Greg Sanders

20th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall

My memories of the fall of the wall, and the people walking and then driving to west Berlin and the like, are not that strong.  Oddly enough, I more clearly remember watching on television the coup against Gorbechev, perhaps because I was in [Wales] at the time.  However, I do remember caring about it and doing reports on it and making aluminum foil dioramas.  My pastor had actually gone to Berlin soon thereafter and gotten me a few pieces of the wall, for which I’m still grateful.  My mom actually had visited the divided city, her stories of riding the subway around and seeing the shuttered East Berlin stops and their exposed lightbulbs and single patrolling guard has always stuck with me.

I’ve had a chance to tour the reunited Berlin and loved the experience.  That said, some of the East Berlin construction has got to be the ugliest architecture I’ve ever seen, and that includes Communist construction in the PRC.

All in all, I find the steady consolidation of Europe to be one of the most inspiring stories in human history, made all the more remarkable by its peacefulness after such a destructive past.  While the EU has a stodgy technocratic reputation, its steady peaceful expansion has far outstripped the 20th century expansion of the U.S.  At the same time, I’m quite proud of the role the U.S. played in the reunification of Berlin and Germany as a whole.  We put our faith in the peaceful democratic nature of our two-time enemy and that belief has been redeemed.

Quick take on Obama’s speech

I haven’t been able to fully process it, but sounds like it was good one.  The specifics in Egypt weren’t mentioned but in addition to inviting the Muslim Brotherhood there are other indicators that the U.S. is taking a position of being agnostic about who wins elections so long as they eschew violence and then once in power stay democratic.   I’m going in large part off the Marc Lynch analysis which is worth reading in its entirety.

Had a busy day or I’d say more.  One other point of note, Obama does really seem to be going all out on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  I think his actions already calling for a total settlement halt has earned some valuable credibility on this issue.  David Ignatius did have a good op-ed on the matter saying what steps can be done to follow-up.  One key point, this will be very hard, but I also fear we’re approaching the end of viability for the two state solution.  I’m not sure I’d wouldn’t want to put most of my chips on getting demonstrable results, but I could see the argument that we have to try rather than just making critical statements and distancing ourselves from the Netanyahu government.

Muslim Brotherhood will be at Obama’s Speech in Cairo

This excellent news was comes from Al-Arabiya via the Project on Middle East Democracy.  Here’s the summary by Max:

Al-Arabiya has just reported that, under pressure from the United States, the Secretariat-General of the lower house of the Egyptian Parliament invited ten members of the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc to attend Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo on Thursday.

The delegation will include Dr. Saad Al Katatni, leader of the bloc, who said that the invitation “came as a compromise solution between the American administration and the Egyptian government, considering that there is increasing pressure on the administration from the American press on the necessity of meeting with all members of opposition and other influential forces…”

In other good news, Brotherhood members are being allowed to return to the legal bar.  Katatni credited the administration’s actions to pressure from the U.S. press.  Regardless of the motivation, this is excellent news.  The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist movement, as one might expect, but a non-violent one despite oppression from the government.  I don’t think that even with 5 billion some dollars in aid a year to Egypt we’re really in a position to suddenly democratize the country, but we could do a lot more to work by getting over fears of Islamists. 

I’m now much less worried about the Cairo speech.  If this is how they’re setting it up, than the administration might find a way to balance dignity and democracy support after all.  We’ll know for sure on the fourth.

Blog roll addition: Marc Lynch

There's a great discussion up on the Foreign Policy blog of Tom Ricks' new book: the Gamble.  Everyone seems agreed that it's a good book and I tend to find Ricks reporting quite useful.  That said, I quite disagree with his conclusions.  Happily, Marc Lynch is way ahead of me and challenges Ricks directly on two vital points.

First is the near-complete absence of the Status of Forces Agreement, which Iraqis call the Withdrawal Agreement. The SOFA sets an end-date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, at December 31, 2011... Ricks may feel that the United States will ignore these requirements, or that the Iraqis don't really mean it, or that they are a bad idea. But he makes no argument one way or the other, instead acting as if it simply doesn't exist. To the extent that this reflects the mindset among his key informants, that's a problem...

Second is the near-complete absence of Iraqis. In 325 pages of text, I could find only ten pages which quoted an Iraqi of any description, and only two unmediated by an American military official.

Here's Ricks's response where he forthrightly addresses the points:

1. On the Status of Forces Agreement, I just don't think it is that meaningful.

As I watched it come together in Baghdad, it appeared to me to simply be a way of taking the American military presence off the table as a divisive issue in Iraqi politics. That is, it was much more about 2009 than about 2011. So I make less of it than others do. I might be wrong...

2. On the absence of Iraqi voices, Lynch's criticism again is correct.

I was aware of this lack, painfully so, but decided against trying to paper it over with some desultory interviews. I don't speak Arabic and I am not an expert on Iraq, so I think I would have done of mediocre job of trying to figure out the Iraqi side of the story. What I know a lot about is the U.S. military. I even speak some of its dialects... The absence of Iraqis in my book is especially significant because Iraqi solutions will be the key to the end of this story. That is, Iraqis will make the decisions that determine how this all ends.

I take this to mean that Ricks thinks the SOFA was a successful con-job by American and perhaps also by Iraqi politicians.  Perhaps it is, but Ricks never explains how he thinks we can pull this stunt in perpetuity. 

There's an old adage on strategy cited here by Gen. Franks: "In any war plan the enemy gets a vote."  Modifying it slightly, in any occupation, the populace gets a vote.  If that vote doesn't come in the form of democracy it can still come in the form of support for insurgency or counter-insurgency.  I don't see how it is possible to form any conclusion about what we should do in Iraq without taking into account the views of the Iraqi people.  I mean this in a realist sense, not a liberal sense.  We may be able to stay in Iraq in perpetuity but if we do so without popular support the Iraqi people can extract a heavy price. 

To be clear, I am not saying that I'm a regional expert or an expert on the conflict.  Ricks certainly knows it orders of magnitude better than I.  He is an excellent writer and as his responses show above a self-aware and an honest one.  I think his reaching a conclusion about staying without grappling with Iraqi popular opinion is probably attributable to status quo bias.  In someways leaving Iraqi can be literally unthinkable in much the same way that I'm sure leaving Vietnam was unthinkable.  Giving up control can be a very difficult step to take until one is pushed.

