Worst Case Scenario: Pre-emptive attack on Iran makes no sense

This editorial appeared in the Sacramento Bee on Tuesday, April 11th, 2006. It summarized my sentiments about the brewing Iran situation.

Is the United States planning to use military force against Iran in the hope of preventing it from developing a nuclear arsenal? The idea seems absurd on its face, given the price Americans have already paid in Iraq and the likelihood that a new war would only worsen a bad situation in the Middle East.

Yet both the Washington Post and Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker, report that the Bush administration is studying military options. Hersh also says that using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities is being considered.

There are so many reasons why attacking Iran is premature at best that it's hard to believe the administration would go beyond having a contingency plan for a worst-case scenario. But some analysts believe it would.

It would be reckless to use military force barring evidence of a greater threat than is now apparent. While Iran continues to defy international demands to stop enriching uranium (now President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims they have enriched enough uranium to power a small nuclear reactor), widespread fears that it plans to build nuclear weapons, while well grounded, do not justify pre-emptive war.

President Bush says he still favors diplomacy and calls the media reports "wild speculation." One must hope that's true. Iran is a more formidable adversary than Iraq was. It could unleash terrorist groups in Iraq and in the Palestinian territories; it could cut off oil exports and block the Strait of Hormuz to other Persian Gulf countries' exports, sending already high oil prices soaring; its hard-line regime could use a U.S. attack to stir up nationalist sentiment and crack down on domestic reformist elements; and while bombing Iran's nuclear plants might set back its presumed weapons program, such a strike would be unlikely to end it if Iranian leaders are as determined as U.S. leaders believe them to be.

By attacking, the United States would assume a burden that would be very costly in every sense, provoking political turmoil in an election year. It might also deal a serious blow to relations with America's principal ally, Britain, whose foreign secretary says a military attack against Iran would be "completely nuts."

Some critics say they believe Bush and key aides, despite the setbacks in Iraq and the resurgence of anti-Western forces in Afghanistan, remain in a state of denial. They cite a recent administration National Security Strategy document, for example, that calls Iran the most serious threat to U.S. security. Against that, one must hope that the president, as he says, remains committed to a diplomatic course. Indeed, it's conceivable that the stories were generated by dissident Pentagon and other officials seeking to put the White House on the defensive.

A diplomatic solution to the clash of wills over Iran's nuclear program will not be easy. Russia and China, who have veto power in the United Nations Security Council, strongly oppose both the use of force and tough sanctions against Tehran.

Still, the worst thing the United States could do now is to launch another war of choice that is likely to worsen, not improve, U.S. security and standing in the world. Military contingency plans are a prudent option. But going beyond that in the absence of a clear and present danger would compound mistakes already made, inflame opposition to Bush at home and possibly destroy what's left of the coalition of the willing mustered against Iraq.

Technorati Tags:

Iran

Coming to Public Judgment on Illegal Immigration

At a time when there is public outcry for a serious debate on the issue of illegal immigration, the problem in holding a thoughtful discussion on the issue is that it is so complex, so multi-faceted, can be framed from so many different angles, that it becomes muddled from the very beginning of the conversation. Couple the discussion with a partisan debate and it becomes even murkier.

In Daniel Yankelovich’s landmark book, Coming to Public Judgment, he discusses that democracy can work only if people have wrestled with the issue inside and out. In this immigration debate, the American public has not yet solidified a national consensus needed to cope with this issue. In a sentence: The American public has still yet to achieve public judgment. While I believe that most people understand the context of the issue, most have still yet to fully comprehend the consequences of their opinions. This stems either from not fully knowing the implications of their opinions or from their inability to reconcile their values.

Coming to public judgment is a normative process. Yankelovich defines “public judgment” as

“[P]ublic opinion that exhibits (1) more thoughtfulness, more weighing of alternatives, more genuine engagement with the issue, more taking into account a wide variety of factors than ordinary public opinion as measured in opinion polls and (2) more emphasis on the normative, valuing, ethical side of questions than on the factual, informative side.”

While I admit that I still have yet to come to public judgment, it is evident as I listen to NPR and other radio talk shows that I am not alone: the American public is also presently struggling with this process.

With this definition in mind, solidifying public judgment on the issue of illegal immigration can only be determined by the values one holds and weighing the consequences to these questions:

• Have immigrants who have crossed the border illegally broken the law?
• If they broke the law, what is a fair and just punishment?
• Do their actions warrant deportation?
• Are there alternatives to deportation?
• Are they deserving of the American dream?
• Do they benefit the economy by working in jobs that Americans are not willing to supply?
• Do they hurt the economy and burden the American taxpayer by receiving government assistance?
• Do they pay taxes?
• Are they law-abiding people?

In thinking about these questions, coming to public judgment means reconciling one’s values. One has to mull over and carefully weigh the values of freedom, justice, equal opportunity, compassion, and integrity when considering these questions.

Since there is no formal mechanism to measure public judgment, we hold our elected officials accountable to provide a solution consistent with the nation’s public demand. It is evident that the proposal offered by Senate Judiciary Committee carefully considered the questions above and offered this happy medium. The provision states:

"Under the McCain-Kennedy plan for the 12 million undocumented workers already in the United States, [these immigrants] can apply for temporary status for six years, must demonstrate past work history, pay a 2 thousand dollar fine, undergo rigorous background and security checks, learn English and American civics, make good on back taxes, and satisfy additional criteria. Then if they wait until everyone already waiting their turn is processed through system they can apply for a green card. It is not amnesty, as opponents of the measure contend; rather it would give immigrants an incentive to come forward and an opportunity to earn legal status."

The same process of introspection applies when considering this proposal.

• In your opinion, do you believe that this proposal could be classified as amnesty?
• Is the two-thousand dollar fine and other conditions adequate punishment?
• What are the implications of this proposal?
• Will this encourage or deter illegal immigration?
  

According to Yankelovich, if one understands what is at stake, does not waver in opinion and achieves consistency within an issue, then one can declare that he or she has achieved public judgment. Only when we have reconciled our values and in thinking and re-thinking our perspectives on an issue will we be able actively advance the democratic process, confident that in the end that we will make sound policy.

___________________

Recommended Reading

Daniel Yankelovich, Coming to Public Judgment. New York: Syracuse UniversityPress: New York, 1991.

Technorati Tags:

Immigration

The Proper Way

I am proud to say that I am one of millions of naturalized American citizens today, who not being born in this country have adopted this great country as my own. My father immigrated to this country legally and had to go through the long and extensive process of acquiring a working visa. When he finally arrived, he immediately petitioned my mother and me to join him. After a few months, we were reunited as a family. My parents today, I am proud to say, are also naturalized citizens.

It bothers me to hear when immigrants illegally enter the country. I am of the opinion that it short changes the American dream. Since more than half of undocumented immigrants come from Mexico, it is important to examine their motivations in coming to this country illegally. Most Mexican undocumented immigrants when asked why they came into the United States often justify their actions because they believe they had no other choice. Their responses would oftentimes mention their economic plights--there are no jobs in Mexico, no opportunities--and therefore had to leave because their families were starving. So they cross the border (illegally), hero-like, risking their very lives to enter this country to find better opportunities. But, unlike the Chinese a century ago who would go back to their home country after accumulating some wealth, Mexican undocumented immigrants, without an ocean to deter them, refuse to go back, and instead bring their families illegally into the United States.

The point here is that the root cause of this problem lies not in the United States but with the Mexican government. President Bush understands that this is President Fox’s problem. The Mexican government has failed to provide adequate social and economic opportunities for the Mexican people. It is important to bear in mind that the Mexican people do have a choice: they could go to their families for assistance first, then the church, and as a final resort, their government for help. But they opt out of these options and decide to illegally enter the United States.

My gripe with this matter is the simple fact that there is a right way and wrong way to enter this country. By stepping into this country illegally, undocumented immigrants have already broken the law, and that in my opinion, should not be tolerated by any legal immigrant or naturalized citizen who themselves sacrificed to enter this country the legal, right and proper way.

Technorati Tags:

Immigration

A Sophisticated Enemy

It’s difficult to gauge the mental state of Osama Bin Laden. Is he, as the president claims, actually on the run, or is he in his natural element planning his next attack, waiting for the right time to exploit the vulnerabilities that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has still yet to address?

Two things remain sure. Bin Laden remains defiant as he declares to the world today that he will not be taken alive (as broadcasted by a militant website), and his operatives continue to survey our country’s most susceptible targets.

