G-8: Not Just One Queasy Stomach Posted by Heather Hurlburt

This entire G-8 meeting, which was to have been an opening showcase for France's Sarkozy, a farewell love-in for Britain's Tony Blair, and a chance of global warming redemption of President Bush, is looking like a big bunch of nothin' to me.  Sure, that's often the case, but you'd have thought there were several leaders with the incentive to do more, our own included.

Here's the most positive spin I could find on the climate change language:  "wait and see."

The $60 billion commitment for Africa is $30 billion of previously-pledged US money and $30 billion of new pledges from European nations that are behind on their previous pledges... and NGOs which have up to now been supportive of the G-8 process are hopping mad.

I am exasperated," Irish rock star and anti-poverty campaigner Bono told Reuters. "I think it is deliberately the language of obfuscation. It is deliberately misleading."

Le Monde claimed that there was "agreement reached" on Darfur, but the language doesn't look like anything to get excited about to me:

We underline that there is no military solution to the conflict in Darfur and fully support the efforts of the special envoys of the UN and the AU [African Union] to restart negotiations with a view to reaching a political agreement.

Ditto Iran and North Korea, unless I missed something.

And on Kosovo's final status, the Russians gave nothing, no statement, nada, zip, zero.  (Trying to make an early mark, Sarkozy proposed that the sides have six months to work something out and, if they failed, the independence-with-lots-of-oversight proposals of UN mediator Martti Ahtisaari would go into effect.  Cute.  But nyet.)

No wonder W. stayed in his room this morning.

Legitimacy Synonymous With Democracy? Posted by David Shorr

One of the latest papers in the Stanley Foundation's Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide project is a piece by Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan on America and the Use of Force: Sources of Legitimacy. I agree with much in the paper (disclosure: I"m a co-editor), but when they argue that only democratically elected governments can lend legitimacy at the international level, I see a real problem.

The authors take the emphasis on regime character to its logical extreme: undemocratic governments are members of the international community at our sufferance. Now I'm no neo-realist, but to me, this dismissal of the Westphalian order is liberal internationalism run amok. And as we try to revise the concept of sovereignty to hold leaders accountable for how they treat their own people, I actually see the Daalder-Kagan position as a threat to the emerging -- and important -- Responsibility to Protect norm. It's the difference between viewing the Community (Concert) of Democracies as a long-term project, which is a fine thing, or seeing it as a soon-as-we-can-slap-something-together replacement for the UN, which is not such a good idea.

An Urgent Letter from Egypt Posted by Shadi Hamid

I just got an email from Saad Eddin Ibrahim, one of Egypt's most prominent and courageous pro-democracy activists. Amr Tharwat, an employee of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies (which Saad Eddin founded), was arrested just over a week ago. Saad Eddin writes:

[Amr Tharwat] has been in Egyptian custody for one week now, along w/ four other family members, and we have been able to discover nothing about his specific whereabouts or what he is being charged with.  We at the Ibn Khaldun Center consider his arrest as simply another manifestation of the current regime's complete disregard for human rights and basic human liberties.  Please do all you can do through whatever channels you have at your disposal to pressure the Egyptian government to release Amr and his family members.

This is not just about Amr. This is about a rapidly deteriorating situation in Egypt, the second-largest recipient of US aid. This is about Egypt's autocrats - led by strongman-for-life Hosni Mubarak - who have mercilessly done everything in their power to destroy the Egyptian opposition. So what will we do? As Americans, we have a responsibility to speak out, particularly as close to $2 billion of our money goes to the Egyptian regime each year.    

As I wrote earlier this week, Congress is set to debate and vote on foreign aid levels as part of the foreign operations appropriations bill. The full committee mark-up is scheduled for this Tuesday, June 12. Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Tom Lantos (D-CA), and Nita Lowey (D-NY) are three Democrats who have taken an interest in this issue, with Obey and Lantos, in particular, having supported reductions in aid to Egypt. If you would like to call their offices to urge them to take action on aid to Egypt, please do. Phone numbers: Obey (202-225-3365), Lantos (202-225-3531), Lowey (202-225-6506). To learn more about this issue and what congress can do about it, see here.