Since I am not a regional expert, let me recommend someone who is: check out Marc Lynch on the foreign policy blog.

Sins of Empires

Yglesias picks up an interesting quote from French President Sarkozy:

It isn’t just in Europe that there’s a longing for freedom; it’s all over the world. We have all — and, in her history, like others, France has — had to deal with great disillusionment when we forgot that freedom was for everyone.

Yglesias’s notes that “under the administration of George W. Bush it became commonplace to argue that to support an international agenda aimed at “freedom” actually required the United States to espouse the coercive military domination of foreign countries.” 

The issue here is one of individual freedom versus collective freedom.  That is to say human rights versus self-determination.  The two run together but they’re not the same thing.  Pluralistic empires often do undermine social arrangements contrary to an individualistic concept of human rights such as tribal, racial, or religious distinctions.  Minorities will often be privileged as their past mistreatment will mean that they’re willing to work with the empire.  That said, when racial divisions privilege those at the heart of the empire, they will likely be maintained.  Similarly, the minority privileging or even creating ways of empire will often sow seeds of strife that are at the basis of post-colonial conflict.

I think the American hubris is a bit different than Sarkozy’s quote.  Specifically, we forget that people define freedom on their terms rather than our terms.  This is often stated as a critique of universalistic human rights, but that’s not what I mean.  Colonized people are not unusual in wanting things on their terms, the same is certainly true of us.  That said, on issues like freedom of religion and women’s rights, local self-determination seems to be at odds with human rights.  This conflict makes it all too easy to discount the views of those who don’t approve of the job the intervener is doing.

In any event, this gets to why I’m a big fan of electoral democracy in occupation situations.  Yes, elections can actually exacerbate existing tensions.  However, self-determination ultimately requires a local government willing to stand up to occupiers.  Boycotts can screw up this process but in the Iraqi case at least, the boycotters don’t seem to have repeated that mistake in the most recent set of elections.

Enough about radicalism

Tariq over at POMED summarizes Robert Satloff’s complaint about Kristin Lord’s public diplomacy report.

He says, “In the post-9/11 era, the purpose of public diplomacy is not some amorphous desire to have America better understood or even the more pointed objective of winning the support of international public opinion for U.S. foreign policy…Today, that mission is how to identify, nurture and support mainstream Muslims in the ideological and political contest against radical Islamism….there is none of this in the Brookings report…”

POMED’s summary notes of the event in question can be found here. [Emphasis mine]

Biden made a reference to radical Islam as well at the press conference where the new national security team was revealed.  I think the radical-moderate distinction is not a sound nor a useful one.  Generally speaking it becomes very easy to dismiss anyone whose agenda is problematic for the status quo as a radical.  However, while we’re rarely going to agree with genuine radical Islamists, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re our enemy.  The problem are violent radicals both Islamist and otherwise.

It’s also important not to conflate all violent non-state actors, but in this case we’re talking public diplomacy and not military or even economic strikes.  Encouraging non-violence as a tool is a good general rule.  Of course, we should also be promoting values like democracy which are typically at odds with radical Islamism but often are at odds with ‘moderate’ Muslim leaders as well; e.g. our dear allies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Well, okay, if you say so.

Via Ackerman, according to the the Associated Press, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has told the Security Council that “the international community should set a timeline to end the war in Afghanistan.”

Here’s Ackerman’s analysis:

Is it too much of a stretch to wonder if Karzai is floating the timetable idea as a bankshot way of promoting his negotiations with the Taliban? In other words, is he trying to box people -- namely, Americans -- in to thinking that the only thing less desirable than negotiating with the insurgency is to set a date for leaving Afghanistan, so they better support the first option?

And another thing, in the context of those negotiations: If it's true that the Taliban feels stronger than the government right now, would it feel such an incentive to negotiate if it believed Karzai was going to kick the U.S. out no matter what?

I really don’t know how to read this.  If it is a bankshot it’s a hell of a maneuver.  I don’t think Obama would be opposed to such negotiations in the first place, so I’m not sure why they’re turning the screws on us.  First and foremost I’m guessing it’s just the more straightforward example Ackerman raises, response to domestic pressure.

I guess it’s time to put a more thought in how we can exit in a manner that best serves the Afghan people and kneecaps Al Qaeda.  Just exiting will put a damper on recruitment, but Osama was in Afghanistan well before we were.

And it's official

Jane Perlez of the NY Times Reports:

Under pressure over impending impeachment charges, President Pervez Musharraf announced he would resign Monday, ending nearly nine years as one of the United States’ most important allies in the campaign against terrorism.

Speaking on television from his presidential office here at 1 p.m., Mr. Musharraf, dressed in a gray suit and tie, said that after consulting with his aides, “I have decided to resign today.” He said he was putting national interest above “personal bravado.”

And with that, we can move Pakistan fully back into the democratic states column. That isn’t to say this will be a panacea, Pakistan has had elected leadership before, including many of the current party leaders, that have failed their country. But the way the removal of Musharraf went down, first pressure from the courts then from the parliament may strengthen democratic norms. Hopefully the courts issue will be easily resolved now as there was no way the chief justice and Musharraf would both be in the government again.

As for the implications for the U.S., we can actually probably expect less of a carte blanche when going after the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Pakistani territory. I hope in the mid-term getting Pakistan’s house in order will make the north west territories issues easier to handle. Of course, we’re also going to need to get a deal between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in some ways Pakistan can benefit from an unstable neighbor.

Good news for a change

Pakistan’s military dictator Perez Musharraf has apparently worked out conditions for stepping down according to Pakistan’s Daily Times (via Ackerman). His opponents in the Parliament had started impeachment proceedings, although given the 2/3s majority needed they were far from a sure thing. The deal is he gets immunity from prosecution. That seems reasonable to me, Musharraf is no Pinochet, he’s certainly done violence to the constitution and has repressed some protests, but I’m not aware of anything that could land him before the International Criminal Court for example.