Prior to 9/11, the intelligence community knew the gravity of the threat al-Qaeda posed to the country but failed to convince Washington policymakers to share the same sentiment. The 9/11 Report informed us that Clinton's Defense Secretary, William Cohen and Joint Chiefs of Staff head General Hugh Shelton took al-Qaeda lightly. When a cruise missile retaliation against al-Qaeda for the embassy bombings in Africa was proposed, both Cohen and Shelton dismissed the proposal believing it was a waste of million-dollar weapons to hit only “jungle gym” equipment, to use Shelton's words.

Since then, policymakers, with the creation of DHS, are finally getting on the same page with intelligence officials. As for the American public, I fear that four and a half years of calm since 9/11 have made us less cognizant of al-Qaeda—their sophistication and capabilities. Below, I outline some misconceptions that I hope will give the reader a better understanding of who our enemies truly are and what they are capable of doing.

Al-Qaeda suicide bombers are uneducated and come from poor economic backgrounds.

Untrue. In fact, most of the suicide bombers that carried out the attacks on 9/11 came from well-to-do families who were then radicalized by extreme Islamic clerics to adopt anti-western sentiments. For example, the head of the Hamburg contingent, Mohammad Atta, who flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the World trade Center, was an Egyptian who grew up in a middle-class family and received a degree in architectural engineering. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, came from a religious family from Kuwait and was educated in the United States.

Al-Qaeda operatives are immigrants.

False. In fact there is a growing trend that al-Qaeda operatives are recruiting more and more U.S. citizens, primarily in prisons where criminals are being exposed to radical Islam. An example is Jose Padilla. A U.S. citizen born in Puerto Rico, Padilla converted to Islam after his last jail sentence and was radicalized by al-Qaeda operatives shortly after his release.

Al-Qaeda is an unsophisticated enemy.

Nothing could be more false. The 9/11 attacks proved that al-Qaeda was sophisticated enough to use technology such as the Internet and cell phones to advance communiqués. We learned that al-Qaeda was thorough in their planning and surveillance, capable of forging passports and other sensitive documents. According to a high ranking DHS official, al-Qaeda uses similar assessments used by DHS to determine how they could exploit potential targets.

In order for ordinary Americans to remain vigilant, it is important to understand who the enemy is, how they think and operate. Today they continue to plan and conduct surveillances in the United States as evidenced by the father and son tandem of Umer and Hamid Hayet (the former is a U.S. citizen) who were arrested by the FBI in Lodi, California accused of conducting terrorist (jihadist) activity. According to a high ranking DHS official, the Hayets are not an exception. In fact, we know that terror cells continue to operate in our country and they know where our vulnerabilities lie. A camera tape DHS recently recovered showed a wide angle shot of the Hollywood sign which then zoomed to a vital communications tower directly behind it. This is evidence enough to show that terrorists know our weaknesses.

Bin Laden makes no secret that he defeated the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan by draining blood and treasure. Today, he attempts to do the same with our country. In the end, it is important that the American people recognize al-Qaeda as a sophisticated and confident enemy that should not be underestimated. I hope this post serves as a reminder that we, as citizens, should continue to remain vigilant; aware of our surroundings and keen to report any suspicious activity. It is in this confidence and trust that we find in each other that will help to keep our country secure.

Technorati Tags:

Al-Qaeda
Osama Bin Laden

A Paradoxical World

At a time when eighty nations compete in the winter Olympic Games in Torino, Italy, as a symbol of global unity, political intrigue, terrorism, and intolerance dominate the world’s headlines.

We live in a paradoxical world, you and me. We say we value liberty, and then use it to mock our enemies (Danish newspapers satirizing the Prophet Mohammad).

We say we love freedom, and then use force to promote it (Operation Iraqi Freedom).

We say we use justice and the rule of law as our standards, and then exercise torture and secrecy (Abu Grahib and CIA “rendition”).

We promote free elections, and then fail to recognize and support the winning, majoritarian party (Hamas).

We say we want to secure peace, and then use war to justify pre-emption (Iraq).

We claim that our military operates by rules of engagement that attempts to prevent harming the innocent, and then we drop smart bombs that kill more innocent people than our enemies (CIA operation to bomb our enemies in Pakistan).

Can we truly say we represent the best of what democracy has to offer?

It is not a surprise to me why al-Qaeda and our other enemies despise us. While we continue to have the audacity to tell our enemies to change, we have lost our credibility by having failed to abide by our own principles and standards. It is time for Washington to step down from its pedestal and re-examine and re-evaluate its actions. This scripture comes to mind:

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)

Technorati Tags:

Iraq
Values

Holding the Danish Media Accountable

Like many of our freedom-loving, devout Muslim brothers and sisters, I was appalled to hear about the Danish newspapers’ decision to continue to publish degrading cartoons that satirized the Prophet Mohammad and then hide under the protection of “free speech.”

In the West, we have grown accustomed to making fun of people. It is embedded in our cultural mainstream. From political cartoons to late-night comedy shows, one only has to turn on the television to see political figures and famous movie stars being ridiculed left and right. We have become a society of thick-skinned people anesthetized to being mocked.

It is this cultural trait which the East does not fully understand. They are offended when someone or some group ridicules their culture. The Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad were not at all funny to them, as evidenced by their outrage.

So where am I going with all this? While our culture has accepted ridicule and satire as a norm, I personally don’t condone it. It’s demeaning, debasing and simply plain wrong. As a Christian, I don’t want Jesus Christ ridiculed, but it has happened. Muslim rioters around the world should understand that they have not been the only victims. How many times have Jews been ridiculed, or Sikhs, or Buddhists? The fact is we’ve all been derided at one time or another.

One of my graduate school professors devotes his life to the pursuit of “the search for reasonableness and human dignity under constitutional law.” The problem with free speech is that it has no mechanism for accountability. The issue here is not about curtailing free speech or even the protection of liberty, as critics like Michelle Malkin would argue. The Danish newspapers continue to publish because they want to attract worldwide readership through this sensationalism. It serves no other basis than to sensationalize and humiliate, brining forth a new type of journalistic jingoism. I mean, how many times have you read Danish newspapers before this issue was brought to light?

The solution lies in holding the media more accountable for their actions. Editors need a standard. The real issue is not about protecting liberty but the ethical use of liberty. I suggest, as my professor would also suggest, that the media consider reasonableness and human dignity as a criterion when deciding what and what not to publish.

At a time when we want to reach out to our Muslim brothers and sisters, to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, to build shared meaning within the Muslim world, these cartoons have only stirred the flames of hatred even more, making a mockery of free speech. We should rather be focusing on promoting the best of what democratic core values has to offer: that of respect and human dignity.

Technorati Tags:

Denmark
Cartoons

A Mid-Morning Rant

I asked my wife what her opinion of the Danish comics was. She sat down and wrote this reply.

"People have been talking left and right about the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad. Some are furious at the Danish for such mockeries; some angry at Muslims for their public demonstrations of outrage. What neither side sees is a lose-lose situation. This country has been caught in a Catch-22 in which we either bow and scrape to the moral debasement of the media or to the economic influence of the East.

This is not the first time a famous character has been made fun of in print. Just hop on Google and you’ll find comics of any famous character, including religious icons. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, we’ve all had our share in the satire spotlight. Why should Mohammad be any different? The West is a culture of making fun. Otherwise, late-night television would cease to exist and several comics would be out of jobs. We make a living of making fun of others. Modern-day Western society has learned to have a thick skin and take pleasure in being made fun of. This means enough people recognize our names and personalities to make fun of us. So what’s so different about this?

The difference is who’s doing the “insulted” dance. The US is currently walking a very thin line when it comes to relations with the Middle East. Their oil supply is a powerful reason for politicians to smile and talk peace, even while soldiers fight wars in the streets. The East is as intelligent as we are; we just don’t realize it. They are taking this for everything they can. By crying “censorship” and trying to shut down the media machine, they have just broken through what we feel is our greatest privilege and honor – our right to say what we think. It’s a greater blow than any building they could bomb.

On the other hand is that media machine. Why does the media come up with outrageous stories, commercials and shows that scandalize the public? Because people will pay attention to them. It’s a sad but true fact: people find "good" boring. The corrupt, the inept, the insane and the outright stupid get more attention from the paying public than anything else – and the media cashes in on it every day. If you don’t believe me, look at the magazines on the checkout stand or watch primetime TV. Danish media is doing better than ever. Do you think they’re going to stop now that they have world-wide attention? If anything, someone has to think of something new to push the envelope and get attention away from them. The East has been a media darling for years. The Danes simply picked up a new piece of the pie.

