the bro down

What Cheaper Oil Could Mean

2005-05-24T10:14:00.000-07:00

Oil prices have remained abnormally high for an uncharacteristically long time. Earlier this year they hit a succession of record highs, topping out at 55 dollars a barrel. Currently oil hovers around 48$. Many factors impact how much a barrel of oil costs, and how that costs translates to how much we pay at the pump. Time of year, political/security stability in oil producing regions, how much a particular government subsidizes gasoline etc. Regardless, prices have stayed high for a while and it appears a safe assumption they will not plummet soon. But, in the words of a former Nixon adviser (remember those oil prices?) “things that can’t go on forever, usually don’t.” So what will happen when oil falls back down to earthly prices?

I don’t know. But here are two large scale oil exporting countries that are sure to see radical impact when it does.

Iran. The Islamic Republic is a true energy heavy weight, ranking third among oil exporters and second only to Russia in proven natural gas reserves. The Iranians have exploited their abundance of resources to see them through the bloodiest war in the history of the Middle East and endured decades worth of isolation from the outside world. Iranian society is anything but stable. However, most Iran watchers agree that popular discontent reached its peak in the summer of 1999. July saw a rash of dramatic large scale protests, but the moment for true change at the top came and went. Voter turnout has decreased since then and a public once enthused to create change has lost much of its reformist zeal. The spike in oil has allowed the regime to pursue what some call the “China model”; loosen some social restrictions and use oil wealth to make immediate if moderate economic improvements, use these two prongs to stall and stymie true political reform. For the moment this strategy seems to be working. Iranians may not have fallen back in love with the Islamic revolution, but they are finding things more livable and they have accepted it. Success via the China model requires a next step. The time bought by relaxing social control must be used to restructure the economy so that it is viable and sustainable in the long term. Thus far there has been little evidence of this kind of action. It is also worth noting that China, the model’s namesake, does not have an economy centered on the export of two natural resources, and subject to the capriciousness of their world markets.

So what will happen in Iran when the price of oil falls? It is impossible to predict, but it seems reasonable to think that as the carrots provided by oil exports dry up dissent in the Iranian street will gather strength. It may not be an accident that the height of the public reform movement in summer of 1999 coincided with extremely low prices in oil. The Iranians protesting that summer had at least a tepid ally in President Mohammad Khatami to counterweight the hard-liners in the religious establishment. Without a significant moderate candidate for next month’s presidential election, it is entirely possible that the social unrest that will rise up to meet the drop in oil will be exacerbated by the lack of a voice friendly to reform within the government. This may create an explosive situation.

The nuclear factor adds another dimension to the issue. Some have suggested that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power may indeed be for peaceful purposes. While a welcome thought, riding this argument out to its conclusion brings up other concerns. It holds that Iran wants nuclear power for domestic use, that way it will be free to export 100% of its natural energy resources. This would indicate that Tehran has no intention of diversifying its economy. The other nuclear concern is of course that in the event of massive price drop in oil, nuclear weapons and missile technology make a formidable bargaining chip when it comes to economic aid.

Switching continents, there is an equally worrisome prospect in Venezuela. The South American nation relies on oil for 85% of its exports. High prices have given the Chavez government boosted revenue which it has in turn used to fund popular public works geared toward its working class power base. The argument of whether this is an example of a democratic government properly using state resources to help its citizens or a strongman keeping his people quiet is a valid one, but not what I want to address in this post. What is clear about Chavez’s oil fueled public works spending is that it has been done with little fiscal prudence.

True, many people in poor areas around Venezuela have improved social services and many lower income Venezuelans own their own homes thanks to low/no interest loans from the government. But consider this; Caracas borrows 13 times more today than it did when Chavez took office, when the price of oil was slightly less than half what it is today. The Chavez regime deposits the profits of Venezuela’s state run oil company in Caracas banks, reportedly at 9%. In order to finance its penchant for enormous public works it then turns around and borrows from those same banks at as high a rate as 15%! This behavior borders on sheer lunacy.

Although Chavez doesn’t have many fans in Washington or the middle and upper classes in his own country, the ugly days of spring 2002 have passed. For now, the high price of oil has given him a pass. It allows him to satisfy his base and shore up domestic political support. At the same time the US has accepted his presence and is quietly content with stability in one of the hemisphere’s largest oil producers because as long as that stability permits the oil to get to market, it prevents further escalation in price. In an ironic twist, some ultra wealthy bankers in Caracas are okay with the situation because of the killing they make lending to Chavez.

So things are stable now, but what happens when prices drop? The gargantuan debt being compiled by the government will be very difficult to service. Imagine if this amount of debt had to be paid with oil profits at half what they are today. I am not familiar enough with the internal finances of the government but common sense tells you Caracas may have to default on its loans from domestic banks. What happens to Chavez’s relation with his base of support in blue collar circles if he is no longer able to provide expanded social services at low cost? Some may stick by him out of loyalty but it is far easier to be a populist with resources to placate the people than without. Then what happens as he begins to lose control? Does he let democracy works itself out or does he curtail civic freedoms and political criticism while trotting out his paramilitaries to quell unrest in the streets? All of this is hypothetical for now but Venezuela may be faced with this reality when the price of oil comes back down to earth.

No one is excited about paying more than two dollars a gallon for gasoline. And we are all familiar with the dirty little truth that a few cents of every dollar spent on gas find their way to very seedy characters not that crazy about the United States. The complexities of global politics mean that with a fall of oil prices we may be trading in those problems for another set of headaches. These are just two examples, the list of countries that have been able to ride oil revenues in order to push back problems also includes Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Colombia.

