… is already taking shape. 298 days to go.
The Pakistani election is a significant milestone, with a changed approach being signalled to the US envoys who visited there this week and to Bush himself:
Yesterday the new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said he warned President George Bush in a phone conversation that he would prioritise talking as well as shooting in the battle against Islamist extremism. “He said that a comprehensive approach is required in this regard, specially combining a political approach with development,” a statement said.
Although his remarks about Pakistan itself weren’t helpful, Barack Obama actually signalled something with his “talk to your foes” thing (bluntly rejected by Hillary in her tough pose). Tony Blair’s former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, who was a strong supporter of the Iraq war back in the day, has drawn parallels between the back channel Blair sought to create with the IRA Army Council and the necessity of eventually engaging even Al-Qaeda itself. Not everyone would go that far, by any means, but there’s an increasing recognition that there should be a recognition that not all Islamists are the same, and that the running sore which has fundamentally distorted both foreign policy and exacerbated the mess in the Middle East is the lack of a Palestinian state. Our own Gareth Evans in an op/ed yesterday suggests engaging Hamas.
Of course, opportunities could be lost, and former Israeli official Daniel Levy of the New America Foundation, in an astute piece of analysis, warns that even a Democratic presidency could slide into neo-conservatism with a liberal veneer. Levy has some suggestions, which would have appeared radical only a few years ago, but now appear feasible:
Start by redrawing that map of issue interconnectivity, retiring the current war on terror paradigm, and rethinking the appeal to hearts and minds. Cranking up the use of soft power and aid programs and reducing the military footprint is not enough. At least three epiphanies are required of the next president to go forward: First, recognize that certain widely held grievances in the Middle East — the Palestinians’ most particularly — are both legitimate and solvable. Second, understand that political Islamists are not all the same, are not all al-Qaeda, and that building a policy based on these differences is crucial to resolving the region’s problems. And third, comprehend that regional stability demands inclusivity and a commitment to multilateralism.
The whole article is really very much worth reading.
I don’t know how far Kevin Rudd has gone in terms of reframing Australia’s thinking on these issues. I hope that it does form part of his commitment to a more assertive, more multilateralist and more independent foreign policy, made before he left for his world trip yesterday. I do think that by demanding a fundamental rethink of strategy in Afghanistan, and suggesting Australia could withdraw if the aims and tactics of the effort weren’t satisfactorily clarified, he’s sent a signal that he is prepared to go back to first principles and re-examine the terms of Australia’s engagement in the broader Middle East.
Hopefully more than platitudes about the strength of the alliance will result from Rudd’s trip to Washington.
But it’s still that Wilsonian/exceptionalism thang. Thinking the US can swan in as an impartial broker. But not while it’s locked into the Middle East through the domestic influence of the Israel lobby and oil, oil, oil. And while China makes its ICT products and services, India processes the payments and Brazil and Canada make the aircraft used by its executive class to commute to work.
But if I was elected POTUS (and I reckon it’s still not too late for a drunken Australian anonymous blogger with a bad attitude and nearly 17 grand in campaign funds to stampede both the Democratic and Republican conventions), my first move would be to hustle India and Brazil in as permanent UN Security Council members and then turn them loose as geopolitical brokers.
“See, it’s not so easy being an major global power after all is it? …umm…wait a minute, you just got China and Taiwan doing a conga line? And Israeli and Palestinian powerbrokers are singing along together in the chorus of the latest Bollywood spectacular? How did that happen?”
The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and the E5 (Emerging Five – Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and Venezuela) are really starting to throw their weight about in the globalised 21st century world.
Meanwhile Japan goes its own enigmatic way and the EU, the world’s first post-modern distributed economic and legislative geopolitical entity, is dully but steadily assimulating anything that will add value to its core mission statement – to bourgeoisie the world.
While the US is asking Canada where it left its bifocals, Australia is blearily hungover and New Zealand is dangling off a bungee cord going “whee-hee!”
OK, was having too much fun with the metaphors there. But my overall point is that while the US may be still be the only king sized raptor on the block, it’s now a well linked up neighbourhood and lots of other countries are rapidly evolving well past being large toothy dinosaurs and into cunning agile primates. Or in the EU’s case, into an 800 pound lemur.
