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)

"Life After Kim"

By Eleanor Albert

Just last week, the Democrat People’s Republic of Korea celebrated Kim Jong-Il’s sixty-ninth – or maybe sixty-eighth – birthday (a celebration that most certainly included extravagant brandy, a Kim favorite). As Kim reaches his late sixties, it is important to highlight that the average male life expectancy currently hovers around sixty-five in North Korea. Kim Jong-Il’s days are numbered so to speak.

The current US approach to North Korean policy consists of economic development to the DPRK and diplomatic relations, in exchange for the disarmament of all nuclear weapons – the largest threat that North Korea holds over the international community. While North Korea is a current threat to the international community, the potential for the regime to collapse is a greater threat.

Foreign Policy contributor Sung-Yoon Lee wrote “The regime may very well continue to maintain control over the population through the distribution of extra grain, ideological indoctrination, manufactured scapegoats -- and of course, brute force. But the end of Kim Jong Il's regime, one way or another, is inevitable.”

The agents for collapse manifest themselves in economic difficulty, the prosperity of South Korea, the growing challenges of the propaganda apparatus to control information flow, and the search for a legitimate and credible successor to Kim.

Although it has been nearly six decades since the Kims have been in power in the DPRK, the potential of regime collapse should push the United States to develop a new course of foreign policy in the likely event that North Korea falls to the pressure it faces. The future of North Korea in a post-Kim alternative political system is vital to US interests in Southeast Asia, and has also become the exemplar of human rights violations –a moral interest for the US and the West.

In the event of regime collapse, chaos will ensue in Pyongyang and require the intervention of South Korean and US troops. As Lee projects, China and Japan, the most influential regional powers will also come forward: Chinese peacekeeping forces to maintain security on the northern border with China and Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force providing supplies to and the transportation of people along the Korean coast. Despite these resilient efforts, stability will not be reached because North Korea will need to reinvent a political system and national identity, completely independent of the Kim personality cult.

The US remains reluctant to envision the commitment the government and the military will have to make to prevent major destabilization in Southeast Asia without a Kim regime in place in North Korea. With wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a supposed War on Terror (although, I am still unsure as to the effectiveness of the concept), policymakers are avoiding the potential collapse of the DPRK. Unfortunately time never takes sides and US leadership needs to come up with a reliable and sincere course of action for the long run in Korea.

Civilian control of the military

By Marko Balazevic














This was first conceived as a comment on Magda's post, but at the moment I exceeded 150 words I realized that my comment could be expanded into a separate blog post. So here is the result.

Unfromal meeting of the NATO member's defense ministers, held two weeks ago in Istanbul, or a "scandal which is not a scandal" gave me an idea to try to bash an argument, that seems to be, wishful thinking of the NATO camp.

So, what argument I am talking about could be very well read from the headline, and for ilustration purposes I will use Turkey. There has been an ongoing effort, very hot and delicate mind you, to put the Turkish army under civil control, on which, most of all, insists EU. Here should be noted that Turkey has been a full member of NATO since 1952 and represents NATO's second largest army after U.S.

"Scandal that's not a scandal" was the quite apparent lack of presence of General Ilker Basbug, the Chief of the General Staff from the mentioned meeting in Istanbul. It is not a scandal because his presence was not mandatory and only nine chief commanders were present at the meeting. It is a scandal becasue it would be logical for host country's chief commander to be present. It is not a scandal because Turkish chief of general staff is never present at the meeting of NATO member's defense ministers, no matter where they are held. But why?