So who wins in this nice little stare down? If the East is able to convince the media to censor the comics, what else will be demanded? Will books that slander the prophet be burned? What about songs, art, and the spoken word? Will these be censored too? If so, we have lost everything that free speech stands for. On the other hand, if the media goes untouched, the degradation of the human spirit will be allowed to continue unchecked. The argument of free speech is the same that allows the KKK, Nazis, pornography and all other cancers on the human race to spawn their ideas onto the public mind. Until humanity is willing to cry out with one voice and whole-heartedly refuse and reject such media, it will continue to exist and grow, swollen with money from gossip-greedy consumers."

Technorati Tags:

Denmark
Cartoons

Department of Homeland Security Heeding 9/11 Commission's Recommendations

For those of us who have had the opportunity to read the 9/11 Report, the findings of the Commission were quite startling. Even before September 11th 2001, the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community knew that the chance of an impending, catastrophic attack on U.S. soil was likely.

In fact, a domestic attack had already occurred in 1993 when Ramzi Yousef attempted to unsuccessfully topple the World Trade Center towers with a truck bomb, which injured a thousand Americans, killing six. Next, our humanitarian expedition to Somalia resulted in two black hawk helicopters being shot down by people we now know had links to al Qaeda. Then came August 1998, when our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed killing 224 people. This was followed by the attack on the USS Cole on October 2000 which killed 17 American sailors. These attacks culminated to a crescendo on that fateful day we will never forget on September 11th, 2001.

Those events prompted the creation of the 9/11 Commission to investigate, report, and recommend their findings to the American people to explain in better detail, how and why the attacks happened that day. The purpose of this post is to show how far the Department Homeland Security (DHS) has been able to meet the recommendations as outlined by the 9/11 Commission Report.

The 9/11 Report identified four major areas of concern when it was first published two years ago: (1) the lack of imagination; (2) ineffective policy; (3) limited capabilities and (4) inadequate management by our intelligence community. In short, the Commission illustrated the lack of coordination and information sharing among intelligence agencies, especially between the FBI and CIA. These agencies’ disparate cultures and jurisdictions allowed al Qaeda operatives to slip through the system, giving them the opportunity to plan and execute the attacks. The 9/11 Executive Summary encapsulates the effects of decentralization and lack of coordination best:

“Those working counterterrorism matters did so despite limited intelligence collection and strategic analysis capabilities, a limited capacity to share information both internally and externally, insufficient training, perceived legal barriers to sharing information, and inadequate resources.”

To address the above concerns, the 9/11 Commission outlined the following recommendations to establish a better system to prevent terrorist attacks:

• Target terrorist travel, develop an intelligence and security strategy.
• Design a comprehensive screening system that addresses common problems and sets common standards.
• Determine, with leadership from the president, guidelines for gathering an sharing information in the new security systems that are needed, guidelines that integrate safeguards for privacy and other essential liberties.
• Base federal funding for emergency preparedness solely on risks and vulnerabilities.
• Make homeland security funding contingent on the adoption of an incident command system to strengthen teamwork in a crisis, including a regional approach.

With these recommendations in mind, I had a unique opportunity to recently hear from a high ranking official from DHS speak about the importance of building coordination and cooperation across government agencies and the private sector (For security’s sake, I will keep the official’s name anonymous). From his talk I was able to ascertain whether or not DHS was actually heeding the recommendations set forth by the 9/11 Commission. I discovered that DHS was in fact on track.

This official held the intelligence community’s longstanding culture accountable for the problem of coordination and the ensuing intelligence failures that led up to the attacks on 9/11. Prior to 9/11, the self interests of these agencies drove them to maintain their missions, organizational identities and jurisdictions. As long as these agencies continued to compete for resources and prestige, cooperation and information sharing remained difficult to achieve. So how has DHS been able to improve these management and cultural barriers?

The official recounted the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which followed the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that brought 22 agencies under the same umbrella, as a monumental achievement. "Never has there been a restructuring of federal agencies this massive since the New Deal," the official said. This new department has centralized the intelligence community by creating a system of networks and incentives that allow for interagency cooperation while maintaining a form of decentralization that allows each agency to continue to do what they do best. For example, cooperation is achieved by the expansion of the National Crime Information Center, more commonly known as NCIC. This computerized database of documented criminal justice information is available to virtually every law enforcement and intelligence agency worldwide, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Decentralization is also maintained as each agency continues to perform their assigned tasks, but critical intelligence is passed to DHS intermediaries where analysts attempt to piece the puzzle together through coordination with other agencies.

Homeland security funding is also on the right track, thanks to Michael Chertoff. Funding is now based on risk assessment of critical infrastructure. The Urban Area Security Initiatives (UASI) homeland security grants are now distributed to metropolitan regions rather than individual cities to force cooperation and coordination across jurisdictional lines. To better address coordination for first responders, DHS is currently in the process of completing a National Asset Database (NADB). According to the official, this database will allow first-responders to develop emergency action plans, brining all the strategies and initiatives into one database allowing first-responders to react more quickly and effectively during terrorist attacks. DHS is also critically examining ways to reduce threats by changing critical infrastructure vulnerabilities based on economic and social consequences of potential targets.

According to this official, we are securing our country more effectively as evidenced by al Qaeda’s shift of attacks from hard to softer targets. From the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, to train stations in Madrid and London on 2/11/04 and 7/7/05 respectively, to hotels in Amman on 11/9/05, Jordan. This is a clear indicator that governments around the world are better securing critical infrastructure, making it difficult for terrorists to assualt high-profile targets.

Clearly, DHS is on the right path as it takes the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and turns them into reality. While we may never know of the successes that DHS has had in preventing terrorist attacks, our only guage of their success lies in the fact there has not been an attack since 9/11. This means that the federal government is doing its job in keeping the country secure. However, this does not mean that we ought to relax our guard; rather it calls for more increased vigilance on our part. While DHS continues to move forward in securing our country, it is imperative that we remain vigilant too; our country's safety depends on it.

Technocrati Tags:

Homeland Security
9/11 Report

The Time to Trust Hamas

While Hamas is considered a terrorist group, it did win a plurality (44%) though not a majority of the popular votes in the recent Palestinian elections. While our policy prohibits us from negotiating, or in this case, funding terrorists, it is becoming more apparent that we must make an exception in the case of Hamas.

The irony in this situation, which has probably got a lot of Washington officials scratching their heads, was that in our quest to support democratic elections, the Palestinian people voted in a party we didn’t approve of, the outcome of which had always been a risk in the democratic process. But now that Hamas has legitimately won authority, Washington and its allies must now proceed carefully in its dealings with Hamas.

In this post, I argue that the United States, Europe, the UN and Russia (the Quartet) should trust Hamas. While the Quartet should still be wary of Hamas’ extremist views which call for the dismantling of Israel, it must look forward to the possibility of building a more stable Palestinian government. Ironically, despite the Quartet’s (and the media’s) concerns over Hamas’ victory, Helen Cobban from the Christian Science Monitor argues that it may have brought us closer to peace.

Before I lay out some recommendations, it’s probably wise to give a brief background to explain why Hamas won and Fateh didn’t.

Fateh and the late Yassir Arafat had their chance to resolve their disputes against Israel under the Oslo Peace Accords and the subsequent “road map” to peace. Regrettably, Arafat’s stubbornness and poor leadership that prevented him to control his party led Fateh to ultimately fail in its goal to establish a free and independent Palestinian state. Furthermore, years of corruption and graft instilled by Arafat have only left the Palestinian people in poorer states and the situation with Israel at a standstill.

While Arafat exhausted all his means to stay in power, the Islamic Resistance Movement or Hamas, on the other hand, became a positive social force for all Palestinians. Hamas’ internal discipline allowed them to build hospitals and provide care for ordinary Palestinians. What Fateh couldn’t provide, stability and welfare, Hamas did. Thus, the election last week was not an aberration. The Palestinians believed it was time to change the status quo. They had had enough of the corruption and nepotism of Fateh, and as a result, they elected a new party who they believe would bring about real change.

As the media reports escalated violence between Fateh and Hamas’ respective supporters, it is incumbent upon the international community to intervene. Now that Hamas has legitimized itself as the majority party, it must be able assert itself in the political process. In order to do this, the Quartet must fund Hamas or face the repercussions of a Palestinian civil war.

Washington, while willing to support the secular Fateh, cannot turn its back on Hamas. The fact that Hamas only won 44% of the popular vote means that the party must cooperate with Fateh and other groups to actually get things done. Encouragingly, Ms. Cobban reports that Hamas’ leaders are in favor to form a national unity government, to work closely with President Mahmoud Abbas, and push for a cease-fire with Israel. Therefore, it would be in Washington’s best interest to fund Hamas, to muster all of its diplomatic resources to encourage all the parties involved (primarily Fateh and Hamas) to stop the violence and to take the battle into the political arena. This would be the first step to build a new, more stable and viable Palestinian government; a strong government that may be the key to move the peace process along.

