Pakistan on the Edge: The Future of Pakistan and the U.S. Response
Click through for full audio of the event hosted earlier today by the Brookings Institution.
As the United States plans for its withdrawal from Afghanistan and reviews its policies toward Pakistan, President Obama must weigh the potential threats and challenges for U.S. interests in the region. Among the destabilizing factors in both countries is the ongoing presence and influence of the Taliban. Ahmed Rashid, prominent Pakistani journalist and author of the new book, Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (Viking Adult, 2012), examines these crucial issues as the president and other Western leaders grapple with how best to work with an often unreliable and unstable Pakistan.
On March 22, Foreign Policy at Brookings hosted Ahmed Rashid for a discussion of his new book and the treacherous path ahead for relations among the U.S., Pakistan and Afghanistan. Following Rashid’s opening remarks, Brookings Senior Fellows Bruce Riedel and Stephen Cohen joined the discussion. Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon, director of research for Foreign Policy, moderated the discussion.
Or if we’re unwilling the match the courage that the Mexicans have shown — and if we just want the Central Americans to follow the same failed strategy — we must launch a serious dialogue here on legalizing, or at least decriminalizing, the drugs. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s better than no solution at all.” End the Drug War by Fulton T. Armstrong
U.S. Government Can Do More to Support Human Rights Defenders like Yevgeniy Zhovtis
By Sam Quatromoni of Human Rights First
The government of Kazakhstan announced yesterday that leading human rights defender Yevgeniy Zhovtis has been granted amnesty after serving over two years in prison. Human Rights First and other international observers have called his conviction politically motivated and unlawful. One of the most prominent activists in Central Asia, Zhovtis was convicted in 2009 in a trial that was illegitimate by both international and Kazakhstani standards.
We are delighted that Zhovtis will soon be reunited with his family and friends. Secretary of State Clinton should be commended for discussing Zhovtis’s case during a visit to Kazakhstan in 2010, as should the U.S. mission that continued to follow his case. However, the U.S. government should develop a consistent policy to guide Embassy engagement with human rights defenders around the globe.
For example, Secretary Clinton has received a lot of flak for not raising the issue of risks to human rights defenders during her November trip to Uzbekistan, which has, arguably, a far worse record on human rights than Kazakhstan. Why didn’t she? Because Uzbekistan is a more important military partner as it controls the Northern Distribution Network, which the U.S. needs to get in and out of Afghanistan.
As the United States seeks to deepen ties to civil society in countries like Egypt and Bahrain, human rights defenders need a show of support from the United States. Knowing that they can expect a certain amount of support and engagement from the international community bolsters activists.
In Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and beyond, leaders like Zhovtis need to know if and how the U.S. Embassies will support their efforts.
Lest Americans think Calderón is marrying electioneering to scaremongering, former president Vicente Fox — Mexico’s first from outside the PRI in 71 years — insisted there may be no alternative but to negotiate with the bosses. Perhaps this stark reminder of the limits of U.S. drug policy, at war or otherwise, will tempt American citizens and elites alike to consider legalizing at least some drugs — lest the United States find itself at war with Mexico’s cartels and the government that legalized them.” Gateway Interventions: Drones along the Mexican border, commandos in Central America — the war on drugs looks more than ever like a real war. But do Americans have any idea what they’re getting into?
America's Unsavory Allies
The U.S. caught a lot of flak this year for having partnered with Tunisia’s Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi before uprisings rocked the Middle East. But in his speech on the Arab Spring in May, President Barack Obama suggested that the days of America narrowly pursuing its interests in the region without the broader priority of promoting reform and democracy were over. “We have embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator,” Obama declared.
Not entirely. Sometimes, it’s difficult to reconcile that revamped formulation of American foreign policy with diplomatic realities. Take two events this week. On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. is operating a drone base in Ethiopia, a country Freedom House recently downgraded to “Not Free” because of “national elections that were thoroughly tainted by intimidation of opposition supporters and candidates.” Only days earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the autocratic Central Asian leaders Islam Karimov and Emomali Rakhmon to discuss how they can help with the war in Afghanistan. “If you have no contact you will have no influence, and other countries will fill that vacuum who do not care about human rights,” Clinton explained ahead of her visit, adding that “it’s a balancing act.”
In fact, even with its post-Arab Spring foreign policy, the U.S. is still engaged in that controversial “balancing act” with a number of repressive leaders. Let’s take a look at eight of the worst offenders.
Over the Horizon: Is worrying about war with China a self-fulfilling prophecy?
…The obvious Cold War analogy is to the policy of containment: George Kennan believed that the Soviet Union hoped to dance on America’s grave but he was prepared to wait for history to inevitably unspool itself; the Soviets could thus be deterred by a patient and persistent policy of containment. Finkelstein argues that a combination of forceful American diplomacy, which he credits the Obama administration with undertaking, and the current level of American military presence — the Pacific fleet and 60,000 active-duty troops in the region — has already contained China’s ambitions, and will probably continue to do so. Kaplan, too, for all his projections of growing Chinese naval and air power, argues for maintaining the current state of military deployment. In short, it’s the intentions that matter.
