WPR Blogs

The Role of a United Europe

Posted By Kari Lipschutz 06 Nov 2009 "We need partners. We need allies -- and our natural ally is Europe," former Ambassador Nicholas Burns said to the audience at a European Institute at Columbia University event.

During his speech, part of the Donald and Vera Blinken lecture series , Burns addressed Europe's critics."It's so fashionable to say that Europe is tired," he said. And in some respects, he conceded, Europe is tired.

Burns, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said that Europe has not been prepared to lead in the 21st century due to a lack of consistent centralized leadership. "Europe needs to begin to speak with a single voice," he said. And on Nov. 3, with the signature of Czech President Vaclav Klaus, Europe began the process of presenting that needed united front, ending the six-month rotating EU presidency that Burns noted as being a downfall of the Union. "This is going to stand out as one of humans' greatest achievements," Burns declared. But regardless of the strides Europe has made, he says that he does not expect the continent to return to the dominant role it once had alone.

Burns, who served as ambassador to NATO, noted -- with fellow former ambassadors Richard Gardner and Donald Blinken in the audience -- that the United States' allies across the pond have not held up their end of the Article Five bargain when it comes to NATO military capacity on the continent. He believes this to be a great misstep for a united European power that wants to make a comeback on the global stage. "You can't do that on hopes and wishes, you have to have C-17s," he said.

Burns went on to say that Europe and the United States need each other in order to match the far-reaching soft power of India and China, and the growing regional influence of nations like Brazil, South Africa, and Nigeria. "Power is flattening out," Burns cautioned.

Off the Radar News Roundup

Posted By Judah Grunstein 06 Nov 2009 - South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak rules out a North-South summit without an end to the DPRK nuclear program.

- The EU and India set ambitious goals for bilateral trade, but a long-negotiated free trade deal is still being held up by disagreements over EU demands on regulatory standards (a major component of EU soft power). At the same summit, the two sides signed a civil nuclear agreement on fusion research.

- Another Indian free trade agreement, this one with South Korea, is set to take effect now that South Korea's parliament just ratified the deal . Trade between the two nations reached $15.6 billion last year, up sixfold from $2.6 billion in 2002.

- With Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in Paris to discuss, among other things, France's opposition to Turkey's EU accession, Turkey is catching some flak from the EU for inviting Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit in Istanbul this weekend. Turkey is not a party to the Rome Statute , and therefore not bound by the ICC. Nevertheless, in Ankara's "two steps forward, one step back" routine of late, this would qualify as an example of the latter.

- Andry Rajoelina -- the self-made millionaire, former DJ who has been Madagascar's leader since staging a March coup -- stormed out of African Union-mediated talks to negotiate a power-sharing agreement with deposed president Marc Ravolamanana. The talks were extended for two days, but it's still unclear whether Rajeolina will return to the bargaining table.

Researched by Kari Lipschutz.

EU Defense's Odd Man Out

Posted By Judah Grunstein 06 Nov 2009 One of the less-noticed, second-order effects of the Obama administration's decision to scrap Eastern European-based missile defense is the way in which it has increasingly isolated Great Britain in terms of the European defense discussion. The "Russia wedge" equation traditionally pitted New Europe and Britain's Atlanticism against Old Europe's EU defense. But Poland had already started hedging its bets with greater support of EU defense before the missile defense decision. In its aftermath, that shift has become even more pronounced . That leaves Great Britain on the outside looking in, with the major winner for now being France. It also makes the NATO strategic vision document currently under development that much more significant, especially with regard to NATO-EU cooperation.

Meanwhile, one of the less-noticed aspect of the Lisbon Treaty is the impact it will have on the way in which the military instrument is incorporated into EU power. Once the treaty is in effect, the EU "joint chiefs" will report to the EU foreign minister, as opposed to the EU president. The EU foreign minister will also have the power to propose missions, and to coordinate the civilian and military components of missions deployed. In other words, EU defense will become a subordinate component of EU diplomacy. That's something I hadn't been aware of, and it changes the outlook for the balance of power between the EU president and foreign minister. Increasingly, it looks like the latter is going to be a substantial pole of institutional power. Ironically, the current frontrunner is none other than British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

The Walls Still Standing

Posted By Judah Grunstein 06 Nov 2009 In the runup to the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Le Figaro has a slideshow on the walls that have yet to come down. One thing I've always found fascinating about humankind is that our ingenuity for building walls is matched only by our ingenuity for finding ways to bypass them. Whether it's around, over, under or through, we manage to get to the other side. Good thing, too.

