You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'US foreign policy' tag.
While many the world over continue to celebrate the election of an African American to the highest post in U.S. government, participants in the IV People’s Summit are waiting for more than rhetoric and token reformist changes.
While President Obama may be saying the right things, in the eyes of many, he has yet to confront the systemic oppression that U.S. foreign policy has afflicted on Latin America and the Caribbean for decades, if not centuries.
Easing the travel ban on Cuban Americans is not enough, they want an end to the blockade against Cuba and the state’s readmission to the OAS. They want a foreign policy for the 21st century, not tired ideological battles of the Cold War.
Half a million in increased foreign aid and increased lines of credit will do little if economic and governmental structures are not changed to incorporate more active participation of the grassroots. They demand a shift in objective from capital gains to human well-being and self-actualization.
New Energy and Climate Partnerships must be grounded in the lives and needs of everyday working people. They demand sovereignty and systems that end poverty (not hand outs) over any form of corporate or state-led initiative at security.
Read for yourself. Is President Obama’s foreign policy grounded in structural changes that will prevent further crises, or is he working merely to advance an image of the United States and a failed form of capitalism for fear of exploration of true alternatives? Or is he merely getting started, working within bureaucratic confines and the real change is yet to come?
Pakistan’s Ambassador Mahmud Ali Durrani was to give an update and insight as to the current political at George Washington University’s Elliot School on Tuesday, September 18, 2007, and did for the most part, but he mainly focused on Pakistan’s discontent with the anti-Pakistan rhetoric being spouted by Washington officials including presidential hopefuls, Barack Obama and John Edwards. The US has had a long relationship with Pakistan dating back to when it was part of British India, and today Pakistan is revered as an “ally against the war on terror”. But the relationship has a love-hate cycle. In one breath, President Bush will exalt Pakistan as a true partner in combating terrorism, but in the next breath accuse Pakistan for harboring “terrorist” in rural villages, he’s even proclaimed that Bin Laden could be in Pakistan. By saying that Pakistan, the country that is, is harboring terrorist, he is implying that it is somehow sanctioned by the Pakistani government, which it is not. This was exactly one of the Ambassador’s points, and he called the US out on it publicly. In addition, he argued that Pakistanis’ dislike the US for its policies in the Middles East, most notable Israel-Palestine, and Iraq. He openly attributed many problems including spike in political unrest and violence, are due to the influx of Al-Qaeda fighters and others fleeing Iraq. It was interesting to hear his take on the situation as he looked in retrospect recommending that the US should have remained focused on Afghanistan instead of taking on Iraq at the same time.
Indeed it is the “only when we need you” policy that has hurt the US’s relationship with Pakistan. Pakistan could be an ally with whom the US could work more closely with, if the US were willing to change some of its policies in the Middle East and engage Pakistan on a deeper level. The US is obviously not going to make any progress with the Middle East with the insanity of the Bush administration. Hope lies in the future and the next election. Interestingly, Ambassador Durrani briefly mentioned that poverty is an important factor in recruiting young men to Al-Qaeda and other militia groups. However, poverty, unemployment, and lack of basic human rights have to be brought to the forefront as opposed to being briefly mentioned. What type of cooperation can the US and Pakistan engage in to lift people out of poverty and give them viable alternatives?
As a follow-up to what Laurel has already posted on the Rabat conference, here is an op-ed piece I’ve submitted to a few newspapers.
The Recent East-West Encounter that Didn’t Make Headlines
Earlier this week, a meeting between the US and Iran—thirty years in the making—made headlines worldwide. ‘The Great Satan’ and ‘The Axis of Evil’ came together, fittingly, in the city that epitomizes decades of failed US foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
A few days earlier a similar dialogue had taken place in the same region, though this one didn’t stir up quite as much media attention. The participants were younger and the non-American counterparts were Moroccan instead of Iranian, but the issues on the table were the same: democracy, security, and US foreign policy in the MENA region. In Baghdad, current American leaders—with a penchant for unilateral, aggressive foreign policy—confronted the chaos created by their past actions. In Rabat, a younger generation—committed to international cooperation—looked ahead to a future in which they’ll assume the leading roles.
