August 31, 2006

A Test for the UN

Filed under: International Institutions — Noam Lerer @ 9:55 pm

While the focus on the Middle East is on Iran, and its conspicuously ignored deadline, a little tension could be spared to Lebanon, where the credibility of the United Nations is very much on the line. Following very heavy pressure for an international ceasefire, the Security Council passed on, in an effort spearheaded by France. The effort nearly turned into an embarrassmentfrom the beginning when France pledged 200 troops, instead of the expected 2,000, making the new peacekeeping force look like a farce. Luckily, international pressure, a large commitment by Italy and, if one feels charitable, clarified rules of engagement, changed that.

If the new UNIFIL is to avoid being the failure that the first one was, the UN, and the nations participating in the force, are going to have to show a serious commitment and willingness to take risks. For better or worse, the stability of this region in the middle east depends on it.

The ceasefire is already quite tenuous. Hezbollah, in blatant violation of the ceasefire, has repeatedly announced that it will not disarm. Both Lebanon and the current head of UNIFIL have announced they will not do the job for them. Syria’s announcement that it will refuse to have UN troops on its border, and Lebanon’s apparent acquiescence to it, certainly does not bode well for hopes that weapons smuggling, at least, will stop. Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora has reversed hints that his nation might be ready for a peace treaty and announced that Lebanon will be the last nation to sign one with Israel. While Nasrallah has announced that he intends no second round of the war, the tone of Hezbollah’s envoy in Iran was substantially more threatening.

Meanwhile, Kofi Annan, in his trip to the Middle East, has condemned in unequivocal terms Israel’s continuing blockade of Lebanon. While he paid lip service to the fact that Hezbollah has not yet released its Israeli prisoners (another violation of the Security Council’s ceasefire) he has not brought up the rather touchy point that the UN has no intention of enforcing what may be the most critical part of the resolution- the disarmament of Hezbollah. While ending the Israeli blockade would certainly signal a decrease in hostility, Annan, and the UN, have shown little, if any sign, that UNIFIL is prepared to ensure this mission will more aggressively preserve the peace than the last one.

With a Hezbollah intent on regrouping, a painfully slow UNIFIL deployment (5,000 troops by Friday, 2 weeks after the passing of the ceasefire, is not good) and an extremely suspicious Israeli public, southern Lebanon remains a tinderbox.

This is a chance for France, the EU as a whole, and a whole panoply of UN supporters to prove that its peacekeeping can succeed in an extremely hostile environment. Their credibility is on the line, and will suffer a huge blow if they fail. UNIFIL can either be a peacekeeping force or impotent observers relegated to human shields for Hezbollah, as they were in the war that just ended. For the sake of the Middle East, I hope they will be the former.

Comments (1)

August 27, 2006

Rosa Parks Would Not Be Pleased

Filed under: General — Omar Abdelsamad @ 3:16 pm

In fact, she would be down right indignant after hearing the news that Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi-American, was harassed by Jetblue staff members and made to sit in the back of the plane because he was wearing a tshirt with arabic writing on it. CNN covered this story on its Sunday programming, but it is curiously missing from the news service’s online version. Raed was told that wearing a shirt with arabic writing is equivalent to wearing a shirt that says “‘I am a robber’ and going to a bank.” A Jetblue employee, obviously relying on the airline’s fierce safety guidelines, made Raed change his shirt to one that said “New York” and changed his seat to the back of the plane. I invite you all to read the story here, for it is quite comical.

I’m not going to give an extended explanation of the implications of this story or wax philosophical on the atrocious abuse of rights that were perpetrated against one of our fellow countrymen. But I will pose a question. When someone’s rights are violated and a Muslim man is moved to the back of a plane so as not to offend others, I wonder: Do we learn nothing from history?

Comments (2)

August 24, 2006

Terrorvision.

Filed under: Middle East, Terrorism — Doug Lieb @ 11:20 pm

A mind-bending story in Friday’s New York Times discusses the arraignment of a Staten Island (that’s part of New York City) resident in federal court for providing material support for terrorism.

