There was a moment in 2005 when American democracy promotion efforts and national security interests seemed perfectly aligned. Syria announced its withdrawal from Lebanon; Egypt allowed contested elections for the first time in its history; elections were held in Palestine; and Iraq held parliamentary elections. A more secure, more democratic Middle East appeared to be only a matter of time. Then Hizbullah filled the void in Lebanon, leading to war with Israel. Egypt’s elections turned out to be a sham, and the government subsequently cracked down on the opposition. Hamas swept the elections in Palestine the following year, and Iraq was quickly mired in the deadliest year of its occupation. This swift reversal revealed that our democracy promotion efforts and our national security are linked in very complex, and sometimes contradictory, ways. Promoting democracy while protecting national security is always desirable, and in the long term those interests do indeed align. In the short term, however, we often have to make the difficult decision to prioritize one before the other. If we strike the right balance, we will be able to keep our country safe from immediate threats while laying the foundation for stable democracies in the future.

Today, the Middle East is, if anything, less stable than it was in 2005. The government in Iraq clings to the best news it can get—that the violence isn’t as bad as it used to be. In Afghanistan, NATO troops struggle to regain territory they controlled a few years ago and a corrupt government rules the country. The dream of a stable, democratic Middle East seems to be gone, replaced only with a desperate hope that we might be able to withdraw without triggering civil war. Democracy, if it is achievable in either country, will be a long, hard slog. (more…)

This is my last post for 2009 I thought I would write about Afghanistan but on second thought I will, no doubt, be doing that quite a lot during 2010. Thanks to the Obama Administration’s surge strategy Afghanistan will, from a blogging viewpoint, be the gift that keeps on giving.

So, as we contemplate whether 2010 will be better or worse let’s take a moment to consider 2009. In the spirit of Dave Barry’s classic annual year in review column let’s acknowledge, albeit with some poetic license commentary by moi, a few of the significant events that made, however briefly, the headlines.

Although it started on Dec. 28 2008 the month of January saw massive Israeli air strikes and a ground force invasion of the Gaza Strip. Heavy fighting took place in Gaza City between the Israeli forces and Hamas. At least 1300 Palestinians were killed. On Jan. 17 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced a unilateral ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, declaring that Israel has achieved the goals it set when launching the military operation. On Jan. 21 Israel completes its troop withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Also that month President Barack Obama signed executive orders closing the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year; closing the CIA’s secret prisons; requiring a review of military trials for terror suspects; and requiring all interrogations to follow the non-coercive methods specified in the Army Field Manual.

Of course, nobody knew back then that the camp would end up in Illinois. One can only hope that the inmates are not too acclimated to the Caribbean climate to adjust to a midwest winter.

On Jan 27 Hama declared that it previously was just kidding and broke the ceasefire by attacking an Israeli frontier patrol. Israel immediately responded that it lacks a sense of humor and renewed its air strikes on the Gaza Strip border with Egypt.

On Feb. 3 Iran launched its first domestically built satellite into orbit. Iran stated that the satellite is meant for research and telecommunications purposes, but Western states express concern that the technology could be used in the development of ballistic missiles. The U.S. intelligence community, estimating that Iran will show the same swift progress with its missiles that it did with its nuclear program, predicted the next flight will be in 2040.

On Feb. 6, renewing their classic rivalry, a British and a French nuclear submarine collided in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Political leaders from both countries sighed in relief that it was merely submarines and not their respective football fans that collided. (more…)

Earlier today, Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell presented the Obama administration’s new Burma policy, which includes engaging the Burmese military junta in high-level talks. This decision to directly engage the junta represents a major shift from past administrations, which chose to largely shun the repressive regime, maintaining the punitive sanctions that have been a cornerstone of U.S. policy towards the nation for years. Not that Obama is planning on abandoning sanctions altogether- instead, the new policy will combine engagement with sanctions, creating a “carrot and stick” enticement aimed at drawing the junta out of its feudal shell. Unfortunately, the U.S.’s new policy is unlikely to produce results, as the U.S. has no effective bargaining chips with which to influence the junta, whose primary goal is its own survival.  To make even a small impact in Burma, the U.S. must look for alternative routes for its foreign policy.

