U.S. Politics

Home
U.S. Politics

UN Peacekeeping Shortchanged

Yes, the world is in a financial crisis, and yes, valuable projects are losing funding the world over. Some priorities, though, aren't going to diminish in urgency even if it's hard to find the money to pay for them. Fighting is going to continue in Congo, Haiti is going to continue to build its nascent government, and Lebanon is going to continue to try to ward off destabilization, no matter how far the markets plummet. And UN peacekeepers, in these countries and a dozen others, are still going to be trying to do their jobs, in some of the hardest hit areas of the world, even if donor nations don't scrounge up the money to pay them. That's why it is discouraging that the United States, by far the wealthiest country in the world, and the largest contributor to UN peacekeeping, is again going to fall behind in paying its dues. It's extra frustrating because the Obama Administration, and its UN ambassador, Susan Rice, have stressed at great lengths the importance of supporting UN peacekeeping, of re-engaging with the rest of the world, and of ending conflicts in places like Congo and Sudan, where blue helmets are the only ones working to hold tenuous peace. Hell, the United States has even made noise (ill-advisedly) about creating new UN peacekeeping missions. If it's going to vote for these missions in the Security Council, it's going to get billed for them, plain and simple. Despite this rhetorical support and the fact that the bills are going to come, even if the government keeps deferring payment, the U.S.'s 2009 budget request will shortchange UN peacekeeping by $669 million. That may seem like small potatoes in these days of $800 billion legislation, but when you're talking about the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations, which runs on a shoestring yearly budget of just $7 billion, those missing U.S. funds will hit hard, in places that need them the most, to protect the people that most need protection. Congress will have a chance to make up this funding gap later, through what's called a supplemental funding bill, but it's disheartening to see the U.S.'s long-standing policy of paying its UN dues late continue, with an administration so committed to improving America's image and taking up a strong leadership position in the world. For the sake of peacekeeping missions everywhere, struggling with the rest of the world in this economic downturn, and to live up to the administration's own commitments, the United States will have to provide this crucial funding as soon as possible.

America and Others at the UN

Opinio Juris' Ken Anderson reads Colum Lynch's article in Sunday's Post well, and poses a good question about why it seems like the United States has more allies outside the UN (at least in terms of countries willing to receive American aid) than within (where the U.S. too often has found itself with few friends in lopsided, 188-4 type votes). This is the very problem that Lynch dissects in his piece -- how the Obama Administration, which has recommitted to international diplomacy through the UN, can overcome or work around what seems to be the entrenched presence and exaggerated power of countries eager to frustrate American objectives. Anderson, along with New York Times Magazine journalist James Traub, whom Lynch quotes, is skeptical of the extent to which repudiating the unilateralist tendencies of the Bush Administration can make significant inroads at solving what they see as a more endemic problem. While this is true, in that the history and the bureaucracy of the UN have created a system that hews to certain unfortunate consistencies, it's equally fallacious to take the UN out of the context of the past eight years, which, after all, have shaped the current dynamics in the body as much as the forces that led to the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), a frequent opponent of American policies. And this is where change may come. A shift in attitude and a willingness to engage will undoubtedly improve America's reputation both at Turtle Bay and in the world, but the more substantive changes in policy will have a perhaps greater effect in bringing the politics of the "real world," as Anderson, with the eye of a political realist, characterizes it, in line with those in the UN. States will continue to pursue their own interests, in the UN as in this real(politik) world, and contrary to some assertions by gleeful skeptics and disappointed supporters alike, Obama's policies will differ substantially from those of his predecessor. This is not to say that countries will line up to agree with the United States, that states like Iran will abandon "anti-American" agendas, or that Israel has any reason to fear being alone in opposing measures hurtful to its interests, but promulgating policies that show greater respect and possibly even resemblance to those of the rest of the world, could go a long way in taking wind out of the sails of the extremists that seem to have such a strong hold on many large UN bodies. I have to at least disagree with Anderson's conclusion:
But I suspect that the Obama administration, like the Clinton administration, sees the UN as largely irrelevant, andthat it thinks, as the Clinton administration did, that Republican administrations get all too worked up over something that is all hat and no cattle. I think that takes it far too lightly; still, there is something to be said for a reversion to the Clinton administration’s mean of the pious hypocrisy that everyone else undertakes, and quite takes for granted, at the UN.
I understand the roots of Anderson's term, "pious hypocrisy," in that most countries will uphold the value of the UN (at least when it's in their interests to do so) in the abstract, but renege on their support when it comes down to "real" policies. I think this is far too cynical, however. I see no sign that Obama would characterize the UN as "largely irrelevant;" on the contrary, it seems he has gone out of his way -- reinstating the position of UN ambassador to the Cabinet, to take a symbolic example -- to make clear that he will work with the UN, that he respects its functions, but that he also acknowledges its flaws and recognizes the importance of reform. More, by exuding the sort of unhelpful antagonism that Anderson glimpses, the Obama Administration would merely make it that much harder for itself to reform the UN and to heighten the U.S.'s position within it. What Anderson, and many of the countries that espouse such an attitude toward the UN, are taking for granted seems to be the UN itself, not the strategy to circumvent it.

