Afghan militia programme meets obstacles

Part of the military plan for the stabilization of Afghanistan – and a good part – is to recruit local militias similiar to the 103,000 Sunni fighters – many former insurgents – who signed onto the U.S. payroll in Iraq. The gunmen are put through a three week training programme and then employed to provide security against the Taliban, something they can do much more cheaply than army or police units who require more extensive training. Empowering locals is also deemed useful because of their knowledge of the local terrain and the population – they can identify Taliban infilitrators more easily than troops sent in from outside.

The programme is currently being trialled in Wardak Province.  But, as a New York Times article details, it is running into problems.

At first, everything went well in Jalrez, the mountainous area where the program is based. Young men from two of Jalrez’s main ethnic groups, the Tajiks and the Hazaras, enthusiastically came forward; both have largely supported the American presence. Several dozen Pashtuns from other villages showed up as well. Two hundred forty-three volunteers were selected, each vetted by the police, the elders and the local religious leaders. The first crop of recruits went through the three-week course — presided over by American Special Forces officers — and graduated three weeks ago. They are now patrolling the dirt roads of Jalrez.

The trouble came from the Pashtun enclave of Zayawalat, one of five large villages in Jalrez.

The Americans setting up the guard force waited patiently, hoping to bring Zayawalat’s elders along. They agreed to a meeting with the elders, and then another and another. At a meeting last week, the fourth, the Pashtun elders said they would make a final decision and report back this week.

But when they showed up Monday morning, the elders said they still were not ready to give up their sons. “It’s not that the people in Zayawalat don’t support the government — they do,” said Hajii Janan, the leader of the Wardak provincial council, who presided over the meeting. “But, as you can see, people are under pressure.”

Mr. Janan was not exaggerating. Last month, a local Taliban commander, Abdul Jameel, based in Maidan Shahr, came forward with 10 of his fighters and declared that he would fight no more. Wardak’s governor, Halim Fidai, accepted his surrender and told him to go home. The governor offered Mr. Jameel no protection for this act of defiance of the Taliban. Two weeks ago, Taliban gunmen entered Mr. Jameel’s home and killed him, his wife, his uncle, his brother and his daughter.

In Iraq, the programme to recruit Sunni militias worked for two reasons.  The first was that it came at roughly the same time as the U.S. surge, meaning that there were more Americans to provide security and protect those who turned against the insurgents.  The second was that the Sunni tribes were so fed up with being brutalized by al-Qaeda in Iraq that they were willing to endure significant hardships to fight them.  Neither of these conditions exist in Afghanistan.

Before the programme can work properly, the Pashtun tribes who the U.S. is hoping to turn need to see clearly what is in it for them, and to see that their choice will provide them with a sustainable future.  The Pashtuns are the focal point of the effort because they come from the same ethnic group as the Taliban, and they straddle the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan – they will have to live with whatever is left of the Taliban long after the U.S. withdraw.  In this war of limited resources, it’s going to be hard to convince them of the urgency of helping the Americans – but Washington’s strategy arguably depends upon it.

Add comment April 15, 2009

The best the pro-Iranians have to offer is not that great

Usually I consider Roger Cohen’s New York Times columns beneath contempt nowadays.  I do not believe he is guilty of active distortion, but his grasp of the issues that he writes about is fatally poor.  Maybe he has seeds of doubt in himself, as shown by his apparent need to strike out at critics.

Occasionally, he writes a column in which he dispenses with innuendo and suggestion and actually reveals the core of his ideas.  I always think that these columns are worth examining – after all, they represent the views of one of the premier spokesmen for the ‘engage Iran’ crowd, in the newspaper of record, read by millions.  They could reasonably be expected to offer the best ideas that this crowd have to offer, at least the most influential ones.  April 12’s column, ‘Realpolitik for Iran‘, is just such a column.

The core of Cohen’s argument in this column is that there is no way of stopping Iran attaining “virtual” nuclear status of the sort that Japan has.  “Virtual” nuclear status is the ability to make a weapon within a very short time period should the decision be made to do so; for instance, it is widely believed that Japan can make a nuclear weapon within 12 months should the American nuclear umbrella be lifted.  Cohen believes that what is important for the rest of the world now is making sure that Iran never wants to go beyond “virtual” status and actually develop a weapon, something which he seems to believe they will not do unless provoked in some way.

