U.S. Diplomacy

Apologies for the lack of posting at the end of this week. By chance, Melinda and I picked the same week to move, thus our attention has been slightly drawn away. In the absence of an in-depth post, here are some interesting articles for our readers.

Angelina Jolie on humanitarian assistance in Iraq

Fouad Ajami on American primacy in rescuing Muslims in the Balkans

And if you really have some time on your hand, I highly recommend the recently released Carnegie Endowment Report, “The New Middle East.”

Last week, more than 100 government leaders met in Wellington, New Zealand to discuss an international treaty banning cluster munitions (aka cluster bombs). This was the fourth meeting of states committed to eradicating these weapons (the first took place one year ago in Oslo, Norway, the second in Lima, Peru in May 2007, and the third in Vienna, Austria in December 2007).

Cluster bombs are either air-dropped or ground-launched and are designed to explode above the ground and release thousands of small bomblets. Many do not explode immediately, and can lie in fields or villages, where they later kill and maim people who come across them for years to come. My fellow blogger discussed the harmful effects of these bombs on the FPA Children blog.

At Wellington, 82 countries committed to participating in formal negotiations banning cluster bombs in Dublin, the next meeting in what has come to be known as the “Oslo process.”

But the United States as not one of them. The US did not even send a delegation to
Wellington. Neither did China or Israel; along with India, Pakistan and
Israel all six countries produce and stockpile cluster bombs and oppose a ban on them.

The US’ rationale for opposing the ban boils down to this: cluster bombs are effective, legitimate tools of war; the US believes their effectiveness can and will be improved upon; and there are treaties other than the Oslo Process in effect that will ensure they are used properly, anyway.

Researcher Dough Tuttle explains this position more thoroughly in a comprehensive analysis on US cluster munitions policy published by Center for Defense Information (CDI).

First, according to Tuttle, the United States argues that an international treaty banning cluster bombs damages the effectiveness of another, broader treaty, Protocol V of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which specifically addresses “explosive remnants of war” (ERW), of which cluster bombs are one subset. Just before the Wellington meeting the Department of State issued a White Paper outlining its policy on cluster munitions, which argues that “[c]luster munitions constitute a small portion of the total humanitarian threat presented by [ERW].” Instead, the White Paper argues, the U.S. supports the negotiation of a “new protocol to address the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions within the framework of the [CCW].”

Second, the United States argues that in certain military warfare situations, cluster bombs may be more effective and may cause less collateral damage then regular bombs. In January, Stephen Matthias, the Head of the US Delegation to the CCW meeting argued “cluster munitions are legitimate – and in some cases essential - weapons when employed properly and in accordance with existing international humanitarian law.’

Third, rather than ban them all together, the US would rather improve the reliability of newly manufactured cluster bombs. Tuttle notes that “The United States has an estimated 700 million to 1 billion submunitions in its stockpiles. Yet, despite the recognition of the potential humanitarian consequences associated with cluster munitions that do not meet this standard, the United States used cluster munitions extensively during the invasion of Iraq, including in urban areas.”

Although a US delegation was not sent to the meeting in Wellington, there was an important American voice present. Jody Williams, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate for her work to ban landmines, organized a sit-in in Wellington to stimulate support for a ban on cluster bombs.

NPR broadcast a segment summarizing the Wellington meeting, including an account of Jodi’s sit in. You can also watch Jodi in action in this You Tube clip capitulating day three of the meeting.

A network of civil society groups called Cluster Munition Coalition spearheaded NGO activism at the meeting. Rae McGrath, spokesperson for Handicap International said: “These weapons kill civilians - this is hypocrisy of the worst kind by countries that claim the moral high ground and yet trade away the lives of victims to serve the interests of the USA.”

Leading up to Welington, it appears that the US policy’s focus on the technical aspects did draw attention away from the US’ conflicting interest in producing, stockpiling and continuing to deploy these weapons… until Jodi Williams came to town.

