Recommendations for Sino-US Rapprochment

By Eleanor Albert

Read the news. Any news sources, whether liberal or conservative, writes about China within a critical framework. The New York Times alone had the following headlines in the past few days: “China Bars Noted Scholar From Planned Trip to U.S.,” “China Said to Execute Thousands in ‘09,” “Chinese Court Hands Down Stiff Sentences to Four Mining Company Employees,” “Chinese Activist Surfaces After a Year in Custody,” “Rescuers in China Struggle to Free 153 Trapped Miners.”

Search a little deeper through the China related articles in the NYT, weeding out the negative narrative Western media has developed for the East’s miracle economic nation, and you will find Charles A. Kupchan’s “Soothing US-China Tensions:” recommendations to pull both Beijing and Washington out of the rut and tensions that have recently plagued the “partnership” between two of the world’s major powers.

Toward the end of the Bush administration, China –in the eyes of the U.S. government—was to be a “responsible stakeholder” and “constructive cooperator.” Obama’s administration, upon entering office, recognized the relations between China and the United States as the most important partnership and sought to cultivate it. Progress has seemingly stagnated and Kupchan warns:

“With the anger on both sides intensifying, American and Chinese leaders urgently need to take steps to defuse the situation. Otherwise, China’s continuing rise may soon result in a classic rivalry between reigning hegemon and ascending challenger.”

By now, it is evident that the U.S. and China have an increasingly dependent relationship and must make compromises, but both governments are taking the wrong positions to alleviate tensions. Obama and the CCP leadership are facing tremendous political pressure domestically—but the administrations cannot neglect their commitment to the stability and security of the international community and prevent the exploitation of ideological differences that are widening the fissure in U.S.-China relations. The U.S. bullies China about the yuan and “urges” the CCP to revalue its currency when it should use multilateral dialogue platforms. Beijing continuously expresses the desire to play a larger role in the international community and should seize the opportunity to establish credibility as a major player by supporting stricter sanctions on Iran to stop nuclear proliferation.

International institutions and platforms for dialogue are key to resolving the current tensions between Beijing and Washington. The governments will continue to have differing opinions on Taiwan and human rights, but they can and need to compromise on economic issues (that have implications for the global economy) and international security issues.

(Photo courtesy of White House Photo Gallery)

Results from Iraq's Recent Election Trickling In

By Elias Isquith

The results from Iraq's recent Parliamentary election have begun to come in. Marc Lynch at Foreign Policy's blog notes that, in the much-discussed Anbar province, the Awakening coalition "seems headed for a near epic wipe-out." Why should you care? Because:

Over the last few years, most American analysts have argued that these elections would offer a path to power through the ballot box for the leaders of the Awakenings. Their evident washout in Anbar suggest that they won't, which may trigger a lot of the fears of those analysts (including me) who for years warned about the dangers of not accommodating Sunnis in the political system or integrating the Awakenings and Sons of Iraq into the state.

Thankfully, Lynch goes on to say that, at this point, there's less cause for concern than he'd previously imagined that the Awakenings leaders would respond to this electoral defeat with the shedding of blood. Baby steps, people.

Spencer Ackerman, meanwhile, draws attention to the fact that followers (at least in name) of the villainous and powerful Shiia cleric Moqtada Sadr appear to be looking at future in which they hold an excess of 40 seats in the Iraqi parliament. Sadr, remember, wreaked havoc on American and British forces - not to mention many of his fellow Iraqis - throughout the worst days of the insurgency, but agreed to scale back his violence upon meeting with General Petraeus and, who was in the process of implementing his "surge."

Ackerman clearly considers this development of great importance, but he's not quite flashing any emergency lights yet, calling the Sadrists "much more supple and pragmatic then they get credit for being."

Lastly, the aforementioned Petraeus went before the Senate Armed Services committee and, among other things, said that he expects it to take months before these election results are sussed out enough that a new government can be formed.

So get comfy.

(Photo from J.M. Lujit)

Women’s Voices are Heard, Progress for Democracy?

By Eleanor Albert

Democracy is not easy – and quite frankly, it is increasingly difficult in India, the world’s second most populous nation with approximately 1.17 billion people. In spite of rising tensions, both politically and socially, the upper house of India’s Parliament succeeded in passing a bill that will reserve one-third of the seats in national and state legislatures for women, and therefore amending the Indian Constitution.

Such a vote is symbolic of the emergence of women in decision and policy-making positions of power – a liberation of sorts to improve the lives of women. Nevertheless, India has recently had two accomplished female political leaders. Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sought modernization for India and through military support helped establish Bangladesh. Despite her contributions, she was unable to suppress political upheaval and was assassinated in 1984. Her son, Rajiv, succeeded her but he too was assassinated in 1991. Sonia Gandhi, Rajiv’s window and Indira Gandhi’s daughter-in-law, entered Indian politics in 1998 as the leader of Indian National Congress Party. As of the May 2009 elections, the Indian National Congress Party holds 205 seats, nearly holding and outright majority.