Dean Should Drop It

2005-04-20T12:45:00.000-07:00

In case anyone doesn’t know I am a registered Democrat. Summing up one’s political beliefs in a word is ridiculous but since people tend to ask, I would answer center-left. As this blog deals mostly with foreign policy, a realm in which party allegiance means less and is often a poor indicator of positions on issues, partisanship is something I try to avoid. This particular post will address the new DNC Chairman, Howard Dean, and his proposed use of the Terri Schiavo ordeal and the GOP’s attempt to politicize it as a campaign tool in the midterm elections next year and eventually the 2008 general election.

Horrible idea. Like way, way bad. We have all seen the polls showing the public’s disapproval of the way Republican lawmakers tried to abuse their power and interfere in an issue where they did not belong (around 85% in some polls). It seems fairly obvious to me that peoples’ disgust is with the politicization of such a sad and tragic situation, not some widespread undercurrent that Terri Schiavo had to die.

What the Schiavo affair really came down to was that the decision made in court should not be squashed by last minute Congressional legislation tailored specifically for this situation. Many people that opposed political intervention would have preferred that Terri Schiavo’s husband hand over guardianship to her family, walk away from the issue, and let her live. All things considered, this is probably the option the majority of Americans would have preferred. If Dean hammers the Republicans on this its only a matter of time until the right wing mouthpieces retort with things like, “Howard Dean and the Democrats brag about starving a helpless woman to death, and talk up the virtue and sanctity of activists judges.”

Most of the people I hear commenting in favor of this as a campaign issue delight in cataloguing the GOP abuse of power throughout the two weeks Terri Schiavo was a 24 hour news story. What seems to go over these peoples’ heads is that the intricacies of legislation and the interpretations of checks and balances do not make for great campaign themes. Want proof? Bush vs. Gore. Since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in that most visible and blatant abuse of power what has happened in Florida, the ground zero of this debacle? Jeb Bush was reelected in ’02, Mel Martinez became a United States Senator in ’04, and George W. Bush won it again in ’04 (this time legitimately). Oh, and Katherine Harris, one of the leaders of the swindle is now the US Congresswoman from Florida’s 12th district.

Campaigns are won and lost on things like social security, terrorism, job growth, and war. Glorifying that the opposition may have shared your desire on a specific case but in its zeal overstepped its bounds and acted inappropriately is not a winning message. The Republicans certainly did attempt to abuse their power, as evidenced by the memo from the office of Mel Martinez, and if they want to make Schiavo an issue, let them. It will sink them further. But Democrats should not revive a painful ordeal that has little to do with Americans’ main concerns, and use it as an attack tool. In Minnesota or Tennessee, or any other state with a competitive Senate seat in 2006 I would hate to see ads detailing how the GOP tried to intimidate a Florida court and for that reason Mark Kennedy or whoever happens to be running should not be elected. What I would hate to see even more is the response ad with Bush and Kennedy walking together in the White House and a voice over about how they share a respect for life, and oh by the way the military as well. We would get stomped amongst swing voters.

Howard Dean showed innovation and skill in areas like fundraising and grassroots organizing during his campaign for president. Candidates for office that he helped out early ended up doing very well last November. For these and other reasons I think he makes a good party chair. However, he should immediately drop the idea of politicizing Terri Schiavo’s death as a means of retaking either chamber of Congress or the White House. The bulk of the damage the GOP will suffer from the fallout of this is self-inflicted, Democrats don’t need to push someone who is willing to jump.

Tony Blair

2005-04-07T12:40:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week (4/5) Tony Blair announced elections set for May 5th of this year. Blair will attempt to be the first Labour Prime Minister to win three consecutive elections. It will also be the first time Britons vote for Prime Minister since the war in Iraq, an adventure that did not enjoy tremendous support in England. Two years after the war began, it will play a major role in the British election.

Michael Howard is using the deception Blair employed to justify the war in Iraq as an attack tool against him. He alleges that the British people were misled and that British involvement in the war has been mismanaged. This is true and may resonate well with voters, but coming from the Conservative leader is notably cynical as well. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which Mr. Howard, or his predecessors Ian Duncan Smith or John Major, would have stood up to George W. Bush and kept the UK out of the war in Iraq.

Blair will also suffer criticism over the war from his left flank. Although the Liberal Democrats do not have the strength to rival Labour supremacy the way the Tories do, they have the advantage of being a party whose character is likely to attract the type of Labour voters disillusioned by Blair’s support for the war. If anti-war rhetoric from the right sounds opportunistic, from the left it may prove at once sincere and alluring. A not so subtle sign of Labour’s eroding position is that Stephen Wilkinson has withdrawn his Labour candidacy for parliament and joined the Liberal Democrats.

Since the fall of 2002 elections around the world have been decided by candidates’ stances on the Iraq war. The dynamics and outcomes of these races are all unique but they provide a snapshot of how the public in those countries feels about American foreign policy. In an age of democratic government it is something of which we need to be aware.

Public opinion against the war has manifested itself clearly at the ballot box in countries traditionally aligned with American foreign policy. German Chancelor Gerhard Schroeder survived a challenge from Edmund Stoiber in autumn of 2002 by categorically pledging not to go to war. In the spring of 2004 Jose Rodriguez-Zapatero became Prime Minister of Spain on a campaign pledge to withdraw the country’s forces from Iraq. To be fair he received help by way of the inept bungling of the terrorist attacks in Madrid by outgoing conservative Jose Maria Aznar.

