On Monday a report was released on steps that the next US administration can take to help prevent genocide (reported here in the Washington Post).  At first glance, most readers will probably agree that of course the US government and international community should be taking whatever steps necessary to prevent genocide.  The tragic reality is, however, that with so many pressing foreign policy priorities at this time – namely Iraq and Afghanistan – the actual thought of working to put together a strategy to prevent something off in the future is probably quite far from the minds of many of today’s policy makers.  This report is right to point out that we can not let the emergencies of today prevent us from preventing the emergencies of tomorrow.  It’s just this type of forward thinking that is so sorely needed in America’s foreign policy establishment.

What I thought was particularly noteworthy in this report was the emphasis on leadership.  The United States is at a critical juncture in our relationship with other countries around the world.  Critics of the US role in the world see the US as empire building and imperialistic.  Althought the US professes to support democracy and human rights around the world, its actions in so many places lead many to question its actual motives.  Leadership on the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities around the world can go a long way towards rebuilding the American ideals for which so many around the world yearn. 

Some will say that the we have so many other pressing foreign policy emergencies that threaten our own security that we don’t have the luxury of addressing issues of genocide and mass atrocities.  I argue that any time genocide occurs around the world, it is a direct attack on who we are and what we stand for.     Our efforts to prevent genocide and mass atrocities are indicative of who we are as a people. 

There has been much talk in foreign policy circles about the Obama administration the role it will play in places like Darfur.  I am heartened by the fact that some of the people chosen and others under consideration have spoken out so forcefully on these issues.  This report takes the next step and lays out a framework that is worthy of consideration in terms of how we can prevent the next Darfur.

In an op-ed in today’s New York Times, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari writes that the Mumbai attacks of two weeks ago were directed at both India and Pakistan, and that the right answer is to strengthen ties and coordination between the neighbors, as well as with their western allies.   According to the Pakistani leader, the militants who attacked India were linked by ideology to those who killed his wife, Benazir Bhutto, and exploded a bomb in the Islamabad Marriott last year.

He explicitly denies any connection between the attackers and any agency of the Pakistani government.  Instead, he notes, the West bears partial responsibility for creating the Islamist terrorist movement, by “exploiting religion” to bring down the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the Cold War.  That strategy worked, Zardari writes, “but its legacy was the creation of an extremist militia with its own dynamic.”

(more…)

Be warned, I go long today.

As I write a weekly column on private military and security contractors for UPI and have written a just published book on private security contractors in Iraq, it is an easy guess what I am blogging about today.

That’s right, yesterday’s 35-count indictment against the six Blackwater contractors accused of voluntary manslaughter, attempt to commit manslaughter and weapons violations for their alleged roles in the September 16 2007 shooting at Nisoor Square in Baghdad, Iraq.

Given the key dependence on private contractors by the U.S. Defense and State Departments, as well as the intelligence community and numerous other agencies the implications of the indictment and eventual trial verdict will have an impact that go far beyond Iraq. Let’s face facts, contractors are the U.S. government’s American Express card; nowadays Uncle Sam dares not leave home without them when it undertakes an overseas operation, whether it be war, humanitarian relief or something in between.

Based on the indictment it appears that at least some of the early press coverage of the event at Nissor Square was correct.

Blackwater claimed the convoy was attacked by armed insurgents but Iraqi officials disagreed. Iraq’s Ministry of Interior said that Blackwater contractors fired an unprovoked barrage.

U.S. military reports from the scene indicated that Blackwater guards opened fire without provocation and used excessive force against Iraqi civilians.

It may very well be the case, as a New York Times article reported that the cascade of events began when a single bullet apparently fired by a Blackwater guard killed an Iraqi man whose weight probably remained on the accelerator and propelled the car forward. The car continued to roll toward the convoy, which responded with an intense barrage of gunfire in several directions, striking Iraqis who were desperately trying to flee.

Interestingly, in late 2007 it was reported that American investigators were told that during the shootings at least one Blackwater guard continued firing on civilians while colleagues urgently called for a cease-fire. At least one guard apparently also drew a weapon on a fellow guard who did not stop shooting. But no mention of any of this was made at yesterday’s Department of Justice/FBI news conference.

Back then FBI agents reportedly found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq. That seems not to have changed, as yesterday’s indictment listed only 14 counts of voluntary manslaughter.

The spin thus far on the indictment seems to place the blame entirely on the contractors and nobody else, as emphasized in yesterday’s press conference. (more…)

Iran is going to get the bomb.  More and more that seems to be the consensus view in Washington.  Despite speeches by both Bush and Obama that state without equivocation that this is “unacceptable,” the pessimistic view based on Iranian actions and the ineffective global reaction is that the outcome is inevitable.  Iran’s own statements only add fuel to the fire.