Ackerman notes that you should believe it when you see it, but it does seem quite likely now. The Post’s reporting adds an interesting note on the U.S. end:

The White House is thought to be split on how strongly to back Musharraf, especially since the call for his impeachment. But while Vice President Cheney is often cited as Musharraf’s principal backer in Washington, officials there said that Cheney now agrees that the president should be cut off. They said that it was Bush who had not committed to a final break with someone he still considers a counterterrorism ally.

"The vast majority of the U.S. government has moved beyond their original attachment to Musharraf," one official said.

I’m guessing this is because President Bush is more sentimental and personality based. Cheney probably figures that Musharraf’s utility is at an end and will instead seek to develop ties with other figures in Pakistan’s military.

After the cut, Ackerman has some interesting thoughts on what’s next:

Ethnic cleansing in Iraq

While the Anbar awakening, the truce with Sadr, and the Surge are widely cited as chief drivers of reduced violence in Iraq, there’s also some discussion on the impact of ethnic cleansing (or sectarian cleansing in this case). Namely, that in Baghdad pre-surge sectarian groups consolidated their control over various neighborhoods, driving out or killing members of other groups. The goals of these sectarian killers had been largely achieved pre-Surge, which suggests that the drop in violence in Baghdad may also have occurred in part because the bad guys had what they wanted.

Steve Biddle, Michael O’Hanlon, and Ken Pollack pushed back against this argument in Foreign Affairs

It is worth noting that separation resulting from sectarian cleansing was not the chief cause of the reduction in violence, as some have claimed. Much of Iraq remains intermingled but increasingly peaceful. And whereas a cleansing argument implies that casualties should have gone down in Baghdad, for example, as mixed neighborhoods were cleansed, casualties actually went up consistently during the sectarian warfare of 2006. Cleansing may have reduced the violence somewhat in some places, but it was not the main cause..

However, as Spencer Ackerman among others notes, this makes no sense. Of course ethnic cleansing leads to more violence while it’s occurring, the question is whether the violence dropped after the polarization of Baghdad neighborhoods was done. I suspect what they’re responding to is the no longer widely discussed idea of partitioning Iraq. It’s a fair argument to say that partition might provoke further ethnic cleansing and thus cause a great deal of violence even if it ultimately stabilizes the situation. But that point is irrelevant to the discussion of the recent drop in violence in Iraq. Regardless, Ackerman goes on to make a more important point:

But there’s actually a broader point to make. Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The U.S. quite rightly intervened in the Balkans in the 1990s to stop it. The horrors of ethnic cleansing are unfathomable to those who haven’t experienced them. What you really, really shouldn’t do is treat other people’s ethnic cleansing as a debaters’ point. It’s perverse, isn’t it, the way that ethnic cleansing that occurred during a U.S. occupation can be treated so nonchalantly by Washington polemicists.

China and human rights

So as the security Olympics approach, it’s quite clear that China hasn’t kept any of its promises to the International Olympics Committee and in fact is cracking down harder than usual. This isn’t particularly unexpected, there have been cases where concessions have been won from the Chinese, typically the release of political prisoners, but lately we seem to be having trouble even getting that.

I don’t believe the problem is that it’s impossible to get improvements; however, I do believe that it is an area where the Chinese government can be counted on to bargain hard and backslide whenever they can. An obvious answer is to play hardball back. However, in many cases that’s likely to antagonize the nationalism of the Chinese people. The way we pick these battles, our criticism often come at times when they don’t have much support in China proper.

I think an effective agenda pushing for slow reform in China would have to pick its battles and tactics much more effectively. That said, it’s simply a difficult agenda, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile, but there’s more areas for leverage when it comes to trade, the environment, etc.

One cool thing about Sen. Webb

Given that I support the argument against making him Veep, I think it’s only fair to also highlight one area where he’s a Democratic standout.

Take it away Spencer Ackerman:

Katrina vanden Heuvel reports on Jim Webb’s efforts to do something profoundly valuable for the country: end the drug war.

In addition to the drug supply remaining constant, the incarceration epidemic has failed to curb illegal drug use while also “devastating our minority communities.” Senator Webb said, “the number of persons in custody on drug charges increased thirteen times in the past 25 years…[And] when it comes to incarceration for drug offenses, the racial disparities are truly alarming. Although African Americans constitute 14 percent of regular drug users, they are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses, and 56 percent of persons in state prisons for drug crimes…Our current combination of enforcement, diversion, interdiction, treatment and prevention is not working the way we need it to…There has been little effort to take a comprehensive look at the relationship between the many interlocking pieces of drug policy.”

And that’s by design. For an entire generation, avaricious white politicians have ignored how the repeatedly-refuted drug war has compounded, not alleviated, the scourge of narcotics in minority communities. Why? Because there aren’t enough votes in solving the problems of poor, non-white America.

For me, it was actually international relations that took me from skeptical of the war on drugs to strongly opposed. Civil wars and organized crime the world over are financed by drugs. It all sees so futile to me. We’re genuinely winning in Columbia, FARC has lost a lot of men and leadership and the country is doing better as a whole, but even so the amount of coca cultivation rises. Trying to fight poppy cultivation is a critical complicating factors we’re facing in Afghanistan.

To be clear I love the U.S.’s moves against smoking in recent years. They’ve been highly effective and made many places much more pleasant for non-smokers to boot. I’m perfectly fine with even some harsh public health measures, but how about we do it without shooting people, eh?

Zimbabwe

I had been optimistic when Mugabe lost the parliamentary elections, it had seemed as if his hold on power had slipped far enough that it was over. It appears I’ve underestimated his capacity for repression.

Mark Bellamy and Stephen Morrison over at the CSIS Africa Policy Forum outline what the U.S. could be doing to help.

It is now possible to transcend this indifference. Mugabe’s unpopularity, his crumbling reputation as a liberation hero, the increasing savagery of his security chiefs, and the regional economic and social costs of Zimbabwe’s meltdown — all favor an external diplomatic push...

A top priority has to be ending South Africa’s patronage of Mugabe through diplomatic pressure that exploits growing regional dissatisfaction with Thabo Mbeki’s leadership. Botswana’s new President Ian Khama, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa, Tanzanian President and African Union head Jakaya Kikwete, as well as Mbeki’s presumptive successor Jacob Zuma, all understand the urgent need to act on Zimbabwe. Other strong African voices, such as Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, are also now questioning South Africa’s role in Zimbabwe and calling for change. Once the South African linchpin is removed, the other external props that sustain Mugabe — Angola, Namibia, Equatorial
Guinea, Libya, and China — will cease to matter.

