You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'diplomacy' tag.
America has a long history of involving itself militarily around the world. Our primary justification for military action is always the protection of the citizens of the United States from harm from external forces. We also justify wars by claiming to protect the rights and wellbeing of citizens of other nations who cannot successfully fight for themselves.
By providing ethical motives for our military presence abroad, our government rationalizes most everything we do. Daniel Volman, director of the African Security Research Project, recently spoke at John Hopkins University here in D.C. and argued quite effectively that we may need to question these motives.
Mr. Volman studies the evolution and activities of AFRICOM, the U.S. military command in Africa. He believes that a significant amount of why we are militarily present in Africa has to do with our reliance on African oil supplies. He notes the correlation between our increased military action in Africa in the last decade and our increased need for African oil. (The U.S. intelligence community predicts that the U.S. will be receiving 20% of its foreign oil supplies from Africa by 2015.)
Until about 10 years ago, Africa was quite marginal from the point of view of the Pentagon. As it became clear that we would come to rely on resources from the continent much more heavily than we had in the past, the need to protect those resources, and our access to them, became increasingly vital.
Guest post from Ruhi Shamim
As a 2008 “Innovators in Cultural Diplomacy” fellow, an initiative brought to you by Americans for Informed Democracy (www.aidemocracy.org), I gained a deeper understanding of the current progressive Muslim American identity movement. While the identity issue at hand has personal significance to me as a Muslim American, it is my commitment to the bigger picture of an inclusive, diverse democracy that fuels my work in this field.
My initiative, “The Crescent Project” was developed in response to the need to organize the Muslim community on my campus based on a common principle of open dialogue that did not exclude self-identified Muslims who have diverse views, practices, and experiences. I reached out to upperclassmen who have achieved leadership positions in a variety of aspects of the university culture (athletics, student government, grassroots organizing, the arts, the sciences, etc..) and who also represent the diversity of the Muslim experience (Black Muslims, International Students, Shi’as, Sufis, Converts, Secular Muslims…) to create a network of support for incoming freshman who are negotiating identity questions upon arriving at college. We wanted to encourage Muslim youth to be engaged in the university community without being pigeon-holed as the token Muslim and without giving up their connection to the Muslim identity and heritage. Through this project, we created open dialogue for alternate views and a forum for active community engagement.
In the almost two weeks since President Barack Obama has been inaugurated there has been much speculation and debate on the strategy that he will pursue with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Countless bloggers, analysts, and talking heads each have their own personal solution for how and when the new President should approach the Iranian leadership, about whether or not he should impose preconditions, and even about how far Iran is from producing a nuclear weapon. Among all of this important and worthwhile debate, a different story caught my eye this week (although I did find Roger Cohen of the International Herald Tribune to be particularly insightful). The key player in this story was neither a policy analyst nor a political operative; it was the well known travel writer Rick Steves.
Steves is the host of his own travel television show on PBS and he recently filmed an episode about Iran in an attempt to promote understanding between the U.S. and Iran. I have not yet viewed the show itself but Steve’s travel blog describes his experiences and insights. Some of his observations are cliché to the point of almost being insensitive, for example when he notes, “when I travel, I’m struck by how people—regardless of the shapes of their noses—are so similar the world over”. One would hope that, as a travel writer, Steves would have stopped making assumptions about people based on their physical appearance a long time ago. However, despite the occasional platitude, I found Steve’s description of his trip to be very interesting. He appears to have made a genuine effort to explore Iran beyond the usual tourist sites and to connect with ordinary, every-day Iranians. He also seems to have tried to portray Iran completely and fairly (a rare occurrence in American media coverage of Iran): filming the anti-American murals but also stating, “I have never traveled to a place where I had such an easy and enjoyable time connecting with people”.
Steve’s most touching insight comes from his trip to a Martyrs’ Cemetery, one of the burial places of the millions of young men who died in the Iran-Iraq war. Observing the profound loss suffered by Iran during that conflict he reflects, “it would be dangerously naive for America to think we could “shock & awe” those people”.
Steves concludes by focusing on the similarities between Iranian and American society, noting that “[p]oliticians come and go, but the people are here to stay”. This message of commanalities rather than differences and of dialogue rather than the “us versus them” mentality is an important one. I am glad that Steves has brought this perspective to American television viewers and I hope that it will be the begining of an increased interest in cultural sharing and dialogue with Iran.