The ‘Moroccan-American Youth Dialogue on Democracy and Security’ in Rabat (May 25-26) brought together 50 delegates—half Moroccans and half Americans, most either university students or recent graduates—to discuss US-Moroccan relations and US presence in the MENA region. The two-day conference featured discussions such as “Talking about Democracy”, “US Democracy Promotion Projects in Morocco”, and “Conflict, Security and the Challenge of Terrorism”. The final result of their collaboration was 20 policy recommendations—written, amended, and ratified by the entire delegation—which will be sent to both the Moroccan and American governments.
As one of the American delegates, I was most struck by two recurring themes:
Theme #1: Contrary to the image many Americans have, the majority of people living in Arab countries can and do separate the American Government’s policies from the American people (a distinction that some in our country should take notes on–i.e. learning how not to blame the actions of a few terrorists on an entire religious community). During the course of the conference, the Moroccan participants emphasized this distinction many times and quickly apologized/clarified if they thought their statements had implied the contrary. Additionally, the people I spoke to do not—as we’ve heard so often in political speeches—‘hate our freedom’ or want to ‘destroy our way of life’. Actually, they hold great respect for many aspects of our democratic system and would like to work towards something similar. However, what they don’t want is a carbon copy of our system forcefully imposed upon them. Moroccans understand that democracy doesn’t come in a one-size-fits-all model; each country must create its own custom design. Furthermore, true and lasting democracy cannot be imported or imposed on a society; it can only be generated from within.
Theme #2: The term ‘democracy’ has largely lost its credibility with many in the Middle East and North Africa. For most Arabs, the word ‘democracy’ does not invoke the ideal vision it does for us as Americans. The way our Government has propagandized and selectively applied the term abroad has permanently stained one of our nation’s most treasured values. Now the mention of ‘democracy’ raises a red flag in Arab countries, sparking suspicion that other interference will inevitably come along with the package. Who can blame them for not jumping to replace current less-than-perfect-but-tolerable systems with something completely unknown, whose stability hinges on the whims of a foreign bully’s larger policy agenda?
In short, both themes I’ve described stem from a US foreign policy that is outdated, ineffective, and increasingly unpopular at home and abroad. The Youth Dialogue in Rabat provided a glimpse into the alternative my colleagues and I are working towards: a more collaborative, inclusive, and effective approach to international relations.
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
Every day, more articles indicate that war with Iran is not far off. The thought that this might be true makes me feel physically sick.
Here is the rough draft of an editorial I wrote for Washington Square News. It’s a piece I should have written a long time ago.
An Attack On Iran Would Be A Tragedy For Its Democrats
by Una Hardester
An attack on Iran, by the United States or Israel, would be a disaster for the entire Middle East, but most of all for Iran’s pro-democracy forces. If Iran was attacked, all hope of peaceful democratic change would be destroyed for the foreseeable future, and the tremendous risks and sacrifices of thousands of students, human rights activists, journalists, lawyers, academics, and other members of Iran’s besieged but courageous civil society would be rendered worthless. This can’t be allowed to happen.
More than seventy percent of Iranians are under age thirty. These young Iranians desire greater freedom, and a society free of the kind of violence the ruling hard-line theocrats inflict on them, but they do not, in any way at all, want regime change to come through outside military action. This is not to say they themselves are not willing to take action.
University students have stood up to riot police and heavily-armed militia to protest the closure of newspapers, and the arrests of student leaders for political activities. Hundreds of students have gone to jail in recent years. No one knows exactly how many have been executed. Most have been tortured, some to death. Tehran’s Evin Prison is infamous for its cruel treatment of political prisoners. This past summer, a young man by the name of Akbar Mohammadi, a former student pro-democracy activist, died in his cell, gagged and chained to a bed in his final hours. Mohammadi never advocated military regime-change. He believed peaceful change would bring about a better Iran.