(more…)

Just a short post from me this morning. I wanted to share this interesting op-ed from New Mexico Gov Bill Richardson on peace in the Middle East. I’m in the camp of folks who believe Richardson can be a major asset to the Obama administration as it seeks to tackle an ever increasing number of foreign policy challenges. In this piece Richardson makes a strong case for Obama’s engagement:

It is clear that failure to address the enduring Arab-Israeli conflict severely impedes our ability to advance new interests in the Middle East. Those challenges are especially noteworthy as we look to begin strategic negotiations with Iran.

He goes on to outline the core of the President’s plan:

The president made it clear that the United States wants permanent status negotiations to begin without preconditions based on the parameters from past negotiations: security for Israel and Palestine, refugees, borders and Jerusalem. The president added that the United States seeks peace agreements on all fronts, including with Syria and Lebanon.

Anyway, I think it is a terrific piece — you can read the entire op-ed here.

Three months ago, at the conclusion of the fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, anti-American leftist leaders across Latin America were optimistically embracing President Obama’s commitment to a new “spirit of cooperation” with the region. But soon after the onset of the Honduran political crisis, what was heralded as a “renewed partnership of the Americas” appeared to be quickly unraveling. Less than an hour after the Honduran army descended on the presidential residency and whisked Manuel Zelaya away to Costa Rica in his pajamas, Hugo Chávez was already accusing the “Yankee empire” of having a hand in the ouster. Later that same day, Obama issued the following statement:

“I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya. As the Organization of American States did on Friday, I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference.”

Obama’s response was carefully worded. In calling for all actors to adhere to democratic norms and the rule of law, he made thinly veiled indictments of both the ousted president and the de facto government. But the administration’s main objective must be to ensure the security and wellbeing of the Honduran people – who are now faced with restricted trade, suspended aid, and deepening isolation – and that goal will be most easily reached through compromise. The precision of Obama’s language has made his position on two aspects of the crisis very clear – that both sides are partially at fault and that the conflict must conclude with a peacefully negotiated agreement. (more…)

The world has been transfixed by the drama surrounding the Iranian elections. Worryingly, the events of the weekend seem to suggest a move from an imperfect-but-functioning theocratic democracy to autocracy. Perhaps naively, many in the West and in Iran believed that Supreme Leader Khamenei would allow Mir Hussein Moussavi a largely fair chance at defeating Ahmadinejad at the ballot box. It is now clear that the Supreme Leader and the power elite in Iran do view Ahmadinejad as their man, and virtually no tactic, however draconian, is beyond consideration to keep him in the presidency.

It is this realization that has confirmed the skepticism many had about Moussavi in the first place. While viewed as closer to the reformist camp, Moussavi would have been president inside a system run by the Supreme Leader and his cohort. Powerful institutions in Iran, including the Revolutionary Guard, have institutional interests that are threatened by moves toward a more pragmatic foreign policy. Human rights problems and intransigence on the international stage were more likely than not to continue under Moussavi, albeit perhaps to a lesser extent.

(more…)

After President Obama delivered his speech in Cairo last week, some skeptics complained that he didn’t speak clearly enough about the importance of democracy in U.S. foreign policy. Of course, any such message would have been undermined by the mere fact of the United States’ decades long support for an undemocratic government in Egypt, and an even less democratic one in Saudi Arabia. Beyond that, the irony of delivering a speech in Cairo, and of Obama’s visit to Riyadh a day earlier, would have been too rich for most commentators to ignore. (For precisely this reason, several commentators both here and elsewhere questioned Obama’s choice of Egypt as a venue for his speech in the first place).

But the cognitive dissonance of those who would have the U.S. government actively promote democracy around the world, and who would have the President of the United States speak openly of his desire to overturn the established political order in dozens of places around the world, goes deeper still. Bush apparently never figured out that full-throated American support for would-be reformers often undermined their standing in the eyes of voters. Under the pro-democracy Bush, the relatively more pro-American politicians in, for example, the Palestinian Authority, Iraq, and, Lebanon, all fared poorly.