There have been countries where association with the war has not meant defeat. Australia’s John Howard held on in a country with considerable opposition to the war. This is especially noteworthy because of Australia’s sizable deployment and public position of support for the US.

An interesting case among these post war elections is the Ukraine. The fraudulent election their and subsequent revote received much attention last winter. The conditions of the Ukrainian election may be unique, but it offers an interesting view of the future. Ukraine contributed troops to the US led efforts, the challenger and eventual winner, Vicktor Yushchenko, pledged to withdraw them. However, Yuschenko can hardly be painted as an opponent of the US. Another main part of his platform was distance from Russia and closer ties with the west. In addition, Yushchenko’s campaign was run by Aristotle International, an American political consulting firm. When he visited Washington to much fanfare and a reporter asked President Bush about any friction from the Ukrainian troops leaving Iraq he simply stated that Yushchenko was fulfilling a campaign promise, and, “I understand that.”

The coming election in the UK will be especially significant for two reasons. One, the UK is by far the largest contributor to the war aside from the US. The miniscule troop contingents sent by other countries were appreciated by the Bush administration, but did more to parry criticism of unilateral action at home than bolster American efforts on the ground. The UK is the one country with significant numbers of combat troops deployed in Iraq. And secondly, it will be the first election held in a country with close ties to the US since democratic leaning developments have occurred in the Middle East. It will be interested to see if the promising signs coming from the region will neutralize the stigma of backing the war that politicians elsewhere have faced.

I am not an expert on British politics, but it seems clear to me that Labour has considerable ground to give, enjoying a 161 lead in the House of Commons- over all other parties combined. But even if Tony Blair achieves a third term on May 5th, the election may prove to be a recalibration of British politics. The rejection of the war coupled with disenchantment at the failure to reform public services gnawing at the base of the Labour monolith from the left as the back-from-the-dead Conservatives ploy inefficiency and deception to peel support off from the center. If this weakening of Labour does occur, regardless of the merits of its’ challengers, the vulnerability that lets it happen will have been Blair’s support for the war.

Better Late Than Never, kinda.

2005-03-29T19:44:00.000-08:00

The United Nations announced last Thursday (3/24) that it had approved sending 10,000 peacekeepers to the Sudan. Coming on the heals of Kofi Annan’s proposed reforms and possibly preceding a damaging report on the oil for food fiasco, some are hoping the UN’s decision to finally take action in genocide torn Sudan will signal the beginning of a new chapter in the institution’s history. While its good to see the UN get around to doing something in regards to the situation in Sudan, it is almost a case study of what is wrong with the UN.

Before approving the mission, the proposal lay on the table for over two months. And before that the slaughter that the UN has taken pains not to label “genocide” for reasons unbeknownst to every rational human being in the world had been raging for almost two years. Why did it take 2 months for the UN to move on this? The details are not clear but it has been reported that the members of the Security Council disagreed on the particular wording and mandate of the resolution. It may be telling that the French will be bringing a resolution to a vote tomorrow (3/30) proposing trying any war criminals from the Sudanese conflict in the International Criminal Court after the idea had been stricken from the resolution to send the peacekeepers, largely due to American opposition.

If true, this is a stain on France’s role in the international arena. Should the US sign the ICC? Yes. Is it worth sitting around for 2 months while thousands of people are slaughtered to prove this point? Absolutely not. In what way to deal with the perpetrators of genocide, or “human tragedy”, is a serious issue that needs to be discussed, but the immediate attention of the UN should have been on getting people on the ground in order to stop the killing. Although I support the ICC and American participation in it, it should be noted that Sudan is not a signatory to the treaty and the overwhelming majority of the crimes committed in the conflict have been by Sudanese against Sudanese on Sudanese soil.

The closer one looks at the body of the resolution the more it reveals its shameful nature. On top of being too late to stop several hundred thousand deaths, it is too limited in scope to do much good. It allows for “up to” 10,000 peacekeepers to be deployed to the south of the country. These peacekeepers will monitor troop movements and the implementation of a peace accord signed in January between guerillas and the government in Khartoum. Anyone familiar with the debacle in Rwanda knows how badly this conservative a mandate will hamper peacekeeping operations. But that is nearly beside the point, they are being deployed to monitor an agreement ending an entirely separate conflict, that has nothing to do with Darfur!

Their presence there is supposed to “help” the dismal 2,000 strong Organization for Afircan Unity contingent in Darfur. To put this in perspective, during the two-year conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan 300,000 people have been massacred and it has produced over 2 million refugees, thousands of which continue to die every month under the infernal conditions of the refugee camps. And all the world can do is send 2,000 troops from a regional organization and hope that a delegation from the UN to another corner of the country will add ballast?
While the right wingers on talk radio are busy raising hell over a few bureaucrats bilking money off of the oil for food program (which to be fair is pretty repulsive, but probably not the only example of corruption in the oil industry) the world is shockingly quiet about the UN sitting back and allowing a genocide of historic proportions…. For the SECOND time in a decade.

It is sad that the United States has not taken a more aggressive stance on this issue, it is enraging that France stalled the resolution in order to belabor the point that the US does not support the ICC (as if patting yourself on the back for piquing the belligerent American behemoth is worth a few thousand more dead), and it is perplexing that the UN is willing to cooperate with the government in Khartoum to bring the perpetrators of the ethnic cleansing to justice. The very same government that sponsored and aided the militias who did the killing. Insane.