His crime? Providing satellite broadcasts of al-Manar — Hezbollah’s official TV station.

The Times reports that al-Manar is itself designated a “global terrorist entity” by the Treasury Department. In addition to broadcasting soap operas and music videos, al-Manar also broadcasts virulently anti-Semitic programming and periodic calls for suicide bombings.

Can a TV station be a terrorist entity? The question seems to illustrate perfectly the double-bind confronting US efforts to convince Muslims abroad of our benign intentions. It’s arguable that permitting al-Manar in the United States could do more good than harm, educating people about just how repugnant Hezbollah can be rather than converting them to the cause. But the United States clearly has an interest in limiting al-Manar’s profile abroad. So to avoid charges of hypocrisy, we might feel a need to ban it at home. But then, of course, the democratic principles we espouse to the world seem hollow.

Iran implicitly weighed in on the matter as only it can, holding a quasi-governmental exhibit of derogatory art about the Holocaust to highlight Western hypocrisy about freedom of speech. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is all the more terrifying because he is so shrewd, and he’s probably thinking himself especially clever as he wakes up this morning.

So let’s turn the tables on Iran and just admit it: hypocrisy, or at least the appearance of hypocrisy, is inherent in making tough calls about freedom of expression. Standards will never be uniform; decisions will never be perfectly consistent. Point taken, President Ahmadinejad — so now will you take down your exhibit?

Comments (0)

The End Justifies the Means

Filed under: East Asia/Pacific — Lake Wang @ 2:10 pm

In recent years, China has been chastised for a whole range of reasons. Westerners say that there is no way that China’s economy will continue to grow and China will descend as fast as it ascended the geopolitical ladder. Whether it is for human rights, or its authoritarian government, Western observers will always challenge China’s method of achieving phenomenal economic and military growth. However, much of this criticism is unwarranted and undeserved. While there are some key similarities, the fundamental governing structure that China operates on is radically different from Western ones.

While many Westerners measure the efficiency of their government by gauging how free the citizens are, the Chinese government uses economic growth as its measuring stick and so far, so has most of the population. In a country that has been plagued by stagnation and Western intervention in the past several centuries, the Chinese people are sick of being viewed as second class citizens in the international community. In order to gain respect and power, the Chinese government as well as a lot of its citizens recognize that economic growth is the only means to reach the goal of Chinese superpower. While China is substituting its crumbling socialist, planned economy with an open-market capitalist one, this radical swap takes all precedent in the policies of the Chinese government. Although many observers are pessimistic about how long China can maintain this kind of growth before the people rise up and demand a democracy, it is key to recognize that much of China is still impoverished. The existence of this impoverishment signifies to the Chinese people that China still needs rapid economic growth, regardless of whether it is under the authoritarian CCP or a democratic government. When the Chinese people reach a certain level of quality of life, they will automatically begin to demand more rights and freedoms. Just like the Taiwanese KMT, when that time comes, the CCP will begin to alter the current system in order to appease the population, even if it means getting elected through a democratic process. What is commonly forgotten by many Westerners is that the CCP will do anything to stay in power, even if it has to get elected.

Expedience and efficiency are two key cornerstones of the ruling CCP. A quick comparison between democratic India and authoritarian China unveils several key differences in their decision making process. Both countries has dealt with its fair share of Western imperialism and civil war. But while China began its rapid economic ascension right after the death of Mao, India took several more years before it could even launch its own reform programs. Why did this happen? Why didn’t India, which has been a democracy since 1947, have a massive advantage over China even though the latter suffered through the ill-planned Great Leap Foward of 1959-1961 and the absolute mayhem known as the Cultural Revolution? The reason is that while the CCP has had a single unified goal since the rise of Deng, India has been wrought with political in-fighting. The CCP is able to streamline its decision making process, minimalizing the lag time that democratic governments often experience.

The CCP will not be in power at the end of the 21st century, but it is reasonable to believe that they will eventually lead China to prosperity and respect. Even with all of its imperfections, the CCP has managed to get the job done. One day, we will see China transform into a country that is democratic and respects human rights. But Western observers must be patient, as forced democracies are never a good thing.

