Atta Addo is a Senior Editor of Web Perspectives of the Harvard International Review.
…And The Winner Is…
Yesterday, just moments after the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah took effect, President Bush said Hezbollah had been defeated by Israel in the month-long war. Meanwhile,
Sheikh Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, did not wait for the official UN security council announcement of the cease-fire to declare his guerrila group the victors. Today, Syria and Iran jointly declared Hezbollah the winner of the conflict, much to the chagrin of Israel and the Bush administration if not the United States. The claims by both camps–US backed Israel and Syria-Iran backed Hezbollah– seem like a classic case of post-war victory dispute and rhetorical dueling. But not so fast. Unlike after WW2 or even Vietnam when the lack of up-close and extensive media war coverage made it possible for politicians and powerbrokers to throw dust into the people’s eyes about the outcome of war, people the world over are today enabled to judge the winner of a war. Like a boxing match playing on our TV screens, we all saw the conflict. Now the results are in.
On paper, Hezbollah seems to have won and no amount of rhetoric can change that. Israel failed to retrieve the two captured soldiers as they had initially sworn they would. Furthermore, they failed to “eliminate the Hezbollah threat” as they had initially said. Even the military and strategic damage Israel claims to have inflicted on Hezbollah with its US provided laser guided missiles and world renowned air force is doubtful. And for fear of being completely wiped out, Hezbollah is unlikely to disarm voluntarily. Like the head of Hydra, Hezbollah is now likely to regrow and remain strengthened even if this takes several years to occur, and even if not in South Lebanon.
Perhaps worse of all, Hezbollah came out looking good. Even though they were the instigators of the conflict, Israel’s rather brutal and inelegant response left many feeling sympathy and support not just for Lebanon but also for Hezbollah. As Henry Kissinger opined on PBS’s Charlie Rose show, perhaps Israel would have done better to initially lay out clearly its strategic goals, pursue those and avoid acts like bombing the Hariri international airport at the very start of their offensive. Now, in much of the Arab world, Sheikh Nasrallah is a legend, a living martyr, the leader of Hezbollah, the guerrila movement that held of the mighty US backed Israeli army. For many disgruntled Islamists who feel disempowered and ignored by the United States and her allies, this war will go down as a point of pride and inspiration.
Many Israelis are generally not claiming total victory against Hezbollah, perhaps cautious of the persistent threat from Hezbollah. As Michael Herzog, a Brigadier General in the Israeli army, has argued, “Israelis don’t speak in terms of victory, they speak in terms of the objectives they want to accomplish: to seriously degrade Hezbollah’s military capabilities as much as possible.” According to Gen.Herzog,
We [Israeli soldiers] have eliminated between 60 percent and 70 percent of Hezbollah’s medium-range and long-range rockets. They had about 13,000 rockets to start, and now they’re probably left with some thousands of short-range rockets. We [they] have destroyed their headquarters, communication lines, and command and control structure, as well as destroying Hezbollah’s military capability along the border.” It will be much harder for them to operate from now on
However,regardless of all the unsavory facts about Hezbollah’s perceived victory in this war, the point remains that Israel–whether they won or lost–have won in the books of the United States. As far as the United States is concerned–and the non-moderate Arab world knows this too well as much as they hate it–Israel never loses. Israel on its part, will continue to use this assured US support to exert itself militarily in the region. As Prime Minister olmert pointed out “We will continue to pursue them everywhere and at all times,” “We have no intention of asking anyone’s permission.”
Under this status quo of an inconclusive war momentarily ended by still-entrenched opposing political sides, one wonders if and for how long the peace will last. While the politicians and helmsmen are busy tugging at victory, they have all forgotten the real losers of this war: the civilians–innocent men, women and children on both sides–who have lost their lives for a conflict they perhaps even barely understood.
