NY Times talking out of both sides of its A Section Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Sorry to carp, but just a quick addendum (and thank you, Matthew Yglesias, for caring):  This morning's Times has the "Mugabe's Party Wins" headline on its front page.  The jump is even worse, headlined:  "Mugabe's Party Routs the Opposition." (of note, the word rout has a wide array of definitions including "to bellow" and "to drive out", but its pretty clear the one intended here is "to defeat decisively or disastrously)  But the story goes on to cite not just the irregularities of the last few weeks, but "five years of srong-arm rule that . . . had conditioned voters to fear government retailiation if they supported the opposition."   

On page A14 there's an editorial stating that "No one believed Mr. Mugabe's claim that these elections would be democratic, except maybe his chief apologist, Thabo Mbeki."  The op-ed page has powerful piece by Nicholas Kristof on a similar theme.

I am a firm believer in the separation of editorial and news but someone's got to talk to the headline writers here. 

Mugabe Rex Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I know we all sorta feel like the most important thing to talk about is how we get our act together as a progressive foreign policy movement, and I find all my co-blogger's ideas on the subject exciting (look here, here, here and here for words of wisdom).

But in the meantime the world is moving.  Since we seem to be in for at least a week of all-Pope-all-the-time, I want to take a brief commercial break to focus on this week's outrage in Zimbabwe.   

CNN declares that Zimbabwe Ruling Party Wins Majority and the New York Times reports that Mugabe's Party Wins Majority in Zimbabwe.  Google news is rife with similar headlines.  Yet all the outlets go on to report the truth about this week's parliamentary elections there - that people were intimidated, eligible voters were turned away at the polls, some ballot boxes were see-through, polling was held in the homes of partisan chiefs, poor people were threatened with the withdrawal of food aid if they voted against Mugabe's ZANU-PF party, etc.    Never mind that, regardless of the outcome of the vote, Mugabe has arrogated for himself the right to personally appoint 30 of the country's 150 legislators.

It's precisely Mugabe's game to hold elections that are just barely plausible enough to garner him reports of victory and some sort of mandate to continue in office.  He's banking on the fact that if the headlines suggest he will stay in office, few will bother to even read the articles that list out reasons why he shouldn't.  For reasons I don't understand, American news outlets seem willing to play along.

Meanwhile, Mugabe is running what was one of Africa's greatest success stories straight into the ground.  The currency is worthless, the farmlands are being laid to waste, skilled people have left in droves, the media has been largely shut down, respected judges have been run out of office, the health care system has disintegrated, the country is fast running out of food and life expectancy has been sliced in half.   If you want to know more and don't mind crying while you read check out a website called Sokwanele (it means enough is enough) run by Zimbabwe's opposition as well as their blog. 

I remember that as a very young child when we went to visit my grandparents in South Africa the airplane lights would go off as we flew over what was then  Rhodesia in the death spiral of colonialism.    Years later, when I worked in South Africa during that country's democratic transition, Zimbabwe was a guiding light and a hopeful example.  Now it represents most South Africans' worst nightmare; one that is far too close for comfort both geographically and historically.

What I don't get is why the international media would in any way legitimize Mugabe's continued rule.  I don't know the details well enough to really compare, but when fraud allegations arose in relation to Ukraine's October, 2004 elections the international media pounced, a re-vote was held and opposition leader Viktor Yuschenko now runs the country.  The New York Times first story on that election seems to have been headlined Premier Claims He's the Winner in Ukraine Vote; unlike Mugabe Yanukovych never got the benefit of the doubt. 

To its credit, the Bush Administration has spoken out against the election irregularies in Zimbabwe.   So have some newspapers, with NY Newsday headlining its story Claims of A Stolen Election.

