By now you have heard of the twin suicide bombing attacks at the Marriot Hotel and Ritz Carlton Hotels in Jakarta, Indonesia. At least 8 people were killed and 50 injured. Smart money is that Jemaah Islamiya is behind the attack. I found this video depicting the chaos following the explosion.
All Posts
Friedman: Occupation only makes Iraqis “want” and “need” U.S. help
I just got around to reading Tom Friedman’s column from the other day about Kirkuk Iraq. It’s odd in a number of ways, from his love of using jokes to make a point, to his blithe assumption that the U.S. military has “left a million acts of kindness” in the country, and his bizarre contention that Iraq is “100 times more important” than Bosnia (what is the point of a powder keg competition between the Middle East and the Balkans, anyway?). But this is what struck me most from Friedman’s outlook:
Senior Iraqi officials are too proud to ask for our help and would probably publicly resist it, but privately Iraqis will tell you that they want it and need it. We are the only trusted player here — even by those who hate us. They need a U.S. mediator so they can each go back to their respective communities and say: “I never would have made these concessions, but those terrible Americans made me do it.”
First, I have a hard time believing that Thomas Friedman can reliably attest to the private desires of most Iraqis (especially when he is writing from Kirkuk, but makes no mention that Kurds, who form a substantial part of Kirkuk’s population, have a notably different outlook toward Americans). Second, I have an even harder time believing that six-plus years of military occupation has made Iraqis “want” and “need” more American help (something tells me that simply observing the diversity of American military personnel has not, as Friedman weakly argues, made an impression on Iraq’s own ethnic politics). I don’t believe for an instant that “those who hate us” trust the United States simply because it has been there for a long time.
Third, the United States is not the “only” purportedly neutral party in Iraq. The UN, I’d wager, has a lot more public support, and, more importantly, can lay a better claim to being an objective mediator. Rather than advocate what seems an entirely collapsible and unsustainable strategy of blaming concessions on “those terrible Americans,” Friedman should consider the political reconciliation work that the UN already is doing in Iraq, particularly in Kirkuk, which he, again, oddly fails to mention. Rest assured that it does not involve sending Iraqi mediators home with the implicit point of blaming “those terrible” UN types.
(image from flickr user Charles Haynes under a Creative Commons license)
|
3 
UN employee killed in Pakistan
Another tragic example of the dangers that UN personnel face:
The attack on the U.N. worker took place early Thursday at the Kacha Garhi camp near Peshawar. Local police chief Ghayoor Afridi said the assailants tried to abduct the U.N. official and opened fire when he resisted.
The chief of the U.N. refugee agency in Pakistan, Guenet Guebre-Christos, identified the dead U.N. worker as Zill-e-Usman, a 59-year-old Pakistani in charge of the U.N.’s relief efforts at the camp. She said Usman had worked for the U.N. for nearly 30 years and was set to retire soon.
“He was quite an old hand and he was looking forward to his retirement,” Guebre-Christos told The Associated Press. She strongly condemned the attack, calling it a “cowardly assassination.”
This UN worker was one of many trying to help the two million Pakistani civilians that have been displaced. Trying to abduct him — and hinder the protection and resettlement of fellow Pakistanis in the process — was indeed cowardly, as well as foolish, egotistical, and vile.
The report also notes the arrival of the UN team, led by Chilean ambassador Heraldo Munoz, tasked with investigating another cowardly assassination in the country: that of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
|
2
Cooperative foreign policy
I disagreed with Peter Scoblic Beinart on another point earlier, so but I have to give him Peter Scoblic credit for nailing the essence of Hillary Clinton’s speech yesterday:
If the speech was long, the key point was simple: Essentially, the secretary seemed to be saying that, despite the grave dangers we face–indeed, because of the very character of those threats–the emphasis in U.S. foreign policy today must be on cooperation rather than conflict. Not because the world is suddenly a friendlier place, but because meeting threats bluntly may be ineffective or even counterproductive.
