Straddling Fences: The Fastest Way to Pull Your Groin

Almost one month ago, in his first post-election press conference, President Obama was asked about American support for the Syrian Opposition.  In response he said, “We are not yet prepared to recognize them as some sort of government in exile, but we do think that it is a broad-based representative group.  One of the questions that we are going to continue to press is making sure that that opposition is committed to a democratic Syria, an inclusive Syria, a moderate Syria.” 

Obama continued to offer some insight into the factors which would influence future American support for the Opposition.  “We have seen extremist elements insinuate themselves into the opposition.  And one of things we have to be on guard about, particularly when we start talking about arming opposition figures, is that we're not indirectly putting arms in the hands of folks who would do Americans harm, or do Israelis harm, or otherwise engage in actions that are detrimental to our national security.”     

Yesterday (12/11/12) the United States designated Jabhat al Nusra (the Support Front) as a terrorist organization, claiming the group is probably a cover for al Qaida in Iraq (AQI).  Jabhat al Nusra is one of many groups fighting against the Syrian army and pro Assad forces. 

Also yesterday, President Obama announced the formal recognition of the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.  “We've made a decision that the Syrian Opposition Coalition is now inclusive enough, is reflective and representative enough of the Syrian population that we consider them the legitimate representative of the Syrian people in opposition to the Assad regime.” 

So… in the same day as it labeled a group opposing President Assad a terrorist organization, the United States formally recognizes the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the legitimate body representing the Syrian people.  At first glance, this seems to go directly against what President Obama said in his 11.14.12 press conference; that extremist elements in the Syrian opposition were the reason the United States had not yet formally recognized the legitimacy of the Syrian Opposition Coalition.  So what happened during the last month to prompt this contradiction on policy? 

Since it no longer appears that the Assad regime is readying chemical weapons, the most likely cause is today’s meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco between the Syrian Opposition Coalition and the ‘Friends of Syria’ group.  At the meeting a draft declaration was issued calling the Syrian Opposition Coalition, “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.”  The declaration also stated, “Bashar al-Assad has lost legitimacy and should stand aside to allow a sustainable political transition process.” 

The United States has come to a fork in the road.  Option one is to label groups with ties to al Qaida as terrorist organizations.  Option two is support the Syrian Opposition Coalition.  This fork has been over a year in the making, beginning when the Free Syrian Army asked for military aid.  The United States chose not to provide any, so the FSA sought aid from other nations and non-state actors.  It should come as no surprise that some of the groups stepping up to fight alongside the Syrian rebels have extremist views and ties to terrorist organizations. 

Politics makes strange bedfellows.  And right now the United States has to decide whether it will sleep alone on the couch, or lower its standards and get some action.  The current strategy of straddling the fence between options one and two has resulted in the United States being ridiculed by the people it claims to support.  It is an unsustainable policy, and needs to end.  

Malala Day

On October 9 a Taliban gunman boarded a school bus in Northwest Pakistan, asked for Malala Yousafzai by name, and shot her in the head.  Malala, a 15 year old Pakistani girl, had been an outspoken activist for girls’ education in Pakistan.  The shooting was meant to accomplish two things:

1.       Kill Malala.

2.       Dissuade others from advocating for girls’ education.

In claiming responsibility for the attack, Ihsanullah Ihsan, Chief Spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban said of Malala, “She considers President Obama as her ideal leader.  Malala is the symbol of the infidels and obscenity.”  He continued to say if Malala survived the attack, the Taliban would try to kill her again.  Militants have destroyed nearly 460 schools in the Federally Administered Tribal Area of Northwestern Pakistan. 

Not only did Malala survive (she is currently receiving pro bono medical care in the U.K.) but the attack has rallied support for women’s education in Pakistan and around the world.  In fact, support has been so strong that the U.N. declared Saturday, November 10, as Malala Day.  In a taped message UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon referred to Malala Yousafzai as, “a global symbol of every girl’s right to an education.”  In addition the very fact that Malala Day is being celebrated across the globe under the banner of the United Nations demonstrates the universal appeal and impact of her message.