For a very simple reason. NATO's protocol is different from the Turkish protocol and Turkey just happened to be the host. By all sense and logic, the meeting was organized in accordance with the NATO protocol and traditionally, Turkish chiefs of general staff are not not exposing themselves to that "humiliation". For, according to the hierarchy of the NATO protocol, minister of defense comes before the chief of general staff and latter is supposed to look at minister's back. The hierarchy of the Turkish protocol implies that the Chief of General Staff is fifth most important figure in Turkey, after the President of the Republic, President of the Constitutional Court, President of the Parliament and the Prime Minister. Ministers come somwhere around tenth place after chiefs of parties, former presidents and several other juridical figures. Naturally, this is the protocol that is adopted during domestic ceremonies on which there are no foreign officials, but by and large this is the basic hierarchy in Turkey.

On the sessions of the NATO's Supreme Council only the Turkish Chief of General Staff is sitting next to "his" Defense Minister. It is an unequivocal sign that the Chief Commander is not subordionated to the Defense Minister and that they are at least equal. And so it goes for the last 58 years. . .

It could be very well argued that this is at least trivial and that this is just a mere exception. However, at least to me, this exception sends a message that NATO doesn't really care whether their member states' armies are de facto under civilian control, as long as the membership of a country (in this case Turkey) is contributing to NATO's interests.

For further information I recommend an article published by The Economist
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15505946

Pakistan's Recent Seizure of Taliban Second-in-Command Might Tell You a Whole Lot Less Than You Think

By Elias Isquith

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has an interesting article about the vexing question of what the Pakistani internal security agency's recent capture of Taliban no. 2 Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar actually means. Was it a somewhat stunning and undeniably encouraging sign that the Obama Administration's revamped, diplomacy-focused approach to the Af-Pak region was paying dividends? Do we dare imagine that maybe - just maybe - a corner has been turned; that there's light at the end of the Afghanistan War's tunnel after all?

That's certainly the song some American observers were getting ready to sing immediately after the news was announced. Yet, judging by RFE/RL's reporting, it seems far from clear that this action by Pakistan truly represents the shift towards true cooperation with American and Karzai officials that many have been so anxiously awaiting. What may be the case, instead, is that rather than an example of Pakistan seizing the initiative and nabbing a key player in the Taliban insurgency - and thus, at the very least, depriving the Taliban of an important link in their communication chain between commanders both within and without Afghanistan - the Islamic nation's actions may have in fact been intended to ensure the opposite result.

How could this be the case? Well, the thinking goes like this: Baradar was on the verge of engaging in serious negotiations with the besieged, semi-legitimate Karzai government of Afghanistan with a possible detente - or even partnering - between the Taliban and the government as the goal. Pakistan, insistent that no negotiations between the warring parties can take place without its participation, nabbed Baradar to prevent such an ice-breaking. (Pakistan is ever-vigilant that, no matter what, Afghanistan does not become low-hanging fruit for Indian influence.)

Complicating things further still, it's unclear whether or not Baradar was even truly grabbed, nabbed, kidnapped, or even made to feel slightly uncomfortable; yes, another possibility is that the entire capture narrative is, as one source in the article calls it, a "face-saving" incident to perhaps diminish the bad taste that an imminent partnering between the now-opposed forces (Taliban and Karzai government) might leave in the mouths of those who have been engaged in this barely comprehensible and seemingly endless war.

Clearly, your guess is as good as mine. More than that, judging from this article, it appears that a shake of a Magic 8-Ball might be about as elucidating as spending an hour or so reading the various reports about this incident.

That's not to disparage the quality of reporting being done by many, but rather a recognition that, as is so often the case when it comes to the Middle East, no one can really say they know what's really going on - much less what it all means.

(Photo Courtesy of the U.S. Army)

American nuclear arsenal threatened in Belgium

Marko Balazevic

Group of young women and men, Belgian peace activists, have shown the astonishing vulnerability of nuclear weapon warehouses. It can be seen on this video how they managed to cross the fence and enter the “Kleine Brogel”, where American Army nuclear bombs are being kept. Girls and guys made a protest march on February 7, 2010, walking around for an hour and pasted their propaganda material on bunkers - all that without anyone noticing it.