Putting the “D” into DRC
Last Sunday, citizens of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) went to the polls for the first time in over four decades. This vast country of over 60 million people and about 200 ethnic groups has been one of the most unstable in Africa despite its enormous mineral wealth and strategic importance in the region. From 1998-2002 it was embroiled in a bloody civil war in which eight out of the country’s nine neighbors also participated in a bid to control mineral resources including copper, diamonds, gold and coltan, a mineral used for mobile phone chips.
Last Sunday’s election , the largest ever organized by the UN was very welcome news for this war-weary region. In all, some thirty-two candidates ran for the presidency among them being the country’s incumbent president Joseph Kabila, and three of the country’s four vice-presidents who together formed the government of national unity instituted in 2002 to secure the peace. All four men have well-armed loyalist troops and control key regions of the ethnically diverse nation.
Despite the general calm that accompanied the election, tensions remain high in the country as some candidates have begun announcing their private tallies far in advance of the official result which is not expected for several weeks. Some like former rebel leader and Vice-president Jean Pierre Bemba have even threatened to resort to war if they deem the result as lacking transparency.
None of this is new; in fact DRC’s misrule under Mobutu Sese Seko and its subsequent political instability and present experiment with democracy has been typical in much of Africa since colonial rule ended in the 60s. However, DRC represents a unique test case because its successful transition into a matured and stable democracy will usher in a new era for similarly failed states in Africa following Liberia’s example a few months back. Given its size, wealth, cultural and ethnic diversity as well as its strategic importance, the DRC could become a great power in Africa both politically and economically should it enjoy a stable democracy and an open society.
We know too well that elections alone do not guarantee democracy or freedom. Yet, it is hoped that the various factions will accept the results of this maiden election in order to start putting the “D” back into the DRC.
Illegal Immigration: A Second Best Option for Europe
For many who have been following news of illegal immigration from impoverished African source countries into Europe—a perilous journey that often takes the lives of 40% of those who attempt it—the Euro-African Ministerial Conference on Migration and Development held in Rabat, Morocco from the 10th to the 11th of July this year was very welcome news.
The Conference was the first of its kind, bringing together Ministers from some 57 European and African countries to find new ways for controlled immigration to Europe and stem the influx of illegal migrants from impoverished African nations. The landmark of the conference was the adoption of an action plan that combined strategies to control illegal immigration routes with development aid to dissuade illegal migrants from coming to Europe and instead staying in their home countries to improve their livelihood. Europe also pledged some 18billion euros (USD22.7billion) over a seven-year period to assist African source countries to improve conditions for would-be migrants.
Despite the monumental shift this conference represents for the fight against illegal immigration–being the first intercontinental effort of its scale and importance–it may sadly not yield any profound results. This is because illegal immigration is merely an indicator of the push factors that exist in source countries: poverty,underdevelopment,lack of opportunities, corruption and general despair in the political process. These factors can never be eliminated by mere intervention of any sort and thus the conference plan of action will only go so far. Several of the measures adopted were in fact in line with previous repressive controls like patrolling and detentions;superficial solutions to the deeper problem.
In the best analysis I’ve read yet of why this conference might fail like all the others prior, Gregory Noll, a professor of International Law at Lund University in Sweden, argues that:
The annual sum of €2.5 billion ($3.16 billion) offered to the African participants by the Europeans in Rabat is not trivial, but is far less than would be needed for such a “buy-out”. The conclusion must be that the EU and its member-states do not possess the economic muscle required to match that of the migrant networks. This fundamental fact is often forgotten in “the fight against illegal immigration”. If African governments accept a deal that disadvantages their countries and peoples in financial terms, it must really be in bad faith.
Despite the truth of Prof.Noll’s assertion, I prefer to look on the brighter side. Even though the skeptics are right to warn against overexpectations of the conference, it is hoped that the resulting action plan from the conference–if adhered to–will ameliorate the problem if not solve it completely. Given that the best option of dealing with the migration hump (the dynamic between income adjustment and migration) is practically impossible, the next best option is for this novel intercontinental effort to succeed. For Europe, facing despair in its fight against illegal immigration,this second best option is clearly better than doing nothing.
