U.S. in the World: Foreign Policy in the 21st Century

InterAction - Combining Best Practices among NGOs, Multilateral Institutions and Armed Forces in Afghanistan

Afghanistan is the focal point in the struggle against terrorism and has proved to be a difficult war, but an important war that is vital to US national security. While the new administration will send thousands of troops to help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, “kinetic” efforts alone wont help the US win their way to victory. The military provides necessary security but these efforts are subordinate to programs that address the grievances crippling the country. The humanitarian programs vital to lifting Afghanistan out of the abject poverty and the discontentment that feed terrorist recruitment efforts will require humbled patience and long term efforts.

 

Non-military efforts will be the tool of persuasion and inspiration in Afghanistan over the coming years. It’s imperative for the new administration to coordinate the magnitude of efforts by public and private organizations in Afghanistan that are contributing to stability, development and security. The UN, NATO, NGOS, US Armed forces, development banks and educational institutions must not perceive themselves as distinct from one another, but as a unit mutually benefiting and reinforcing one another. Each organization brings something valuable to the efforts of development and national security in Afghanistan. The American government must make concerted efforts to ensure that there aren’t inefficiencies in the coordination of the admirable organizations on the ground in Afghanistan.

 

An exemplary program that is working on coordination efforts of public, civilian and military programs is InterAction. InterAction assists organizations to work together to devise a positive strategy worth creating, which best advances the people of Afghanistan into peace, security and development. More programs on the ground in Afghanistan should be modeled after InterAction, to increase efficiency in development efforts and forage trusting relationships between services in Afghanistan and among the Afghani people.

US Raid into Syria: UN Article 51 Trumps Articles 1 & 2?

October 30, 2008

US Raid into Syria Part II: Where is Janus?

US Raid into Syria Part II: Where is Janus?

My favorite Roman God is Janus, not only is he the god of gates, doors, doorways, beginnings and endings but an iconic symbol I refer to when thinking about policy choices. His two faces allow him to look out and in concurrently.

On October 26th, US Special Operation forces in Blackhawk helicopters went six miles into Syria, to the village of Sukkariya and killed Abu Ghadiya, an Iraqi accused of leading an insurgent cell and smuggling weapons into Iraq. The Bush administration justified the raid by citing Article 51 of the UN charter, which recognizes the right of member states to act in self-defense. According to Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, the raid killed at least eight Syrian civilians. American officials claim that those injured or killed in the raid were militants, not Syrian civilians.

The reason I like to refer to Janus when making policy choices, or even interpersonal choices, is that he has the ability to be introspective and extrospective at the same time. His image has always reminded me of the rather banal Golden Rule “do onto others as you would want done onto you.” In thinking about foreign policy I refer to Janus by posing questions such as “would the US accept this policy of it was a policy toward the US?” In our personal lives, we often try to live by this Golden Rule, in foreign policy it appears hardly, if at all, considered.

Take the aforementioned raid in Syria for example – but instead the players are now Mexico and the US. Lets say Mexico is at war and a high level Mexican insurgent, responsible for running weapons and money into Mexico from the US, is wanted. Mexican officials use their intelligence and find that he is in Chula Vista, a town in California six miles from the boarder of Tijuana, Mexico. Blackhawk Mexican helicopters fly six miles into Chula Vista, CA and engage in a gun battle with the Mexican insurgents and accidentally kill eight to a dozen US citizens. Mexico, being a member state of the UN, has also cited Article 51 of the UN charter to defend its actions.

Putting the US-Syrian real example side-by-side the Mexican Blackhawk surreal example highlights the limited use of the Golden Rule when enacting foreign policy. Many policy choices have forgotten the introspective half of Janus.

Posted by Heidi Trow on October 30, 2008 at 06:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

US Raid into Syria: UN Article 51 Trumps Articles 1 &2?

US Raid into Syria: UN Article 51 Trumps Articles 1 &2?


An act of aggression by a sovereign nation against another is considered an act of war, especially when citizens working in official capacity for one state target those working in official capacity of another state.