Amen.
(I also agree with his colleague Michael Crowley on why the media seems determined to interpret everything that Clinton does into a silly Obama vs. Hillary storyline.)
|
2
Global consensuses can be plural
With all due respect to Peter Beinart, I think he gets this one wrong:
And that means you can either forge truly global institutions—which include Moscow and Beijing—or you can forge institutions whose members genuinely respect freedom. You can’t do both. Similarly, it would be nice if there were a global consensus that nuclear proliferation was bad, but there’s not. Countries with nukes mostly think that no one else should enter the club. Lots of countries without nukes want in.
It’s all well and good to say that we can have different kinds of international institutions for different issues: global ones where there really is a moral consensus; limited ones where there is not. But in the real world, you can’t keep things so separate. The more you alienate non-democracies by creating powerful new institutions on human rights, the harder it is to get their cooperation on issues of common concern.
This reminds me of the tired debate about creating a “League of Democracies.” On the one hand, Beinart is right that pushing for such a provocative (and ill-defined) “pro-freedom” institution will only make global cooperation more difficult. But on the other, different global institutions do exist. The role of the UN is not undermined by the existence of NATO, nor is the World Bank’s by the G-8 or G-20. Advocating human rights through the Human Rights Council does not impede the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Moreover, the fact that all countries in a global institution don’t agree on something does not mean that the institution itself is useless, even at tackling a problem on which its members have differing viewpoints. The UN and other mixed groups of countries are proper venues for negotiating nuclear nonproliferation precisely because they contain both countries with and without nukes, and whose commitments toward nonproliferation vary. You can’t come to an agreement on something in a group in which everyone already agrees. “Forging” a global consensus is difficult work; you can’t just corral the right countries into the right groups. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, even on aims that might seem to be at odds with one another.
|
4
On the eve of Hillary Clinton’s trip, an insider’s look at the Indian political scene
Eriposte is a regular contributor to The Left Coaster, where he frequently writes on issues pertaining to the Indian sub-continent. In his previous contribution to UN Dispatch, eriposte wrote about the link betweem rural poverty and extremism in Pakistan.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be in India from July 17 through July 21, visiting both Mumbai and New Delhi. This is a trip aimed at laying a foundation for a deeper and more strategic engagement with India. Interestingly, one of the leading Indian newspapers The Hindu reports that in Mumbai, “she will be staying at the Taj Mahal Hotel in an act of solidarity with the 26/11 victims” – a reference to one of the major sites targeted in the coordinated terrorist attacks last year (26/11).
Clinton will not visit Pakistan during this trip, implicitly sending a message that the United States no longer views India merely “through the Pakistan lens” – a message that was also indirectly conveyed earlier by eliminating India from the charter of Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke. In a recent speech, Secretary Clinton said “We see India as one of a few key partners worldwide who will help us shape the 21st century” and characterized this period as “a third era…U.S.-India 3.0“. Some of topics that are expected to be discussed during her trip include global security, nuclear energy, climate change, trade and human development. Given the significance of this trip to US-India relations, this might be an appropriate moment to highlight some of the key players in India when it comes to foreign policy.
India is the world’s largest democracy, and unlike its neighbor Pakistan, has been able to sustain a vibrant democracy since their independence from colonial rule (see here for a discussion on why Pakistan and India took two different paths after partition). India has a parliamentary form of government that is somewhat similar to that of the United Kingdom. The Indian government has a bicameral Legislature (the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha) and an Executive that is led, for all practical purposes, by a Prime Minister (PM). The PM is usually the head of the majority parliamentary coalition in the Lok Sabha and appoints and leads the Council of Ministers that run the Indian government. The Indian President is a Constitutional head of state but holds limited powers and exercises those powers usually on the advice of the PM and the PM’s cabinet. As Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh has been very closely involved in shaping India’s foreign policy during his first term that ended earlier this year. In fact, for almost a year – from Nov 2005 to Oct 2006 – Singh took direct control of the External Affairs portfolio, acting as India’s External Affairs Minister in addition to his duties as Prime Minister. It is generally well known in Indian circles that he has sought to maintain a significant personal influence in India’s foreign policy. This was particularly evident in the active role he took during the debate on the India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement.
