Jonathan Power: On How Not to Press the Reset Button

Citizenship & IdentityEconomyElections & Institutions

Precise quid pro quos are not good in marital or romantic relationships. Neither do they work well in big time politics. If made too precisely, they suggest that the other side is not to be trusted unless there is a “deal.”

When there is conflict—either at home, with friends, or indeed with enemies—one needs to change the atmosphere, to restore a sense of trust so that opinions and arrangements can be freely traded. One good turn encourages, but not demands, a good turn by the other side.

At the end of the Cold War, we saw such magnanimity and Americans, Russians, Europeans, and the rest of the world benefited immensely from it.

Two great presidents were responsible for this—George H. W. Bush in the United States and Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union. In 1991, Bush decided unilaterally to de-alert all bombers, 450 of the deadly accurate city-destroying Minuteman missiles, and missiles in ten Poseidon submarines (each with enough warheads to destroy Moscow, Leningrad, and every city in between). Gorbachev, taking the cue, deactivated 500 land-based nuclear tipped missiles and six submarines (weapons that could have reduced the most populated parts of the United States to ashes and dust).

Moreover, this wasn’t the cosmetic de-alerting that’s talked about today. Missile silos and submarine crews actually had their launch keys taken away from them.

This is why President Barack Obama (if The New York Times has got the story right) has made a big mistake in his opening move following the pressing of the now-infamous “reset button.” His letter to President Dimitri Medvedev suggesting that Washington was open to discussions on the dismantling of the anti-missile site now being constructed on Polish soil (if Russia would lean harder on Iran to halt its presumed nuclear weapons program) was misconceived.

What his letter should have said is simply, “President George W. Bush initiated a policy that the United States no longer stands by. We want to reopen discussions with you that will lead to our abandonment of said project.” Full stop. Period.

Then, once the reset button starts the music, the notes will start to write themselves, so long as the mood remains good.

Jonathan Power: The Great Khan of Pakistan’s Nukes?

Citizenship & IdentityRisk & Security

Whenever I introduced Munir Khan to a friend I would say light-heartedly “and this is the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb”—just to enjoy the pleasure of watching the reaction. Khan himself would give a self-deprecatory smile. As Hans Blix, the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world’s nuclear policeman, once put it to me, Khan was “a cheerful soul.”

The world has been told over and over again that the father of the Pakistani bomb was A. Q. (Qadeer) Khan, the famous metallurgist. But he, in fact, ran only one part of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, which Munir Khan chaired. More correctly, we have been told that Qadeer Khan secretly set up an international network to supply the likes of North Korea, Libya, and Iran with blueprints and materials for the manufacture of their own nuclear weapons. This was done for his private profit.

Just over one week ago, after five years of house arrest for this offense, Pakistan’s top court restored his freedom.

Khan and Khan. Too many got the two men muddled. This worked in Qadeer’s favor. He was a man who had no compunction about claiming every bit of credit for himself and who loved to woo gullible journalists and parliamentarians with his tales of achievement. No wonder that when he was finally exposed as a nuclear racketeer five years ago, President Pervez Musharraf couldn’t have him formally arrested and tried. Musharraf, in fact, pardoned him for his alleged crimes. Qadeer—a popular icon in Pakistan—was untouchable.

Peter Wilson: Chávez Ad Infinitum?

Citizenship & IdentityEconomyElections & Institutions

Peter WilsonVenezuelan President Hugo Chávez had much to crow about following Sunday’s decision by voters to back his proposal to abolish term limits, enabling him to run for re-election in 2012.

Chávez, who first won election in 1998, called the vote a fresh mandate for his “socialist” revolution. The victory, which is the fourteenth he or his supporters have enjoyed in 15 elections since 1998, paid tribute to his political skills.

When he first announced plans to put a proposal to repeal constitutional term limits (an earlier effort in December 2007 failed) to a fresh vote, polls showed his request likely to be rejected. But with massive state spending, heavy saturation of the country’s air waves, and the helpful indulgence of the national election agency, he coasted to a 10 percentage point victory. Chávez was also helped by the lack of a strong strategy from the opposition.

And finally Chávez, who remains personally popular—although his government is not—made the issue into a personal referendum. He repeatedly told supporters that if he lost the vote, the opposition would then seek to recall him.

“My political future is in play today,” Chávez told supporters after casting his ballot.

