FPI Afternoon Roundup: August 13, 2009

Obama Administration

Let me elaborate a little bit more on the bedrock issues of state capacity and state will.

Today, as we steer a new course at the United Nations, our guiding principles are clear: We value the UN as a vehicle for advancing U.S. policies and universal rights. We work for change from within rather than criticizing from the sidelines. We stand strong in defense of America’s interests and values, but we don’t dissent just to be contrary. We listen to states great and small. We build coalitions. We meet our responsibilities. We pay our bills. We push for real reform. And we remember that, in an interconnected world, what’s good for others is often good for the United States as well.

In the past, many dismissed poverty, hunger, and despair in faraway countries as other people’s problems, preferring to focus on the supposedly “hard” questions of war and power. But in a globalized age, the troubles that ravage fragile states can ultimately menace sturdy ones.

Our values compel us to reduce poverty, disease, and hunger, to end preventable deaths of mothers and children, and to build self-sufficiency in agriculture, health, and education. But so too does our national interest. Whether the peril is terrorism, pandemics, narcotics, human trafficking, or civil strife, a state so weak that it incubates a threat is also a state too weak to contain a threat.

Since taking office, the Obama Administration has acted internationally on the basis of three core premises. First, the global challenges we face cannot be met without U.S. leadership. But second, while U.S. leadership is necessary, it’s rarely sufficient. We need the effective cooperation of a broad range of friends and partners. And third, others will likely shoulder a greater share of the global burden if the United States leads by example, acknowledges mistakes, corrects course when necessary, forges strategies in partnership and treats others with respect.

It is not enough though simply to build up the corps of capable, democratic states. We need states with both the capacity and the will to tackle common challenges. As we have been reminded in recent years, we cannot take that will for granted, even among our closest allies. The simple reality is this: if we want others to help combat the threats that concern us most, then we must help others combat the challenges that threaten them most. For many nations, those threats are first and foremost the things that afflict human beings in their daily lives: corruption, repression, conflict, hunger, poverty, disease, and a lack of education and opportunity.

A fundamental imperative of U.S. national security in the 21st century is thus clear: we need to maximize the number of states with both the capacity and the will to tackle this new generation of transnational challenges. We need a modern edifice of cooperation, built upon the foundation of responsible American leadership, with the bricks of state capacity and the beams of political will.

We build that will by demonstrating responsible leadership. We build will by setting a tone of decency and mutual respect rather than condescension and contempt. We build will by abiding by the rules we expect others to follow. We build will by pursuing pragmatic, principled policies and explain them with intelligence and candor. And in the broadest sense, we build will when others can see their future as aligned with ours…

The United States needs to grow the ranks of capable, democratic states—states that can deliver both on their international responsibilities and their domestic responsibilities to their own people. Capable states control their territory, govern justly, provide security and essential services, protect their citizens’ rights, and offer their people hope for a better future. When a country cannot—or will not—perform these core functions, when a nation is wracked by war, when a state becomes a shell, its people suffer immediately. But over the longer term, a fragile state can also incubate global trouble that can spread far beyond its borders. And that is where the transnational threats of the 21st century too often begin.

Standing aside while the world’s most vulnerable endure conflict, disease, and despair is surely a breach of our common humanity. But it is also a threat to our common security.

Susan Rice spoke at New York University:

In the 21st century, therefore we can have no doubt: as President Obama has said time and again, America’s security and wellbeing are inextricably linked to those of people everywhere…

The reach, scale, and complexity of these 21st-century security challenges put unprecedented demands on states and the entire infrastructure of international cooperation that we helped to build after 1945. If ever there were a time for effective multilateral cooperation in pursuit of U.S. interests and a shared future of greater peace and prosperity, it is now. We stand at a true crossroads. We must move urgently to reinvigorate the basis for common action. The bedrock of that cooperation must be a community of states committed to solving collective problems and capable of meeting the responsibilities of effective sovereignty.

When the United States joins others to confront these challenges, it’s not charity. It’s not even barter. In today’s world, more than ever, America’s interests and our values converge. What is good for others is often good for us. When we manifest our commitment to tackling the threats that menace so many other nations; when we invest in protecting the lives of others; and when we recognize that national security is no longer a zero-sum game, then we increase other countries’ will to cooperate on the issues most vital to us.

China

The New York Times reports:

The artist, Ai Weiwei, best known for helping to design the Bird’s Nest Olympic Stadium in Beijing, said dozens of police officers barged into his hotel room early Wednesday and the rooms of others who had traveled to Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan Province, to testify on behalf of Tan Zuoren, the rights advocate.