Pirates have long been subjects of fascination and intrigue in the Western literary imagination. Authors have published accounts of looting, mustach
ed, one-legged bandits toiling over treacherous waters in such epic masterpieces as “Peter Pan.” But in Somalia, where many forge a living by capturing commercial cargo ships in the Indian Ocean, the motives for pursuing a life of piracy aren’t so romantic.
Reports of Somali pirates hijacking foreign ships have circulated through the news quite frequently in the past few months. Last September, for example, the New York Times’ Jeffrey Gettleman reported a band of Somali pirates snatched a Ukrainian arms vessel headed for Kenya. Much of the article delved into the details of the attack, the great conundrums that Somali piracy presents for the international community and African law-making bodies, as well as the deviance of the criminals responsible for the attack. Gettleman describes the pirates in the following manner:
“The gun-toting, seafaring thieves, who routinely pounce on cargo ships bobbing along on the Indian Ocean, suddenly found themselves in command of a vessel crammed with $30 million worth of grenade launchers, piles of ammunition, even battle tanks.”
While his word choice certainly grabs the reader’s attention, the analysis provided notably fails to examine driving forces behind the growing trend of Somali piracy. Might there be reasons beyond an assumed natural affinity to lawlessness and violence? What of the public perception of piracy as a form of national defense among Somalis?
Much to the ire of the United States and Russia, the pirates refused to turn over the Ukrainian ship, claiming the charged ransom money was to be used to fund public service projects to clean up toxic waste along the Somali coast. That is, uranium radioactive waste European and Asian companies have dumped in Somali waters for over a decade. Yes, the same Europe that is crying foul each time Somali pirates attack. Not to mention that foreign powers have been illegally draining Somali fisheries and other marine resources since 2000.
Mainstream news outlets also fail to mention the devastating poverty and weak rule of law that has drawn many Somalis to piracy as a means of livelihood. Without a reliable government or a functioning economy, most Somalis end up desperate for a means of income.
In other words, it seems convenient for the international community to dismiss Somali pirates as third-rate thugs. But, it would prove more constructive for major world powers to address the bloody conflict with U.S.-backed Ethiopian forces that has been ripping through Somalia for the past nineteen years. A thoughtful letter to the editor for the UK’s Financial Times pointed out that over the past two years, battles between the Somalis and U.S.-backed Ethiopian troops have resulted in the displacement of one million and the death of 10,000 Somali citizens. Locked in violence and pandemonium, Somalis have increasingly turned to less conventional industries, such as piracy, as a means of survival and way to exercise power over the terms of their own lives.
What can the world’s major powers do? For one, the United States should stop its funding and support of Ethiopia’s invasion and violation of Somalia’s territorial integrity. In addition, wildly hazardous, health-threatening toxic waste dumping on the part of European and Asian companies should cease. Finally, as per usual, diplomatic intervention and humanitiarian aid will go much farther than bellicose rhetoric and short-sighted interventionist policies in stemming the Somali piracy problem.
Oh, and the illegal usurpation and abuse of a sovereign country’s resources and territory have never been the best way to stamp out crime.
The analyst observes the US and Iran meeting on May 28, 2007 as a great diplomatic move for peace and security in Iraq. For the first time since 1979, the two countries met for a direct talk over security issues in Iraq. The meeting focused on possible ways to cooperate for a stable Iraq. Both delegations acknowledged that a stable Iraq was in their interests. The most interesting point of the negotiations explored the possibility to have Iran cooperate with Iraq and the US over security matters in Iraq.
This meeting represents a symbolic step for the improvement of the relations between Tehran and Washington. Whatever speculations follow that meeting, Washington should capitalize on it because it provides a helpful opportunity to cooperate with Iran over peace and security in Iraq. Cooperation with Iran over Iraq could be a powerful signal for cooperation over broader issues including nuclear weapons. With the hope that the two sides will follow up the results of the negotiations, the analyst could hypothesize that this meeting between Iran and the US translates a progressive triumph of diplomacy.
