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.” 

Wow, its been a little too long since I have written something.  Between a busted knee and an impending decline in 60 hour work weeks I will soon find myself with some extra free time.  Right now I have two ideas for interesting posts:
-A moral defense of sweatshops and child labor
-Comments on separatist/reformist movements and their use of force

I would like to write something about capacity building, since that is where I am currently most interested in pursuing a career.  It is a little amorphous right now, but I'll probably focus on the necessity of local "ownership."  I hinted at this idea in my first post on Barbara Walters' interview of President Assad.  There I briefly discussed the role of France in the American Revolution and more recent international involvement in Libya, but I think this subject deserves a lot more consideration, especially since it seems so few people, organizations, and governments recognize it.

I am also taking suggestions.  If there is something you'd like to discuss, give me a shout and I'll try to figure something out.  Preference will be given to posts with the most potential for clever titles and pop culture references.  (Batman, Game of Thrones?)

Is Anyone Surprised That Happened?

On February 29^th North Korea announced it would suspend nuclear weapons tests and uranium enrichment, as well as allow inspectors to monitor its main nuclear facility.  In turn United States agreed to give the county tons of desperately needed food aid.

Approximately one minute after its Friday the 13^th launch, North Korea’s Kwangmyongsong (Bright Shining Light) exploded, with debris falling back to earth and landing in the Yellow Sea.  Amidst the post-launch hype of North Korea’s failed “weather satellite” the United States announced it will suspend food aid shipments and Russia, China, and India agreed that the attempted launch violated UNSC sanctions.  Of course South Korea and Japan haven’t missed the opportunity to condemn North Korea for spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing this rocket while its citizens are impoverished and malnourished.

But was anyone really expecting this latest kerfuffle to play out any differently?  This was North Korea’s 3^rd failed “satellite” launch, though it is the first they have admitted to the North Korean public.  (North Koreans are told that the other two satellites were launched into space and are broadcasting songs and information to the rest of the world.)  North Korea has also preformed two nuclear weapons tests in 2006 and 2009, and numerous long range missile tests.  All of these are in violation of UNSC sanctions and prompted condemnation and the freezing of foreign aid. 

Every time the North Korean government has suckered the international community into sending them food aid, they have subsequently reneged on their side of the deal or otherwise violated international sanctions, prompting foreign aid to freeze. 

The Cartoon of the Week for April 13, 2012 sums my sentiments up pretty well, or at least the look on the face of the reporter in the bottom right of the image. 

Why Do We Keep Setting Ourselves Up For Disappointment?

This time I believe it was primarily because this was the first such agreement with North Korea under the rule of Kim Jong-Un.  International leaders simply couldn’t refuse the chance to kick the tires on the new leader, hoping that his upbringing in Switzerland, as opposed to in North Korea under his father, would mean the apple did in fact fall very far from the tree.  Hindsight being 20/20, that wishful thinking proved nothing more than a dream. 

Is There a Right Answer?

Two years from now when North Korea comes back to the table promising to freeze its nuclear weapons program and stop testing missiles in exchange for food aid, what should we do?  Should we refuse, knowing they weren’t going to hold up their end anyway?   Or should we agree, and console ourselves with the fact that we saved thousands of North Koreans from starvation. 

By agreeing to North Korea’s deals we are continuing down the same path of appeasement, which has proven useless in persuading North Korean leaders to abandon their nuclear weapon and missile programs.  Unfortunately the facts on the ground mean refusing to send North Korea food aid will result in North Korean children going hungry, and dying from starvation. 

Clearly the root problem is North Korean leadership, which would rather spend $200 million on a missile instead of spending the money on planting crops.  But sanctions with proving ineffective at influencing North Korean policies, what other options are there for the world to exert soft power over North Korean leadership? 

Again, the reality of the situation is that while North Korea has nuclear weapons pointed at Seoul and Tokyo there is little the world can do to strong arm Pyongyang, worst of all, they know that.   

Romney's Plan for Dealing With Iran is Great... Its Also Not His Plan

Mitt Romney recently wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post describing how he would handle Iran compared to Obama.  To sum up, Romney starts with a few ice breakers; Spetember 11^th was bad, terrorism is scary, and Iran wants to destroy Israel.  He then progresses to slightly more constructive content by stating that while Obama says we need to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, “his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy.”  Romney then presents how he would deal with Iran. 