What seemed to be a Sunday morning walk was certainly not a child-play. The place where these six young activists recorded their video material is a military warehouse in Belgium. It has not been officially confirmed, but it is believed that this place holds more than 20 nuclear warheads belonging to the U.S. Army.

“The whole action was meticulously planned and trained in details. In the case we encountered someone the plan was to go straight at the person in order to demonstrate that we pose no threat. . . although you can never know how military or a certain individual would react”, said one of the participants of this spectacular action. He further explained: “We wanted to protest against nuclear weapons on the Belgian territory.”

These young people are belonging to the organization that goes by the name of Vredesactie (Peace Action) that radically advocates for a society in which conflicts would be resolved without violence or threat of violence. The activity they demonstrated by this act is called Bombspotting.

However, they themselves were surprised how far they were able to get. Not to mention how astonished must have been people in charge of security of nuclear weapons and the base itself. For, there are 40 bases such as this one in the area. Allegedly some of them are keeping nuclear bombs. Entering the perimeter of such a place and placing their propaganda materials was clearly not a serious problem for the group of young activists which makes this action truly sensational.

“Putting weapons in a state of activity or transporting them would however be a more serious problem, much more difficult than trespassing”, said a man related to the case.

Nonetheless, this almost effortless attempt of trespassing exemplifies certain weaknesses in the whole security system of this base and places similar to it.

“Snow helped us a little bit. Guard’s foot trails and paths could be seen, so we chose different routs”, said one of the activists of this unusual Sunday stroll. It took an hour before they had first encounter with a guard. Their video materials have been seized and they were interrogated.

They managed to conceal and take out this footage, casting shame on security forces that didn’t even comment on the whole thing.

“You can rest assured that these young people were not able to reach important places”, declared the spokesperson. Allegedly, the bunker on which they placed their posters and bands was empty. However, these claims are not easily verified. The fact remains that these young activists crossed the clearance around the base, made holes in the fence, crossed the airstrip all the way to a bunker and managed to remain undetected for more than an hour. It has to be noted that this military perimeter was previously threatened with an attack by Al-Qaeda. One Tunisian, Nizar Trabelsi, was sentenced to ten years in 2003 for being part of this case.

A New Take on Nanjing 1937

By Eleanor Albert

Last week, a Foreign Policy article reflected on a new joint report from the Chinese and Japanese governments in regard to the Nanjing Massacre. In December of 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army, after invading China from the north in Manchuria, finally reached the southeastern capital of Nanjing. The Massacre is also known as the Rape of Nanjing (or Nanking whether one is using pinyin or the Wade Gilles translation spelling) and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Soldiers of the Japanese army were also responsible for the rapes of an estimated 20,000 to 80,000 Chinese women. This historical event is often described as China’s Holocaust – for obvious reasons.

The Nanjing Massacre carries tremendous controversy with it, particularly due to Japan’s lack of recognition and even denial of the event. Despite Japan’s defeat in 1945 at the close of WWII, discrepancy continued. As a result, the Nanjing Massacre has long been a wrench in Sino-Japanese relations, as well as an obstacle in establishing stability in Southeast Asia.

Last week’s report does not clarify the number of total lives lost, nor did the Chinese and Japanese governments come any closer to agreeing on an estimate – a disappointment in historical terms. However, the report was not a lost cause. For the first time, Japan took full culpability for the extent of its violence and the tragedy inflicted on China – a political victory.

All former empires have had difficulty making concessions and taking responsibility for aggression, yet the joint report between China and Japan promotes new optimism for Southeast Asia.

With the economies of China and Japan ranking in the top two and three in the world, second only to the United States and Japan’s and China’s growing importance in the international community, the two nations play key roles in security and stability in Southeast Asia. Although the report shows a mere concession by the Japanese, the acceptance of guilt will hopefully be symbolic enough for China, as well as Taiwan, Korea, and other former Southeast Asian colonies of Japan, to push aside decades of controversy and look forward to partnership in the future.

