December 14, 2009 by skhederian
In the Winter 2009 issue of GW Discourse, in an article about corruption in the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai’s government, I argued that the level of corruption in the government not only served to de-legitimize the government because the people lack confidence in its ability to govern, but also because, contrary to intuition, the Afghan people won’t view the government as “serious” without a seal of approval of the US government. Now, this approval has been pretty difficult for the Karzai government to gain, especially when many governments around the world were outwardly hoping for Karzai to lose the recent Presidential Elections.
A recent article in the Washington Post delved into the personal dynamics of the relationships Karzai has built with the United States and argued that the tough approaches the US has taken in its endeavors with other countries may not work in Afghanistan. The article noted that “[Obama's] top diplomats and generals are abandoning for now their get-tough tactics with Karzai and attempting to forge a far warmer relationship. They recognize that their initial strategy may have done more harm than good, fueling stress and anger in a beleaguered, conspiracy-minded leader whom the U.S. government needs as a partner.” A common theme in US-led partnerships throughout the Middle East is, (on the foreign country’s part) a desire to feel independent but also to feel that the US will not abandon it.
At this point in his presidency, Karzai knows that he needs the support of the United States to make any kind of progress in nation-building, and the United States knows that he must be engaged and appeased (to some extent) in order to achieve any kind of “success”. But this involves a lot more understanding on both sides of the relationship, acknowledgment that Karzai, though President, really doesn’t maintain that much power, and that the US is not willing to let Karzai get away with corruption.
Connecting back to my argument in the article, at this point in time in Afghanistan, where legitimacy is gained through international support instead of actual policies and change, US support is key to help Afghans view the government as a legitimate force in the country. Though this logic seems a bit cyclical, more international support would seem to many to decrease legitimacy (and it actually may), it is what Karzai needs to feel confident in his own actions.
Posted in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
December 14, 2009 by Dan Rozenson
A couple of days ago, a New York Times “news analysis” caught my eye. The item seemed to argue that in the wake of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s army shooting and the discovery of five American citizens in Pakistan looking for trouble, it’s worth questioning the belief that American Muslims are less prone to radicalization than European Muslims:
There was the arrest of Najibullah Zazi, born in Afghanistan but the seeming model of the striving immigrant as a popular coffee vendor in Manhattan, accused of going to Pakistan for explosives training with the intention of attacking in the United States.
There was David Coleman Headley, a Pakistani-American living in Chicago, accused of helping plan the killings in Mumbai, India, last year and of plotting attacks in Denmark.
There was Bryant Neal Vinas, a Muslim convert from Long Island who participated in a rocket attack on American troops in Afghanistan and used his knowledge of commuter trains in New York to advise Al Qaeda about potential targets.
There were the Somali-Americans from Minnesota who had traveled to Somalia to join a violent Islamist movement.
And there were cases of would-be terrorists who plotted attacks in Texas, Illinois and North Carolina with conspirators who turned out to be F.B.I. informants.
Obviously, yes, the FBI has been busy this year. But let’s not take the wrong message from the recent string of attempted terrorist acts by Americans. The number of people we’re talking about is an extremely small sample of the American Muslim community. The existence of five or ten more plots in a given year hardly necessitates a re-examination of how we view the functions of American society (an American society where Muslims feel integrated and successful). The Swiss method of fighting Islamism would only make things worse here.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged American Muslims, terrorism | Leave a Comment »
December 12, 2009 by dptrombly
Complain about the award if you must, but President Obama, in receiving his Nobel Prize, spoke as effectively as a man in his position could. He acknowledged the greatest obstacle to his worthiness, and those are the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq Obama could have written off, but it is already cliché to call Afghanistan “Obama’s War.” In the discourse that follows, Obama comes as close to explaining his political philosophy as we should expect. Of course, IR theorists have already begun dissecting the speech in their ongoing effort to categorize Obama’s politics. The biggest thing to note is a confluence of theories, suggesting pragmatism – but there’s more going on here.
