Beinart and the Good Fight Posted by Michael Signer

A major event occurred this week with the launch of TNR editor Peter Beinart's new book The Good Fight:  Why Liberals -- and Only Liberals -- Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again. 

The book will stir much controversy and may, in its own right, become not just commentary but phenomenon.  In the same way that William F. Buckley's God and Man at Yale contained a young man's heart-felt cry of frustration at a cultural/political vortex -- and became, for intellectual politicos on the right, a beacon -- so Beinart's book (albeit in a cooler, more historical and journalistic form) could become a compass for the left. 

Accord on Iran, At Least for Now Posted by Suzanne Nossel

A few quick observations on the agreement reached today among the permanent 5 UN Security Council members plus Germany on Iraq:

First of all, its good news that we're able to announce any common ground at all with the Russians and Chinese over Iran.  Many thought that impossible. 

From what I can glean, there was an at least implicit quid pro quo whereby the Administration agreed to drop its unconditional refusal to talk directly to the Iranians in return for an announcement that the P5 were all on the same page.  Of course, Washington's expression of willingness to deal face-to-face with Tehran was subject to the major caveat that Ahmadinejad would need to renounce his nuclear program first, a demand that was promptly refused. 

While I am frankly skeptical that any good could come from negotiations with Ahmadinejad, if the price of the cessation of Iranian enrichment was as cheap as a sit-down session, it would have been well worth it.  In the event, our "concession" cost precisely nothing.

More importantly, the Administration's decision to play ball with its Security Council partners and make what everyone knew would be a symbolic overture was a wise one.  This is the nature of the diplomatic dance the US must do at the UN:  others often tell us precisely what it would take to get what we want.  Too often, we snub their requests and demand our druthers any way, only to be chagrined when we don't get it.

No one should be surprised that today's agreement included no mention of sanctions.  The Security Council is just beginning what's likely to be a long and excruciating give and take with Tehran.  That process will play out slowly, and the key for the US is to put the maintenance of unity ahead of the desire to hasten things to a conclusion that we are at best ill-prepared for. 

Iran is a decade away from having operational nukes.  Short of a halt to their activities, our best bet is to constrain their room to maneuver and delay them through inspections, reports, negotiations, evidence-gathering, etc. in the hope that internal political developments will eventually offer up a more credible negotiating partner.  If it extends the period during which Iran's nuclear activities are at least partially stymied, a slow pace at the UN may thus not be a bad thing.

In the meantime, the other UNSC members will not agree to prejudge subsequent phases of the process, for example by specifying sanctions for non-compliance with a resolution that has yet to be passed.  This is the very same debate that arose in the context of the famous, vanishing "second resolution" on Iraq.  The US maintained that the first resolution provided all the authority it needed to wage war.  The majority of UNSC members who differed with us are not now going to hand us the ability to make the same argument that the use of force is somehow pre-approved for Iran.  Getting agreement on sanctions for Iran will never be easy, but it will get easier if Tehran flouts successive rounds of UN resolutions.

I Found My Favorite Evangelical (or, why I think Mike Huckabee is very, very interesting) Posted by Shadi Hamid

I heart Huckabees. Yes, I just discovered the film a few nights ago and in some weird, probably meaningless coincidence, I just discovered Mike Huckabee, the governor of Arkansas. I now declare Mr. Huckabee to be my favorite evangelical (which I suppose isn't saying much considering the competition). One of the recurring themes in my posts has been that politicians have to stop hiring pollsters and start having convictions and saying offbeat, quirky, impassioned, interesting, and innovative things. Yes, this is risky, but Joe Klein has spoken. Moreover, a lot of people seem to agree with him (I do). Mike Huckabee is riding the wave of authenticity and, unlike many – dare I say – Democrats, it seems relatively uncontrived. Good for him. Here's a sampler from a recent interview:

There are a lot of people in the Republican Party who think that there is this total disconnect between fiscal responsibility and social responsibility, and I've said for a long time that I've never matched it up quite like that. But these are not opponents. These are really elements that work together. I think sometimes, if anything, I get in trouble with my party because I've also spoken a lot about that we can't ignore poverty, we can't ignore the lack of health care...

And in a provocative argument that has some interesting, if potentially problematic policy implications, Huckabee points out the causal link between poverty and divorce:

Divorce is one of the key predictors of poverty for a child growing up in a home that's broken. Without making any judgments about the value or rightness or wrongness of it, it's an economic fact that when children are involved in a divorce they are more likely to end up spending part of their childhood in poverty than if they have a two-parent household.