I was still skeptical, however, until I attended an AEI event last week where John Bolton was a panelist.  Let’s just say I have always considered Bolton to be the canary in this particular coalmine.  When he stops beating the military action drum, I would know it was time to start worrying.  Here’s what he had to say:

Iran is going to get nuclear weapons.  We have lost this race.

I would say that this canary has stopped singing.  When Bolton has given up on stopping Iran from getting the bomb, it’s time to consider what to do the day after they get the bomb.
(more…)

Recent PSA efforts have been making headlines around the country and around the world. Our message is being heard at the very highest levels of the US government, and is even reflected in the incoming Obama-Biden administration’s official foreign policy platform, which makes an explicit commitment to increase “bipartisanship and openness” in the foreign policy process.

With a president who is committed to fostering bipartisan dialogue, campaign promises about “bringing people together” must be more than just talk.

There recently was an excellent bipartisan op-ed in the Washington Post that I believe deserves more attention.  Former National Security Advisor for Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft and former National Security Advisor for Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinksi welcomed the election of Barack Obama and argued that Obama must prioritize a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

I also wrote in a blog post on September 22nd that a renewed commitment to the peace process should be one of the important priorities for the Obama administration.  This is anything but a partisan issue.  Democrats and Republicans agree that this needs to be done.  The bipartisan Iraq Study Group emphasized the critical role that such a renewed commitment could play in reducing the justification for conflict in Iraq and in other war-torn areas of the Middle East.  So, if everyone agrees that this needs to be done and the basic outline of the plan that will be put into place is well known, then why have we continued to be stuck with the status quo?  Brzezinksi and Scowcroft point out that the weakness of the negotiating partners is a major factor in preventing the peace process from moving forward and that US presidential leadership could play an important role in bolstering Palestinian, Israeli, and international support for the basic tenets of this peace process:

These should contain four principal elements: 1967 borders, with minor, reciprocal and agreed-upon modifications; compensation in lieu of the right of return for Palestinian refugees; Jerusalem as real home to two capitals; and a nonmilitarized Palestinian state.

Brzezinksi and Scowcroft argue that after Obama speaks out forcefully in support of the fundamental principles of the peace, he should appoint a high level dignitary to bring the sides together to hammer out the details and build broad public support.  In my mind, the clear choice for this Middle East envoy position is Bill Clinton. 

On Monday Obama made it official that Hillary Clinton would indeed be the next Secretary of State.  With that appointment, many are wondering what role Bill will play in the next administration.  Some may question if Obama is actually bringing on two Secretaries of State – Hillary…. and Bill.  Without question, Bill will need a responsibility that he can call his own that is worthy of his stature.  Bill Clinton has clearly demonstrated a strong commitment to this issue, as exemplified by his attempt to broker an agreement in the waning days of his presidency.  I am confident that a challenge of this magnitude is exactly the type of opportunity that Bill Clinton thrives on.  There are few others that could match his political skills and ability to rally public support for this critical task.  The next step in this process is going to be about building public support and pressure for a deal to move forward as much as it is about the details of the deal.  Bill Clinton is the right person for this role.

According to a new survey published by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, nearly two-thirds of residents in Azerbaijan, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey approve of the UN using

force to prevent the proliferation of

nuclear weapons.

It is surprising that large majorities of people in Muslim countries are seemingly willing to green-light military action that would most likely occur in their own backyards in order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Just as surprisingly, 70% of Iranians felt positively about the UN becoming more powerful in world affairs, which would include the creation of a standing UN peacekeeping force with the power to go into countries to investigate human rights violations. Not exactly the reaction I might have expected from a country that has had heavy economic sanctions placed on it by the UN, and is not exactly known for its civil liberties.

The implications of these survey results for the United States and the global communities’ non-proliferation efforts are significant. While few would advocate the use of military force as a first option to stop the spread of WMD, the support for it amongst local populations seems to exist, should it come to that. Popular support for the use of force could serve as leverage in future negotiations with proliferating countries. Certainly Iran would have to think twice about its nuclear ambitions if it knew that not only Western countries, but Muslim countries as well, supported the use of force to keep Iran nuke-free.

These survey results are unlikely to have any real immediate effect, but can serve as an interesting backdrop to future discussion of negotiations with Iran. President-elect Obama has made it very clear over the course of his 2-year campaign that he would make engagement with Iran, and other potential proliferators, a hallmark of his presidency. (Soon to be) Secretary of State Clinton won’t be able to wave a poll at the Iranians and expect them to give up their nuclear plans, but having the tacit support of Muslim countries should allow her to negotiate more aggressively, knowing that the broad-based support for a last-ditch military strike is already in place.

This of course all assumes that the survey reflects the true sentiments in the region towards the UN, which is an assumption that I at least, choose to make. It should be noted though, that there is certainly a possibility that the respondents to the survey were for whatever reason inclined to give the answer they thought the pollsters wanted to hear, and not their actual opinions. If this is in fact the case, then please disregard the above post.

