Neglecting Civil Society in Iraq Posted by Michael Signer

The last few weeks I've been writing a lot about Iraq -- about how we need to understand the people, in general, are fighting each other, not us, about how investing in the civil and political infrastructure is actually the effort that would most benefit America's security. 

It's not that I think I'm discovering anything -- I honestly have thought that there's a growing, albeit liminal, consensus about this, that people are gradually realizing that the "winning the war" metaphor just doesn't map onto reality there, that the principal challenge is building a civil society to which these three factions -- Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish -- and all the dozens of discrete cleric-led factions -- commit.  We will win by stopping internal conflict; and so we need to build a civil society and constitutionalism.

Obvious, right?

But then this week there was a startling WaPo story that belies the notion that this is obvious at all.  Here's how the article begins:

Ignoring Our Biggest Threat Posted by Bill Perkins

As headlines focus on such issues as Iraq, Iran, and India, what I believe to be the single greatest threat to our national security remains largely disregarded by both our administration and national security scholars: the environment.

As President Bush recently admitted, global warming is here. We are already feeling the effects of climate change on our budget and domestic policy.  Total federal spending on Hurricane Katrina is estimated at over $100 billion.  Although the tsunami was not triggered by global warming, the U.S. government spent almost a billion dollars on tsunami relief including the efforts of 16,000 military personnel, and millions of refugees were created by the disaster.  Imagine the cost in human and financial currency if entire American cities and island nations had to be permanently evacuated due to rising sea levels, or if Katrina-like storms became the norm rather than the exception. With a projected budget deficit of $350 billion for each of the next two years and the national debt nearing $9 trillion, these are costs that we can ill afford.

Karen Hughes Visits Airport, Discovers Palestine Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Last week, Karen Hughes gave an interview on National Public Radio's Morning Edition in which she described two "discoveries:" one, that much negative foreign opinion is driven by perceptions of the US role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and two, that Americans and foreigners must stand in separate lines in airport immigration, and that the process as a whole is not very "welcoming."

I guess I should be pleased that she is open-minded enough to learn on the job... not everyone is.

Iran as the Un-Iraq Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Iran may be handing the Bush Administration the opportunity to prove to the world that its capable of behaving more multilaterally, more diplomatically, more legitimately and with more foresight than it did in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

Specifically, Tehran is making noises and taking actions that play right into the hands of an American and European effort to rally the world against the threat of a nuclear Iran.  Iran is demanding that the UN Security Council stop investigating its nuclear program.  It has said it will not abide by the Security Council's directive that it cease uranium enrichment.  It is bragging about new, deadly high-speed sea missiles and other breakthrough new weapons. 

In short, Iran is writing the script for a Western drive to rally the world behind the need to contain a menacing country that seems willing to flout the international system for its own greater glory.  Yes, Iran has economic and military ties that will cause some to hesitate to lock arms against it.  But, as Condi Rice has pointed out, many questioned whether the Russians and Chinese would ever allow Iranian proliferation to be brought before the UNSC.  If we and the Europeans tee this up methodically, we can build a broad coalition. 

But, as Kevin Drum notes, the Administration is starting to make the exact wrong noises, talking openly of strikes on Iran and letting it leak that at least some in the Pentagon have made up their minds already in favor of an attack.  Its playing up links between Tehran and 9/11 and exaggerating Iran's role in the Iraqi insurgency.

"Same song, new verse," Kevin writes.  He leaves out "second time, a whole lot worse."   It goes without saying that Iran cannot be another Iraq.  To avoid that, the Administration needs to do a few things:

Mr. Blair Comes to Washington Posted by Derek Chollet

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is scheduled to land in Washington soon, and while this visit probably won’t be his last, it seems a little like a swan song.  Each day speculation rises about when he will depart 10 Downing Street, with some suggesting that he might announce his intention to do so this summer.  Without question Blair has been the most important global partner to two American Presidents – Clinton and Bush – and should rank alongside Churchill and Thatcher as one of the most consequential Prime Ministers for U.S.-UK relations.   

After winning an election last year that many thought he could lose, Blair has had about as difficult a year politically as one can imagine – driven by discontent within his own Labor Party and the rise of the young Conservative leader, David Cameron, who is the first fresh face the Tories have had in decades. 

His close partnership with Bush and steadfast support for the Iraq War has also damaged his reputation in American progressive circles.  Not long ago some hawkish progressives touted themselves as “Blair Democrats,” identifying with Blair’s steadfast commitment to stand up for values and fight terror, and embracing broad vision to fight global ills like poverty and environmental degradation.  While the post-Iraq politics of the moment compel few to identify themselves as Blair Democrats anymore, I believe that Blair remains the most compelling, and thoughtful, progressive politician talking about the global challenges we face.

In the past few weeks he’s given two major speeches about big ideas – about the threat from Islamic extremism, the fight against terror, globalization, and the importance of alliances.  He’s planning to give a third during his trip to the U.S., rumored to be about what needs to be done to deal with a Hamas led Palestinian government.  All these speeches should be read closely – they outline an approach of progressive internationalism that we can all learn from, and that American Democrats would be wise to emulate.