Our suspicions about the validity of this argument should be immediately piqued when he says that Obama’s call for a nuclear-free world was one such positive move in dissuading Iran from developing a real weapon.  This is an old trope of nuclear diplomacy, as if Tehran really cares about the fairness of the nuclear proliferation regime rather than the utility of a nuclear weapon in its foreign policy.  In any case, a “nuclear-free world” is such a remote and unlikely possibility that it hardly constitutes an element of a strategy to deal with Iran in the here and now.  Furthermore, given that Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon has been contrary to the rules of the proliferation regime anyway, it’s not clear why they would adhere to a new, stricter regime.

Unfortunately, his reasoning only gets worse.

Cohen wants the U.S. to reach some sort of grand bargain – he calls it a “normalization scenario” – with Iran, a diplomatic deal that acknowledges the reality of Iran’s nuclear weapon.  Here is “one such normalization scenario”:

Iran ceases military support for Hamas and Hezbollah; adopts a “Malaysian” approach to Israel (nonrecognition and noninterference); agrees to work for stability in Iraq and Afghanistan; accepts intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency verification of a limited nuclear program for peaceful ends only; promises to fight Qaeda terrorism; commits to improving its human rights record.

The United States commits itself to the Islamic Republic’s security and endorses its pivotal regional role; accepts Iran’s right to operate a limited enrichment facility with several hundred centrifuges for research purposes; agrees to Iran’s acquiring a new nuclear power reactor from the French; promises to back Iran’s entry into the World Trade Organization; returns seized Iranian assets; lifts all sanctions; and notes past Iranian statements that it will endorse a two-state solution acceptable to the Palestinians.

This is where Cohen utterly departs from reality.  While he may have spent time travelling around Iran and talking to its liberal young people, he seriously misunderstands the goals of the Islamist regime, as well as why it is developing a nuclear weapon.  By later drawing an analogy to “Nixon in China”, he again demonstrates his lack of understanding.  Iran and the United States have nearly entirely opposite aims in the Middle East, whereas Nixon’s rapprochement with China was possible because of an emerging confluence of interests between China and the United States in their joint relations with the Soviet Union.  On none of the issues he mentions above is there any confluence of interests between the U.S. and Iran, and Iran has developed a nuclear weapon not to trade away its cherished goals, but all the better to pursue them.

Take its “military support of Hamas and Hezbollah”, its approach to Israel, and its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  For Iran, these are not minor points of its foreign policy to be traded away, they are an active expression of the central tenets of the worldview of the mullahs.  Cohen thinks they if the U.S. merely acknowledges the “pivotal regional role” of Tehran, then it will be willing to stop doing these things – but what’s the point of having a pivotal regional role if you can’t pursue the goals that you want to?  Iran wants the U.S. to accept that its interference in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its arming of Hamas and Hezbollah, are legitimate actions due to Iran’s right to interfere in the region.  That’s what “mutual respect” means to the Iranians, not a luau in the Rose Garden.

Cohen seems to think that there is some confluence of interests towards Israel, Iraq, or Afghanistan between Iran and Washington.  There might be some confluence between the policy Cohen wishes that Washington would pursue and Tehran’s aims, but the latter are contrary to decades of Western interests in the Middle East.  Iran doesn’t primarily want a “stable” Iraq, it wants an Iraq ruled by Shiite factions allied with Iran’s rulers.  It doesn’t want a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it wants the eventual destruction of Israel – and its active undermining in the meantime.  Iran doesn’t want to live in peace with the moderate Sunni states of the region, it wants to undermine them.  Cohen only thinks that Iran will abandon any of this for ephemeral “respect” and a few diplomatic concessions because in his world Iran is blameless and simply trying to resist various impositions by the United States, when in reality it is Iran that is belligerent, expansionist, and set on its goals.

Improving its human rights record is also not a goal that it is remotely plausible Tehran will accept.  The regime is founded on Islamism, not western liberal notions of rights – for the mullahs to accept the applicability of such notions would not only be to accept interference in its sovereign affairs by the United States, but also undermine the very foundation of the Iranian system.  This is quite obviously not going to happen.

And then, at the end, as Max Boot notes, there comes this:

Any such deal is a game changer, transformative as Nixon to China (another repressive state with a poor human rights record). It can be derailed any time by an attack from Israel, which has made clear it won’t accept virtual nuclear power status for Iran, despite its own nonvirtual nuclear warheads.

I’ll let Boot rebut that one:

So you see the Iranians are ready to change their ways, to become a paragon of Western liberal virtue. The only thing standing in the way is mindless Israeli belligerence. If only the nasty Israelites would let the nice Iranians have a nuclear program, everyone could walk off into the sunset, arm in arm.  It is rare to get such insights outside of official Iranian government organs.