Traditionally, outside of the PM’s Office (PMO), India’s Ministry of External Affairs has been a dominant player in India’s foreign policy apparatus. However, as security issues became more paramount, an additional player has emerged since the late 1990s. In Nov 1998, the new position of National Security Advisor (NSA) was created, reporting directly to the Prime Minister:
The National Security Advisor (NSA) of India is a member of the National Security Council (NSC), and the primary advisor to the Prime Minister, the Indian Cabinet and the NSC on internal and international security issues. He is tasked with regularly advising the Prime Minister on all matters relating to internal and external threats to the country, and oversees strategic issues. The NSA of India also serves as the Prime Minister’s Special Interlocutor on border issues with China, and frequently accompanies the Prime Minister on Foreign State visits.
The directors of R&AW and IB technically report to the NSA rather than the Prime Minister directly. He receives all intelligence reports and co-ordinates them to present before the Prime Minister. He is assisted by a Deputy NSA.
[RAW - which stands for Research and Analysis Wing - is India's external intelligence agency, whereas the IB - the Central Intelligence Bureau - is its internal intelligence agency. In some respects, the analogous agencies in the US are the CIA and the FBI, respectively].
Prior to the creation of the NSA, the Principal Secretary of the Prime Minister used to coordinate national security matters for the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). That role is now in the hands of the NSA – making the NSA a fairly influential person in the Indian government. Unlike ministers in the PM’s cabinet, the NSA is not a member of the Legislature and is appointed directly by the PM. The current NSA is M. K. Narayanan. Narayanan was a former head of the IB and hails from the southern state of Kerala. In the immediate aftermath of 26/11, then Home Minister Shivraj Patil was forced to resign. At the time, Narayanan also submitted his resignation to the Prime Minister, but his resignation was not accepted by the PM. In a sign that his advice continues to be valued by Prime Minister Singh, Narayanan retained his position after the recent Indian parliamentary elections, even though the External Affairs Ministry saw numerous changes (more on this below). Most recently, Narayanan also accompanied Prime Minister Singh to the 2009 G8 Summit in Italy. He is a member of key committees in the PMO – Council on Climate Change, Trade and Economic Relations Committee and Energy Coordination Committee (all of which are chaired by the PM). As an aside, the powerful Principal Secretary of the Prime Minister is T. K. A. Nair, who was also asked to stay on after the recent elections. Nair, who also hails from Kerala, was originally from the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and has held senior posts in the past, including that of Principal Secretary to former Prime Minister I. K. Gujral, principal secretary of the State government of Punjab (in northern India) and subsequently, the Chairman of the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB). [The PESB was "set up with the objective of evolving a sound managerial policy for the Central Public Sector Enterprises and, in particular, to advise Government on appointments to their top management posts".]
