U.S. Role in the World

Let’s turn now away from issues of high politics towards something more humanitarian. As I mentioned in my first post, I hope to highlight the ways in which the U.S. is working to make this a better world through the strategic use of U.S. aid. Let’s face it, when we think of the U.S. role in the world, we all hope that at the end of the day, America is making a positive difference. Whether this is in fact true or merely wishful thinking on the part of Americans is another matter, but I think that our history shows that we have at least tried to make a positive difference in the world. In this latest example, the U.S. is using our vast wealth to help fund the global fight against infectious diseases (AP - Bush signs bill to triple AIDS funding):

President Bush signed legislation Wednesday that triples U.S. funding to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world. The five-year, $48 billion plan renews a program credited with saving millions of lives in Africa alone and is widely seen as one of the major achievements of the Bush presidency. Bush said the program, launched by him in 2003, “is the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in human history.”

Time will tell if this initiative, named the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, will join the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift as a notable example of U.S. aid. Already there are complaints that this effort ignores those suffering here at home. Still, as a means of alleviating suffering, supporting allies in Africa, and winning hearts and minds, this is a wise investment of U.S aid money and an exemplary application of soft power.

The Washington Post reported today that the Taliban insurgency is gaining ground in Pakistan (Clashes Escalate in Third Day of Violence in Pakistan):

Violent clashes between extremist insurgents and Pakistani troops escalated Wednesday in the country’s fractious northwest as Taliban leaders threatened to withdraw their support for peace deals brokered earlier this year with Pakistan’s new government. […] It was the third consecutive day of violence between pro-Taliban extremists and government troops in the formerly serene Swat Valley. After skirmishes erupted near the town of Matta, Pakistani security forces began enforcing a 24-hour curfew on the area, a military spokesman said.

Given the increasing frequency of Taliban cross-border raids into Afghanistan, what can the U.S. do to help Pakistan in this struggle with the Taliban? In “A Pro-Taliban Threat,” Malou Innocent, a Cato Institute foreign policy analyst, writes:

Pro-Taliban militants are currently in talks with one of Pakistan’s provincial governments to enforce Shariah, or Islamic law. Though the deal is meant to stop the spreading Islamist insurgency on Pakistan’s western border with Afghanistan, if passed, the deal will only embolden radicals and undermine U.S. interests in Afghanistan. […] Instead of toothless peace deals, a better strategy would be to isolate and contain the militancy through ‘clear and hold’ operations. Since America has a vested interest in a secure Pakistan, and the capabilities of Pakistan’s Army must be improved substantially, Washington can assist Islamabad by raising the professionalism of Pakistan’s army by increasing the number of joint military-to-military training operations, and enhancing human-intelligence sharing in the tribal areas.

This is a great idea and deserves consideration at the highest levels, but I fear the window may have closed for these kind of joint operations. Such military-to-military operations may have worked better when the U.S. was more closely tied to Gen. Pervez Musharraf rather than the more loosely defined security structure that now exists in Pakistan. Don’t get me wrong, I supported our brief flirtation with Benazir Bhutto and support democracy in Pakistan, but we should also remember the law of unintended consequences. Democracy is messy and often blurs lines of accountability, something we need more of, not less, in a society defined by tribal and clan loyalties. How loosely defined is the internal security situation in Pakistan? According to this report in today’s New York Times, there are fears that Pakistan’s intelligence service has gone rogue, is no longer accountable to the civilian political leadership and is actively supporting the Taliban. If that is the case, the U.S. and allies operating in Afghanistan now have a far larger problem to deal with than a few bands of al Qaeda militants hiding in the northwestern mountains of Pakistan.

Yesterday NBC Nightly News broadcast an interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. If you saw the interview, what did you think of it?

As you watch the interview, consider the following: Does he answer the questions posed by Brian Williams? Does he acknowledge the deadline given to Iran? Does he suggest any flexibility about the possibility of Iran suspending uranium enrichment?

Where do you get your international news? What are your trusted sources for finding out what the U.S. is doing on the world? The MountainRunner blog (devoted to public diplomacy and strategic communication) recently examined a new study about the amount of international news coverage in the mainstream American media. The study found that the amount of time devoted to international news was declining. This at a time when the U.S. is fighting two wars and (depending on who you talk to) contemplating a third. I like to recommend a mix of media sources, from standard MSM TV news (NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams will interview Iranian President Ahmadinejad today, that will be worth watching) as well as traditional newspapers and international news websites like the BBC and the varied sources listed in Google News (which offers great international links).