Add comment April 13, 2009

Somalis mortar U.S. congressman

BBC News is reporting that a Somalian armed group (they said “insurgents”, but really, what is there to be insurgent against in that place?) has fired mortars at a U.S. congressman as he arrived in Mogadishu.  It could have been an accident, because things get mortared in Somalia all the time – especially the seaport, which is nominally controlled by African Union troops.

It’s not very likely to be an accident, though.  Congressman Donald Payne flew to Mogadishu today to discuss the issue of piracy with the country’s “leadership” – which, of course, barely controls any of the country – marking the first time a U.S. politician went to Mogadishu since 1994.  The pirates have vowed to consider the U.S. and its citizens as their number one enemy now, and the chief of the pirates who were killed has said he will hunt down U.S. citizens far from Somalia.  Far from being small independent groups, the pirates are reportedly fully integrated with the country’s warlords and armed factions, so it is entirely credible that fighters in Mogadishu are retaliating for the death of the three pirates.

And thus, the U.S. is swept ever deeper into the vortex of this problem.

Add comment April 13, 2009

Analysis of Nasrallah’s statement on Egyptian charges

Cairo is now saying that it is going to bring charges against Hassan al-Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, after he admitted that an alleged terrorist arrested in Egypt is a member of the group.  This is a very significant escalation in the proxy war between Egypt and Iran, and it is possible it could have quite a destabilizing impact in Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood are saying the charges are fabricated and Nasrallah has released a lengthy statement, available via the Hezbollah TV station Al-Manar:

According to his eminence [Nasrallah], the Egyptian authorities have detained on November 19, 2008, a Lebanese citizen and accused him alongside other people of attempting to smuggle arms and equipment to Gaza.

“One month later, the Zionist entity launched its deadly aggression against Gaza,” Sayyed Nasrallah noted, recalling that Hezbollah’s position during the offensive was transparent and public. His eminence recalled that he has personally urged the Egyptian regime to open crossing with Gaza. “Then, it was our duty to denounce the Egyptian regime for its refusal to open the crossings,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. “Right after this stance, a political and commercial huge campaign was launched in Egypt against me and Hezbollah, under the instructions of the Egyptian authorities and intelligence. Yet, we considered the campaign as a reaction and a natural price for our stance and we were ready to pay it.”

Hezbollah Secretary General noted that the volume of the campaign launched by the Egyptian regime against his party was remarkable, recalling that some Sunni scholars also condemned the Egyptian President and even accused him of betrayal. “Yet, the Egyptian authorities didn’t condemn those scholars as they did with Hezbollah,” his eminence pointed out to conclude that their position with Hebollah was different “because Hezbollah was a Resistance.” Sayyed Nasrallah went on to say that there are parties in the Arab world that are offensive against the Resistance and are very close to their American and Israeli masters in dealing with this issue.

Nasrallah has set up his statement here by highlighting the salient parts of the Iranian/Hamas/Hezbollah position in the Middle East conflict with the Sunni states: that their main purpose is opposing Israel and not undermining the Sunni states or promoting extremism there, and that the Sunni states are lining up with Israel and the U.S. against “true Muslims”.  Nasrallah is trying to portray the Egyptian regime as opposed to the interests of the “true Muslims” and the Palestinians and in bed with the enemy instead.

Turning into facts, Sayyed Nasrallah recalled that Hezbollah is clear in its positions and has nothing to hide in whatever circumstances. Hence, his eminence declared that the Lebanese citizen Sami Chehab, who was detained in Egypt, was actually a member of Hezbollah. “Our brother Sami, is a member of Hezbollah, we don’t deny this,” Sayyed Nasrallah announced. “He was providing logistic help to the Palestinian resistance at the Egyptian-Palestinian borders,” his eminence added, noting that this was the only right thing that actually didn’t figure in the Egyptian claims. “All other charges against him are false.”

Providing logistic help to Hamas is a goal that many people in the Middle East would support, especially among the Egyptian population – and by making it look like Cairo is cracking down on people who are trying to help Hamas, then Nasrallah is hoping to incense the Egyptian population and increase the strength of affiliated Islamist organizations – mainly the Muslim Brotherhood – in Egypt.  Of course, he doesn’t mention that terrorist attacks such as the ones allegedly planned are another method by which Hezbollah and its Iranian backers try to do this.

“If aiding the Palestinians is a crime, then I am proud of it,” Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized. His eminence noted “that the aim here is to agitate the Egyptian people and to defame Hezbollah’s pure and bright image. This aims to only please the Americans and Israelis for the Egyptian regime has failed by all means.”

Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that the one who should be charged and condemned over this case was not Sami or his friends but the Egyption regime. “The Egyptian regime should be charged and condemned for besieging Gaza,” his eminence said, noting that the mentioned regime is working day and night on destroying Gaza tunnels.