It appears that at least one leading Republican finally figured out that Jesus cares about poor people. Thank God.

National Security:pre-election Amnesia Posted by Lorelei Kelly

What a sweet long awaited rejoinder. The Dixie Chicks Album Taking the Long Way debuts at number one on Billboard this week. Hopefully some of those ranters at Townhall will unavoidably have to listen to tunes like "Not Ready to Make Nice" during drivetime radio this week. The song is a reflection on the band's treatment by the scary right in the run up to the Iraq war, when the singers had the audacity to have a critical opinion in public.

Of course, the idea of a critical opinion seems lost on the majority in Congress (that would be its former role: oversight). It appears to be not a worry at all, in fact.  This weekend on Fox News, Senate Majority Leader Frist had an opportunity to discuss all matter of important national security issues, like why the Department of Homeland Security is cutting funding for the two most at-risk cities in the USA: Washington, DC and New York, and kicks New Orleans in the shins as well. Nope, he chose instead to talk about those huge security risks gays and flag burning.  Obviously, Rove has settled into his comfy post-White House job of re-hashing Republican talking points for the next 5 months.   

For a reality check must read: the email exchange between DoD Press Operative Larry DiRita and veteran war correspondent Joe Galloway, which took place earlier this month. Here's a sample of one Galloway response to DiRita:

the question is what sort of an army are your bosses going to leave behind as their legacy in 2009? one that is trained, ready and well equipped to fight the hundred-year war with islam that seems to have begun with a vengeance on your watch? or will they leave town and head into a golden retirement as that army collapses for lack of manpower, lack of money to repair and replace all the equipment chewed up by iraq and afghanistan, lack of money to apply to fixing those problems because billions were squandered on weapons systems that are a ridiculous legacy of a Cold War era long gone (viz. the f/22, the osprey, the navy's gold plated destroyers and aircraft carriers and, yes, nuclear submarines whose seeming future purpose is to replace rubber zodiac boats as the favorite landing craft of Spec Ops teams, at a cost of billions) meanwhile the pentagon, at the direction of your boss, marches rapidly ahead with deployment of an anti-missile system whose rockets have yet to actually get out of the launch tubes. at a cost of yet more multiple billions.

Amen, Joe.  And check out the 2006 Unified Security Budget. (full disclosure, I was on the task force) It suggests trade-off behefits within national security spending (including critical infrastructure, public health and Army stability ops) by reducing the funding for these Cold War relics.  Think Fox news might want a copy?  nah.....

Whatever Happened to HIV/AIDS? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Today, the UN launches a five-year review of world efforts to fight HIV/AIDS.  Yesterday, UNAIDS released a comprehensive report on the state of the epidemic.  whether the glass is full or empty depends very much on whom you talk to.  US Secretary General Kofi Annan, who said countries were "distressingly" short of their targets while the world was "unconscionably slow" in responding to the epidemic among women and girls, seemed not to be reading from the same talking points as UNAIDS head Peter Piot, who said:

Encouraging results in HIV prevention and treatment indicate a growing return on investments made in the AIDS response.

Confused?  Haven't heard about AIDS in a while?  Hoping you can take this one off the worry/guilt/policy priority list?  Take my 2006 State-of-AIDS quiz and find out.

1.  How much has spending on global AIDS risen since 2001?

2.  What share of that is US spending?

3.  How many people worldwide who have AIDS are now getting life-extending anti-retroviral therapy (ARVs)?

4.  How much would it cost to get ARVs to everyone who needs them?

5.  True or false:  South Africa has more HIV-positive citizens than any other country.

6.  Given the above, Americans should feel:

a) bored.  AIDS is over; there are more important problems.

b) a warm feeling of gratitude to the Bush Administration.

c) unnerved.

Blair at Georgetown Posted by Derek Chollet

Like many people, I suspect, I am still catching up on the weekend’s reading after being away for the holiday.  But one piece in particular deserves attention: Tony Blair’s speech last Friday at Georgetown.

Blair’s speech was the long overdue third in a series that he’s been giving over the past few months about the global challenges we face and what we need to do to meet them.  As I wrote a few weeks ago about the previous two speeches, I believe that these are the most thoughtful, and potentially important, statements that I’ve heard on global politics in some time.  Of course I don’t agree with every word, but all are well worth reading.