A major obstacle to building the momentum needed to oust Mugabe is the support he has from South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki and other leaders in the region.  This goes back to out-dated (but hardly baseless) notions of the need for African solidarity to counter Western pressure and neo-colonial interference.   The African Union's intolerance for an attempted coup d'etat by the son of Togo's longtime military ruler barely a month ago was an encouraging sign that African leaders may be getting ready to put principle and public welfare above blind fealty.   But Mugabe remains a hero in many eyes for his role in liberating Zimbabwe, and African leaders are not prepared to treat him the same way they did a largely unknown, upstart power-grabber in Togo.

African leaders failure to take a stand on Zimbabwe is having tragic results.  But that's no excuse for the failure of the mainstream media to call Mugabe on his shameless power play and flat-out refuse to legitimize the results of an election that was by all accounts deeply flawed.

Chinese Checkmate Posted by Suzanne Nossel

So the Chinese have been supporting a popular petition drive that claims to have gathered 22 million signatures in opposition to Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the UNSC.  While its not clear that the government is behind this per se, they are giving prominent news coverage to the movement on state-run television.

One part of what's fascinating about that is this:  the Chinese feeling the need to legitimize their long-standing opposition to a Japanese seat with this outpouring of popular sentiment.  The implication is that without the support of the Chinese population clearly demonstrated to the world, the government would have a tougher time heading off the Japanese candidacy, or exercising its veto if it should come to that.

Two interesting things about this.  One is a striking corrollary to another phenomenon I've been noticing and writing about:  the growing impact of popular attitudes in democracies around the world on those countries' foreign policies and, specifically, on the United States' superpower prerogatives (for the short version of this argument see post, the long version see article).  Democratic governments are clearly becoming more beholden to their electorates when it comes to shaping foreign policy.  Popular opinion also seems to matter increasingly when it comes to establishing the legitimacy of policy decisions in the eyes of the rest of the world.   What's happening in China is the latest example of this phenomenon which bears watching.

The second noteworthy angle is what this means for China.  The NYT article doesn't look at the larger implications of a mass political movement coming to the fore there, though its last line quotes the petition drive's organizer saying "There has never before been a petition campaign of this magnitude in China.  It will be much harder for the government to suppress in future."  Surely the Chinese know this . . . what's interesting is that they seem to be promoting this effort anyway.

The Law Won Posted by Suzanne Nossel

U.S. abstains in UN vote, allowing Darfur war crimes cases to go to the Hague. 

Long arm of the law may actually reach Darfur (if the U.S. lets it) Posted by Suzanne Nossel

It's gonna be a long night at UN headquarters, with the Security Council in the endgame of a months-long debate over Darfur.  It's expected that provided they can ram through a six-fold belt-and-suspenders approach to ensuring that Americans serving in Sudan will never be subject to international justice, the US will abstain on a resolution that would--among other measures to address the Darfur crisis--refer Sudanese war crimes cases to the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

(See earlier post on this arguing that the US has nothing to worry about in terms of Americans being hauled before the court, and the comments by the estimable Jeffrey Laurenti and others.  No, Jeff, American-style investigations into alleged war crimes are probably not beyond international reproach.  But as a practical matter any attempt by an international court to assume jurisdiction over American nationals against the U.S.'s would make George Wallace in the schoolhouse door look like the welcome wagon.)

If this goes through as expected, at least two points jump to mind:

First off, attempts to influence Bush Administration policy are not futile.  An NGO coalition got together and pushed hard on the ICC referral.  The Security and Peace Institute was a big part of this effort.  I have worked as a U.S. diplomat at the UN and know first hand how tough it is to corrall the world body even when you speak on behalf of its largest member and contributor.  So when I first heard of this NGO effort I saw little chance they'd affect the outcome of the UN debate.  Obviously a host of diplomatic considerations came into play, and the organizations did not change U.S. policy single-handedly.  But they made a difference here and can make a difference elsewhere.  We should not give up on trying to influence policy in the here-and-now.