That Other Election Over There.

2005-03-24T15:46:00.000-08:00

To the surprise of many of us and the probable chagrin of hawks everywhere (including within the administration itself) the Bush administration seems to have signed on, at least for now, to the European approach to handling Iran and its nuclear ambitions. After the fence-mending trip in February Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice acknowledged the US was prepared to join the Europeans in extending carrots to the Islamic Republic.

What has brought about this apparent change of heart? There is a variety of speculations; over extension in Iraq has forced it, the moderates in the administration have won the president’s ear, there is much to be gained from the European approach, etc. I have no idea what the truth is, but I hope (and kinda think) it is a pragmatic move dictated by the political realities within Iran.

While everybody has been busy tripping over themselves to attribute every positive sign throughout the region to the war in Iraq (as if Yassir Arafat’s death would not have demanded a successor otherwise) there is an event on the horizon more tangibly democratic than marches in Beirut or reform laced speeches in Cairo. It’s a presidential election, in of all places, Iran. Iranians have been electing their president every four years since the outset of the revolution. Although candidates are vetted through a process that can only be described as draconian, and many are rejected for frivolous reasons, once the elections get underway they are surprisingly fair. That Khatami, the current president, won twice over the hysteric opposition of the dogmatic mullahs is proof of this.

Khatami’s second term will expire this summer and he will be constitutionally banned from seeking another. The June 17th election to decide who will replace him is the gargantuan elephant in the living room of the Iran-western world showdown that people scarcely mention. Will another reformist candidate in the vein of Khatami be able to squeak through the vetting process? If so, it is nearly inconceivable to imagine he would lose. Khatami won overwhelming margins of victory in both of his presidential campaigns and his party and/or other reform candidates constantly pull in close to 70% of the vote in local and parliamentary elections. The hard line ideologues can certainly help their odds by purging the field of reformers, but knowing the public sentiment this may be a dicey move.

The field will likely include up to four conservative candidates. A conservative victory would consolidate hard line influence, adding to their control over the judiciary and parts of the security apparatus. An escalation of tensions with the outside world is likely to follow. The belligerent rhetoric and posturing from Tehran hawks in the US can use to make their case for a war with Iran would be in no short supply with the election of a president from the conservative camp.

There is much speculation that former president Ali Hashemi Rafsanjani will jump into the race. Rafsanjani has traveled the political spectrum in Iran, from a liberal as prime minister during the 80s to a moderate stint as president and then cozying up to the conservatives in opposition to Khatami’s reform movement. Depending on how you feel about him he can either be described as a clear-headed pragmatist or a narcissistic opportunist. Either way, it is likely he would steer Iran away from overt confrontation with the west.

Iran is not the monolith many in the west perceive it to be. The outcome of this year’s presidential election will greatly influence how the Islamic Republic and the rest of the world interact. A reformer or even a pragmatist will be a great asset in diffusing tension and seeking a workable solution to the nuclear issue and international terrorism while a conservative victory will ratchet up the tension by several notches. The more the US exhibits a minatory posture and Iranians perceive a threat, the more the conservatives strengthen their hand. It is common sense, people will rally around hard liners when threatened from the outside. The new tone coming from Washington may be a sign that the Bush administration has taken notice of this. While building trust and a better image in the eyes of the Iranian people (and hopefully the rest of the world) this approach may also pay off by putting a partner for negotiations in power in Tehran.

UN-doing Failure?

2005-03-22T12:20:00.000-08:00

This week Kofi Annan announced that he plans to make significant reforms to the UN. Confrontation with the US and a besmirched image at the hands of the oil for food and peacekeeper abuse scandals have put the Secretary General in a position where he must do something. The denouement of these changes may have a major impact on the way the international community functions. On the UN I find myself occupying a sparsely populated stake of territory. I disagree just as much with those on the right wing that see no use for the UN and decry it as a tax guzzling charlatans’ club as I do with those on the left that keep insisting that nothing is wrong with the institution. I firmly believe that the United Nations is both indispensable and dysfunctional.

A main source of disillusionment with and criticism towards the UN stems from the skewed expectations many Americans hold. It seems as if it is common to think of the UN and the UN Security Council as interchangeable terms. The UN is a place that nations can meet and discuss an infinitely broad range of issues from disease prevention to currency stabilization to border disputes. UN services such as the World Food Program, the World Health Organization, and the UN High Commission on Refugees fill much needed roles in sensitive areas around the world. That these agencies are hindered by bureaucracies and political back-scratching is undeniable, but they serve crucial functions and should be and reformed and improved, not scrapped.

Since the war in Iraq began two years ago conservatives have derided the UN, alleging it shirked its responsibility by not supporting the US led invasion, and at the same time vocally stated that the US does not need permission from the UN to defend itself. Meanwhile, the left has complained that without UN approval the US should not have acted. Though there are kernels of truth to these positions, they tend to miss the point. The security of the US or any other nation on earth is a function of its ability to defend itself, not procedures at the UN. I say this in practice, not as a slogan.

