Omar Abdelsamad is a former Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard International Review.
Editor’s Notes: Gov. Richardson, Gallup, and Africa
The new print issue of the Harvard International Review “Courting Africa: For Better or Worse?” is now on newsstands. The issue’s feature examines whether the answers to Africa’s ever-present problems of war, famine, corruption, and instability are to be found with foreign benefactors such as China or within the continent’s own borders. We are privileged to have President Mogae of Botswana discussing Africa’s “Crisis of Image.” He is joined by Ambassadors Chaveas and Shinn along with Professors Kane and Keller covering topics such as the involvement of the United States and China in Africa to Islam’s role on the continent. You can read the introduction to the feature here.
We are also pleased to have Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico contributing with his article: A New Realism: Crafting a US Foreign Policy for a New Century. Not only is he a presidential hopeful, but he also brings with him a wealth of experience in international relations, allowing for an interesting assessment of the challenges facing US foreign policy today.
Through our relationships with the Gallup Organization, this issue also features a Gallup Exclusive on Muslims in the West. The data provides a unique perspective on Muslims as European citizens. In addition to Africa, Richardson, and Gallup, the issue also includes an interview with Ambassador Moose on the role of the United Nations and a contribution by Professor Kim on Global Health.
Climate Change, Developing Countries, and the European Union
Leaders of the European Union are meeting this week to discuss collectively setting carbon emissions reduction targets. This is all good and well, especially since carbon emissions directly affect global warming which is blamed for extreme climate shifts and natural disasters the world over. The Europeans are especially optimistic, claiming that they will raise targets if the United States and developing countries join in, especially India and China. While convincing the United States to join any Kyoto-esque treaty will be difficult, even more difficult will be convincing China and India to join in on the deal.
Developing countries can’t afford the type of global philanthropy that developed nations come together and agree upon. In fact, as US, Chinese, and Indian governments have decided, there is actually very little incentive to decide to lower carbon emissions. In the case of China and India, curtailing global warming can be left to developed countries, while they enjoy increased output and productivity. The United States won’t join without China and India, and China and India won’t join because they have no reason.
In addition to a lack of incentive, they also have a strong argument for not lowering their emissions: when the developed world was at their stage of development, they polluted and abused the environment in exactly the same way.
Heed the King
Today’s scene during a joint session of the US Congress was not commonplace, but bore a greater resemblance to an address at the United Nations than one at the US statehouse. Perhaps it is indicative of the United Nations’ faltering influence as a catalyst for change in international relations that King Abdullah II instead approached the US Congress to request greater American influence in the Israel-Palestine peace process. His move recognizes that this process will only move forward with US support, a notion that became painfully obvious when the United States single-handedly stalled the Lebanese peace process during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war.
President Bush does not hesitate to make his bias known in the current situation–a popular anecdote presents him flying over Israel by helicopter, surprised at how the Middle Eastern state was such a small and defenseless strip of land, personally resolving to protect its best interests. His presidency reflects this predisposition as he has wholly ignored the peace process, going so far as to refuse aid and negotiation with any Palestinian government that involves HAMAS.
Yet President Bush has the unique opportunity to change course at this point in time. The new Palestinian coalition government and an Israel wary from war are yearning for an effective peace process. Only the United States can effectively provide the catalyst for peace. The country would not be alone in this effort, however, because as was seen in the war in Lebanon, France, Italy, and Britain are clamoring to assist in the region. Setting the groundwork for an effective peace would not only have positive regional implications but would also allow President Bush to rescue his tarnished reputation. There might even be a Nobel Peace Prize in it for him.
Gadhafi’s Lament
Previously significant Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi rose from obscurity during the past week to condemn the West for not fulfilling its promises of aiding the north African state in return for renouncing its nuclear weapons program. Among his many claims, Gadhafi primarily laments the fact that the West has not helped Libya develop nuclear energy or otherwise aid the nation. This is very important to note because President Gadhafi was a prime example of the dictator rehabilitation program wherein a country gave up nuclear weapons for a set package of peaceful technology and aid. Such a change of heart and belligerence is unprecedented, causing much suspicion.
