Given the prospect of a trillion-dollar-plus government bailout package for Wall Street, tonight’s Presidential debate is likely to stray from the official theme of national security and foreign policy.  But, as Senators McCain and Obama have each suggested, America’s economic future is closely linked to our national security, our international standing, and our competitiveness in the global marketplace.  For that reason, any conversation about putting the US economy back on track will raise some serious questions about the next President’s national security and foreign policy agenda.

The Partnership for a Secure America’s distinguished bipartisan Advisory Board issued a statement asking Senators Obama and McCain five critical questions about foreign policy challenges that will require cooperation between Democrats and Republicans in January of 2009.  The statement begins: “As Democrats and Republicans, we believe that the next President of the United States must initiate a new era of US global leadership based on bipartisanship at home and cooperative engagement abroad.”

(more…)

According to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an article in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, China’s reluctant and belated concession to allow a skeleton UN-AU peacekeeping force in Sudan represents a newly “cooperative approach on a range of problems.” But the reality is that some newfound sense of Chinese responsibility on the world stage had nothing to do with Beijing’s decision to “cooperate.” The concession on Darfur (if you want to call it that) was entirely about the Beijing Olympics. Given that it took a threatened boycott by Western leaders for China to stop arms sales to Sudan and drop its veto of the peacekeeping resolution, I am dubious that we’ll see any further “responsible” behavior after the Olympic Games have come and gone. At this point, the Games are going ahead—with or without protesting Western leaders—and the leverage a coordinated boycott might have provided will be a mere memory.

But I’m not writing this to bemoan a missed opportunity or cast aspersions on Rice’s diplomatic optimism. I’m writing this to call some attention to the next opportunity down the road: Sochi 2014.

China and Russia are both rising powers, economically, militarily and diplomatically. Secretary Rice referred to both as carrying “special responsibility and weight as fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council.” Translation: they both have lots of nuclear weapons, so our military power doesn’t really scare them. China is also not the only rising power we’d love to see adopt a more cooperative stance as it claims (or reclaims) “full membership in the international community.”

(more…)

By any measure, George W. Bush’s foreign policy has been a disaster. However, one of the few bright spots during his seven years in office has been his policy towards Africa, particularly in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The President raised development aid by 30% from 2001 to 2003 and raised total HIV/AIDS funding by 36% in his first years in office. In Africa, his foreign policy is not seen solely through the prism of failed militarism. People recognize the strides that Sub-Saharan Africa has made in combating disease and poverty during his term. To be sure, there is still tremendous work to be done and the Bush administration should not strain themselves patting their own backs. However, for a President searching in vain for a foreign policy legacy, Africa offers an opportunity to enhance the presidency in the eyes of the historians, and to help millions of people who still ache for a better life. With this in mind, I believe now is the right time for President Bush to make the bold moves and take on the politically risky challenges that the continent presents.

He could start in Darfur, where the (much like other parts of his foreign policy) the rhetoric has been strong, but the action has been timid. President Bush could do much to help the UN peacekeepers that are just now being deployed there. He could lease helicopters to the UN so that the peacekeepers can track movements of the militias and travel quickly from camp to camp. While he has been forceful in his use of the word genocide, there needs to be more state level engagement in order to isolate the Bashir regime in Khartoum. These efforts could begin with our allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia and perhaps even extend to China, which holds financial influence over the country. Finally, he could float the idea of a NATO enforced no-fly zone (as seen in the PSA statement on Darfur) in the region, at least for some more diplomatic leverage. Not only would progress in Darfur be a monumental foreign policy achievement, but it would also be a boon to the moral credibility of the United States (something Bush has done plenty to hurt over the last six years).

Additionally, President Bush could use his profile to highlight on-going conflicts in Africa that have received little, if no attention. He could make a high profile statement in support of the democratic process in Congo. He could put pressure on the government of South Africa to harshly condemn the policies and police state of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. He could use his status as the world’s terrorist warrior to show Americans what is going on in Somalia; not just the fight against extremists, but the failed state conditions that breed them. Finally, he can use his position as Leader of the Free World and chief aid distributor to push for a transition from aid handouts to direct investment, which is a more effective (and more sustainable) development strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa.

While this list is a bit hopeful, it is no more hopeful than President Bush’s attempts to solve the Mideast crisis in a year. By refocusing on Africa, President Bush could score some significant gains for his reputation and that of the United States. But most importantly, he could concentrate the world’s attention on vital issues that seem only to pop in and out of the world’s radar screen.

I wanted to follow up today on Raj’s two recent posts on Darfur.  Raj highlighted Google’s recent efforts to draw attention to the conflict in Darfur and also Joe Biden’s call for US troops being sent to Darfur.