Earlier this year, Mr. Ai sent volunteers to Sichuan to collect the names of students who had been killed. He began posting the names on his blog and kept a running tally. Government censors then blocked his blog, Mr. Ai said, while police officers in Sichuan detained some of his volunteers and beat a few of them.

A prominent Chinese artist and frequent critic of the Communist Party said he was hit by police officers and put under detention in his hotel room in western China on Wednesday when he tried to go testify at the trial of a civil rights advocate.

The opening session of Mr. Tan’s trial began Wednesday morning and ended hours later without a verdict. The courtroom was closed to the public. Mr. Tan, a well-known writer, has been charged with subversion. He is believed to be on trial because of his role in pushing for an official investigation into widespread school collapses during the Sichuan earthquake last year, and for trying to organize a group event in June to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the massacre of civilians by government forces during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989…

Mr. Ai said in a telephone interview on Wednesday that he had arrived in Chengdu the previous day to testify on behalf of Mr. Tan but that the judge did not allow him to. He said that he had planned to appear at court anyway but that he and 10 or 11 of his volunteers were prevented from doing so by the officers who barged into their hotel rooms and kept them under watch.

Afghanistan

"All of these issues are vitally important in an overall counterinsurgency effort. And we're working on them," Holbrooke said. "But until the election legitimizes the government -- whoever wins -- we have had to focus on [security for the election]."

In distilling lessons into practical advice for the troops, General Caldwell is building on an effort brought to popular attention by a predecessor, Gen. David H. Petraeus, now commander of American forces in the Middle East.

In the end, though, Holbrooke conceded that there's no guarantee that this multifaceted strategy will succeed, only that the United States is "in this fight to succeed."

The Wall Street Journal reports that "Afghanistan's presidential election next week is proving to be a complicated exercise in democracy. A raging insurgency threatens to close voting centers. Some of the 38 candidates maintain ties to armed militias. Others have threatened violence if they lose. And reports of widespread fraud endanger the poll's credibility. It is Grant Kippen's job to keep the process honest. Mr. Kippen heads the Electoral Complaints Commission, an independent body given the task of receiving complaints about candidates, auditing the process for fraud, and, when necessary, imposing sanctions on violators to try to ensure the vote is as credible as possible…The commission, established in 2005, grew out of the experience of the 2004 Afghan presidential elections, when politicians complained that there was no independent body to deal with accusations of vote stealing and ballot stuffing. It is wholly separate from the Independent Elections Commission, the institution that is organizing and conducting the Aug. 20 polls. Western officials say the United Nations-funded complaints commission, with nearly 270 people in Kabul and offices in each of Afghanistan's 34 provinces, will be key in trying to ensure the election's success. A vote marred by fraud and irregularities would be a setback in the drive to show the country's political institutions are making progress…So far, the commission has barred 59 candidates from running for president or for provincial-council seats, 56 of them because of ties to illegally armed groups."

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports:

The [new battlefield manual that will be delivered over coming days to Army units joining the fight in Afghanistan with the troop increase ordered by President Obama], “Small-Unit Operations in Afghanistan,” strikes a tone of respect for the Taliban and other insurgent groups, which are acknowledged to be extremely experienced fighters; even more, American soldiers are warned that the insurgents rapidly adapt to shifts in tactics.

Holbrooke made his comments at a forum in Washington on August 12 sponsored by the Center for American Progress…

The manual includes a chapter titled “Cultural Engagements,” offering guidance to small-unit leaders on building relationships with wavering village elders and trust among distrustful village residents — a process that cannot be left to senior officers who may be back at headquarters.

Holbrooke said none of these issues can be addressed properly until the citizens of Afghanistan, under the protection of NATO forces, choose a new government with a proper mandate.

Combat commanders acknowledge how much they rely on the analysis and lessons-learned manuals sent from headquarters back in the United States. “The education of our force is the best weapon we have,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the new commander in Afghanistan. “Counterinsurgency is complex, nuanced and ever-changing, and success is dependent on a fighting force that can recognize these changes and adapt to them.”

Holbrooke said other elements of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan are helping the country establish sustainable agriculture, setting up legal institutions, and focusing drug interdiction not on poppy farmers, but on higher-level distributors.

Under General Petraeus’s leadership at Fort Leavenworth, the military released a counterinsurgency field manual credited with helping turn around the war in Iraq and ending the armed services’ focus on heavily armored conventional warfare.

The New York Times reports:

Video, from Reuters: US stake in Afghan election.

Richard Holbrooke, the special U.S. envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, says an important part of Washington's strategy to defeated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is recognizing that Afghanistan doesn't exist in a vacuum.