So why should the US be still seen as the main geopolitical hotspot broker? Its credibility is shot to shreds, its economy has maxed out the credit cards, its poor bloody gallant military is woefully overextended, its soft power is now basically driven by porn, celebrity culture and unstable computer operating systems and its the only first world country where evolution and fair voting procedures are still highly controversial issues.
Having said all that, I’m still looking forward to having another great time when I visit the US again this October/November. It’s a great party country with fantastic music, some spectacular scenery, great drinking spots and colourful and friendly natives.
But for geopolitical issues? Time to send the Brazilians in I feel.
But
And oh yes, when the North Korean regime collapses like the house of cards it is (within five years is my bet) and the whole Korean Peninsula reunites, then that will be another major global player. Koreans – the only people who intimidate both the Chinese and Japanese.
And just to freak out any passing libertarians – when we do get a global government, it’ll be the Koreans and Sikhs forming the core cadre of a global police force.
“Back channels” are interesting…. I was told around 1964 that the US and Red China were talking off the record via an Australian embassy somewhere in the Soviet Bloc. Probably there were other contacts too.
Then Kissinger memoirs gave many details on his contacts with DRV during periods when officially USA and DRV weren’t talking.
Kissinger visited Peking himself, secretly, to line up the POTUS Nixon visit. Back channels must be the very stuff of diplomacy.
I just hope the USA and USSR continue to put a big effort into maintaining the old “hotline” in working order. It’d be simply horrible luck if GWB or Vlad got some call centre gent in Mumbai offering a special 24 month cell phone contract, if they ever had to pick up that phone.
- Just leave that task with us mere mortals, gentlemen!
To my mind some people need to catch up here. The COIN strategy in Iraq has been doing exactly what has been advocated here for well over 12 months. This idea that the Bush administraton believes in only using military power is a complete myth. It is what the left wants to believe not the reality. How many billions of aid have been spent already in Iraq and Afghanistan yes in many cases ineffectually but the idea the Bush administration is blissful ignorant to a multi pronged approach to fighting terrorism is claptrap. It has been doing it for years, maybe not well in some cases but the idea Bush needs to learn the value of this is just silly and justs betrays the Lefts cartoon view of Bush.
I find it also interesting to see how many left wingers have criticised the bringing in to the tent of the Iraqi Insurgents as dangerous and doomed to failure and yet now we get the “we should be willing to talk to some islamists” and we should be using back channels. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!!!!
I suspect what we are really seeing here is the Left unofficially recognising the COIN success and rather than admit the success trying to now position themselves to “we thought of it first.”
The word “Lefts” probably needs an apostrophe somewhere.
“How many billions of aid”
I don’t think billions given directly to oppressive and/or unrepresentative governments that spend that money first on their military and secondly on political patronage networks all with the aim of keeping themselves in power is what most lefties are thinking of when they talk about aid.
Kingsley, leaving aside arguments about how well or consistently the US has fought terror via COIN, this post is specifically about matching political rhetoric with achievable outcomes, and trying to get actual dialogue going with one’s enemies.
Yes, and specifically about discarding the “war on terror” frame.
Don’t get your hopes up too much about the next US administration. Obama has made very clear that his beliefs about talking to your enemies don’t extend to the point where they are all that meaningful when it comes to Islamic groups.
He explained his positions quite clearly here in a chat with a Cleveland Jewish group.
Of course that sounds all good and reasonable but anyone familiar with the I/P conflict will recognise the same old caveats and ruses usually included in these types of statements to make them pretty meaningless. A few examples below
“but they’re not the head of state” –
A major reason Hamas is not head of state is because the US and Israel or doing their best to keep their own puppet (Abbas) in that position.
If you’re only going to talk to Islamic movements that control heads of state then there just one you can talk to. Iran. There are no other Islamic movements that control the head of state. By that statement he couldn’t even talk to the Muslim Brothehood in Egypt which is arguably trying very hard to at the moment to avoid resorting to violence and work within the very flawed democratic process there.
“they recognize Israel and its right to exist” – This is a standard line they used over the PLO for ages. Its a bit meaningless because Israel doesn’t officially recognize Palestine’s right to exist.
“negotiate without resort to violence” – Another one way requirement which allows Israel to pull the rug out of negotiations at any point by pointing to violence conducted by any Palestinian group while negotiating with any other group.