Global Economy, Global Primary Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I've got a piece up on TomPaine.com expanding on my argument that progressives ought to want more and varied debate on global issues in the primaries, not less:

Telling progressive candidates to focus on domestic issues has been a longstanding staple of the political consultant’s talking points. But that’s been wrong for a while now. Wrong because many working people’s issues are international, or globalized, issues. Wrong because Americans are telling everyone who’ll listen that they want a change in how America acts in the world. And wrong because a whole class of candidates proved in 2006 that progressive candidates can make national security work for, not against, them as an issue.

Jewish and Arab Americans Think Alike about the Middle East? Posted by Jerry Mayer

Well, not exactly. But via Andrew Sullivan, I found this great new poll, in which the authors found remarkable areas of agreement between Jews and Arabs in the US:
***
The poll is yet another, and this time quite stunning confirmation that both groups want an American administration that is actively engaged in Middle East peacemaking, support a two-state solution, an end to occupation and freeze on settlements, and see a peace agreement as a U.S.strategic interest. A thumping 68 percent of Jewish Americans, and 64 percent of Arab Americans, say they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who promised to take an active role in the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians. While fully 80 percent and 77 percent respectively rate President Bush's handling of the conflict as not effective
***
In an academic article I wrote a few years back, I showed that Christian fundamentalists were Israel's strongest supporters among the American public. This latest poll contributes to my belief that American Jews are actually more moderate in their support for Israel, compared to fundamentalist Christians. I would argue that they are better friends of Israel, because you don't show your friendship to Israel by encouraging it to hold onto as much of the West Bank as possible. You show your friendship by doing what is necessary to bring peace, which means removing most of the settlements. A lot of American Jews are to the left of Likud, but not so many Christian fundamentalists are.

Aid to Egypt: Time for Congress to Take a Stand Posted by Shadi Hamid

An article of mine on the question of cutting U.S. aid to Egypt is out today at the American Prospect. The basic problem is this: We support Egypt's dictatorship to the tune of nearly $2 billion of aid each year. And the political situation in the country continues to deteriorate. The Islamist and secularist opposition alike are being crushed, and the Bush administration refuses to do anything about it. Now that it's appropriations season, it is time for congress to lead on this issue:

The time of year has again arrived when the U.S. Congress considers funding levels for foreign aid. But this year is different. Democrats control a majority in both the House and Senate and, for the first time in more than 12 years, will have the opportunity to set the agenda on this critical issue.

2007 has seen a continued deterioration in the political situation in the Middle East. Democrats have been preoccupied with a contentious debate on Iraq war funding, which has split the caucus in recent weeks. But beyond the war, 2007 has also been marked by the resurgence of Arab autocrats, who have strengthened their grip on power, and embarked on a sometimes brutal campaign against their opponents. There is no longer any "Arab spring" to speak of. Most troubling is the unfolding situation in Egypt, one of America's closest allies in the region and the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid.

Since January, the regime of longtime President Hosni Mubarak has unleashed an unprecedented wave of repression on opposition parties and civil society. The regime has recently focused much of its ire against the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition group in parliament (it holds 88 seats), imprisoning hundreds of its members and freezing the group's financial assets. The smaller secular and liberal parties, such as the Al-Ghad party and the Kifaya movement, have been similarly crushed.

"They'll follow us home" and other McCain spin Posted by Jerry Mayer

So in tonight's debate, McCain said this (this is from my own ears, not from a transcript so caveat auditor)

“I am convinced that if we fail and we have to withdraw they will follow us home, it will be a base for Al Qaeda….there is no doubt in my mind that this will become a base for terrorism and there will be chaos in the region. "

And here we have yet again the Republicans planning for the "stab in the back" meme when we inevitably leave Iraq in a mess. Then, if there is ever a subsequent attack on these shores, not only will Republicans try to blame us for losing the war, but for making us less safe.