Comments (5)

August 23, 2006

Here comes a candle to light you to bed,

Filed under: East Asia/Pacific, Economics, National Politics — Joseph Luna @ 4:58 pm

Has the West been left in the dark? With Chinese affairs constantly in the spotlight, particularly with the forthcoming Beijing Olympiad, and with the ever-growing uncertainty over the state of China’s rapidly expanding export-based economy, it is easy to think that PR China’s rise is simply unstoppable. But it cannot, and will not, continue indefinitely. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on East Asia (in actuality, it’s mostly about China), published July 2006, presents several recommendations to the British government over how to handle Chinese relations in the upcoming few years. At the same time, however, the report reveals the not-too-few key weaknesses in Chinese policy: a rather reprehensible human rights record, a non-existent civil society (a real, heterogeneous one, that is), a stubborn exchange-rate policy, its blatant repression of Tibet, increasing income inequality, regional inequality, demographic inequality and a dishonest, destabilizing stance towards defense and regional security.

Let’s start with economics. For a country to continue along the development process, it eventually needs to institute an adequate rule of law (with regards to business), not just by imposing new laws, but by actually enforcing and adhering to them. On the issue of China’s investment and trading future, the Commons report advocates ensuring that “China works within the spirit, and not just the letter, of its WTO obligations.” While China has made some progress on this front, it is not unlikely that investors will start to demand better transparency and copyright protection. And since China’s economy relies so heavily on foreign investors, upsetting them would be bad. Dr. Steven Tsang of St. Antony’s College, Oxford states: “[...] with so much of China’s growth being driven by foreign investments, it faces a grave danger that its growth momentum may collapse if, for example, a critical mass of the largest foreign investors no longer accepts that it is worthwhile to take substantial losses for many years before turning a profit.” I see two major derivatives coming from that statement. First I can’t help but notice the parallels with the Asian Financial Crisis almost a decade ago where a government that arbitrarily fixed its exchange rate all of a sudden experienced incredibly rapid capital flight due to the same reasons listed above. Secondly the important point about the statement above is made concerning the substantial initial losses. Some may counter that China’s innovation into the high-technology sector will continue to attract foreign investment, similar to the rises of Japan and South Korea a few decades ago. But, for China, this is a riskier endeavour. It must compete with already established East Asian technology firms: Toyota, Honda and Sony of Japan; Hyundai, Samsung and LG of South Korea. This could mean higher initial losses as Chinese companies try to work their way into Western markets. This also means higher investor uncertainty. We also cannot assume that the world economic order will be more stable in the future given the country’s highly inflexible exchange-rate policy. And so forth.

From a political standpoint, things are not any less complicated. For instance, internet use in China is heavily circumscribed, and companies such as Microsoft, Google and Yahoo are complicit in these violations. The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee states: “The collaboration of Western internet companies in the censorship and policing of the internet for political purposes is morally unacceptable.” The MPs highlight the economic effects of this information distortion, but what the (Communist) Party really cares about is the political. And so long as Western companies (warning: loaded term forthcoming) continue to appease the Party, a true civil society will never form. China’s relations with its neighbors are also anything but cordial. In a recent BBC report, Pentagon planners in the US along with Donald Rumsfeld expressed concern about the concealed nature of China’s defense spending. To this, China’s ambassador to the UN, Sha Zukang, replies, “It’s much better for the US to shut up. Keep quiet. It’s much much better.” The ambassador also contends that if one reads China’s 5,000-year history, you will find that “China basically is a peace-loving nation.” Right. Just don’t ask about the defense budget. David Wall of the Centre of Chinese Studies, SOAS, University of London, states: “They talk about the peaceful development and that they are no threat to other countries of the world but they have 20 neighbors [...] and they have disputes with every single one of them. If you were one of the 14 fishermen killed by the Chinese Navy because you happened to slip over what the Chinese regard as their maritime border, you would not feel that the Chinese are that friendly across borders.” Much of this evidence seems to fly in the face of a recent article published on this blog concerning China. Also, how many of these neighbors are really planning on invading China anytime soon? Is the massive redeployment to the southeast some kind of defensive maneuver against the big, bad Taiwanese military? The Commons report further notes that “the Chinese army is the only one in the world being developed to fight the USA.”