Either way, it is far past time for the United States to seriously address the threat of WMD terrorism. The WMD Commission has predicted that there will be a nuclear or biological weapons attack on the United States in the next five years. While it is certainly helpful to have broad international support for military intervention, we should not allow it to get that far, a very real risk, without a sincere effort at a peaceful solution. With a report of a potential “WMD Czar”, the Obama administration seems to be moving in the right direction, and Congress should follow suit by quickly embracing and implementing the recommendations made in both PSA’s Report Card and the WMD Commission’s report. We might disagree on a lot of things, but keeping America safe and secure shouldn’t be one of them.

As PSA readers probably know, I was hopeful that President-elect Obama would pick Bill Richardson for Secretary of State. As I wrote a few weeks ago, this was not a commentary on other candidates but in support of an individual with valuable negotiating skills. Of course, Sen. Clinton has been nominated for the Secretary of State position and in a few hours Gov. Richardson will be nominated for Sec. Commerce.

The end of the matter? Maybe, maybe not.

When it became clear that Clinton would end up as Sec. State, I was still convinced that Gov. Richardson would end up in the cabinet because President Obama will want to have him close at hand to provide counsel on foreign policy issues and at times to act as the Presidents emissary. Now, many of you may disagree with that theory but consider this comment from David Ignatius speaking to David Gregory yesterday evening on MSNBC and ask who could fill the role being described (also note this is an imperfect transcript of DI’s comment):

“You put your finger on what I think is the biggest weakeness of the team.  What it needs most of all is a strategist. A kind of secret emissary in the style of Henry Kissinger or Zig Brzezinski who can go out in the coming months and explore, perhaps in secret missions this agenda of opportunities and problems.  The administration will have to decide fairly quickly what among the list it wants to focus on, what is doable… You can’t send the Secretary of State there with a plane load of reporters and get it done.  You need that person.  Who will emerge in that role? I’m not sure.”

On Thursday, federal judge Richard J. Leon ordered the release of five Guantanamo Bay detainees, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence that the detainees in question met the definition of an “enemy combatant”. The decision has added further ambiguity to the concept of enemy combatancy – a notion that, prior to the war on terror, seemed relatively straightforward and uncontroversial. In the post-9/11 world, however, the term “enemy combatant” has acquired several different meanings, some of which are at odds with its traditional historical meaning and with the law of war itself.

Discussions about the modern US concept of enemy combatancy have tended to focus on a number of discrete issues, including the rights that should be afforded to enemy combatants, who should have the power to determine whether a person is an enemy combatant and whether this power should be subject to review. Although all of these questions are important questions to ask, they assume the fundamental legitimacy of the concept of enemy combatancy, as the term is used today. When one digs a little deeper, the idea of an enemy combatant not only becomes difficult to pin down, but also shows itself to be problematic in terms of international humanitarian law.

Traditionally, an enemy combatant has been defined and understood as a member of the armed forces of an enemy state, who may be properly detained under the laws and customs of war. Since 9/11, the term has acquired an amorphous meaning in both the popular and political lexicons, and is often used interchangeably with the term “unlawful combatant”. According the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, William J. Haynes, unlawful combatants are combatants who “do not receive prisoner-of-war (POW) status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention”. They are, in other words, combatants who lack legitimacy, who have no legal right to take part in hostilities.

Despite William J. Haynes’ references to the Geneva Conventions, the concept of an unlawful combatant finds no support in international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions make no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate combatants – the only distinction drawn is the fundamental distinction between civilians or those otherwise rendered hors de combat, on the one hand, and combatants on the other. (more…)

In the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks in Mumbai, India, there is little doubt that there will be pressure on the incoming Obama Administration to move quickly in response to the Pakistan-India (and Afghanistan) security crisis. Early reports suggest that Pakistani based militants are behind the Mumbai violence and that American leadership will be necessary in order to secure regional stability.

While a focus on the region in general and Pakistan in particular is welcome, it is critically important that the new Administration develops a nuanced, long term approach to the very real challenges that exist. Crucially, the Administration must sequence its response and remember that despite the violence in Mumbai, and the link to Kashmir, it is stability in Pakistan that is a crucial first step to bringing peace to South Asia. This will take time and a clear understanding of how militancy has grown in Pakistan over recent years.

Most analysts believe that the Bush Administration’s support for the government of Gen. Musharraf contributed to a systematic rise in militancy over the last few years. Musharraf sought to marginalize and ban popular liberal opposition parties while allowing fringe religious parties to fill the vacuum; he assumed that he could control these parties and their figures. In reality, the religious parties became the primary outlet for anti-Musharraf sentiment and some of them fueled a rise in militancy. Policy analysts who recognized that Pakistani spikes in militancy occurred when the country was ruled by the military accurately predicted that history would repeat itself under Musharraf. The situation is most grave in the hard-to-govern tribal areas that border Afghanistan where a historic mistrust of central government, a rise in militancy and the relocated Taliban and Al Qaeda have created a security crisis.

(more…)