I’d like to think that the readers of FPA blogs are well informed and savvy consumers of international news. What can we do to encourage mainstream news to increase the amount of international news they offer? Probably the best strategy would be to simply let them and their sponsors know that you appreciate their international news coverage, using everything from traditional letters-to-the-editor to posting comments on their websites. Please join me in letting them know that there is indeed an audience for international news.

This week we witnessed a dramatic showdown in Indian domestic politics between the Prime Minister and various factions who are against a proposed nuclear deal with the United States. Since India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has developed a nuclear weapons capability, the U.S. has been working on a treaty that will address India’s desire to use nuclear energy to accommodate one of the most dynamic economies on the planet while safeguarding India’s nuclear weapons program and curbing the proliferation of nuclear technology. If that sounds like a lot of concerns to address, it is, and such a complex treaty is proving to be difficult for India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to get passed in his parliament. His opponents in the always factious realm in Indian politics fear that this treaty will make India beholden to the U.S. and undermine India’s sovereignty. The government survived a confidence vote this week bringing the nuclear deal closer to approval (The Economist - A tarnished triumph):

After a rancorous, sometimes riotous, two-day debate on its most contentious policy, a nuclear co-operation agreement with America, India’s government on July 22nd won a parliamentary vote of confidence. This did not ensure the survival of the vexed agreement, on which George Bush and India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, shook hands in July 2005. It still needs the approval of several bodies, including the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But the government’s victory, by 275 votes to 256, with ten abstentions, has probably saved it from strangulation by its Indian opponents.

The deal also has to be approved by the U.S Congress, and time is running out for approval before President Bush leaves office. If Congress approves the deal it will mark a new stage in U.S-India relations. I’m sure many of you remember that India has not always been an ally of the U.S. and sided with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The World Security Network offers this report that will help you get up to speed on the emerging strategic partnership between the U.S. and India.

Why is the U.S. working with India on their nuclear program while challenging Iran on theirs? A good answer to this question would touch on the fact that India is not a signatory to the NPT, so the U.S. is working with India on a treaty that will anchor their nuclear program in a framework of international monitoring and oversight. The U.S. is acting as a global leader to address the issue of nuclear proliferation and bring a country outside the scope of nuclear rules into a treaty arrangement. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, so they are already obligated and they enjoy the rights (which they are asserting) and obligations (which are in dispute) imposed by that treaty. Other explanations we could offer would note that Iranian leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of another country (Israel) and exported a religious militancy that does not lend itself to traditional forms of deterrence. India appears to be on the path to becoming a responsible nuclear power and that, I think, is the difference between the two.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has journeyed to Germany to deliver a speech today (text, video) and although I know that the Foreign Policy Association is non-partisan, I just thought I’d mention it in the wider context of the historic speeches delivered in Berlin by John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Is Obama’s speech in the same league? I’ll let you be the judge.

Senator Obama is visiting Israel and the Palestinian territories and using his brief visit to assure both the Israelis and the Palestinians that he will work for peace if he is elected. His visit is prompting both hope and resignation among the two different audiences (The New York Times - Mideast Sees More of the Same if Obama Is Elected):

For what feels like forever, Israelis and their Arab neighbors have been hopelessly deadlocked on how to resolve the Palestinian crisis. But there is one point they may now agree on: If elected president, Senator Barack Obama will not fundamentally recalibrate America’s relationship with Israel, or the Arab world.

From the religious center of Jerusalem to the rolling hills of Amman to the crowded streets of Cairo, dozens of interviews revealed a similar sentiment: the United States will ultimately support Israel over the Palestinians, no matter who the president is. That presumption promoted a degree of relief in Israel and resignation here in Jordan and in Israel’s other Arab neighbors.

The report suggests that Senator Obama’s visit is not generating a sense of hope and optimism for a breakthrough in the ever-stalled Mideast peace process, and it’s now clear that any renewed American effort will most likely take place under the existing Quartet sponsorship rather than a new post-election peace initiative by either U.S. presidential candidate. This means that there is still overwhelming international support for a Mideast peace agreement, and now, thanks to the Arab Initiative, there is support from Israel’s Arab neighbors as well.

The American Diplomacy website has posted an essay entitled Reconciling the Arab Initiative With Israel’s Core Requirements for Peace in which Professor Alon Ben-Meir, a professor at New York University with extensive contacts among both Arabs and Israelis, argues that the current situation is “bound to unravel into something even more chaotic and catastrophic if action is not taken.” His essay seeks to reconcile Israel’s strategic needs with the Arab peace plan and suggests that this time in history, with the war in Iraq and regional fears over Iran’s military ambitions, presents a unique opportunity to forge a peace agreement. Timing, as they say, is everything in politics, and it may be that the new American president, whether it’s McCain or Obama, will suddenly find that he is the right man at the right time to bring the Israelis and the Palestinians together.