The following are my recommendations that the Quartet should undertake:

1.) Recognize Hamas. The Quartet must eventually recognize Hamas. To not do so would undermine the election process and the will of the Palestinian people. The fact that Hamas only won 44% of the popular vote should reassure Washington that the party might moderate their views as it is forced to cooperate with other parties, including Fateh.

2.) Continue funding. The Quartet cannot afford to take sides between Fateh and Hamas. It must eventually fund all sides (all parties) that have a stake in building a stable and strong Palestinian government.

3.) Support dialogue between all parties, especially Fateh and Hamas. The Quartet should encourage all sides to end the violence and enter into negotiations in the building of a stable Palestinian government.

4.) Persuade Israel to recognize the new Palestinian government. Israel must also recognize Hamas’ victory. While this may remove Abbas as the key negotiator in the peace process, negotiating with a unified and stable Palestinian government is in Israel’s best interest as it will guarantee security during peace talks.

I encourage readers to read Helen Cobban’s article entitled "Hope for a Mideast resolution could grow with Hamas leadership.” There, Ms. Cobban eloquently describes the context of Hamas’ victory and outlines her own recommendations on international intervention.

While most of the media raises questions about Hamas' victory, I share Ms. Cobban’s optimism that it might actually be a step in the right direction. The key for the international community is once again patience and support.

Technocrati Tags:

Hamas

A Sensible Solution to Solving Iran's Nuclear Program Dilemma

After reading George Perkovish's article entitled, "Stopping the Iranian Bomb – Part II" this morning, I discovered that Iran is actually playing a dangerous game of truth or dare with the international community. The two parties involved in deciding whether Iran should tell the truth or force the dare are, of course, the United States and Europe on one side, and the Russians and Chinese on the other.

Iran's present diplomatic strategy is one of effective belligerence in an attempt to test how far the United States and Europe will go before it takes serious action against Tehran. Thus far, this coalition desires Iran to tell the truth about its nuclear intentions, but at present, is wary of the repercussions of the dare (UN sanctions that would ultimately lead to higher gas prices at home and more instability in the region).

On the other hand, Russia and China also want Iran to tell the truth about its nuclear program, as suggested by Russian President Putin's offer to enrich uranium for Iran in Russian territory, but are afraid of choosing the dare (imposing sanctions) as it would force Moscow and Beijing to sever economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran. This would result in Moscow losing a viable weapons buyer and Beijing out of a much needed energy supplier.

For Iran, keeping the other parties guessing its intentions would be its best strategy. In fact, Tehran doesn't want to tell the truth nor does it want the dare. Tehran understands that telling the truth (or disarming) would only play into the hands of the Americans and Europeans, which means abandoning its quest to produce nuclear technology on its own, while accepting the dare (sanctions) would compel its high level government officials to dismiss IAEA inspectors. This act would signal to the international community that Iran had something to hide all along (its intention to actually use nuclear technology for the development of weapons). Furthermore, Iran knows that expelling the IAEA inspectors would isolate it from its empathizers in Russia and China. This would further legitimize sanctions as Russia and China would ally themselves with Europe and the United States in solidifying the UN Security Council's decision to impose sanctions and force Iran to tell the truth. That scenario would pit Tehran against the international community, and that would be a lose-lose situation for President Ahmadinejad and Tehran.

For Tehran, the present strategy is to hold out; pitting both parties against each other to buy more time and leverage to leave the game altogether. In fact, Tehran is presently implementing this strategy as cited by its recent attempts to expose Washington's close ties with Israel, by allowing that country to possess nuclear weapons (though Israel has not formally denied or admitted it has nuclear weapons under the NPT) in an attempt to damage the United States' already battered image around the world while deflecting the issue from Iran's nuclear program to the United States' credibility. In order to maintain the status quo, Iran must also continue to play the role of the victim, as it possesses the right under the NPT to produce nuclear technology for peaceful means. Maintaining this image keeps Russia and China in limbo in their policy towards Iran, which plays very much to President Ahmadinejad's advantage, preventing the international community from taking action.

The international community's game plan to ameliorate this already tenuous situation must be to strengthen the activities of the IAEA (see last post) and build consensus in the UNSC, which means bringing Russia and China into the bandwagon. In order to convince Russia and China, Mr. Perkovish suggests that the UNSC must lay out a specific strategy to make Tehran look like the aggressor and not the victim. By magnifying Tehran's belligerence and showing the world that it is not in step with the international community's demands, Moscow and Beijing would have no choice but join the United States and Europe to exert pressure on Tehran. In fact, Tehran has indirectly helped the international community in this objective. President Ahmadinejad's incendiary remarks have only continued to fuel distrust of the Iranian government, and Tehran's recent refusal over Russia's proposal to enrich uranium in Russian territory has placed Iran's intentions into serious question.

So how does UNSC pursue to diffuse this situation? Mr. Perkovish suggests the following:

"In the coming days, European and US leaders should clarify, when Iran’s nuclear case is sent to the Security Council, that the Council’s demand on Iran be straightforward and non-punitive: Iran should resume suspension of activities related to producing fissile materials as long as the IAEA cannot resolve unanswered questions as to whether Iran’s nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes. To enable the IAEA to do its job, the Council should mandate, under Chapter VII, that Iran satisfy the IAEA’s call for improved and timely access to sites, individuals, and original files.

"The goal is to induce the Iranian public and a core group of leaders to end their country’s isolation and integrate into the international system, and to show that this will happen if Iran foregoes acquiring inherently dual-use nuclear capabilities and ceases supporting organizations that conduct terrorism. To achieve this, Iranians must see that the world is unusually united. A non-punitive Security Council resolution will carry this message better than a sanctions-heavy resolution, infeasible anyway, because Iran’s radicals would rally less resistance to an international community that is acting temperately. If Iran rejects the terms of even a temperate resolution, then China and Russia and other Security Council members would be more willing to ratchet up the pressure. And when the ratchet turns due to Iranian belligerence or unreasonableness, internationalists competing for power in Tehran would have a stronger basis for demanding changes in their government’s course."

Inclusion to the international community and pressure by the UNSC along with the IAEA would bring Iran in line according Mr. Perkovish. If there is one advice I would suggest to diplomats and policymakers dealing with this situation, it would be to not impose sanctions but rather exercise patience. The steps to sanctions are a long one as outlined by BBC's Paul Reynold's article. There are better and more peaceful options as George Perkovich and Pierre Goldschmidt suggest. The international community, however, must be swift to act upon their recommendations.

UN Security Council Needs to Bolster IAEA

I wrote in my last post that one of the major hindrances preventing Iran from being referred to the UN Security Council (UNSC) are both Russia and China's close economic ties to Tehran (Russia in weapons, China in oil). It will be up to EU3 and United States to convince Russia and China that Iran is in fact, attempting to produce nuclear weapons.

Should China and Russia agree to bring Iran in front of the UNSC there is still the possibility that one or both could exercise their veto power preventing sanctions. If Russia or China should decide to exercise this authority, then the present situation in Iran remains in status quo. In other words, the situation doesn’t change. The IAEA would still consider Iran in violation of "non-compliance" under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and hostilities between Tehran and those who are opposed of Iran possessing nuclear capabilities will continue to escalate.

I proposed in my last post that the problem was with the UN and the subsequent divisions among its five permanent members, but after reading Pierre Goldschmidt's short, yet informative article titled, "The Urgent Need to Strengthen the Nuclear Non Proliferation Regime” published in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, I realized that my analysis was broad in scope.

While the solution also concerns the UNSC and the involved cooperation of its five permanent members, Mr. Goldschmidt, who by the way is the former Deputy Director General of the IAEA and head of its Department of Safeguards from 1999 to June 2005, suggests that the problem of nuclear nonproliferation could be solved in more peaceful terms. The solution would be to bolster the activities and effectiveness of the IAEA.

He recommends:

“action by the United Nations (UN) Security Council to adopt a generic binding resolution that would establish three peaceful measures for containing crises when a state is found by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations. These measures are strengthening the IAEA’s authority to conduct the inspections necessary to resolve uncertainties, deterring the noncompliant state from thinking it could withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and then enjoy the benefits of ill-gotten material and equipment, and suspending sensitive fuel-cycle-related activities in the state.”

In brief, Mr. Goldschmidt’s paper attributes the problems in North Korea and Iran stemming from the weaknesses of the NPT and the IAEA’s inadequate enforcement of its safeguard systems. This makes complete sense since the problem of nuclear nonproliferation starts from the IAEA’s inability to enforce its standards on non-compliant states. The international community, as Mr. Goldschmidt suggests, must “strengthen the authority of the IAEA to exercise its improved capacity in precisely the situations where it is most necessary: when a state has been found to be in non-compliance with its safeguard undertakings.”