The Resistance leader expressed regret because the Egyptian regime was escalating its aggression against the resistance movements in the region instead of backing and supporting them. “We were expecting the Egyptian regime to take the initiative and invite the Arabs to discuss how to face the Israeli threats, but unfortunately we saw that the Egyptian regime decided instead to increase his conflict with the Resistance.”

To conclude on the topic, Sayyed Nasrallah fully rejected and denied all charges that Hezbollah was intending to launch an act of aggression in Egypt or at any part of the world. His eminence stressed that his party does not intend to enter into any form of enmity and conflict with any Arab, Islamic or international regime in the world, confirming that its sole enemy remains the Zionist entity.

This is a big theme in discourse among Hamas, Hezbollah and their Iranian supporters – the idea that the Arabs have been unable to defeat Israel because they have been divided among themselves, and that unity in the Muslim world is the key to victory.  Because Nasrallah has reached iconic popularity as the only Arab leader to ever best the Israelis in combat – in the 2006 war – it would significantly undermine him if he were seen to be plotting to attack another Arab state.  This would undermine the message of unity he promotes.  But he is playing a dangerous game, because his backers in Iran demonstrably do not have the best interests of the Arab countries at heart – and here he has been caught in this double game due to the unveiling of a Hezbollah plot in Egypt.  It hence behoves him to paint Egypt as the aggressor, and Egypt as the divider, whereas all he wanted to do was aid Hamas.  Quite.

“The charge of attempting to spread the Shiite way of thinking and practices is baseless,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, adding that no single individual can do so in Egypt. “To accuse us of being agents working for others is also meaningless,” his eminence emphasized.

This is another indication of the problem discussed in the previous passage – many Sunnis consider Shiism to be an apostasy, and they are getting worried about Iran trying to spread the doctrine.  It would harm Nasrallah immeasurably to be seen as a standard-bearer of Shiite attempts to convert Sunnis, which is precisely why the Egyptians have accused him of it.  It would show to many Sunnis that more lay behind his agenda than simply helping Hamas.

Sayyed Nasrallah, meanwhile, expressed regret over the attempts of some Arabs to present Hezbollah as Al-Qaeda, confirming that Hezbollah does not have extensions abroad and is not involved in any conflict in other Arab countries.

“Hezbollah is a purely Lebanese party from its leadership to its base and it has no branches anywhere else,” the Resistance leader asserted. “Hebzollah’s mission is to protect Lebanon from the Zionist danger,” his eminence recalled, stressing that the party doesn’t actually interfere in any internal conflict of any state in the world. “However, in facing the Zionist criminality, it’s our duty to help the Palestinians, just as it’s their duty to help us in the same circumstances.”

More of the same here.

Of course, the very fact that Nasrallah openly admits to providing help to Hamas via Egypt is enough for us to condemn him.  It is clear that no solution or even lasting truce can be found in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while Hamas exists in its current form, and so Hezbollah are guilty of a grevious sin in aiding them; yet the issues at play here are much deeper, and ultimately involve the Iranian bid for ascendancy in the Middle East and the Egyptian resistance.  Once again, as so many times before, the future of the Palestinians is being mortgaged for the attainment of someone else’s end.

More from Rosner.

Add comment April 12, 2009

Egypt moves on Hezbollah, signals new policy on Hamas

In a highly significant move, the Egyptian government has wound up what it says is a Hezbollah terrorist cell which was aiming to attack Egypt.  If you’ll forgive me for the slightly confused auto-translate, here is what the government-affiliated Al-Ahram newspaper is saying about it:

The source said the official: The investigation is currently underway with members of Hezbollah cell involved in the sabotage, which was planned to be carried out at the mention of Hassan Nasrallah, has resorted to attract members of the several regions in Egypt, and conducted interviews in the and monitoring and complete the purchase of an apartment building in Cairo, and a number of shops and Alfellat area of Dahab and Nuweiba, and Rafah, and Suez, including villas on the navigation course of the channel to be used in monitoring and targeting of certain ships .

It also included the movement of the elements of the terrorist cell led by the Hezbollah leader, Mohammad Yousuf, Sami Mansour Shahab Oboyousef several Egyptian governorates, and not to the border area of Rafah, but also to some of the governorates of Upper Egypt and Greater Cairo, and this refutes allegations Secretary-General of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah, that they were providing logistical support for the resistance in Gaza.