From April 11^th to April 17th, 1971 a group of Americans were invited to play ping pong in China. Dubbed ping pong diplomacy, it helped improve U.S.-China relations. In fact, on April 14^th of that year the United States announced it would end it’s trade embargo with China. One year later Nixon made his infamous trip to China. In another attempt to utilize American soft power, the New York Philharmonic orchestra arrived in Pyongyang yesterday. The orchestra played on Tuesday night (which due to the time difference has already ended) and was broadcasted on North Korea’s state-run TV and radio.

Playing a concert may seem ho-hum here, however in North Korea one can be thrown in jail for listening to a foreign broadcast. What’s more, North Koreans are now more likely to hear foreign broadcasts as a result of trade with China:

“Activists working to improve human rights in North Korea largely agree that there is a unique window of opportunity at this time.

One reason is the growing availability of radios. The short-wave radios sold in North Korea are relatively expensive, come fixed to state-run stations, and must be registered with the authorities. However, thanks to a growing cross-border trade with China, much of it unofficial, cheap AM radios are proliferating in North Korea — along with used videotape players that Chinese seek to sell when they upgrade to DVD players.

There’s anecdotal evidence that one-third or more of the population has access to AM radios that can be freely tuned to nongovernment stations, according to Mr. Lefkowitz, an estimate confirmed by other North Korea watchers. The Chinese radios are also small, which means that they are easier to hide.”

While it is too soon to infer what influence the New York Philharmonic orchestra had, Musical Director Lorin Maazel can point to it’s influence in the past. “It [the New York Philharmonic orchestra] showed Soviet citizens that they could have relations with foreign organizations and these organizations could come in the country freely,’ he said. ‘But what the Soviets didn’t realize was, this was a two-edged sword.’

‘By allowing interactions between people from outside the country with people inside, eventually the people found themselves out of power.”

In an op-ed, Maazel wrote, “I have always believed that the arts, per se, and their exponents, artists, have a broader role to play in the public arena. But it must be totally apolitical, nonpartisan and free of issue-specific agendas. It is a role of the highest possible order: bringing peoples and their cultures together on common ground, where the roots of peaceful interchange can imperceptibly but irrevocably take hold. If all goes well, the presence of the New York Philharmonic in Pyongyang might gently influence the perception of our country there. If we are gradually to improve U.S.-Korean relations, such events have the potential to nudge open a door that has been closed too long.”

The New York Philharmonic orchestra may be just the first round of a new musical diplomacy. Indeed, the Guardian is reporting today that Eric Clapton has been invited to play in North Korea. As a great classic rock band once wrote, “Whoa, we got to let the music play.”

(Arial photo of Darfur refugee camp)

The conflict in Darfur, the Western province on Sudan is the most protracted of the 21^st century. Since 2003, the people of Darfur have sustained violence, genocide, starvation, disease and profound misery. While estimates range, Amnesty International puts the death toll at 300,000 (95,000 killed and more than 200,000 dead from conflict-related hunger or disease), while 2 million Darfurians have sought refuge in neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic and live in squalid conditions in refugee camps. Click here or here for more background on the conflict in Darfur.

Those international actors committed to stopping the violence in Darfur have expressed despair over the slow pace of the peace process. Today the Washington Post published a column that offers a shred of optimism. In the column Andrew Natsios, the Bush administration’s special envoy to Darfur from October 2006 to December 2007, and a former U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator and Special Coordinator for International Disaster Assistance and Special Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan, explains “Why I Think we Can Still Save Darfur.”
 

Back in a 2004 Natsios gave a speech to a Joint UN-EU meeting in Geneva in which he declared that the situation in Darfur at that time was “the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today.” In today’s column he again declared: “Anyone serious about saving Darfur knows that the situation on the ground is still anarchy.” He powerfully describes what he took away from a 2005 visit to the region:

“I came face to face with something often lost in the well-meaning debate over Darfur: the seething undercurrent of rage that could explode at any moment among the survivors of Khartoum’s atrocities, who have been crammed into squalid displacement camps with no work, no leadership and no hope. Time weighs heavily on people with such awful memories, particularly when they have little else to do but nurse their fury.”