COIN Theory and Yankees' Dominance

Posted By Judah Grunstein 06 Nov 2009 Good governance? Twenty-seven titles.
Infrastructure reconstruction? The new Yankee Stadium.
Legitimacy? The pinstripes.

Nuff said. And still, this insurgency known as Red Sox Nation survives. Proof that some minor irritants, an empire is better off learning to live with than trying to destroy.

Update: Plus, winning hearts and minds !!

Italy Convicts CIA Agents over Extraordinary Renditions

Posted By Juliette Terzieff 06 Nov 2009 An Italian judge has convicted 23 Central Intelligence Agency officers of participating in the kidnapping and rendition of an Egyptian cleric in Milan in 2003. The trial marked the first time the controversial anti-terrorism tool, known as extraordinary rendition, was challenged anywhere in the world.

"The message of this important ruling -- to nations, governments, institutions, secret services, etc. -- is that we cannot use illegal instruments in our effort against terrorism. Our democracies, otherwise, would betray their principles," the lead prosecutor, Armando Spataro, told the Los Angeles Times .

All of the Americans were tried in absentia, and it is unlikely they will serve the jail sentences handed down by the judge.

Human rights groups, the Council of Europe and the United Nations have all long criticized the practice of extraordinary rendition as illegal -- in particular when involving the transfer of prisoners to countries where they are likely to be tortured. Victims of extraordinary rendition are afforded little to no protection of their rights.

American and Italian operatives abducted Osama Hassan Mustafa Nasr, known as Abu Omar, from a Milan street. The cleric was transferred to the Aviano Air Base in northern Italy, on to the Ramstein Air Base in Germany, before finally being turned over to Egyptian authorities. Abu Omar then spent four years in detention -- where he says he was repeatedly tortured by Egyptian interrogators -- before being released without charge.

Sabrina deSousa, one of the convicted Americans, told ABC news the U.S. "broke the law" in Abu Omar's case and that the operatives were later "abandoned and betrayed" by those who ordered the operation. "And we are paying for the mistakes right now, whoever authorized and approved this," she said.

The Obama administration has not indicated any plans to abandon extraordinary rendition as a tool, reflecting a certain level of support it still enjoys among the intelligence community as an effective anti-terrorism tool. Nevertheless, several European allies are considering legislative changes that would bar support for such operations.

The Horror, the Horror: Afghanistan Edition

Posted By Judah Grunstein 06 Nov 2009 A paper by Maj. Jim Gant, titled, "One Tribe at a Time" (.pdf), has been getting all sorts of attention since it ran on Steven Pressman's site a few weeks back. I finally got down to reading it last night after Andrew Exum flagged it as an alternative to COIN in Afghanistan.

Where to begin? The paper is a collection of nativist mythologies that have run as a theme throughout the West's imperial age. Last of the Mohicans? Lawrence of Arabia? Dances with Wolves? They're in there. So is an element of Stockholm Syndrome, for that matter. The problem arises not with Lawrence, of course, but with his evil twin, Kurtz, who has already served as a symbol of colonial-era (Heart of Darkness) and modern American (Apocalypse Now) hubris.

And if that seems like hyperbole, consider that Gant's narrative begins with his apparently arbitrary and unilateral decision to take the side of one tribal chieftain over a rival group from within the same tribe, based solely on his gut feeling. Happily for Gant, it turned out that the subsequent alliance -- which included him arming his "host tribe" -- resulted in benefits for him and his squad. But how do you operationalize gut feeling?

Gant calls for small, autonomous units to essentially "go native" in order to win over allegiance at the tribal level. But how can the fragmented alliances that result be coordinated into a broader strategy? And what happens if one autonomous unit's alliance conflicts with another's? Or if it conflicts with the chain of command's broader objectives? In other words, how do we establish unity of effort and command over such a network of alliances, when the Afghans themselves have not been able to?

As for Gant's subsequent contention that his plan represents a "light footprint COIN" approach, he himself points out that he and his team were safer in the village than in their outpost, and that he was unable to prevent the attacks the village suffered as a result of its cooperation. In other words, there's a real confusion about who was protecting whom.