Shaun Randol: And the Ox it Rode in On — China’s Charter 08

Citizenship & IdentityHuman Well BeingRisk & Security

This year is shaping up to be a remarkable one for the Middle Kingdom. Protests and civil unrest are on the rise, and chatter surrounding the pro-democracy petition called “Charter 08” is making waves across the country. What began with 303 signatories, many of whom are the usual suspects (i.e. human rights lawyers, professors, etc.), and who promptly received complementary state surveillance for participating—has grown into a percolating movement bringing more and more “everyday” citizens into the fold.

At just over 8,100 signatures (and counting), Charter 08 appears to be the first promising movement in support of democratic reform since the tragic Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 4, 1989. Released on the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December 2008, Charter 08 calls for rewriting the Chinese constitution to allow for more democratic freedoms and an end to one-party rule. The document extols the value of freedom, announcing:

“Freedom is at the core of universal human values. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom in where to live, and the freedoms to strike, to demonstrate, and to protest, among others, are the forms that freedom takes. Without freedom, China will always remain far from civilized ideals.”

Charter 08 warns that if fundamental changes are not installed system-wide, violent and militant unrest cannot be stopped.

Since China opened its doors to the wider world, Beijing has maintained a shaky agreement with its citizens, exchanging economic freedom for political liberty: feel free to rise as high and as far as you want economically—but if you complain about a lack of political rights, consider the deal kaput.

Lately, however, Beijing has been unable to promise the stable economic environment that allows for unfettered economic freedom. Whereas recent U.S. jobless claims are reported in tens of thousands, in China they come in millions.

Chinese economic growth shrank to 6.8 percent in the last quarter of 2008, the slowest pace in seven years and far below the estimated 8 percent needed to sustain new entries into the employment ranks and stave off mass unrest. Some economists predict China’s growth rate will contract even further, down to somewhere between 3 percent and 5 percent, in 2009. According Beijing, exports plummeted 17.5 percent in January, compared to the same time last year (imports fell off a precipice, dropping by a whopping 43 percent over the same time).

The official urban unemployment rate stands at 4.2 percent, up from 4 percent last year (Beijing does not keep official statistics of the rural jobless). But currently, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimates the nationwide unemployment rate to be around 9.5 percent—a number expected to rise through the year. Upwards of 15 million workers may join the ranks of the unemployed this year.

In just the past few months, we have witnessed a widespread reverse internal migration—poor urban workers are now returning, by the millions, back to the rural lands from whence they came.

Jane C. Loeffler: Building Hope Abroad

Citizenship & IdentityElections & Institutions

In his inaugural address, President Obama called on Americans to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” With these refreshing words he has joined a conversation launched in the late 1990s by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan—but largely ignored ever since—on how our public buildings can better balance security with the openness that is the hallmark of our democracy.

This is important for government buildings at home but all the more important abroad where our embassies present our face to the world. Bastion-like buildings that advertise only fear adversely affect America’s image abroad. Such structures convey none of the optimism that can be associated with forward-looking and accessible architecture.

Of course it is fair to ask whether the president was thinking about these sorts of buildings when he made his statement? Evidence suggests that he was. On the campaign trail in Iowa, for instance, he specifically condemned the new fortress-like U.S. embassy in Baghdad for the negative image it conveys. “First of all, it sends out a signal as if you are going to be a permanent occupier,” he said. “Secondly, it starts looking like a permanent base.” 

Indeed, it is wise to question how an unfettered security mandate can actually undermine the diplomatic mission that such buildings are meant to support.
 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now heads the effort to strengthen America’s foreign representation and protect personnel serving abroad. This is a daunting challenge in a world where we have many enemies. But she is tackling this task head-on, already calling for “smart power” as the basis for foreign policy. As our embassies are the most visible symbols of U.S. presence in capitals worldwide, this seems to presage embassies that are not just “smart”—in the sense of buildings equipped with integrated technology—but truly intelligent buildings that express America’s commitment and goodwill through excellence in design.

To accomplish her agenda, Mrs. Clinton will have to convince Congress of the need to define security in new and broader terms—terms that enhance America’s long-term diplomatic objectives as well as immediate safety considerations.

Swadesh M. Rana: Guantánamo’s Detainees — Diplomatic Quagmire or Security Risk?

Citizenship & IdentityRisk & Security

America’s European partners in its war on terror are not committing on when or whether to take in any detainees from Guantánamo. “There was nobody very hot about this, that’s perfectly true,” said Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg on January 26, after a meeting of the European Union. His nation holds the rotating presidency of the 27 member EU which includes 21 of the 26 members of NATO.

Austria is against taking any released prisoners. The parliament of Finland is split on the issue. Denmark would need to change its asylum laws to accept any detainees. Sweden sees no political or national security benefit in admitting them. Poland has no experience in dealing with this kind of prisoners. Italy and Spain would consider a U.S. request only if endorsed by the EU.