The source said the official: The granted to Egypt by confessions and evidence gathered by the contract and private apartments, shops and apartment building fully reveal the falsity of the allegations of Nasrallah, and stresses the fact that the scheme was aimed at sabotaging the breach of the security situation in Egypt as the implementation of the criminal operations against specific targets ,

The organization has succeeded in recruiting 12 Egyptians accused of the Shiites, and the rest of the 37 suspects from four Arab countries: Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Palestine, Egypt and all of them entered the passports and papers false impersonation and other names, and have control of large quantities of securities amounting to about two million U.S. dollars, with cars and explosive materials and processed for use in operations that foiled arrest.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has responded by saying that the cell was only ten people strong, and that it was concerned with providing logistical help to the Hamas regime in Gaza.  This is a clear admission that it is involved in illegal activity within Egypt, but this is a play for public opinion in the Muslim world, because aiding Hamas is a popular goal which many people in Egypt support – and which the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the main Egyptian opposition group from which Hamas is originally an offshoot, gain a lot of support for.  However, attacks against Egypt itself are obviously not popular with most Egyptians.  Hence, Nasrallah is trying to use the smuggling as a wedge issue to turn Egyptians against their own government.  A group of Egyptian lawmakers are calling for Nasrallah himself to be charged following his admission, and officials are talking ominously about his “card being marked”.

Cairo is increasingly concerned about contacts between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and increased Iranian-directed activity within Egypt.  Egyptian officials see Hamas as an outpost of Iranian power on their doorstep, which is why they have been willing to co-operate with Israel in squeezing Hamas despite the unpopularity of doing so.  It is interesting, incidentally, that Egypt sees so clearly what many people in the West are blind to, namely that Hamas is in large part an Iranian proxy.  This arrest can hence be seen as a significant escalation of tensions between Iran and Cairo, and – if the accusations are true, which we can’t take for granted – shows the extent of Iranian ambition to destabilize the “moderate” Sunni states.

According to a (Fatah) Palestinian Authority official, this also signals the start of a new Egyptian policy towards Hamas.  Egypt has not done nearly enough to crack down on arms and money smuggling into the Gaza Strip, reportedly because it was giving Hamas a chance to moderate.  But the breakdown of the Palestinian unity talks and the talks with Israel over kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit – combined with the new Israeli government, with which it is highly unlikely Hamas will ever reach a compromise – has signalled the end of Egypt’s patience.  The official told YNet:

“Hamas leaders were mistaken if they thought they could continue embarrassing the Egyptians on the funds and arms smuggling issue, without a response.

“The breaching of the Rafah crossing in January 2007 turned the Egyptian soil into a walkway for Hamas members, and the Egyptians were waiting to settle the account over that too.”

Egypt did give Hamas a chance to atone for its mistakes, but the Islamist organization failed to use it and thwarted the Egyptian efforts on the Gilad Shalit issue and the fragile intra-Palestinian dialogue. It appears that Cairo was waiting for an opportune moment, which came once Hamas crossed a red line.

“Hamas understands that Egypt’s nightmare is Iranian elements on its territory,” said the Palestinian source. “As long as they only operated in the Strip it they got away with it, but Iranian activity in Egypt is against all conventions, a blow which the Egyptians could not absorb and digest, so they are now settling the account with Hamas.”

According to the official, “More than the Egyptians wish to portray (Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan) Nasrallah as a desert plunderer, they want to signal to Hamas that the days of patience are over and that they must prepare for a completely different policy, which will be much tougher.”

And, sure enough, the Egyptians have arrested a man smuggling USD$2 million into Gaza and shot another smuggler.  A small step, but a beginning.  How long this confluence of interests between Egypt and Israel will endure is uncertain, but it is possible that Iran could be overplaying its hand by driving everyone else in the region together.  But of course, if they obtain a nuclear weapon, then that will no longer matter.

Remember the context, as well: while Obama is trying to open doors for Ahmadinejad and the Iranians, Egypt is busy moving against their interests and trying to highlight the extent of the threat posed by Iran.  In one respect they don’t have a choice, because Iran’s challenge is a clear and present danger regardless of Obama’s words – a situation that also obtains for Israel, as Shimon Peres reminded us today, lest we forget.

Add comment April 12, 2009

Netanyahu on Iran

Some quotes from Jeffrey Goldberg covering what Netanyahu thinks about Iran.

“Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they’ll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?”

Netanyahu offered Iran’s behavior during its eight-year war with Iraq as proof of Tehran’s penchant for irrational behavior. Iran “wasted over a million lives without batting an eyelash … It didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness. It wasn’t Britain after World War I, lapsing into pacifism because of the great tragedy of a loss of a generation. You see nothing of the kind.”

He continued: “You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” I asked Netanyahu if he believed Iran would risk its own nuclear annihilation at the hands of Israel or America. “I’m not going to get into that,” he said.