Oil And Tyranny Don’t Mix
The BBC reports of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s trip to Russia to purchase arms. Russia ignored US concerns regarding the purchase and has approved the sale of 30 Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jets and 30 helicopters to Venezuela at a total cost of $1 billion. Additionally, Venezuela plans to buy 100,000 Russian-made AK-103 assault rifles and wants to set up Kalashnikov production factories on its soil.
Earlier this year, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking at a Congressional hearing, accused President Chavez of leading a “Latin brand of populism that has taken countries down the drain.” The leftist President Chavez seems to have made it his raison d’etre to oppose the United States and make anti-globalization remarks whenever he finds opportune.He has already forged alliances with Iran,Iraq,Cuba,Belarus and a host of other troublesome regimes. He is believed to have scheduled a trip to North Korea in his current tour but later cancelled. In short, he is bedfellows with the Axis of Evil and almost all the Rice-designated Outposts of Tyranny.
But behind the demonization of Chavez by Washington and his own antidemocracy stance which has elicited this, US concerns over Chavez’s rule goes beyond democratic governance or the lack of it as this leftist website somewhat truthfully reports:
Behind Washington’s propaganda campaign against Chavez, however, is not any concern about the growth of “tyranny” in Venezuela, but rather concern over the threat posed by the Chavez government to the profits of US corporations. Chavez is leading a popular process known as the “Bolivarian revolution” that is challenging US domination in the region and redistributing wealth and political power to the 80% of Venezuelans who live in poverty.
Venezuela supplies up to 15% of US oil imports and the US purchases up to 60% of Venezuela’s oil output. A key goal of the Chavez government has been ensuring full government control over Venezuela’s oil industry in order to use its earnings to eradicate poverty. This has put Venezuela at odds with US oil corporations, and therefore at odds with the US government.
With the Bush Administration currently bogged down by Iraq, North Korea and now the Lebanese conflict, Venezuela has taken the back burner and President Chavez is taking the time to shop for some new arms. As Saddam Hussein found out, oil and tyranny don’t mix–not when US energy and economic interests are at stake. This is what President Chavez fears most–the Bush administration’s threat to his presidency because of Venezuela’s strategic importance to the US– thus, this is not the last we will hear of him.
To Hell with Diplomacy?
DIPLOMACY
Function: noun
1: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility: TACT
Whichever definition you prefer, the world’s most powerful man isn’t scoring very high. In the course of a week, amidst the world’s most influential and respectable leaders, President Bush managed to pull of two spectacular if not comical performances…oh did I say two? First was the much publicized expletive gaffe made to the British Prime Minister, “Yo Blair,they’ve got to stop doing this s**t” and then came the unsolicited presidential massage (or was it groping?) which was coyly shrugged of by the German Chancellor.
The president is not exactly well known for rhetorical or political panache, so why bother? While his skits are innocuous on some level–being the heartfelt sentiment of a grown man–they are grossly distateful in the serious business of international politics. They serve to reinforce the perception that the president cares less about diplomacy,in whatever sense you take it,and more about exercising his power. Let’s not even talk about wrongful stereotypes,whether of Southerners or of Bush foreign policy and the United States as a whole. Prime Minister Blair’s subservient posture as he stood over the half eating, half talking Bush was a perfect photo shot to go along with any caption that has ” stooge” or “poodle” in it.
Indeed, in public as in private, US international diplomacy is in serious trouble at a time when it’s most needed in its finest form. Laugh all you want but these Bush reality shows are more revealing and disheartening than we may like to think. They speak volumes about perceived US arrogance and imperialist exceptionalism.