On Sunday October 26th, US Special Operations forces targeted an Iraqi insurgent 5 miles inside the boarder of Syria, with whom we are not at war. The US claimed that no civilians or citizens working in official capacity in Syria were harmed, Syria claims that at least a dozen civilians were injured or killed.

According to the Bush administration, the US raid was not an act of war against Syria, but an invocation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which permits member states to act in individual or collective self-defense. The Bush administration stated that it was acting in self-defense against the Iraqi insurgent inside Syria.

Article 51 states that “nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense,” indicating that this right has always-inherently been customary law, even prior to the creation of the UN charter and subsequent international law. However, Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter also exist, which call for the maintenance of international peace and security, the suppression of acts of aggression and restraint from actions that are inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. Herein lies the problem of interpretation within the UN charter. Some, like Syria, may claim that the US has violated Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter and accuse the US of “terrorist aggression” in the raid, while the Bush administration will claim that it was appealing to its “inherent” right of self defense.

This posits the question if Article 51 trumps Articles 1 and 2 because self-defense always has and always will be a right of sovereign nations. If this interpretation holds, then how wide will the interpretation of, and the need for self-defense become? We invoked article 51 after September 11th against an entire regime, now, 5 years later, we have invoked it against one insurgent. In these few months before the new administration takes office it will be worthy of note to observe how wide the interpretation of article 51 becomes in the Bush administration, and whether the McCain or Obama administration scales down or widens the interpretation of Article 51 - before the US finds itself enmeshed in another war, where the act of self-defense is otherwise perceived as an act of war.

Obama Rolls Out His Picks...

Remember our first class? When we hadn't elected President #44 yet? Seems like forever ago. Here we are now with a President-Elect (or as I like to say, P-Elect) and our curiosity about the elections and foreign policy has been answered to some extent. Time flies!

Anyway, the NYTimes has an article about P-Elect Obama's Foreign Policy team that he'll be announcing Monday (I think?). Find it here:

A Handpicked Team for a Foreign Policy Shift

Nothing too surprising in terms of who Obama has chosen to be a part of the team -- rumors/leaks have been floating around for some time -- though I do appreciate the article's thoughtful point about funding. To build a larger civilian force, to expand foreign service, to shift foreign policy in a meaningful way -- you're going to need some cash. Where's it going to come from? Wherever it gets reallocated from, I hope this aspect of Obama's foreign policy plans gets enacted. I've always hoped for a prominent voice in foreign policy to propose more support for rebuilding and reconstruction alongside our military endeavors. I'm also a fan of Gates' quote in the article about the sorry state of America's "soft power" that was so key during the Cold War.

Also interesting: Obama plans on elevating Ambassador to the U.N. to cabinet level a la Bill Clinton. Thoughts? I'm a fan -- the U.N. could use a symbolic self-esteem boost at this point. I'm also curious to see how his choice of foreign policy team and U.N. ambassador will impact the political will around action regarding Darfur. Mainly, will it impact the current approach to Darfur? And if so, how? It is such a complex situation, will an increase in political will be enough to stabilize the situation and end the conflict? We'll have to wait and see.

Concerns About Mumbai & The World Unrest

The happenings at the Taj Mahal is devastating; causing me to reflect on how I felt on 9/11/01- relating it to how those in India must be feeling.  It concerns me for the future.  It is worrisome to think about the fact these terrorists were trying to identify and target those with American & English Passports.  As time goes on, I feel my travel freedoms are more and more infringed upon.  It makes me wonder about the pressure on the U.S security in being prudent in their observations regarding our national security.  It is not just fronts in the Middle East we have to worry about.  We have to be concerned with what Russia is doing in Venezuela as well as what China’s relationship with Pakistan vs. our relationship with India will bring.

Does Foreign Aid Work?