What I found particularly striking recently was a story of how Mia Farrow and Steven Spielberg have been placing pressure on the Chinese government to use its influence to help end the suffering.  So, you might be asking why the Chinese government would care what these two hollywood celebrities have to say about the Darfur conflict, particularly after numerous efforts have been made to convince the Chinese to help end the conflict.  Well, I was struck by how these celebrities recognized the right pressure point to get the Chinese to step up to the plate - the upcoming Olympics taking place in Beijing.  It was really quite brilliant that Spielberg, who is an artistic adviser to Beijing for the Olympics, realized that although Beijing places a high priority on their access to oil, they might place an even higher priority on the upcoming Olympics going off without a hitch. 

On a trip last summer to Beijing I saw firsthand the efforts China is going to, to get Beijing in shape for these Olympic games.  Construction cranes are everywhere and whole neighborhoods are being torn down and rebuilt (that’s a whole different issue that merits another blog post).  The amount of effort and money that China is putting into the Olympics is tremendous.  It is clear that the Chinese see the Beijing summer games as a coming out event that will elevate their status in the world and help position them as a global leader.  (more…)

The “Pottery Barn Principle” has tremedous informal influence in the on-going debate about what to do in Iraq. The quick summary is incredibly evocative: “you broke it, you bought it” applies in international affairs, just as it does at Pottery Barn and other stores. So the U.S. “owns” the Iraq problem and can’t leave until stability and happiness return to the land.

Of course, the principle is rarely enforced at stores like Pottery Barn. Nice stores understand in advance that they have fragile displays, with glasses stacked in precarious poses to make them look nice for potential customers. So the owners and managers expect some glasses to break from time to time. And the stores focus on making the unfortunate customer who accidentally bumps into the wine glass display while backing away to get a different perspective on the beautiful $800 console table feel comfortable enough to come back to the store — or perhaps even to buy the console table that very day. Other customers don’t turn and stare and clap and otherwise humiliate the unfortunate, clumsy person, as they would do in a high school cafeteria. Nice stores are much more grown up and understanding.

Yet the analogy still holds strange power in the foreign policy debate. Many Americans really have a deep streak of responsibility. The U.S. “owes” something to Cambodia, to Guatemala, to the Philippines. As a country, we don’t always act on our guilt, but sometimes we do, and there’s a deep reservoir of support that prioritizes efforts to improve the lives of people that the U.S. had something to do with harming over efforts simply to help people. Many Americans want to do good in the world, and that matters; the impulse to do good tinged with the guilt of having done ill in the past matters even more.

But how much sense does that make? Even in the moral framework, I think it’s tough to make the case for the pottery barn principle. (more…)

I just came across an interesting article in the Washington Post about Bill Richardson’s recent success in getting Sudan’s president, Bashir, to agree to a 60 day cease fire.  This could be nothing at all, considering the history of broken cease fire agreements in Sudan. Or it could actually be the beginning of something substantial.  I don’t know which it is, and I admit that I do have a bit of skepticism here.  However, what struck me most about this story was that Richardson went to Sudan as an individual state governor sent by an NGO, the Save Darfur Coalition, and basically had nothing to bargain away. 

Despite having no diplomatic standing it seems that he might have moved this process further than the Bush administration has been able to do in the past several months.  This, despite the appointment of Andrew Natsios as Bush’s special envoy to Sudan.  It really makes me wonder what kind of pressure the US is really placing on Sudan if a state governor can get a cease fire agreement without the authority to make any concessions.  Perhaps there’s more to Richardson’s visit than meets the eye.  But, my understanding is that he hasn’t been granted any special authority by the US government.  If that’s the case, with all the Bush administration’s strong rhetoric, why hadn’t we been able to get such an agreement sooner?  

As I said before, this agreement may not lead to anything.  But, it could be a step in the right direction.   If this is for real, it will be a tragedy that it took so long in coming. 

“Confidence Building Measures” is a term more commonly associated with international conflict than U.S. domestic politics, but at the dawn of a new political era in Washington, DC both the Republican President and the new Democratic Congress would be wise to consider employing this age old tactic.
 
Such measures are needed because the level of distrust, and distain, between the two parties is at an all time high and frankly the country cannot afford two more years of political sparring….not when Iraq threatens to become the most damaging intervention in U.S. history and not when we also need to focus on a slate of other incredibly serious foreign policy issues.
 
So what can the Administration and Congress agree on during the first weeks of 2007 in order to build the trust needed to tackle the top tier crises of our time?
 
First, the President could announce that he will host a high level White House meeting on Darfur for key legislators and foreign policy experts from inside and outside government. Darfur is a bipartisan concern and the President would show leadership if he were to convene a group that would be able to map out a comprehensive U.S. global engagement plan on Darfur. Symbolically he could ask Rep. Payne (D-NJ) and Sen. Brownback (R-KS) to co-chair the working sessions.
 