Jacques KOKO, Senior Political Analyst -Americans for Informed Democracy
Following recent developments in the US foreign policy orientation to Iran, the analyst is tempted to hypothesize that the Bush Administration faces a dilemma of intimidation and diplomacy regarding Iran. Official documents and media reports indicate the US resistance to have direct talks with Iran. BBC reports that "the US has had no formal ties with Iran since the 1979 Iranian revolution". The Bush Administration publicly echoes Washington’s tough positon on Iran whenever they have the opportunity to do so. US Vice-President Dick Cheney follows this logic of toughness and intimidation when he warns Iran over its programs of developing nuclear weapons and restricting sea traffics.
However, early May 2007, at a recent international conference about Iraq, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly met with Iran’s foreign Minister. Even though official reports stressed that such a meeting did not mean a direct talk with Iran, political analysis observes that US move as a strategic indicator of the US progressive inclination to direct dialogue with Iran. Evidences in international negotiations demonstrate and support that a simple meeting (whether it is short or long) is a powerful symbol that annonces conflicting parties’ willingness to enter negotiation phases, after they have reached a stalemate.
The US has interests in negotiating with Iran for peace in Iraq and in the Middle-East. A certain awareness of historical ties built by the Ottoman Empire does not allow the policymaker to isolate Iraq from Iran. Iraq was the political and cultural heart of the Ottoman Empire, while Iran was like the body of it. In the same way there is crisis when the heart is separated from the rest of the body, the crisis in Iraq will continue as long as Iran is not involved on the table for national problem-solving in Iraq. Obvisously, the Iraqi crisis fuels crisis and instability in the Middle-East. The EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is aware of such reality when he recently urged Washington to engage in direct talks with Tehran. It is extremely important that the Bush Administration gives full priority to diplomacy. Vice-President Dick Cheney’s ongoing visit in the Gulf intends to ask allies such as Saudi Arabia to help the Iraqi government. Such diplomatic offensives are positive and commendable. Nevertheless, they still desperately need to be extended to Iran and Syria in order to be efficient and successful. Only humble diplomacy can foster peace in Iraq and stability in the Middle-East.
Jacques KOKO, Senior Political Analyst -Americans for Informed Democracy
I am afraid to hypothesize that the conventional wisdom that has fed the US foreign policy-making in recent years has relied on the use of non-democratic means to try to impose democracy and quell terrorism. Non-democratic strategies manifest in the use of force and result in war and political chaos that weaken international peace and global security. The case of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq represents a typical illustration. There is no need to expand on this here. Media sources provide excellent analysis and factual details on the issue at stake. With recent developments on the ground in Iraq, policymakers ought to understand and accept that non-democratic means cannot serve democracy successfully and consistently. The more troops are on the ground in Iraq, the more increase of sectarian violence leading the country to the shadow of civil war as the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan recently warned. The end does not justify the means in this case because the use of force simply betrays democracy.
Only diplomacy can truly serve democracy with success and sustainability. Let us hope that the Bush Administration is on their way to embrace the wisdom of fully using diplomatic means to promote democracy and global security and peace. The analyst could interpret recent diplomatic offensives by the Bush Administration, following the massive loss of the Republican Party during the November 2006 elections, as the early warnings of a strategic paradigm shift in foreign policy orientation by President Bush’s White House. As a result, real politics would acknowledge and revere the soft and constructive power of diplomatic solutions. It might be though to understand how diplomacy can still reconstruct what real politics has destroyed. Real politics might challenge the thought that negotiations will succeed where the use of force has generated confusion and failed into sectarian violence. However, if we are able to reach out to local Middle-East role-players such as Iran and Syria for dialogue and cooperation, the diplomat would happily hypothesize that we are heading the right way for peace in Iraq.
Multi-Track diplomacy requires relying on local capacity for problem-solving. In such logic it is of paramount importance that Iran and Syria are invited to the "club" in contributing to national problem-solving in Iraq. History demonstrates that Iran and Syria represent key players in the Middle-East politics and culture. To some extent, lessons learned from the Ottoman Empire suggest that Iraq represents the heart of the Middle-East. The heart cannot be isolated from the rest of the body without experiencing hemorrhage and organic crisis causing systemic troubles because it shares the same blood and life than the rest of the body. Iraq needs to reconnect with the Middle-East by rebuilding on its close systemic links with Iran and Syria. Any democratic policy-making might need to take those parameters into consideration for peace in Iraq and for international security.
Jacques KOKO, Senior Political Analyst -Americans for Informed Democracy