In all the years since its inception the UN has only approved the use of offensive military force twice: (in the dubious absence of the USSR’s representative) in Korea in 1950, and in the first Gulf War. All of the myriad other conflicts that have transpired in the half century of the UN’s existence have been without its blessing. The US neither destroyed the credibility of the UN by invading Iraq nor does this action stand out among the behavior of nations all over the world. That wars will occur without the UN sanctioning them is a fact of life. The UN should be a place for dialogue that attempts to avert armed conflict. However, charging the body with preserving peace at all costs will both hinder the security of nations, the stronger of which will only tolerate this to a certain point, and inevitably weaken the UN publicly when these nations do act unilaterally. The UN needs to take the difficult approach of helping all sides work things out but recognizing it can only go so far.

Much of the attention has been focused on the two proposals to change the security council. Both call for an expanded SC to have 24 seats, but differ in the method of getting there and the number of permanent members. Change in the SC’s make up is overdue, but I thin the important part of the reforms lies elsewhere. No matter how the new and improved security council looks we will still live in a world where conflict’s perpetrators are superpowers unrestrained by diplomacy and non state actors indifferent to public opinion.

Annan unveiled a proposal to buy out the contracts of certain UN functionaries, opening up space for new talent. This is absolutely critical for the fixing of the UN. Complacency, corruption, and laziness have spread through many parts of the institution and they can’t be excised without the ability/threat of replacing those whose conduct is deficient. This is a welcome step but having this option on the table and actively using it to improve the UN are two different things. I hope Annan and his successor make a genuine effort to repair the UN so that it can meet the needs of the 21st century.

There is no shortage of instances one can point to for proof of dysfunctional bureaucracy, nepotism, corruption, lack of direction, etc. in the UN. Perhaps the most clear is the catastrophe in Rwanda. Any objective analysis of the situation brings to light mountains of shortcomings in the UN. Aside from the human tragedy on the ground (which tragedy should not by any means be taken lightly) it is appalling that this happened with UN troops on the ground that were manacled and obstructed from providing the help and shelter that could have saved thousands by the bureaucratic UN heavy weights in New York. An optimistic person would say those involved have learned a valuable lesson. Let’s hope so, the under secretary-general for peace keeping operations who oversaw this disaster was none other than Kofi Annan, the same man peddling these reforms.

Something must be done to reshape the UN both in image and practice. As things stand right now it is in grave danger of being pushed over the edge of irrelevance by the right wing in the US, while also failing to respond to the needs of a changing world where new challenges are demanding attention. I am skeptical that these reforms are the elixir the UN is looking for, but at least these short comings are finally out in the open and a debate can be had on the best way forward.

Losing the Levant?

2005-03-19T10:33:00.000-08:00

This morning the Lebanese delegation pulled out of the Arab League Summit in Algeria. Although they have not said as much, it can be assumed this action is linked to the car bomb detonated in a Christian section of Beirut last night. Despite none dead and less than a dozen wounded, the blast has had a sizeable impact on the tense political climate in Lebanon.

Observing the massive public outcry in the wake of the Rafik Hariri assassination and the stern response it drew from the international community many people in the west (myself included) believed a liberalizing anti-Syria presence movement would sweep across the Lebanese political landscape. The realities manifested in the last few weeks have tweaked that conventional wisdom considerably.

After the assassination a series of candid and inspiring demonstrations took place calling for the withdrawing of Syrian troops and the resignation of the pro Syria government in Beirut. To considerable surprise, the government did tender its resignation and the Syrians executed the first part of their redeployment quickly. In response to those protests, His’Allah put together a demonstration 500,000 people strong in defense of a Syrian presence. The demonstrators simultaneously held pictures of the Syrian president (!) and chanted “no to the foreign intervention”. This epitomizes the complex and intricate nature of politics in the region.

Despite the claims of Fox News and others on the US right, these protests seem to have been entirely legitimate. The rumors that people were trucked in from the Syrian border have not been verified by any respectable source, and the footage of the event shows people actively engaged, as opposed to the window-shopping and socializing people do in the government organized marches in Iran. In further evidence that the pendulum has not swung as far as was initially thought, Omar Karami returned to his post as Prime Minister less than two weeks after having resigned.

If Syria has been dealt a shocking blow by being forced to withdraw, and the liberalizing opposition has fallen short of its goal of total change in regime, it seems an emerging winner in this may be His’Allah. As the show of support they orchestrated in Beirut illustrates, they have a huge following. The group benefits from being perceived (accurately or not) as the only Arab force to defeat Israel on the battlefield, following the Israeli evacuation of south Lebanon. Perhaps more significant than that, is that His’Allah are by far the most well organized and deep-rooted organization in Lebanese politics. Somewhat quietly, to the outside world, they have built a huge sphere of influence aside from their military operations by constructing a network of schools, clinics, and social services. This is not altogether dissimilar to the void filled by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

As tempting as it might be to discredit His’Allah’s role in politics and write them off as just another terrorist group, that is not reality on the ground. In what may constitute a moderation of tone, NSA Stephen Hadley went out of his way to carefully choose words when interviewed on CNN last week. Hadley condemned terrorist actions but subtly told Wolf Blitzer that disarming His’Allah was not a priority for the US in Lebanon. Even if it is painful at first, working in concert with His’Allah may not only offer the most stability in Lebanon, but also distance the country from Iran by denying it a natural ally, and alienate the Sunni Islamist groups that operate in the region.