Neither Netanyahu nor his principal military advisers would suggest a deadline for American progress on the Iran nuclear program, though one aide said pointedly that Israeli time lines are now drawn in months, “not years.” These same military advisers told me that they believe Iran’s defenses remain penetrable, and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack. “The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action,” one of his advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me.

…

In our conversation, Netanyahu gave his fullest public explication yet of why he believes President Obama must consider Iran’s nuclear ambitions to be his preeminent overseas challenge. “Why is this a hinge of history? Several bad results would emanate from this single development. First, Iran’s militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella. This raises the stakes of any confrontation that they’d force on Israel. Instead of being a local event, however painful, it becomes a global one. Second, this development would embolden Islamic militants far and wide, on many continents, who would believe that this is a providential sign, that this fanaticism is on the ultimate road to triumph.

“Third, they would be able to pose a real and credible threat to the supply of oil, to the overwhelming part of the world’s oil supply. Fourth, they may threaten to use these weapons or to give them to terrorist proxies of their own, or fabricate terror proxies. Finally, you’d create a great sea change in the balance of power in our area—nearly all the Arab regimes are dead-set opposed to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. They fervently hope, even if they don’t say it, that the U.S. will act to prevent this, that it will use its political, economic, and, if necessary, military power to prevent this from happening.”

More:

“Iran has threatened to annihilate a state or to have a state wiped off the map of the world. In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It’s a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Sure, there are perfunctory condemnations, but there’s no j’accuse – there’s no shock and there’s a resigned acceptance that this is acceptable practice. Bad things tend to get worse if they’re not challenged early. Iranian leaders talk about Israel’s destruction or disappearance while simultaneously creating weapons to ensure its disappearance.”

Add comment April 7, 2009

The emerging countours of Obama’s foreign policy

What do we know so far about how Barack Obama plans to run foreign policy?  A few points.

1) An Obama foreign policy is largely about talk.  So far, his main effort has been a PR offensive to try and repair the damage to America’s image that was done by President Bush.  He has gone to enormous lengths while in Europe to tell anyone who will listen that he represents “change” and that they can stop hating America now that the nasty cowboy has gone.  So far, this has resulted in few concrete achievements in return.  The strategy of basing a foreign policy on talk is modelled on Clinton – after all, talk is cheap, and neither of these Democrats want to be expending much else when they have their domestic programmes to focus on.  The difference is that under Clinton, the Europeans wanted things from America – Kyoto, ICC, leadership in the Balkans – whereas under Obama, America wants things from the Europeans, especially vis-a-vis Russia and South Asia.  Is his playing nice going to mean more help from the other side of the Atlantic?  Don’t hold your breath.

2) And Obama is taking the same approach to non-proliferation with regards to Iran and North Korea, even though this is apparently a major foreign policy goal which he dedicated a whole speech to in Prague.  This highlights how a lot of his talk is often going off at tangents from the real issue.  Yes, America  might not be at war with Islam – but Islamists are sure at war with america.  Yes, non-proliferation might be a worthy goal – but how on earth is he going to achieve it?  As Bret Stephens wrote after Obama responded to North Korea’s missile test by calling for another UN Security Council Resolution:

But the greatest prize for Mr. Kim [from the North Korea missile test] was the reaction from President Obama. “Rules must be binding,” the president told his audience in Prague on Sunday. “Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.” But how are words supposed to mean anything if all the administration proposes to do is offer up yet another resolution — which is to say, more words?

And what’s his strategy for Iran?  Talk, talk talk.  Which is basically just temporizing as events march on, as it is clear to anyone that talk isn’t going to stop the mullahs from developing their bomb.  No-one can seriously believe that the United Nations Security Council is an institution that is going to maintain international peace and security – so why is Obama still making it a centrepiece of his foreign policy?  Are he or his advisors really so steeped in the anti-Bush rhetoric of the last few years, to the extent they’ll accept anything he rejected?  Do they really buy it?

3) This leads us to a deeper level of analysis – Obama’s foreign policy is realist.  Faced with declining means and a desire not to go looking for trouble, Obama is radically reorienting the proposed ends of American foreign policy – he wants to “reset” relations with Russia despite its authoritarian backsliding, Hillary Clinton publicly said she isn’t going to pressure China on human rights, Obama has said his interest in Afghan democracy is only secondary, and Obama doesn’t intend to do anything about the Iranian nuke or its repressive political system.  In fact, he has repeatedly and sickeningly reached out to the tyrants of Tehran despite the fact they continue to humiliate him and the United States through public rejections.