European opposition to this plan is vociferous. “I do not understand why we give the impression that Germany needs to accept prisoners. Guantánamo was established by the U.S. We did not run it. We did not use it,” says Wolfgang Bosbach, deputy leader of the Christian Democrats.

“Don’t forget these inmates are not kittens-it’s a risk for us to bring them into Europe.” says the Dutch Foreign Minister, Maxime Verhagen. London has already made a “significant contribution,” said U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband. England has already accepted nine of its citizens and six of its residents formerly imprisoned at Guantánamo.

France has found little support for its plan to lead an EU fact-finding mission to Guantánamo to ascertain the background of the current detainees and assess the security risks in accepting at least 60 persons who, while they face no charges in the United States, are likely to be tortured or persecuted if returned to the countries of their origin.

James Kraska & Brian Wilson: Fighting Pirates — The Pen and the Sword, Part II

Citizenship & IdentityElections & Institutions

In our article, “Fighting Pirates: The Pen and the Sword,” which appeared in the winter “Dear Mr. President” issue of World Policy Journal, we asserted that greater collaboration, increased prosecutorial capacity, and the creation of a network among concerned states were the most promising approaches to address the spike in piracy off the Somali coast. In the past two months, all three have occurred, and there has been an accompanying sharp drop in the number of successful attacks. While ships are still vulnerable, the political environment has improved.

In December 2008, the United Nations Security Council adopted two resolutions, numbers 1846 and 1851, to encourage prosecutions, support enhanced partnering, and authorize land-based military operations. In quick order, a “Contact Group” was established to address maritime piracy, meeting for the first time in January 2009 with representatives from 24 nations.

To increase accountability and the rule of law, Kenya has signed a bilateral accord with the United Kingdom to prosecute suspected pirates, and Kenya and the United States could sign a similar deal by the end of January, 2009. Two coalition military commands, the European Union’s Operation Atalanta and U.S. Fifth Fleet’s Combined Task Force 151, were launched to expand capacity and focus anti-piracy efforts. Moreover, Japan, Spain, and South Korea are poised to deploy naval forces to the region.

This collective action is having a positive effect: in January 2009, only 2 of 16 attacks by Somali pirates resulted in a successful boarding. In 2008, about a third (or 42 of the 111 attacks) were successful, with 815 mariners taken hostage. The threat of attack so concerned the shipping community that some companies altered their routes; others avoided the area completely.

As a result, the Suez Canal experienced a $35 million drop in revenues for 2008 and tuna catches in the Indian Ocean, a $6 billion industry, fell by 30 percent. One other factor has played in favor of fewer attacks—it is monsoon season in the Indian Ocean. High seas are restricting the pirates to the shores, reducing the number roving throughout the Arabian Sea.

Collaboration is ongoing and it is working. The European Commission hosted a piracy seminar in Brussels in January 2009 which included representatives from the maritime sector, governments, and military officials. Even more partnerships are in development: a piracy and drug trafficking conference, hosted by Yemen in collaboration with the United Kingdom, is slated for February.

The legal component of repression has been turned in the right direction over the past two months. Holding pirates accountable has been a tremendous challenge in anti-piracy operations. Many states either don’t have laws on their books enabling prosecutions or don’t desire to assert jurisdiction, convene a trial, and detain pirates. Thus, even though piracy is a universal crime allowing any state to prosecute, as a practical matter, piracy trials infrequently occur.

Several times in 2008, after hijackings were thwarted by warships, pirates were simply released, losing only their weapons.

Michael Deibert: Echoes of Obama on Australia Day

Citizenship & IdentityElections & Institutions

There we were, at a community meeting of indigenous Australians in the remote Northern Territory town of Borroloola, where dispersed communities of this frontier province come together only a scant few miles away from the Gulf of Carpentaria as it empties out into the Arafura Sea. Representatives of the region’s four main linguistic groups—the Gurdanji, Yanyuwa, Garawa, and Mara—were all here, discussing with a government minister and with one another the impact of a local mine that had, without consultation with the region’s traditional owners, expanded its operations from underground to open-cut. In the process, the company had destroyed sacred sites belonging to the clans and, so they feared, wreaked environmental havoc on the region’s fragile ecosystem.

In addition to the discussion of local issues, talk turned to the upcoming inauguration of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth president of the United States. The assemblage approved, and, as one indigenous person told me in simply, “he’s one of us.”