Across the border lies another incentive for cooperation. Partially a vestige of the cold war, and partially for reasons of domestic politics on both sides, the US and Syria have antagonistic stances towards each other. However, Syria has perhaps even more to fear from Islamist extremism than the US, with 75% of its population being Sunni and the Muslim Brotherhood having a substantial if clandestine presence in country. In an interview with Time’s Joe Klein earlier this month president Bashar Asad told him to, “send this message, I am not Saddam Hussein (duh), I want to cooperate.” There is probably some truth in this, more importantly he is also not his father, and I think he is well aware that he may not be able to withstand serious destabilization. Again though awkward, cooperation with Syria could lead to further stability in Iraq, engagement with Israel, and an effective ally against global terrorism.

The shocking events in Lebanon occurred with a celerity that caught the world community off guard, and in a fashion that gave us unreasonably high expectations. Now that things have unfolded and settled a bit it is crucial that the US and the world engage Lebanon and the region in a pragmatic and effective way, even it feels counterintuitive at first. The row of democracy dominos might not fall the way certain think tanks have predicted, but this might be an opportunity for tangible change in the region. A key step should be for the world to pressure Lebanese president Emile Lahoud to rethink participation in the Arab League summit, and at least send some sort of delegation. If the chaos and instability in Beirut grows, the moment for progress may be lost.

The Race Has Begun

2005-03-16T19:11:00.000-08:00

In today’s (3/16) New York Times Nicholas Kristof wrote that Hillary Clinton may be the one who leads the Democrats back to relevance as a national party. He says her bipartisan approach in the Senate and willingness to find common ground and meet others half way should be taken note of by others in the party. I think Kristof’s column is accurate and I like it even more because he says that Hillary should resist the temptation to run for the White House. However, it seems painfully obvious that she will not.

Since the start of this year Senator Clinton has made notable moves to refashion her image in a more centrist/moderate cast. This makes a lot of sense because her voting record in the Senate has always been markedly less liberal than she has been portrayed. At the same time, therein lies the major obstacle to a successful run for the presidency; Hillary Clinton’s perception as being too far to the left and too divisive a figure has been cemented by years of attack from the right wing smear machine. These attacks have been relentless and have done indelible damage. I find myself wondering why senator Clinton and those around her are convinced that a few months worth of photo ops and speeches are going to reshape her image in the way her honest voting record has not.

In an attempt to stake out centrist territory for herself in a White House run Clinton spoke on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade this past January. The senator took the opportunity to tell a gathering of supporters that there were legitimate positions on the other side, and they should work to find common ground with the pro-life camp. This was haled by many in the press and blogosphere as a “new approach” and the beginning of “understanding the pain abortion causes”. As if prior to her groundbreaking speech advocates of choice had been foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics eagerly awaiting unwanted pregnancies for the sheer joy of mercilessly ending them.

Last week Hillary Clinton held a press conference/photo up about the excessive amount of violence and other undesirable content in entertainment, and the deleterious impact it has on children. Sharing the stage with Senator Clinton was Rick “homosex equals bestiality” Santorum. I guess the lasting legacy of Al Gore is his wife rubbing off on the latest in a line of Democratic also-rans.

These are unmistakable signs of an intended Hillary ’08 candidacy. She is polling at over 60% in New York, the eastern capital of blue America where her colleague Chuck Schumer won a landslide victory last November. Her stances and star power were enough to win her a Senate seat without being a denizen of the state 5 years ago, her solid performance during her term will only increase her margin of victory. There is no way on earth that this image of tacking to the center can be seen as related to defense of her Senate seat.

The potential Clinton candidacy worries me because as an iconic superstar in the Democratic Party she will more than likely get the nomination. She will also more than likely lose to her Republican opponent. She remains one of the most divisive figures in American politics. Despite her recent “moderate” charm offensive Senator Clinton has a long list of enemies who would love nothing more than to open a sustained (and probably effective) assault on her over the course of a presidential campaign. The health care debacle remains a vivid memory in the minds of the insurance lobby, the Christian coalition crowd still views her as a prime target, and right wing talk radio will delight in savaging her day after day.

Some Democrats say that Hillary’s status as a right-wing punching bag is no reason to oppose her candidacy, she embodies the party’s values and will be competitive in swing states. I wish I could agree, but it seems clear to me that if she is the nominee the next election will be even less about substantive issues (!) than the 2004 race. She does embody much of what is right with the Democratic Party, and for that reason I am happy she is my United States Senator, but I don’t think she is a viable presidential candidate. There are fresh, baggage free members of the party that would make better nominees.

Curiosity in Cairo

2005-03-02T13:26:00.000-08:00

When Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced he would call for a referendum opening the path to free and fair elections for the presidency earlier this week, it was a pleasant surprise. This is an important step toward modernizing and improving the Egypt and the Middle East. At the same time, Mubarak has yet to fill in the specifics of his proposed reform. Until he does, there remain some important questions to be asked, the answers to which may make a world of difference for the future of the region.

Despite the call for direct elections Mubarak intends to seek another term in office. This would dramatically alter the idea of a “new direction” in Egyptian politics. Mubarak’s party controls a vast majority of the seats in parliament, he appoints regional governors, and is the incumbent in a nation where the much of the media is owned by the state. If he wins a presidential election under these conditions in, it will fall far short of the reform envisioned across the globe following his announcement a few days ago.

Egypt’s political landscape offers little in the way of significant opposition. Recently Ayman Nour, a charismatic parliamentarian of the opposition Al Ghad party, was arrested on forgery charges, stripped of his immunity and jailed. Domestic dissidents and international human rights groups around believe this was a politically motivated move to neutralize the opposition. This in a country were the entire opposition combined amounts to less than 30% of parliament, and there is an extremely limited experience in democracy. To qualify for the presidential election a candidate must be nominated by one of Egypt’s 16 legal parties, then approved by a certain number of MPs, yet to be determined. Given that the elections will be held in less than a year, the outcome is not hard to gauge.