Natsios still holds on to hope that an international coalition, lead by the US, and with the support of civil-society delegations, can deal with the crisis. His recipe for a peaceful solution to the conflict goes like this:

“The United Nations and the African Union, encouragingly, are now trying to create “civil society councils” to represent the residents of the camps at the peace talks. But the Sudanese regime, feeling predictably edgy about new leaders with deep roots in their communities, is disrupting the selection process. And some rebels also dislike the idea of councils that they can’t control; I’ve been told that one rebel leader — Abdul Wahid al-Nur, who has been living safely in Paris for nearly two years — has threatened through his henchmen in the camps to kill anyone who volunteers to serve on the councils.

Reaching a deal won’t be easy, but the path ahead is clear: The United States, with other concerned countries, must insist that the councils in the camps be selected without interference, that civil-society delegations to the peace talks be increased in size and authority, that Darfur’s Arab tribes get seats at the table, and that Sudan’s neighbors stop arming rebel warlords. The longer Darfur languishes without a peace agreement, the greater the risk of more explosions in the camps like the one I witnessed and the less the chances that the incoming peacekeeping troops can succeed.”

He concluded: “Darfur’s people need help, and they can wait no longer.” This refrain has been repeated since 2003. While optimism is hard to come by, the international community will need more than a positive outlook to put an end to this devastating conflict.

It seems Israel is mulling over a cease-fire offer from Hamas. Earlier in the week, Defense Minister Barak warned Syria and Turkey that Israel had plans to launch a major operation against Hezbollah and Hamas. A few days later, a Hamas spokesman said, “we won’t rule out any bid for cease-fire with Israel.” This morning, the Guardian reports the mayor of Sderot (the Israeli town with the most to gain from a cease-fire) would talk with Hamas.

“I would say to Hamas, let’s have a ceasefire, let’s stop the rockets for the next 10 years and we will see what happens,’ said Eli Moyal, the mayor, who is a member of the rightwing Likud party. ‘For me as a person the most important thing is life and I’m ready to do everything for that. I’m ready to talk to the devil.”

Also of note, former Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy called for Israel to talk with Hamas in a recent interview. Halevy lays out his rationale and likely Israel’s to engage Hamas:

“Hamas shuns direct contact and negotiations with Israel and this actually meets Israel’s reciprocal attitude to them. The same is true of the United States. But Hamas is eager to ‘engage’ the two indirectly and reach a verifiable cease fire, and understands that could lead to more ‘down the road.’

Such a strategy of indirect proximity engagement, whilst covering our flanks, offers the prospects of lowering the temperature in the region, easing constraints, and opening up real possibilities of social and economic progress. This is a policy that could be tested, and is warranted by the abject failure of the present Palestinian Authority rump leadership in the West Bank led by the aging, tired and sad Abu Mazen [Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas], and his able prime minister Salaam Fayyad, a great economist and banker but a man who does not pretend to overstay his time.”

The sudden shift to engage Hamas is an interesting development, but also a signal that Israel has less faith in the peace-process. Negotiations over a cease-fire are probably taking place through a third party. Before getting ahead of ourselves and analyzing what this means, we will wait for confirmation that a deal has been reached. If a cease-fire deal is not reached, one might expect Israel to go-ahead with their Gaza operation.

When Henry Crumpton speaks, the US Diplomacy blog listens. Henry, also know as “Hank” during his time at the CIA, played a pivotal role in overthrowing the Taliban months after Sept 11^th. He is currently the Ambassador-at-Large for counterterrorism at the State Department. Crumpton understands the intricacies of the tribal nature in Afghanistan. He recognizes that our structures are not built for the local fight. Additionally, he is a superb strategic thinker and demonstrates this from a recent talk he gave at CSIS. For some weekend viewing, enjoy.