I am not going into further details here; Mr. Goldschmidt does a more eloquent job in explaining the specifics. I welcome the reader to visit the above link.

The bottom line is that the trouble with the IAEA emerges as a systems problem. It highlights the growing importance of public administration in international and institutional studies, especially in a global world; tackling the problem at its origin before it escalates.

While Mr. Goldschmidt’s recommendations (to bolster the IAEA) may very well turn out to be the means to achieve a peaceful process in this already serious situation, it cannot be accomplished unless all five permanent members of the UNSC agree to it. Thus, this does not underscore the importance of cooperation among the five permanent members of the UNSC which still determines the stability of the world.

A Divided United Nations

With the escalating hostilities increasing in Iran and North Korea, it is only a matter of time when the world will once again turn the spotlight on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as the forum responsible for safeguarding the world’s security.

Likening the UN as a court, with the five permanent members of the UNSC, (United States, Russia, England, France, and China) representing the jury, the cases of Iran and North Korea continues to be deliberated even outside of the courtroom. Should it ever go to trial, there is no doubt, from this author’s mind, that the verdict will be split: the United States and Europe on one side and China and Russia on the other.

This split, (which constitutes the internal division in the UN) among the five permanent members reveals the UN’s most glaring institutional weakness. Without delving into institutional theory analysis, the problem with the UNSC is that it lacks any form of internal control, consistency and accountability among the five permanent members and does not provide incentives for them to compromise. While each member has veto power to check another, the UN, like the League of Nations that preceded it, lacks the ability to exercise power and authority over its members. For example, it did not stop the United States from taking unilateral military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime, nor has it been able to reform and effectively regulate the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in which several countries have taken advantage of its loopholes.

The problem with the UNSC is that unlike a jury, its five permanent members are not impartial. In making a decision, all have a stake in the outcome. Each government has its own national interest and political agenda they want to pursue in an attempt to steer the UN towards its desired course.

A closer examination of the nuclear weapons issue in Iran and North Korea clearly delineates the division among the five permanent members. In both cases, the UK, France and the United States want these countries to disarm while China and Russia lean more in support of Tehran and Pyongyang by encouraging diplomacy. Why? Because history and national interest has already made up each juror’s mind.

In the case of Iran, the EU3 (the UK, France and Germany) and the United States fundamentally distrust Tehran alleging its close ties to terrorist groups and fearing nuclear proliferation in the region. China and Russia, on the other hand, have a closer relationship with Tehran. Russia considers Iran a viable weapons buyer and has had a longstanding relationship with the country since the Iraq-Iran War. China maintains a close relationship with Tehran since it understands the strategic importance of tapping Iran's oil reserves to help it sustain its economic development.

Interestingly, the case with North Korea is similar and also reveals the same split among the five permanent members. Europe and United States call for North Korea to disarm, perceiving Kim Jong Il as a threat to the stability of the region while Russia and China have friendlier ties with Pyongyang. Whether it is the common bond of the old communist system they all once shared, it's obvious that Russia views Pyongyang as a viable trading partner while China considers it as one of its closest allies stemming back from the Korean War.

While the UN, in most people's eyes, represents a supranational institution capable of sustaining global leadership, in reality, only masquerades as a formal process, where the world can discuss but not actaully act upon its problems. The resolutions it ratifies, while recognized by the world, are loosely enforced.

Times have changed. Gone are the days of the Cold War where the United States and Soviet Union reigned supreme. This also marks in what I believe to be the beginning of the end of US supremacy in world affairs, as Washington slowly loses its influence to dictate its desired foreign policy to the world. The decision to go to war with Iraq may have been its last gasp as it continues to learn the repercussions of its decision ($200 billion and rising with 2200 of its soldiers dead and rising).

This new millennium has transformed the global geopolitical landscape. Once dominated by the United States as the world's only preeminent superpower for the past sixteen years after the fall of communism, we now enter a world of multi-power states, with the emergence of the EU, China and Russia; a landscape in which the world has not seen since the end of the nineteenth century. These countries’ newfound roles in the world stage have curtailed Washington’s influence and have dispersed power multilaterally. As a result, compromise among the five permanent members is more important than ever if the world is to maintain stability today. Unfortunately, divisions among these nations are slowly starting to unravel (as China secretly aids Pyongyang and Russia debates its position with Tehran) which may bring about a repeat of secret alliances and combinations common among the nineteenth century superpowers the years preceding WWI. It was to untangle these secret allainces that the League of Nations was created. Today, the world finds itself in a similar situation. This time the UN takes center stage and carries with it the burden of finding a resolution.

Sadly, it is an inadequate institution sorely in need of reform if it is to reconcile these differences and find solutions to the growing problem of nuclear proliferation. The next rounds fought in the UNSC will determine the institution's sustainability and hold with it the world's stability.

World Affairs: A Week in Review

As a close observer of world affairs, I find that the events transpiring in the Middle East and other hot spots around the world troubling and should cause the American public to take pause. I outline the following as a brief recap of what’s happening around the world.

Iraq

Recent election results are believed to have increased the already fragile sectarian divisions in the country. The ratification of the new constitution hinges on the Shias and Kurds and their ability to give the Sunni minority sufficient authority in the new Iraqi government. If the US coalition fails in its attempt to encourage compromise among these groups in the constitutional process, then the possibility of a civil war increases.

Israel & Palestine

Due to Prime Minister Sharon’s debilitating stroke that has left him seriously incapacitated, acting Premier Ehud Olmert has the overwhelming responsibility of carrying out the talks with the Palestinians, which has led to positive outcomes in the peace process. However, without Sharon’s charismatic presence and direction, the continuance of the negotiations looms in doubt. Meanwhile, President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, due to the lack of internal discipline within the group, is losing ground to Hamas who views Israel as a threat. Should Hamas win enough support during the Palestinian elections scheduled for January 25, the result may jeopardize the peace process.

Iran

The EU recently ended talks with Iran in regards to its alleged nuclear weapons program and is in the process of reporting it to the UN Security Council. The implications of sanctions against Iran are great for a region that has already suffered much turmoil. Sanctions would increase anti-US and anti-Israel sentiments in the region making it difficult for our troops to secure an already fragile Iraq.

North Korea

Multilateral talks have not resumed since November of last year. The US maintains its allegations that North Korea is pursuing illegal activities in counterfeit and money laundering in order to finance its nuclear weapons programs. Talks are at a standstill.

What these problems share is the possibility that the issues will be brought before the UN Security Council. Unfortunately, the UN, as an institution, has its own problems and may not offer the best of solutions. I will elaborate on this matter more in my next post.

In the meantime, it is imperative that the American public does not turn a blind eye to these matters. I invite the reader to further consider the importance of these events, the repercussions of which can make for a more destabilized world.

Schwarzenegger and Alito Go to the Middle

While reading through newspaper articles this morning about California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and judicial nominee Samuel Alito, I discovered they actually had more things in common and in fact share a similar plight.

Both are fighting for their political/judicial careers in the face of harsh criticisms from the Democrats. Both are the focal points of their respective constituencies. And both are attempting to pull off the same strategy in moving towards the middle: Schwarzenegger, in his recently proposed budget calling for increased spending, and Alito, in his judicial confirmation hearing, stated that he would keep an “open mind” in the issue of abortion.

I am not going to evaluate their specific policies or positions here, but explain more about the nature of politics. Why moving towards the middle make for an effective strategy for political players on one hand, and a political smokescreen for the American public, on the other?

What exactly are both Schwarzenegger and Alito doing? For the political novice, this means treading softly among the enemy’s den, or more accurately, political maneuvering. The only way to achieve political power in our government is to reassure and convince political opponents that we won’t trample on their interests. In order to placate both sides of the aisle, it becomes a political necessity for Schwarzenegger to prudently choose to cut or fund those programs that will make the least political wakes, and for Alito, to not reveal any position that may bias him in front of the Judiciary Committee and cost him senate approval votes.

As Americans, we elect our leaders because we trust them to make sound policy, to represent us fairly in the political process. We imbue the same faith in our judges (albeit, they are appointed) to be fair and thoughtful in their opinions when handing down legal decisions. Yet, in order to implement the budget, like in Schwarzenegger’s case, or to be confirmed a seat in the highest court in the land, in Alito’s case, it requires both to move towards the middle if they are to achieve political or judicial authority.