Yet, whether or not Libya is a model citizen of the world community, nuclear weapons research has ceased, pleasing many of the world’s powers. Making promises and not delivering, however, sets a very dangerous precedent for more hostile countries. What incentive do Iran and North Korea have to dissolve nuclear weapons programs if the promised aid is not delivered? Libya needs to be an example that the rest of the world can defer to. If they do not receive aid, Gadhafi will continue to complain, and other countries will surely take notice.
Fighting the Increase
I suppose President Bush is used to it by now: suggesting a new plan for war, administration, or policy and receiving quite a hostile response from his opposition. The topic of discussion is no longer consequential, either, as many choose to judge policy actions on past actions. Yet, contrary to popular belief, discussing the topic at hand is still important even if the war was a mistake. This week’s proposal by President Bush to increase troop levels in Iraq was met with “hostile opposition.” The Democrats, lead by Nanci Pelosi, vow to fight the troop increase with every resource available.
Yet, what exactly do the Democrats plan on doing to restrict troop increases? As Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, troops levels are at the sole discretion of the president. Short of refusing to pay serviceman salaries, denying arms and vehicle purchases, or decomissioning all US aircraft carriers, Speaker Pelosi has little power to influence President Bush’s decision. This is also not Vietnam, regardless of how many times the parallel is made in the media. The US people still have more patience for this unsavory war than 20,000 unpaid servicemen deployed in a foreign land lacking in basic equipment. President Bush isn’t so much requesting a troop increase as informing the country of his intentions.
One Step Forward, Two Goode Steps Back
The recent midterm elections were not simply significant because of the shift of power from Republicans to Democrats, but also because this past November brought the election of America’s first Muslim Congressman. Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota, made history while reminding the country of the fact that there are five million Muslims living in the United States. While Ellison has received death threats and other expressions of discontent, overall opinion has been positive. It did not take long, however, for a congressman to attempt to profit from his coworker’s landmark by playing on the phobias of his constituency. In a letter to his voters, Representative Goode did his best to portray Ellison’s use of the Koran, as opposed to the Bible, in a private swearing-in ceremony as a threat to America’s values.
It’s difficult to believe protectionists who are so racist, so intolerant, and so afraid of foreigners can be elected to the US Congress. But, then again, Louisiana reelected its thoroughly dishonest and corrupt Representative William Jefferson, the subject of federal investigation for, among other things, having $90,000 hidden in his freezer. Perhaps Goode happened to be the lesser of two evils.
But it is important to note that however far the election of one of its representatives can take the Muslim community, phobia-inducing congressmen can reverse any good done with regard to American opinion. This is especially true when analysts on television news support this intolerance. Terry Jeffery on CNN’s Situation Room said “I do believe it is a serious problem,” going on to explain that Muslims need to assimilate more into American society to create one nation. In essence, the hard-line conservative view, as represented my Mr. Jeffery, seems to be: freedom of religion is fine, as long as the religion is Christianity.
Goode’s comments are part of a greater concern of increased protectionism and intolerance in the United States. While the private swearing-in of a representative should be of no concern to other congressmen, attempting to garner votes by denouncing it is reprehensible. Democrats were right when they distanced themselves from Goode and his comments. Perhaps the voters will take notice.
If the voters do revolt, Goode always has a job in Louisiana.
Person[s] of the Year
TIME Magazine again chose to avoid actually choosing a Person of the Year by giving the distinction to as broad a group of people as possible, “You.” Although TIME’s importance to US culture has dwindled, its Person of the Year still draws plenty of media coverage the world over. Yet, TIME seems to have lost its way, as of late. Perhaps it was when it chose to use the same cover for the death of Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi as it did for the death of Hitler. Little explanation needs to be given for why a man who led small-scale anarchy in an occupied state is far different from one who caused a World War.
