Pakistan Paradox

Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy offers some suggestions to the next President of the United States on how to address “the Pakistan paradox” (TNR). There are multiple layers of irony. It is no secret that Pakistani authorities often turned a blind eye to Taliban activity in the country’s border areas, namely the Waziristan region. Musharraf attempted to hedge his bets with conservative religious parties in these areas while cooperating the US and Nato allies. But the second twist is that the Awami National Party (ANP), which replaced Musharraf’s government in the last election, does not sympathize with al-Qaeda, opposing talks with the international terrorist organization. Rather, the ANP favours talking with local tribes.

So what is Ross’ advice?

One thing is for sure: There has been a change in Pakistan, and it is being driven by those who are emphasizing democratic processes and the rule of law. We should be on the right side of this. What's more, we have little choice. Pakistanis are moving in a direction that we cannot stop but should try to channel. That is common sense and good statecraft.

But as the Pakistanis make their decisions, they should also know that we have interests and stakes and will not be indifferent to what they do. Surely, for their own interests, they don't want those who employ terror and who are responsible for killing Benazir Bhutto to further entrench themselves. Separating the tribal groups from Al Qaeda and the Taliban is a strategy that could work if orchestrated effectively.

To be sure, the new Pakistani leadership might be tempted to cut a deal with Al Qaeda and the Taliban that would see them stop their attacks in Pakistan by permitting them to operate and plan attacks at our expense. We need to prevent that, and we probably can, if we are clear about our interests and needs. We should say that we will help provide financial and other means for their new strategy, assuming it is transparent. We should also repeat what Senator Barack Obama said last summer: If we get actionable intelligence about terror acts being prepared in these provinces of Pakistan and the Pakistanis won't act, we will.

Yoo’s Infamous Memoranda: a legal rubber-stamp for a political agenda

John Yoo’s infamous 2003 memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel at the US DOJ to the Pentagon has been declassified. In it, Yoo argues that certain federal laws do not apply to military interrogators in the war on terror. The Washington Post has divided it up into two parts:
Part 1 and Part 2.

I do not hold a degree from Harvard or Yale and I do not teach law at the University of California at Berkley. However, in my humble opinion, I think that Jack Goldsmith, who replaced Yoo, hit the nail on the head. This memo, along with its 2002 predecessor, stands out for “the unusual lack of care and sobriety in [the] legal analysis.” And this says nothing about the disastrous implications of these memoranda.

On that note, Scott Horton rightly questions the circumstances surrounding the “torture memoranda” (Harper’s). It appears that the OLC served as a rubber-stamp for the political agenda of the White House, namely Dick Cheney, and Rumsfeld’s lawyer, William J. (“Jim”) Haynes II. But more importantly, the memoranda offset the pushback coming from the more sober minded military officials (The New Yorkers).

Aside from the deplorable issue of torture itself, the bizarre relationship between the OLC and the White House demonstrates for a second time that the Bush administration is willing to use and has used the US DOJ as a political instrument. The first instance, off the top of my mind, was the DOJ firing scandal.

What happened to the rule of law?

N.B.: In speaking to Esquire magazine, Yoo attempts to minimize the impact of his legal opinions (via TPM Muckraker)

Al-Jazeera’s Anti-American Bias

According to the Associated Press, Dave Marash, former “Nightline” reporter, quit al-Jazeera “due in part to an anti-American bias”, which apparently stems “more from British administrators than Arabs” (IHT). Marash said that there was a “reflexive adversarial editorial stance” against Americans, which he found “became so stereotypical, so reflexive” that he got angry. He was the last American-accented anchor at the network, and supposedly more Canadians than Americans work at the Washington office.

Goofy Op-Ed Against Canada’s Recognition of Kosovo’s Independence

Scott Taylor argues that Canada should come to its senses, and withdraw its recognition of Kosovo’s independence (Embassy).

While I am more than willing to recognize well thought-out and articulate arguments against such recognition of independence, Taylor’s op-ed falls well short of the mark.

1) He insinuates that the Canadian government placates the Americans, regardless of the merits:

Canada sat on the fence for 30 days, but finally caved in to pressure from the U.S. State Department. So other than once again placating the Americans, what exactly has Canada achieved through this formal recognition of independence?

Let's start by taking the emotional issues off the table and examining the background.