Bush speeches were often marked by sweeping assertions and moral clarity. Obama, however, is the master of subtlety. He mentioned neither Lebanon nor Hezbollah in his Cairo speech. Likewise, the name “Ahmadinejad” never passed his lips, and yet, when the president accurately characterized Holocaust denial as “baseless”, “ignorant”, “hateful” the obvious mental image in the minds of hundreds of millions of listeners was of a certain skinny, bearded man in a Members Only jacket, arguably the most famous Holocaust denier in the world.

(more…)

Some have been critical of President Obama’s choice to give his upcoming speech to the Muslim world in Egypt.  Critics point to Egypt’s history of autocratic rule.  They ask, won’t Obama’s speech just be validating a regime that for decades has silenced dissidents and has refused to embrace the type of democratic rule that is so needed throughout the Muslim world?  Wouldn’t the President have been better served by choosing a Muslim country such as Indonesia that has embraced democracy and espouses an exceptionally tolerant version of Islam.

Yes, if the purpose of this speech was to highlight a Muslim ideal of democratic governance, there certainly would be better candidates than Egypt.  That, however, would miss the point.  Just as candidate Obama argued during his campaign that we don’t get anywhere by refusing to talk to those who disagree with us, President Obama was right to make his address in a Muslim country that doesn’t necessarily meet the American ideal.  If you only talk with those who agree with you, it’s easy to make headway.  The real challenge is reaching out to those who are skeptical – those who might disagree.  Nixon going to China didn’t mean that Nixon approved of the Chinese form of government.  Looking at it from this vantage point – Egypt seems like a much better choice.

President Obama should, of course, use this speech to make it clear that Islam and democracy can peacefully coexist.  This will mean not tip toeing around the authoritarian practices of Egypt’s government.  Fortunately, President Obama’s past history of addressing difficult issues head on whether  speaking about abortion at a Catholic University or the issue of race and his controversial pastor is an encouraging sign for this important speech.  Hopefully, he’ll continue this tradition of addressing the difficult issues head on and not give the Egyptian leadership a pass. (more…)

From day one, there has been rampant speculation about what will test Obama on foreign policy.  Iran and North Korea come up frequently as countries that could force Obama into a crisis situation.  However, I think that another country may be the real test of the fledgling Obama doctrine:  Burma.

Aung San Suu Kyi went on trial last week.  Her crime is allowing an American trespasser, John Yettaw, who swam to her isolated house uninvited, to spend a night in her guest room.  This violated the rules of her house arrest, which she has been under for years.  The house arrest was about to end and conventional wisdom holds that the Burmese generals who rule the country would have trumped up some reason to keep her under lock and key.  Yettaw just saved them the trouble of having to make something up.

The U.S. has condemned the trial, just as we have condemned every action by the ruling junta since they took control of the country decades ago.  The Administration also announced that sanctions would continue on Burma for at least another year, by which time I assume the announced U.S. review of Burma policy will be complete.  The question is what could possibly change.

(more…)

The newest addition to the American Idol pantheon is Kris Allen, and not the multi-talented Adam Lambert. Millions of fans were heartbroken, but Adam seemed to take it well. Either way, it was bound to be a close race and another record-setting vote by American Idol fans. After all, every new season of the show has brought new record vote tallies, as more viewers register their preferences by text message, and more of them vote multiple times.

Last night’s tally, we were told, came in just under 100 million, an average of between 2 and 3 votes for every one of the almost 40 million viewers. That’s just shy of the 130 million votes cast in the 2008 general election, and even on a one-vote-per-customer basis, it rivals totals for the hotly contested Democratic presidential primary. Most importantly, as fans of both Adam and Kris would agree, the selection process was fair, transparent, and got people’s attention.

American Idol may not be a perfect direct democracy in action, but in some respects I think Simon, Randy, Paula, and Kara could teach us a lot about how to make our democracy better and more interesting. Here are just a few of American Idol’s lessons for American democracy: (more…)