What does this mean to the American public? The consequences are apparent. Critics and pundits alike jibber-jabber about it all the time. “We’re not looking at the real issue here…what Alito will actually do,” a Harvard law professor told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “the questioning [by the Judicial Committee]is partisan.” In the budget debate, similar rhetoric is used. While the interests are more diffused, they can still be delineated among party lines. The political process becomes a game of who can successfully jump more hoops or avoid being trapped by their political opponents. For the American people who admire and expect integrity, honesty and openness from government officials, this game has become extremely frustrating. As a result, the public becomes disillusioned by the process.

What the political process makes us lose sight of are the genuine intentions of the political actor. The mist of politics obfuscates what the real person would actually say or do. In the end, that is a shame. Unfortunately, it’s the reality of the political process; the natural consequences of Madison's Federalist 10 and 51, where he constructed an array of checks and balances and compromise begetting compromise.

I believe this is what turns a lot of Americans off about politics. They see the political process as a sham, and all politicians and judicial nominees are two-faced liars, unable to be trusted because it's all about winning the prize. But that’s the nature of politics. Not everyone will get everything they want, the perfect budget and justice not exluded. If you ever find yourself feeling this way, rest assure, our political system is most likely working the way it should.

It's China, Stupid!

So the title's not so civil, oh well. Do you know why North Korea has been out of the headlines lately? The answer is that Pyongyang has not been present in negotiations since November of last year. In fact, it has no intention of returning until the United States retract its recent sanctions and the allegations implicating North Korea of counterfeiting and money-laundering, which is presumably being used to fund its nuclear weapons programs. In other words, talks are at a standstill.

North Korea has been on the US watch list since 1982 when US satellites detected the construction of a small nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. Since then, Pyongyang has been using its ability to build nuclear weapons as leverage against the international community to get support and aid. This led to the 1994 “nuclear freeze” negotiated by former President Jimmy Carter and former North Korean president Kim Il Sung, in which the United States, Japan and South Korea agreed to supply North Korea fuel oil and two large nuclear-power plants incapable of manufacturing weapons-grade materials in return for North Korea dismantling its nuclear weapons project (note that China was not part of this agreement).

The agreement lasted five years until 1999, when US intelligence reported that North Korea had enriched enough weapons grade plutonium to build a purported 50 bombs. The question is where and how they got it? This was the reason why President Bush in his State of the Union address in 2002 included North Korea as one of the countries included in the “axis of evil”. Around the same time the United States made preparations to invade Iraq, North Korea in April 2003, admitted in talks with China and the United States that it had in its possession a nuclear bomb and wanted to detonate it. Why would North Korea publicly disclose that it had weapons? Wouldn't that strike the reader odd and irrational? I believe that this public show by Pyongyang was a political ploy conceived by Beijing to convince Kim Jong Il to enter into China’s proposed six-nation multilateral talks in an attempt to protect North Korea from the United States, who at the time invaded Iraq. I believe that arranegment between Beijing and Pyongyang took place behind the scenes.

I recently took a political management class in which our professor taught us that in order to understand what’s truly happening in current events, one has to critically examine multiple sources and to do one’s own investigation to connect the dots. While journalists relay the news, (it’s important to remember Herbert Simon’s theory of satisficing: that one cannot know everything), individual journalists only write on the information they know best thereby limiting the context, unable to present the bigger picture. That’s why I find Google News fascinating. The ability to access information from the left and right and other news media sites around the world gives us the opportunity to examine for ourselves multiple perspectives. What makes the North Korea multilateral talks interesting is that there are six countries involved, all with varying self-interests and agendas.

The major players in these discussions are the United States and China. While there are only two players, we can delineate in fact three general coalitions.

The first coalition is made up of the United States and Japan who genuinely want to see North Korea disarm its weapons. The United States are pushing North Korea to disarm because of the Bush Doctrine, which calls for the elimination of WMD and Japan, because of its close proximity to North Korea, fears attack from the rogue nation. Not to mention that there still exist much dislike between the Koreans and the Japanese that stems back to World War II.

The second coalition is what I call the indifferent countries. These include South Korea and Russia. While South Korea would prefer a disarmed northern neighbor, it remains sympathetic to its northern brothers and sisters, never hesitating to appease it by sending aid, whether food or energy, when the North threatens force. That's not a surprise since both share an ethnic bond both. As a result, South Korea has never had enough courage to impose sanctions on North Korea and probably never will.

Russia is another player in the discussions who in reality is uninterested in the matter. While in face, Putin wants the United States to achieve its goal in disarming North Korea (he would rather have a neighbor without nuclear capabilities), Russia may in fact have a secret desire to see the United States fail in these multilateral talks, primarily because of Russia's falling out of the world stage after the fall of communism. There is basis for this assertion. Currently, Russia continues to sell arms to Iran, fueling the WMD crisis in that region, which also involves the United States, and recently, Putin signed and the Duma passed a federal act last December that solidified the relationship with North Korea by boosting common protection on investments. Russia really has no reason to help the United States and in all likelihood will remain neutral in the process.

The major player in this discussion whom I believe is really in control, but didn’t want to find themselves there is the first place, are China and North Korea. While China claims to have severed military ties with Pyongyang, that’s more a red herring than an affirmation. Their ties that stem back to the Korean War, where 300,000 Chinese soldiers sacrificed their lives cannot just be pushed aside. I believe that it was China, North Korea’s closest ally, who from the very beginning supplied the North with weapons and continues to do so for the purposes of increasing its sphere of influence (communism) and intimidating Taiwan. The problem was that North Korea got caught with the weapons; in 1982 by US surveillance satellites and in 1999 by US intelligence.

Is it pure coincidence that China proposed multilateral talks at the same time the US military was taking out Saddam’s regime? It’s no coincidence. China had to take action because it did not want its ally to suffer the same fate as Iraq. Fortunately for China, the US was not in a favorable position to open another front in the War on Terror.

Similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis when Khrushchev attempted to supply Castro’s regime with weapons, I believe Beijing wanted to do the same for North Korea. Unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis, however, in which I believe Khrushchev all along wanted the weapons to be discovered to use as leverage to compel JFK to remove our nuclear weapons in Turkey, China does not have a bargaining chip. At the time when the US flexed its military power against Iraq in 2003, China, acted like a big brother trying to defend its little brother, stepped in North Korea’s defense by proposing multilateral talks, which was perhaps the best alternative the Chinese could think of, short of going to war.

Presently, we find the situation at a stalemate. I believe China holds the key to North Korea’s fate. Let’s examine China’s interests for the North: China wants North Korea to have stability. It doesn’t want the United States to get involved militarily against North Korea since a war will force millions of North Korea’s refugees into China. Yet, China wants to retain its ally in the Korean peninsula. That means that in face, China wants North Korea to disarm, but in reality, wants its ally to have nuclear capabilites.

Presently, the US alleges North Korea in money laundering and counterfeit, but isn’t it odd that the press is reluctant to reveal who North Korea’s partners are in this alleged dealings? The culprit is China, and because of our current economic ties with that country, it behooves the Bush Administration to not publicly accuse them, or at least not directly.

So, in reality, China is in control of the matter in the Korean peninsula. Big brother (China) helped little brother (North Korea) out, before the bully (the United States) stepped in and hadv its way. If China doesn’t come up with a starightforward policy that fully aims to disarm North Korea, they'll probably find the U.S. Seventh Fleet knocking on their doorstep.

Pulling Out Our Troops? I Don't Think So

As I mentioned in my last post, perhaps the reason why the president shies away when asked about a timetable in leaving Iraq is because al Qaeda and other terrorists in the region are really the ones who truly dictate whether our troops stay or leave.

So I wasn't quite surprised when I turned on CNN to hear that top al Qaeda officials have just released a new tape declaring victory over the United States over the administration's recent announcement of decreasing troop levels in Iraq. The timing of the announcement couldn't have been more poignant as it comes after a day of escalated violence that killed 127 Iraqis by the hands of a few zealous suicide bombers.

So what does this mean for the future of Iraq and how does this affect our political and military position in the region? An interesting observation is that there is always an increase of violence after major triumphs achieved by the Iraqi government and this is becoming more and more of a trend. As the Iraqi government takes one step forward, i.e. the creation of a provisional government, government official elections, and now constitutional elections, the insurgents seem to always step up their attacks a few days after the pronounced achievements, attempting to convince the world, especially the American public, that progress has actually taken two steps back. It's an excellent strategy from the viewpoint of the terrorists. It's similar to someone who builds a sand castle and then some stranger comes along to maliciously tear it down. Those who spent a lot of time and effort building it are completely demoralized. How much more can the administration tolerate this? Not surprisingly, there are two perspectives on this matter.

