Today, Ben Smith (via Toby Harnden) let us know that Mark Tuohey is likely to be named the NI envoy by President Obama. This seems to be a good fit, Harnden let us know that Tuohey’s credentials include the fact that he “advised the Patten Commission on policing – a subject that remains a thorny issue in Northern Ireland.” Smith also suggests that the President “heard” the concerns raised by the Irish-American community when they responded negatively to “candidate Obama’s” suggestion that an envoy would not be needed. Whether that is true or not, as far as I’m concerned, this appointment is a good move from the President and worthy of praise. Having said all of that, it is also fair to say that this decision got me thinking about another part of the world I care about – Africa.

It struck me today that there are other regions of the world where the need to name an envoy is probably more acute than NI. One area that comes to mind immediately is Sudan/Darfur and another is the Congo.

Now, I understand that the question of an envoy for Sudan/Darfur is under active consideration within the administration (Darfur activist and actor George Clooney noted that a review was under way last month after his White House meeting with the President and Vice President) and Sen. Clinton suggested today that an appointment would be made within days.

This is without question good news, but as I read today’s announcement, which comes on the heels of important policy steps and appointments re: the Middle East and Central-South Asia, I was left with a feeling that the administration is falling behind the curve when it comes to Africa.

I wanted to test this sentiment and spoke to a few friends and colleagues with an Africa focus and it is fair to say that there is a growing sense among progressive foreign policy types that the administration’s Africa policy and appointments are in fact behind schedule.

Perhaps this critique seems harsh considering we are still within the first 100 days so let me be clear about one thing. I absolutely believe that the President has a lot on his plate and his priorties must be the economy, energy and Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan. BUT it is also important to note that the President has built an all-star foreign policy team precisely, one would suspect, to ensure active engagement in areas where he cannot focus at this time.

If you believe that this true, and I do, it seems fair to say that the President is being let down a little by his team. During the campaign he laid out his approach to a range of Africa centric challenges and now his team needs to build on that vision. It is time for the Secretary of State and the foreign policy group to develop and execute not only a Darfur/ Sudan policy but a broader strategy for Africa as quickly as possible – there are a range of crises that require US led multilateral attention quickly including those in Sudan/Darfur, the Congo, Somalia and Zimbabwe.

No related posts.

The challenge for the Obama administration is to leverage the pressure the court’s action will bring to bear on the Sudanese leader. I would like to see the administration publicly support the arrest warrant and make clear that the U.S. will not sit idly by if any member of the Security Council – notably China – attempts to shield Mr. al-Bashir. I’d also like to see the administration name a special envoy to take charge of the Sudan/Darfur issue (there are a number of attractive options but I’d urge the President to choose Gov. Richardson, who has worked this issue in the past, to serve).

An envoy would be in a position to take advantage of the space created by the ICC and push for a comprehensive peace agreement. Such an agreement would likely include: 

A long-term U.N. peacekeeping group in the region.
Complete demilitarization of the militia groups.
Governance concessions by the Sudanese central authorities.
Transfer of two other alleged war criminals – former Minister of State for the Interior Ahmed Haroun and janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb – to the ICC. 

The ICC has created some space – let’s hope the administration can use it.

Related posts:

1. Goodbye to 2009: The year in review

Just a short post from me this morning. The Baltimore Sun just ran an op-ed I co-authored with my friend Howard Salter titled “Will Obama Act to End Darfur Tragedy?” In the piece we consider whether the administration will look to leverage the forthcoming arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir  to secure a peace agreement for Darfur. 

Our piece has come out on the same day as this Washington Times editorial which urges the President to shun the Court. I’m not shocked at the stance taken by the WT but am curious to see what take my fellow bloggers and visitors to ATA have on this issue.

Cheers

No related posts.

Friends – I hope you find this joint effort with my friend Amjad Atallah of interest. Amjad is the Director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation.