Relatedly, we need to take credit for our successes.  I am looking forward to seeing how the Administration will spin this--likely as a courageous stand on behalf of American servicemembers.   But the truth is that conservatives have resisted mightily calls to refer Darfur to the ICC.  They made a convoluted argument that, notwithstanding the US's longstanding position that international tribunals cost too much and are inefficient, rather than relying on the ICC a new, separate, ad hoc Court ought to be created for Sudan (the Argentinians and others were up in arms over the needless excess cost of this approach).  Under pressure from critics, they were forced to reverse themselves and accept the result progressives pushed for all along.   The ICC is not perfect and needs to be further developed, but nonetheless this is a victory for the core belief in the need for durable, empowered international institutions, and we ought to claim it.

The second point is that, indispensable nation though we are, the rest of the world can and will move ahead without us when we choose to stand outside multinational organs and treaties.  When they do so, try as the U.S. government may to hold out against their efforts, the press of events, logic, world opinion, and our own public has the power to suck us in.   

In this case, its ideals that were to a significant extent made-in-the-USA--accountability, the rule of law, justice for all--that have propelled global support for the ICC, and are now pulling even a reluctant U.S. government into its orbit.  U.S. abstention on this resolution is the camel's nose under the tent of ultimate acceptance of the ICC.  Provided the Court performs, there will be no turning back. 

When it comes to the next treaty or body that we don't like, will we stand apart in protest, or--as President Clinton advocated vis-a-vis the ICC--sit down at the table and try to steer the deliberations to suit U.S. interests.  It's too early to say, but the outcome of this sleepless night at the UN will help determine the answer.

Of Democrats, Discipline, and Democratization Posted by Michael Signer

Amen, Heather, Amen.  But the problem goes way deeper than Lakoffian framing.  Democrats need to understand the enemy, and our own organizational problems, if we're ever to get a foreign policy message off the ground.

Former Senator Jack Danforth's piece in the New York Times yesterday was a welcome reminder from deep within the Republican Party that the screeching turn to theologically-grounded policy is by no means normal, and no means right. 

Danforth focuses on the wrenching Schiavo posturing, and the stem-cell issue--but the issue goes to the heart of our foreign policy.

In January, Bill Moyers published an article proving how the Bush foreign policy has been dominated by an almost millenarian evangelical thinking.  This explains the surprise affection for Israel, the almost joyful anticipation of the apocalypse, and the familiar arrogance of the initiated toward the heathenry.

How should liberals differ?  In many ways, Democrats should naturally be more pro-democracy and better at envisioning a newly enlightened world than Republicans.  The basic nature of liberalism (the word, after all, means to free the mind) lends itself better to vision and hope than traditionally hidebound conservativism. 

Democrats, for instance, should be outrunning conservatives on the issue of democratization.  Mort Halperin has co-authored a wonderful new book called The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace, which shows that even the poorest countries are "ready" for democracy, and that the world prospers when democracies grow. 

So why are we so divided, so squeamish, about returning to the vision of global democracy Woodrow Wilson (one of our own) first endorsed?  Aside from the Vietnam syndrome, and basic partisan resentment at being outfoxed (again) by Bush, it all returns to the name:  unlike the theocons, Democrats can be too democratic.  We can't unify around democratization--done right--because we're spread too thin around every danged viewpoint.

We need discipline--a stronger pole for the big tent.  That's why Bill Bradley's piece on our "inverted pyramid" problem was so refreshing, and so right.  The DNC and our party elders (Bill Clinton?) need to negotiate with the powerful Democratic interest groups to ignore their navels for a moment and get on board with a democratization vision, in broad-brush outline, because the stakes are just too high to do otherwise.  It won't be easy--but then politics never is.

The Right Thing on Darfur Posted by Suzanne Nossel

This is big stuff.  See prior discussion.  More later or from others.

Washington will let ICC hold Darfur trials: report
Last Updated Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:45:07 EST
CBC News

WASHINGTON - The United States has agreed to let the International Criminal Court try people accused of committing war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region, a news report says.