This belief is shared by Iran’s surviving pro-democracy activists, including Akbar Ganji, a journalist who has become, along with Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, one of the most internationally recognizable faces of Iran’s pro-democracy movement. Ganji spent six years in Evin prison for writing articles that linked senior regime members to the murders of prominent dissidents. After he was released in 2006, Ganji went abroad to speak about human rights and the pro-democracy movement in Iran. When he visited the United States, he was invited to the White House. Ganji declined the invitation. Worried by the United States’ increasingly hawkish rhetoric against Iran, Ganji said, “You cannot bring democracy to a country by attacking it.” President Bush should ponder those words carefully. Though great personal suffering was inflicted on him by the Iranian regime, Ganji still believes that change must come from within the Iranian population, even if that means more slowly than Israel and the West desire. We may curse its incrementalism, but this is how organic democracy emerges.
But what about the bomb? If Iran’s current government develops nuclear weapons, it will kick off an arms race in the region, and threaten the security —even existence—of Israel, the worried pro-attack voices say.
To them, I say; things are not as dire as they seem; you must keep a cool head. The apocalyptic threats from Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are just the blathering of a crude populist who, contrary to portrayal in American media, is a figure-head, not an autocrat. Even if the Iranian regime creates a handful of crude nuclear weapons in the next few years, it is unlikely in the extreme that it will use them against Israel. It is equally unlikely to hand them off to terrorists (another doomsday scenario bandied about lately), knowing that this would result in retaliation as surely as a direct attack would. More probably, Iran would use its nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip in the cynical game of international politics. This is the purpose of nuclear weapons today.
Unfortunately, this means Israel would have to live with a nuclear Iran, something its leaders have said they will never allow. But Israel would not have to live with this threat forever. The Iranian regime consists of individuals who have been in power since the revolution of 1979. They are aging and paranoid, and, above all else, concerned with staying in power as long as they possibly can. They understand that they are surrounded by a vast sea of youth that is idealistic, reformist, and pro-democracy, and sheer demographics ensure that their days are numbered.
The bulk of today’s young Iranians were born shortly after the revolution their parents took part in, and they have grown up with its consequences; the Iran-Iraq War, international isolation, and intense repression, but, despite efforts to the contrary by those in power, they have not grown up with an abiding hatred for the United States or the West. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not their president because they voted for him. He is their president because they did not vote at all. After turning out in massive numbers to elect a reformist in 1997, Iran’s young people then spent eight years being bitterly disappointed, and many boycotted the latest, highly unfair presidential election.
The United States and Israel must recognize this, and not buy into Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric. He does not speak for Iran. Iran’s young people lack access to international forums, to mass media, and to sympathetic ears in the West, and their voices are not heard. This is not just a shame, it’s dangerous. It allows elites who would like to see Iran’s nuclear sites destroyed, and its government deposed by military means, to paint the entire Iranian population as genocidal, anti-Semitic, fundamentalists bent on ushering in a new age of nuclear war —in other word’s, a people deserving of whatever they get. We must reject this notion.
Iran is a country of contradictions and appalling injustices. The gap between the policies and opinions of its rulers and the beliefs of its people is yawning. If the West wants a democratic and non-nuclear Iran, it will have to wait, and not intervene to stop Iran’s nuclear production process. Even Western governments funding opposition groups won’t help; it will simply give credence to the regime’s claim that dissidents are tools of the United States. The best thing for Iran’s people is for Western governments —in fact, all governments— to stay out the regime-change process altogether.
The Iranian regime will fall, but it will fall at the hands of the Iranian people, who genuinely desire solidarity and moral support from the outside. They do not hate us, but they are terrified that, in our state of frenzied fear, we may ruin all they have fought so hard for. For Akbar Ganji and Shirin Ebadi, for the countless students who have spoken out and been killed for doing so, and for all those who continue the fight for freedom, democracy, and human rights under one of the world’s most repressive regimes, Americans and Israelis must raise their voices in loud opposition to an attack against Iran.
Many of my friends went to the anti-war protest in Washington this past Saturday. Looking at their photos on facebook, I couldn’t help but think to myself how bitterly we’ll look back on these times if another war begins while we’re waking up to the bloody reality of this one.
I am genuinely frightened that there seems ot be a hopeless and resigned consensus among policy-makers, scholars, and journalists that war with Iran is not far off, and is a forgone conclusion. Israel will attack, or the United States will. One way or another, Iran’s nuclear facilities will be destroyed. The consequences will be catastrophic in terms of loss of civilian lives and environmental damage, but these will be viewed as acceptable prices to pay for disarming a nuclear or soon-to-be nuclear Iran.