Worse yet, the subsequent appeal to logic directly contradicts the preceding emotional jab at the U.S., ironically suggesting that his appeal to reason is insincere.

2) Taylor’s agreement that Quebec’s situation differs from Kosovo’s is seemingly disingenuous too. He makes the case that Kosovo remains dependent on foreign aid, which is true, while “Quebec is already far more independent than Kosovo can be”. The implication is that Quebec has more of an argument for separation than Kosovo regardless of recent history, genocide and oppression in the Balkans. As I’ve said before, here and here, this context makes a great deal of difference.

3) Finally, the author suggests that the true Kosovo flag resembles Albania’s, and not the “American-designed” flag. Presumably, Taylor thinks that the Kosovo flag should incorporate the eagle reflecting the prominence of ethnic Albanian Kosovars. However, I’m not quite sure why he felt compelled to add “American-designed” in order to make the point instead of stating it outright. I’m also curious why he fails to recognize the intent of Kosovo’s officials, namely Fadil Hysa, who said “We will not have the flag of any other country” (CSM).

Remarkable Speech

Barack Obama's speech on race earlier this week stands out as nothing short of remarkable.



Full Text (NYT)

Happy Easter / Joyeuses Pâques

Have a good long weekend.

Canadian Foreign Policy Q&A

David Eaves draws attention to tomorrow’s Q&A at the Globe & Mail regarding Canadian foreign policy. As some background, here are the participants’ written opinions: Lloyd Axworthy, Jack Granastein and Eaves (G&M).

I find it remarkable how preoccupied our foreign policy discussions are with the United States. In the op-eds, Axworthy indulges in some Bush bashing, while Granastein takes a generally warmer approach to the southern neighbor. However, Eaves notably attempts to identify Canadian goals without the need to compare or contrast them to American foreign policy.

Clinton & Obama: Their Legislative Records

It seems like common sense to refer to a presidential candidate’s prior record in an effort to see how that person may govern once in power. Obviously, one cannot know for sure, as circumstances change. Past experience may nevertheless inform and identify philosophical leanings, tendencies and one’s general modus operandi.

Accordingly, a qualitative as opposed to a quantitative examination of the candidates’ records should prove useful. Hilzoy, at Obsidian Wings, offers such an analysis in a well-researched series of posts on Clinton’s and Obama’s respective legislative records. As early as 24 Oct 2006, Hilzoy observes Obama’s MO of cooperation and conciliation. But more to the point, the candidate apparently knows “the way to a wonk’s heart” on a number of topics, including but not limited to: nuclear nonproliferation, avian flu, the regulation of genetic testing and reducing medical malpractice suits. Last week, Hilzoy listed the the bills and amendments that each candidate sponsored, along with those that they cosponsored. Please note not only the number of bills and amendments but also their significance.

Declaration of Independence

As expected, Kosovo declares independence (NYT)

UPDATE: Chris Borgen has more (Opinio Juris).

UPDATE: Elena Baylis ponders the sui generis argument (Intlawgrrls).

Healthcare Frustration

Personally, I do not share the seemingly mythic popular view of Canada’s health care system(s). While I wholeheartedly support universal healthcare, I realize that there are a number of ways to achieve this goal.

In this light, I sympathize with Lorne Gunter’s frustration as governments reject healthcare solutions, including that of the Kawacatoose First Nation (NP). There’s obviously a problem when hubris, stubbornness and/or ideology get in the way of common sense.

Of Interest

• The editors of Small Wars Journal review Frank Hoffman’s recent work, “Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars” (Potomac Institute):

…[I]t is too simplistic to merely classify conflict as “Big and Conventional” versus “Small or Irregular.” Today’s enemies, and tomorrow’s, will employ combinations of warfare types.

• Ramesh Thakur argues in favour of R2P (Ottawa Citizen).

Contrary to my own personal beliefs, I offered a counter-argument during the Great Canadian Debate.

• Both Ximena Ortiz and Michael Crowley articulate how the Clintons and the Republicans grossly mischaracterize Barack Obama’s foreign policies and previous stances even if they are not impenetrable to legitimate criticism (National Interest and TNR).

• Thomas Walkom discusses Canadian security certificates, and in a letter to the editor, Matthew Behrens argues that “Canada’s hands are dirty” in the use of evidence obtained by torture (Toronto Star).