Breaking news: U.S. Embassy broke into and set afire by Serbian protestors. Here’s the brief from International Herald Tribune,”Serb rioters broke into the U.S. Embassy Thursday and set fire to an office after a massive protest against Kosovo’s independence that drew an estimated 150,000 people.

Masked attackers broke into the building, which has been closed this week, and tried to throw furniture from an office. A blaze broke out inside one of the offices and parts of the facade also caught fire.

Authorities drove armored jeeps down the street and fired tear gas to clear the crowd. The protesters dispersed into side streets where they continued clashing with authorities.

The neighboring Croatian Embassy also was attacked by the same group of protesters.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack strongly urged the Serbian government to protect the U.S. Embassy. He said the U.S. ambassador was at his home and was in contact with U.S. officials.”

This is an open thread for anyone who would like to comment on the volatile situation.

Three months ago, President Bush announced a lofty goal: Peace will be achieved and a two state solution will be at hand by the end of his term. This blog has urged President Bush and Secretary Rice to remain deeply engaged with negotiations. Three months later and it is clear that has not happened. More worrisome, is the judgment not to push for final-status issues, particularly Jerusalem.

Olmert and Abbas met Tuesday in another round of talks. Palestinian chief negotiator Sa’eb Eerkat said the meeting did not include final-status issues. “Instead, he expected the talks to focus on day-to-day areas of concern, such as Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.” Frankly, this sounds like a stall tactic.

First, Prime Minister Olmert previously declared that any construction in the West Bank must go through his office. The Israeli delegation is aware that further construction undermines Abbas and provides a false sticking point (effectively blocking more pertinent issues). Second, the barrage of rockets from Gaza are launched by Hamas, who are not part of negotiations. Fatah, whose forces fled Gaza in the summer (and based on this report aren’t exactly happy with their leadership), have no control over the rockets. Of course, Israel knows that both of these issues undermine Fatah, therefore it begs the question, what are their intentions?

To be fair, the rockets raining down on Sderot are a grave issue that must be addressed. One might expect an IDF offensive into Gaza to stem the problem. This morning, Defense Minister Barak signaled plans of an offensive against Hamas in Gaza. What, if anything, can Fatah agree to with regards to rockets coming from Gaza? Again, it seems like a stall tactic.

The United States is the key to a breakthrough. Israel and the PA both have hardened positions, which need be pushed along by President Bush and Condoleezza Rice. It is very unlikely that concessions will come about without their help. Unfortunately, the United States is doing just the opposite.

“A senior Jerusalem source said Monday that Olmert and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had agreed to defer talks on Jerusalem to the final stage of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

The source said Olmert and Rice had talked on the telephone about a week and a half ago, and that Rice accepted Olmert’s position that discussing Jerusalem at the very beginning could jam the negotiations and obstruct them.”

These signs do not bode well for the President’s goal. If deference on final-status issues continue, do not expect peace to be at hand anytime soon.

The United States policy towards Cuba, adopted during the heights of the Cold War, has for decades remained immutable. Even recently, the Bush Administration has ceded little ground in opening relations with the despotic regime of the brothers Castro. Meanwhile, Cuba finds itself in a period of transition. This morning, Fidel announced he will resign as President of Cuba. As if sensing today’s announcement, the Washington Post (in the Sunday Outlook Section) printed an intriguing piece on the transition of power from Fidel to Raul Castro.

Change, a word sweeping across America during the primary season, has been echoed on the island 90 miles off the coast of Florida. “Fidel fatigue underlies some of this new attitude. A change — any change — is welcome, as long as circumstances get no worse.”

What will it take for a change in policy? An American President willing to listen to different perspectives concerning foreign affairs, on the heels of an administration caught in dogmatic ideals. However, a Cuban Gorbachev might provide the real catalyst, or so says the Cuban elites talking with Tom Miller (author of the Washington Post article).

Can a lifetime military leader become a Gorbachev-like reformer in Cuba? A Times Magazine article set out to answer that very question concluded, yes, he can.