Last Friday’s speech made some news because of rumors that the White House had asked Blair to rework some parts, especially about Iran.  Downing Street denies this, and whatever the truth, it should not overshadow the central message: that, in Blair’s words, “there is a hopeless mismatch between the global challenges we face and the global institutions to confront them,” and therefore we need to launch a bold restructuring.

As E.J. Dionne pointed out today, Blair “amended Bush's approach to the world with a vigorous internationalism that would appeal to many of the president's critics.”

Blair outlines some pretty far-reaching ideas: expanding the UN Security Council to include Germany, Japan, and India; a more powerful UN Secretary General; a streamlined and more effective UN humanitarian and development system; a new UN environment agency; a global “bank” for uranium to ensure safe enrichment of nuclear fuel; a reformed IMF and World Bank, and possibly a merger of the two; and an expanded G-8.

Many of these ideas are debatable, but I think that what's most important about them -- and about the larger perspective Blair offers -- is that they comprise a set of policies and an overall framework that many on both sides of the political aisle could embrace. 

Again, I think Dionne is right: “Paradoxically, Bush's best ally may have delivered to the president's political opponents the outlines of a coherent approach to the world. To believe in internationalism, international cooperation and global justice is not soft, but essential and practical. Some who would never accept such thoughts from the likes of John Kerry or Al Gore might give them a second look after hearing them from Blair.”

Democracy Promotion Posted by Morton H. Halperin

This week, over at the Council on Foreign Relations' website, I am debating the merits of "Democracy Promotion as Policy" with Paul Saunders.  You can read our discussion here.

Also, I will be returning from my blogging hiatus shortly, so stay tuned.

10 Things To Look For in a New UN Secretary General Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The labyrinthine and secretive process of selecting a replacement for UN Secretary General (SYG) Kofi Annan, whose second term ends in December, is now getting underway.  This site does a marvelous job of tracking the progress and prognostications.  Given the shape the UN's in, its no exaggeration to say that the choice will have a major impact on the future role and effectiveness of the world body.   Here's what anyone who cares about the UN ought to be looking for:

1.  A Strong Manager - Some say the next SYG ought to be more of a politician than a manager, since the key underlings run things day to day.  But management skills are always critical for a top job, no matter how much is delegated.  The UN risks desuetude if its sprawling bureaucracy lapses into even one more serious scandal.  The SYG needs to surround himself with the right people, and his chief lieutenants must believe that the boss is watching, that he knows incompetence, laziness, and dishonesty when he sees it, and that he won't tolerate it for even a minute.  The Admistration is right on this one, though may be focused on management skills to the exclusion of other vital qualities.

2.  A Charismatic Leader - The Bush Administration may well prefer a SYG who is not a leader in his own right, assuming that such a person will be easier to control.  But the divisions in both the UN's General Assembly and the UN Security Council mean that only someone with charm, persuasive powers, and forcefulness will be able to make headway.  The organization's tendency toward lowest-common-denominator indecision and passivity is what has made it so ineffectual on Darfur and, to date, Iran.  If the SYG doesn't have the personality to help cut through it, no one will.

3.  An Asian - The UN has an informal agreed regional rotation system which dictates that this is Asia's "turn" to have a SYG.  There's been talk about alternative E. European candidates, and the idea that given the array of qualities on lists like this one, there whould be no limits on finding the right person for the job.  But everyone agrees that the two key parties who must acquiesce before white smoke billows from UN HQ are the U.S. and the Chinese.  The Chinese will demand an Asian, and they'll get an Asian.  It's almost certain that this will mean the next SYG is a man, which is why I use the male pronoun in this list.

4.  A Visionary of Sorts - While a highly competent functionary can effectively lead an organization like the World Food Programme or UNHCR that has a well-defined mission, leading the UN involves setting a global agenda.  The SYG needs to articulate his own views for how to prioritize among the UN's dizzying array of programs, speaking from conviction when he argues for something.  At least rhetorically, Kofi Annan did well on this score, showing leadership in promoting a Responsibility to Protect and the promotion of democracy. 

5.  Someone who Enjoys the Respect of the Developing World - The UN is dominated by delegations from the developing world who are eternally suspicious that the wealthier countries who fund the UN and dominate the Security Council will shortchange their priorities.  They will make life miserable for a SYG they don't trust, and can and will paralyze the UN in the process.  This sets a high bar for candidates from Japan or Korea who are not seen as "of" the developing world.