• The Conservatives attempt to manipulate the Senate, using the crime bill as election bait (Toronto Star).

• Dan Gardner has an interesting take on hate speech (Ottawa Citizen).

Tolerating Torture

I readily admit that I have not evenly covered the presidential nomination races of both parties. I’ve directed most my attention toward the Democratic primaries. However, I the Republican front runner deserves consideration too.

Personally, I have long respected John McCain’s persona as a war hero and a straight-talking maverick who acts on principle over personal advancement. But I’m rather disappointed McCain’s opaque explanation for why he failed to endorse the Conference Committee’s intelligence authorization bill, which Congress narrowly scuttled yesterday.

Professor Marty Lederman duly acknowledges McCain’s statement on the matter, and reproduces it in its entirety. The problem, as Lederman points out, is that McCain’s stance enables the CIA to continue with its “enhanced interrogation techniques”, including those which he himself opposes (Balkinization). Section 327 (ie, the Feinstein Amendment) limits ALL government agencies to the use of interrogation techniques found in the Army Field Manual 2-22.3. While McCain is expressly against waterboarding, only one of many dubious interrogation methods, he does not explain which techniques the CIA should be allowed to use that the military cannot, or whether those techniques are found on the dubious list of “enhanced interrogation techniques”.

It is worth noting that the current administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” are ILLEGAL under both American and international law.

Andrew Sullivan, an “Obamacan” (ie, a Republican who supports Barack Obama), is “heartbroken”. Sullivan writes: “As president himself, of course, McCain would surely instruct the CIA to uphold the American way of interrogation, and not to adopt techniques once used by the Gestapo and prosecuted by the US as war crimes. But we now know that there will be one difference between Obama and McCain in November. One will never tolerate torture; the other just did.”

As a Christian, this is a big issue for me, and I previously took it for granted that all the current presidential candidates were on the same page. Clinton and Obama both endorsed the bill, and it was McCain and Colin Powell who vehemently challenged John Yoo, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales with respect to torture. Why is it so difficult to wrap up this perverse debate?

Reality Sets In

1) President Hugo Chávez meets increasing resistance as reality sets in about his socialist utopia (NYT).

2) Last week, the Washington Post reported that the al-Qaeda leadership “is telling its followers to soften their tactics in order to regain popular support” in Iraq. To be sure, it must be difficult to win ‘hearts and minds’ in the face of such brutality.

3) Residents in “Tribal Pakistan” (ie, the Baluchistan Province along the Afghan border) find that religious parties are not all they’re cracked up to be. Faiz Muhammad says, “They did not serve the people” (NYT).

Of Interest

• Hamas’ Brief PR Coup: Dennis Ross, Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute, offers suggestions on what the US should do in the wake of Hamas’s brief public relations coup by destroying part of the border fence between Egypt and Gaza (TNR).

• Racial Tightrope: Jeff Zeleny and Kitty Bennet examine Barack Obama’s navigation of the a racial tightrope before his canmpaign (NYT).

• Anticipating Republican Attack Campaigns: Eugene Robinson mocks people who are “dreaming up dilemmas” and fantasizing about ‘the Republican smear machine’ (WaPo).

• French Support for Chad: Both Le Monde’s editorial board and Jean-François Bayart articulate their displeasure with Paris’ s diplomatic and military support for Idriss Déby (in French).

Afghanistan: Home Front Frustration

I increasingly grow frustrated with the mission in Afghanistan for a number of reasons. The U.S. continues bumbling with its misguided policies (eg, poppy eradication), and finds itself distracted and mired in Iraq. Deadbeat NATO allies continue to shunt their international responsibilities. The Afghan leadership prefers to jettison candid analysis and strategy (FT) as the country’s government struggles to hold itself together (Carolyn O’Hara). And the Canada’s fence sitting on the home front proves problematic.

Canada’s half-hearted approach has led to some rather embarrassing situations. Notably, the country’s leadership decided to hand detainees over to Afghan authorities and to pretend that they would receive better care than they would with the Americans. Instead of challenging the US or creating another detention regime, Canadian leadership opted for the passive route, careful not to disturb sensibilities at home vis-à-vis the US and not to ruffle any American feathers. *A truly principled stand.*

As Canadians grow restless with the mission’s direction, the Conservatives and Liberals begin to hash out a deal (Toronto Star). In trying to understand the nature of the tension at home, David Eaves wonders if it relates to Canadian mythology surrounding peacekeeping and peacebuilding. Are Canadian expectations out of sync with today’s reality?