OF DEMOCRACY,RUSSIA AND THE G8
As Russia hosts this years G8 summit,many,especially pro democracy advocates,have questioned Russia’s eligibility to be in this elect group of the world’s most indrustrialized democracies.Responding to an NBC interviewer’s question to this effect, President Putin declared that Russia is a “natural member of the G8″, citing his country’s rich oil and natural gas reserves,strong nuclear capability as well as their recent economic successes.When asked about Vice President Cheney’s critical comments made in Lithuania accusing Russia of using its natural gas as “tools of intimidation or blackmail”, President Putin lashed out by quipping, “I think that these kinds of comments from your Vice President amount to the same thing as an unfortunate shot while out hunting. It’s more or less one and the same thing.”
Clearly,President Putin did not take kindly to being talked down to.The message many people got from his abrasive and personal rebuttal of Vice President Cheney’s public criticism is that the unbriddled “wanted dead or alive” and “bring it on” rhetoric of the Bush administration is best reserved for terrorists and smaller countries with little might; certainly not for Russia which until the end of the Cold War was the United States’ counterpoise in many ways . President Putin’s message is simple: the Cold War is over and it’s in no one’s interest to continue to consider Russia as an enemy or as an errant child worthy of rebuke.Autocratic as he may be, he is right.At least to some extent.
While his defense of his country’s G8 membership is not altogether plausible–simply because he evades the crucial question of democracy (China or India could fit some of the criteria he describes and thus be “natural members” themselves)–he seems justified in warding of the pushy thrust of US style democracy on Russia.Russia, unlike the United States’ 230 year old democratic experiment, has had at least three systems of government in the last century alone:Monarchy(under the Czars), Communism, a brief spell with Oligarchy, and now “democracy”.Given Russia’s uniquely complex historical background, the United States is unjustified in calling for instant democracy in Russia even if the country has relapsed on its promising democratic surge in the 90s (based on which it was admited to the G8)
Results of the Bush administration’s global democratization mission have shown that democracy and stability are not necessarily compatible and in fact there is often a trade off between the two; usually until democracy gains roots and becomes localized and broadly embraced by all. Instability in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq are all part and parcel of the spread of democracy, not a counter threat to it, as is often claimed by Bush administration officials.The fact is that many extremist regimes are democratically elected and have popular support.My general point here is that democracy is not a panacea for all countries –certainly not when they are at different points in transition. Due to this trade off between democracy and stability/security, it is unwise for one country to impose it on another or export it with expectations of rapid results. Democracy in its purest form is best evolved internally with a precaution against compromising stability since the two will move in phase over time.
Does this mean the United States should turn a blind eye to President Putin’s autocratic drive?Certainly not!While the United States must encourage democratization efforts in Russia, the Bush administration must adopt a more tacit approach.The least helpful thing will be for the United States to engage in Cold War style verbal dueling with Russia since this will further compromise the prospects of gaining Russia’s support on key global issues. In the eyes of the world,the current administration is using the pretext of democracy to forward or justify several foreign policy agenda–just as “civilization” was used hundreds of years ago in colonial conquest.
Russia will inevitably be democratic as the Russian people slowly realize that democracy is not a gift to be offered by the Kremlin but a birthright to be demanded–same way Americans realized some 230 years ago.What the United States can do will be to facilitate this process and give institutional and structural support; bearing in mind its own realpolitik agenda and pursuing that foremost.
Why the FIFA World Cup Is and Should Be a Big Deal
In an increasingly integrated world with few platforms for international engagement other than war, trade, tourism and sterile political unions, it is understandable that the quadrennial FIFA World Cup has become a major avenue for countries to display their national pride, project their “national character” if there is such a thing, and to unify their diverse populations around a cause.
Of the kinds of “international engagement” I list above, football (a.k.a soccer) has by far the best potential to muster popular support and whip up nationalist zeal in a non divisive way. Even the ancient Greeks, with their love of competitive sport and politics, knew this connection between sports and unifying nationalism all too well. Thus, in this not-so-new way, football replaces religion as the opium of the masses —capable of calming the nerves of warring Ivorians and making poverty-stricken Togolese forget their misery–for a few blissful days every four years.