4) He insists on blaming things on his predecessor, which is all very well but hardly a substitute for future policy.  When discussing Iraq and Afghanistan, he managed to get jabs at Bush’s past policies into every speech, without once acknowledging American successes there.  In Europe, he keeps telling everyone how different he is and how America is changing thanks to him, although once it becomes apparent that this change consists of withdrawing from the world and letting aggressive countries do what they want, everyone might rethink their jubilation.  We need some clue that he doesn’t buy into his own rhetoric or see foreign policy mainly as an extension of politics – his political advisor, David Axelrod, is the first political advisor to ever attend National Security Council meetings.

5) By acting in this way, he is letting others dictate the movement of the international environment.  Iran is busy reshaping the Middle East, Russia has increased latitude in Eastern and Central Europe, and North Korea is busy stamping its feet in East Asia.  Many of these trends date back to Bush’s focus on Iraq – “no country can act wisely simultaneously in every part of the globe at every moment of time” – but Obama’s tenure should have been an opportunity to reverse some – even one – of these trends.  We’ve heard nothing but excorciating criticism about Bush’s foreign policy for eight years.  Where are the alternatives?  Is the alternative in fact just to let things continue while talking nicely?

6) By acting in this way, he seems to be accepting the judgement – popular in Europe – that it is the United States that is the main source of tension and trouble in the world, not aggressive countries like Iran and North Korea.  By simply backing off and spreading good vibes with his rhetoric, he is trying to show the rest of the world that the sort of activism which characterized the Bush presidency is gone, and a new era of chilled-out co-operation is here.  This strategy is comforting exactly to the people who don’t matter because they’re not a threat anyway, but gives a green light to everyone who wants to take actions opposed to America’s interests.  Not everyone in the world is dedicated to international co-operation as much as Barack Obama.

7) The one major strategic initiative he has committed to, in Afghanistan, is ill-defined and half-hearted.  That might not necessarily be a problem – at least it’s a start – but points one to five tend to suggest it might be abandoned or scaled back further when things get tough.  Obama didn’t spell out its necessity or generational significance – to do so might have sounded too much like Bush, I suppose – and Americans are not that interested or convinced about the war.  Obama’s incrementalism will hardly have helped turn them around.  He might pay a significant political price for it – will he stick it out, like Bush bravely did?

Add comment April 7, 2009

Iranian “reformer” vows to push nuclear drive

The “reformist” candidate in Iran’s upcoming presidential election has said he will not abandon the country’s nuclear programme:

Mousavi said talks with the United States would be beneficial, as long as Iran does not have to “pay heavy costs such as the deprivation of advanced technologies,” a reference to Iran’s disputed nuclear activities.

“We have to have the technology,” Mousavi said, adding that the consequences of giving up the country’s nuclear program would be “irreparable” and that the Iranian people support the nuclear program.

Many Iranians across the political spectrum have rallied behind the country’s nuclear program which is considered a source of national pride.

Mousavi said he would attempt to “lessen the costs of having the (nuclear) technology,” a reference to the fact that Iran is under U.N. sanctions over its refusal to halt its nuclear activity.

Add comment April 7, 2009

Obama: U.S. not at war with Islam

Obama gave a speech in the Turkish Parliament today, in which he helpfully assured listeners that the United States is not at war with Islam.  Some excerpts:

In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: the United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of good will around the world. That is a goal that that the parties agreed to in the Roadmap and at Annapolis. And that is a goal that I will actively pursue as President. 

We know that the road ahead will be difficult. Both Israelis and Palestinians must take the steps that are necessary to build confidence. Both must live up to the commitments they have made. Both must overcome longstanding passions and the politics of the moment to make progress toward a secure and lasting peace.

The United States and Turkey can help the Palestinians and Israelis make this journey. Like the United States, Turkey has been a friend and partner in Israel’s quest for security. And like the United States, you seek a future of opportunity and statehood for the Palestinians. Now, we must not give into pessimism and mistrust. We must pursue every opportunity for progress, as you have done by supporting negotiations between Syria and Israel. We must extend a hand to those Palestinians who are in need, while helping them strengthen institutions. And we must reject the use of terror, and recognize that Israel’s security concerns are legitimate.

With absolutely no mention of Hamas – much less of Iran’s nefarious role in all of this – this is a profoundly unhelpful statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  While it has become fashionable to castigate the Bush administration for “do-nothingism” on the conflict (a bizzare charge given Annapolis and the Security Council resolution calling for two states, the first ever), it is not clear to me that Obama’s decision to pursue a peace process that is obviously going to fail is really a superior option.  It would be nice if we could get over the cult of the “solution” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and just admit that there isn’t a solution visible anywhere on the horizon – and if there is, it certainly isn’t going to come about through talks with Hamas.  But we should know better to expect this sort of realism, and so these anodyne and meaningless generalities are what we’re going to have to settle for.  But don’t be fooled into believing this is actually going to lead anywhere.