Anyone who has worked in a helping role -- whether in social work, aid and development, and apparently population-centric counterinsurgency -- has witnessed (or lived) the phenomenon of a line worker identifying with the target population, especially when the line worker is subject to extended immersion within the social structure of the targeted population. Inevitably, it leads to a confusion of loyalties and friction with the broader institutional goals. There's a very delicate balance between listening to and empathizing with the people you're trying to help, and maintaining defined boundaries -- to identify their needs, without identifying with them. But it's an essential balance to strike, because the helping relationship is by its very nature vulnerable to manipulation and abuse, on both sides.

What's also overlooked -- by Gant, but also by more conventional COIN theory -- is the fact that intervening in a social system creates both winners and losers. COIN bases its methodology in large part on the assumption that losers will shift loyalties in order to compete for the benefits on offer. Again, the lessons from the helping professions show that this is far from a foregone conclusion. The resulting power imbalances within the indigenous structure can instead lead to increased -- and rigidified -- resentment and hostility toward the helping professional.

Gant's story is a remarkable and courageous one that resonates with us for many of the same reasons that this kind of narrative historically has. But the fact that people are clinging to the operational solutions he offers is a testament to the fact that there are simply no good options in Afghanistan.

Off the Radar News Roundup

Posted By Judah Grunstein 05 Nov 2009 This is a new feature we're going to experiment with here on the blog, with the help of our intrepid editorial assistant, Kari Lipschutz. The idea is to catch significant news in the foreign English-language media, before it shows up in Western outlets. So, yes, it amounts to yet another news roundup. But we're going to try to justify it by delivering not so much breaking news as developing news. In the context of Chaos Theory and the Butterfly Effect, we're trying to catch the butterfly before it becomes a monsoon. So with that in mind, here goes:

- Is China intent on weaponizing space? Probably, (just like everyone else is). But the real news is that they're also intent on treating the subject delicately.

- It's admittedly a longshot, but the new Japanese government might replace its maritime support mission to the Afghanistan war with a Japanese liaison contingent in ISAF headquarters. Either way, $4 billion in development aid will probably be more decisive. Note how Japan, once again, is stepping up to the plate -- with cash -- in Afghanistan. Note, too, how the division of tasks that leaves Japan with the post-conflict humanitarian/development role is also strengthening its presence in the Gulf and Middle East.

- Seems like India's Maoists are willing to talk after all. Too bad their demands will in all likelihood torpedo any negotiations.

- Russia weighs in positively on Turkey-Armenia détente. It will be interesting to see whether there's a simultaneous, coordinated push to move the Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations forward in the context of the Minsk Group.

- Where Russian troops occupy, Russian-style democracy must not be far behind.

- Nigeria moves to back up the Niger delta amnesty with development funds.

Researched by Kari Lipschutz.

Italy Outraged by Crucifix Verdict

Posted By Juliette Terzieff 05 Nov 2009 Vatican and Italian officials from across the political spectrum have lined up to denounce a decision by the European Court of Human Rights to penalize the government over the presence of crucifixes in Italian classrooms. The ruling could force a review of religious symbolism in public schools across Europe.

"The crucifix is a universal symbol of love, meekness and peace. Preventing it from being displayed is an act of violence against the deep-seated feelings of the Italian people and all persons of goodwill," Claudio Scajola, a member of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's Freedom People party, told The Guardian .

The Strasbourg-based court ruled that the presence of religious symbols in classrooms infringes upon parents' right to educate their children according to their own beliefs as well as upon children's right to freedom of religion. Their presence, the court noted, might also be disturbing for students of other religions and minorities and thus constituted a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Italian officials had argued that the crucifix is a national symbol of culture, history, identity and secularism.

An Italian woman, Soile Lautsi, petitioned the ECHR after Italian courts supported the government's stance, ruling that the cross was a historical and cultural symbol. Lautsi initially objected to the crucifixes in the classrooms of her two sons. Her lawsuit followed on the heels of a similar case brought by a father in 2003. Crucifixes hang in Italian classrooms as the result of laws enacted in the 1920s.

The ECHR awarded the mother a small settlement but stopped short of ordering an immediate removal of crucifixes. The Italian government has indicated it will appeal the decision.

Showing 1 - 10 of 2017 first | prev | next | last