International Justice Systems and the Muslim World: Why Bashir is Wrong 

by Raj Purohit, and Amjad Atallah

If the International Criminal Court (ICC) issues an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in February, it will certainly be met by a volley of criticism from the accused as he continues to frame the ICC as a tool of the west in its fight against the Muslim world. Al-Bashir can be expected to use the world-wide revulsion over the civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip to deflect attention from his own crimes. 

However, human rights activists should not cede ground to Mr. al-Bashir and his allies on this issue; instead they should embrace a debate centered on the relationship between international justice and the Arab and Muslim worlds while maintaining a moral consistency across every conflict that highlights the inviolability of every civilian life. 

In fact, current developments within the international justice system paint a more complex picture than the one illustrated by Mr. Bashir. While it is true that the accused in this instance is a Muslim, his supporters try to ignore the fact that the victims of his actions are entirely Muslim civilians living in the Darfur region of Sudan. 

Beyond Darfur and the ICC, a crucial part of the debate around international justice and the Muslim world should be centered on the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). At present the ICTY is conducting a trial of the Bosnian Serb ultranationalist Radovan Karadzic, who was the chief architect of the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia during the Yugoslav war in the mid 1990’s. Karadzic’s victims were primarily Bosnian Muslim civilians, but included Bosnian and Croatian Catholics, as well as other supporters of a multi-ethnic state. 

Sudan/Darfur and Yugoslavia/Bosnia; the victims in each case share at least one commonality, they are primarily Muslim, a fact that does not fit the narrative of al-Bashir and his sympathizers.  So does the fact that these two tribunals are responding to crimes against Muslims prove that Mr. Bashir is wrong and consequently negate the need for a dialogue? Hardly.

The work of these tribunals should be the entry point for both rebutting the likes of Mr. Bashir and for a more holistic discussion of why his comments are received with such credence in the Muslim world. It is important to note that Muslim critics are not attacking the concept of justice itself, but the concept of selective justice.  An international justice mechanism, for example, that fails to take note when a government is engaged in war-crimes if it is allied with major western powers would be hard pressed to be taken seriously as an objective court.

Mr. Bashir has effectively manipulated those concerns with some success. Illustratively, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) called an emergency meeting after the ICC prosecutor announced that he was targeting Mr. Bashir. The OIC responded by calling for the case to be suspended and noted, in part, that the ICC’s credibility would be challenged by “any kind of selectivity and double standards in the application of principles of criminal justice…”

To respond to such sentiments, international justice activists must respond by painting a more complete picture of tribunal activity, take steps to bring the issue of justice closer to the victims, and specifically discuss how alleged limitations in objectively addressing crimes can be overcome. But they also need to point out the fallacy at the heart of the OIC complaint.

There is an obvious absurdity to the argument that as long as anyone can commit a war-crime, everyone should be allowed to commit a war-crime.  For example, if there are crimes that the OIC believes need to be investigated, those countries should sign and ratify the Rome Statute, and bring evidence of these crimes to the attention of prosecutors.  Only if they were ignored can they make the argument that the process is fundamentally unfair.  

It is important to recognize that a true breakthrough in the way in which international justice systems are viewed, and function, may require more time and more cases. Perhaps we will need to wait until the public in the Muslim world see more cases that do not involve those who share their faith, or see cases of leaders allied with major powers brought forward. 

It might take ICC cases from countries such as Colombia and Georgia to illustrate that these tribunals are global in nature and can be part of the solution. But in the meantime, justice activists need to point out that even if every war criminal in the world is not brought to justice immediately, there is importance in beginning the process.  And if the majority of victims of those who are indicted are Muslim, then Muslim leaders should be among the first to provide support to these international mechanisms, not become apologists for the Karadzics and Bashirs of the world. 

Related posts:

1. Goodbye to 2009: The year in review

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.”

Here are the five questions, in the form of a “score card” for tonight’s debate.  While moderator Jim Lehrer may not ask about each of these issues specifically, ninety minutes is long enough for each candidate to lay out his core ideas for America’s future in the world.  If a candidate fails to address an issue altogether, that’s worth 0 points.  With an opportunity to score up to thirty points on these issues, let’s see who comes out ahead:

Question 1:  As President, how would you strengthen international cooperation to prevent nuclear capabilities from falling into dangerous hands and turn our current failing grade into an “A”?