The first thing to point out is that Obama is not a “realist” in the introductory IR course sense. Realists tend not to expound the virtues of just war theory, democratic peace theory, and pine for a day when international institutions and norms converge to help build a more permanent peace. More accurately, Obama is not a utopian, but a sober idealist. He acknowledges we inhabit a “realist” world but believes there is a way out of the Hobbesian trap, and that building it is a worthwhile effort. Like many liberals, progress animates his history; yet he does not believe nations, institutions, or ideologies can instigate a revolution in human affairs. Expect the word “Niebuhrian” to continue proliferating in discussions of Obama’s worldview, though mind that there is no single interpretation of Niebuhr’s legacy. Overall, Obama delivered a healthy dose of skepticism and humility to a utopian forum. While realists might welcome this message, it is devoid of their pessimism.
Two other quick thoughts:
- “As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.” Hobbes, of course, would note that equality of ability, hopes, and common desires are sources of conflict, rather than sources of conflict resolution.
- On Burma (yes, Burma), Congo, and Darfur: “Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy — but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.” Obama justified humanitarian interventions in Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Balkans, so in rhetoric at least, America’s interventionist legacy is not over. Keep in mind Obama said this while receiving a Nobel Prize – Oslo is no place for appeasing hawks. Obama’s stated that if negotiations fail, we can choose intervention or complicity. Will anyone bother holding him to that if they do?
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
December 11, 2009 by Dan Rozenson
As I tried to make clear in my article in the new Discourse print issue, President Obama’s Middle East diplomacy is failing. He raised expectations before knowing he could get the sides to deliver anything substantive enough to meet those expectations. Significant on-the-ground developments have been masked by the various leaders squabbling over semantics.
It’s a relief to see, then, that Obama realizes he’s hit a wall:
The feeling in Jerusalem is that Washington believed that Netanyahu’s moratorium would move the process along a bit, and when the Palestinians failed to respond positively to the move, the US decided to sit back and see how things would play out.
Good. The answer isn’t to totally disengage from the process, but to recognize that negotiations are really unimportant at this stage of the game. Mahmoud Abbas’s political fate is uncertain, as is whether captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit will be returned as part of a prisoner swap with Hamas. Negotiations will have their time, but they’d be nothing more than photo-ops right now.
UPDATE: To give an example of the good things we can do in the meantime, check out the praise the revamped (with Western aid) PA police force is getting. Building Palestinian capacity in the West Bank doesn’t come under the banner of negotiations, but it’s still going to be very useful when the time for two states comes.
Posted in Middle East | Tagged Barack Obama, Israel, Palestinians | Leave a Comment »
December 10, 2009 by wmschreiber
We are proud to report that the latest print edition of GW Discourse has hit the stands. Look for issues around campus, or see the publication online:
Read the Fall 2009 issue Online.
Thanks to everyone who helped write and create this issue. If you are interested in getting involved in the creation of our Spring issue, please don’t hesitate to contact us directly at gwd@gwu.edu.
Less happily, (at least for us) our Political Theory editor, Alejandra Barrio will be taking leave to study abroad next semester. We’ll miss you and we wish you all the best in Ecuador.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged 2009, fall, GW Discourse, print | Leave a Comment »
December 9, 2009 by dptrombly
America's weapon of choice against terror? Courtesy Time.com
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al Qaeda mastermind, has become the center of controversy about America’s new, clean, transparent and constitutional approach to the “war on terror,” – or “struggle against violent extremism,” as the speech re-branded it. However much credit Obama deserves for closing Guantanamo, American policy has yet to properly integrate law and strategy into a coherent approach for combating terrorism. As Ross Douthat points out, the US government since 2001 has retained the right to assassinate KSM and men like him. The new administration has not changed that view (indeed Obama outdid McCain in his zeal for drone strikes), but instead added a corollary that after capture, KSM was no longer a high-value target subject to airborne obliteration, but in possession of full constitutional rights. There are arguments against either of these views, but haphazardly combining both exposes our disjointed policy.
The case against KSM cannot fail. The President would not have permitted trying him in New York otherwise; no judge or jury will permit anything but ‘guilty’ regardless. The result: the tacit or explicit sanctioning of torture, detention, rendition, and warrantless surveillance into American law, and the ad hoc use of intelligence as evidence. Reports of abuse and expansion at Bagram demonstrate that while Guantanamo may close, the need for facilities like it persists. The reality is that neither the Geneva Convention nor US law will bear the legal and political burdens we now place upon them.