Since Clinton is expected to have significant dialogue with India’s Minister for External Affairs, it’s worth noting that the External Affairs department saw multiple changes after the recent Parliamentary elections, with new faces at top positions within the department. Pranab Mukherjee, who was External Affairs Minister, took over the role of Finance Minister and is in the throes of India’s annual, all-important Budget session of Parliament. The External Affairs Minister is now S. M. Krishna, who is a member of the Rajya Sabha and hails from the southern state of Karnataka. Among other things, Krishna is a former Chief Minister of Karnataka (whose capital is Bangalore) and a former Governor of the state of Maharashtra (whose capital is Mumbai, India’s largest city and business and entertainment mecca). He is partly credited with the transformation of Bangalore into India’s IT capital. Krishna has some connection to the United States as well. After his undergraduate Law degree in India, he completed graduate programs in Law at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas and at George Washington University in D.C. and was also a Fulbright scholar. His background is predominantly in law, domestic affairs, industry and finance – so the External Affairs portfolio places him in a new role. India also has Ministers of State, who are usually more junior Ministers who generally report into a Cabinet minister and assist the latter. Within the External Affairs department, there are now two new Ministers of State. One of them is Preneet Kaur who hails from the northern state of Punjab. Kaur, a descendant of royalty from one of India’s pre-independence princely states, is a member of the Lok Sabha who has served in numerous government committees over the years on topics relating to women, water resources, agriculture, etc. (she also happens to be the wife of a former Chief Minister of the state of Punjab). The other new Minister of State is London-born Shashi Tharoor, self-described “author, peace-keeper, refugee worker, human rights activist”, whose parents hailed from Kerala. Tharoor is respected in India for his accomplished career and his work at the United Nations – starting at UNHCR and ending with his 5 year stint as the UN Under-Secretary General for Communications and Public Information. Tharoor came in a close second in the vote for the UN Secretary General post (to replace Kofi Annan), and his defeat was attributed primarily to the Security Council opposition of the United States under the Bush administration. In early 2009, he began a progressive grassroots campaign for election to India’s Lok Sabha from Kerala and was elected by a large margin (read this WSJ piece by Keerthik Sasidharan who was a volunteer in Tharoor’s campaign). Tharoor has sought to bring a fresh perspective to government and has been active not just in his external affairs role, but is making some waves in India with his use of Twitter to communicate with the Indian public.
The Ministers of External Affairs are supported and advised by a staff of influential Secretaries, who are at the pinnacle of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS). The current Foreign Secretary is Shivshankar Menon, who also hails from Kerala and made his mark over the years through numerous key assignments. He is however about to retire by the end of this month. Starting next month, India’s new Foreign Secretary will be Nirupama Rao. Rao, who also hails from Kerala, is India’s current ambassador to China and her past diplomatic postings have taken her to Sri Lanka, Russia and the United States. She has an additional connection to the U.S. – she is a former Fellow of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University and was Distinguished International Executive in Residence at the University of Maryland at College Park. (Rao’s husband, Sudhakar Rao, is the Chief Secretary to the state government of Karnataka).
No doubt, other Ministers also play a role in India’s external relations – including the Defense Minister A. K. Antony and the Home Minister P. Chidambaram. Antony hails from Kerala as well and was a former Chief Minister of Kerala and a former Minister in the Indian government. Chidambaram hails from the southern state of Tamil Nadu (that is closest to Sri Lanka). He is a lawyer with an MBA from Harvard, who was most recently India’s Finance Minister and previously the Vice-Chairman of India’s Planning Commission. A former socialist and trade union activist, Chidambaram has played an important role in the continued liberalization of India’s economy and trade policy. His appointment to the Home Ministry followed the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
P.S. Readers should not be surprised by the number of people from Kerala in senior positions in the Indian government – Kerala has a highly educated populace with the highest literacy rate in India. Interestingly, Kerala also happens to be one of India’s most left-leaning states, is well known for the much higher level of gender equality and human development indices. It is also interesting to note the significant presence of people from South India in major roles that determine India’s foreign and security policies.
|
5
-
-
The SC; HRC; DPRK; South Sudan
The SC: The Security Council today held its last consultations under the Council Presidency of ROK. Tomorrow, Russia will take over the rotating Presidency of the Security Council for March under Ambassador Vitaly Churkin.
-
-
The SG; Mali; Middle East; Palestine
The SG: At the Fifth Global Forum of the UN Alliance of Civilizations in Vienna, Austria today, the SG emphasized the role of youth in ensuring a “prosperous, equitable and peaceful future.”
-
The SG; DRC; HRC; Palestinian Prisoner
The SG: In Ethiopia over the weekend, the SG is now in the United Arab Emirates. Today he met with Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashed Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE, where the two discussed developments in the region, including Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan, and in the Middle East Peace Process.
-