But not everyone is ready to accept that. In an article titled "Europeans Fear US Attack on Iran as Nuclear Row Intensifies" an unnamed European diplomat describes the mood in Europe’s halls of power.
"There’s anxiety
everywhere you turn," said a diplomat familiar with the work of the
International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. "The Europeans are very
concerned the shit could hit the fan."
And with good reason.
A
US navy battle group of seven vessels was steaming towards the Gulf
yesterday from the Red Sea, part of a deployment of 50 US ships,
including two aircraft carriers, expected in the area in weeks.
Knowing this, and probably understanding how little it can do at this late stage, the EU is making crystal clear that an attack will not be met with European approval.
"No
path is envisaged by the EU other than the UN path," the EU’s foreign
policy chief, Javier Solana, told the Guardian yesterday. "The priority
for all of us is that Iran complies with UN security council
resolutions."
On the possibility of Israel taking military action by itself, two well known Israeli foreign affairs writers wrote in a recent New Republic piece:
If
Israel is forced, by default, to strike, it is likely to happen within
the next 18 months. An attack needs to take place before the nuclear
facilities become radioactive; waiting too long could result in massive
civilian casualties. Still, Israel will almost certainly wait until it
becomes clear that sanctions have failed and that the United States or
NATO won’t strike. The toughest decision, then, will be timing:
determining that delicate moment when it becomes clear that the
international community has failed but before the facilities turn
lethal.Israel will alert Washington before a strike: "We won’t surprise the
Americans, given the likelihood of Iranian reprisals against American
troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East," says an analyst close
to the intelligence community. U.S. permission will be needed if Israel
chooses to send its planes over Iraqi air space — and the expectation
here is that permission would be granted. (Israel has two other
possible attack routes, both problematic: over Turkish air space and
along the Saudi-Iraqi border to the Persian Gulf.) Still, according to
the former air force commander, if Israel decides to act, "We will act
alone, not as emissaries of anyone else."
All of this fills me with despair. The best thing for Iran now would be for its religious leaders to remove Ahmadinejad from power and fully comply with the IAEA and the UN Security Council, but the chances of that happening are not good –despite Iran’s current internal political turmoil. So, if Iran pushes ahead, it appears war will soon follow. The pro-democracy movement in the country (its greatest hope currently) will be destroyed, and the danger of a regional war in the Middle East (and all the chain reaction problems it would create) will be more real than ever before.
I can’t shake the feeling of doom closing in. I think of the brave Iranian pro-democracy and human rights activists who have been beaten, jailed, tortured, and executed in the most gruesome ways over the past decade, and I think of how all their sacrifices and suffering could come to nothing.
I don’t see any hope in this, anywhere.
The FP Passport Blog links to a new report by Jill Carroll (the CS Monitor who was kidnapped in Iraq last year) about the latest endangered species: foreign correspondents. Carroll notes that the numbers of foreign correspondents, the reporters that live and report from overseas, have dropped significantly both among television networks and newspapers. Many news managers are cutter down on their foreign bureaus in order to cut costs, but a lot of valuable insight is being cut, too.
As Carroll writes: "The quality of the information provided by the news media determines to a large extent the quality of the national debate and resulting policies. Having many sources of good quality, in-depth, insightful, well-informed foreign reporting is essential to keeping the national debate vigorous and churning. This moral argument won’t hold sway in many boardrooms, but the financial incentives to produce good quality foreign news should. Hopefully financial decision makers will have the foresight to realize they are drastically undervaluing foreign news coverage and have the wisdom to hang onto and invest in this valuable asset."
Carroll’s report shows that 249 total foreign newspaper correspondents were employed in 2006 (down from 2000 and 2002). A whopping 109 of those correspondents are employed by the Wall Street Journal!!–which leaves a sparse 141 foreign correspondents at all the other newspapers in the country. The LA Times comes in second to the Wall Street Journal with 30 foreign correspondents. As news consumers, we should do what we can to show news producers that we care about good foreign affairs coverage, which means foreign affairs coverage at least sometimes from foreign bureau.