But this is just ignorance. The only thing empowering Al Qaeda in Iraq is our presence. The Iraqi people seem to hate Al Qaeda. It is, after all, Al Qaeda more than any other group that has engaged in a massive suicide bombing campaign that has bled all three major ethnic groups (although primarily Shia).

If we leave Iraq, McCain is right about one thing. There will be chaos in the country. But in the midst of it, things will quickly go badly for AQI. They cannot make a compromise with the majority Shia, and the Kurds hate them. Their support among Sunnis has never been strong. The Iraqis will take them out, faster and more brutally and more capably than we could. I suppose if no government establishes any civil order for more than a year in Anbar, we might see a small terrorist rump state develop, but even that would be short lived. There will be no Taliban-state in Iraq for any length of time.

And McCain was also right in his ringing (and rehearsed and recycled) line about "presidents don't lose wars, parties don't lose wars, nations lose wars." Yes, they do, wars that unwise presidents and corrupt and clueless parties choose, in this case.

Our loss in Iraq will be rightfully perceived as a grave defeat for America. But there is no victory plan worthy of the name, so we are destined for defeat, now or soon or in the long term. Ilan's blistering and prescient evisceration of Petraeus' coming report is spot-on. We are strong enough that we can choose the timing and the nature of our defeat. That is all the choice Bush has left us. In my work for the State Department, I think I've met well over 30 Iraqis here in Washington. I've shaken hands with mayors from each of the three main groups, and even some Chaldean Christian leaders from Iraq. And since 2003, they all asked me if we would stay. I have been warning them since 2004 that we might not. I want to retch every time I think that part of our leaving will mean that many of those people and their families will be lined up against a wall and shot (if they're lucky, without torture preceding that). Executed because they trusted George W. Bush and America to get this right.

When that happens, expect McCain and others to blame the Democrats for their deaths. However, it is this administration and the war supporters in both parties who really will have those brave Iraqis' blood on their hands.

A "Pro-Chaos" Foreign Policy Posted by Shadi Hamid

In light of recent revelations that Defense Department neo-cons were agitating for Taiwain to declare independence (a move that would likely lead to violence or war), there has been some renewed discussion about the "pro-chaos” approach of the Bush administration. None of this is particularly new (see Josh Marshall's very interesting article from 2003 about this).There’s a name for this foreign policy orientation – “constructive instability” – and I’ve written about it here and here. It is not just some ideological fantasy but is, at least in its more academic manifestations, actually a legitimate way of looking at certain aspects of political development and international relations.

I doubt that many of the Cheneyite neo-con offenders in question have read Stephen Krasner, formerly Condi’s director of policy planning at State. Krasner is not himself a neo-con, but he has offered, in past publications, an intellectual justification for a foreign policy approach which uses short-term instability as a means to promote more positive long-term change (see in particular "Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics" in Comparative Politics, Jan. 1984). According to this view, you aim to break institutional-political stasis by introducing a series of carefully-applied external shocks that will overwhelm and overload the existing system, thereby forcing new outcomes. The idea is that when things get so rotten and beyond repair, you have to start breaking things down and rebuilding, because the foundation is structurally unviable yet strong enough that it will not fall apart on its own. So, some amount of external pressure is put on the decaying structure to essentially speed up the process of change.

The alternative is to leave the house as it is. The house is still standing and people still live in it, but because of the unsound structural foundation, there is a constant risk that a ceiling will cave; the roof can’t keep out the rain; the basement is always flooding; and during low-level earthquakes, the house seems like it is in danger of collapsing and killing the inhabitants. In short, the status quo is untenable. But "punctuating" the status quo is not by any means an ideal solution. However, a choice must be made between two rather unappealing courses of action.

What I mean to say here is that we need to distinguish between the crazed neo-con understanding of “constructive instability” – which is not, in any sense, constructive, but actually destructive – and the more sound, less ideological understanding of “constructive instability” which scholars and policymakers like Krasner (as well as Condi) have advocated. 

