Rogue Identities Posted by Michael Signer

A very interesting post by John Ikenberry is up at TPMCafe about two books on identity, and why people seem so willing to create chaos, and kill themselves, for the sake of claims that (to the rest of us) subvert the very reasonable goal of a calm and peaceful world order.  The two books are Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Anthony Appiah of Princeton, and Identity and Violence by Amartya Sen.

Ikenberry writes:

So Appiah and Sen are worrying about the same danger – the solitarist belittling of human identity. They have a similar vision of a proper functioning and enlightened human society. It is a world were people are complexly integrated into various realms of political and social life. Overlapping and multiple identities reinforce restraint and toleration....

It seems to me that what these two intellectuals are searching for is really some sort of perfected global version of Western liberal society. After all, Europe and the West has been here before, starting perhaps with the religious wars of the early modern era. Western societies entered the modern democratic age when they succeeded in pushing ethnic and religious identities down into civil society. They semi-privatized these identities and created different layers and venues for the expression of social, political, and religious identities and affiliations.

To me, the crowning irony of the advanced capitalist, globalizing world is that local navel-gazing fractures become increasingly more important because they pose a threat to the very self-evidentness of the new world order -- and I wonder whether "identity" can explain it all.  The problem with those who attack the modern world is something like the modern/primeval distinction that was being floated a lot to explain Al Qaeda's actions on 9/11, but is something deeper, more primordial, and more intractable -- a weave of geography, history, ethnicity, nation, language, and cultural sense of embattlement. 

Some sectors of the world have a deep, blood-line urge to retreat and consolidate -- to become "rogues."  Iran has had this tendency since well before the White Revolution, and we see it resurging today.  North Korea has essentially decided to reject the modern world.  Whereas India seeks to become as cosmopolitan and integrationist as it can.

Why?  Why do certain countries (or sectors) decide to reject the world, whereas others join it?  No deep answers, only questions -- curious what those of you who have read either or both of these books think... or if, like me, you've read neither what you think anyway...

Getting Serious on National Security Out West Posted by Lorelei Kelly

I got back to Washington Tuesday night and--after spending a week in California--felt a little taller than usual, like I'd left behind that knee-capped aspect of a DC-marinated liberal.  Indeed, the certainty that they will never take San Francisco alive will keep me going for weeks.

The roundtable on marketing progressive ideas was very good. For the first time, I participated in a lib meeting where nearly the entire focus was problem identification and implementation of solutions. A great mix of individuals came, from venture capitalists to user-friendly academics. 

So what a bummer to walk off the airplane at Dulles and hear about the Senate Intelligence Committee vote  on  domestic surveillance--the result of which
requires the White House to do nothing more strenuous than give Congress some more briefings about illegal activities if they feel like it. How are we going to turn the tide on this lousy trend? Not until we overcome another part of  California--one that I found while checking in with Bay Area friends involved in national politics.

Iraq v. Vietnam: It's the People, Stupid Posted by Michael Signer

As all of us who want to make things better in Iraq fumble for a better paradigm (much less a strategy) for how to resolve the potential civil war, there's a tough-minded and interesting article about Iraq in the new Foreign Affairs by Stephen Biddle, a Senior Fellow at CFR. 

Biddle argues that our policy approach in Iraq contains a fundamental mistake:  mired in a Vietnam-based mindset, we have viewed Iraq as something like a Maoist "people's revolution," rather than what it actually is:  a "communal civil war." 

What's the difference? 

Any Storm in a Port? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

The ueber-politics-watchers at ABC's The Note make a prediction today that I think is very smart:  the Dubai Ports World case will end with a whimper when the Administration persuades the company to withdraw the US portion of its bid.

This will, if it comes to pass, be both very clever of the Administration and the worst of all possible worlds:

• The US takes a huge black eye in the Arab world, and elsewhere, for our anti-Arab posturing and for our tendency to say one thing about free markets and do another;
• We lose the heat needed to do anything about real shortcomings in port security. that have much more to do with how the ports are supervised than who runs them; and
• Commercially speaking, it probably chokes off private foreign investment in our already behind-the-times ports infrastructure.

(and, if I understand this right, it would still leave the ports in the hands of foreigners... oh, never mind...)

... As Others See Us Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Last week, a European friend sent me this article, "America's rising anti-Europeanism," from the new  journal Europe's World, a European product that appears to be attempting to be like Foreign Affairs, but hipper and, well, European (check out that pink cover -- all it needs is an Hermes tie to match).

I'm still not sure what my friend was trying to tell me -- is this like those adolescent advice columnists who tell you to send your stinky friends deodorant anonymously? -- but the subject is worth some thought.

Dutch security policy thinker Peter van Ham says that we have "a groundswell of annoyance and pessimism in the US about Europe."  True enough, although of course it sounds even better if all one's analysis is based on Fox News, the Wall Street Journal ed board, and right wing talk radio, as this one seems to be.