Although I’m inclined to agree with Eaves, there’s more to it than that. I’ll use a personal anecdote to illustrate the point:

In the middle of a fairly heated debate with a colleague, I suddenly realized that I failed to grasp the fundamental reasoning for why he objected to the mission in Afghanistan. (N.B.: For the sake of anonymity, I’ll call my friend, “M”. No pun intended.) “M” spoke to a number of failings in Afghanistan, but remained vague as to why Canada should pull out, as if the failings themselves sufficed. He never expressly made a link between those shortcomings and why he felt that Canadian troops should leave.

While I obviously cannot engage in a word-for-word assessment, I came away with the same ambiguous impression with M as I get in listening to Jack Layton of the NDP. Despite earlier voicing concerns that the mission was unbalanced (CTV) and that Canada was merely following the Bush administration, Layton ultimately feels that it’s futile (Toronto Star).

Two issues stand out. First, Layton’s play with the literal meaning and general impression of such words is quite remarkable. For example, his criticism of following the Bush administration too closely is easily seen as legitimate. However, the general impression of such an assertion creates a tacit connection of Afghanistan to Iraq.

Second, the mission’s so-called futility becomes a justification for withdrawal, disregarding its consequences. This analysis is as horribly incomplete as it is morally irresponsible. I find it ironic that that a realist, Lee Kuan Yew sums up the position well (United Press International):

The United States, said this key player in every major Asian event for almost half a century, "should realize Afghanistan cannot succeed as a democracy. You attempted too much. Let the warlords sort it out in such a way you don't try to build a new state. The British tried and failed. Just make clear if they commit aggression again and offer safe haven to Taliban, they will be punished."

(Hat Tip Blake Hounshell)

A Novel Solution For Campaign Finance Reform

Ian Ayres and Bruce Ackerman present a seemingly novel and persuasive proposal on the issue of campaign finance (Freakonomics). Ayres and Ackerman suggest less transparency, not more. They use the basic concept of the secret ballot as their model, where the identities of donors are kept secret from political candidates. They have a recent piece in the Guardian advocating the “secret-donation booth”.

Canadians might like to consider this option in light of our own issues with lobbyists and the relative failings of the registry system (Democracy Watch).

Globalizing Sport

The Brits have reservations about internationalizing Premier League ‘football’ (aka, soccer) (Guardian).

Notionally, globalizing sport may prove to be a constructive endeavour – economically by broadening the fan base and making the game more accessible to new fans – and diplomatically by exposing aspects of one’s country to other areas of the world. There are obviously pragmatic hurdles, which may or may not make good business sense. But I think that casually dismissing the idea would constitute a mistake, notably for failing to even consider a potential opportunity.

Incidentally, I find the second line of reasoning compelling in promoting amateur sport, namely the Olympics. These sporting events serve as a rare opportunity to present one’s country to the rest of the world. I believe that Canadians should keep this in mind when it comes to the dismal funding of our athletes. To casually dismiss the idea by suggesting such funding will come at the expense of health care is short-sighted and sloppy.

Of Interest

1) The Guardian reports:

The Archbishop of Canterbury prompted controversy today when he said the introduction of sharia law for British Muslims was "unavoidable".

I’ve often marveled at how English common law allows for diversity and pragmatism. For example, Canadian law allows room for aboriginal rights and title, which might otherwise prove problematic in a rigid Romanist civil law tradition. However, my gut reaction is to hesitate at the idea of incorporating religious law. One central question in my mind is whether the inclusion of sharia law is analogous to that of talmudic law in the UK. Andrew Brown remains skeptical (Guardian).

2) Bob Thompson writes about Harvard historian, Drew Faust, in “challenging history” (WaPo).

I wish we paid more attention to good historians. I get the sad impression that folks give too much credence to academics with a questionable grip on historical analysis (eg, Chomsky).

3) Opinio Juris is holding a fascinating discussion on God & Gold. From the academic dialogue, Walter Russell Mead’s new book appears to be an intriguing read and world-view.

A French Problem: Déby

Philippe Hugon criticizes “indirect, but decisive” French support for the Déby regime (Le Monde). Obviously, enabling abusive strongmen has been an ugly part of European foreign policy too.