The Democratic Party and the Fear of Big Ideas Posted by Shadi Hamid

The Democrats’ have released their national security “plan.” It is possibly the most formulaic and banal document that I have had the displeasure of reading in months. There is nothing necessarily bad about it. There is nothing good about it either, which is exactly the problem. It is a document without even a hint of ambition, one which wallows in the mediocrity and amoralism which appear to have become the hallmark of today’s Democratic Party. Talk but say nothing. Criticize but offer no alternatives. Offer plans without vision. Recycle clichés ad infinitum. In short, the Democratic Party is afflicted by a pronounced aversion to ideas, especially new ones. At least, we could give the impression that we were trying to be original but even this, it seems, would be asking too much. Instead we are given a “toughness” post-it note to-do list:

Policies that are both “tough and smart.” Check.
Kill terrorists. Check.
A lot more equipment for troops. Check.
Stronger military. Check.
Nuclear weapons are bad. Check.

Yes, we got the message – Democrats are “tough.” Being tough on national security is, of course, good and necessary. But what do we actually believe in ? God knows. Or maybe Harry Reid knows but isn’t telling us. (He did, however, tell the Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt that while “we of course acknowledge that democracy is our goal . . . we first have to have stability.” Umm, Mr. Reid, stability was our “goal” in the Middle East for five decades and that wasn’t exactly a resounding success).

The document is subtitled “The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore our Leadership in the World.” One would think that the founding ideal of our country – Democracy – would be mentioned in any discussion of US global “leadership.” But, alas, supporting democracy abroad isn't mentioned even once. Nothing about how the lack of democracy in the Middle East has produced a poisonous environment conducive to the rise of religious extremism and terrorism. Democracy promotion, apparently, is no longer popular. So, instead, we get focus-group approved, watered-down dilutions which masquerade as forward-looking “plans.”

Posted by Arsenal Guard

Who knows what's going on in Iraq? Perhaps not even the journalists.

Justice for Africa: Charles Taylor in the Dock Posted by Suzanne Nossel

In scenes straight out of a Hollywood action film, last week former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor found himself in a dragnet when the Nigerian government, after years of protecting him, finally announced plans to turn the ex-dictator over to a UN special court to be tried for war crimes and atrocities committed in support of civil war in Sierra Leone.  Within 24 hours Taylor had escaped, and rumor was that he might attempt a coup back in Liberia's capital.  But the Nigerians nabbed him, and Taylor is now in UN custody in Freetown, Sierra Leone on his way to trial.

If things go as planned from now on, Taylor's extradition could become a major step toward justice and accountability in Africa.  Though Chad, Ethiopia, Uganda and many other countries have suffered under brutal and reckless leaders, none of these criminal heads of state has ever been brought to trial.   The U.S. played a constructive role in trying to break the pattern with Taylor, pushing hard on newly elected Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf to demand his extradition from Nigeria. 

U.S. and UN pressure, coupled with Johnson-Sirleaf's call, forced Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo to depart from a longstanding but deeply destructive policy of unwavering comity among African leaders.  Feeling sidelined and mistreated by the rest of the world, African leaders have sought strength in solidarity and been reluctant to break ranks regardless of how illegitimate, incompetent, or plain evil individual members of the fraternity are.

When Interpol first tried to arrest Taylor at a Summit of East African leaders in 2003, Obasanjo and others balked at the affront to a head of state representing his country at a multinational gathering.  This despite Taylor's role in violating 8 peace accords and 13 ceasefires in his region, and his continued efforts to bedevil attempts to settle a conflict fought by hacking the limbs and gouging the eyes of children.

African leaders found it unseemly that Taylor would be tried as a sitting President by a "not well recognized court" and a "junior legal luminary" (the American prosecutor).  So instead of being held accountable for his crimes, Taylor was granted asylum in Nigeria on condition that he stay out of Liberian affairs and that if a duly elected Liberian government were ever to ask, he would be handed over.  The first condition was never enforced, and Taylor continued to have in-person contacts and financial dealings with Liberian rebels. 

There are rumors that Obasanjo's fealty to Taylor continued even after the Nigerian President agreed to accede to the extradition last week.  The speed with which Nigerian policy recaptured Taylor after his escape raises questions over whether the Nigerian government may have known his whereabouts all along.

But that aside, the reality of Taylor being put in the dock to account for his crimes before a hybrid international and Sierra Leonian court sends the following important messages:

1.  That even a continent with no greater downfall than official corruption and abuse, there is hope for accountability.  The road to Taylor's capture was sufficiently long and tortured that most wayward African despots will still be able to comfort themselves that they aren't important enough to the United States to ever attract the level of attention and pressure put on the Taylor case.   But if well-publicized over the next year or two, Taylor's trial and fate could have some constraining effect.

2.  That the firm fraternity of African leaders, thick enough to mask all manner of misdeeds, has its limits.  There have been a few tentative signs in recent months that African leaders are starting to recognize the folly of protecting their own irrespective of the geopolitical and moral costs.  They kept Sudan from assuming the rotating presidency of the African Union and now, though under duress, have turned in Taylor.  If this trend can gain steam, competent and incorruptible African leaders could one day be the most powerful force the continent has for cracking down on those who are neither.

3.  That the U.S., in spite of everything, can under the right circumstances still be a force for accountability and the rule of law.  We've spent a lot of time at Democracy Arsenal and elsewhere talking about the violence that's been done to America's international legitimacy by dint of our rejection of the International Criminal Court, tolerance for torture, indifference to detainees rights, etc.   A primary reason why all that's so distressing is that its undermined the U.S.'s role as a champion for human rights around the globe, setting back both our influence and the struggle for human rights itself.  The damage is serious, but its neither complete nor irreversible.  Our role in the apprehension and trial of Charles Taylor is a reassuring, though fleeting reminder of the kind of force in the world we can and must again be.