Imagine the following scenario: Food riots destabilize the capital of a sub-Saharan African country, military officers stage a coup, a civil war breaks out, the government falls, a new government takes power but their hold on power is tenuous, social unrest continues, people are starving. What can the U.S. do? Traditionally, the U.S. would send aid and coordinate with international relief agencies, providing assistance and support, helping to meet immediate humanitarian needs. People would be helped, yes, but the underlying causes of the crisis would not be immediately addressed.

Now, thanks to a new initiative by the State Department, the U.S. has another option. The U.S. can respond to such a crisis by sending an emergency response team composed of diplomats, engineers, health care providers, law enforcement officials and other specialists to offer a multifaceted solution, working to both stabilize the country and lay the groundwork for a more secure civil infrastructure. According to this report in The Washington Times (Rice hails corps to rebuild nations):

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice inaugurated the U.S. government’s first-ever civilian nation-building team Wednesday in a bid to learn from missteps in Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction efforts.

The “active” component, called the Civilian Response Corps, is a team of 250 federal employees from several agencies - diplomats, development specialists, public health officials, law enforcement and corrections officers, engineers, economists, lawyers, public administrators, agronomists and others.

Their primary responsibility is to deploy to crisis spots around the world within 48 to 72 hours.

The report notes that such teams have already been deployed, and they are gaining valuable training and experience that will allow them to better address crisis conditions that are sure to arise in other countries as civil unrest and natural disasters strike. Is this an example of America at its best or a misguided effort to solve all the world’s problems?

The Geneva meeting with Iran over the weekend did not go well. The presence of a U.S. representative apparently made little difference, nor did Iran appear to appreciate the gesture (The Washington Post - Iran Nuclear Talks End Without Agreement):

High-level international talks on Iran’s nuclear program ended inconclusively today in Geneva, with European envoy Javier Solana telling reporters that Iran needed to give a more definitive answer within two weeks.

The meeting was significant because for the first time a U.S. diplomat, Undersecretary of State William J. Burns, joined other envoys in meeting with the top Iranian nuclear negotiator. U.S. officials had said the shift in Bush administration policy was intended to help lead to a breakthrough in the impasse over the Iranian program, but if Iran failed to respond positively, it only would unify the international coalition dealing with Iran.

“It was a constructive meeting, but still we didn’t get the answer to our questions,” Solana said at a news conference. “We hope very much we get the answer and we hope it will be done in a couple of weeks.”

I can’t help but think that Iran passed up an important opportunity to show flexibility and that this does not bode well for an eventual diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. What happens next? In true diplomatic fashion, the parties resolved to meet again in two-weeks, with continued Iranian intransigence expected to be met with another round of U.N. sanctions. If Iran does not compromise then the Security Council will be forced to consider stronger measures, which Russia and China may well veto, placing Iran on a path toward unilateral military action by the U.S. and Israel. The only real grounds for optimism I see is the prospect that Iran is waiting until after the U.S. presidential election in the hopes that they may get a better deal from the next president.

By now you have heard the news that a U.S. representative will attend a previously scheduled meeting tomorrow with an Iranian representative in Geneva. Although this represents a dramatic departure from the U.S. effort to isolate Iran, a skeptical observer may ask why this such an important move. Do we really expect a breakthrough? An op-ed in today’s New York Times addresses this issue (A Seat At The Table):

Mr. Bush’s decision to send William Burns (Ms. Rice’s third in command and a well-respected former ambassador to Russia) to join the European Union’s foreign policy chief and other top diplomats in talks with Iran makes any incentives package look more credible. It also shifts the diplomatic pressure back to Tehran. And it will make it harder for Beijing and Moscow to resist imposing a new round of sanctions if Iran remains obstinate.

So, the reply to our skeptical observer is that the presence of William Burns will strengthen the West’s negotiating position while creating a diplomatic opening for further engagement, should the meeting go well. Our skeptic may well point out, though, that Burns’ presence does nothing to enhance either the incentives or disincentives presented to Iran in the current proposal regarding uranium enrichment, nor have Iran’s “red lines” changed. Perhaps it is enough to say that Burns’ presence changes the style rather than the substance of the six-party effort to halt enrichment and that this change in style may encourage those on the Iranian side who may be looking for an opening to forge a compromise. In advance of this meeting then, let’s define our expectations: we are looking for some evidence of a new flexibility on the part of Iran, and if we see that, then perhaps we can say that the presence of an American representative was an experiment worth repeating.