The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions. As I made clear yesterday in Prague, no one is served by the spread of nuclear weapons. This part of the world has known enough violence. It has known enough hatred. It does not need a race for ever-more powerful tools of destruction.

The peace of the region would certainly be advanced if Iran forgoes its nuclear ambitions, but it is not clear at this point that there is any way this can be made to happen.  And every time Obama talks about the issue without threatening military force, he makes it more likely we will wake up one day to an Iranian bomb.

I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not at war with Islam and will never be. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject. 

 

But I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaeda. Far from it. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding, and seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. And we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better – including my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them. 

 

Above all, we will demonstrate through actions our commitment to a better future. We want to help more children get the education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes, and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship.

 

There is an old Turkish proverb: ‘You cannot put out fire with flames.’

 

America knows this. Turkey knows this. There are some who must be met with force. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together. 

 

I know there are those who like to debate Turkey’s future. They see your country at the crossroads of continents, and touched by the currents of history. They know that this has been a place where civilizations meet, and different peoples come together. And they wonder whether you will be pulled in one direction or another.

 

Here is what they don’t understand: Turkey’s greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide – it is where they come together. In the beauty of your culture. In the richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy. In your hopes for tomorrow.

 

I am honored to stand here with you – to look forward to the future that we must reach for together – and to reaffirm America’s commitment to our strong and enduring friendship.

Add comment April 6, 2009

World without nukes? Don’t hold your breath

Both Gordon Brown and Barack Obama have given speeches recently in which they describe their dream of a world without nuclear weapons, a dream that we should all share.  However, the thrust of these speeches seems “otherworldly” given the context of a North Korean missile test and Iran’s march ever closer to a nuclear test.

We should certainly welcome bilateral efforts between the United States and Russia to reduce the size of their stockpiles.  The two states currently have enough weapons to end human life on this earth as we know it, and the opportunity to address this situation when the Cold War ended was squandered.  If enough momentum can be created to address the situation now, then it should be seized as enthusiastically as possible – it’s also a concrete matter on which the U.S. and Russia can agree and build trust between one another.

However important this effort is, it is by no means the sum total of the nuclear issue.  The first use of a nuclear weapon by Russia or the U.S. is highly unlikely, whereas the use by a non-state actor or a smaller state with less at stake in the international system is the real threat.  Nor are efforts at decommissioning by western countries really going to have a measurable impact on proliferation elsewhere – moral leadership in denuclearization is all very well, but states like Iran and North Korea don’t seek nuclear weapons because they are dedicated to a doctrine of fairness, but because of the respect that comes from wielding great force.

And this is why all this talk of a world without nukes is distracting us from the real issue: we live in a world of increased proliferation, not less.  It is hard to foresee a way in which nuclear weapons will not be more widespread in ten years than they are now, making all this talk seem like the last grasp of a bygone era rather than an apt preparation for the future.  Countries like Iran have proven that they are willing to undergo substantial diplomatic and economic pain in the pursuit of nuclear weapons. and until we are able to inflict more pain on them to deter them we have few options to stop them.

The only sure way of preventing a state from developing nuclear weapons is substantial military action, and we cannot avoid looking this fact squarely in the face just because we consider the option undesirable.  We have to decide whether nonproliferation is a goal worth going to war for, and it is likely that we will often conclude it is not; hence, we will find ourselves living in a world where proliferation is more common.  Acquiring nuclear weapons is especially tempting for states who fear military action because they know that once they have it, the threat of military action effectively vanishes.

So let’s welcome bilateral U.S.-Russian cuts; let’s welcome efforts to lock down loose material and shut down black markets; let’s strengthen schemes like Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative, which was instrumental in ending Libya’s programme; but let’s not pretend that we’re going to be living in a world without nukes any time soon.  All of this talk almost has the appearance of being designed to distract from the real issue, which is that Iran is on the brink of acquiring a nuclear weapon, with all the destabilizing consequences that this will bring.  I would much rather hear speeches about what Obama plans to do about this than his nebulous long-term goals on non-proliferation.  We urgently need concrete and achievable goals, and a mindset which encourages us to think about the most important issues – such as what the U.S. would do in the increasingly-likely scenario of someone actually detonating a nuke offensively.

Add comment April 6, 2009

Previous Posts

Contact

E-mail The Realist

Recent Posts

Blogroll

Archives

Categories

British Blogs