The Commons report is filled with further examples. I could question China’s shadowy dealings with questionable regimes in Africa or in the Middle East. Or I could bring up Tibet. The point is, the West cannot be left in the dark. It is the West and its allies who must stand up. Because by the pricking of my thumbs …

Comments (0)

August 22, 2006

Slow Down Those War Chariots: Economic Sanctions Against Iran

Filed under: General — Omar Abdelsamad @ 11:45 am

Picture by an Iranian School Child from the book by Peter Chelkowski and Hamid Dabashi, Staging A Revolution. If anyone still remembers the buildup to the war on Iraq, they are probably quite worried about current threats being volleyed at Iran, mainly by the United States. Iran has refused to stop uranium enrichment, something the country’s government claims is for energy purposes, is peaceful, and is its own right. The United States and its shaky UN coalition claim otherwise, asserting that the enrichment is solely for the purpose of creating nuclear weapons. While the United States is ready to impose economic sanctions on the Persian state, other members of the security council, such as Russia and China, are not so gung-ho about angering yet another Middle Eastern country.

The trouble with the proposed sanctions is that economic sanctions just don’t work in the way they are intended. Government officials and policymakers are often exempt from the negative consequences, passing on shortages of food, medicine, and other necessities to the poorer civilian population of the country. This is famously ineffective at garnering change but quite effective at creating humanitarian disasters. North Korea is in constant risk of exteme famine, and the Palestinian territories faced a widespread lack of food, medicine, and paid medical personnel because of a US imposed blockade on aid. There are also other ways around it.

The oil market is unique in that prices are rarely tied to overall supply. If Iran refuses to sell oil, its principal export and moneymaker, to the United States or if the European Union and other UN countries refuse to buy it, prices will go up but supply will not dwindle. Oil barrels are instead sold through a middleman, such as Egypt, that then passes it on to other countries. The country of origin matters little.

Although economic sanctions are wildly ineffective at producing the deisred result, they are still often used to try to influence foreign governments. Tehran will not budge, and so the escalation will begin. But the United States should use caution in its current practice of trudging through the Middle East, creating enemies, destroying homes, and breeding new extremism wherever possible.

A war with Iran would not be quick nor easy. It is like Iraq, but larger, more anti-West, more defensible. The Persian empire was one of the strongest and unconquerable in history, a testament to the strength of Iran’s terrain and people. An air war would be comically ineffective, such as in Lebanon, while also endangering the United States’ only true ally in the region, Israel, and risking US troops in nearby Iraq. Moderate lapdog governments allied to the United States such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East states would not be able to hold power over an insensed population.

Economic sanctions will not work, but will begin a tragic downward spiral for the United States. Iran will respond with its usual refusal to comply with any orders and the international community will not be any safer. Before harsh words and threats were exchanged, Iran had one of the most open and inspectable nuclear programs on the planet. Perhaps it is time to stop the threats and banging of war drums. This is not a time to draw a line in the sand and say, “You are either with us or against us,” but a time to acknowledge that a country can be neither, yet still acting toward a peaceful goal in everyone’s interests. Unsavory leaders don’t have to be your closest allies, but you also don’t have to go to economic and physical war with all those that aren’t.

Comments (1)

August 21, 2006

Bush: Finally Right About Something

Filed under: National Politics, North America — Lake Wang @ 2:22 pm

For all of Bush’s miscalculations in international affairs, he has finally said something that is undoubtedly true and pertinent to perserving what respect the United States has left in the world. During a Washington news conference, Bush said that withdrawing from Iraq would be “leaving before the job is done”. While the United States should not have gotten itself into the messes known as Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush is actually correct for once: if the United States withdraws from Iraq now, not only would there be blowback from the international community, but the ensuing civil war that would befall Iraq would breed more terrorists and undermine US credibility severely.