Washington had strongly opposed holding the trials at the UN court in The
Hague, but agreed to a compromise on Wednesday, the Associated Press
reported, citing officials from the administration of President George W.
Bush.

The United States doesn't support the court because it says it fears
political enemies might launch frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions against U.S. citizens.

The officials, who asked not to be named because the deal hasn't been
made public, told the news agency the compromise includes guarantees that the ICC could not prosecute Americans deployed in Sudan

The compromise marked the latest development in drawn-out efforts by the
Security Council to deal with the crisis in Darfur.

Fighting between government-backed militias and rebels has killed about
180,000 in the region. As many as 350,000 people may have died of pneumonia, diarrhea and malnutrition and more than 1.2 million have been driven from their villages in the past 18 months alone.

Human-rights groups and other observers - including former U.S. secretary
of  state Colin Powell - have condemned the violence as genocide.

Many have urged the UN to deploy a peacekeeping force to quell the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

But discussions at the UN's Security Council have repeatedly been stalled
by political wrangling, as the deaths continue.

On March 29, the Security Council voted to impose a travel ban and freeze
assets of people who commit atrocities in Darfur.

A few days earlier, it unanimously approved a resolution to send 10,000
peacekeepers to southern Sudan - but the troops won't be going to Darfur.

The Religious Right Goes Global Posted by Suzanne Nossel

So Muslim, Jewish, Catholic and other clerics have finally found something they can agree on:  going after a gay pride festival scheduled to take place in Jersusalem. With all the conflict and upheaval going on in the Mideast, these "leaders" have chosen to take a stand to prevent a parade, film festival and art exhibit.

Religious leaders can play a powerful and unique role in helping to resolve political conflict and bridge divides between people. This was true at all levels during South Africa's transformation to democracy.  Archbishop Desmond Tutu was the most prominent example, but there were countless others--white and black, from every denomination--who served as mediators both formally and informally, helping the country adapt to change (there were intransigent hold-outs in the religious community too, but fewer of them). Part of it is that these people can communicate across huge political chasms, finding a common ground from shared belief at times when political leaders cannot.  Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe is cut from the same mold and is trying hard, at considerable personal risk, to bring change in that country.

In his own way, I think Ayatollah Sistani has understood what it takes to lead his followers forward, and has acted on it. The same is not true of this gang of Jerusalem clerics, who have found common cause not in helping to get past conflicts, but in promoting bigotry.

Stepford Wonks and Security Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Progressive circles in Washington and elsewhere have been anxious and chatty for months over the rise of the conservative movement, its implications for American society and politics, and what progressives can do to fight back. This was kicked off by a NY Times magazine article last year by Matt Bai, which outlined the efforts of a long-time Democrat named Rob Stein to educate progressives, liberals and other Democrats about the media-money-message-matrix on the right. The gist: conservative dominance is not an accident, but an outcome. Knowing this is empowering for those of us who work on security because it places our challenge today in a long-term perspective. It also places 9/11 in the context of a talented and cynical conservative movement at the top of its game.  The right doesn't have a superior narrative on security, what they do have, however is a peerless echo chamber.

Kofi Medicine Posted by Arsenal Guard

Derek:  I think Annan's going to survive this.   Norm Coleman is not the ruler of the universe, and having already slapped the UN in the face with the Bolton appointment, I don't see the Administration going after Annan right now.  And the SYG won't go unless he's pushed hard.  Boutros-Ghali fought for his life even after the UN's greatest sympathizers in Washington made it clear that he had lost their confidence.  If anyone really has time on their hands, his book Unvanquished (written after he had been vanquished) makes interesting reading on the U.S.-UN relationship--I actually read it before starting work at the US Mission to the UN on trying to settle our dues.