Many trees have been killed in trying to answer this question.  In discussing this in my War, Peace, and World Order class, we have come to the conclusion foreign aid works, but not in the way we would think it does.  It actually works quite well to keep those beholden to the US in check.  But as for the people for which the aid was meant, it is quite surprising if they ever get to see even a margin of that influx.  Foreign aid does not work simply there is no intent for it to do so.  It is a dangling carrot, withheld to punish our enemies and reward our allies, corrupt or not.  The problem in withholding aid is that it punishes the needy citizens of a country for the failures of their leaders.  This leads me to my next point, that aid is used to "correct" our enemies, to make the leaders see the error of their ways by the suffering of their people.  If one wants aid to work, number one, it must not be seen as a political tool/weapon.  Second, aid agencies need to garner a lot more public support than they already have.  We all know that pushing aid through governments is a tricky process, and so perhaps the aid agnecies might try to expand their domestic presence, to encourage the people to do something on their own, to make aid a personal issue rather than leaving it to bureaucrats in DC to whom the concept of a reward-punishment program for their aid programs is so alien.

"....the chicken?.... Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?"

Undecided voters: is it unfathomable to think that they exist in this election? 

One friend just finished telling me that she cares about a candidate's policies on three issues: health care, gay marriage, and energy and the environment.  She follows this by saying that McCain and Obama are the same on gay marriage and energy and the environment, but since Obama's health care plan is far superior to that of McCain, she will vote for Obama. (Obama's plan, similar to the current Massachusettes health care plan, mandates that all citizens have health care coverage while McCain's plan deregulates health care and shifts responsibility from employers to states, which means eventually to individuals, to ensure coverage--see NEJM's recent article for an interesting comparison: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/16/1645.)

However, she just speed-marked and sealed her absentee ballot (can you believe that you have to affix postage to absentee ballots?)  Maybe David Sedaris is right, there can't possibly be undecideds in this election--http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/10/27/081027sh_shouts_sedaris.

Can the US Step Down and Learn to Share?

Today in class we discussed the different potential futures of US foreign policy based both on the outcome of the election and the economic crisis and it seemed to me that a large part of the discussion revolved around the possibility of progressive isolationism. During the discussion, I mentioned equalizing the international system such that the US wasn’t isolating as much as sharing. Interestingly the use of the word “sharing” was met with laughter when used in the context of US foreign policy. This started me thinking about the likelihood that the US could step down and learn to share its international leadership role. If the US could learn to share, a power-sharing strategy could serve as an alternative to pulling out of the international arena altogether.

In class, we talked about expanding the G8 and changing the current power structures of the World Bank and IMF as different ways to “re-calibrate” the power distribution in the international system. After class I looked up the positions of some of the current power-holders on these issues and found that although the US has not supported G8 expansion, different European powers do support it and even Russia has voiced its support. Thus it is my opinion that under a different US administration… Obama (knock on wood), a redistribution of power within the international system is possible. The question then becomes how to frame a shift from the US as the leader of the global community to the US as a partner within the global community, and I really think that the American people could be sold on the sharing, or delegating, of our international responsibilities, especially in light of the economic crisis.

Just how hot, flat and crowded are we?

So who else is getting a little tired of Tom Friedman’s mantra on globalization? How did I know he was going to write a book with the word “Flat” in the title? Sometimes I wonder if this more about getting luxury trips to speak to Silicon Valley companies about outsourcing practices or more about a world view.

Actually, I have a confession to make. I read Tom Friedman weekly, without fail. We have an on-again off-again op-ed love affair. Well, it’s one-way, but that’s not the point (Tom, let me know if you are reading this). I love his ability to take his general opinions, relate them to “Joe Plumber’s” level of common sense and turn them into bestseller novels that I want to (compulsively) buy. Or as Pankaj Ghemawat calls it (“Why the World Isn’t Flat,” Foreign Policy Mar/Ap 2007), his ability to appeal to “semiotic arousal” (I have committed this term to memory for all the new-agey folks back at home in Berkeley). In his latest op-ed on globalization Friedman talks about how the financial crisis on Wall Street led to the meltdown of Icelandic banks. Take this for a clear assessment of the situation: 

“So think about it: Some mortgage broker in Los Angeles gives subprime “liar loans” to people who have no credit ratings so they can buy homes in Southern California. Those flimsy mortgages get globalized through the global banking system and, when they go sour, they eventually prompt banks to stop lending, fearful that every other bank’s assets are toxic, too. The credit crunch hits Iceland, which went on its own binge. Meanwhile, the police department of Northumbria, England, had invested some of its extra cash in Iceland, and, now that those accounts are frozen, it may have to reduce street patrols this weekend.”