In his own address on Saturday, Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf said, “Pakistan joins the world community today to pay tributes to Malala Yousafzai, the daughter of Pakistan, on her bravery, courage and unflinching determination and her passion for education.  [The] attack on Malala Yousafzai was not merely an attack on an individual, rather, it was an attack on our values, our culture, our traditions and our way of life.”  Prime Minister Ashraf continued to call Malala a voice for those who stand for women’s education, a right guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan and ordained by Islamic teachings.

While this rush of support for a good case is great, the current state of education in Pakistan is appalling.  The latest data from UNESCO indicates that Pakistan has 3.2 million primary school age girls who are not in school, ranking Pakistan second in the world for most girls out of school behind number one Nigeria (5.5 million). 

The Pakistani government, the U.N., the World Bank, and other international organizations have set an April 2013 deadline to develop a plan to provide education to all of Pakistan's school-aged children by the end of 2015.

For more on this movement please check out I am Malala.  

Reactions to the Anti-Muslim Film and Protests

I will let these quotes from the below heads of state and political leaders speak for themselves. 

Prime Minister Abdurrahim Keib of Libya:

"This is a criminal act that will not go unpunished. This is part of a series of cowardice acts by supporters of the former regime who want to undermine Libya's revolution."

President Mohamed Magariaf of Libya:

"We refuse that our nation's lands be used for cowardice and revengeful acts. It is not a victory for God's Sharia or his prophet for such disgusting acts to take place," Magariaf said. "We apologize to the United States, the people of America, and the entire world. We and the American government are standing on the same side, we stand on the same side against outlaws."

President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt:

“The presidency denounces in the strongest terms the attempt to insult the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) and condemns the people who produced this extreme action. The Egyptian people, both Muslims and Christians, reject this insult against the sacred.

The presidency also emphasizes that the Egyptian state is responsible for the protection of private and public properties and thereby the diplomatic missions and embassies of different countries.

It also affirms the protection and respect for the freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest within the confines of the law while firmly opposing any irresponsible attempt to create lawlessness.

The president and the embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt in the United States have commissioned the undertaking of all possible, legal actions to respond to these individuals who seek the sabotage the relations and dialogue between peoples and nations.”

Deputy President of the Muslim Brotherhood Khairat El-Shater:

“Despite our resentment of the continued appearance of productions like the anti-Muslim film that led to the current violence, we do not hold the American government or its citizens responsible for acts of the few that abuse the laws protecting freedom of expression.” (The Muslim Brotherhood cancelled its call for a nationwide protest against the video.)

Former Governor Mitt Romney: Released Tuesday night

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi… It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

President Barack Obama: Released Wednesday morning
"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens... While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."

Update 9/27/12: Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Producer of the ‘Innocence of Muslims’’ film has been detained.  The judge cited an increased risk of Nakoula fleeing as cause for the detention. 

Ghostbusters!

The second part of the, "Who You Gonna Call?" post from last week.

“We can't afford to give governments in Russia and China a veto over how we defend our interests and the progress of our values in the world.” – Senator John McCain

As I’ve already broken down, we are addressing whether the United Nations or the United States should be the preeminent keeper of international peace and defender of human rights, and the precedent this would set. 

My simple answer is the United Nations should be the preeminent keeper of international peace and defender of human rights.  If for no other reason, the UN can speak for the will of the world, transcending diplomatic allegiances like NATO or the Arab League.  Because of this, involvement by the UN can hardly be said to advance any one nation’s agenda over another’s.  Furthermore, when the UN acts it is in the interest of international peace and the protection of human rights.  I say ‘when’ because history and current events have shown the UN doesn’t always act.  The United Nations has proven unable to consistently uphold these responsibilities, and I am concerned it will take another Rwandan Genocide for the world to realize this. 

Since you aren’t going to call the UN, it seems like the only other option is the United States (and France, Great Britain, and Turkey to name a few).  But what precedent does this set when three of five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) ignore the vetoes cast by the other two? 