Reviewing Bush’s Bomb-or-Blame Strategy

Buried in an interview with former high-ranking Bush Administration official Elliott Abrams is this nugget of insight into the options being considered by the President re: Sudan. The interviewer -- the sister of Abrams' wife, and a member of quite the family of neocons -- asks whether Abrams thought the administration was considering bombing Iran. His answer? Darfur.
There was one telltale sign: his decision not to bomb the air force in Sudan so that it could not be used to kill more people in Darfur. And it wouldn't have been that hard to do. But he decided against it, fearing that - after having attacked Afghanistan and Iraq - attacking yet another Arab country would have been very poorly received in the Arab world - and much of the rest of the world.... So, given the consensus about Darfur, and given the military ease with which an operation could be carried out against Sudan, if Bush didn't do it, that was certainly a hint that he wasn't going to turn around and feel it was fine to bomb Iran. [emphasis mine]
Abrams' point can be demonstrated by a little arboreal analogy: if Bush didn't take the low-hanging fruit of bombing Sudan, then he wasn't going to reach for the higher-up fruit of a similar Arab Middle Eastern er, generically autocratic tree. The flaw in Abrams' comparison is clear, as Sudan and Iran were very dissimilar cases (not to mention not both "Arab" states), and I'm sympathetic to Michael Crowley's confusion at his logic -- Darfur could have just been not as important on the administration's agenda, and therefore not as worthy of bombing. Nonetheless, Abrams' comments do reveal some interesting dynamics within the Bush team's Darfur thinking. First, if the option of bombing Sudan's air force was indeed considered, then that means that the administration was thinking seriously -- or at least wants us to believe in retrospect that it was thinking seriously -- about imposing tough measures on Khartoum. Second, if the decision to eschew a strategy of bombing Sudan had such resounding effects on a much bigger foreign policy fish for the administration (Iran), then we can be sure that the ripples were felt within the Darfur portfolio. Namely, if not bombing Sudan made the United States not bomb Iran, then it also severely attenuated the actions that it did take on Darfur. Indeed, having turned away from the unilateral military option, the Bush administration basically washed its hands of the question of how to bring U.S. pressure to bear on Khartoum, instead punting the problem to the UN. Then again, consistent with an argument I've made before, Abrams' account of the decision not to bomb may fall under the more self-serving objective of exonerating the administration's inaction in one case (Darfur), while praising its ultimate caution in another (Iran). Central to the former is the creation of a false dichotomy -- bomb Sudan or shunt all responsibility over to the UN -- that both appeases Darfur constituencies and makes the administration appear multilateral. But in actuality, the Iran-Darfur comparison should both bolster Crowley's skepticism and prove the faultiness -- logically and on a policy basis -- of the bomb-or-blame-the-UN paradigm. Whereas the alternative to bombing Sudan proved to be very limited U.S. engagement on the issue, the administration by no means shuttered its Iran portfolio even after allegedly foreclosing the military option. So the biggest "might have been" that I take out of Abrams' problematic comparison is not the possible bombing of the Sudanese air force, but a concerted leveraging of American pressure on Khartoum that could have approached the level of intensity with which the administration dealt with Iran. Hat tip: SB (image from flickr user dev null under a Creative Commons license)

Where’s my press pass Mr. President?

Flickr: Random FactorFlickr: Random FactorSam Stein from Huffington Post got one last night to President Obama's first press conference. I could definitely have done better than Michael Fletcher from the Washington Post...who asked the President about A-Rod. Nonetheless, some journalists veered from questions on the financial crisis to ask Obama about foreign policy. The crib notes: On Iran: We love the people of Iran but their government has been doing some bad things (financial terrorist organizations, using unsavory language, and pursuing nuclear weapons). My national security team is looking for new opportunities for engagement, which might mean a face-to-face meeting in the next few months. I've sent some good signals with the appointment of George Mitchell and my interview with al-Arabiya. Ball's in Tehran's court. On Iraq and Afghanistan: Due to the good work of our military and Amb. Crocker, a relatively peaceful election just occurred in Iraq, signally a somewhat functioning political system. We're not yet there in Afghanistan. The central government seems "very detached" (ouch Karzai), and the bad guys are operating in the border region without a concerted effort to root them out. We're going through a review, and we're hoping for more effective coordination. (UND-In other words, I'm not sure what we're doing yet) Full transcript of these sections after the jump. (Via CNN)