1 point: Mentions 9/11 Commission Recommendations, port security, or nuclear detection devices.

2 points: Talks about international cooperation to lock down loose nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union.

3 points: Identifies the long term goal of bringing a wide range of US and international interests on WMD non-proliferation into alignment, especially under the aegis of UN Security Council Resolution 1540, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Question 2:  What alternative fuel, energy efficiency, and emissions reduction policies would you seek to implement nationally and internationally by the end of your first term as President in January 2013?

1 point: Mentions biofuels, wind, solar, nuclear and other renewables.

2 points: Suggests a comprehensive plan including new materials research, and practical incentives for individuals and businesses to reduce wasteful consumption by increasing efficiency.

3 points: Mentions upcoming Copenhagen (Kyoto II) summit and says he will work to bring developing economies like China and India into line with developed-world energy efficiency standards by a realistic date.

Question 3:  How will you elevate both the level and effectiveness of US government development spending to advance our national security and foreign policy goals?

1 point: Mentions 9/11 Commission recommendations on aid and outreach to Muslim countries, recognizing linkage between desperate poverty, failed states, and threats to US national security.

2 points: Acknowledges long-term problems created by current US food aid policies, which are too slow to act, and can flood local markets, inhibiting recovery.  Endorses President Bush’s commitment to spend more of US food aid dollars on local purchases.

3 points: Proposes significant increase in US development spending, especially in Africa, along with reorganization of aid policies and agencies to ensure a coordinated approach to development, conflict prevention and promotion of democracy.

Question 4:  How will you reaffirm America’s global leadership in promoting human rights and the rule of law around the world?

1 point: Calls for an absolute prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in US custody.

2 points: Notes that the US still owes the United Nations more than $1 billion in unpaid dues and commits to pay up now and in the future.

3 points: Promises to apply unwavering pressure through the UN Security Council to strengthen the peacekeeping and genocide prevention mission in Darfur.  Endorses the Responsibility to Protect-an international law doctrine that obligates states to intervene to prevent genocide.

Question 5:  As President, how will you actively engage China while encouraging it to become a stronger stakeholder in the international system?

1 point: Acknowledges that a productive US-China relationship is important for US interests in the 21^st Century.

2 points: Proposes increasing US-China cooperation in bilateral, regional and international forums, while at the same time making our concerns about Chinese human rights, economic and security policies clear, and backing our words with appropriate leverage.

3 points: Suggests ways the US can encourage China to direct its growing national power to constructive global leadership on shared global security interests like preventing terrorism, WMD proliferation, genocide, and state failure.

Well, how did the candidates do?  I’ll post my own tally and analysis of the candidates’ scores on these pages, but I’m interested in others’ comments and reactions!

Related posts:

1. Obsession with Nuclear Deterrent Doesn’t Add Up
2. Should We Engage Iran Out of the NPT?
3. Obama Takes a Long View of Missile Defense

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.”

Russian cooperation is essential for Western objectives on WMD non-proliferation, peace and stability in the Middle East and Central Asia, energy security, and combating international organized crime, to name just a few top policy priorities. But flush with newfound mineral wealth and confidence born of a resurgent central government, Moscow seems poised to extract a high price for cooperation with the West on these issues. Moreover, the Kremlin has effectively taken any Western efforts to encourage domestic political reform totally off the table. What are we going to do about it?

That’s where the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi might play a very valuable role. The West’s approach to Beijing on Darfur was clumsy and disorganized. We waited too long to exert significant pressure and we failed to speak with one voice. As a result, we put the Chinese in a position to lose face whether they cooperated with us or not. But we have the opportunity to try a different approach with Russia on Sochi.