(Iris Chang, a Chinese-American historian and journalist, published The Rape of Nanking in 1997 that provides an account and explores lost details of the massacre. A film, of the same title, was also made in 2007, inspired by Chang’s book.)

Presidential Election Results in Ukraine Signal the Possible End of the Orange Revolution

By Indra Baatarkhuu

Counting of more than 97% of votes of the presidential run-off elections in Ukraine revealed the lead of the pro-Russian candidate Mr. Viktor Yanukovych over his bitter opponent Mrs. Yuliya Tymoshenko by almost 3% of votes.

Mr. Yanukovych describes the results as a “turning point in the country’s history.” The apparent ensuing victory of the 59-year-old former Prime Minister has the potential to restore the dominance of Russian influence in Ukraine and break the ties with the Europe and NATO which Mrs.Tymoshenko has been diligently building after accusing the president elect Mr. Yanukovych of the electoral fraud, suing the case to the Supreme Court and leading the Orange revolution of 2004.

The west seems to be much concerned about the results of elections. Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Rapporters for Ukraine, Ms. Hanne Severinsen, described Mr. Yanukovych’s victory as a “tragedy.”

However, unlike the past one, 2010 presidential elections in Ukraine has been evaluated by the international observers as an "impressive display of democratic elections".

“The voting was fair, clear and transparent”, said the observers of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Mr. Yanukovych is confident in his victory too. "I think Yulia Tymoshenko should prepare to resign. She understands that well," he addressed Ukrainian people on Sunday night. The deputy head of Yakunovych’s party emphasizes the fact that the election reflects the choice of people: “The first rule for a true democrat is to accept defeat when that is the will of the people."

In contrast to this confidence of Yanukovych, his female rival well-known for her hair braids does not seem to concede defeat so easily. "It is too soon to draw any conclusions," she said.

Tymoshenko's campaign chief Alexander Turchinov insisted Sunday there was evidence of fraud. Her election observers claim to have been barred from 1,000 polling stations in the eastern Donetsk region and accused Yanukovych of "open banditry and terrorism."

Mrs.Tymoshenko has not appealed to the court yet and remains silent.

Mr. Yanukovych has made his appeal during the elections promising to unite the country and change policies that favored only some regions of the country. He said he will do this by removing restrictions on the use of the Russian language in schools and media and balancing ties between Ukraine's diverse neighbors. This move certainly was at heart of the Russian-speaking east who did not feel they were treated equally with their western compatriots under the previous government.

Many others made their decision in favor of Mr. Yanukovych in hope of political stability and economic recovery.

"I want stability and order," Tatyana Volodaschuk, 60-year-old voter weary of political turmoil said. "Yanukovych offers us the guarantee of a normal life."

Either presidential candidates’ victories will have symbolic meaning in their political careers and personal lives. The victory of Tymoshenko would mean the further development of Europe-Ukraine relations and possible future entry of Ukraine into the European Union and NATO.

Despite opposition in their political views and policies, ironic parallel exists between the rivals – both will have their anniversaries in 2010. So the answer to the question who gets the present of Ukraine for his/her anniversary : Mrs. Timoshenko for her 50^th anniversary or Mr. Yakunovich for his 60^th anniversary will soon be known, deciding which way the country will move.

"The World Capital of Killing"