E.J., We Need to Talk Posted by Heather Hurlburt

The Washington Post's EJ Dionne is someone I really look up to.  But today he's just flat wrong.

the fact that so much of the debate concentrated on international relations reflects the imposition of a false high-mindedness that sees presidential-level discussions as serious only if they focus primarily on foreign policy. This throws off the balance in our politics.

Elsewhere in his piece, he draws an implicit contrast between the "lunch-bucket" issues that real Americans care about and the airy-fairy national security issues that the high-minded elite wants to discuss.

First off, EJ, the auto workers and nurses and child-care providers and taxi drivers I encounter every day here in the Midwest seem to care quite a lot about Iraq, terrorism and globalization.  Yes, they also care quite a lot about health care and jobs.

Second, the irony here is that the foreign policy elite of which I'm a card-carrying member is also unhappy with this debate -- because it's a stale repetition of political formulas which are carrying us further away from, not closer to, real progress in calming Iraq.  We "high-minded" types would like to talk about terrorism, human rights, genocide, rebuilding the US image, reforming the UN, creating a better trade policy and fighting global warming... just for starters.

We live in a world where those issues are intertwined with domestic "bread-and-butter issues:"  drug-resistant TB from Asia, small-town kids winding up on the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan, National Guards forming the frontline in homeland security, farmers struggling to work out the moral and practical costs of our farm supports, manufacturing jobs disappearing overseas, energy imperatives shifting underneath our wheels.

Yes, E.J. we do need more down-to-earth, honest discussion of all those issues:  but when you draw a false division between domestic and foreign, you're making it harder for progressives, not pointing the way forward.

(PS you're still my favorite Post columnist.)

Democracy Is As Democracy... Funds? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

As President Bush discourses on democracy in golden Prague today, it's a good time to contemplate the Freedom House analysis of the President's 2008 budget request for democracy support around the world.  Since the President today emphasized his concerns about Russia:

In Russia, reforms that once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development."

you might expect that assistance to civil society groups in particular, and advocates of Russian democracy in general, would be up.  But you'd be wrong.  Human rights-in-Russia funding was cut by more than one-third from last year's levels; civil society support by about 50 percent. 

Russia's not a lone oddity:  civil society support was more than halved for Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe.  Every country in the Near East saw increased funding under the rubric of "Governing Justly and Democratically" (obviously much and in some cases all of this funding goes to non-governmental groups) -- except two.  One was Egypt, where civil society is coming under increased pressure... and the Administration cut $8 million in civil society support.  Funding for Burmese human rights and civil society activists was cut to one-twelfth of its previous level. Support for Venezuela was cut -- in the face of Hugo Chavez' quite successful challenge to the democratic model??

I read the full analysis trying to see a pattern and make some sense out of it.  The only pattern I can see is giving up on situations that are longstanding and difficult -- Burma, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Egypt -- in favor of place that are newer priorities and more essential to how the Bush Administration presents itself (Iraq, Afghanistan, a generalized focus on sub-Saharan Africa.)  In response, I'll let Freedom House speak for itself:

While it is tempting to attach large amounts of funding to particular countries where there is strong public or government interest at a given time, past experience has shown that sharp increases in assistance to countries may not always lead to effectively administered programs, as organizations and individuals are unable to absorb such funding in a short time period. A more effective, albeit less dramatic approach, is to provide sustained funding at adequate levels over longer periods of time.

(Kudos to Shadi's POMED for pointing out this document in their weekly update.)

Pogo and the War of Ideas Posted by David Shorr

The more I think about the war of ideas, the more I think (paraphrasing Pogo) that the problem is us. It's not that we don't have something valuable to offer the rest of the world, but we're way overselling. And, to get to the heart of the problem, we don't even know it.

There's an inherent contradiction (or at least tension) in presenting oneself as a representative of ideals, but such a virtuous representative that you are your own ideal. We may say that American ideals are universal, but what comes across is the converse: universal ideals are American.