The result, rather than alterations to American law or working to establish new international norms and treaties to effectively combat terrorism, has been dissonance between law and strategy. Law enforcement agencies do not assassinate or practice counterinsurgency, but we expect the military and CIA to act as policemen once they’ve decided to capture instead of kill. We should not return to the Bush policy of ignoring or misusing law, but to continue the “war on terror” with the assumption that today’s laws will do – and they will not as far as they concern men like KSM – and be satisfied with that is dangerous. It is better for rule of law and American legitimacy that we find a way to bring more transparency and accountability to our current strategy than it is to proclaim these values without changing policy.
We are expanding drone strikes in Pakistan, but we have ignored the legal framework which should legitimize this strategy. Our simultaneous inisistence on a “lawful” fight against terrorism and our strategic emphasis on extrajudicial killings will undermine the credibility of the former and the efficacy of the latter. We cannot seek legitimacy while conducting actions widely considered illegal unless we create legal space for them. It is time to start asking hard questions about domestic and international law and how they must be changed to accommodate the vital interest in combating terror Obama has affirmed.
Posted in International Security, Uncategorized | Tagged drones, KSM, terrorism | 2 Comments »
December 7, 2009 by wmschreiber
“I am not a symbol of the fall of Communism, Ceauşescu was a symbol of the fall of Communism. I am a symbol of democracy.”
Even through a translator, Adam Michnik is an eloquent speaker. But during his speech at the Elliott School, this particular biographical point may have been his most contested. There are those who see Michnik as a man unable to give up his glory days.
During Jaruzelski’s rule, Michnik was a hero of the democratic opposition. The intellectual wunderkind of Solidarity, he founded the Worker’s Defense Committee – and by the time he was the age of the students who came to hear him speak last Friday, he had been jailed more times than he could count.
But as the revolutionaries became the founders, things got complicated.
Continue Reading »
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged GW, Michnik, Michnikism, Paine, Washington | Leave a Comment »
December 4, 2009 by katzman222
Of the many issues on President Obama’s agenda, the train wreck in slow motion that is the Iranian nuclear crisis looms near the top. The one year deadline for the “outstretched hand” that was announced shortly after his inauguration is fast approaching, and as the Economist describes in a pointed article about the situation, Obama’s strenuous diplomacy has resulted in zero concessions so far. An enrichment exchange deal tentatively worked out with Iran in late September was seen as a test of whether the great powers might be able to coax the mullahs into a broader accord in the near future, where they could trade bomb-making technologies for economic benefits on a grander scale.
That test failed with the collapse of the deal and Iran’s vocal defiance of the recent I.A.E.A resolution to halt construction of the once-secret enrichment facility at Qom, outed by Western intelligence days before America and company sat down with the Islamic Republic for their doomed bargaining summit in Geneva. In Tehran, President Ahmadinejad happily slaps the international community in the face with a declaration o
f plans (however farfetched) for ten more enrichment plants. In Jerusalem, Prime Minister Netanyahu eyes strike scenarios nervously. In Washington, opposition pundits and politicians can’t help but think their criticisms of a “naïve” White House as vindicated.
Not quite. The first direct US-Iranian engagement in thirty years has failed to win concessions from the Iranians, but diplomacy has still payed off for America, and could yet pay more. The hope was that the regime across the table might genuinely respond to the right incentives from a more conciliatory America if internal political dynamics were favorable. But the reality was always that after its historic overture, those sitting next to America on the same side of the table would be more willing (or more likely) partners if and when it became apparent that real punitive action was inevitable in the form of sanctions and beyond.
This certainly goes for the Europeans whose support is usually taken for granted. Concerted diplomacy having run its course with America in the lead, it will be easier for Brown (or Cameron), Sarkozy, and Merkel to stand behind Obama and in front of their own people at the same time, wherever the standoff ultimately leads. The ball is now in Iran’s court and Iranian intentions made plain, with only the most deluded critics able to argue that bullheaded American saber-rattling is the source of Iranian intransigence. A similar principle applies for the Russians and Chinese, whose degree of commitment to sanctions is still less a failure on the administration’s part than a crucial work in progress (both countries voted with the West to condemn Iran in the I.A.E.A resolution, the first in three years and a rare consensus). If they can be led to conclude by a more nuanced US approach that their business interests must take a backseat to global security, Obama will have achieved a great deal.