Pragmatically speaking, there's no question it's in the U.S.'s interests to keep Annan in office. The Administration being up in arms over nepotism is about as hypocritical as Tom Delay and Rick Santorum--both revealed this week to have been plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases involving family members--leading the charge against the trial lawyers.  Kojo's mistake was not calling up Liz Cheney, Michael Powell, Eugene Scalia, Strom Thurmond, Jr., Janet Rehnquist...(for lots more examples look here) to get some advice on how this sort of thing is done.   

More importantly, though he's made a few dumb mistakes, Annan's tenure has, in all, been a very good thing for the U.S.   We installed him to replace Boutrous-Ghali because, while he is of the developing world and has credibility among those delegations, he does not share the anti-Western and anti-Israel bias that so many of them betray.   While the organization is in deep doo, Annan has racked up some successes:  he revived UN peacekeeping and has avoided Srebrenica-style debacles; he's been more of a reformer than any of his predecessors were--and he's genuinely trying to push a lot farther ahead now; he has consistently paid an awful lot of attention to US demands and concerns (see my earlier post about just how pro-US his reform package is). 

Annan has only 18 months left on his term.  From what I can tell, the rest of the world is far less obsessed with Kojogate than we are.  If we push him out, they will do all they can to reward us with someone worse.  I agree that Kofi is weakened, and that his oversights have undermined the UN at a time when the organization can ill afford further scandal.   Rather than trying to run him out of office, the U.S. should focus on pushing through his reform package, and finding a successor that is as U.S.-friendly as Annan but a better leader.   

How 'bout we offer the membership this deal: Annan serves out his term, but in return gets replaced by Bill Clinton?  Everyone will be up in arms because its technically Asia's "turn" at the SYGship in 2008, but those who care about the organization might just recognize this as a way to ensure it survives and thrives. 

Cryin' in my Kofi Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Will the blog kibbitzers stop us before we pun again?

Suzanne's Clinton analogy strikes home for me, and not just because I wuz there.  Again, the question: how can somebody so smart, so politically savvy, such a keen analytic mind not see that this was happening, that it was a danger to him, and that it had to stop?

I'd love to hear Suzanne's take on what was happening in the mind of the SYG.  But I'll also point out that you can name people from Bill Clinton to the just-deposed head of AIG who have found themselves in similar situations.  Not too many pay the ultimate price, Greenberg not withstanding.  And that gives me a chance to strike one of my favorite soapbox poses about international organizations:

They and their staffs put their pants legs on one at a time (or don't, in some cases) just like the national governments, politicians and citizens who love to excoriate them.  We love to put them on pedestals and then knock 'em off.

Corruption is wrong.  Corruption that was winked at by national governments, including ours, is still wrong.  Not wanting to ask too many questions about what your child is up to seems a pretty normal human frailty to me (and my kid is less than a year).  But an organization that does all the stuff the UN does manage to do, in spite of everything, on the budget of one mid-sized American state with about as much corruption as you seem to find in many state governments--that still seems miraculous to me. 

So, speaking of American states, why isn't Norm Coleman as worried about Tom Delay's corrupting effect on Texas and Washington politics, which affects a lot more money and a lot more Americans, as he is about Kofi Annan?

But Should Kofi Go? Posted by Derek Chollet

Suzanne, I agree with your disappointment in Kofi Annan, especially because of the great admiration I have for him.  That's why I've been struggling with the question if whether, even though the commission found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, it would still be better for the UN for him to go? 

I watched most of his press conference yesterday, and I have to say I was not thrilled with his performance.  He seemed too quick to declare victory, even though the commission blamed him for less-than-diligent management and sharply criticized the performance of two of his closest advisers (including for destroying documents).  His "hell no" answer seemed almost too defiant, leaving the impression that he considered himself bigger than his job.  Oddly enough, I would have liked to hear more along the modest lines of what Paul Wolfowitz has been saying about his position at the World Bank--that he is an international civil servant serving at the pleasure of the member states and will work like hell to gain and maintain their confidence, and if he can't, he's gone.  Maybe he's worried that any sign of weakness will snowball out of control, or maybe he's been told (as good crisis consultants have undoubtedly advised) to stand firm and wait until this blows over and the press and his enemies lose interest and move on.  My worry is that there's already too much blood in the water.   I want to be wrong...am I? 