“I will press for ever-tightening sanctions, acting with other countries if we can but alone if we must.  I will speak out on behalf of the cause of democracy in Iran and support Iranian dissidents who are fighting for their freedom.  I will make clear that America’s commitment to Israel’s security and survival is absolute.”  Later in the Op-Ed Romney adds that he will maintain a strong naval presence in the Persian Gulf and stresses that he is willing to use military force if necessary. 

I think that plan sounds great.  It focuses on multilateral diplomatic and economic options and makes it clear to Iranian leadership that if these options fail the United States and its allies are willing and able to resort to a military option with the goal of eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and removing them from power.  There is only one problem… Romney’s proposed plan is actually Obama’s plan, and he has been doing it for nearly his entire Presidency.

Pressing for tight, multilateral sanctions:

The following list of international organizations and countries have imposed sanctions against Iran.  These range from freezing assets to prohibiting the import of Iranian oil. 

• The United Nations
• The European Union
• Australia
• Canada
• India
• Israel
• Japan
• South Korea
• Switzerland
• United States

Most of the sanctions have been imposed in the last 6 months, and have largely been a result of American diplomacy.  These sanctions have had a crippling effect on the Iranian economy.  Over the last 6 months the exchange rate of the Iranian Rial to U.S. Dollars has increased by 67%.  Additionally Iran’s own Parliament recently grilled Ahmadinejad over his handling of the economy and foreign policy. 

 

U.S. Support for Iranian Dissidents:

Last year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Iranian opposition to seek international support, “as Libya rebels did.”  In the case of Libya, the Transitional National Council asked the international community to send aid and impose a no-fly-zone over Libya to protect civilians from aircraft loyal to Gaddafi.  Openly suggesting that a group of people should request military aide in their struggle against their government is a pretty strong sign that you support them. 

American Commitment to Israel:

Romney cites this write up of a recent Oval Office meeting between Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama as an example that Obama’s, “rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy.” Interesting that same article goes on to quote Netanyahu as saying, “Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values, that we defend common interests, that we face common enemies. Iran’s leaders know that, too. For them, you’re the Great Satan, we’re the Little Satan. For them, we are you, and you’re us.”  The article continues to cite Obama’s address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as saying U.S. military aid to Israel has increased each year of his Presidency. 

Regional Naval Presence:

To say the United States doesn’t have a regional naval presence is simply ridiculous.  Not only has the U.S. Navy been conducting numerous anti-piracy operations in the Persian Gulf, but the Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain, 100 miles from Iran. 

Romney’s Next Moves:

It is pretty clear that President Obama has already done everything Romney said he would do.  So do that make Romney a Democrat, Obama a Republican, or does it mean a good idea has no political alliance?

March Madness

Foreign Policy March Madness

Make Your Own Bracket.

My Bracket.

A write up of last year’s tournament is available here.  Check it out to better understand the style of my own tournament analysis. 

Matchups to Watch:

India v. Brazil:  Last year these emerging heavyweights met in a thrilling Elite 8 match-up from which Brazil’s Rousseff progressed to the Final Four to face Obama.  Both BRICS Nations are on top of their game but this year the edge goes to Singh.  India is working to become the only nation to become a permanent member of the UNSC since the inception of the United Nations; and that will carry them through this tough first round matchup. 

Obama v. Netanyahu:  President Obama was able to control the backboard and get a win over Netanyahu in a home court match up earlier this month.  That said, The Oval Office is probably the second friendliest gym for Israel play in, and at a truly neutral site Obama will win handily.

Players to Watch:

Castro Brothers: Or in this case it is, “players not to watch.”  Cuba wasn’t invited to America’s Summit… and they made THIS tourney?!?!  This is an easy win for Robert Mugabe. 

Putin: Vladi is running down hill after a decisive “victory” in the recent Russian Presidential election and some strong diplomacy regarding Syria and Iran.  He isn’t unstoppable, but this is his tournament to lose. 