The recent announcement by both the Bush Administration and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw regarding the pull out of troops from Iraq could mean two very disparate things. The first, or the more optimistic view, is that the Iraqi government is becoming more self-sufficient and independent to take care of its political and security needs. In fact, Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq, has made a recent announcement that the new Iraqi government will be formed in a matter of weeks. If this is the case and we have trained a sufficient number of Iraqi security forces, then this would be the right time to decrease our troop levels. The second and more cynical view is that the terrorists are actually winning by thwarting the successes of the new government, thus preventing stability, and is forcing the administration's hand in pulling out of the region.

Regardless of the two above reasons, the US military can expect more of the same: more violence and disruptions. While there maybe troop reductions, it's unreasonable to believe that the numbers will be significant; insurgents will surely mount more attacks prompting President Bush to not back down which means that more troops will stay. This begs the question whether our troops are really coming home? One thing is for sure, the majority won't be coming home in the near future, or at least, not in the coming weeks.

Even if we capture or kill al Zarqawi and other insurgent leaders, it's unreasonable to think that the insurgents will drop their weapons or decide not to blow themselves up. There will always be others waiting along the sidelines willing to take their place. The only time when these insurgencies will stop is when all foreign troops have left Iraq. Unfortunately, without our protection, the new fledging government we helped to build won't survive if we pull our troops out all together.

The mission right now, as the president has continually said, is to do the best we can in building a secure and free Iraq; that means building a stable and independent government. With the last election only managing to inflame more sectarian divisions, especially among the Sunni minority, it appears we're not even close to building a constitutional government based on federalism and the rule of law. This will take time for sure, but not a matter of weeks.

The Bush Doctrine: Going Beyond Its Scope

As we approach the three year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, it maybe difficult for most to trace back and understand how we found ourselves there in the first place. It is confusing since the motivations and reasons given by the Bush Administration to the American people to justify the war have changed at every contingency.

After 9/11, the justification was that Saddam Hussein presumably had links to al Qaeda, linking him to the War on Terror (which was unsubstantiated). Then, a reason not linked at all to terrorism, the administration strategically decided that it would be the right time to tell the world that Saddam was refusing to abide by the UN resolutions, denying entrance to nuclear inspectors (the IAEI). This action prompted former Secretary of State Powell to testify in front of the UN Security Council about possible hidden weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Most recently, our failure to uncover WMD compelled President Bush to reaffirm his decision to depose Saddam Hussein from power, again citing his tyranny against his people as his main reason why the cause was just. Today, the administration relies on establishing freedom and a constitutional government in Iraq as the basis for our continued military presence in the region.

My intention in writing this post is to examine the evolution of the Bush Doctrine; to explain how we went from pursuing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan to invading Iraq while simultaneously threatening North Korea and Iran in the process. In my analysis, I hope to illustrate and argue that the emergence of the Bush Doctrine purposefully and strategically broadened the definition of the War on Terror, thereby going beyond its scope, to include other enemies not necessarily linked to the 9/11 attacks, but enemies of the United States nonetheless. As a result, the Bush Doctrine completely redefined the War on Terror: broadening our list of potential enemies, turning it into a war of attrition without an end in sight.

From Terrorists to Iraq: The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine

In order to understand this evolution, it is important to go back three years ago and examine two critical addresses given by President Bush in Congress. The first was given on September 20, 2001, a few days shortly following the attacks on 9/11. The other speech was the State of the Union address on January 2002 where the president articulated what will be known as the "Bush Doctrine". These two speeches are of great importance since they give insight into how the Administration, in the early days following the terrorist attacks, attempt to define their response and provide clues to the genesis of the strategy that would ultimately become our foreign policy against terrorism. The first speech, known now at the White House website as the "Freedom of War with Fear", the president clearly identified (in my opinion, quite eloquently) the real enemy in the War on Terror: al Qaeda.

"Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda...This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries...They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction."

The speech articulated who the enemy was (al Qaeda), where the enemy would be (Afghanistan) and its supporter (the Taliban). If taken into proper context, the War on Terror's objectives were clearly identified and articulated. We were going into Afghanistan, have a quantitative method of measuring success in the number of al Qaeda leaders and members we arrest or kill and have the tools to develop a reasonable exit strategy out of Afghanistan. It also clearly stated the methods to hunt down al Qaeda members elsewhere by pursuing every means necessary "to...defeat...the global terror network." But the speech also left a critical loophole:

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

The explanation for this statement, with the benefit of hindsight we know now to be true, was the Administration's desire to leave the question of the policy against terrorism open-ended. Nevertheless, that speech, which will probably go down in history as President Bush's best speech, mentioned nothing about rogue nations, regimes, or weapons of mass destruction. The enemy was only Osama bin Laden and his global terrorist network.

Rogue nations, regimes, weapons of mass destruction, which can be aptly summarized as "the axis of evil" were only first disclosed in President Bush's next major speech, or the State of Union address, delivered four months after the "Freedom of War with Fear" speech. It was this speech that the president decided to elaborate more on his policy against terrorism. In an almost invisible and yet clever way, the president rhetorically tied fighting against al Qaeda in the Philippines, Pakistan and Bosnia to those governments that were lackadaisical about terrorism or that were unwilling to join us in our War on Terror stating:

"But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will."

It is at this moment where the president articulates his policy which will be known as the Bush Doctrine. At the heart of the policy, he chooses to categorize any regime that sponsors terror just as culpable as the terrorists themselves and includes those governments possessing weapons mass destruction in the same category. At that moment, the Bush Doctrine was established as the policy that would drive the War on Terror. As a result, President Bush mentions North Korea and their armaments, Iran in their support of terrorists, and for the first time, we hear of Iraq: its plot to develop WMD and its supposed link to al Qaeda and terrorism.

In a matter of four months, between these two speeches, we went from declaring war against al Qaeda to those regimes that support them. In other words, more specifically, declared war on those groups and governments who have interests that are not favorable to our own. The Bush doctrine went beyond its scope. Rather than fighting those directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11, the Bush Doctrine pretentiously declared war on everyone else who supported terrorism or those who oppose America and its values. The Bush Doctrine, in defining the War on Terror as "us versus them", has inadvertently made it a war of ideology between democracy and fundamentalist (extremist) Islamic thought. This is the reason why I believe the average American is confused in trying to find the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The fact is that there is none. And it is no surprise that we have seen the administration for the past three years continue to attempt to convince the American people that there is a link among Saddam's regime and al Qaeda or that it has possession of WMD. For the most part until recently with the intelligence debacle, the administration has been able to make that argument stick. It was this point, that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, that Senator John Kerry failed to clearly articulate during the presidential election in 2004.

For Our Enemies Only

The Bush Doctrine, while going beyond its scope has also limited other governments from usrping it. Let's take Israel for example. The Bush Doctrine, on face value, should have given Ariel Sharon precedent to use force against the Palestinians, whom the Israelis consider as terrorists. If the policy is interpreted in the literal sense, Israel could take any action it deems necessary to protect its own security--to freely eliminate the Palestinians. If the Bush Doctrine ostensibly has given Sharon precedent to do whatever he wants, how did Secretary of State Rice persuade the conservative and hawkish Sharon from using force and then broker instead a deal to give control of the Gaza over to the Palestinians?

While the Bush Doctrine may appear to advocate regime vigilantism, it actually limits which regimes could be targeted. In this case, those who fall into the category of the "axis of evil" are those governments who illegally possess, are trying to posses, or proliferate weapons of mass destruction. The Palestinians, on the other hand, possess small arms, sticks and stones, and not WMD. It is my belief that Secretary of State Rice was successful in persuading Ariel Sharon to back down (and there is no question Israel possesses sufficient military might to eliminate the Palestinians) from starting a full-scale war against the Palestinians because of the difference in context stipulated in the Bush Doctrine. In this case, only the United States has the legitimate authority to effectively utilize the Bush Doctrine.

Bush Doctrine Tailored for Iraq?

Interestingly, this has got me thinking whether the Bush Doctrine was specifically tailored for Iraq. The more and more I thought about it, the more rational it was to me why the Bush Doctrine was designed the way it was. While 9/11 gave the administration legitimate reason to hunt down the terrorists, specifically al Qaeda, it is likely that those around Bush's circle at the time, (we all know who they are) Cheney, Rumsfeld and even Colin Powell saw 9/11 as a way to broaden the policy's scope to include our other enemies, mainly Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

Everyone around Bush's circle, including Bush himself had reason to take down Saddam Hussein. The reason stems back to the first Gulf War. In 1991, Vice President Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State Powell was the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and both, as heads of the military operation in charge of the Persian Gulf War, were in no doubt frustrated that Saddam was allowed to retain power after the conflict. While Donald Rumsfeld remained in the private sector in 1991, as President Ford's former Chief of Staff and Secretary of State from 1975 to 1977, he witnessed the Socialist reforms being implemented by the Ba'ath Party in Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that he was concerned about a rising socialist state within the Middle East in the middle of the Cold War, and having met with Saddam Hussein himself, Rumsfeld may have not held Saddam in high esteem. In 1991, current President George W. Bush supported his father in the victory in the Persian Gulf but clearly the attempted assassination of his father's life in Kuwait City shortly following the war instilled in him a personal resentment towards Saddam Hussein. Clearly, the Bush Administration from the very beginning had Iraq on its agenda.

