Settle down Poland.

Though I have already voiced my concerns, and for the most part, disapproval, of the Obama administration’s decision to scrap the major missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic, I was pleased to see the rather quick move to sure up these Eastern European allies with Vice President Joseph Biden’s visits over the last week.  Biden made stops in Poland, Czech Republic, and Romania with reassurance high on the agenda.  These states were shaken by Obama’s decision and several key leaders from the region (including Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa)  wrote an open letter to the administration calling for the US president not to forget about them as they try to improve relations with Moscow.  While in Poland, Biden discussed a new plan which would place SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles at a former air base in the town of Redzikowo in northern Poland.  It was reported early that the US would also station numerous Patriot missiles in the country.  Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine, and the other Eastern European don’t really fear a missile attack from Iran, but what they do fear are Russian boots on the ground.  Being close to the world’s superpower, better yet having its military personnel on your territory, is helpful in keeping the wolves at bay.  Hopefully, this Biden visit is followed by concrete measures that continue to tie these still nascent democracies towards the West and keep Moscow from fomenting any serious expansionist plans.  

While the relatively fast response to get back in line with our Eastern European allies was encouraging, a couple other recent developments by the Obama administration were a little, yes you got it, discouraging.  

With almost the first year of Obama’s presidency in the books it’s starting to become pretty clear that his administration is, in IR speak, part internationalist liberal, in the sense that they have strongly supported international law, the United Nations, multilateral rhetoric (if not action), and on the other hand, realist, as in stressing pragmatism, containment, and in de-emphasizing human rights and democracy in relations with other nations.  Kind of a Jeffersonian view of the world if you follow WR Mead’s view of American society.  Now this is a wide brush and I look forward to explaining it in more depth in later posts, but for right now I want to focus on the human rights aspect.  

The Obama administration is obviously in favor of human rights, but it has shown that it for the most part is taking a hands off approach.  In dealing with states such as Iran, Russia, Sudan, Egypt, China, etc., the issue of their internal human rights violations is a tricky subject to say the least, but so far the trend for the administration has been to put human rights and democracy issues second to more concrete, pressing problems such as nukes, security, economics, etc.  Obama’s decision to not see the Dalai Lama before visiting Beijing is a prime example of this policy.  Now, I disagree with this specific move and in terms of Iran, I think the administration may be blowing a major chance by legitimizing a nefarious government that could possibly collapse with more pressure, but I cannot reflexively denounce these moves out of hand.  I sympathize with the challenge of working in partnership with a leader and government that is authoritarian and violates human rights as at times it must be done. There are too many important security issues at stake and at times human rights and the spread of democracy must take a back seat.  

Where was I getting with this?  Oh yeah.  But I also found out about this and it did make me upset.  The Obama administration has decided to save 2-3 million dollars by stopping the funding for New Haven, Conn.-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, which does what its name implies, and Freedom House’s Gozaar project, an online Farsi- and English-language forum for discussing political issues.  These small projects and organizations work diligently to highlight the democratic/human rights problems in the Islamic Republic of Iran and, specifically in the case of Gozaar, provide a place where Iranian citizens can communicate with other people living in free societies.  I interviewed to work for Gozaar at one time and found their operation and staff inspirational.  At a time when the US government is spending like a teenager with a credit card, it was surprised me to hear that these programs where on the chopping block.  I don’t get it and I don’t like it.  

I was going to talk about Afghanistan too, but I think we all need a break.  Ok, Ok, I need a break.

First off, I want to acknowledge the sacrifice of all those who fought and died on France’s Normandy shores 65 years ago so I could sit on a comfy couch, in a beautiful city, and in a country where I can safely say and write whatever I want.  Thank you.  While I’m at I would like to thank those who are this very moment protecting our freedom and way of life in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, and beyond.

'I have a fruit basket, Is there someone named Islam here?'

Now let’s get to Obama’s Cairo speech.  I read the whole speech very early on Thursday morning and took copious notes (all of which I left at work) and my first impression was very positive.  The various topics covered and the audience were far from easy or simple, but President Obama did a serviceable job with a near impossible task, opening a more constructive, fair dialogue between Americans and many Muslims, specifically Arab Muslims.

Obama made quite the effort to show connection between Islam and the United States (sometimes too loosely) and praised Islamic culture and history throughout the speech.  Thankfully within this praise he was able to bring up faults (mainly violent extremism, lack of human rights, and opportunity) and highlight America’s history of progress and promise.  Referring to the latter, Obama had one of his best lines:

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America but its promise exists for all who come to our shores.

This was an effective way to connect Obama’s personal life story (Obama in poll after poll is more popular abroad than the US as a country) to the country that helped him become who he is today.