Its quite clear that Obama understands the US domestic politics of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. His use of key code phrases to allay the concerns of US Jewish groups is almost as effective as the other presidential candidates although a little bit more nuanced. Whether he believes what he is saying is is an interesting question. He seems too intelligent not to see the ridiculousness of these positions so I have to say this is probably cynical politics. If so he might throw it out the window once elected but I’ll believe that when I see it.
That’s kinda where I am, swio. But there will be a lot of momentum for a change of tack. Fingers crossed.
At this stage, though, a McCain presidency is most likely!
You guys are still trying to have it both ways. SWIO doesn’t like aid going to unrepresentative governments but the whole thrust of the article was to reach out to ones enemies and not resort only to military pressure. FDB talks about trying to get a dialogue going with ones enemies. Surely getting the people who were shooting at you last year now on your side is the most powerful example of this and this is what has happened in Iraq.
We are even seeing tentative steps in Afghanistan now to divide the Taliban into hard core versus softer more reasonable members. That may well see the hard core isolated over the next 12 months but it will in this case involve a price as even soft core Taliban is hardly likely to be particularly enlightened in relation to womens rights etc.
Look you guys can no doubt point to some examples where more of this type of stuff could be done but if you are to be fair you have to acknowledge what has already been done and that in many cases there will be a trade-off/price to pay.
What concerns me is this point blank refusal to acknowledge any positive moves by the Bush administration. This attempt to brand every aspect of that adminstration in the negative.
At the geo strategic level I think what the US may have to think about is closer cooperation with China and Russia particualrly in relation to Syria and Iran. To my mind there is little point wasting time with the Iranian leadership as it stands, far more productive to speak to their sponsors and protectors. They at least are rational, ruthless also, but at least they can be reasoned with. However that is going to be a trade off. Will it be morally acceptable?
KATZ – how about we just recognise people make spelling and grammar errors and get over it hey.
Generally I do. I make more than my share of them myself. And like the kind folk who cope with my errors, I generally try to cope with the errors of others.
However, the following:
Can be read in at least three contradictory ways:
1. “the Lefts cartoon view” means a single view concocted and agreed upon by all representatives of the Left.
2. “the Left’s cartoon view” means a single view that happens to be the one view shared by all representatives of the Left.
3. “the Lefts’ cartoon view” means that all members of the Left have a cartoon view of Bush, but not necessarily the same cartoon view.
Do you see how you have been less than clear?
(By the way, they are all incorrect, but they are incorrect in quite different ways.)
Kim and All:
My wife happened to be staying near the court-house when the O J Simpson trial was on; she said the queues [lines] were miles long and there was even a rockband entertaining the waiting crowds.
Now, how do I go about getting reserved seats for the Bush and Cheney trials so I don’t have to stand around for hours [or days] in the hot sun waiting for a slim chance to get in?
All that effort on your part, Graham, just to see an acquittal, as in OJ’s case.
You must have lot of time to waste.
GregM [14]:
Oh no! No acquittal! No, no, sir; never happen, sir!
You are talking about a nation of the cultural inheritors of the Crusades, the Reformation, the Puritan hysteria and the Thirty Years War. They despise losers. They burn – burn, sir – burn witches and the servants of Satan. They won’t burn them on a pile of faggots; they’ll fry them on Ole Sparky. And when they’re done, they’ll fry them again to make sure the G*d* m*f*ers are dead.
My interest – and my right to be there as a citizen of America’s bestest realest nicest ally – is not so much in the trials themselves as in being right at the heart of the action when the biggest street party ever kicks off.
Um Graham, that’s Germany, not the US.
Greg M,
I thought USA was a multicultural melting pot. More seriously, apparently the ibeciles in the Bush Administration still have it in their pre-Neanderthal brains to help the democracy movement in Iran by declaring war on the mullahs. It isn’t post-Bush yet, friends, so don’t count your chickens.
Greg M [16]:
The collection of countries, bishoprics, etc. that became Germany did indeed inherit a few of these of these things …. however, it was America that was the main inheritor by a long chalk. Did you think the Pilgrim Fathers were merely a bunch of economic immigrants? Things went downhill from there …..
Anyway, the Loser and his sidekick will fry.