As I understand it, the value added the U.S. provides under their proposal is that of an organizer. Appoint an envoy, the envoy gathers an international team, that team works for the long haul to change the situation. Presumably the envoy would have relevant credibility and be well positioned to answer Mugabe’s constant charges that all criticism is a re-colonization attempt. This envoy then, with the official backing of the U.S. would be able to organize figures ready to criticize government already. Only once that team, with substantial African representation, would we probably be in a position to convert those not critical.

Picture taken by frontlineblogger and used under a Creative Commons license. Here’s the blog of the picture taker.

Blogroll additions: Brad DeLong

Brad Delong is a prominent liberal economic blogger that I’ve been reading for several months now. He covers a range of economic and political topics, including some in depth class notes and analyses that honestly I typically skim but make me think his classes would be pretty dang interesting.

I’m including him because I’m on a blogroll adding spree and to celebrate his attempt to get formal proceedings started against another Berkeley professor and prominent torture apologist, John Yoo. Spencer Ackerman (who I’m also intending to add in the near future, wrote up this story for the Washington Independent and includes a brief summary on his blog, Attackerman.

Good hunting Prof. DeLong.

Alternatives to war crimes trials

Over at the PCR blog another blogger friend, Shannon Hayden, raises the question of how likely war crime trials of Americans, possibly by foreigners could be:

We were once treated to an off-the-record briefing with a former Member of Congress on the state of all things congressional; when a question about possible war crimes prosecutions arose, it went over like a lead balloon. Can you even imagine the firestorm of debate and soul-searching that would ensue if an American official was detained abroad on such charges?

The general read is that it doesn’t seem that likely, at home or abroad, at least for now. That said, JB over at Balkinization discusses in America short of trials.

A series of congressional investigations into the interrogation and detention policies of the previous Administration, or a special Presidential "truth commission" like the 9/11 Commission would have certain advantages. They would require only that the next Administration cooperate with Congress-- for example, by declassifying certain OLC opinions and other documents that should never have been classified, and by giving permission for certain executive branch officials to testify before Congress.

He goes over a few obstacles but concludes that it’s far more likely than criminal trials of someone in the current admin.

Zimbabwe Round-Up

Quick news from Zimbabwe round-up. In the latest elections the opposition won the parliament and had somewhere between a plurality and majority victory for the Presidency. The official results haven’t been released for weeks and will be highly tainted. Opposition figures are being arrested and harrassed, although that’s fairly par for the course for Mugabe’s regime.

Johanne over at Democratic Piece found that Mugabe is having a hard time getting more guns. The reason is that citizens of other African countries, out of solidarity, aren’t let a Chinese cargo ship dock to offload them

The New York Times reported today that Angola prohibited the offloading of the arms shipment destined for Zimbabwe. The Chinese vessel carrying the cargo - the “ship of shame” as it’s called in African newspapers - previously attempted to unload the 77 tons of arms - including rockets, ammunition, and bombs - in Durban, South Africa, but was blocked by dock workers.

Angola, a longtime ally of Zimbabwe, was probably Zimbabwe’s best hope for receiving this arms shipment. After Durban, the vessel bypassed Namibia when the Legal Assistance Centre of Namibia announced in advance that it would thwart the ship from unloading. After a second failure to unload, the ship will likely now return to China.

Speaking of Zimbabwe, Mark Irvine, a friend over at the PCR blog, found a great quote in a NY Times story by Barry Bearak about his imprisonment for doing election coverage in Zimbabwe:

I was being charged with the crime of “committing journalism.” One of my captors, Detective Inspector Dani Rangwani, described the offense to me as something despicable, almost hissing the words: “You’ve been gathering, processing and disseminating the news.”

I tend to agree with the analysis of Jack, also at the Democratic Piece. A democratic transition is likely in progress. That was my feeling once I heard about the major electoral losses being suffered in [parliament]. If that kind of news is getting out, it’s probably already mostly over. Question is just how the end game plays out. Mugabe is an amazingly inept leader, inflation is presently at wheel barrel of money levels. He’s basically just in power because he was an anti-colonial revolutionary leader (once again, thanks George Washington for only serving two terms, much obliged). Some of that lot proved good people, many of them were greatly corrupted by power. However, happily, it’s a generation that’s literally dying off. As it leaves, the countries in question can begin to recover from another terrible legacy of colonialism.

[Updates: Jack fixes my clarification noting, sensibly, that there’s a transition in progress but it won’t necessarily be democratic. See comments. Makes sense to me.]

School House Rock didn't cover this

Marty Lederman reads a Washington Post article and learns that Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) managed to add an earmark to the text of a bill after both houses of Congress had voted for itbut before it was signed.

Meredith Kenny, Rep. Young’s spokeswoman, explained further that "the lawmaker always intended for the earmark to designate money to the interchange project, not generic highway improvements. So committee aides altered the bill to reflect that after the House and Senate had approved it. ’There was an error in the bill and so it was corrected,’ she said."

"There was an error in the bill" -- the error being that the earmark reflected Congress’s presumed intent rather than Rep. Young’s -- "and so it was corrected."...

(Local planning officials in Florida had no desire to build the [earmarked] interchange, and "were outraged to learn after the highway bill became law that they were required to spend $10 million on a project they did not want." It appears the only one who did want the interchange was developer Daniel Aronoff, whose land would increase substantially in value by virtue of the I-75 interchange. Coincidentally, Aronoff hosted a fundraiser in 2005 that garnered about $40,000 for Rep. Young’s re-election campaign.)

The Senate is calling for a Justice Department investigation. Lederman asks some good follow-ups.

I don’t think I truly want to know the answer to this question, but here goes: How is it, exactly, that an aide to a congressman can, quite literally and physically, "correct" a bill in between the time it is approved by the House and the Senate and the time it is enrolled and sent to the President? Can anyone just walk right into whatever congressional office it is that handles the bill, ask for the official copy of the text, take out a red pen, and start "correcting"? (Imagine David Addington with such an opportunity! Who needs signing statements?)