The proposed amendment to the Constitution would provide women with the opportunity to play a larger role in Indian politics, as well as all aspects of society. But one cannot be overly optimistic. India faces social challenges that reach beyond gender inequalities, i.e. caste, religion, ethnicity. While Hinduism is practiced by 80% of the population, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and Sikhism are also significant in India. In addition to the diversity of religion, Indian is home to numerous ethnic groups (the six main groups are Negrito, Proto - Australoids or Austrics, Mongoloids, Mediterranean or Dravidian, Western Brachycephals, and Nordic Aryans).

In addition to the tensions between religious and ethnic groups, corruption is a destructive element in India’s democracy.

“Critics of the amendment say that it will only worsen what is already a big problem — powerful men substituting their daughters, wives and sisters as proxies in political office."

For now, there are no clear answers to rectifying the many issues plaguing Indian democracy, but giving women the ability to hold a substantial number of seats in legislatures is a phenomenal gesture in the right direction.

Pakistani Officials Claim to Have Captured 'American al Qaeda'

By Elias Isquith

UPDATE: It appears that some of the skepticism regarding this story was well-founded; while an American al Qaeda operative has been captured, it's not Gadahn. There's a lot of confusion out there with this story, though, so we'll just have to see how this plays out in the next few days.

Pakistani Officials claim that they Adam Gadahn - née Adam Pearlman - the so-called "American al Qaeda" representative in their custody after arresting him yesterday in Karachi. American officials, meanwhile, have not confirmed or denied that such a capture has taken place. But the media is running with it as if they had.

Assuming the Pakistani officials are to be believed, the AP parses the meaning of this event rather succinctly:

The arrest of Gadahn is a major victory in the U.S.-led battle against al-Qaida and will be taken as a sign that Pakistan, criticized in the past for being an untrustworthy ally, is cooperating more fully with Washington.

Coming off the heels of Pakistan's recent capture of high-ranking Taliban commanders, this is indeed an encouraging sign that, far more than has been the case since the initiation of the "War on Terror" (which, technically, the US is no longer prosecuting), Pakistan is pulling its weight.

Interestingly - and not surprisingly - Gadahn was, in 2006, the first American in 50 years to be indicted for treason. But as you'd probably imagine, the story of how a partially Jewish kid from Oregon become a high-ranking member of al Qaeda is just all-around fascinating. Here's a great piece from the New Yorker which tells his story in greater detail.

It's a story that just got a whole lot more interesting.

New Sanctions on Iran, with or without Beijing and Moscow

By Eleanor Albert

A New York Times article on Wednesday, March 3rd explained the U.S.’s newly proposed draft for increased sanctions on Iran. The U.S., with the support of Britain, France and Germany, have introduced the idea of expanding sanctions on Iran to include a greater number of businesses involved with uranium enrichment, any businesses profiting or using nuclear energy, Iranian banks, and all individuals associated with the development of nuclear energy. At the first look, the larger scope of sanctions seems to be a credible policy option that could be effective in containing and limiting Iran’s current nuclear development. However, like all international issues, decisions in the international community are complicated – particularly in regard to international security.

Sanctions have been imposed on Iran since 2006: a step past peaceful diplomacy to persuade Iran to terminate its uranium enrichment programs and to establish a medium for dialogue on the future of Iran’s nuclear energy programs. In the past four years, these sanctions have been significant symbolically and have failed to carry out any change in Iran’s activities. For the new proposal to have a legitimate effect there must be an internationally unified front against Iran; Beijing and Moscow will have to be in favor – a difficult task for the other four countries. Moscow is concerned with Iran’s nuclear activity but remains hesitant to support the full extent of the sanctions claiming that the measures are too strong and that the evidence against other businesses and individuals will be insufficient proof. The real obstacle is China. As China continues to grow economically, it is becoming increasingly dependent on energy supplies from other countries and Iran is a key provider of natural gas and oil for China. The Chinese government, while agreeing with Moscow’s concerns, also publicly rejects the notion of further sanctions and urges continued diplomatic relations with Iran to dissuade nuclear proliferation.

While I value the work of the UN and the Security Council, I envision that the discussion of new sanctions will be long, drawn out, controversial, and ultimately no agreement will result from it. And while trying not to be a cynical realist, the idea of new sanctions may very well rally greater support to influence Iran to modify or abandon their nuclear programs. Of course, there is also the possibility that further sanctions will generate animosity toward the U.S. and the West, launch more controversy in the Middle East, and raise tensions internationally – not exactly what the U.S. is looking for right now…

Zimbabwe: a UN Failure?