The real problem with TIME’s Person of the Year is not necessarily that it is not a person–although a lively argument on semantics could be had with its editors–but more importantly that it is not anyone of consequence. Although the Web 2.0 movement is quite revolutionary, YouTube, Wikipedia, and Myspace don’t cause wars, pioneer shaky dipolomacy, or create nuclear imbalance in Asia. There is quite an extensive list of influential persons the world over that could have been better used.
If TIME wanted to continue its trend of ambiguous generalities, the issue could have been used to shed light on an underappreciated topic, not a common knowledge phenomenon. A better choice would have been “The Forgotten.” The people of this year have been the innocent Lebanese caught up in the Israel-Lebanon War, the Palestinian civilians cut off from medical supplies, money, or freedom of travel, and the people of Sri Lanka beseiged by the government’s war against Tamil rebels. More importantly, it would have been another opportunity to mention the people of Sudan. Calling for action against the country’s horrible genocide can never be overdone.
Media in TIME’s position should be presenting issues that matter; issues that change regimes; issues that shed light on those who rarely have a light shone upon them.
Don’t Lose Hope in Iraq
When evaluating strategies for correcting troubles in Iraq, it seems that even the most non-partisan of groups suggest solutions that are more successful at vote garnering than fulfilling some more important long-term goal. Far be it from any man to deride the work of the great James Baker, but at best, the report of the Iraq Study Group seems to pander to “Iraq hysteria” instead of appreciating the possibility for positive long-term effects in the country and region. If the United States were to entertain this week’s Economist suggestion to not set a cut-and-run date, the region could feel long-term positive effects from renewed US interest.
The United States does not want to win this war. If it did, it would double or triple troop levels, make concessions to dissatisfied Middle East countries, take a hard-line with corrupt Iraqi leadership, and effect a reinvasion and revitalization of massive scale. Instead, President Bush finds troop levels negatively correlated with his approval rating–as one goes up, the other goes down–forcing the country into war-time purgatory. Troop levels and commitment to the war are lacking, and unless these are improved, leaving the country may be the correct choice.
But for such an embattled, unpopular, and desperate president, President Bush has a unique opportunity to effect enormous change in the country. The United States has already gone so far in this war, that it might as well finish the job. Although Congress can control troop pay, supplies, and benefits, troop levels can be boosted at the president’s discretion, giving him the chance to do as he chooses in the country. Stabilizing Iraq while bringing in Iran, Syria, and moderate Middle Eastern countries would boost US popularity in the region as well as its influence in later diplomacy.
President Bush should reject the Iraq Study Group Report, as many have already done. Such a low approval rating can’t really get much worse, but placing Iraq on the right track can do much for a legacy.
An Epiphany in Sudan
There was a time, not many years ago, when Sudan was not associated with corruption, poor governance, and rampant murder. It was said that Khartoum would become a metropolitan city, potentially establishing itself as a global tourist and business center. Those times have long passed, leaving the country in a state of horrible disarray. It is estimated that over 200,000 people have been murdered since 2003 as a result of the genocide raging within the country, not to mention the enormous regional destabilization that has ensued. Sudan’s President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, has proved to be a wildly disinterested and inept leader at best, a condoner of murder and genocide at worst, allowing the atrocities to continue while refusing to allow UN peacekeepers in the country. It was not until yesterday, when the country agreed to the principle of allowing UN and African peacekeepers into the country.
If ever there was an example of the international community and the United Nations’ failure, it is in Sudan. Experience has shown that brutal tribal conflicts in individual countries often destabilize the region, not just the country in question. Considering Sudan’s enormous bodycount, one would be hard-pressed to find a governance theorist who would consider the Sudanese government’s actions within the bounds of self-determination. When an undeniable genocide occurs and the country’s government proves inept to the point of aiding the atrocities, it is time for the international community to step in for the sake of human rights. When something so terrible as Darfur’s genocide occurs, it is time to stop asking permission to take action. President al-Bashir’s government forfeited its right to govern long ago, when it chose its own interests over the interests of its people.