I tend to think earmark complaints are overblown. Discretionary spending is a small part of the overall non-defense budget. That said, this sort of thing may be a key factor undermining the strength of Congress versus the executive branch. So, in falsifiable terms, more explicitly directed money from Congress (including defense spending) would lead to fewer vetoes, fewer overrides of vetos, fewer investigations of the executive branch, and more support for Presidential proposals, like treaties.

However, I’m not really sure how much is fixable. For that I’ll need to find some with some comparative government expertise in legislatures.

Should John Yoo lose tenure?

There’s some discussion of whether John Yoo should lose his tenure at Berkeley now that the torture memos he wrote are out. I’ll address those in greater detail later. Anyways, I’m not sure how I come down on the tenure thing. I was fairly sympathetic because I thought this was basically Berkeley’s fault. They gave him tenure after he was a known war criminal. But it actually sounds like he had been on Berkeley’s staff in 1999 and got tenure then.

So it does seem like he violated legal ethics after having gotten tenure, so maybe it’s fair to go after that. That said, it would seem easier to just disbar him. And, the main important thing is that he be arrested. And really, once he’s in prison, who really cares if he has tenure?

Quick follow up on Pakistan

On the whole, I’ve been pretty satisfied with how things are going in Pakistan.

Kevin Drum notes that U.S. policy still seems fairly screwed up: "On Tuesday, senior coalition partner Nawaz Sharif gave the visiting Americans a public scolding for using Pakistan as a "killing field" and relying too much on [President Pervez] Musharraf." And our apparent response was to up the number of attacks our Predators are making before we lose the informal agreement that lets us make them. That seems like a strategy that’s just going to further worsen the relationship, particularly since it’s more likely that one of these rushed strikes is going to go bad.

However, there is a silver lining here. The updated pace of operations is another indication that we’re grudging accepting the fact that we’re losing our man in Pakistan. I haven’t seen us say anything critical about the new majority in parliament. And happily that new majority seems to be holding together and focusing on the right issues. Their first step has been working towards reinstating judges kicked off the bench by Musharraf. Still an open question whether they’ll be able to restore the Supreme Court position of Musharraf’s nemesis: chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. But regardless of how that battle goes, getting the rest of the judiciary back is a vital step. It’s also a step that will help the parliament in their future battles on other issues.

So part of this positive result is that the U.S. has gotten out of the way of Pakistan’s public will. Another part is that while President Bush was still too supportive of Musharraf, he was actively undercut by Senators Kerry, Biden, and Hagel who personally monitored Pakistan’s elections. During much of the twentieth century, the U.S. would be willing to actively subvert democracy to support a strongman in such a strategically critical position. What’s happening now is a change for the better in all ways.

10 Easy Steps?

My friend Moti asked me the other day about Naomi Wolf’s article/book on "Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps"

Interesting article, but not a rigorous one.  The article lists a bunch of bad authoritarian behavior but doesn’t list thresh-holds.  Calling someone a traitor isn’t the same as arresting them.  Denial of travel rights isn’t the same as full detention.  There’s a fair amount of bad stuff going on, but speaking as an analyst, going by those metrics the authoritarian risk isn’t yet critical.

Going off her list, I’ll give her points 1 and 4 unqualified.  2 and 3 have major warning signs.  5 and 8 have some rather bad cases.  6, 7, 9, and 10 I think she’s seriously pushing it.  So I think the article mostly works on the "another reason all this stuff is bad" but despite a lot of anecdotes doesn’t get to the level of putting this all in a historical or theoretical context.

After the break, more details on the her 10 steps.

Is the law on De-Bathification progress?

In Iraq, the Surge in Baghdad and perhaps more importantly the Anbar Awakening appear to have gotten violence and American casualties down from their 2006 and 2007 peaks.  That said, the surge is temporary, our military runs out of troops come May and we’ll have to cut back or make some truly radical changes.  The strategic point of the Surge was buy breathing room to achieve political goals.  Up until a week ago, there were no results.  But now, the Iraqi parliament has passed one of the Surge’s key goals: a law to roll back de-Batthification.

For those that don’t know, Saddam Hussein’s party was the Baath party.  While the party was secular, it was largely made up by members of Hussein’s sect, Sunnis.  Shortly into the occupations, Baath party members were purged from the government and military.  This purge, while having an obvious logical basis, helped alienate Sunnis and is thought by many to have gone too far.  President Bush has stated revising the de-Baathification law is key and Congress put that statement in our political benchmarks.

So here’s the big question: is the new law any good?

Pending information on implementation of the law, the short answer is probably not.  The longer answer after the break.

Quick note of displeasure with Edwards

I normally try to avoid too much day-to-day campaign coverage.  There’s better sources for that, see my blogroll.  But, since I did endorse Edwards for Iowa, I wanted to note my displeasure with a cheap shot he took.

"It’s not easy," Clinton said, "and I couldn’t do it if I didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country, and I just don’t want to see us fall backwards."

Edwards, speaking to reporters in Laconia, N.H., later in the day, took advantage of Clinton’s emotional display to helpfully point out, "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business..."

For the record, Obama was asked about Clinton’s welling up, and told reporters, "I didn’t see what happened ... [but] I know this process is a grind, so that’s not something I care to comment on."

I also tend to think Ezra Klein’s friend David Roberts is right that I’ve seen worse sexism than racism in the race so far (Yglesias linked to a similar point).  That said, this may in part because Clinton and not Obama had been the front runner.  For now I’m considering this a one-time aberration on Edwards part, in the future I hope he follows Obama’s method.

Regardless, no endorsements for New Hampshire.  I’m pretty happy with where the Democratic race is now.  We’ll be seeing for the next few weeks how Obama stands up to hard testing.  So far, so good.

[Update: Edwards clarifies that he didn't mean it as a shot (1:45).    Via Amanda Marcotte who has more.  I figured that was coming which was why I considered this an aberration.  I expect in the future he'll follow more an Obama line when baited with such questions.]