This is a difficult question.  On the one hand, by going against the UN we are saying, “The UN doesn’t have authority over us.”  Suppose in the near future China asks the UNSC to sign a resolution declaring the South China Sea as exclusively Chinese maritime territory.  Given recent events in the region I have no doubt the United States would respond, if needed, by casting a veto vote.  If the United States just defied the UNSC by intervening in Syria, who are we to scold China for continuing to occupy islands and waters claimed by Japan, Philippines, and Indonesia.  A situation that should have been resolved through diplomatic channels would them come down to a military standoff, with the possibility of small conflicts between nations. 

Conversely, if the United States and other likeminded nations respect the will of the UNSC they won’t intervene in Syria.  The conflict will continue to escalate, with more crimes against humanity being committed by both sides. 

The phrase ‘between a rock and a hard place’ doesn’t begin to quantify the moral dilemma we face here.  Respect the United Nations and aspire that one day it will be able to act in every case of crimes against humanity… or try to save the lives of thousands of Syrians while labeling the UN as irrelevant. 

The answer, in my opinion, is both clear as day and invisible.  It is what Jack Nicolson was referring to when he screamed, “you can’t handle the truth!”  Covert operations cannot replace policy, but it can support it.  In this case the United States hasn’t been shy about favoring the Free Syrian Army and calling for President Assad to step down, but it has been unable to openly support the FSA with weapons, intelligence, or funding.  It is these capacities that the Agency excels at. 

This is a difficult issue, but I believe it is an unfortunate reality that there are occasions when otherwise morally questionable actions are justified.  I can think of several examples but I will end this tirade here.  If there are any differing opinions out there I’d love to here them.

Who You Gonna Call?

Part 1

Yesterday at the Republican National Convention Senator John McCain and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke to attendees about American foreign policy.  Without going into details the duo said exactly what you would expect.  They outlined the dangers of American decline, talked about the U.S. being a resolute beacon for our allies, and reminisced about the good old days.  Neither offered specifics for how a Romney/Ryan administration would go about these issues, or any others for that matter, but that was not the purpose of the event. 

So why the blog post?  It is to react to this one liner from Senator McCain.  “We can't afford to give governments in Russia and China a veto over how we defend our interests and the progress of our values in the world.”  He is referring to the vetoes by Russia and China of repeated attempts by the United States and others to secure UNSC action in Syria. 

Senator McCain isn’t saying that Russia and China shouldn’t be permanent members of the UNSC, armed with a veto vote over any item put before the council.  He is saying their veto votes shouldn’t stop the United States from acting as it wants.  To keep this post on the briefer side, the issue at hand is; what precedent are we setting by going against the expressed or implied will of the United Nations? 

The answer to this question (Ghost Busters!) depends on whether you think the United Nations or the United States should be the preeminent keeper of international peace and defender of human rights.  As this situation shows, they cannot jointly share this role every time. 

There are pros and cons to each but I will stop here with the hopes that this question raises some debate.  Check back soon for part two; my answer.

Ultimate Peace

It turns out Percocet really limits your critical analysis skills.  Fortunately for this blog, my knee on the mend (making me drug free) but I won’t be cleared for physical activity for another month or two.  This means I will have plenty of time to write while I am not running around.  I’ve got a few article ideas in the works and am hoping to get one up shortly.  In the mean time I wanted to give a quick shout out to Ultimate Peace and the Israeli national girls team at the 2012 World Junior Ultimate Championships. 

Ultimate Peace has spent the last three years working throughout the Middle East to promote peace through sports.  Ultimate, for those unfamiliar with the sport, doesn’t have any referees.  All fouls are called by the players on the field.  It is then up to the players involved to rectify the situation.  This unique aspect of the sport, combined with the need to pass the disc between players to score, makes ultimate the ideal sport to teach kids teamwork and conflict resolution skills. 

As a result of Ultimate Peace’s work, at the 2012 World Junior Ultimate Championships in Dublin, Ireland, Team Israel was composed of 10 Jewish and six Arab girls.  Traditionally teams representing Israel in international competition have been predominantly Jewish.  Here is an article to learn more. 