The authors of “Asian Alliances,” by contrast, tend to infer China’s intentions from its capacities. In an ominous scenario that carries a strong whiff of Herman Kahn, or perhaps Dr. Strangelove, they describe China using missiles and bombers to launch a devastating attack on Taiwan and the United States responding with a missile strike against the mainland, which in turn leads to … Armageddon. The only way to preclude such a cataclysm, the authors argue, is to adopt much tougher counter-measures: rollback, in Cold War terms.
The “Asian Alliances” report warns that “Asia’s future demands nothing less” than a new “shared strategic concept.” The web of Cold War alliances should give way to a military partnership among the United States, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, and others that would require a major increase in military spending and in military and intelligence cooperation. “[A]ny would-be aggressor” would be made to understand “that targeting one ally means invoking the ire of the rest.” It’s hard to believe that these states would agree to join such an explicitly anti-Chinese coalition. There’s also the danger that China would react by concluding that time was no longer on its side, thus turning the coalition into a devastatingly self-fulfilling prophecy…
Syria's al-Assad has 'lost legitimacy'
President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had “lost legitimacy” for failing to lead a democratic transition, but stopped short of explicitly calling on him to step down.
It was the strongest language Obama has used against the Syrian ruler over his harsh crackdown on protests and echoed comments by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a day earlier.
“I think that increasingly you’re seeing President Assad lose legitimacy in the eyes of his people,” Obama told CBS News in an interview. “He has missed opportunity after opportunity to present a genuine reform agenda.”
White House spokesperson Jay Carney said al-Assad “is not indispensable” and urged him to lead a transition to democracy.
The sharpened rhetoric follows an assault by al-Assad loyalists on the US and French embassies in Damascus, which drew strong condemnation by the United Nations Security Council.
Pressed on why Obama has not gone further and urged al-Assad to leave office, Carney told reporters: “There’s really a growing consensus among the Syrian people that this transition needs to take place and that President Assad is not going to lead it … The Syrian people will, should, be able to decide their own future.”
But Syria is also the strongest—perhaps the only—ally of Iran in a volatile area generally hostile to Persians, especially Shia Persians. Iran had begun to coordinate, with Damascus, construction of a naval base near the Syrian coast this year. If the Syrian government were toppled, the plan could be nixed—which would deepen Tehran’s anger toward the West. Intervening in Syria, one official explained earlier this week, could lead to a “much bigger commitment than we’re looking for.” Tony Badran, an analyst with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told USA Today this week that any forceful action in Syria would be an admission that the longstanding policy of engagement with Syria as a means to rein in Iran has been a waste of time and money.” Obama’s Syria Tightrope
Obama calls Kadafi's crackdown in Libya 'outrageous'
President Obama on Wednesday condemned Moammar Kadafi’s bloody crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Libya, saying he had ordered his administration to prepare “a full range of options” to handle the crisis as the death toll rose into the hundreds.
Although Obama described the violence in Libya as “outrageous” and “unacceptable,” he did not specify any potential actions against Kadafi and did not call on him to resign. A senior administration official said the White House does not want to give Kadafi a chance to cast himself as a patriot resisting American pressure.
Until now, U.S. officials had avoided direct statements against the regime, partly over concern that Americans in Libya could face reprisals or be taken hostage, officials said. Obama’s statement came after a ferry arrived in Tripoli to evacuate hundreds of U.S. citizens, including a few dozen diplomats.
At the United Nations, diplomats said they too were hesitant to act against Kadafi while their citizens were still in the country.
“Until we see greater signals that foreign nationals are being allowed to leave, or that those who wish to leave are having their departures facilitated, rather than impeded, there will be a lot of caution about specific coercive measures,” one diplomat said.
Their statements reflected growing anxiety in the West about the spreading violence and the possible implosion of a country that is a key energy source for Europe and other world markets.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged the European Union to consider cutting all economic ties to Libya and weigh war crimes charges against officials involved in the killing of Libyan citizens.
Italy’s foreign minister was quoted by news services as saying the number of dead may be as high as 1,000 people. Italy has long and deep connections with Libya.
“This is not simply a concern of the United States,” Obama said. “The entire world is watching.”
U.S. officials privately downplayed their ability to force a swift resolution and said they hoped to work with allies to develop a package of multilateral economic sanctions, possibly including a freeze on Kadafi’s personal holdings.
Obama said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would attend a U.N. Human Rights Council meeting Monday in Geneva to try to coordinate strategy with other nations.
Yet diplomats acknowledged that they have little leverage with an entrenched and isolated strongman who has vowed to cling to power, noting that military options could harden Kadafi’s stand.
My Daddy's a Dictator: Why has the US been propping up this Bugatti-driving, Playboy-Bunny-partying kleptocrat?