By Amanda Vance

In a continent known for AIDS, poverty, and political upheaval, the Democratic Republic of the Congo stands out: it is currently the site of the first conflict to claim more than 6 million lives since the Holocaust. Yet the Congo, home to the largest peacekeeping force in the world, hardly ever makes headlines, and vast stretches of its land remain void of humanitarian aid, so that medicine, electricity, food and water remain in constant short supply. Meanwhile, attempts to negotiate a peace settlement have repeatedly failed to stop the fighting, leaving more than 45,000 civilians dead each month.
It is hard to trace the roots of this deadly war, since the Congo – a mineral-rich land in the heart of Africa – has been the victim of looting and repressive rule since Belgium colonized its territory in the late 19th Century. Since gaining independence in 1960, the Congo has suffered everything from the assassination of its first leader, Prince Lumumba, to 30 years of dictatorship under Mobutu Sese Seko, whose corrupt rule ended only with a civil war in 1997. The fighting, a consequence of attempts by Hutu militias to destabilize neighboring Rwanda, resulted in the short-lived presidency of Laurent D. Kabila, who was similarly expelled from the country in 1998, when a second civil war broke out. In the five years that followed, countries from Rwanda to Uganda joined in the bloodshed.
Now, even after a UN-brokered peace in 2003 and the country’s first democratic elections in 2006, the Congo remains in tatters. Rape and torture run rampant, villages are destroyed by rebel offensives, and millions of refugees are left to fend for themselves, since neither the international community nor the Congolese government have the authority or the resources to help them.
None of this is news after twelve years of conflict, which is why the Congo fails to command the media’s attention. Nevertheless, there are those who report regularly on the atrocities, including a columnist for the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof, who has been added to the speakers’ list for BGIA’s spring semester.
In his most recent column, "The World Capital of Killing," Mr. Kristof makes an interesting point: it is not humanitarian aid which is most sorely needed in the Congo, but a more vigorous international effort to end the war itself. Humanitarian aid is simply the pressure that slows the bleeding of certain wounds; in order to heal the Congo completely, real surgery is needed. It is time for the international community to engage in this issue: to put pressure on Rwanda to stop sponsoring rebels, and on President Joseph Kabila to arrest generals wanted for war crimes. Furthermore, the United States should lead an effort to monitor the minerals coming from Congo to stop warlords from profiting from this devastating war. Only then can the international community be said to have satisfied its promise after the Rwandan genocide: never again.

Boiling Tensions in Sino-US Relations, New Categories for Disputes

By Eleanor Albert

Anyone paying slight attention to the media coverage of Sino-US relations in the past month or two can recognize the increasing tensions between the two superpowers. In the midst of new US arms sale to Taiwan, Google threatening to pull out of China, the state-stabilized Chinese currency, the international community is the audience as US-China debates take the stage. John Lee wrote this week at Foreign Policy of the growing tensions and developed three classifications for the nature of the disagreements between the United States and China: Fundamental Disagreements, Serious Disagreements, and Manageable Disagreements.

I fully agree with Lee’s manageable disagreements: military competition and economic disputes. It is true that both countries now rely on interdependence economically in a world that is increasingly changed by globalization. Simultaneously, the United States and China find themselves to also be competitors in the international community: the US as the world’s largest super power and China as the prominent rising force that could potentially challenge the US. Economic disputes and military competition will surely be the source of tension between the two countries as the US tries to hold on to its place as a supreme power and as China breaks into the new position that it seeks as a key player in the international community.

As for Lee’s serious disagreements, he names Taiwan and rogue states. China, with the ambition to hold a stronger role in the world order, will have to modify or be more cautious in its interaction with rogue states if China hopes to prove its credibility to the rest of the world. Concerning Taiwan: Both the US and China accept the status quo with their respective policies towards Taiwan. Taiwan’s economy grows progressively dependent on the Mainland. Although the US maintains its arms sale with Taiwan and the US government is still bound by law to intervene in the event of a military attack on Taiwan, the US under the Obama administration has discussed at length the crucial importance of the positive and cooperative relationship between the US and China (or at least this held true before his sale of $6.4 billion dollars in arms sale to Taiwan at the end of January).