Kim Jong Un: The new leader of North Korea is close to securing tons of food aid from the United States by promising to freeze its nuclear weapon program.  Lil’ Kim’s father would be proud to see his son exploiting the United States for free food while only briefly pausing North Korea’s nuclear program.  Unfortunately for Kim his road to the Final Four is through Tehran, and that is a level of crazy this young leader can’t play at yet. 

Note: North Korean defectors interviewed in April 2011 thought the tournament was a Battle Royale among foreign leaders fighting for the favor of Kim Jong Il, who once brought a knife to a gun fight and won. 

Late Tournament Action:

Game # 30, Putin v. Ahmadinejad: These two met in the semi finals last year but this will not be a repeat.  Despite a strong performance by the KGB veteran in the early rounds, Putin’s age has caught up to him.  Strong fundamentals can only make up for so much, and in this game the 20 minute half time didn’t give the Russia bear enough time for the hibernation he needed.  Ahmadinejad pulls ahead in the late third quarter and doesn’t look back as he advances to his first finals appearance.  

Finals, Obama v. Ahmadinejad: No one doubted that Obama would make it to this game.  Despite a tough Elite 8 matchup against Angela Merkel (Who has been bench pressing the European economy for training) his tried and true Hope play won in the end.  In the semi finals Obama looked casual against Singh of India as he spoke confidently and inspirationally about great things; propelling him to a second consecutive tournament championship game, the first leader to do so in the two year history of the tournament.

The Game: With a disregard for his citizens that would have made Stalin blush, Ahmadinejad refused once and for all to freeze Iran’s nuclear program.  Although he didn’t, “hesitate to use force,” Obama was beaten to the first punch by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who swooped down from the rafters shouting, “I will never allow my people to live in the shadow of annihilation!”  When the dust had settled the bewildered officials and President Obama beheld a triumphant Netanyahu, posed like Washington crossing the Delaware, over his vanquished advisory. 

After a lengthy discussion and numerous calls to the review booth (manned by Kofi Annan) the officials declare Netanyahu the 2012 March Madness Champion.  With reelection less than eight months away Obama humbly accepts the decision of the officials, and the financial and political support of AIPAC on account of his unprecedented support of Israel.  

A Response to Karl Rove’s, “How to Beat Obama”

Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie recently wrote an article asserting that the Republican nominee should challenge President Obama on foreign policy to expose how weak he actually is on the subject.  When I first saw this article my plan was to make this the first addition to the Election 2012 page of my blog.  However as I read it I couldn't help but formulate a response to some of Mr. Rove’s assertions and suggestions. 

My Problems with the Article:

American Exceptionalism:

The belief that because the United States has the biggest economy, strongest military, etc… it is exempt from the rules and guidelines of international conduct is flawed.  Nations should not roam the world with a ‘because I can’ attitude, taking unilateral action against the expressed will of the international community.  In an environment where no party has a monopoly on the use of force (and would therefore be responsible for enforcing law and order) the rules of international conduct are merely guidelines for determining personal action.  This means they are only as strong and respect each nation holds for them.

With regards to the role of global policeman that the United States so often plays, this work is both legitimized and enhanced by partnerships with regional organizations like the African Union and Arab League.  In the case of Libya, NATO military action was legitimized by the involvement of Arab nations like the U.A.E.  In Central Africa, President Obama sent 100 U.S. troops to Uganda, South Sudan, C.A.R. and the D.R.C.  These soldiers will work with the African Nations to defeat the Lord’s Resistance Army, which has been raping, murdering, and kidnapping for over 20 years. 

In essence, with great power comes great responsibility.  Part of that responsibility is being humble, saying thank you, and quietly going about your business of being the best.  A perfect example of this is the rescue of Iranian sailors being held captive by Somali pirates.  In the wake of each rescue the Navy has fed, clothed, and treated the sailors for any medical needs before quickly returning them to the Iranian Coast Guard.  There were never any attempts to use the sailors as leverage to influence Iranian nuclear policies, or any other disrespectful treatment of the sailors.  The only publicity these rescues have gotten is a quick story on the major news outlets and an official Navy report on the event.  By handling these events in this manner the United States portrayed itself as acting solely in the best interest of the Iranian sailors and making no attempt to exploit the situation to influence Iranian policy. As a result the United States gained the moral high ground, and with it, the support of many countries in opposing Iranian nuclear policies.    