…The larger issue raised by all this is why the U.S. government — after going to the effort to produce this mound of information pointing to Teodorin’s flagrant corruption and apparent misuse of the U.S. banking system — has been unwilling to do anything about it. “I’m surprised that he’s still allowed in the country based on all of the information contained in the Senate report and uncovered by other investigators and reporters,” said Linda Candler, a former Justice Department prosecutor who specialized in international criminal investigations. Indeed, legal experts say that Teodorin shouldn’t have been allowed to enter the United States since 2004, when President George W. Bush issued Proclamation 7750, which bars corrupt foreign officials from receiving U.S. visas. “No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves,” said Bush’s successor Barack Obama, whose administration pledged to “vigorously” enforce 7750. “We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don’t.”
And yet no formal action against Teodorin has been taken, despite an investigation whose stated goal, according to one of the Justice Department documents, was to shut down the flow of money into the United States “obtained through kleptocracy” by the Obiangs. Why? U.S. officials declined to discuss the ongoing cases on the record or speak harshly about Equatorial Guinea; it certainly appears to be the familiar story of a U.S. government unwilling to offend an important oil partner — the same coddling that has produced such stellar results in the past with Saudi Arabia and other energy-rich, democracy-poor Middle East allies. The Obama administration last year did help block UNESCO, the U.N. cultural agency, from accepting $3 million from Obiang to endow a science prize in his name — but only after a public outcry raised by media reports calling attention to a prize the United States had previously been willing to overlook. Otherwise the administration has said little publicly about Equatorial Guinea’s awful record of corruption and human rights violations, and it has failed to impose sanctions against Teodorin or the state he is set to inherit. As of late 2010, years after the Justice Department probe began, investigators were still seeking to identify expert witnesses who could tell them about the early days of the Obiang regime.
Although the United States has been able to leverage its deep ties with Egypt’s armed forces, it has no significant military-to-military relationship with Libya. It also has little economic leverage: For the past fiscal year, U.S. aid to Libya has been less than $1 million, and most of that has gone toward helping the country’s disarmament program.
There is not even a U.S. ambassador at the moment. Gene Cretz, the ambassador to Tripoli, was called back to Washington recently for extended “consultations” after WikiLeaks released cables in which he described Gaddafi’s eccentricities.
“We don’t have personal relations at a high level. As far as I know, President Obama has never even talked to Colonel Gaddafi,” said David Mack, a former senior U.S. diplomat who dealt with Libya.
Libya was a pariah state for much of the past three decades. In 2003, the George W. Bush administration convinced the nation to give up its nuclear- and chemical-weapons programs. Libya also renounced terrorism, leading the U.S. government to remove it from the list of “state sponsors of terrorism.”
But only in 2008 did the United States and Libya establish full diplomatic relations.” U.S. struggles with little leverage to restrain Libyan government
It’s not yet clear that the United States will be forced into a corner on the settlements resolution. No doubt American diplomats are still working hard to avoid a vote. But it’s possible that a Council confrontation—and an American veto—will be unavoidable.” Obama shuns the Security Council
Getting in line for a revolution
…In seven days, Egyptians of all stripes - young, old, male, female, religious, secular - have fundamentally rocked the 30-year-old regime of president Mubarak. They have sought to keep the revolt peaceful. When security forces became aggressive, protesters fell to their knees in prayer, evoking some of the most emotional pictures of this uprising yet. They have nipped rumours in the bud swiftly, they have sent their rank and file to speak to the world’s media, they have put aside differences to speak with one voice.
That voice - en masse - is not demanding lower taxes or higher subsidies as would be expected from a people whose per capita income amounts to less than two dollars per day. It is demanding the removal of their president, a fundamental change in the constitution and the reform and re-election of all political bodies. But wasn’t this all about poverty and human rights?
Yes and no. ”Yes”, in that the clever Arab masses realise the obvious: that good policies can only come from good governance. And “no”, in that this is obviously not only about the individual and his/her needs: a closer examination of the governments under threat in the wider Middle East shows that they are all US allies - regimes that we have supported regardless of their human rights records or their ability to govern fairly and effectively.
None of them are on the side of that famously maligned axis consisting of “Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas”. Those state and non-state actors will not be directly touched by this gale of unified popular protest - and neither will Qatar, Oman, Iraq and Turkey.
But don’t be mistaken that the Arab masses are unleashing an anti-American revolution in the region. In fact, while they dislike US policy, there does not seem to be a specific rage directed at Americans at all. This smarter-by-the-second Arab Street realises full well the reasons for the US’s rotten policies in the region - primarily its blind commitment to promote Israel’s interests and “security” above all else, including its own. So while most American politicians and pundits remain “concerned” about the spiralling events in Egypt, it is Israel and its US allies who are really, truly splitting a gut.
Of course, there is a third way. You may try to carefully maintain your ties with the current ruler (see Biden above), while offering rhetorical support to freedom of expression, democracy, and human rights. Regrettably, as the Carter administration can attest, that may produce the worst of both worlds. If the ruler falls, he and his supporters will accuse you of being so lukewarm in your support that it was perceived as disavowal; whereas the opposition will dismiss your pious expressions as cynical and ineffectual.” The Worst of Both Worlds