Though there has been criticism that Obama did not use the word ‘terrorism’ in his speech, I thought he did a bang up job defining the enemy and stating that it was a problem that needs to be combatted head on by both the United States, Muslim states, Muslim people, and Islamic faith.  He forcefully stated that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda (in other words not one of the many 9/11 conspiracy theories that are sadly passed around the Middle East and beyond) and went on to unequivocally state that the US would do whatever was needed to defeat this threat.  However, he was a bit to politically correct and playing to his audience when he finished off this subject with this line, ‘Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.’  I’m sorry, but the large majority of violent extremists in the world and those especially targeting the US are Islamic and base their reason for their acts on Islam.  So though Islam itself may not be the complete problem, interpretations and factions of it are.  To deny this would be not calling the enemy what it is.

Moving on.  I was disappointed by the near complete pass Iran’s nuclear program received during the speech.  Here was a sympathetic audience (at least the Arab state leaders) and Obama pretty much made clear that the issue was not a high priority for his administration, as the short Iran section seemed almost like filler and quickly turned to ‘ending the world of nukes’.  I think Obama may have been scared to be the seen as the American President giving demands or saying an Islamic state ‘can’t have nukes’.   This however, does not make good policy.  If you were Iran’s mullahs and you heard that part, you would think, ‘okay, we’re cool’.

I was also not a fan of the continual moral equivalencies (US women’s rights and Middle Eastern women’s rights really have nothing in common, and CIA assistance of the coup of Mosaddeq equals the Islamic Republics bad behavior for thirty ongoing years), but Max Boot discussed this better than I ever could.

Regarding Israel-Palestine, I was largely in agreement with Obama.  Israel does need to stop their settlements (though this is extremely complicated, much more than Obama lets on) and I thought Obama clearly laid out how Palestinian use of violence was unacceptable; ‘It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.’

On to Iraq, which was really short changed by Obama.  He mainly just talked about the US getting the hell out of there, but what about regional stability of the situation or about how the Iraqis were actually having REAL ELECTIONS to an audience that has never experienced such a thing.  I felt that they could have been a great seque into democracy promotion, but Obama faild to do so.  Many have died to make those elections come about and it would have been nice if the President of the United States at least acknowledged what was going on only a few hundred miles away.

That being said, Obama did finish up his speech with some nice words for universal human rights and democracy, but he did so without really using the D-word specifically.  Here’s his best line regarding what people yearn for:

…the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

It is interesting compare Obama’s democracy descriptions with former President Bush (“We know what works: Freedom works. We know what’s right: Freedom is right.”).  Different for sure, but really arguing the same point; democracy is da bomb.

I’m sure my notes had much more insight and hilarious jokes, but that’s all I got.  Overall, a nicely toned speech well-delivered.  The hard part of course is seeing real progress follow the words.

Excuse my absence of late as I was busy getting married. Unfortunately, I did not marry a great power (even South Africa, a regional power at best turned me down). While I was gone many GPP relevant happenings occurred, including a spirited debate on the EU’s place on the Great Power Rankings.

Thankfully that's not me or my wife.

Over the past week Pakistan seemed to fall apart and now seems to be putting itself back together again. The Taliban had made great strides not only cementing their control over regions in which the Paki state gave them autonomy over, but also pushed beyond. These disturbing and threatening moves caused quite a few people to voice serious concern about Pakistan’s short and long-term stability. However, in the past couple days the Pakistani military has launched major offensives to push back Taliban elements in the Swat Valley and attempt to bring back some semblance of state control. The leaders of Pakistan, Zardari, and Afghanistan, Karzai, also attended a trilateral conference with Obama in DC this weekend.

Speaking of Afghanistan and Obama, the US president has further put his stamp on the conflict by replacing (firing) Gen. David McKiernan, who was believed to be too old-school and militarily conventional, with Lt. Gen. Stanely McChrystal, a Special Ops expert. It appears Obama and his Sec of Defense Robert Gates did not believe McKiernan was the right man for their new strategy. Though I don’t know too much about McChrystal besides the fact that he led US Special Ops in Iraq, which caught Saddam and terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al Zarqawi, he comes with high praise. The Obama administration also fought back from claims that their new strategy and use of air strikes was putting too many Afghan civilians in danger, with the outcry from an incident in the town of Farah, where dozens of civilians may have been killed, taking center stage. Obama’s National Security Adviser Jim Jones asserted that the US would not give up the tactic: “We’re going to take a look at trying to make sure that we correct those things we can correct, but certainly to tie the hands of our commanders and say we’re not going to conduct air strikes, it would be imprudent.”