I particularly like the part about “mortgages get globalized through the global banking system.” Can anyone else hear the cash register at Barnes and Noble cha-chinging to the tune of “Hot, Flat and Crowded?” Granted, you can’t really explain international financial structuring in a two-minute op-ed (or without putting your readers to sleep), but this all points to how Friedman uses emotion, conjecture and hasty generalizations to come up with a good read. Not that Friedman needed to take writing tips from Maureen Dowd….

On the globalization topic I’m going to have to land, like Switzerland, smack dab in the middle of the argument. I’ll side with Ghemawat on the fact that the globalization that is occurring is mostly isolated to large, international cities (and financial hubs). I also agree that the internet isn’t as global as Friedman makes it out to be- yes, my grandmother back in Lodi, CA (read: small farming town in the middle of nowhere) has access to Agende Burundaise de Presse online, but she cares to read it about as much as my 16-year old cousin cares to instant message with other teenagers from Burundi. For the most part, the internet is localized- we tend to talk to people we know and read from sources we are familiar with. This was further proven to me by my cross-country drive to the Wagner School: the heartland is very different and more isolated than either coast. You can’t find a Starbucks (my lame example of a globalized company) between Rapid City and Sioux Falls and for the exception of Missoula; you can’t find “fair trade” anything past Portland (until you get to one fledging coffee shop in Rapid City). The point is globalized concepts and companies aren’t as common in middle America as they are in metropolitan America. As Ghemawat puts it, “we’re more wired, but no more global.”

However, the recent financial crisis does cause one to pause- if “globalization” isn’t a reality yet, as Ghemawat claims, then why the need for a meeting with world financial leaders (also discussed in the Bergsten and Subramanian pieces) in the wake of Wall Streets’ demise? Surely the interconnectedness of our economies made this seem like the next rational step to stem the tide of falling financial dominoes. I believe globalization has more to do with population-level interconnectedness than individual-level interconnectedness: our economies are to some extent, internationally interdependent but our personal social structures are not.

In short, I liked Friedman better when he stuck to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or when he covered the Lebanese Civil War in From Beirut to Jerusalem. I never loved his policy prescriptions or his tendency to equivocate; but then again, that’s what sells newspapers- something that if indeed, the world is “globalizing,” the New York Times as an internationally-recognized source of world news, should be doing more of.

Globalizing the Crisis Response

After reading article after article about the financial crisis for the past several weeks, I find myself immersed in hopeful frustration.  I am hopeful that a global and united response to this crisis will indeed prove - in an unprecedented and historic way - just how CAPABLE all nations are of working together, coordinating action, cooperating on plans, and following through.  However I am frustrated that in the face of numerous crises of the past and present, this galvanization and strong political will has been pathetically lacking.  I think, of course, most immediately of the AIDS crisis. 

The title of this post is the headline of the Washington Post article assigned this week.  To demonstrate my point that ending AIDS is completely possible WITH political will, I will cite for you key statements in this article, replacing the word "finance" (and all variants) with the word "AIDS" or "health" (and other terms where appropriate).  As you read, translate "US Rescue Plan" as "PEPFAR" (a tiny fraction of the $700 billion bail-out, failing to include a national response to AIDS, and coming 25 years too late, but indeed a galvanizing force for the international community).  Imagine a world in which this language made the papers:

"The AIDS crisis has gone global.  CD4 counts have fallen and access to health services is seizing up around the world.  In recent days, as most Americans focused on the political drama of the rescue package, a number of African hospitals have failed...

Globalization of the crisis requires a globalized response.  While the consequences of the AIDS crisis are clearly international, the regulation of healthcare remains almost wholly national... 

Yet an internationally coordinated strategy, ranging far beyond the heroic efforts of the world's leading central health centers, is essential now that the US rescue plan is in place.  When health ministers convene in Washington this week for the annual World Health Organization meeting, they should adopt several initial components of such a strategy.  Not doing so would be almost as serious as if Congress had adjourned without passing the rescue legislation.

