by David Steven | Oct 19, 2007 | North America, South Asia
130 people reported dead in Pakistan and Scrappleface – the right-wing answer to the Onion – sees an opportunity to use its wit to settle some political scores. Nice.
As the death toll climbed past 130, with nearly 400 injured, in a suicide-bomb assassination attempt on former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned the attack as “symptomatic of fundamentalist Islam’s crusade against equality for women.”
Rep. Pelosi, D-CA, said the fact that a prominent female politician was targeted has shaken her thinking about the war on terror.
“This misogynistic massacre has finally got it through my thick skull what President Bush has been trying to tell us for years,” she said. “These terrorists have no legitimate political grievance, no conscience, and no place in civilized society. We must crush them wherever they are to prevent the spread of their poisonous ideology and brutal tactics.”
Rep. Pelosi said that when news of the attack broke, she held a conference call with Senators Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barbara Boxer, D-CA. The three women agreed that “if these evil men are willing to attack a beautiful, charismatic female politician overseas, there’s not much to stop them from trying it on U.S. soil.”
The three lawmakers plan to introduce legislation next week to increase funding for the surge in Iraq, to finish the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and to remove barriers to eavesdropping by U.S. spies on suspected terrorist communications at home and abroad.
“These woman-haters need to know that we mean business,” Rep. Pelosi said. “And to those who commit these atrocities against women, I say, we will no longer tolerate, we will no longer negotiate, and we will no longer be afraid. It’s your turn to be afraid.“
by Alex Evans | Oct 16, 2007 | North America
Hillary Clinton and John McCain both have essays about their visions for foreign policy in the new edition of Foreign Affairs. We’ll do a proper commentary on both within the next few days (just as soon as we’ve completed the papers on climate change and on public diplomacy that have been making our lives a misery for the past fortnight…) – but in the meantime here’s a brief taster of Hillary’s plans and designs:
- On Iraq: We must withdraw from Iraq in a way that brings our troops home safely, begins to restore stability to the region, and replaces military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq’s future. To that end, as president, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home, starting within the first 60 days of my administration.
- On non-proliferation: To reassert our nonproliferation leadership, I will seek to negotiate an accord that substantially and verifiably reduces the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. This dramatic initiative would send a strong message of nuclear restraint to the world, while we retain enough strength to deter others from trying to match our arsenal. I will also seek Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 2009, the tenth anniversary of the Senate’s initial rejection of the agreement. This would enhance the United States’ credibility when demanding that other nations refrain from testing. As president, I will support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Establishing an international fuel bank that guaranteed secure access to nuclear fuel at reasonable prices would help limit the number of countries that pose proliferation risks.
- On China: Our relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century. The United States and China have vastly different values and political systems, yet even though we disagree profoundly on issues ranging from trade to human rights, religious freedom, labor practices, and Tibet, there is much that the United States and China can and must accomplish together. China’s support was important in reaching a deal to disable North Korea’s nuclear facilities. We should build on this framework to establish a Northeast Asian security regime. But China’s rise is also creating new challenges. The Chinese have finally begun to realize that their rapid economic growth is coming at a tremendous environmental price. The United States should undertake a joint program with China and Japan to develop new clean-energy sources, promote greater energy efficiency, and combat climate change. This program would be part of an overall energy policy that would require a dramatic reduction in U.S. dependence on foreign oil. We must persuade China to join global institutions and support international rules by building on areas where our interests converge and working to narrow our differences. Although the United States must stand ready to challenge China when its conduct is at odds with U.S. vital interests, we should work for a cooperative future.
- On climate change: Far from being a drag on global growth, climate control represents a powerful economic opportunity that can be a driver of growth, jobs, and competitive advantage in the twenty-first century. As president, I will make the fight against global warming a priority. We cannot solve the climate crisis alone, and the rest of the world cannot solve it without us. The United States must reengage in international climate change negotiations and provide the leadership needed to reach a binding global climate agreement. But we must first restore our own credibility on the issue. Rapidly emerging countries, such as China, will not curb their own carbon emissions until the United States has demonstrated a serious commitment to reducing its own through a market-based cap-and-trade approach. We must also help developing nations build efficient and environmentally sustainable domestic energy infrastructures. Two-thirds of the growth in energy demand over the next 25 years will come from countries with little existing infrastructure. Many opportunities exist here as well: Mali is electrifying rural communities with solar power, Malawi is developing a biomass energy strategy, and all of Africa can provide carbon credits to the West. Finally, we must create formal links between the International Energy Agency and China and India and create an “E-8” international forum modeled on the G-8. This group would be comprised of the world’s major carbon-emitting nations and hold an annual summit devoted to international ecological and resource issues.
by Alex Evans | Oct 12, 2007 | Conflict and security, Global system, Middle East and North Africa
From Wired.com: former US infantry officer Robert Bateman has an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune today, which has some interesting insights into Blackwater’s modus operandi in Iraq (see also earlier GD post here):
I know something about Blackwater USA. This opinion is both intellectually driven as well as moderately emotional. You see, during my own yearlong tour in Iraq, the bad boys of Blackwater twice came closer to killing me than did any of the insurgents or Al Qaeda types. That sort of thing sticks with you. One story will suffice to make my point.