There is of course a group in opposition that has a large following and could possibly mount a challenge to Mubarak’s National Democratic Party. This would be the militantly islamist Muslim Brotherhood. The MB has a long history of violence around the region and Egypt is no exception. It, along with its affiliates, have been responsible for the murder of President Anwar Sadat, an attempt on the life of the Interior Minister in 1993 followed by another on Mubarak in 1995, and attacks on visiting foreigners, including the massacre of 58 tourists visiting the Luxor temple in 1997. It is for good reason that this group has been outlawed and prevented from operating in the political sphere.

The MB factor may present the most serious obstacle to Egypt’s democratic reform. As uncomfortable as it may be to acknowledge, it has a serious following in the country. In fact much of the militant Islam raging throughout the world has taken inspiration from Egyptian scholars. Keeping the ban on the MB will put an asterisk next to the idea of free and fair elections, especially in the absence of any other serious opposition. At the same time, if they were allowed to run they could do very well and despite the “changing of the guard” rhetoric flying out of Cairo and Washington, I strongly doubt anyone in power is willing to let that happen. (remember Algeria?)

Hosni Mubarak’s expressed willingness to carry out reforms is good news, but the course followed must be at once substantive and safe. If the current concentration of power persists, albeit cloaked in democratic terms, the situation in Egypt will remain essentially the same and the example set for the region will be a disappointment. For this to have any positive outcome Egypt must avoid the rubber stamp “referendum/elections” of Saddam’s Iraq and also the uber-exclusionary (although fair once the voting starts) format used in Iran. It is an extremely fine line to walk, but we should keep in mind this is perhaps the world’s most volatile region, so it is not a surprise.

Egypt has a special place in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is the birthplace of Arab nationalism and a hotbed of Islamic thought. David Ben Gurion supposedly expressed the desire for Nasser to survive the debacle of the 6-Day War because he was the only one capable of making peace with Israel. Mubarak’s proposal my lead to reforms across the region, much like Nasser’s ouster of King Farouk paved the way for the shedding of the colonial yoke in the region, and Sadat’s dialogue with Begin opened the possibility of Arab states having peaceful and normal relations with Israel. This is a crucial opportunity for progress but it must neither be pushed recklessly nor celebrated prematurely.

Cautiously Optimistic

2005-02-28T17:04:00.000-08:00

Some people reacted to the nuclear fuel deal signed between Russia and Iran today with great concern. I am not one of those people. Yes, the Iran situation merits attention, but there is reason to be cautiously optimistic. It is important to keep in mind the context in which this situation exists and acknowledge the limits of our options in dealing with Iran and the realities presently inherent in the region.

The deal will allow Russia to sell Iran nuclear fuel for its Bushehr reactor in the south of country over the next ten years. After the fuel is used it will be sent back to Russia. Despite the misgivings some people have about Vladimir Putin, it is clearly not in his interest or that of Russia to have a nuclear-armed Iran. Perhaps this may be a way for Russia to keep tabs on Iran’s nuclear progress.

Despite the high-tension atmosphere the Iranian situation has taken recently, a showdown is not inevitable. Iraq’s population is about 2/3 Shi’ite, a demographic amongst which Iran has plenty of influence, having ties with both the Dawa and SCIRI parties going back to the Iran-Iraq war years. Yet, Iran has not inflamed the domestic situation in Iraq and has even been receptive to the idea that the Shi’ite-majority government will not be led by the members of the clergy.

The real power in Tehran is concentrated in circles more conservative than the Iranian population at large. Even the reformist president has seen his public standing drop because of a perception that he has not taken on the mullahs vigorously enough. Disillusionment with reform has taken hold in Iran. People are not happy with the status quo, but the sense of upheaval that was visibly on display in the summer of 1999 is gone. Like people in many nations, Iranians want a change in their government, but not at the hands of another country’s military. In fact, aggressive posturing by the US only helps the conservatives close ranks behind them. It is best for the tone to remain positive and the approach somewhat cautious.

The decision makers in Iran will operate in the way that most benefits them. That may mean publicly tweaking the US and Israel when domestic dissent spikes, and issuing vaguely hostile rhetoric from time to time, but they will ultimately want to avoid providing the US a reason to forcefully strike Iran. They also want and keep their oil flowing out to the rest of the world. While on that subject, as long as oil remains above 50$ a barrel, as it is expected to for the rest of the year, Tehran will have a comfortable amount of wiggle room to keep the public content and out of the streets.

European interest in engaging Iran is certainly welcomed, but must be viewed in the proper context. During the 1990s the Europeans, lead by the UK, France, and Germany undertook what was known as “Critical Dialogue” with Iran. This diplomatic approach was to compliment the harder approach of the US. Critical Dialogue failed miserably. Despite Iran’s weapons development and human rights record at home and hostile behavior abroad the Europeans bent over backwards to avoid penalizing the Islamic Republic. The flow of Euro-Iranian commerce remained steady throughout the 1990s and the German government even went so far as to welcome on a state visit an Iranian official who had played a clear role in four assassinations in Berlin in 1992. The Kohl government overrode the German Crime Office’s attempt to arrest him. So European willingness to play a constructive role with regards to Iran is a good sign, but prospects for its implementation and success should be viewed with caution.