Petraeus Again Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

So, first, Colonel Boylan, I’d like to change the subject and get your response to today’s reports that to date we’ve only secured 1/3 of Bagdhad’s neighborhoods and are behind schedule on the “surge”.  Combine this with the statements by General Petraeus that "You have not even seen the start of real operations," and this makes me think that the military still doesn’t have a clear idea yet on whether the “surge” is working or not.  But at the same time you also have reports coming out that

The senior U.S. commanders in Iraq -- Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno and Gen. David Petraeus -- want the surge to continue until at least December and expect to report enough progress in Iraq by September to justify it

There seem to be some contradictions here.  Things aren’t going as well as the planners expected.  The strategy hasn’t been fully implemented yet.  But we are going to report enough progress to give us more time.  I guess my question to Colonel Boylan is: Are there any circumstances under which General Petraeus would actually be willing to say that the current strategy isn’t working?  Because It doesn’t seem like he will

Now, as to the other points made by Colonel.  First he states:

Are Iraq Casualties About to Get Worse? Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Are U.S. casualties about to take a significant jump in Iraq?  Tragically, this might be the case.  Already April and May have been the most deadly 2 month period for American troops since the War began.  But it looks like the military and the Administration are preparing us for something much worse.  Today General Petraeus stated that “You have not even seen the start of real operations.”  Combine that with the President’s talk of a “bloody August” and it’s starting to become apparent that as the “surge” continues and the military tries to clear out some of the most dangersous areas in Bagdhad don’t be surprised if we see a spike in casualties beyond anything we’ve seen thus far.

Even More Petraeus Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Colonel Boylan, General Petraeus's spokesman, wrote back again.  I'm enjoying this exchange and since it's only fair that we get equal time I'm posting his comments to the main section.  I'll respond soon

Iraq Ain't Got No Seoul Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The White House's latest spin on the Iraq War involves likening the US role in the conflict to the American military presence in Korea:  a roughly 40,000 strong force that, more than 54 years after the end of the Korean War, faces essentially no casualties and is barely noticed by the American public.

Like early efforts to compare the occupation of Iraq to that of Japan and Germany after WWII, the analogy is beguiling but deeply false.  The White House is now pivoting toward an "over the horizon" support role - a concept taken directly from John Murtha's broadside against the conduct of the war in November 2005 - under the cover of a long-ago war that bears no resemblance to Bush's quagmire. 

No one will be fooled into thinking that the monumental challenges and terrifying risks faced daily by American troops in Baghdad and elsewhere will somehow morph into the kind of calm, predictable wary watchman function performed by US troops in South Korea.  In describing this, Defense Secretary Robert Gates eschewed the Vietnam analogy, “where we just left lock, stock and barrel,” favoring “the idea is more a model of a mutually agreed arrangement whereby we have a long and enduring presence but under the consent of both parties and under certain conditions.”

But the biggest problem with Bush's latest analogy is not that its insulting to those at home whose tolerance of the war he is trying to prolong.  Iraqi opinion polls show just 1 percent of the population who wants the US to "never leave."  A further 2 percent are amenable to a US plan to "stay longer but leave eventually."  The remaining 97 either want the US to get out right away (35 percent) or to remain until either security is restored and/or the Iraqi government and security forces are capable of operating independently. 

Gates acknowledged in his comments that a key predicate of the South Korean arrangement is that the US's military presence is "mutually agreed."  In Iraq, by contrast, some 97 percent of the population would reject a similar plan. 

Some 150,000 US troops are right now risking their lives to cultivate the support of a battle-weary and angry Iraqi population against violent insurgents and sectarian warriers.  For the Administration to float a scheme involving a semi-permanent US presence in Iraq that is rejected by virtually the entire local population can only inflame anti-US sentiments and heighten the risks faced by US troops.  All this in service of a political analogy that is defied by the daily headlines of killings, kidnapping, car bombings and mortars.