Maybe videos are worth a try?

There is much to like about the recently released Afghanistan Pakistan strategy by the Obama administration.  There is a strong emphasis on institution building in both countries.  There are references to making a long term commitment to the region – a lesson that has hopefully been learned after short term approaches have led us down the path where we now find ourselves.  The strategy recognizes the critical role that both civilian and military components must play.  So, yes, in my opinion, the strategy is right on in most of its components….except for one glaring omission.  There is virtually no reference to India in the whole document.

Of course, this was a very intentional decision.  The Indians clearly don’t want to be pulled into a “regional” solution to the terrorist issue because it might mean outside interference on Kashmir.  As Laura Rozen reported here, there was substantial lobbying by the Indian government to ensure that Holbrooke’s purview in South Asia did not include India.

Although many will argue that Kashmir is not directly related to the Al Qaeda terrorist threat in the region, the reality is that this perceived threat limits Pakistan’s willingness to devote sufficient attention to the terrorist havens bordering Afghanistan.  If we are truly going to partner with the Pakistanis in this struggle against violent extremists, it is important to acknowledge the Pakistani point of view.  The reality for many in the Pakistani leadership and military is that they actually see the threat from India as much more serious than that from Al Qaeda or the Taliban.  Few Americans feel threatened by India.  Most Americans see a tremendous threat from Al Qaeda.  So, it’s a bit difficult for many in this country to appreciate that Pakistan has gone to war with India three times since partition.  Considering that, I’m not altogether surprised that Pakistan has been talking tough against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but at the same time preparing for conflict with India. The main sticking point remains Kashmir.  We may not think that it’s related, but the reality is that if we want Pakistan’s full attention on the terrorist threat, we’d be much more likely to get it if the Kashmir issue was resolved.  (more…)

In a 2006 high-level bipartisan statement, we wrote, “America needs the United Nations to help make our world more secure and peaceful,” in opposition to those calling for a suspension of U.S. dues payments. In another bipartisan statement last November, we reiterated that the UN cannot succeed without strong U.S. leadership and support, and noted that President Obama “has a unique opportunity to revitalize the U.S.-UN relationship as a symbol of America’s commitment to constructive international cooperation.”

The Obama Administration has taken an important step toward revitalizing the U.S.-UN relationship by announcing its decision to seek a seat on the UN Human Rights Council in the May 2009 UN General Assembly elections. Though the Council is not without serious flaws, the U.S. will have a far better chance of leading reform efforts if we have a seat at the table than if we continue to boycott the institution. The decision to seek this seat demonstrates the Obama Administration’s commitment not only to the United Nations as a core institution of international security and the rule of law, but to multilateral engagement in the ongoing effort to improve global human rights standards.

A U.S. presence on the Human Rights Council will allow the U.S. to influence it from within while providing the strong leadership and international support necessary to succeed in the effort to hold human rights violators accountable. We commend the Obama administration’s desire for a renewed relationship with the UN and for its commitment to lead a bipartisan U.S. and international effort to combat human rights abuses across the globe.

In the realm of bipartisan foreign policy, NATO stands as one of the most enduring symbols. Created by a Democrat (Truman), it has endured under Republicans (Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford), and expanded under both Democrats and Republicans (Clinton and Bush). Although the initial vote to approve the NATO treaty was subject to fierce debate, the votes for NATO expansion were broadly bipartisan (indeed, there was hardly any debate at all).

But there have been many reasons along the way to question NATO’s utility, and no more so than today. Andrew Bacevich had a column in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times, and my Cato colleague Ted Galen Carpenter published a paper earlier this week on the subject. Ted will be discussing his findings today on Capitol Hill.

The next time we whine about the Europeans spending so much less than we do on defense, or complain that they are not doing their fair share in Afghanistan, we might ask whether our leadership in NATO — and indeed Washington’s demand that any possible EU military capability be subordinate to NATO under U.S. leadership — has discouraged them from acquiring the very capabilities that might have halted the bloodletting in the Balkans in the 1990s, or that might be of use to us today in and around Kandahar and Kabul. The notion that the NATO allies would be able to provide any useful military assistance in the event of an even more serious threat to U.S. security is frankly laughable. (I discuss in some detail the endemic problems of free-riding and moral hazard within alliances in my new book, The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous and Less Free.)

George Washington warned of permanent alliances. NATO clearly qualifies. We should revise the NATO charter, chiefly by abrogating the Article V commitment that isn’t worth the paper it is written on. We should actively encourage the Europeans to develop the capacity to defend themselves. This doesn’t mean they will spend as much as we do, or even close to what we do, but two percent of GDP, the threshhold stipulated by NATO, seems a reasonable level. And, someday, heaven forbid, if we actually needed the assistance of other countries to help defend us from a common threat, they might have the ability to help. As it is today, NATO carries only liabilities for the United States, and no measurable benefits.

It is a dark irony that the printing press – the nifty device that made religion available to the masses – is often in the crosshairs of the world’s most militant believers.  Perhaps this isn’t alarming at all, since the right to think what one will and speak as one pleases is at odds with the core dogmas of religion. And what, pray tell, are these core dogmas?  First, religious truths can be neither criticized nor defamed.  Second, the attempt to criticize or defame those truths is a sin of unparalleled proportion, an abomination, as it were.

If you have any doubt that these core dogmas are alive and kicking, consider this:  A diverse yet similarly cantankerous and commonly-minded group of Muslims, grouped under the umbrella of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, are now demanding that Islam be shielded from criticism.  In July of 2008 the Conference formally asked the United Nations to recognize that “Islamophobia” is a real threat affecting the lives of well-meaning, peaceful Muslims.  According to the Conference, not only are Muslims often subject to stereotyping and discriminatory treatment, they must also endure the most insulting, offensive and contemptuous treatment from others, since the world is quite eager to “defile” and “denigrate” the sacred symbols of Islam.  Islam is itself under attack, a vicious and baseless siege that will only end if the United Nations steps in to level the playing field.

If Islam is “under attack,” is that a bad thing?  The United Nations seems to think so, and appears keen to intervene, as it recently renewed a non-binding resolution (62/154) entitled Combating defamation of religions.  This resolution has a number of lovely instances of non-sense on stilts, but focus your attention, dear friends, on the following gems:

(The U.N.) Expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.  (5)

(The U.N.) Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.  (9)

Paragraph 5 is quite entertaining, if you put just a bit of pressure on it.  Is the problem that Islam is sometimes or even often correctly associated with human rights violations and terrorism, but in absolute terms “frequently” incorrectly associated with human rights violations and terrorism without sufficient grounds?  Or is the problem that in relative terms, people tend to incorrectly associate Islam with human rights violations and terrorism?  My sense is that the latter cannot be correct.  But the real issue isn’t the relative proportion of correct to incorrect associations between Islam, on the one hand, and human rights violations and terrorism, on the other.  The real bugbear is whether the U.N. should spend its valuable time trying to malign a practice – i.e., the criticism of Islam – that in a non-trivial number of instances gets the association between Islam and the underlying problems exactly right. (more…)