Lastly, Obama announced that he will give a major address in Egypt to the Islam world in a month. The location is no surprise and I am sorry I didn’t predict it here on this page. Egypt has been a major US ally in the region for going on 30 years and Condi Rice made a major speech there when she was Sec of State during the Bush Administration. I will soon right a larger piece about this upcoming speech and Egypt as a host, but right now I will just state that it will be a good opportunity to see how much Obama will push or emphasis human rights and the spread of democracy in the world. As Egypt is a place sorely lacking in both and criticism of Obama’s lack of democracy and human rights promotion is gathering. This speech will likely be a fine example of a great power leader walking the fine line between realism and idealism.

Gotta go, the wife is calling…

Last night I attended a San Diego World Affairs Council talk by Professor Larry Diamond, where he discussed democratic growth and stagnation trends throughout the globe and then focused on Iraq’s prospects. Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, founding coeditor of the Journal of Democracy, author of many books including The Spirit of Democracy and Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq, and one-time adviser to the US State Department, USAID, World Bank, and United Nations, is considered an expert on democracy issues around the globe and definitely came across as one who believes that though it may take awhile, all states and peoples will be ruled democratically in the future.

In discussing the prospects for a democratically sustaining state of Iraq, Diamond was at times optimistic and pessimistic. In the positive light, he thought that Iraq did hold a populace that did identify as Iraqis, with an important caveat being the Kurds in the north, and that this was key to building a coherent and representative government. He also emphasized the fact that Iraq already had some democratic experience before the Baath Party takeover in 1958. Diamond voiced hope that a democratic culture and civil society were growing in Iraq and that the success Provincial elections of January were a welcome, and to him surprising, sign of progress.

However, Diamond, who spent about 4 months in Iraq in 2003-2004, tempered these optimistic assessments with many other troubling signs and hurdles for the Iraqis to work through before a strong, functioning democratic state could take hold. He stated that the country’s current constitution was ‘flawed’ and needed to be augmented to include the Sunni minority more fully. Diversifying the economy and making sure oil funds reached all parts of Iraqi society was also a major concern. Diamond emphasized the destructive elements of corruption within the state and how this eroded public support of local and central government institutions and politicians. Lastly, Diamond held a real fear that Iranian and Syrian motives would turn into actions that would undermine a democratic Iraq for their own geopolitical interests. This last point reemphasizes the importance of an active US presence in Iraq for years to come. In other words, the US needs to make sure the nascent Iraqi government and leaders cannot be pushed into a corner by other regional actors.

To conclude, Diamond gave Iraq 50/50 fighter’s chance on turning the proverbial democratic corner. He went on to state that if Iraq did become a truly representative, functioning state, it would ‘shock the Arab world.’ Diamond stated that a democratic Iraq would have ‘profound demonstration effects’ on other autocratic Arab leaders, who in recent years have used the chaos and violence of Iraq as an example to their populace as to the dangers of democratization. It is of course unknown how this would actually play out, but I would love to see this occur. All of a sudden the people of the Arab world would see a real democracy in their backyard and it would be a great symbol of what could be possible.

Diamond touched on a few other issues during the Q & A, here are some of the more interesting ones:

• Diamond proposed a Helsinki Accord for the Middle East. The Helsinki Accords of 1975 brought a form of legitimacy to the Soviet Union and Russia’s hold on Eastern Europe, but it also required and put greater emphasis on human rights. The Accords are usually credited with undermining the Soviet system and helping to bring about the end of the Cold War. In terms of today, these Accords would mean a further legitimizing of the Arab dictators, (a little bit hard to do since they already have a fair amount of it) and would provide them security guarantees (something most already have, but definitely would like more of), but these would be tied to a greater commitment to openness and human rights on their end. This would of course require some form of oversight. Pie in the sky? Probably, but an interesting idea nonetheless.
• Diamond was for opening up American politics and economics with Cuba, stating that the current regime in Havana was on its last legs and this would slice them off. Now what if he was wrong and the Castro-state continues in similar form for years to come, wouldn’t this just give them more legitimacy and possibly even extend their stay? I disagree with this premise actually and think it is time to open up Cuba to some degree, while at the same time chastising the regime for their HR violations and poor management. I would also do this in as low-key a way as possible and make sure this ‘opening’ only involves the state of Cuba and is not relevant to any other state or political actor. In other words, try to keep it tightly focused.
• Lastly, in response to a question about Hamas as an elected political force in Palestine, Diamond made the provocative argument that political parties or groups that actively or verbally support violence, as Hamas does in their actions and charter, should not be allowed to run for government. He mentioned that the German government after WWII started this policy and has stuck by it. Sounds like a reasonable limitation to me.