That is not to say that everyone likes football or must do so but evidently, for many countries around the world, football is not a mere game anymore—at least not at the FIFA World Cup. In a world where widespread access to news and information has had the paradoxical effect of reinforcing our stereotypes, whether positive or negative, many nations around the world view the World Cup as a marketing tool to project themselves to the rest of the world and more importantly as a weapon-free battlefield to “prove their might.”
So why is the World Cup arguably the most popular sporting event in the world? Well, firstly it does something the Olympics can never do even though both are global sporting events of similar pedigree. Winning at the Olympics reflects the amount of financial investment that countries put into their teams and sporting infrastructure. In this way, the Olympic Games has become a quasi determinant of a nation’s wealth and sports institutional development rather than a true test of national character, resilience or sportsmanship per se. No wonder, the highest ranking nations in the medals standings are developed countries like the USA, Japan, Russia or China.Furthermore, making countries compete in several different sports all at once does not create sufficient unity and fraterniy around any single event; at worst,it has a kind of divisive effect and not a unifying one. These games are not all followed by even the most ardent Olympic fans and hardly can people keep tabs on their country’s progress.
With football’s FIFA World Cup, this is not so but on the contrary, the World Cup is a great social, economic and political leveler. It is the one global platform where a poor country like Ghana can crush the United States —a feat for which the Ghanaian players were awarded Ghana’s highest state honors. Also, the single-event nature of the competition makes it easy to follow; drawing hoards of people around the world to view the same games.
What a ‘dangerous weapon’ in the hands of the developing world huh? Brazil alone with all its economic and political problems has held the world captive with her dazzling soccer prowess for decades. But not to worry, beause this year the Cup will change hands. How wonderful it is for all countries in the world to feel they have a fair shot at something, and therefore a reason to put aside differences and fight for what is at stake. Such is the power of the FIFA World Cup.
So as the FIFA World Cup draws to a close on Sunday, my hope is that this world treasure,the World Cup,will continue to wax in strength and popularity—even if it’s a mere spoonful remedy for an intolerant world plagued with inequality and divided by infinite differences. And as for the World Cup’s (un)populariy here in the United States, I doubt if it will get any better. Not as long as most Americans with their famous disinterest in world affairs,continue to ironically call baseball’s major event “The World Series” even when there is no other nation represented,except sometimes Canada.
Trying the Enemy: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Last week, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the Bush administration had no authority to try Gitmo detainees before military tribunals, a move that severely limits the executive wartime powers employed so far in the war on terror. Justice Stevens, writing the majority decision, stated that Congress had not authorized the planned military commissions and that the tribunals violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions which provide legal protections like the right to be present at trial. The ruling further emphasized that the military tribunals were illegal because they did not adequately protect detainees’ rights, a point of concern I earlier expressed here.
The ruling is a major legal and political upset to the Bush administration’s plans to try dozens of Guantanamo inmates before tribunals. The decision further opens the floodgate to lawsuits challenging the detention of several other detainees. Justice Kennedy, writing his opinion, stated that “trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order,” and that the tribunals “carry the risk that offenses will be defined, prosecuted and adjudicated by executive officials without independent review.”
As President Bush was rightly quick to point out, the ruling “will not cause killers to be put out on the street.” Furthermore, the ruling did not call for the closure of Guantanamo and as Justice Stevens wrote, the decision did not question “the government’s power to detain (Hamdan) for the duration of active hostilities.”
Fortunately, there is still a way forward. The ruling leaves the onus on Congress to legislate tribunals for the detainees. So far, many members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have expressed their commitment to making this a bipartisan affair. While the ruling may not sit well with Bush administration supporters and will be used as political capital by some on the left, one thing is for sure: the brakes applied on executive power by the Supreme Court may actually provide a good chance for the United States to reassess its commitment to the sacred constitutional principles that form the bedrock of this great nation—even in wartime, especially in wartime.