As much as I believe American Exceptionalism is a flawed philosophy, toting it is proven help win the general election.  So Mr. Rove’s advice to the Republican Nominee is sound.  

Iran Didn’t “pose a serious threat” in 2008:

Why Mr. Rove, was it so foolish for then Senator Obama to say Iran doesn’t, “pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union did.”  In 2008 Iran had zero nuclear weapons, and as we can clearly see now, Iran wasn’t even four years away from developing them.  Furthermore the USSR could have, at any moment, blanketed the entire U.S. with nuclear missiles.  Even if Iran had enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear warhead, they have no way to get it to the United States.  (No, you can’t simply smuggle a nuclear device into the U.S.) I’ll conclude this section by saying how foolish it was for the Bush Administration to think Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States in 2002. 

Radical Islamic Terrorism:

Karl Rove begins this section by asserting that the Republican nominee must make victory over, “radical Islamic terrorism” the top priority of the nation.  He then suggests that President Obama stops short of this by merely seeking to “delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out.” (pg 20) Mr. Rove is quoting Obama’s May 2010 National Security Strategy.  Interestingly after this quote the National Security Strategy makes a clear distinction that the United States is not at war with terrorism or Islam, but al-Qa’ida and its affiliates.  Mr. Rove does not make a similar distinction. 

Another shortcoming of Mr. Rove’s article is it fails to list development as a tool to counter the spread of radical terrorism.  As this study from RAND finds, “social and economic development policies can weaken local support for terrorist activities.” (pg x) In impoverished areas many terrorist organizations offer recruits and their families’ financial support which cannot be found elsewhere.  Good economic development policies serve as a peaceful and more profitable means for these young men and women to support a family. 

The example offered by the RAND study is of development projects in the southern Philippines growing asparagus and bananas.  These initiatives offered an economic alternative to communities which previously supported local terrorist groups.  As a result of these programs communities had high employment rates and were transformed into peaceful communities. 

Such development projects show the commitment of the government enacting them to the welfare of the program beneficiaries.  This serves to minimize the grievances and contempt which can cause individuals to view terrorism is a viable response. 

Conversely, President Obama’s 2010 National Security Strategy explicitly outlines the role of development programs, stating, “The Federal Government will invest in intelligence to understand this threat [radicalization] and expand community engagement and development programs to empower local communities.” (pg 19)  This policy shows the Obama Administration has a solid understanding of the root causes of terrorism.  Based on this article the same cannot be said of Mr. Rove.  

Osama bin Laden:

Karl Rove closes by predicting President Obama will repeat, “endlessly” that bin Laden was killed during his watch so much so that, “some voters will wonder whether the president himself personally delivered the kill shot.”  I’ll restrain myself from starting a tally of what the President credits to whom and simply refer readers to President Obama’s May 2nd speech to the Nation announcing that Osama bin Laden is dead.

NOTE: After writing this piece I found a response from Jermey Rosner and Stanley Greenberg to Mr. Rove’s article.  To summarize, they also assert that Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie have poor advice for the republican nominee and that not only do Americans think Obama is good on foreign policy (An assertion Mr. Rove makes), but he actually is.  

Paradise Lost

Before I dive into the meat and potatoes of this post I want to explain why I titled it Paradise Lost.  My working title was Trouble in Paradise, but that was the headline for this story in many of the major news outlets and I wanted to set this analysis apart from the crowd.  I settled on Paradise Lost in reference to John Milton’s 1667 poem by the same name.  The poem concerns the Biblical story of the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.  In Milton’s own words the purpose of the poem is to, “justify the ways of God to men.”  Admittedly that was where my knowledge of the work ended.  But after reading a synopsis or two I think an interesting comparison can be drawn between Satan tempting Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and Former President Nasheed exposing corruption in the Maldives.  In both stories Satan/Nasheed could have safely remained the ruler of their respective domains, but they chose to brave the abyss to show Adam and Eve/the world the truth about good and evil, rather than allow them to remain oblivious.  Of course their motivations for acting were very different so this is where my comparison ends. 