Starting in 2009, the next US President, in concert with European allies, should put forth a set of positive incentives for cooperation with Russia on a timetable culminating in the 2014 games. For example, the West can offer full normalization of trade relations and Russian accession to the WTO in exchange for Russia’s commitment to spend a significant portion of its massive state oil and gas revenues on securing remaining WMD facilities and helping to find long-term alternative employment for WMD scientists. We can offer to promote the Russia-NATO Council to a much higher profile within the alliance, and even give Russia a say in NATO expansion, if Moscow applies and maintains pressure to halt Iranian nuclear enrichment. And we could propose Russian leadership of the Council of Europe, if it committed to a major reform of its police and court system consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Those are the carrots. The stick, obviously, is a Western boycott of the Sochi Winter Olympics. A boycott would be a crushing blow to Russia, struck in the one area where it remains genuinely vulnerable to international opinion. But let us not merely hope that Russia cooperates when cooperation is needed, and haphazardly fling boycott threats in its face if it does not. Rather, let us forge a unified policy now, setting out clear incentives for cooperation, a timeline, and an equally clear and enforceable consequence for failure to cooperate.

With China, the West undermined its own leverage by so wantonly and disjointedly threatening boycotts of the Beijing Olympics that we effectively applied a wilted stick to deny the carrot. With Russia, the carrots should be openly and explicitly offered, and the stick reserved until absolutely necessary.

Related posts:

1. Russia: whose strategic partner?
2. Obsession with Nuclear Deterrent Doesn’t Add Up
3. The US-Russia-Ukraine Triangle

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.

Related posts:

1. 9/11/09
2. Zimbabwe’s Dirty Diamond Revenue: Approving Zimbabwe’s diamonds under the Kimberley Process will hinder political change
3. We all played a role in the oil spill

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. 

Of course, this desire to be a major player is complicated by Beijing’s unquenchable thirst for energy and its seeming willingness to turn a blind eye to violence perpetrated by its suppliers.  Many have wondered whether China will begin to accept the international responsibilities that come along with global influence. 

What’s amazing is that soon after Spielberg and Farrow placed pressure on Beijing on the Darfur issue, Zhai Jun was dispatched to Sudan to place pressure on Khartoum to accept a UN peacekeeping force.  Wouldn’t you know it, just yesterday, Khartoum agreed to the deployment of 3,000 UN peacekeepers and accompanying helicopter gunships.  Certainly this is not to say that the only reason for Khartoum’s change of heart is Chinese pressure.  The UN has been actively negotiating with Khartoum and the US has been threatening “Plan B”.  However, I don’t believe Khartoum’s acceptance of 3,000 troops right after a Chinese visit is coincidental. We must not underestimate the influence that China has. 

Of course, we’ve seen this before from Khartoum.  They seem to acquiesce but then raise later objections that nullify their agreements.   I expect a similar response now.  What we can learn from this, however, is that there are effective pressure points.  The US, itself, may not have tremendous influence over Khartoum’s actions.  The Chinese, however, clearly can make a difference.  We should maintain pressure directly on the Chinese, in light of their desire to be positioned in a positive light for the upcoming Olympics.  If Sudan renegs, as it likely will, we should consider actions such as a boycott.  Some may say that this is too dramatic and that China is not the real adversary here.  However, China’s consumption of Sudanese oil allows the massacre in Darfur to continue.  The Chinese have the leverage to make the killing stop.  If they are unwilling to continue to use that leverage, they should be held accountable. 

What is tragic is that the US government, which has talked a big talk on Darfur, has been shown up by two Hollywood celebrities. 

No related posts.

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.I think the basic moral claim is that Americans are so much better off than others that we should try to help them. We can afford to use some of our vast wealth for that charitable purpose. We can debate whether the government should have a role in that decision (compared to private charity), whether military means are suitable (compared to economic ones, for example, where people are less likely to get coerced or killed), etc. But Americans, including me, really do respond to appeals for charity.