Second, Congress should pass and the President should sign into law, legislation that would create a task force on AIDS and Global Poverty co-chaired by former President’s George H. W. Bush and William J. Clinton tasked with developing a road map for the U.S. to play a leadership role in ensuring that the Millennium Development Goals are attained by 2015.  
 
Third, our elected officials should create an Independent Bipartisan Commission on Interrogation. After two failed efforts to effectively tackle the issue of interrogation it is past time that a broad range of experts are brought together and tasked with the duty of holistically looking at this issue and subsequently offering Congress and the President clear guidance as to changes in the law that need to be made. The experts would be drawn from the intelligence, foreign policy, law enforcement, military, veterans, legal and human rights community. Additional members could include representatives of the faith community, theologians, cultural specialists and historians.
 
Will these three confidence building measures be easy to accomplish? Unfortunately, in an indictment of Washington, DC circa 2006 the answer is no. However, in contrast to the top tier challenges to come these three measures are more easily attainable and would set a tone of cooperation for the final two years of the President’s term in office.
 
The country is facing a cluster of significant foreign policy challenges and needs the Administration and the Congress to work together – first they need to remember how this is done. 
 

Some of our readers may have seen PSA’s ad in the New York Times and Washington Post a few weeks ago on the topic of Darfur.  The ad served as a call to action for US policy makers to be more aggressive in restoring peace to western Sudan.  The ad also acknowledged the role the international community can and must play to facilitate the peace process.  It is this role that I’d like to direct my thoughts toward this afternoon.

The State Department finds itself taking the lead on a number of issues these days.  Iraq tops the list, followed by Iran and North Korea.  In South America, much of our diplomatic efforts are being spent on preventing Venezuela from taking the available seat on the Security Council.  And, though diplomatic efforts with Israel and its Arab neighbors have calmed down somewhat since the beginning of September, violence still threatens the region and, when it is necessary, the US will again take the lead. 

With so much on the agenda, the US has found it challenging to expend the time and resources that the Darfur Crisis deserves.  This is why it is so important for other countries to get more involved in the negotiations process.  President Bush has by no means forgotten Darfur, but with so many large-scale security threats around the world with which the US is so heavily involved, resolution of Darfur requires much more attention by other countries; namely Russia and China.  (more…)

I hope that everyone has had a chance to see PSA’s recent statement on the Darfur crisis.  Although this week much attention has understandably been focused on North Korea, I strongly believe that it is important that at the same time we don’t push other issues of enormous humanitarian concern to the sidelines. 

I’d like to highlight a report on Darfur that the International Crisis Group released on Thursday that lays out the different options in dealing with this conflict.  I think that they do an excellent job of evaluating the pros and cons of different choices.  What is clear is that there is much more that we could be doing.  The Darfur Peace and Accountability has finally been passed by the House and the Senate.  The President will be signing this in the next several days. However, this is only a starting point.  There are many more things that we could be doing to put pressure on the Sudanese government to allow in UN peacekeepers.  Many of these have already been supported by the UN Security Council.  So, I ask, what are we waiting for? 

In other news, I’m actually heading out to the Congo (DRC) on Monday and will be there for a month.  I’ll be serving an international election observer with the Carter Center.  It promises to be quite an interesting experience.  While I’m gone, Jordan Tama will be guest blogging for me.  I look forward to updating you on the situation on the ground in the Congo upon my return. 

George Packer has a pitch-perfect indictment of the latest round of inaction in Darfur, as a predictable spike in violence is/will be accompanied by a predictable round of condemnations, meetings, and failure to take effective action. His basic point: Africa is where everybody - meaning the U.S., Europe, the U.N., the Islamic world - has their gap between rhetoric and action exposed. We’re summoning greater and more timely outrage than we did with Rwanda, and still it makes little difference.

Africa and its tragedies - Darfur, Uganda, Congo, and on and on - simply cannot get the attention of western governments or the broad majorities of their public who would compel action. It does benefit from the attention of well-meaning celebrities, crusading jouranlists, and student activists, but there is a touch of condescension in this - that there is a status quo emerging where Africa is the domain of an international celebrity culture, and not institutions that could take more effective action (just look at the Clinton Global Initiative, where Bill Clinton is leading laudable efforts to solve problems in Africa after he has left the presidency).

Perhaps Packer’s most chilling statement is this: “But since when does the world listen to Africans? Unless Ivorians and Congolese start blowing themselves up in front of Western embassies and shops, it seems, their grievances won’t be taken seriously.” The implications of that statement are chilling in ways that the mind does not want to tackle.