I Believe in Harvey Dent, But Until Then Batman Will Have to Do

Commissioner Gordon: (Speaking of Harvey Dent): “Not the hero we deserved, but the hero we needed.” 

Batman is my favorite superhero.  First, at his core he is just a man, ok a billionaire with a big chip on his shoulder, but he isn’t an alien (Superman), god (Thor), and he wasn’t bitten by a radioactive spider (do I really need to say it?).  But more than his humanity I enjoy Batman’s relationship with Gotham City. 

Gotham is a complex environment rotting with corruption and crippled by inadequate government and police, while innocent civilians hang in the balance.  In these ways Batman’s world is not unlike our own.  Too many people suffer horrible injustices at the hands of corrupt leaders who act in their own interest rather than the greater good.  Although they have the capacity to alleviate this suffering, organizations like the UN, EU, and NATO don’t.  Not because they are blind to the plight of these people, but because they are handicapped by our system of international governance and the rules by which international actors ‘must’ play. 

Enter Batman.  While the police are unable to protect the people of Gotham, Batman is not bound by the same rules of conduct.  He doesn’t need a warrant to kick in the door of a mob boss’ home, he doesn’t have to work with corrupt colleagues, and his jurisdiction is limitless.  Batman goes where he is needed, acts in the best interest of the common good, and is gone in the blink of an eye. 

Under the cover of darkness and shadows, Batman protects the people of Gotham, coming and going as quickly and silently as his namesake.  On the other hand Harvey Dent, Gotham’s District Attorney, thwarts Gotham’s criminals and stamps out corruption in the light of day.  He was elected by the people of Gotham and acts through the transparent legal system.  Needless to say the symbolism behind Harvey Dent’s nickname, Gotham’s White Knight, and Batman’s, the Dark Knight, speaks volumes about this relationship.   

So what are the equivalent of Batman and Harvey Dent in our world?  Legally, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the closest thing we have to an international legal system which brings war criminals to justice.  Yet this organization has extremely limited capacity to pursue or detain suspects on its own, instead it relies on nations to arrest suspects and transfer them to The Hague.  As for a Batman parallel, the current use of drones by the Obama administration seems closest.  When the CIA asks for the President’s approval for a drone strike, the request is based on significant evidence.  However, there is no legal process through which suspected terrorists are tried and convicted.  It is this lack of due process that causes much of the controversy surrounding the targeted drone killings.   

How do we (if we even should), progress to having a Harvey Dent-esque ICC?  This organization would require a police force capable of pursuing criminals across international borders, like a stronger INTERPOL.  However as the formation and evolution of the European Union has shown, Nations are often reluctant to reduce their own authority over domestic affairs.  Empowering the ICC to investigate and arrest individuals would make it a government organization.  After all, a government is the organization with a monopoly on the use of force.

“You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” -Harvey Dent and Batman

Our world needs Harvey Dent; an organization to not only issue warrants and try criminals like  Joseph Kony and President al-Bashir, but to physically go to Central Africa and Sudan to arrest them.  Even if it remains “A court of last resort,” acting only in cases where the presiding national court fails to, such an organization is many years away, if it will ever exist. 

In the absence of this organization, our world deserves a Batman to hunt down those who would commit genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.  I am not saying Obama’s use of drones is the perfect embodiment of this idea.  But between nothing and American drone strikes, I’ll take the option that causes terrorists to lose sleep. 

I think this exchange from the end of The Dark Knight sums up my feelings on the matter.  Leaders of the world have to be critical of a program that kills specific people without due process.  Yet on some level many of them undoubtedly feel that a world with fewer terrorists is better than a world with more.  So long as the individuals targeted through this program are known terrorists guilty of horrible crimes against humanity, I think they will suffer the program to continue until a better option comes. 

Son: “Why is he running dad?”

Commissioner Gordon: “Because we have to chase him.” 

Son: “He didn’t do anything wrong.”

Commissioner Gordon: “Because he is the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.  So we’ll hunt him, because he can take it.  Because he is not a hero, he is a silent guardian, a watchful protector, a dark knight.”