Such has been the change of being an American abroad over the last few months, replacing the smirking frat boy of years past with a figure whom, as one Norwegian friend told me, “radiates dignity in a really intense way.” There is a new face of the U.S. global brand abroad, as I witnessed in my reporting travels over the last year, which took me to five continents and countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Spain, Japan, and now Australia.

Australia, my base for the next few months and which today commemorates the arrival of Europeans on the continent, has grappled with its own issues of racial division and violence since the first British settlers arrived in 1788, with the country’s Aboriginal population bearing the brunt of massacre and mistreatment since that time. In recent years, newer arrivals to the country from places like India, Lebanon, and Vietnam have also had to confront a hard kernel of xenophobia here which can be rather shocking to visitors expecting tropical bliss as depicted in tourist brochures.

Nina L. Khrushcheva: The Best Enemy There Is

Citizenship & IdentityElections & Institutions

The fact that Russia is supposedly bad doesn’t make America better, or better off now at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency-mistrusted by the world, with two wars on its hands and an economy in ruin. In this environment is Russia a threat to the United States? Unlikely, but branding it as dictatorial revives the old fears and diverts attention from the immense problems America faces today.

Barack Obama’s presidency promises to usher his country into a new era of post-unilateral decisions, international diplomacy, and coherent foreign policymaking. This new era should also, perhaps, end the senseless public animosity towards Russia that has continued since 1991 when the Soviet Union lost the Cold War and, for all intents and purposes, disappeared. Becoming the world’s only superpower proved very damaging to the United States. Over-confidence, to no one’s surprise, bred hubris.

Bill Clinton’s administration tirelessly reminded the former Soviets that they, the losers, should unwaveringly follow the lead of all-powerful America. Boris Yeltsin’s privatization and marketization programs were not speedy enough, at least as judged in a Washington anxious to spend as little as possible helping Russia. Any thoughts of a Marshall Plan to ease Russia’s path were dismissed in Gingrich/Clinton Washington as welfare for communists.

In 2000, as a by-product of the all-or-nothing capitalization demanded of Russia by its American advisors, the country returned full circle—the KGB with President (now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin at the helm gained the ruling hand. Putin’s promise to restore Russian self-respect did indeed involve policies familiar from the communist era: jailing “dishonest” oligarchs, clamping down on an “irresponsible” press, and “deceptive” non-governmental organizations, pressuring neighboring countries by increasing prices or limiting Russian oil and gas, as well as flexing a bit of military muscle in Georgia (although Georgia’s own irresponsible leader, Mikhail Saakashvili, deserves equal blame for the August 2008 war), or sending training ships to Cuba and Venezuela to show the world that Russian military power was back.

Azubuike Ishiekwene: In Africa, Obama’s Tasks Are Huge

Citizenship & Identity

President Barack Obama is stepping up to a full plate. With nearly three million Americans out of job in 2008 alone, his priority must be to put the United States back to work again. Yet, there’s so much else in the world crying out desperately for attention.

It is a striking irony that Africa, which has given the United States its forty-fourth president, is the same continent that produced the two ranking Al-Qaeda members killed by U.S. drones in a New Year strike in Pakistan. Usama al Kini and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, the two Kenyans killed in the strike, could have been just like the men next door, raised on the basic African mores of communal harmony, respect for life, and the love of one’s neighbor. But these fellows were not; they were a different breed—masterminds of deadly terror attacks (from the East African bombings in 1998, which left 212 dead, to the Islamabad Marriott hotel bombing last September, which left 55 people dead).

The increasingly active role played by sub-Saharan Africans in the operations of Islamic fundamentalist networks is one of the challenges that the Obama administration will have to grapple with in the coming years. These challenges raise important questions: How many more al Kinis are being nurtured in terror cells in a continent festering with wars, narco-trade, corruption, and failed governments? What factors are responsible for the ascendancy of sub-Saharan Africans in a terror network once dominated by Middle Easterners?

The conditions that produced al Kini and Swedan abound in many parts of Africa today, even though the continent was only a footnote during the U.S. presidential election. Obama and John McCain made a few stray comments about Darfur, but neither spoke with clarity about what the continent should expect on their watch. Africa was a curiosity.

The global press followed Obama to his Luo roots in Kenya. But it had a hard time explaining how it was that while one Luo, Raila Odinga, could never hope to make it to his country’s top job, another Luo, 8,000 miles away, was about to make history as the first black president of the United States.

If the Obama odyssey demonstrates what is possible when grit and preparation meet in a land of opportunity, the misadventure of al Kini and Swedan speak to the dangers that the increasing number of failing and failed states pose to the world.