Since the beginning of US military action in Iraq, there has been widespread criticism and opposition from the international community. Even after Saddam’s capture and ostensible US victory in Iraq, the international community has continued to condemn the United States for instigating the mayhem that is now Iraq. However, if the United States were to withdraw from Iraq while it is still in the midst of civil restlessness and de facto civil war, it would receive backlash far more severe than anything it has received since the beginning of the war. If the United States were to retain any morsel of credibility after the Iraq mess is over, then it will have to prove to the international community that Iraq can be a stable and functioning democracy. Withdrawal would be tantamount to surrendering, not only to the many factions in Iraq, but also to pressure from those who believe that failure is certain.

The United States needs to help the Iraqi people resurrect the crippled economy and bring stability to the nation. While most individuals would champion democracy, the future government doesn’t necessarily have to be one that is democratically-elected; they just need to be able to bring stability to the country and run it efficiently. Whether this is through a democratically elected government or a dictatorship, as long as the government is credible to the Iraqi people and not a puppet of the United States, then it should be recognized and supported. Democracy certainly should be the goal of any developing country, but forced democracy can lead to civil war and factionalism as shown by Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the United States withdraws from Iraq immediately, the country will go into civil war and thousands more will lose their lives. Moreover, the United States will lose more credibility among the international community and would have made permanent enemies in the Middle East. But if the United States will take responsibility for what it started, then there may still be hope in this war torn country.

Comments (0)

Stand Up, China

Filed under: East Asia/Pacific, Geopolitics — Edmond Cheuk @ 10:26 am

To many Chinese people, the Chinese government is doing a good job. China’s economic development has brought a higher living standard, better job opportunities, and an increased sense of pride. Having spent 2 months in Beijing and a week in Inner Mongolia, I can say without hesitation that many share a grateful and satisfied attitude to the People’s Communist Party and their actions. From an Inner Mongolian shepherd to a Beijing University student to the everyday cab driver, the Party’s performance passes with flying colors.

Yet, the Chinese government’s stellar performance in the aforementioned areas does not reflect in its diplomatic interactions with other countries. It has appeared weak, soft-spoken, and even deferential when faced with difficult situations. At times, it has even suppressed patriotic — and justifiable — sentiments. Last year, it succumbed to US pressure and revalued the Renminbi (RMB). Recently, it prevented self-funded patriotic organizations from setting out towards Diaoyutai, a group of islands that Japan claims to have sovereignty over, to show their support for China’s legitimate sovereignty. Yesterday, they responded to the anti-Japanese protest warnings issued by Guangdong’s Japanese Embassy by filtering media channels and more than doubling the police force in Shenzhen. Chinese nationalism has not become a tool of the Chinese government. What government would actively foil anti-Japanese demonstrations if it were intending to use it as political capital? Though Chinese leaders don’t take such actions without thoughtful consideration, they reflect China’s unwillingness to take a firmer stance on issues that concern its interests and its dignity.

While the US takes strong action against those who harm its interests or threaten its security, China merely employs words, always reverting to its heshi (to settle matters without dispute) philosophy. As Kennedy Wong, a Hong Kong Delegate to the PRC’s Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), says, “Confucianism and Taoism have been China’s mainstream culture in the Tang, Sung and Ming Dynasties, advocating renyi (benevolence and a sense of justice), daode (ethics), zhongxiao (loyalty and filial piety), liyi (rites), and lianchi (sense of shame). ” While China possesses neither the aggression nor the military power to expand its territories by invasion, it does not mean China cannot stand firm in the international arena. It must learn to say “No” to certain demands made by other countries. It must also adopt a tougher stand in dealing with Japan. It must learn to be unafraid of confrontation, and remain resolute should situations similar to the NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and the US spy-plane incident arise.