Port Security and Stereotyping Posted by Spencer Boyer

Guest Blogger: Spencer P. Boyer, Security and Peace Initiative Fellow

As Suzanne, Lorelei, and others have correctly pointed out recently, much of the outrage over a company based in the United Arab Emirates having control over several ports in the United States is misplaced.   Yes, the administration completely botched this issue politically by continuing with the “just trust us” policy, and not properly consulting with relevant members of Congress, governors, and port city mayors.  As noted, however, the real concern should be over whether we have the ideas and resources in place to move towards a comprehensive port security strategy that secures supply chains and provides adequate inspection of goods bound for American cities.  But perhaps we should be equally concerned about what the reaction to the deal says about the state of mind of the American people post-9/11.     

Now The Hard Part Posted by Arsenal Guard

Guest Blogger: Jon B. Wolfsthal, Nonproliferation Fellow -- International Security Program, CSIS.

For three years the United States has been trying to bring Iran’s violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons to the UN Security Council. The International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors reported Iran’s behavior to the UN in early February and gave Iran one month to clear up lingering concerns about its program, after having previously found Iran in violation of its inspection obligations. Nobel Laureate and IAEA Director General reported to the IAEA Board last week that Iran is still obstructing inspection requests by the Agency, and advancing its uranium enrichment program and despite last minute diplomatic efforts by the EU and Russia, the matter is now headed directly for New York and the UN Security Council.

Posted by Arsenal Guard

The Army still wont meet its recruitment goals: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus. Colleges had objected because the Army's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is discrimanatory against homosexuals.

Posted by Arsenal Guard

When will the US learn its lesson? Amnesty International released a new report today, “Beyond Abu Ghraib: detention and torture in Iraq,” – outlining how thousands of prisoners being held by the US led Multi-National Force (MNF) in Iraq are being denied their basic human rights.

Tehran vs. Turtle Bay: Iran Tests the UN Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Tomorrow the IAEA is expected to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for potential sanctions or other actions in response to Tehran's defiance of IAEA demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment and allow inspection of its nuclear facilities.  The IAEA Board voted on the referral a month ago, but allowed a month's grace time for continued negotiations and an assessment by IAEA Chief Mohammed El Baradei.

Meanwhile the Iranian government is insisting that a Security Council referral will only intensify its determination to go nuclear.  Thus far, while the IAEA has concluded that Iran is taking steps to expand its enrichment program, the agency has not had adequate access or cooperation to determine whether the efforts are entirely peaceful in purpose.  The New York Times reports:

"If Iran's nuclear dossier is referred to the U.N. Security Council, uranium enrichment will be resumed," Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said at a news conference, referring to large-scale enrichment. "Nuclear research and development are part of Iran's national interests and sovereignty and we will not give them up."

Larijani goes on to raise the specter of a cut in oil output if the international community continues to apply pressure.

An Iranian nuclear weapon seems to be years away.  Yet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's open defiance poses a fundamental problem.  In light of the drubbing the UN's gotten in recent years for its inability to face down rogue states, the organization must be unified in refusing to back down in the face of Tehran's threats.  The UN cannot do nothing and let Tehran's goading stand. 

But despite the intensive focus on the Iranian threat in recent months, every realistic policy option has major drawbacks.  The problems I outlined here remain unsolved.  Diplomatic sanctions may cut down even further visibility on Iran's nuclear activities.   Economic sanctions will be difficult to target at the government.  A ban on Iranian oil is predicted to send prices spiking, potentially hurting the world more than it does Iran. 

A couple of observations:

- Like the nuclear accord with India last week, this situation pits bedrock principles of international relations (in this case the need for the international community to unite and forcefully face down rogues) against the hard place of a dangerous immediate dilemma (the risk of inflaming an already unstable leader in oil-rich Iran).

- The dilemma also illustrates a rising feature of the geopolitical landscape that I discuss in this article entitled Democracy Confronts the Superpower, namely that public opinion and the pluralization of international relations is playing a growing role in constraining the US's policy options.  There is grave concern that the imposition of sanctions on Iran will fan already stoked nationalism that is tightening Ahmadinejad's hold on power.  So the UNSC debate will take into account not just how to influence Tehran, but what to signal the Iranian people.  After Iraq, and particularly because the Administration learned the hard way that a small cabal of exiles could not speak for the Iraqi people, this consideration is uppermost.

- The upshot is that the Administration and the UN should start small, recognizing that unity of purpose is key in what are still the early days of this debate.  Diplomatic sanctions, asset freezes and the like won't put a tight squeeze on Iran, but they will allow the UNSC membership to reach consensus and lay a foundation for future joint action if Iranian defiance persists. 

Democracy Arsenal Relaunch Posted by Suzanne Nossel

We've relaunched Democracy Arsenal on a new platform, and made some tweaks to the layout and design of the site (with a few more still to come).  If the site looks screwy, please hit refresh and then update your bookmarks with the new site.  Let us know if you like the changes, and if you have any problems reloading the site.