves. Even if they gave us now uranium grade 20 percent, we would not continue with the production of this fuel.
Q: So if the United States sold you the enriched uranium, would you stop enriching yourselves?
Ahmedinejad: Yes. We don’t want to produce uranium of 20 percent. Because they did not give us that uranium, we had to make our own investments. If they start to give us that uranium today, we will stop production.
Q: You reached a deal in Geneva in 2009, and you came back here and the deal fell apart here, and now people in Washington don’t believe a deal is possible.
Ahmedinejad: If they give us uranium grade 20 percent, we would stop production. Those negotiations took place in Vienna. Apparently they know everything. I repeat: If you give us uranium grade 20 percent now, we will stop production. Because uranium grade 20 percent can only be used for such reactors, nothing else.
This is the proposition some commentators think worth considering. Many think it a mirage, but time is on Tehran’s side: even if their nuclear program has slowed, they will eventually get there if there is no verifiable agreement for them to stop.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Listen to the choir
I am finding myself in good company on Pakistan, where I argued early this month that we need to pick our friends with care even as we target those who are our enemies. In one form or another, I am finding Ann Wilkens of the Afghan Analyts’ Network (whose paper predates my blog post), Bruce Riedel and Christine Fair–all of whom know more about Pakistan than I will ever know–in agreement.
Their arguments lean in favor of befriending civilians who are truly committed to democracy and willing to build serious democratic institutions while recognizing that elements of the military and intelligence services are our enemies and need at least to be contained if not slapped with sanctions. Ann Wilkens adds a word in favor of establishing the Durand line as the border with Afghanistan. Chris Fair goes into detail on the kinds of diplomatic contacts and capacity-building we need to get into while Bruce Riedel, less interested in the civilian potential, is explicit about slashing military aid and moving towards an adversarial, containment-focused relationship with Pakistan’s military. All favor trade over aid.
It seems to me that the Administration would do well to listen to this chorus of calls for reorienting America’s relationship with Pakistan. How about announcing a re-assessment of the U.S. relations with Pakistan? Or convening a wise persons’ review? The main reason Afghanistan really counts for the United States is Pakistan. We owe it to the forces fighting there and the civilians trying to build an Afghan state to have a hard look at whether adjustments to our Pakistan policies can make their jobs easier.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
An orthodox approach to heresy
In today’s news: the Kenyan army is going after El Shabab, the Somali extremist group. The United States is deploying 100 troops to search for Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) leader Joseph Kony. It is a good time to have a look at how to deal with non-state armed groups (NSAGs in governmentese), the subject of a new report from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Of course there are many other examples besides these two most recent ones of armed groups that present big problems in today’s world, even though they belong to no state. Think Taliban, Hizbollah, Al Qaeda in its several franchises, and Hamas (at least before it took over governance in Gaza). Think Mexican drug cartels, Burmese insurgents, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, the Irish Republican Army, Algeria’s Armed Islamic Group, Afghan mujahideen, Maoist insurgents in Nepal, Naxalites in India…
How should states deal with this alphabet soup of armed groups pursuing through violence freedom, justice, dignity, equity, utopia, money, power, God’s kingdom on earth? Those we like we call freedom fighters (Kosovo Liberation Army, Libyan National Transitional Council) and provide weapons and other assistance. The conventional American approach to those we don’t like is to declare them outside the pale, refuse to talk with them (especially if they are labeled terrorist) and go after them with military and police forces. That’s what the Kenyans and Americans are doing today with al Shabab and the LRA. Sometimes this works, at least partially. More often, there is eventually a political settlement.
Political settlements require dialogue, talks, negotiations. That’s where the CFR report comes in. It makes an effort to define why, when and how the United States should “engage” with NSAGs. Let’s be clear: though the report is prepared by an active-duty Foreign Service officer, it is courageously proposing something that has heretofore generally been regarded as heresy, except in specific instances.
That said, Payton Knopf takes an orthodox approach:
- Analyze: leadership, military effectiveness, constituency, territorial control, platform, sponsors, needs.
- Define the U.S. objective: conflict prevention, humanitarian access, intel collection, regime change, reform, weakening the NSAG, encourage moderation, reach a peace agreement, block spoilers.
- Weigh costs and benefits.
The benefits may include preventing, helping an NSAG or a sponsor we like, bolstering the U.S. image, facilitating peace negotiations, gaining intelligence, mitigating violence, empowering more pragmatic factions. Costs can include conferring legitimacy where we prefer not to, undermining a state, taking sides in a conflict, encouraging violence, providing time for an NSAG to prepare for more violence, and triggering domestic U.S. opposition.
This kind of rational, long-term approach to dealing with NSAGs is not, however, what we generally do today, as Knopf points out. Instead we jump on opportunities in the short term when there is no viable alternative, not too much domestic resistance and some reason to hope that things might work out.
Nor are we well-organized or well-staffed for this kind of work. Knopf goes easy on the State Department but makes it clear that its staff is not trained to engage with NSAGs or to do conflict management work in general. He is correct. Nor are the regional bureaus, whose embassies must necessarily regard government officials in the host countries as their primary interlocutors, likely to take up engagement with NSAGs, except in rare instances. The responsibility might appropriately fall to nongovernmental groups, but legal restrictions and a Supreme Court decision have made that problematic.
This leaves us with international organizations–the UN, the International Red Cross, some regional organizations–as vital players in engaging NSAGs. The CFR report does not address this option, but it has done a great service in calmly raising the issues in the American context and placing the heresy of engaging with NSAGs in an orthodox cost/benefit framework.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Farewell Iraq, more or less
The Americans are reported to be abandoning plans to leave troops in Iraq after the end of the year, with the exception of the Embassy’s usual (and in this case large, more than 150) complement for “defense cooperation” and occasional training missions.