One US foreign policy issue always under fierce debate is the promotion of democracy abroad.  Should we do it and if so, how?  Former Presidents George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Woodrow Wilson held their feelings for a strong US democracy push on their sleeves, while others such as Herbert Walker Bush and Richard Nixon more closely followed concrete US national interests and stayed away from grand liberal rhetoric, though not entirely.

President Barack Obama has been taking some heat for his lack of democracy, freedom, and human rights talk and emphasis.  Troy Senik calls Obama’s foreign policy so far, a ‘Tyranny Agenda‘, a bit harsh, and Michael Barone decries his administration’s ‘blind eye‘ toward to human rights.  Woh there say many others.  They assert Obama is just supporting human rights and freedom around the globe in a ‘quiet‘, pragmatic way, in contrast to the Bush administrations’ loud, and widely seen as unsuccessful, method.  Peter Baker describes this change in a positive light, however the guy wrote this sentence in the same article; ‘Mr. Obama appears poised to return to a more traditional American policy of dealing with the world as it is rather than as it might be.’  Exactly when did this so-called ‘traditional’ US policy happen?  Baker clearly needs to do some US history research as this state has supported human rights and freedom, in effect attempting to change the world, for most of its existence as a country and this even includes its pursuit for independence.

Obama has only been president for a couple months so it is unfair to judge him too harshly or kindly either way as there is much policy and action to be made in the coming years.  In fact at this time in W’s presidency, he would have suffered similar criticism, though things were less charged in this regard back then as the world was so clearly heading in the right, aka democratic, direction.  This, along with some of Bush’s realism, of course was halted after the attacks on 9/11.  

Back to Obama.  Even though his presidency is still infant, there is already much to be observed in his lack of democracy and human rights talk.  We have already discussed this here, but a few more items need mentioning.  During Obama’s State of the Union address he used the word ‘freedom’ only once and in his interview with Al-Arabia and video to the Iranian leaders and people, democracy and human rights are loathed to be heard.  This is not to say Barack Obama doesn’t support such causes, but I think it is fair to say he is choosing not to emphasis them in his foreign policy.  

I turn your attention now to a conference about Obama and America’s democracy promotion agenda held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (which is itself a glowing example of US liberal internationalism and democracy promotion).  The conference, including lectures, with a Q & A, with Thomas Carothers and Robert Kagan, both Carnegie scholars, and Tom Malinowski from Human Rights Watch, exemplifies some of the different views concerning American democracy promotion.  Carothers and Malinowski are very critical of the Bush administration’s policies and attempts to spread democratic values, while Kagan is supportive and actually believes Bush should have been more aggressive and followed through with some of his dramatic, democracy-loving rhetoric.  But one thing they all have in common was an underlaying belief that the US should be a beacon for democracy in the world.  It should seek to promote liberal ideals and represent them proudly.  

Video

There are indeed many ways to promote democracy and human rights throughout the globe, but one thing that seems to be relatively agreed upon is that in some form or another, the US should attempt to spread democracy beyond its borders.

Today, I was lucky enough to attend a luncheon/talk for former US State Department Foreign Service Officers. At my table were two former US ambassadors and a group of former FSO’s who had worked for the US government all over the world. One of them gave a short, but very provocative and well-thought talk about democracy promotion by the State Department. Kiki, her first name (I can’t remember her last), described her own democracy promotion efforts in Sierra Leon and last year in Iraq’s Diyala Province. She emphasized long term civil society building that made sure to take into account the targeted country’s own history and culture.

Kiki also emphasized promoting transparency, courts, and a free and functioning press. After Kiki spoke, many other former FSO’s discussed their experiences and kept referencing how much they had learned through the years, democracy promotion ‘do’s and don’ts’ you might say. Many of them voiced the frustration of budgeting, both the lack of funds and their gross misuse, and all focused on importance of humility in trying such a harrowing endeavor.

These people spent their lives trying to make the world a more free place and of course protecting and furthering US influence and interests. Though they concentrated on what went wrong and how the world still lacks progress in many areas and in many regions, what I kept thinking about was how important their work was for the US and the world. Yes, there is no doubt that US diplomatic, economic, and military stewardship has had its drawbacks and at times has been too arrogant and close minded, but it has also done a quite a lot of good. Kiki discussed how when a civil society group in Sierra Leon would show promise, the US would provide them with money, sometimes so much that they didn’t know what to do with it. Yes, this is unfortunate in a myriad of ways, but the heart of the matter is is that the US say progress and wanted to bring it further along.

As Secretary of State Hilary Clinton embarks on her first trip overseas to Asia (Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and China, great choices Hil!) she is carrying on a great tradition of spreading not only American interests and influence around the world, but also a great amount of hope for progress and freedom. It is a shame these former state department workers and officials never get to be cheered in a parade down main street. How bout on GPP, though. ‘Cheers, Cheers, Cheers!’