In December I posted a link to the Top 5 International Documentaries of 2011.  If you haven’t already I highly recommend checking them out, especially The Island President, the story of then President Mohamed Nasheed and his struggle to raise awareness of the dangers of global climate change.  This story is captivating for two reasons: the first is that in 2008 Nasheed became the first democratically elected President of the Maldives, a small island nation in the Indian Ocean.  The second reason is that for the Maldives climate change doesn’t just mean more powerful storms or extreme temperatures.  Rising sea levels threaten to submerge the nation (highest elevation is eight feet) beneath the waves of the Indian Ocean, literally erasing it from the map. 

The reason I say “then President” is on February 7^th Mr. Nasheed resigned from office.  He succinctly chronicles the events leading up to his resignation in an Op-Ed piece he submitted to the New York Times.  To summarize its contents, Mr. Nasheed asserts that he was forced out of office at gun point after cracking down on a corrupt judicial system and Islamist Extremists using the freedom of expression guaranteed by the new Constitution to spread hate and intolerance.    

In addition to his Op-Ed piece, Mr. Nasheed was recently interviewed by Christiane Amanpour.  In the interview Mr. Nasheed asserts that, “What happens in the Maldives happens in the Middle East always two or three years later.”  This assertion foreshadows a similar upheaval in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt in 2014. 

Mr. Nasheed has been succeeded by his Vice President, Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik.  After taking office the new government issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Nasheed on unspecified criminal charges and began to rebuild the President’s cabinet with individuals who held high offices during Mr. Guyoom’s dictatorship.  Initially President Waheed said Presidential elections would be held as scheduled in October 2013, however he has recently changed his stance and said elections would be held, “as early as considered feasible by all concerned.”  This was further solidified by Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai who brokered an agreement between the two parties for early elections.

If the word of former President Nasheed is taken as the truth, this coup d’état represents a dangerous future for nations emerging from the Arab Spring with new governments.  However it is promising that both sides of this issue have thus far been able to work through their differences and agree on a course of action to resolve their dispute.  To quote current President Waheed Hassan, “this is an opportunity for us to regain the respect of the international community, but most importantly continue to build a safe, democratic, and prosperous Maldives for all our people.”  Clearly the truth of this statement can’t be over emphasized.


Assuming early elections are head in the next few months; the success of this brokered peace will be determined by how free and fair the election is, and the acceptance of the election results.  If the losing candidate and their supporters acknowledge that the election was free and fair, and that they accept their opponent as the peoples’ choice for President of the Maldives, than this will be a perfect case study for the peaceful resolution of contested Presidencies.  If however, civil unrest ensues or the election is not democratic, the Maldives would become the newest example of a country in chaos and unable to escape political strife.  

The Responsibility to Protect

It occurred to me that I have not raised as many morel and ethical questions as I set out to when I created this blog.  In continuing to analysis the crisis in Syria I think the justification given by Russia and China for their veto of a UN Resolution calling for President Assad to step down offers an excellent case study to consider the morality of intervening in the domestic affairs of a sovereign Nation. 

By design the UN Charter is not definitive on the issue.  In Chapter 1, Article 2(7) it states, “nothing should authorize intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” This definition is in line with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), in which the concept of a state was established as the sole entity which can legally exert authority over a region.  Prior to this treaty Europe functioned in a state of nature, in which whatever government could exert authority over a region was justified in doing so.  

However  in Chapter VII, Article 39 the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to, "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Article 42 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."  Article 41 and 42 outline the necessity of exhausting non-violent options before taking, "action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."  This ambiguity allows future leaders to decide on a case-by-case basis whether state sovereignty or international peace and security should take precedent.

In the case of the UN Resolution voted on this past Saturday (2/4/12) the United States, Great Britain, France, and ten other members of the Security Council voted in favor of the Resolution, believing the conditions in the Syrian crisis fall under Chapter VII.  Conversely China and Russia vetoed the resolution, arguing the crisis is a domestic matter and falls under Chapter I, Article 2.  While there is a case to be made for both arguments, every day spent deliberating means another day of violence and death.  Therefore we have a moral imperative to outline a set of principles which can serve to spur a prompt and unified response under the direction of Chapter I or Chapter VII accordingly. 