Posted in Iran | Tagged Iran nuclear program, US-Iran Diplomacy | Leave a Comment »
December 1, 2009 by Dan Rozenson
The foreign minister of Sweden, the country that now holds the rotating EU presidency, said last week on the prospect of a Palestinian state the following: “I don’t think we are there yet. . . . We would be ready to recognize a Palestinian state, but conditions are not there as of yet.” Right. Everyone’s rooting for a Palestinian state, but only when that state can govern itself and recognizes its neighbors.
So why am I reading in Haaretz that Sweden is pressuring the European Union to announce that they would accept a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood with East Jerusalem as its capital? Such an announcement is probably the last thing that would be helpful to achieving lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Palestine today has no government; it has two semi-governments. It is not a nation; it is two nations. Palestinians have killed 593 of their own as part internecine warfare.
The Palestinians have contributed nothing to the peace process in the year 2009. Nor have the Arab states. Meanwhile, Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu has probably actually moved the peace process along more than anyone else. First, he declared his support for a Palestinian state on conditions no more stringent than Ehud Barak’s generous offers in 2000-2001. Second, he reduced the number of manned checkpoints in the West Bank by 70% and removed 100 unmanned roadblocks. These changes have substantially boosted the West Bank economy, which is predicted to grow 7% this year. Third, Netanyahu proposed a three-to-six month settlement freeze in exchange for confidence-building steps from the Arab states and restarted negotiations with the Palestinians. Fourth, even after he received neither Arab nor Palestinian help in this regard, he convinced his right-wing government to support a ten-month settlement freeze. Still the Palestinians refuse to negotiate. Fifth, Netanyahu has patiently waited as Obama fruitlessly searches for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear program.
Barack Obama certainly did not deserve his Nobel Peace Prize this year. If Yassir Arafat could win the Prize, why not Netanyahu?
Posted in Middle East | Tagged Abbas, Israel, Netanyahu, Obama, Palestinians | 2 Comments »
November 20, 2009 by wmschreiber
The Holodomor Memorial in Kiev, known to Putin as "Someplace." (courtesy: Taras)
A month ago Prime Minister Julia Tymoshenko earmarked 5 million UAH for the construction of an American memorial to what Ukrainians claim was genocide and “perhaps the most extreme example of the use of hunger as a weapon.” The Russian Federation officially denies Ukrainian claims that the Stalinist policies were ethnically targeted genocide. For Tymoshenko, however, the Holodomor issue epitomizes her delicate balancing act courting pro-Western and pro-Russian forces for the 2010 election.
Back then Tymoshenko publicly supporting a memorial in Washington D.C. seemed like good sign for Ukrainian-American relations. Tymoshenko is more popular in the Central and Eastern regions of Ukraine, where a majority of her constituency is relatively pro-Russia. Thus she has traditionally been seen as more Russian than American leaning, particularly in contrast to the (vastly unpopular) incumbent President Yushchenko.
But her allocation of funds to the U.S. memorial may indicate a cautious step away from Russia. Although Yushchenko and other Ukranian polticians have insisted their advocacy of Holodomar remembrance isn’t meant to reproach Russia, it’s a subtle distinction – particularly as Yuschchenko has recently criticized (read: reproached) Stalin’s rehabilitation in Russia. In short, Tymoshenko’s support of this issue might be an overture to the U.S., or it could be an attempt to appease the pro-West Lviv region, which is seen as a key battleground in the 2010 race.
Then came Tymoshenko’s tell. At a press conference yesterday, she laughed a little too hard at Putin’s joking description of Yuschchenko and and Saakashvili’s trip to the Holodomor Memorial in Kiev, which he described as “someplace.” (Warning: the link is in Russian with a written translation on the side, but to English speakers the tie-eating jokes just aren’t that funny.) I expect her to play up the D.C. memorial in the coming weeks to rehabilitate her image on the issue.
Commuters will bring votives and bundles of wheat to the base of the new memorial. (Taras)
Whether it’s a genuine message to Americans, or just for the benefit of voters, the White House is listening. President Obama issued a “Thinking of You” on Ukrainian Holodomar Remembrance Day (November 14th, you missed it again). Note the boldly worded final lines. They say something about reflecting on tyranny’s lasting grip on some places, and hoping that nothing like that ever happens again. In Someplace.
I’m interested to see what the monument will look like. How do you visually encapsulate a history lesson on Holodomar to the “tourists and everyday Washingtonians” on their way to Central Station? If you have the answer, Ukraine is holding a design competition through Nov. 26.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