He refers to ‘climate change’ and ‘Tibet and Xinjiang’ the two primary fundamental disagreements between the US and China. While Tibet and Xinjiang are topics of irreconcilable differences – in regard to the management of domestic issues versus international human rights, I strongly disagree with Lee’s argument on climate change. After spending a summer in Beijing in 2008 and a semester in Shanghai in the fall of 2009, there is a strong movement toward the “green” movement. The Chinese do not ignore the damage of their rapid development and industrialization and they have begun to emphasize the importance of the environment and its protection. The Chinese government’s skepticism is a product of the US trying to impose carbon emissions restrictions, however the US already had its industrial age. Perhaps to make a difference, the US should impose certain restrictions on consumption domestically and be a model for the international community…

News Diplomacy Turkey not turning back on West, says NATO’s Rasmussen

There has been criticism from some that Turkey is moving away from the West, given its recent foreign policy moves, but NATO Secretary-General Anders F. Rasmussen does not share that concern.

Rasmussen, who shared his opinions on various issues in an interview with Today's Zaman, said he was not concerned about Turkish foreign policy changing direction, adding that he believed Turkey can and should play an important role as a bridge between Central Asia and the Middle East and Europe and North America. “I think Turkey for geographical and political reasons can and will play an instrumental role; having said that, I also hope to see progress in the Turkish relationship with the EU. I would urge EU member states to make progress in the Turkish relationship with the European Common Security and Defense Policy and in particular concerning the European Defence Agency. It is a strong wish from the Turkish side,” Rasmussen said, expressing his opinion that Turkey is a valuable contributor to a number of operations and missions.

Rasmussen also expressed the view that he thinks Turkey can play an instrumental role and contribute to a peace process in Afghanistan, owing to its good relationship with neighboring Pakistan. “Having said that I also think it is essential that the reconciliation and reintegration process should be led by the Afghan government. It has to be an Afghan-led process. We can, of course, assist that but the Afghan government must be in the driver’s seat. Those individuals and groups involved in the reconciliation and reintegration process should respect the Afghan Constitution, Afghan democracy, the rule of law and human rights.”
He also commented on his dialogue with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who canceled a joint press conference with Rasmussen -- then prime minister of Denmark -- in 2005 because Danish authorities insisted that a journalist from a television station linked with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) be allowed to attend the conference. “I have the very best impression. We are always very frank and very open with each other during our conversations ... So I can tell you that our relationship is the very best,” Rasmussen said.

He also briefly commented on the ongoing investigation into alleged coup d’état plots by some army generals in Turkey. “Obviously, it is a matter of great interest. But I am not going to interfere in internal and domestic Turkish discussions and politics. I think the relationship between the military and the political system in Turkey has developed and improved during recent years. We have seen positive developments recently. Within the context of NATO we have the very best relations with Turkey at the political and military level,” he said.

Rasmussen also responded to Today’s Zaman’s questions on the cartoon crisis in Denmark five years ago. In response to a question on whether he would have changed any of his actions if the clock could be turned back, he said the cartoon crisis was a matter of the past and noted that he greatly valued relationships with Muslim countries and was working to develop these. “I give a high priority to the further development of NATO’s partnerships with a number of Muslim countries. We have two partnerships, one with the Gulf states and the Mediterranean Dialogue, which also includes Israel. I made it clear that I would give priority to developing these partnerships further and right after my press conference, I invited ambassadors from all countries in these partnerships to discuss with them how we could possibly take further steps bilaterally. I have met all the ambassadors; I had the opportunity to meet with some of the political leaders. So these partnerships are developing and will further develop in the coming years. I will meet with the secretary-general of the OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference] in İstanbul. I have taken a number of steps myself, and this outreach has been received positively,” Rasmussen said.

In response to a question on whether he still believes depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist falls within the principle of freedom of expression, the Danish politician replied: “I have made my position on that issue quite clear. There are two core principles that are of utmost importance. The first is freedom of expression. I think it is essential in every democracy. Without freedom of expression, you do not have democracy. Another core principle is freedom of religion, freedom to exercise your religion, and in that context, I would also say and stress I have the deepest respect for people’s personal religious feelings and their belief.”