There is a long road ahead before peacekeepers actually enter the country. The United Nations should not delay in taking action.
Fixing Iraq
With this week’s changing of the guard at the US Congress, it seems like a pertinent time to discuss the country’s biggest foreign policy problem–Iraq. Obviously, as set out in some political reasoning, Iraq should improve, simply due to the leadership in Congress. Just because they aren’t Republicans means that the Democrats should have an upper hand in all foreign policy matters, especially because they sat by and watched a Republican President and Congress degrade US international relations efficacy for years. Or does it? Unfortunately for America’s democracy experiment in Iraq, the country’s problems will not be solved through popular vote-garnering initiatives such as reducing troop levels. Iraq’s problems can only be solved through wildly unpopular initiatives that counter both political posturing and years of US foreign policy.
Currently, in Iraq, troop levels hover around 140,000 actively deployed troops. While this may seem to be quite a large outlay of military might, it pales in comparison to initial estimations that upwards of 400,000 troops would be needed. Any congressman with a desire to remain in his exalted position would laugh at the very idea of requesting wider deployment. Yet the overwhelming force of opposing insurgencies and militias in Iraq tells a different story. Although US troops are fully able to clear and secure neighborhoods and cities during security sweeps, as soon as the convoys leave, insurgents fill the vaccuum. With such impotent troops levels, increased sweeps are not an option, and mobile militias and insurgencies easily counter US security aims. Precedence has shown, through the failed capture of a cornered bin Ladin in Afghanistan and other instances in modern US wars, that the United States holds an overly ambitious view of its military might with regard to troop levels.
Iraq’s problems are further compounded by its corrupt government and police forces that are increasingly equivalent to Saddam in non-US cooperation. Although corruption is a given in Middle East governments, Iraq’s US-imposed (although, technically democratically elected) government needs to be severely reigned in. It is perfectly acceptable to desire independence in governing your state, but when governments are aligning themselves with violent militias that are responsible for the deaths of numerous Iraqi civilians and US soldiers, perhaps independence should be reevaluated. Iraq’s government has every right to self-determination, but it must first stabilize itself to the point where its independence does not come at such a high cost to American lives.
Although it is seemingly counterintuitive, Iraq also needs more money, whether from US sources or abroad. A major mistake of the US invasion was its neglect of the hearts and minds of Iraqi civilians. Rebuilding destroyed schools, establishing reliable water and electricity sources, and otherwise boosting the infrastructure of Iraq would do much to elevate Iraqi impressions of US forces. In addition, a higher respect for the Americans makes Iraqis much less likely to harbor insurgents or become gun-toting militiamen of their own volition. The people can still be won, but without them, rebuilding Iraq will be categorically more difficult.
It is also a pertinent time to go to the Arab League and the United Nations, hat in hand admitting mistakes, and request international assistance. There could be no better time than now to work with Arab countries to solve the abundance of US-associated problems that are at issue: Iraq, Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians. The last of which, the Bush administration has shown absolutely no interest in even attempting to solve over the past six years. An effective balance of trade concessions, humanitarian and infrastructure aid, and lessened threats about such things as an “axis of evil” would bode well for increasing Arab involvement in Iraq both with influence and troops–effective manners of decreasing direct US involvement and increasing Arab involvement in a state of their own.
Unfortunately for Iraqis, US politicians are far more interested in personal gain than the interests of a people half a world away. Increasing troop levels would devastate anti-war democrats’ voter bases which thrive on anti-war sentiments and (often unreasonable) promises to withdraw soon. Reigning in the Iraqi goverment will be avoided at all costs since it is portrayed as a model for democratization in the undemocratic world. Attempting to work with Arab countries would alienate the platforms of protectionists from both sides of the aisle who benefit from associating Arab interests, economy, and people with terrorism. Until difficult and unpopular decisions are made without regard for a politicians voter base, Iraq will suffer. And until then, it will continue to be an unfortunate time to be an Iraqi.