Apologists for Musharraf

Salon has one of the better apologies for Musharraf I’ve read recently, so I’ll reply to that. The argument is correct on a few key points:

One of President Bush’s more appalling flights of fancy in the foreign policy arena is his belief that democratically elected governments will somehow be more inclined than incumbent authoritarians to support U.S. policy objectives that are wildly unpopular with their own electorates.

This is true as is the support he sites. Thus the follow-up statement is also probably true:

Polls indicate that the majority of Pakistan’s population today is overwhelmingly opposed to many U.S. policy goals, including killing or capturing al-Qaida and Taliban affiliates and their Pakistani allies. In such an environment, any government produced by genuinely open elections will not be willing or able to support U.S. objectives in the war on terror.

As for this statement (emphasis mine):

In 2002, President Pervez Musharraf allowed carefully controlled elections to be held in Pakistan. Those elections produced a relatively competent technocratic administration, including Shaukat Aziz.... In 2004, Aziz became prime minister as well as finance minister; during his three years as Pakistan’s head of government, he presided over the most sustained period of economic reform and modernization in the country’s history. But Washington, in its bipartisan wisdom, said that this was not good enough.

Perhaps Washington is troubled because Musharraf is wildly unpopular and has been firing judges and imposing martial law. Here’s the detailed polling from November 2007, his approval sits around 30% and two thirds of the country want him to resign. Pakistan is not on the verge of being taken over by fundamentalists, they aren’t that popular; however, it is being actively destabilized by a U.S. sponsored dictator that’s clinging to undeserved power.

Democracy in Pakistan won’t solve Afghanistan, but neither will dictatorship. Afghanistan is hard, but if we try to force Pakistan to solve our problem we will breed resentment and radicalism in the Pakistani people. I didn’t think backing Bhutto specifically was the way to go and I don’t know who is best for Pakistan now. But I do know that the Pakistani people want Musharraf out and that our aid is widely blamed for keeping him in power. So I take great pride in the fact that this article thinks most of the Dems are wrong.

(Side note for policy wonks regarding the emphasis, Naomi Klein argues that U.S. policy routinely uses dictators and disasters to forward laissez faire capitalism, she calls it shock therapy. The thinking that "economic reform and modernization" are all we should want is in keeping with the policy she’s critiquing. However, we’re moving away form Musharraf which suggests, surprise surprise, that U.S. policy isn’t monocausal.)

Bloody hell

Benazir Bhutto, a top opposition leader in Pakistan, was killed by suicide bombing.

Ackerman adds, "The most likely culprit is the Pakistani Taliban and
al-Qaeda. But it’s not exactly an event met with tears by the Pakistani military, which thoroughly controls the government and the economy."

That said, President Musharraf will almost certainly use this as an opportunity to consolidate power.  He may well make a play to attempt to transition into a fully autocratic state with U.S. patronage, like say Egypt or Saudi Arabia.  With nukes and a real but minority Islamist terrorist opposition there’s a good chance the U.S. will let him.  If we do, there [will] certainly be more bloodshed to come.

Good News for people who like Democracy

Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, held a referendum to consolidate power as a potential president for life. He lost and acknowledged it! Prior to today, I’d probably default to describing him as an populist autocrat, I’ve now mentally upgraded him to populist with autocratic tendencies.

As Ezra Klein notes, this definitely means that Venezuela is not totalitarian, although I don’t think anyone who knows their comparative governments and had any sense actually believed that. I also tend to agree with Ezra’s commentators that the true test of whether I can drop the autocratic tendencies will be whether he steps aside when in five years his six year term is up.

Every crisis president tends to overreach, in a healthy society even their allies will eventually push back as happened in Venezuela. Chavez was more ambitious than most and did deserve to be smacked down, but now that he’s accepted it he has a chance to moderate it. With any luck he’ll switch to behaving a bit more like his comrade Bolivian President Evo Morales who is still trying to introduce socialism. Via Yglesias, for here’s an analysis that breaks down the good and bad parts of the referendum (from before the vote) and not surprisingly finds it bad on the balance.

Bit of good news from Pakistan

Not from Musharraf of course, but it sounds as if the opposition forces are finally joining up:

"Pakistan and Musharraf cannot coexist. He must go. My dialogue with him is over," [former prime minister Benazir Bhutto] told a cable TV channel. She said that once the seven-day detention order against her expires, she intends "to build a broad-based alliance with a one-point agenda for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law." Sources said intermediaries had arranged phone conversations involving her, [former prime minister] Sharif, Khan and Qazi Hussain Ahmed, head of the Jamaat-e-Islami religious party.

...A spokesman for Sharif said that he was "very happy" about Bhutto’s comments and that they "vindicated our position that all democratic forces must put aside their differences." The "new twist of martial law" may end up being the impetus for "a new start, and a new movement to restore democracy," the spokesman, Ehsan Iqbal, said by cellphone from an undisclosed location in Pakistan.

Sharif was actually the one in charge when Musharraf launched his original coup. Despite that, the U.S. has mostly worked with Bhutto in an attempt to work out a power sharing deal that would have avoided this crisis. So far we’ve been weakly critical of the emergency rule. There’s efforts in Congress to cut-off military (if not other) aid until this situation is resolved, I tend to think that’s a good idea. That said, the U.S. only has so much voice in this.

Anyways, I don’t know how this is going to go down, but no good result would be possible without the opposition first unifying. Since the U.S.’s preferred deal is now off the table, hopefully we’ll move more firmly into the pro-democracy camp.

Bad news from Pakistan

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto just returned and was attacked, apparently via grenade and suicide bomb. She survived but as of last count 120 at the rally were dead.

Body parts were strewn for hundreds of yards around, and men walked away from the scene covered head to toe in blood. Dozens of ambulances, sirens wailing, ferried the injured and the dead to hospitals. Survivors sat by the side of the road, weeping. The sweet smell of rose petals -- revelers had tossed them into the air to welcome Bhutto -- mingled with the heavy scent of death.

After the explosions, Bhutto’s supporters reported hearing gunshots, and there were three indentations in the glass screen of her truck that appeared to have been caused by bullets.

Raja Mubasher, a party activist, said the attack came as members of the crowd were shouting slogans of celebration. One minute, he said, "people were jubilant. They were happy. Our leader had come back after eight years." The next, he said, "their legs were broken. Their heads were broken. Their hands were broken." In an instant, he said, the ground was littered with more than 100 bodies...