By Eleanor Albert

We are all aware of the nationwide cholera epidemic that ravaged Zimbabwe last year. We also aware that the government – headed by “President”-dictator Robert Mugabe – long denied the epidemic, allowing thousands and thousands of people to suffer. Georges Tadonki, former head of the UN humanitarian office in Zimbabwe said: “This time, cholera was everywhere. Corpses filled the streets and hospital beds. In some districts early in the crisis, half of those infected died,” in a Foreign Policy article this week.

True, the world is tragic, but my point is not to criticize the government of a poor African country—I want to be analyze the UN’s involvement in Zimbabwe at the time.

Tadonki, former head of the UN humanitarian office in Zimbabwe (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)), was fired in early January 2009 during the peak of the cholera epidemic. He has appealed the decision, claiming that he was fired because of the severe risks and warnings he had raised to his superiors of the spread of cholera. In a typical he-said-she-said, his case was heard at a UN dispute tribunal starting on February 23, 2010.

One would assume that notifying superiors about the risks of a countrywide epidemic would be the right move—however, Tadonki stated that the UN country director Agostinho Zacarias ignored the warnings. It was at that moment that tensions grew between the two UN officials.

Here is the dilemma: Tadonki was critical of Zacarias’ non response to the risks of cholera as well as Zacarias’ relationship with the government of Zimbabwe; on the other hand, Zacarias was critical of Tadonki’s leaking of UN information without consultation to the UN itself. Nevertheless, Tadonki, while condemning Zacarias, was only in Zimbabwe for humanitarian issues and had no political risk tied to his position. There is no “right” by either party in this situation—inaction is not justified by risking national security. The large question is how the UN should act in undemocratic state and simultaneously ensure the safely and health of its people?

Some UN officials have said that the UN must keep a civil relationship with the government, no matter the nature of the system; otherwise any progress will be impossible. FP’s article stated “UN officials said they saw Zacarias as a classic, old-school African diplomat who thought he could achieve more by maintaining good relations and access to the government.” But is there a line that should be drawn? Do you ignore Mugabe and his regime’s denial of a cholera epidemic to salvage the UN’s position for negotiations and compromise? The disagreements on policy of Tadonki and Zacarias played a significant role in the failure to contain and treat the epidemic effectively.

Clearly morality and pragmatism play a role in such situations, but at what costs?

Is the Media Getting Iraq Wrong...Again?

By Elias Isquith

If you've been following the news out of Iraq, you'd be forgiven for feeling a certain anxiety - even dread - over the country's prospects after the US withdraws (assuming that even occurs). And you wouldn't be alone.

But, for what it's worth - and to his credit - Tom Ricks has published over at his Foreign Policy blog a sort of pick-me-up for those of us worried that the United States will not be able to walk away from Mesopotamia so soon. Written by Nir Rosen, "a fellow at the NYU Center on Law and Security," this guest-post depicts an Iraq that, while far from ready to be your no. 1 Spring Break destination, is nevertheless far from the precipice of the abyss. It's worth a read in full, but in essence, Rosen argues that the media is spending too much of its time focusing on Iraqi politicians' words and too little time talking to the Iraqi Man-On-the-Street:

Iraqis on the street are no longer scared of rival militias so much, or of being exterminated and they no longer have as much support for the religious parties. Maliki is still perceived by many to be not very sectarian and not very religious, and more of a "nationalist." Another thing people would notice if they focused on "the street" is that the militias are finished, the Awakening Groups/SOIs are finished, so violence is limited to assassinations with silencers and sticky bombs and the occasional spectacular terrorist attack -- all manageable and not strategically important, even if tragic. Politicians might be talking the sectarian talk but Iraqis have grown very cynical.

The real take-away is that, "When you talk to [Iraqis] they tell you that the sectarian phase is over."

I think most American pundits (or at least the many who supported the war initially) prognosticate on Iraq today with extreme trepidation - and for good reason! But is it possible that in our hurry not to be wrong again, we're underselling what could in fact be a kind-of-sort-of-if-you-squint-real-hard ray of sunshine on the Iraqi horizon? Or, I suppose, in this instance, it's not so much a ray of sunshine as it is a lack of a wall of burning apocalyptic fire coming right towards you...but you get my point. (I hope.)

In either case, whatever Tom Ricks, Time Magazine, or you think is going to happen in Iraq during the coming half-year is probably about as important as what Pat Robertson thinks of Haitian culture. We're all just going to have to sit back (or forward) in our seats, wait and watch.

But if it all turns out roses, just don't say Mr. Rosen and I didn't warn ya!

(h/t Daily Dish)