First, heading off a precipitous decline in global public health requires a global stimulus program.  Different governments can use different policy tools....

Second, coordination of parallel national efforts to recapitalize tottering health systems would pack a powerful psychological punch.  The US, EU, and some other are moving rapidly to shore up their health institutions....Widespread international participation in the effort to provide lifesaving AIDS medications could be of substantial help...

Third, as the US and some Europeans are already doing, many countries will need to expand coverage of their health insurance programs to discourage hospital shutdowns. Parallel or uniform policy steps through which unlimited insurance is provided for at least a temporary period...will be mutually reinforcing and help prevent panic.

Beyond the short term, countries will need to develop a cooperative framework to prevent and resolve such crises...There is an inherent tension as health becomes global but its regulation remains national....

Our policy responses must reflect the interdependent vulnerability of global health....it is too late to assign blame over responsibility for the crisis, within or among countries.  The traditional Group of Seven industrial countries have mounted coordinated public health programs of this type in the past, with considerable success; now they must be joined by the chief emerging markets, particularly China. The G-7 finance ministers should fully include the five or six main emerging markets in their upcoming meeting and seek to forge a global strategy. This week's WHO conclave offers a unique opportunity to add a critical international dimension to the crisis response."

What logic!  What clarity of thought!  What well-thought-out strategy! 

What frustrates me is that so many already employ this logic, clarity, and strategy (To start exploring some of the best work, check out the Center for Global Development's HIV/AIDS Monitor).  World leaders have failed to appreciate and take on the recommenndations of these analysts, and therefore those responding most urgently to the AIDS crisis, predominantly civil society and NGOs, are forced to work in an uncoordinated global health system and do the best they can in the small communities worldwide in which they work.  They are not working at their full potential in the absence of a global strategy and our response to AIDS is forcibly less productive than it is capable of being.

This article I have constructed could very truthfully be published, but it is not.  None of these ideas about addressing AIDS on a global level are new -- they are just not given op-ed space or media coverage.  We know how to resolve this crisis, that's not the problem.  A core problem is a lack of cooperation and coordination that can only be galvanized by strong political will.

I invite you to pick up a newspaper and try this exercise for yourself.  Replace the crisis and you will see that our world leadership is capable of coming together to take immediate and united action.  The difference to me is not that our leaders don't want to end AIDS, it's that there are no "jittery investors" who are pushing them to do so.  We are all affected by the health of global populations and like issues of climate change or education or human rights, we will not see the negative effects of failures to invest until the long run, and we therefore don't identify ourselves as investors now.  Which means politicians have no pressure to move in the direction of solving the foreign crises that already surround us.  If we want an end to AIDS that's up to us as investors in global public health, citizens who want to live in a healthy world.  It's totally possible to achieve, but the choice is ours!

Peace and Power through Poverty?

In the second presidential debate Senators Obama and McCain were both asked if they would be prepared to defend Israel should Iran attack Israel. In Obama’s response he outlined his approach and hopes for dealing with Iran. He reinforce the dangers of Iran and nuclear proliferation, and his “talk-first” approach to diplomatic relations.

“And that's why I have consistently said that, if we can work more effectively with other countries diplomatically to tighten sanctions on Iran, if we can reduce our energy consumption through alternative energy, so that Iran has less money, if we can impose the kinds of sanctions that, say, for example, Iran right now imports gasoline, even though it's an oil-producer, because its oil infrastructure has broken down, if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them.”

The economic sanctions would be more likely to hurt average citizens than political/oil elite. Iranians rely heavily on trade and when their economy closes in on them. Victor Comras, an attorney and special counsel to Eren Law Firm said in a statement to the U.S. Senate: “Iran’s fledgling commercial class has become very reliant on…trade. And it is this very commercial class that provides the greatest number of employment opportunities in Tehran and Iran’s other urban centers. Sanctions that threaten to constrict this trade could have a considerable impact on this commercial class, placing further distress on Iran’s vulnerable economy and high urban unemployment”. To date the primary impact of economic sanctions has been a push to make Iranians more nationalistic. In going forward it is important that we develop alternative energy as a means of combating global climate change and not for its security merits as they relate to Iran.