Why do I not quite believe this? First, because training missions can last a long time. Second because no one is talking about the substantial numbers of contractors who will need to be in Iraq to support military sales (like the F16s). And third because a lot of the counter-terrorism cooperation with Iraq is presumably done by the CIA, which doesn’t put out press releases about it.
Still, it is a major development that Iraq will be without overt foreign fighting forces on its territory for the first time in more than eight years.
Is it a good thing? There are people in Washington concerned that this more or less complete withdrawal will open the door to greater Iranian influence. And there are Iraqis–many in Kurdistan but also some in Anbar, Ninewa and elsewhere–who think it would have been a good thing for the Americans to stay. Kurds, Christians and many Sunnis see the American presence as protection.
But this “decision,” if we can call a failed negotiation a decision, is positive in other ways. It was taken on the Iraqi side under popular pressure–Prime Minister Maliki is reported to have thought he couldn’t get approval to extend an American presence through the parliament. I’d call that kind of decisionmaking democratic, which is not a word many people are using today to describe Maliki’s Iraq. Without American troops, the Iraqis will have to bear the full brunt of the responsibility for keeping the country stable, including by confronting the Iranians if they overstep. No more Uncle Sam will take care of it for you.
Will the Iraqis be up to the challenge? I don’t pretend to know, but they are certainly more capable than at any time in the past eight years. Bad things still happen in Iraq, on a more or less daily basis. But security has improved, oil production is up, services are marginally better and people are worried about corruption, which is one of my personal indicators that the worst of the physical violence is coming to an end.
What is not clear is how long they’ll keep the more or less democratic system of governance we bequeathed them. Maliki shows signs of grabbing for power by appointing army commanders loyal to him personally, ignoring the parliament, pressuring the constitutional court and stiff-arming both his coalition partners and the opposition. His ungenerous reaction to Iraqi protesters calling for better services and more democracy, as well as his support for Bashar al Assad, have raised a lot of eyebrows.
Iraqis should bear the responsibility for ensuring that the democratic system prevails. Keeping it propped up with American troops was helping Maliki consolidate his position, and seemed to provide precious little leverage over his decisions. I find it hard to believe that either Kurds or Sunnis will accept a Shia autocracy, and there are lots of Shia who will object as well. Iran will not find Iraqis any easier to push around than the Americans did. Maybe it is time to take off the training wheels altogether and hope for the best. We’ve got a lot of other things to worry about.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The limits of military power
Maybe it’s because I’ve been reading Joe Nye’s The Future of Power, but every event I’ve been to lately around DC has reminded me of the limits of military power in achieving U.S. national security objectives. It is certainly not lack of admiration for the prowess of the American military–they are fantastically good at not only the military tasks that are their bread and butter, but also at the many other tasks presidents toss their way. And if you haven’t had the privilege of hearing David Petraeus or James Stavridis talk, you’ve missed some first class intellectual heft.
But consider today’s problems: Iran, Syria, Afghanistan.
If Iran did in fact plot with a Mexican cartel to murder the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., what are we going to do about it? Sure there are military options, and
people who advocate them. If the plot had succeeded we would probably have used one or two like leveling Quds force headquarters with cruise missiles or capturing a few Iranian miscreants in Iraq or Afghanistan. But it is all too obvious that the Iranians would respond, blowing up some favorites of ours or grabbing a few more Americans taking walks in Kurdistan. The more realistic options in response to a plot that did not succeed are the nonmilitary ones I pointed to yesterday.
Syria is a case where military intervention like that undertaken in Libya might make a big difference, and some of the protesters against President Assad’s regime would like to see it happen. But it won’t: the Russians haven’t even allowed a denunciation of the regime’s violence against the demonstrators to pass, and the Arab League is sitting on its duffs. I know there are some who still hope NATO will undertaken the kind of unauthorized campaign it unleashed from the air against the Serbs in 1999, but it isn’t going to happen so long as Bashar keeps the level of atrocities in the daily dozens. The protesters are in for a long struggle without foreign force on their side.
In Afghanistan, the Americans have really brought to bear most of their military capability, without a clear result. No one serious believes any longer that there is a military solution there. We’ll have to settle for a political arrangement that gives the Taliban (hopefully not Al Qaeda) some significant measure of what it wants. Afghanistan is looking more and more like Vietnam, less and less like even Iraq. We aren’t likely to come out in 2014, when withdrawal is to be completed, with much.
Let’s not even discuss Israel/Palestine and North Korea, where American interests are certainly at stake. American military capabilities are vital to shaping the environment in both places, but the opportunities to use it are very limited. It is more an insurance policy against gross misbehavior by one of the protagonists than a tool that we can use on a daily basis. In Joe Nye’s terms, military power in these environments can be converted into influence, persuasion and agenda-setting (i.e. soft power) even if use of American force is not likely.
Of course our flag officers know they need stronger civilian counterparts in defending national security. They have repeatedly called for beefing up civilian capabilities. But it isn’t happening. Congress is tearing the budget of the civilian side of foreign policy to shreds, even as the game of chicken between Republicans and Democrats on the budget approaches the moment of truth. I think we know what will happen if it comes down to cutting the national security budget, which includes both military and civilian expenditure. The military may not like what it ends up with, but it will be a feast relative to what the State Department and the Agency for International Development have on their plates.
RSS - Posts