At TPM Café’s America Abroad blog, Justin Traub recently blogged about his struggle to decide what to do in international affairs (especially Iraq) once he decided that the Hippocratic Oath would not offer moral guidance. He argues that “Do No Harm” cannot guide us in Iraq, because all of our options in Iraq are ugly. So he then raises a number of good ethical questions — but in the background, he’s feeling guilty about Iraq. His assumption is that the U.S. has a particular need to “mitigate the harm” and “apportion it between the Iraqis and ourselves.” I think he doesn’t have the right overall framework.

Why does the moral claim of an Iraqi automatically rise to the very top of the American priority list? There are many places in the world where we can help people, many places where people are suffering terribly. In many of those places, they actually want our help to make their lives better, while many people in Iraq primarily want American help to vanquish their political opponents. Part of the reason that we have such morally ambiguous choices in Iraq is that our partners don’t share our morals. But we have many choices of partners in the world who are closer to our own morals — who won’t use additional resources to engage in sectarian violence against their neighbors. And so in those cases, we can take some moral action — engage in our charitable impulse — while following (at least more closely) the Hippocratic Oath. We only need to do at least some harm (choosing the least bad option) because we choose to commit our resources to an especially wicked problem, the situation in Iraq.

It also seems quite reasonable to me to combine Americans’ charitable impulse with Americans’ pragmatism and practicality. Why not consider the likely effectiveness of various foreign policy actions as part of the moral decision-making? Within that part of our international engagement that is driven by the desire to make others better off, why not choose policy targets (and parts of the world) where our assistance, dollar for dollar, is most likely to succeed? Even worse than dollar for dollar, we should consider the possibilities in terms of the lives of aid-workers and soldiers. Why choose to aid suffering people where the aid is least likely to be effective rather than to aid suffering people where the aid is most likely to be effective? Sure, intentions matter in the moral calculus: I have to want to help people to get moral credit. But surely the results matter, too: the best intentions that helped no one are not as “good” as good intentions that actually did result in alleviating suffering.

With respect to Iraq, Traub points out that “It’s so easy to foresee the wreckage, and so hard to imagine anything like a safe landing.” But he’s still asking the wrong question. We see wreckage and struggle to imagine a safe landing, but really what we need to imagine is the likelihood that various American actions will contribute to the safe landing. And that’s much harder to see.

As an aside, at least Bush’s surge strategy for Iraq tells a story about how it will get to a safe landing — admitting that we will infantilize the Iraqi security forces in the short term because stability is more important for now. But the strategy also hides the fact that Americans will be asked to commit terrible acts of violence in the short term in order to impose stability, asked to cooperate with Shiite militias who we are only gently asking to disarm while we aggressively attack Sunni groups, and asked to simply hope that short-term stability is, in fact, what matters most in a country of people who have intense differences of interest about which they are more than willing to fight and kill.

Traub’s next bit gets a lot right about civil wars:

Perhaps nothing will matter as much as we think: I’ve written elsewhere that civil wars have the internal dynamic of forest fires, and tend to rage on until they run out of fuel.

The point is that U.S. intervention is unlikely to do much to control the Iraqi killing. Our moral choice is not about Iraqi killing. It’s about who we can help around the world. We’re not doing good in Iraq now. It’s hard to make the case that 20,000 more American soldiers in Baghdad will allow enough block-by-block policing to put a complete stop to sectarian killing. I don’t see us as likely to even manage to suppress much violence there. But I’m sure that, if we want to decide our foreign policy on moral grounds, there are other things at which we would be much more likely to succeed. People need clean water, vaccinations, etc. Why not help them?

Even though I doubt that aid is the answer, and I especially doubt that military aid is the answer, I feel pretty strongly that I can do better with imperfect tools in many places than I can in Iraq. Guilt — the pottery barn principle — should not lead me to abandon alternative moral principles, my altruistic urge to help people about whom I don’t feel guilty, and my commitment to effectiveness not just intentions.

Related posts:

1. Goodbye to 2009: The year in review
2. The red corvette of international affairs
3. Nothing is Too Good for Our Boys, Redux

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. 

No related posts.