I know there are people who advocate a more active, even hawkish, line on Iran. Given the reality of the situation, this would be a grave mistake. It is widely acknowledged that Iran’s facilities are too spread out and clandestine to be destroyed by surgical strikes. At the same time strikes by the US or Israel (which would need use of American controlled airspace making it a de facto American venture) would provoke Iranian retaliation in Iraq and possibly throughout the greater Middle East. Also, this provocation may be a convenient excuse for regimes in the region to deflect criticism at home.

We are at a point in time when the US and Iran eye each other with suspicion but have not committed to conflict. If the US is able to persuade its allies to apply influence on Tehran in earnest, while pursuing a diplomatic option we might be able to avoid what could be a nightmarish scenario.

Watch Where You Point Those Fingers

2005-02-17T09:44:00.000-08:00

In the wake of the car bomb assassination that killed former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri fingers from Beirut to Washington have been pointing at Syria. The Lebanese opposition of which Hariri was a part has publicly blamed his death on its neighbor, the US issued a strong warning to Syria and recalled its ambassador from Damascus, and French President Jacques Chirac pointedly called for an international investigation.

Writing on MSNBC.com’s hardblogger David Schuster acknowledged that one of MSNBC’s military analysts brought up the possibility that the Syrians were not responsible. It is not unreasonable to think the Syrians are to blame, however, there are other possible culprits that, in my opinion, are more likely the architects and executors of the car bombing that killed Hariri.

Thus far the only claim of responsibility has come via a video broadcast on Al-Jazeera. A group calling itself Victory and Jihad said it carried out the car bombing as a “just punishment” for Hariri’s proximity to the apostate Saudi regime. This previously unknown group may indeed have played a part in bombing, but it seems naïve to imagine that the first public act a new terrorist group commits would be of such magnitude, complexity, and accuracy. Victory and Jihad may be a front for or affiliate of a more-well established fundamentalist group like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The other suspect that immediately comes to mind is Iran. The Iranians have long been a powerful force in this part of the Middle East. They have used their guerilla group Hizballah as a proxy in the Levant. Iran is very isolated, and one of the only allies they have is Syria. If Syria were to either lose influence in the region or adopt a friendlier position towards the western world, the Iranians would lose big. To me, it seems clear that by sowing chaos in Lebanon and possibly disrupting the upcoming parliamentary elections, the Iranians could create conditions were the presence of Syrian troops can be justified under the pretense of maintaining/restoring order. At the same time, Syrian standing in the eyes of the international community is called into question because the bombing naturally raises suspicion, thus pushing them closer to Iran. This can already be seen in the “common front” the two countries announced in a press conference yesterday.

People will point to the close ties between Syria and Iran and say that perhaps they were both involved in the bombing, and that is entirely possible. But if you look at the context in which this happened, the Syrians have a great deal to lose and the Iranians, perhaps errantly, believe they have something to gain.

There is precedent for Iranian actions to undermine improvement of Syria’s external relations. In the early 1990s after being part of the Gulf War coalition the Syrians took part in the Madrid conference and began to seriously explore peace with Israel and closer ties to the US. During this time Iran waged an international campaign of terrorism that included assassinations in western Europe, targeting of diplomats throughout the Middle East, and the bombings of two Jewish sights in Argentina. Although there were other reasons the Madrid conference didn’t achieve optimal results, Syrian proximity to such a hostile regime in Tehran weakened its international standing.

In 1996 with the peace process in full swing and the Syrians apparently very interested, Iran knew that any peace treaty involving Syria would include the disarmament of Hizbollah, effectively ending Iranian influence in the Levant. To avoid this unwanted development Iran used Hizbollah to attack northern Israel, provoking a harsh response known as “operation grapes of wrath”. The violence, coupled with the electoral victory it produced for the hawkish Likud candidate Benyamin Netanyahu stalled the peace process irreparably.

Tensions between the US and Iran are currently very high. President Bush has used very strong language towards Iran in recent weeks and the Iranians have reported unmanned American aircraft over their airspace. Meanwhile Tehran has adopted a defiant public posture, asserting that it will push for nuclear weapons in the near future.

Syria for its part, has nothing to gain by antagonizing the US. Its long time Foreign Minister Farouk Shar’a has very close ties with former Secretary of State James Baker who has served as President Bush’s special envoy for Iraqi debt. Also, being a country whose population is about three quarters Sunni ruled over by an Allawite minority, the Syrians have much to fear about fundamentalism spilling over from chaotic Iraq. What publicly comes out of Damascus and Washington is one thing, but the truth is we have enough common enemies to warrant playing nice.

It is not surprising that the Iranians and Syrians have formed a “common front” as they declared in a press conference yesterday. If Syria warms to the west, Iran would lose its closet ally. And it is difficult for Syria to disown a close partner. But looking closely at the situation, there are plenty of reasons for the Iranians to want to pull the Syrians closer, while pushing them away from the west. The assassination of Rafik Hariri may have accomplished both of those things.

welcome to the bro down

2005-02-03T09:29:00.000-08:00

hey dudes and babes alike.... que pasa... welcome to my blog, the bro down. As of right now there is no real theme that I have in mind for this blog, although my main interests are politics/international affairs, punk rock, and skiing. I guess we can assume those will be the most often discussed topics. Thanks for stopping by, and check it out when you get a chance.

dre