Kofi Break Posted by Suzanne Nossel

First read Heather's post below on how we put the progressive foreign policy Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Then a few words on Kofi Annan.  Yes, he was formally exonerated, in that the Volcker panel couldn't find any evidence that he knew Cotecna (a Swiss company that had Kofi's son Kojo on its payroll) was bidding for an oil for food contract.  But he doesn't come off looking great - particularly for neglecting to properly look into the matter when allegations first came up in 1999.  Kojo did not get off as easily.  He was found to have used his UN connections to try to advantage his former employer, to have remained on the take from Cotecna for far more money and far longer than he originally admitted, and to have failed to fully cooperate with investigators.

I feel about Annan the way I felt about Bill Clinton during the impeachment scandal.  Both men have enemies who are out for blood and won't listen to reason.  Even though it found no wrongdoing on the Secretary General's part, Senator Norm Coleman used the report as an excuse to repeat his call for Annan to resign.  But both Clinton and Annan knew full well that their ruthless opponents would stop at nothing to try to take them down.   And both took risks that were flat out irresponsible in terms of putting in jeopardy the institutions they were entrusted with, the principles they stood for, and the people that depended on them.   Its hard to imagine that in light of the meetings that took place involving Kojo and Cotecna at the margins of UN business that Annan didn't have some inkling of what his son was up to.   Given the scrutiny attached to Oil for Food since the late 1990s, Annan should have done better than just look the other way.   As with the impeachment, I am of course glad to see Annan cleared of wrongdoing.  But that doesn't mean I don't think he should have behaved differently given what he knew he and the UN were up against.

Step 1: Don't Blame the Victim Posted by Heather Hurlburt

OK, tired of finding different groups to blame for Democrats' inability to get over the wall on national security.  Here's my proposal for a ten-step program to get Democrats back on the map:

Step 1.  Don't Blame the Victims (grassroots progressives).  Beinart lost a lot of credibility with me when he published an op-ed blaming the problem on liberal Iowa voters.  It's our job to help them figure out what to think about national security... isn't it? 

Step 2.  Stop caricaturing what both progressives and the general public want in foreign policy.  They think much more sensibly than we give them credit for -- and then don't find candidates who express what they think.

Step 3.  Send all senior-level party functionaries and would-be candidates off to learn something about the fundamentals of foreign policy.  Don't let 'em back until they have.  Oops, that would require...

Step 4.  Create progressive institutions that are focused not on media grandstanding, arguing with other progressives or debating how many Security Council seats can fit on the head of a pin, but actually educating our own and giving them products they can use.

Step 5.  Send all progressive foreign policy experts off to learn something about the country we live in, how our political system works, and how to talk to normal people without condescending, so that they can then populate the institutions created in step 4.

Step 6.  Every progressive takes a personal vow to learn something about our military, how it works, what its ethos is, and how it affects our society at all levels -- as well as what it does well and less well in the wider world.

Step 7.  Reformed policy experts can work on crafting what Suzanne mentioned in her post -- a larger agenda that speaks to the core values and beliefs of our voters, into which we can slot all our favorite policies and programs because the larger concepts would reassure voters that they can trust us.  (Suzanne mentioned several concepts that don't cut it.  Let me add another from the campaign:  "Strengthen core alliances."  I'm a liberal, for heaven's sake, and even I know that alliances are not an end in themselves but a means to do things we want done.)

Step 8.  Said constructs then have to be framed (you knew I'd get to Lakoff eventually) in a way that vaults over the wall of fear and mayhem that our opponents and the media have conspired to construct in regular folks' minds about the world.

Step 9.  Reformed party bigs then concentrate on making this agenda an organic part of an overall progressive agenda, and send out candidates who look credible.