Karachi’s police chief, Farooqi Ahmed, denied that his forces were anything less than vigilant and noted that among the dead were a large number of police officers. Ahmed also said Bhutto would have "definitely" been killed had it not been for extra security efforts provided by the government, including a bullet- and shock-resistant container that Bhutto was riding in, and jamming devices designed to keep blasts from detonating near her vehicle. Bhutto was evacuated quickly after the attack.

Thank God she survived, but this is worse than the already pessimistic Pakistan briefing I heard two weeks ago which didn’t even list a major Taliban/Al Qaeda attack as possible escalating scenario. I buy the idea that the government did their best to protect her. They were involved enough in her protection that if this were an inside job she’d probably either be dead or we’d have a government-loyalist fight.

There’s really not that I can see the U.S. can doing here aside from not make the situation worse. (There’s a lot we could do in Afghanistan to take some pressure off, but that’s a different post) I just hope the Pakistani government is able to unify the people enough to take on this challenge. I don’t think that’s going to be possible if they continue to exclude Nawaz Sharif. This isn’t to say I favor a unity government (although I obviously favor free and fair elections) but they should let him return and be part of a loyal opposition.

Your questions, answered!

Today’s query is from Matthew Yglesias (perhaps he meant it to be rhetorical):

Question: Which do conservatives hate more, Soros or immigrants?

Answer: Elites: Soros. Base: Immigrants.

I’m not sure there’s a similar divide on the Democratic side in terms of hated figures on the right. It could involve religion, but that’s more a moderate/radical divide than a base/elite divide. The elites are generally more pro-trade, but I don’t care that much about the enemies of trade on the other side. Ditto with intervention at this point.

Turning down $75 million

Via Greg Djerejian and Matthew Yglesias the Washington Post reported that Iranian Democracy advocates are calling for a cut in funding support form the U.S.

The U.S. program, launched in 2006, backfired in its first year, undermining democracy efforts in Iran and leading to wider repression against activists as foreign agents or traitors, the groups said. Among those detained were four Iranian Americans, all charged with "crimes against national security" linked to the U.S. program. A second year of funding will further endanger democracy efforts, the groups added.

"Iranian reformers believe democracy cannot be imported and must be based on indigenous institutions and values. Intended beneficiaries of the funding -- human rights advocates, civil society activists and others -- uniformly denounce the program," according to an open letter organized by the National Iranian American Council, the American Conservative Defense Alliance and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The letter was signed by 23 other liberal and conservative pro-democracy groups.

I would certainly listen to the Iranian democracy advocates here. I’m not sure we should abandon direct democracy aid (rather than more generally focused human rights promoting aid). I think such an approach has worked to a degree in post-cold war Eastern Europe, but I think that’s probably because regimes there didn’t have as free a hand to crush opposition. But even when it can work, publicly tying aid to democracy promoters to militant regime change talk is going to be counter productive.

Hillary Clinton backtracking on torture?

Kevin Drum notes a troubling response that also disturbed me when I read it in the Post today.

[HRC’s Quote]

"It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn’t doing. We’re getting all kinds of mixed messages," Clinton said. "I don’t think we’ll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what’s been going on, you’re not going to know."

Politics is politics. Spin and ambiguity are part of the game. But if
you can’t even take a full-throated, non-weasely position against
torture and abuse of prisoners in American custody, what the hell good
are you?

Hillary Clinton has actually been pretty good in the past, so I’m not sure why she’s being weasely now. I think she might be reserving the right to keep doing some cruel, inhuman, or degrading, procedures that are not as widely known. But that can’t be how you lead the argument. Drum earlier noted that Obama got it right quickly and forcefully.

The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security....It’s time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows.

UPDATE: Drum was actually commenting on Sullivan, who to put it mildly, is no fan of Hillary Clinton. Also I threw in this link to a time when she made a strong stand in the debates. If she was misrepresenting in the interview I hope she’ll clarify.

Justices League

There’s been a recent pair of Supreme Court Justices fighting enemies of rule of law.

The PCR project reports on developments from Pakistan:

In a positive shift, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court demanded the release of political detainees, while also demanding the opening of the roads leading to Islamabad.

The PCR project has actuallyfollowed the Justices issue for a while:

The PCR Project has argued for the past year, in our A Perilous Course report, that the Chief Justices of the five Supreme Courts (national and four provinces) are among the key figures in restoring a rule of law culture in Pakistan, partially because of their ability to oversee the police... Yesterday, Chief Justice Chaudhry of the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of three senior police officials, including Islamabad’s police chief.

Meanwhile, according to the Washington Post another Chief Justice is stepping up to the plate.

The Philippines, scarred by political assassinations and corruption, is looking to its new chief justice for salvation. And in his first nine months in office, Reynato Puno has moved with lightning speed to set up a more independent judiciary charged with enforcing a new code of legal responsibility.

Hoping to use the courts to remake Philippine society, Puno has embarked on a campaign to end the widespread assassinations of journalists and political activists.

Back in America, Slate covers the 24-esque adventures of Justice Scalia the battle of rule of law versus the Injustice Gang Department continues.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

There’s a new NYTimes piece about how the Bush administration put into place America’s torture policy. The short version is that even after the Justice Department declared torture abhorrant in Dec 2004, the Department, now Albert Gonzales "stewardship" was unleashing new classified opinions allowing it. The opinion was signed by Steven G. Bradbury who is now head of the Office of Legal Counsel at Justice. In July of this year President Bush signed an executive order authorizing "enhanced" interrogation techniques and apparently restarting the overseas "black sites" where the CIA keeps prisoners.

Kevin Drum notes that "The Times says that "most lawmakers" didn’t know about this secret opinion. That means that some of them did. I’d like to know which ones."

JB over at Balkinization notes that regardless of scandals, Supreme Court rulings, or new laws the administration keeps churning out new opinions justifying their war crimes. Scandal will not be sufficient to stop them. New laws will not be sufficient to stop them. Forcing resignations and then exerting tight controls over replacements can do something. That said, there’s some reason to worry about the new Attorney General candidate. He at least seems qualified, but according to Mike Isikoff (via Marty Lederman who provides the emphasis)

According to three sources, who asked not to be named discussing the private meetings, Mukasey said that he saw "significant problems" with shutting down Guantánamo Bay and that he understood the need for the CIA to use some "enhanced" interrogation techniques against Qaeda suspects. Mukasey also signaled reluctance with naming a special prosecutor to investigate Bush-administration misconduct, according to one participant.