In page after page, the handbook draws on lessons from Wanat and other missions, some successful and some that resulted in death and injury for American and allied forces. The manual can be read as an effort to push the nuances of the complex counterinsurgency fight now under way in Afghanistan down from the generals and colonels to newly minted privates as well as to the sergeants and junior officers who lead small units into combat…

During the forum, Holbrooke also focused on Afghanistan's August 20 presidential elections and the U.S.-led effort to provide security for the vote. He said his team's political goals related to the election include contending with political corruption, establishing amnesty for former antigovernment guerrillas, and improving regional and local governance.

Implicit in the instructions is a warning that troops are at risk if they are aloof from the locals and uncaring of their needs…

Burma

USA Today editorializes: "This latest Kafkaesque twist in the junta's long-running attempts to suppress Suu Kyi sent two messages. The first was how much the generals fear her. And they should. She is the daughter of assassinated independence hero Aung San, and her party swept to victory in 1990 elections until the generals annulled them. She has been under house arrest for 14 of the past 20 years; the latest charges were an obvious pretense to keep her there. The second message is less stark, but as important. Whether the generals' showmanship was aimed at avoiding an internal uprising or at limiting external criticism, it suggests they might be less impervious to pressure than they often seem (such as when they initially refused outside aid to their citizens after a devastating cyclone hit the Southeast Asian nation of 50 million last year). The reason given for commuting the sentence — respect for Suu Kyi's heritage and in the interests of 'peace and tranquility' — seemed designed as a concession. It indicates the generals care how its people and the world view elections next year. Unfortunately, the world hasn't presented a united front against human rights abuses in Burma. Though Burma is under Western sanctions, it trades with China and other Asian neighbors. Some countries, notably China, did not join condemnations of Suu Kyi's detention."

The Miami Herald editorializes: "What a contrast this was to another country's treatment of one of its native daughters. In Burma, the ruling military junta slammed Aung San Suu Kyi with another 18 months of house arrest... This brought condemnation from Burma's democratic neighbors, the European Union, the United States and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. But that alone won't change the junta's mind. This is one instance where U.N. sanctions have been insufficient, thanks in part to China blocking more forceful action. More economic sanctions must be applied to the military thugs whose repression has impoverished Burma's people…The junta's treatment of Ms. Suu Kyi and other political prisoners has brought much condemnation upon it. But the junta's response essentially has been: So what? That attitude leaves the United Nations wringing its hands unless it can muster enough support from China, Burma's most powerful friend, to impose economic penalties that hit the junta in the pocketbook."

Bosnia

Bosnia facing troubled future:

Iran

Jonathan Last writes in the Weekly Standard that "Looking back on it, it's hard to understand how the recent Iranian revolution failed. Sure, the mullahs had guns, tanks, an air force, police, the Revolutionary Guard, the Basij, and imported terrorist thugs on their side. But the Iranian protestors had Twitter. Who could have predicted that an authoritarian regime, in control of its military and willing to spill blood, would triumph over the power of social networking? It is no criticism of the Iranian dissidents to note that in the West there was a wave of absurd, and disquieting, Twitter triumphalism connected with Iran's June post-election protests. And the praise of Twitter was, like Twitter itself, more about narcissism than sympathy with Iran…And just what does Twitter do that it should be ascribed such powers? First, it is called the essential organizing tool, helping the dissidents plan rallies and protests. It's unclear exactly how important a part Twitter played on this score, but there is at least anecdotal evidence to support the claim. Second, Twitter was credited with having spread first-person accounts of the uprising as it unfolded. Here, too, the extent of its success is unclear. Yes, there were hundreds of thousands of 'tweets' claiming to be firsthand reports from Tehran. But because the service is anonymous it's impossible for anyone to know which reports were genuine and which were not."

Ideas

Claudia Rosett writes for Forbes: "Tyrants, as a rule, have made a long series of deliberate choices to become what they are. By the time they reach the cockpit of your average rogue state, they are heavily invested in systems which reward them for atrocious, underhanded and often murderous acts. In places such as Iran, Burma, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Sudan, the incentives for those at the top are not to lie awake at night wondering if they should try to be less disappointing or more acceptable to the matrons now tending the world's leading democracies. They are much more likely to be wondering what they can get away with next. Had Franklin Delano Roosevelt used today's political vocabulary, he would have denounced the bombing of Pearl Harbor not as 'A date which will live in infamy,' but as something along the lines of 'A deeply disappointing cause for concern.' Ronald Reagan, instead of calling the Soviet Union the 'evil empire,' would have had to fall back on something like 'an unacceptable framework from which we would like to see more positive results.'"