Step 10.  Progressive rank-and-file then has to take a deep breath and get into this.  Then, if it still doesn't work, we can follow Peter Beinart and blame our troubles on those Iowa progressives.  But not before. 

Progressives Anonymous Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I agree with everything Derek says, and have tried to deal with some of these questions in two past articles:  Battle Hymn of the Democrats and Smart Power.  I don't have answers, but some of things we ought to think about are:

We need to convey toughness not just in what we say but in how we say it - as this Administration has shown repeatedly, when it comes to national security being forceful but wrong often goes over better than being nuanced but right.   Whether we like it or not, this truth needs to influence what we say and who we choose to say it.

We should not lose sight of the core principles that have fueled every foreign policy success progressives can claim during the 20th century.  Though some don't like the term, I think of these ideals broadly as "liberal internationalism" - promoting human rights, democracy, free trade, economic development, etc.   That conservatives have coopted and distorted these ideas does not mean we should just hand them over, criticizing the promotion of liberty as "too ambitious" and a diversion from core Amerian interests.   Stepped up container inspections and a bigger army are both critical, but they are not the unifying backbone for a clear alternative to conservative policies.

Say what you want about George Lakoff, we still have a lot of hard work to do on framing.   When people ask about the core principles of a progressive foreign policy, the answer cannot be a stronger UN, or indeed anything with the clunker "multilateralism" in it.  I don't pretend to have the answer here - we need to keep throwing things out until something sticks.   

To get the ball rolling, how about "democratic consolidation."  The idea would be to draw a contrast to the fragmented, transitory conservative approach - shifting emphasis from one hotspot to the next; relying on ephemeral coalitions of the willing; lacking the staying power to deliver on the long-term work of solidifying democracy; sowing divisions among should-be allies; undercutting institutions that promote the global rule of law.  Consolidation would be the opposite:  shoring up democracies in all stages of development; strengthening international institutions that can help spread democracy and its necessary corrolaries like economic development; isolating and squeezing the remaining anti-democratic outposts around the world.   This may not be the right formulation, but we ought to be looking hard to find what is.

We need a 12 step program. Now. Posted by Derek Chollet

Since the 2004 election there has been a surge in longish think pieces about progressives and national security, starting with Peter Beinart's cover story in the New Republic (which, by the way, has brought him a very hefty advance to turn into a book), and more recently Matthew Yglesias's article in the American Prospect.    Both of these essays provide useful historical perspective and plenty of insider gossip, and help define what efforts like this blog (and its host institution) are all about.   We could write on this subject for days -- and I hope we do -- but let me focus on a couple thoughts that came to mind when re-reading these articles.

First, it is true as Beinart stresses that the dominant interest groups within the Democratic party still do not see national security as a vital part of the progressive mission (or, a successful progressive mission), and those that do tend to lean far to the left of mainstream America (think MoveOn).  I actually think that the former issue is more of a problem than the latter -- many Americans are uneasy with the Administration's performance on national security, as the latest polls about support for the Iraq war illustrate.

Yet too many progressives still believe that national security is not "our" issue.   We still approach these questions as boxes to check.  Take this example: the Kerry-Edwards campaign was more focused on national security issues than any Democratic campaign probably since 1960, yet too often it still treated these issues as things we had to pivot off of to hammer Bush on our perceived bread and butter: health care, education, taxes, the environment, etc. etc.  People actually said behind closed doors things like "once we give this speech/make this argument/end this debate on Iraq or terrorism, we will be able to pivot onto other issues."  Many political advisers thought that we could end the debate with one killer line of attack, and then never have to deal with it again.  A big part of our challenge as national security progressives is to make the case that these issues are not just ones that we can remain credible on (or dispense with through one thoughtful speech), but ones that we can actually win on.