For the sake of keeping this analysis focused I will assume no one will contest a principle stating in a case of blatant State sponsored genocide the UNSC should be required to act in accordance with Chapter VII.  Conversely a peaceful gathering of people protesting higher taxes doesn’t warrant the violation of a State’s sovereignty.  That said I will continue by analyzing the justifications given by the P5 members for their respective votes in an effort to highlight factors that would mandate UNSC action in accordance with Chapter I or Chapter VII. 

Why Russia vetoed:

On Monday (2/6/12) Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke in Moscow supporting his government’s veto of the resolution by arguing the resolution is one-sided against the Syrian government.  Mr. Lavrov justified this by citing the resolution as calling for the Syrian Government to end violent actions, without obligating groups opposing the regime (like the Free Syrian Army) to cease violent acts as well. 

Russia has opposed many of the sanctions and political efforts to isolate Syria, choosing instead to work with the Assad regime to try and impose a democratic transition.  This strategy was supported by arguing a sudden and violent change in Syria’s government would result in a volatile situation similar to that in Libya. 

Additionally, on Wednesday (2/8/12) Mr. Lavrov commented that both the Syrian regime and the opposition have instigated the armed conflict.  “On both sides there are people that aim at an armed confrontation, not a dialogue.”  Mr. Lavrov continued to say that President Assad wants his Vice President, Farouk al-Sharaa, to hold talks with opposition groups. 

Why China vetoed:

Like Russia, China has argued that it vetoed the UN Resolution to save lives and ensure stability in Syria.  According to Sun Zhe, international studies professors at Tsinghua University, Chinese officials view the actions of the Syrian Government as, “extremist”, but they do not want to see a repeat of Libya or Egypt. 

While the UNSC approved two resolutions in 2011 which authorized action, “by all means necessary” (Ivory Coast and Libya), it now seems that Russia and China are less comfortable with the idea of regime change.  For Russia this is because Syria is a close ally, and it therefore is inclined to stand by it.  For China these circumstances are slightly different.  For a Chinese perspective this resolution undoubtedly seems like an attempt by the UN to remove regimes which don’t agree with it.  This would be worrisome for China as doesn’t always agree with the opinion of the UN.

Britain, France, and the USA:

Conversely, the 13 members of the UNSC which voted for the resolution see Assad’s regime as a government which has been told stop, had sanctions imposed against it, and yet the violence persists.  After nearly a year of protests and death the only change has been Syria’s decent towards chaos.  In contradiction to Russia which is still trying to work with the President Assad to impose democratic reforms, Nations favoring the resolution believe the Syrian government has already shown its unwillingness change its behavior and policies and therefore intervention is the last resort. 

So where is the line between Chapter I and Chapter VII?  In December of 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) met and produced The Responsibility to Protect report.  In the introduction the report succinctly states that, “sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe – from mass murder and rape, from starvation – but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.” (VIII) It is important to notice how closely this statement echoes the language in Chapter I and Chapter VII of the UN Charter.  Where the ICISS takes the next, crucial, step is it doesn’t allow the responsibility to protect to disappear in a gray middle ground between Chapter I and Chapter VII.  Rather it clearly states that once the sovereign state is “unwilling or unable” to uphold this responsibility, it must be picked up by the international community. 

With this I believe Syria has clearly and unquestionably failed in its responsibility to protect its citizens.  Combined with the unwillingness of President Assad’s regime to work with the international community to stop the violence I further believe an intervention in Syria is not only justified, but is morally necessary.  While I can acknowledge why Russia and China would be against this intervention, I believe I have clearly negated any moral justification for their vetoes of the UN resolution.   

I would like to close by presenting the guidelines for military intervention from the ICISS’s The Responsibility to Protect Report.  I believe these are self-explanatory but if there readers feel these principles need more clarification I will provide it at a later date.

• Right Authority – Who authorizes military action. (ICISS 32)
• Just Cause – “What kind of harm is sufficient to trigger a military intervention overriding the non-intervention principle.” (ICISS 32) This is generally characterized by large scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing.
• Right Intention – “To halt or avert human suffering.” (ICISS 35)  Should always be established through multilateralism.
• Last Resort – There must be reasonable grounds to say no other option would work. (ICISS 36)
• Proportional Means – The scale and duration of operations should be minimally necessary to end human rights violations. (ICISS 37)
• Reasonable Prospects – Must have a reasonable chance of success, can’t make the conflict last larger. (ICISS 37)