World Marks World Refugee Day
Here in the United States, June 20 does not blare on our national radar as a day of significance. However, in many parts of the world, today is a day that can hardly slide unnoticed. Even though the number of refugees is at a 26-year low, there is still cause for serious concern. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, there are about 20.8 million people of concern around the world. 8.4 million are refugees fleeing wars and violence, 6.6 million are internally displaced persons, 2.4 million are stateless people and 1.6 million are returnees. The rest are either asylum seekers or people of another kind of concern.
One of the biggest problems the UNHCR faces is the increase in numbers of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), people who have fled war and persecution but have not managed to cross an international border and are therefore not qualified for refugee status as per the 1951 Refugee Convention. IDPs however have the same needs as refugees—assistance, protection, necessities, sanitation and prevention of sexual crimes against them. Though the global list is endless, Southern Sudan, Chad, Darfur and Bangladesh are presently in dire need of international assistance to cater for IDPs and refugees.
In harmony with this years theme, “Keeping the flame of hope alive” , Let us reach out in our various small but significant ways to the millions of people around the world for whom this day matters most. Whether through membership in an NGO, an international relief organization, a private Foundation or a religious mission, we can all make a difference by helping to ameliorate the plight of refugees and IDPs.
Dismantling Gitmo: Another Chance to Get it Right
Desperate times call for desperate measures–we have all come to accept this unquestioningly. In post 9/11 United States, with fresh memories of the horrific and unacceptable attacks on the twin towers, few people were apprehensive about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp or about several other “desperate measures” embarked upon by the Bush administration to secure US borders. When images of shackled men clad in orange prison overalls and Muslim prayer caps appeared on our TV screens, few US citizens or international observers were fully aware let alone had concerns about what the US administration was doing overseas in its avowed war on terror.
So what should be done when fighting against an ideology such as terrorism, an enemy that is everywhere and nowhere all at once? Well, according to the Bush Administration’s preemption doctrine, the United States may invade suspected sovereign states and carry out “extraordinary rendition” to bring the suspects to justice. For those who may not be familiar with the latter term, “extraordinary rendition” is an extrajudicial procedure employed by the United States to send suspected terrorists or alleged members of terrorist organizations to other countries for detention and interrogation, often indefinitely. Critics say the CIA kidnaps suspects and sends them overseas to avoid the jurisdiction of US laws that frown on torture and uphold due process–“outsourcing of torture” as it has been labeled.
It is worth mentioning that many of the “illegal combatants” who are held under such conditions have a barely incriminating dossier and in the case of the Gitmo detainees, have been held for more than four years without access to their families or to any judicial process. The Bush Administration has defended its actions by arguing that such men do not meet the statutory requirements for POWs under the third Geneva Convention of 1949 and hence forfeit their due rights under the said convention.
Today, three detainees are reported to have committed suicide in the Guantanamo detention camp. This comes as no surprise since guards have thwarted prior suicide attempts by inmates, most notably in 2003 when guards intervened to stall the suicides of 23 inmates. Human rights groups have used the suicides to bolster their case, arguing that the men killed themselves out of despair. Military officials and Guantanamo supporters have argued otherwise, however, claiming these suicides are retaliatory in nature and should be considered as an act of war. Rear Admiral Harry Harris, the Guantanamo camp commander, has called it “an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us”
After years of unheeded protest from the European Union, the Organization of American States, and US allies like Britain, perhaps this new incident should prod President Bush to go beyond mere rhetoric and call an end to this dark blotch on the once respected US culture of justice. This is one more chance for the United States to get its anti-terrorism policies right. After all, the “desperate measures” excuse that many patriotic US citizens and allies tolerated has an expiration date–one that may have lapsed following Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and other sore reminders of US unilateralism gone awry. US global leadership and image overseas are at stake—the world is watching.