Though it is speculation on my part, I believe the caveat on WMD was intended solely to deal with the Iraqi problem in the administration's eyes. If that was the administration's intent, then it worked only part way. Inevitably, we would enter Iraq without backing from the UN and to the censure of allies, France and Germany being the most prominent.

The Implications of the Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine, since becoming policy has opened a Pandora's Box. We have decided to not only take on the terrorists but also those who support them. While the logic behind the Bush Doctrine makes sense, to use the analogy of killing a tree: it is better to tear its roots (stop its supporters) than hack off its branches (killing individual terrorists) to prevent other branches from growing, its logic (stopping al Qaeda/terrorism), however, does not work if we are hacking the wrong tree (in Iraq). Instead of pursuing al Qaeda in their own turf, we have invited them (al Zarqawi and friends) into Iraq where they contribute to much of the violence and instability, preventing us in fulfilling our own objectives in building a stable and free Iraq. While the president still claims that the decision to invade Iraq was the right choice since we are fighting the terrorist over there and not here at home, the fact is that we have just stirred the hornet's nest by inviting al Qaeda and other terrorists groups into Iraq. Rather than our troops being on the offensive, we are on the defensive, attempting to build and safeguard a government left by the political vacuum we created when deposing Saddam's regime. This may sound critical, but perhaps the reason why the president shies away when asked about a timetable in leaving Iraq is because al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq are really the ones who truly dictate whether our troops stay or leave.

While the Bush Doctrine assumes that you can't defeat the terrorist without also confronting the governments that support them, and this makes sense logically, one must admit that it has laid out a more difficult challenge for the United States in winning the War on Terror. Rather than limiting the scope, targeting specifically those terrorists who plotted the attacks on 9/11, we have taken upon ourselves, as a nation, the burden of eliminating all those we deem as foreign threats. Furthermore, we must identify the threat before it comes into fruition--the policy of pre-emption. As a result of the Bush Doctrine, on March 2003, we marched into Iraq unilaterally, based on flawed intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction, without UN support, made up of only the "coalition of the willing", focused solely on deposing Saddam Hussein, and lacking a preconceived and well-thought exit strategy.

So that's where we find ourselves in Iraq today, our brave military fighting for the cause of freedom and liberty with death causalities nearing 2,200 of our finest young men and women in uniform.

Some Points to Ponder

So has the Bush Doctrine gone beyond its scope in the way that I defined it? Has President Bush, in setting out his policy that fateful day in January of 2002, make the right decision to define The War on Terror in the context of us against them? I wrote this post of the opinion that the Bush Doctrine did go beyond its scope, to explain why we ended up there and why we now face the complex challenges in Iraq.

In the end, I feel that the Bush Doctrine forced us into britches that were a little too big for us to fit. It has made measuring success in the War on Terror more difficult. It is one in which all succeeding presidents (should they decide to continue the policy) must call for continued patience, vigilance and more sacrifice of blood and national treasure. It has become a war in which Iraq, I fear, is only the beginning while North Korea and Iran wait nervously along the sidelines. It has made the War on Terror a war without timetables, one clearly lacking a definite end.

We've had three years to reflect. I welcome your comments.

This Purpose In Mind

After Dan Rather was booted from his coveted anchor position from CBS's Evening News because of his failure to verify a news source, which the world now knows was exposed by a maven bloggerite, I decided that it might behoove me (as a student of politics and international relations) to join in the fun in the bloggesphere.

I suppose my decision to start a blog really didn't stem from the necessity to have an outlet to tell the world what my opinions are or how I feel about certain somethings, but really came from my curiosity to comment about today's current events; to have an opportunity to really ponder what the news mean to me, my family and community.

In thinking about my approach for this blog, I began to think about how I could make the time I spend writing it beneficial to me and those who read it. Thinking about this blog reminded me of how truly privileged we are to live in a country where we, as citizens, have a right to voice our opinions and concerns. However, in today's world where the overall spectrum of media news have run a muck attempting to vie for our every attention and even win influence over our very conscience, I believe that most people (professionals and academics not excluded) have lost their ability to critically think about the news for themselves. The media with its ability to frame news stories in such a way to bias it is apparent everytime one turns on the television. Take FOX News for example, who ironically, for some reason calls their journalism "fair and balanced" when it is apparent that the station leans further right from the center. Please let me not single out FOX News alone before the reader accuses the author to be a liberal, but every news outlet is culpable: CNN, Al Jezeera, and even PBS. There will always be bias no matter what news is reported since stories are interpreted differently and the words that are used to report them are always laden with value-judgments. This prompted NPR to hire an ombudsman in response to CPB's accusation of its middle to left stance, but that is beside my point. (For more on the framing issues, read The Language of Politics, by Adrian Beard)

My point is that most people (including myself at times) do not critically examine what is really being written or said on the news. As a result, for the average American who is busy raising a family, paying off a mortgage and working a job(s) accepts what he or she hears on the news, written in the newspapers, as fact, and unfortunately, is unable to readily distinguish what is fact from opinion.

Let me give a personal example. I was over at my wife's parent's home to celebrate this past New Year's Eve with her family. In attendance were my wife and I, her parents and grandparents, and her little sister who is in high school with her boyfriend. During the course of the family dinner the topic of politics and Iraq entered into the conversation. The issue of whether we should have invaded Iraq became the topic of interest. Here we were enjoying our roast pork and baked potato when my father-in-law mentions the present situation in Iraq. My wife's grandmother, who continues to be staunchly against the war mentions that "our soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place since they never found WMD." Her son, my father-in-law retorts: "Remember Bush (Jr.) gave a compelling speech at the UN that Saddam had weapons...they were not [abiding by the UN resolutions]." My grandmother retorts back, "But even Bush said they had faulty intelligence." I sat there as this banter went back and forth for several minutes going nowhere. I wanted to say something that would give better context and information to their discussion but I prudently decided to stay out of it. What I realized as I listened to their entire political conversation that evening was that it consisted only in sound bites and headlines filtered to them by the media. Not once did they question the source, or even attempt to examine each other's perspective; they did not look at other possibilities. In short, while they knew the news, they failed to decipher it and failed to examine the arguments which they presented. As a result, their conversation ended, like always, in a heated debate that prompted my little sister-in-law to sigh and exclaim, "Can we change the subject?"

This is a disturbing phenomenon that I believe is becoming more and more of a widespread trend in our society. While there are savvy news readers and watchers out there who take advantage of the Internet, watch McNeil & Lehr's News Hour and attempt to carefully unmask the true story behind the story, other Americans have become more passive, ensnared in partisan politics as a result of being forced fed by today's media bias. If I am right and this is the case, then what is public opinion worth when people cannot even formulate opinions of their own? How do we get to Yankelovich's public judgment? If people are just parroting the media and have allowed it to influence their opinions and perspectives, then public opinion is worth nothing since people are not thinking. Our ability to exercise free speech is diminished. While some argue that more cable news channels that offer varying perspectives does in fact reinforce freedom of opinion and of speech, it doesn't address my concern of thinking and pondering the news on our own. If there is anyone to blame it should be ourselves and not the media. If we cannot formulate our opinions and judgments, can we truly say we are fit to accept our civic responsibilities, i.e. voting? Do we really know the details behind a policy? If the answer is no, then that would be like marking our voting ballot blindfolded, the practice of which makes an absurdity of democracy.

How can we think more critically? How can we have a civil discourse about today's current events with civility and understanding? I decided to write this blog with this purpose in mind. In the coming postings I will attempt to the best of my ability to examine news stories that are affecting our times. I will endeavor to evaluate the stories critically, examining common and new angles. While no one can promise objectivity, I promise sensitivity and civility in my discussions in which I hope the reader will find sincere and compelling.

A little tidbit on the title: So why take a title of Alexander Dumas' heroic protagonist? Simple, as Edmund Dantes took on the alias of The Count of Monte Cristo, so do I. Keeping out of the public eye is a good thing as the the Medicis learned; so did Hamilton and Madison in their convincing and persuading of the Federalist Papers. Thus, I do the same. To know the author is to already bias the content. Therefore, the content is more important than the person.