Andrew Sullivan summarizes the issue nicely:

There is no doubt - no doubt at all - that these tactics are torture and subject to prosecution as war crimes. We know this because the law is very clear when you don’t have war criminals like AEI’s John Yoo rewriting it to give one man unchecked power. We know this because the very same techniques - hypothermia, long-time standing, beating - and even the very same term "enhanced interrogation techniques" - "verschaerfte Vernehmung" in the original German - were once prosecuted by American forces as war crimes. The perpetrators were the Gestapo. The penalty was death. You can verify the history here.

I don’t have that much hope that this bunch will be tried in America anytime soon. That said, they may be disappointed if their retirement plans involve a lot of European vacations.

Burma Round-Up

First here's a great background on Burma by the Christian Science Monitor.  Short version: Military rules since 1962, first socialist then switching to market based after 1988 elections with switch from one leader to Junta, 1990 opposition wins election and Junta doesn't acknowledge the results (via Sullivan who has an anecdote with more history).

Unfortunately, the latest from the WPost says that there's less people in the streets so the crackdown may be starting to be effective.  That said there's a site with hourly updates on Burma thats still talking about tens of thousands in the streets (found via Sullivan).

There's some coup talk that Sullivan linked to which was seconded as a possibility over at Democracy Piece which has some issue matter expertise.  His logic was that the leader is 74 years old, sick, and that what's already happened is likely a demonstration of splits in the junta.  Too early to credit them though.  Reports of mutiny are probably more credible, but some of that is going to happen in this sort of situtation.   I recall hearing about some during the Tienanmen protests.  As Yglesias points out, the question is will enough troops mutiny.  It wouldn't have to be a majority but would need to be a critical or highly visible mass.  I also heard a rumor on NPR that the wives of top officials have been flown out of the country to swank Middle Eastern hotels but that was from yesterday morning.  Unfortunately, AP seems pessimistic (via a commentor at Pandagon).

Picture blogs: Something in a non-european character-set, WPost slideshow, a Burmese blogger (note: some pictures quite graphic), a Youtube channel with videos of protests, account from Good Magazine (via Yglesias), great photo round-ups by Saffron revolution and Burma Digest(via Sullivan)

How to help? Sullivan linked to a Burmese blog that endorses a site calledgivetoburma.org  and while there isn't much to establish credentials either way (and no tax deduction) that's probably about as good as you can get in this sort of situation.  That said, any donation at this point is a definite gamble.

Two quick voting posts

Looks like the attempt to get an initiative in California to split its electoral votes is falling apart.  I do generally support splitting, but this is a mutual disarmament issue.  In addressing a similar problem, Maryland has passed a law that would give its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote if a majority of other states followed suit.  Alternately, California's reform could just be paired with a few other big states.  I'd be willing to extend an assumption of good faith to the sponsors, except that apparently the people behind it giving big money are in Missouri.  Now, I'm not opposed to supporting voting reforms in other states, but they really should originate in the state in question.  If you want a reform, start with your state.

Second, Kevin Drum has a post on an Indiana Voter ID requirement law.  These laws are an attempt to address the rampant crime of voter impersonation.  In fact, voter impersonation in Indiana that the government  "couldn't document a single case of voter impersonation at the polls."  So really, these laws are an attempt to address the problem that poor people without IDs are voting. I'm actually perfectly fine with having some sort of requirement, just give a convenient alternative or spend the money to provide IDs to all registered voters.

U.S. not just critical of unfriendly autocrats

The PCR Project reports that happily the U.S. has broken its silence and has criticized President Musharraf's crackdown in Pakistan.  I don't know if it will make a difference, but at least we're on the record.

Marching in the Streets

Today 50-100,000 some people turned out in monk-led demonstrations in Burma.  Apparently the government is now prepping for a harsher confrontation by moving in the army and establishing a curfew.  President Bush is laying down new sanctions and pushing for support at the UN.  Based on the articles I've read, China is apparently quietly urging restraint in the handling of protests but publicly standing by the military dictatorship. 

It's important to note that there is legitimate opposition movement that has won elections, so if a change in government comes there will be people who can step up:

The fleeting appearance of Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi at the gate of the Rangoon residence where she is under house arrest squarely identified the protests with the longtime peaceful struggle of her party, the opposition National League Democracy. She has been under detention for about 12 of the past 18 years.

Obviously being under house arrest that long is a terrible thing, but it also probably means she maintains much more domestic ties and credibility than do expatriate dissidents.

If you want to learn more about Monks in Burma check out this article in Slate.  There's ~300-500k of them and "like in other Southeast Asian countries, it's customary for a male to enter a monastery at some point in his life. Some might remain a monk for just a few days, while others—an estimated 15 percent—stay for life."  About 10,000 of the 50-100k protesters were Monks.

Image by racoles redistributed under the Creative Commons 2 License.

Pakistan Update

I'll leave this one to the experts over at the PCR project who have been doing good work on this for some time.  I'm planning to make their Monday event and will throw in my two cents with a summary then.

• They recommend a policy blog: http://www.pakistanpolicy.org/
• A piece by Amb. Teresita  Schaffer that as I read it argues that President Musharraf's is shifting from soft to hard authoritarianism but that he may well not be in power for long.  This runs contrary to advice from Gen. Zinni who wrote an article called "Stand by our Man in Pakistan." Not surprisingly, I'm going to back the ambassador on this one.  We should first and foremost stand by the Pakistanis.
• They specifically recommend the reporting of Salman Masood who reports for the NY Times from Islamabad for those that want to learn more (he also gets an endorsement from a local reporter in comments).

My main takeaway from all this is that the U.S. will probably be playing a secondary role, if any, in determining the outcome.  We probably will influence how much staying power Musharraf thinks he has.  Our actions will probably mainly influence will probably be over how we are perceived by the Pakistani people.