Having endured over a century of humiliation and servitude, China needs to stand up now. Its economic growth has elevated its status in the international community. As a considerable power, China should now instill an element of determination and steadfastness into its traditional demurring foreign policy. This does not mean that China will become a threat to regional and international stability. It simply means that China will no longer defer to other countries’ wishes if its political, economic, and social interests are compromised. If Japan Prime Minister shows no interest in mending strained Sino-Japanese ties, as he has aptly demonstrated by his August 15 visit to the Yasukuni Shrine, then China has no obligation to tolerate such a blatant act of disrespect towards its people and those of neighboring countries. If Taiwan’s scandal-laden leader continues his thoughtless push towards an improbable independence, then China should not deviate from its stance on the matter. Hopefully, these will forever remain scenarios. Nonetheless, China must learn stay firm and fight for its interests. Acquiescing to every request is not flexibility and civility. Rather, it’s time for China to stop saying “Yes” to everything.

Comments (3)

August 19, 2006

The Commonwealth: Possible Promotor of the Common Good

Filed under: International Institutions, Trade — Khary Francis @ 11:09 am

With the indefinite suspension of WTO Free Trade Negotiations on July 24, it is unclear when if at all talks will be restarted. What is clear is that if negotiations are to be re-opened, they will need to be done so with an added mechanism to avoid the fate that has befallen the Doha round.

A major contributing factor to the failure of this latest round has been the self-interested strategy with which some of the heavy weight nations have pursued a comprehensive trade deal. Though the Doha round has been touted as a “development round” there seems to have been a lack of commitment to development as seen in the agricultural subsidy debate. Rather, the round has turned out to be a battle of world influence with the powerful determining what is to their advantage and attempting to convince the weak that it is to theirs as well.

While some degree of self-interest it to be expected in any negotiations, it should not be a hindering factor in a free trade agreement that most agree represents a win-win situation for all in the long run. A revived round of negotiations needs to guard against the political maneuvering and self-interested manipulation that has characterized previous rounds. Moreover, it needs to ensure negotiators maintain the somewhat moral commitment to development.

Best to fulfill this role is an international organization whose power structure does not afford disproportionate representation or influence to any one nation(s). It will also require an organization whose membership is representative of both the developed and developing nations of the WTO and holds credibility as an unbiased promoter of development. While this criteria eliminates several of the Washington-based international organizations, the Commonwealth of Nations emerges as a suitable candidate to guide the progress of a further round of free trade negotiations, this time with an actual focus on development.

Comments (1)

Easier Said Than Done: Tackling the Problem Of AIDS

Filed under: Health — Michael Jaskiw @ 8:47 am

With the number of stories on the tenuous ceasefire in Lebanon and the near daily terrorist threats in the skies, its not surprising that the International Aids Conference has slipped through the cracks. AIDS lacks the violent brutality and sensationalism of terrorist attacks or rocket strikes, but is certainly more deadly than both combined. Last year alone, three million people, concentrated in developing countries, died from AIDS.

But the loudest message coming out of the International AIDS Conference was not directed toward the developing world. The UN’s special envoy on AIDS, Stephen Lewis, lambasted G-8 members for failing to provide promised funds for increasing the availability of AIDS drugs around the world. “Everything in the battle against AIDS is being jeopardized by the G-8,” Lewis noted. Other culprits for lack of progress, such as sex discrimination, a lack of qualified health workers, were also brought up during the course of the conference.

G-8 countries set an terrible example by pledging money and not fully following through. But battling AIDS is certainly a multi-front war, and money from developed countries is far from sufficient to reduce AIDS transmission world wide. An equally important, but far less popular explanation for the growing frustration with stopping AIDS, is inactivity and backward attitudes in the governments of developing countries hit hardest by the disease. This is not to say that the developing world is to blame for AIDS, or that those in lesser developed nations have somehow brought the problem on themselves. Nor is it an excuse for developed countries to make empty promises and hope no one is paying attention when it comes time to contribute.

Take South Africa as an example. The government continues to stand by natural cures such as lemon, beetroot and garlic for treatment and prevention of AIDS. With this sort of perspective, it is difficult to see how all the money and vaccines in the world will make a difference in a country where the government downplays the efficacy of modern medical treatment for the disease. Even education campaigns seem doomed to fail without government cooperation. The criticism of the G-8 is certainly valid; but good intentions and monetary donations can only go so far while retrograde attitudes about AIDS prevail.

Comments (0)