05 February 2010, Friday


SELÇUK GÜLTAŞLI BRUSSELS

By Elias Isquith

As this BBC article makes clear, the road to building a viable state in Haiti is going to be a long one.

Before the earthquake, I didn't really know much about Haiti (I had read a bit about its war for independence for a class I took on the French Revolution, but that's about it), so I can't really offer anything worth more than 2 cents about Haiti's past, present, or future.

That said, a person at the organization I'm currently interning at (forgive me for the vagaries but I haven't asked this person's permission to retell her/his information, so...safety first) returned from Haiti on Monday, and on Tuesday s/he gave an informal speech to the staff about what s/he saw and the path ahead as s/he sees it. I considered her/his recollections and insights fascinating and elucidating - and they in essence echo what that BBC article says - so I thought I might share them here.

Perhaps it's best to start with the bad news: this source (who has been to Haiti, by her/his estimate at least twenty times) said that, worryingly, from what s/he had been told, the U.S. Government at this time has set aside around four-million dollars for aid and reconstruction efforts in Haiti. To help us understand just how inadequate that sum will be, s/he told us that, to this date, the government's expenditure towards rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina has been one-hundred million dollars. So, as of now, the United States of America has set aside roughly three to four percent of what it's spent already on the truly unfinished work in Louisiana, to rebuild a nation of roughly three million people. Clearly, this is not enough.

Further, we were told that although the world's donations have been - by any measure other than what will be necessary - enormous (around six-hundred million dollars), NGOs and the like are reporting that the money has stopped coming in at nearly the rate of, say, a week ago, despite the fact that so much more is desperately needed. This isn't a moral failure on the world's part - people gave and most of us can only give so much - but rather just a statement of how truly monumental the task before us is.

Now, there's more bad news but I figured I shouldn't go on forever and you're probably clamoring for something good. The good news is born from a certain irony - things were already so bad in Haiti, that the Haitians are responding to this catastrophe with a truly inspiring mix of faith and perseverance; as my source said, These are tough, tough people. And I don't know what the news channels like CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are reporting (don't have a T.V.), but if you're worried that Haiti has become or is about to become a lawless land riven by the many evils we imagine when we think of a post-apocalyptic scenario - don't. My source reports that the people of Haiti are looking out for one another; communities are attempting to establish kinds of make-shift town councils (for lack of a better term) to do what's possible and necessary in these circumstances, like setting up road-blocks (most people are living/sleeping in the streets) or organizing for religious services.

And that brings me to the part of my source's story that I found the most remarkable - s/he told me that, at night, the people of Port au Prince are congregating for boisterous hymns and dances and exaltations of a higher being, one that they believe has brought the earthquake upon them not as punishment (sorry, Pat Robertson) but rather to give them - and the world - an opportunity to build a new, better Haiti. There I was, at first listening to her/him describe all of this anguish and wondering how I was ever going to go about finishing my work for the day. But when I heard that the people actually living it - the people who actually saw their homes collapse before them, so often with loved ones inside - have not given up hope or the will to continue living rather than merely surviving, I knew that it wasn't my job (and it's not our job) to sit and sulk about how cruel life can be.

Instead, it's our job to keep reminding people that there's work to do - and lots of it.

Call for Submissions - BardPolitik Spring 2010 Issue

BardPolitik: Call for Submissions

BardPolitik wants you! We are calling for one-paragraph pitches on potential essay topics for our Spring 2010 issue. We are particularly interested in the theme of “The World in 2030,” and welcome essay topics envisioning the future of political and economic landscapes in 20 years. Other potential essay topics will also be reviewed, but they should be relevant to global issues as well—anything from emerging international trends to analysis of a country-specific policy. Essays are limited to a minimum of 1,500 words and a maximum of 4,000 words. These essays will have to be complete by April 19th, 2010, so send us your ideas as soon as possible!

One-paragraph pitches are due by February 22, 2010 to bardpolitik2010@gmail.com.