“Raul is also called ‘the practical Castro,’ and when and if he does succeed Fidel permanently, many Cuba watchers speculate that he’ll actually bring a less confrontational, more reform-minded rule to the communist island. ‘I think he will try to adopt more of a China economic model, probably continuing much of the harsh political regime but allowing more private enterprise and loosening foreign investment rules,’ says Latell, a senior researcher at the University of Miami’s Cuba Institute and author of the recently published book After Fidel. ‘And I think he’s also going to want better relations and more dialogue with the U.S.”

Nevertheless, provided a reform-minded President in Cuba and an American President looking to open relations, ending the embargo will run against powerful interests, specifically from the Cuban-American lobby.

As Patrick Mendis (a former diplomat) notes, “the speed of such transformation for a Cuban dream will largely depend on the level of freedom in Havana and the power of Cuban Diaspora in the United States.”

Time will tell what policies the next President will offer. For supporters of ending the embargo against Cuba, it would prove advantageous to elect a leader who has already loosened ties with lobbyists. The alternative would more than likely keep U.S.-Cuba policy mired in quicksand.

(Associated Press photo)

Secretary Rice gave her last testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week.

The hearing began with a moment of silence in memory of the recently-deceased California Democrat and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Tom Lantos. Howard L. Berman, another California Democrat, was appointed as the Committee’s Acting Chairman.

He began his chairmanship by welcoming the increase in spending for the State Department’s budget: “Madame Secretary, I strongly support the Administration’s overall international affairs budget request for Fiscal Year 2009. It surpasses current spending by nearly three billion dollars, a welcome turn of events.”

Congressman Berman continued: “The new budget request starts to address the reality that we have been far too slow to face: Our civilian agencies are woefully unprepared to handle the unprecedented global security challenges confronting the United States today.

Here’s just one example of that: A study just released by the RAND Corporation shows that despite the common notion that civil capabilities and military power are equally important to counterinsurgency operations overseas, the meager and infrequent bump-ups in the State Department’s budget have been “dwarfed” by massive increases in Pentagon spending. The report goes on to note, and I’m quoting here: “If Islamic insurgency is the gravest threat to the United States and its interests in the near to middle term, and if countering this insurgency requires a broad and balanced array of capabilities, the grim implication is that the United States is ill equipped to counter the gravest threat it faces.” It goes on to say that we “must invest to correct (these) deficiencies and imbalances.”

Acting Chairman Berman’s full remarks can be viewed here.

The Committee’s minority leader, Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also lamented Lantos’ death and then went on to express her concerns about a long list of challenges for US foreign policy, including: nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran, Darfur, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and others. You may access the full text of her remarks here.

Next Secretary Rice made her opening remarks, a transcript of which can be viewed here (as delivered). (A video of Secretary Rice’s testimony can be viewed by clicking here, and a video of the entire hearing can be viewed here).

Contrary to the hearing’s title “International Relations Budget for Fiscal Year 2009,” the remarks of both the lawmakers and the witness focused only briefly on the budget request, and more so on a variety of hot button conflicts in the Middle East—Iran’s nuclear program, the Israeli/Palestinian issue, US troop commitment in Iraq, the Lebanon/Syria relationship—the Pakistani election and relations with China. The bulk of Secretary Rice’s discussion about the budget is contained in her prepared remarks, which were provided to the Committee in advance.

Congressman Ackerman used this opportunity to press Secretary Rice on whether her administration intends to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. The issue caused controversy earlier this month when President Bush left the option open–in opposition to Congress’ wishes, while members of his administration spoke otherwise. In the hearing Secretary Rice confirmed that it is “not our intention to seek permanent military bases in Iraq.”

It appears that foreign audiences were also eagerly watching Rise’s testimony. The Armenian online news site Defacto reported on Congressman Brad Sherman’s proposed budget for Armenia. The Russian online news outlet Kommersant reviewed the testimony with particular attention to the Secretary’s and lawmaker’s remarks toward Russia.