The first time it happened was in the spring of 2005. For various reasons, none of which bear repeating, I was moving through downtown Baghdad in an unmarked civilian sedan. I was with two other men, but they had the native look, while I was in my uniform, hunched in the back seat and partially covered by a blanket, hoping that the curtains on the window were enough to conceal my incongruous presence, not to mention my weapons. It was not the normal manner in which an Army infantry major moved around the city, but it was what the situation called for, so there I was. We were in normal Baghdad traffic, with the flow such as it was, in the hubbub of confusion that is generated when you suddenly introduce more than 1 million extra vehicles in the course of two years into a city that previously had only a few hundred thousand vehicles, and no real licensing authority.
As we approached one semi-infamous intersection along the main route used by Blackwater between the International Zone (a.k.a. the Green Zone) and the Ministry of Interior, one of Blackwater’s convoys roared through. Apparently, Blackwater’s agents did not like the look of us, the main body of cars in front of them. Their response was, to say the least, contrary to the best interests of the United States effort in Iraq. Barreling through in their huge, black armored Suburbans and Expeditions, they drove other cars onto the sidewalk even as they popped off rounds from at least one weapon, though I cannot say if the shots were aimed at us or fired into the sky as a warning. I do know one thing: It enraged me … and Blackwater is, at least nominally, on our side.
But imagining that incident from an Iraqi perspective made it clear to me that though Blackwater USA draws its paycheck from Uncle Sam, it’s not working in Uncle Sam’s best interests. If I was this angry, I can only imagine the reactions of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who encounter Blackwater personnel on a regular basis.
But of course, you’d be an idiot to suggest that Blackwater is in any way trigger-happy.
by Alex Evans | Oct 8, 2007 | Europe and Central Asia
David Miliband’s blog links to something I missed in the FT last week: the formation of a new European Council on Foreign Relations, as a complement / competitor to its American counterpart. The article announcing its launch – penned by Martti Ahtisaari, Joschka Fischer, Mark Leonard and Mabel van Oranje, is candid about the EU’s foreign policy failings:
Despite these successes [single market, generous aid budget, lots of peacekeepers, uses incentives instead of threatening to invade people, leadership on WTO, Kyoto, International Criminal Court and so on], the EU continues to underperform on the world stage. Since the Iraq war and the French and Dutch No votes on the constitutional treaty, the EU has shown the faltering confidence of adolescence. European leaders, who struggle to adapt to a new global environment characterised by a weakened US, a resurgent Russia and a rising China, have too often turned inwards.
Instead, they continue, Europe needs to get its act together on issues like enlargement, Russia and the Middle East. To do this, it needs to rally behind Javier Solana; take a more co-ordinated approach; and think hard about additional incentives to draw the EU’s immediate neighbours into its sphere of influence.
by Alex Evans | Oct 8, 2007 | East Asia and Pacific, Influence and networks, North America
Yesterday’s NY Times had an excellent piece about what it argues to be the US’s increasing reliance on China in numerous matters diplomatic. The piece quotes Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation at length, who also has his own piece on his blog here. Here’s a sample from the Times article:
China, by virtue of its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, has always been an important diplomatic player. But its importance to the Bush administration has grown for two reasons: it has become more assertive around the globe and the administration has exhausted a lot of its options.
“I think we need China almost everywhere in the world because we’ve disengaged from the rest of the world,” Mr. Clemons said, criticizing the administration’s initial disdain for concerted international diplomacy and citing its preoccupation with Iraq.
Meanwhile, China has steadily expanded its diplomatic and economic ties far beyond Asia. Mr. Clemons suggested that that has caused a subtle tectonic shift in how nations view it and, conversely, the United States. “They see China as an ascending power,” Mr. Clemons added, “and they don’t see us that way any more.”
On his own blog, Clemons is even more blunt as he rebuts calls made in the Washington Post for the US to boycott China’s 2008 Olympics if it doesn’t force the Burmese government to back down over the recent protests.
So, folks can pine on about America boycotting the 2008 Olympics — or they can get back to the “serious” problem that America isn’t taken all that seriously anymore, and China is.