Samantha Power to the NSC

This is very exciting news. The Pulitzer prize winning author of "'A Problem From Hell': America in the Age of Genocide" and "Chasing the Flame," a biography of slain UN diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello, was just appointed the Senior Director of Multi-lateral Affairs at the National Security Council. This means she will have a direct hand in formulating U.S. policy on the United Nations, G-8, and other global forums. The MSM is predictably honing in on "monster-gate," which is sort of silly considering she has apologized profusely for the comment and Secretary of State Clinton has accepted her apology and everyone seems willing and eager to move on. The real story here is will Samantha Power take to working in government? In "A Problem From Hell" (which is probably number one on my list of all-time best foreign policy books) Power describes how government is not well structured to respond effectively to humanitarian crises. Part of the problem, she shows, is that individuals in government sometimes react to these crises in politically expedient ways that do not do much to address or reverse ongoing genocide or mass atrocity. This is less a critique of specific individuals than it is a condemnation of American foreign policy making more generally. Now that she is embedded in the U.S. foreign policy making apparatus the big question on my mind is whether or not she falls victim to the very processes she criticizes so ably in her book. I'm tempted to think that she will not be much of a quiet Mandarin. The heroes of her book are people who rail against the system--people like Raphael Lempkin who coined the word genocide, and Senator William Proxmire, who gave daily speeches on the senate floor on the need to ratify the Genocide Convention. She shows real admiration for these agents of change, and I suspect that she will be an important advocate for human rights in critical inter-agency debates. The thing is, in her book she describes how voices like that get effectively silenced by the bureaucracy and I imagine there will be situations in which her ideals bump against the realities of bureaucratic politics. How will she respond? We will have to wait and see. Above all, though, her appointment may signal a more fulsome U.S engagement on issues like Darfur and Eastern Congo--two of the worst ongoing mass atrocities in the world. That would be a big change over the past eight years. With a giant like Power overseeing policy making on the UN -- and the UN is where solutions to Congo and Darfur are most effectively discussed and implemented -- I am optimistic that we will see more sustained attention paid to these issues at top levels of government. That would be change I can believe in. I wish her the best in her new job.

Obama, Darfur and the ICC

I have a column in the American Prospect online today arguing that the forthcoming International Criminal Court arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al Bashir gives the Obama administration an opportunity for a diplomatic breakthrough on Darfur.
In the coming weeks, Darfur will reach yet another crisis point when the International Criminal Court (ICC) issues an arrest warrant for President Omar al Bashir of Sudan. When this happens, President Bashir has all but promised retaliation -- against United Nations personnel in Sudan, against Darfuris, and against southern Sudanese separatists. This much we know. What is still unclear is how the Obama administration intends to respond. Susan Rice, the new United States ambassador to the United Nations, once aptly described the previous administration's Darfur policy as "bluster and retreat," "bluster" for the lip service paid to the issue, and "retreat" for never following up its tough rhetoric with meaningful political, diplomatic, or even military action. Now, with Rice at the U.N. and Hillary Clinton at the helm in Foggy Bottom, one would suspect bumbling Bush-era policies would come to an end. Both women have been strong advocates for a more robust approach to the Darfur crisis. Clinton was an early sponsor of Darfur legislation in the Senate. Rice has written on numerous occasions about the issue, at one point even endorsing U.S. airstrikes. Still, the forthcoming ICC arrest warrant will pose an early test for the Obama administration. And if approached with the kind of deft diplomatic touch that the previous administration clearly lacked, the prospects for peace in Darfur may suddenly become brighter.
Read the rest!

Obama’s Al Arabiya Interview

There is lots to parse from this brief, nine minute interview. What stands out to me is how firmly President Obama rejects the "War on Terror" paradigm that we have become so used to here in the United States.
Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, "war on terror," and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people -- Islamic fascism. You've always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of -- THE PRESIDENT: I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name. And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down. But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship. " But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress "
There are, of course, policy implications for eschewing the language of the "War on Terror." One is that it makes America's ability to combat terrorist groups much, much easier. In an On Day One video the journalist Nicholas Schmidle explains why this is so. Have a listen.

Trouble for Law of the Sea in the SFRC?

Over at The Cable, the always-well-informed Laura Rozen reports that a shakeup in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee may spell bad news for those (like us) urging passage of important international treaties.
Senators George Voinovich (R-OH), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and David Vitter (R-LA) have dropped off the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, along with retired Sen. Chuck Hagel, while Roger Wicker (R-Miss) and Jim Risch (R-ID) have joined. "The Republican side, with the sole exception of Lugar, is now a very conservative group and could seek to frustrate international treaty ratification, e.g. Law of the Sea, Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)," a Hill staffer notes.
This could be shaping up to a confrontation, as the committee's chairman, John Kerry, has already made clear his strong support for ratifying treaties like the Law of the Sea and the CTBT (and has also evinced a personal commitment to environmental issues, dispatching himself as the Senate's representative to last December's climate change talks in Poland, as well as the previous talks in Bali). Even with a few gadflies on the committee, though, a concerted push should be enough to get votes on ratification to the full Senate, where they've been before, but where, perhaps this time around, they'll fare better. My guess is that the new committee members on the right won't be too thrilled that climate emissary Al Gore is testifying next week on U.S. leadership in the fight against climate change.