A second part of our challenge is to bridge a cultural divide - not the ones most political commentators talk about, but the enduring gap between progressives and the military.  This is as much about experience and disposition as it is about specific policies.  Progressives actually think a lot about and are comfortable with foreign policy (diplomacy, foreign aid, institutions, etc); but we have less confidence in national security (defense).  Often this divide is obvious, often it develops in more subtle and even unintentional ways -- this is what I was getting at in last week's dust-up with Suzanne about the wisdom of promoting some sort of civilian post-stabilization corps. 

By far the best article written about this gap was after another painful election loss (2002) by our own Heather Hurlburt.  What's most depressing about her piece is how right she was then, and how little has changed today.  But I guess acknowledging that we have a problem is the first step toward recovery.  What other steps do we need?

More CNN, Less Fox News Posted by Michael Signer

I agree wholeheartedly with Suzanne's endorsement of the idea of an all-Africa cable channel (sorry, it's just too rainy and gray here in D.C. to "spar"), for a specific reason -- what we need more of in our foreign policy-making is good old information.  But the channel's going to have to be done right to add to, rather than subtract from, our views on Africa.  I once toiled in the vineyards of prime-time cable documentaries, and I can tell you that keeping the wheat and chaff together ain't easy.  It's encouraging that they say they want to show "another side of Africa."  But I have to say the history of cable TV doesn't inspire me with optimism.

Facts, obdurate and uncooperative as they can be, can do a world of good in our more ideological areas of policy.  One of the legion reasons the theocons' (Andrew Sullivan's pungent label) insane ressentiment in the Schiavo case is so frustrating is they utterly ignore the reams of facts about her medical condition, her purported wishes, her past life, that courts considered in deciding to allow her husband to make the agonizing decision he made.  But facts are boring, and, worse, gum up theological reasoning.

We tend to see Africa only through the lens of pathology and crisis.  In approaching this incredibly diverse continent, for instance, the Bush Administration has focused almost exclusively on the AIDS epidemic.  Nothing wrong with that, of course.  But Africans also work in skyscrapers and wear business suits, make complex family decisions like the rest of us, host teeming expatriate cultures, generate complex religious hybrids of Christianity and native creeds, create exciting cultural exports, whether in arts or commerce -- but these facts rarely make their way through the thicket of the American media.

My pet theory for why Guns, Germs and Steel was such a blockbuster was its exposure of a subtle condescension in most of us when considering why Africa tends to have so many economic and military problems.  Rather than blaming it on the Africans themselves, Jared Diamond convincingly showed we should blame the climate and longitude.  And how striking was that?

This new channel promises to tell stories about Africans' lives -- not just present a lowest-common-denominator cavalcade of misery, despair, and sexually carried diseases.  If it's more CNN, and less Fox News, it just might have a chance.

Africa Hits Prime Time Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The New York Times is reporting on a new cable channel devoted to Africa that plans to launch later this year.  The idea is to array news, music, movies, reality programs and other shows from Africa or on topics of African interest, but tailored to a U.S. audience. 

I have no idea if this will succeed commercially, but it is the kind of thing we all should get behind.  I have sat through so many seminars and discussions where audience members berate journalists for failing to adequately cover certain kinds of foreign policy issues, and African stories top the list of what seems get neglected.  The writers and editors invariably reply that their reporting follows the interests of their audience, and that Americans simply don't care about what goes on in places like Africa.

A niche cable channel won't change that overnight, but it could make a small difference.   If just 1% more Americans knew Darfur existed it would make it harder for the Administration to duck and weave in response to disaster unfolding there.   If 1% more Americans understood the economics of the global cotton trade and the devastating impact that anti-competitive U.S. subsidies for cotton farmers have on African livelihoods, the Administration's policy might change.

Companies that profess to want to make a difference around the world in ways that extend beyond short-term relief for the tsunami victims should consider getting behind this channel.   Without cost-effective distribution and advertiser support the venture will fail.  With it, there is a chance that the Africa network will both win viewers, and help to shape informed views.

Preaching about Africa's woes will never work.   Information and entertainment that offers a picture of what's interesting and vibrant about the African continent just might.