Obama Central

I’ve been struggling to make sense of last night’s results. At the end of Super Tuesday, the Democratic primary race is at a dead heat, with enough room for both the Clinton and Obama campaigns to spin it as a victory. The pundits, politicos and pollsters seem to sway back-n-forth giving the edge to either candidate depending on a variety of factors, including their own biases (lest we forget). Similarly, my posts, here, at the Colby File resemble something akin to ‘Obama Central’, although I’m not alone (eg, Matthew Yglesias, Andrew Sullivan and Taylor Owen).

Clinton won at least 8 states, including big prizes – NY, MA and CA. Obama won the majority of states – no less than 13. However, with the number of delegates still outstanding, it remains unclear as to with whom the advantage resides. For the moment, some networks believe that Obama “will wind up with” more – “840 to 849 versus 829 to 838 for Clinton” (Politico).

In moving forward, Noam Scheiber thinks that the future favours Obama and here’s why (TNR):

The next round of contests, slated for Saturday, includes Lousiana, Washington state, Nebraska, and the Virgin Islands. Lousiana is going to be nearly 50 percent African American, Nebraska and Washington are caucuses, which Obama dominated tonight, and the Virgin Islands are the Virgin Islands. (Though, if I must, I think people give Obama the advantage there for demographic reasons, too.) The next day is Maine, also a caucus, and then one week from last night is Virginia, Maryland, DC--all expectated to favor Obama demographically. The Tuesday after that brings Hawaii--Obama's native state--and Wisconsin, which should also be friendly territory for Obama.

And then we wait two weeks and throw-down in Texas and Ohio, at which point a lot of people think this competition could end. (Rhode Island and Vermont also go that day.) Between the Latinos in Texas and Hillary's establishment support in Ohio, those will almost certainly be her firewall states. On the other hand, Obama is going to have two weeks to focus on those two states alone. Between his near-certain money advantage, the momentum he'll pick up from the intervening contests, and the fact that he tends to do pretty well in states where he has time to campaign, I think you have to give him the overall edge going forward.

NRO writer and conservative, David Frum, makes two interesting points:

(1)

The economically anxious are voting for Clinton; the economically secure prefer Obama. When Obamaniacs urge Americans to vote their hopes, not their fears, they are overlooking the rather important fact that the Democratic base is made up of a lot of people with a lot of fears.

(2)

Meanwhile, here's a funny bit of gossip: On the Hillary Clinton plane, Sidney Blumenthal has been telling reporters that Obama will be vulnerable to the Republican attack machine because of his past association with left-wing causes, including his membership in an Afrocentric church. Skill-testing question: If you worked for the Republican attack machine, which would you put to better use: some sermons by a pastor nobody has ever heard of? Or a $31 million payoff by a shadowy mining promoter to the husband of the Democratic nominee?

Hillary Clinton has a lot going for her as a candidate - above all, the widespread memory of her husband's administration as a more prosperous time for middle-income and lower-income workers. But as a target of attack ads, she remains as ever the biggest, roundest bulls-eye in American politics.

With respect to the first point, I haven’t yet seen any polls or surveys as to the respective income of voting groups to support Frum’s contention. Even though, fromCNN’s coverage last night, this argument seems to be part of the ‘conventional wisdom’, I’ll take it with a dash of skepticism until I see such a poll/survey/etc.

On the second point, the fear that Obama will somehow be more vulnerable to ‘the Republican smear machine’ than Hillary seems to defy evidence to the contrary. The name Clinton has the remarkable ability to rally the Republican base and polarize the US. The same cannot be said for Obama. Besides, Hillary has a lot of baggage, especially her hubby, with which she must contend.

Essentially, I just don’t buy into the notion that “[b]etter the devil you know than the diffident debutante you don’t” (NYT). It’s one thing to proceed with caution in the face of the unknown, and quite another for it to justify paralysis.

As for that pesky ‘experience argument’ that keeps rearing its ugly head, I stand perplexed when I actually compare the records of Clinton and Obama. From another perspective, Andrew Sullivan examines Obama’s executive acumen in running a campaign, finding much to admire. Sadly, however, memes are hard to kill, especially when sound-bites replace good judgment and attention to detail in today’s news media.

UPDATE:

Note the problems with excessive "fandom" (TPM).

(Hat Tip Andrew Sullivan)