More Twitter Diplomacy

The State Department yesterday announced that it had sent a nine-member delegation of senior representatives from major technology companies- including Google, AT&T, Twitter and Automattic/Wordpress- to Iraq to (quoting CNN), "provide conceptual input as well as ideas on how new technologies can be used to build local capacity, foster greater transparency and accountability, build upon anti-corruption efforts, promote critical thinking in the classroom, scale-up civil society, and further empower local entities and individuals by providing the tools for network building."

Back in January we made a couple of posts about State's use of Twitter. Scott was critical of then-Under Secretary of State Colleen Graffey's discussing buying a Mac while the Israeli incursion into Gaza was at its peak. One of the other criticisms of Graffey's twittering was that she was only going to reach those privileged enough to have regular internet access, and that this wasn't likely to include a huge number of, for example, Iraqis. Monday's announcement appears to mark a move from State simply twittering, to State helping others twitter. I'd like to think that the State Department has realised that its new blog and video updates are missing a huge swathe of their intended audience due to a lack of internet access. But this seems to me more like an attempt to put US companies at the forefront of any internet goldrush in the Arabic-speaking world.

Combating Somali Piracy: How Many People Can We Afford To Kill?

Related Post: After the Rescue: What Now with Somalia?

“Now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates” – Mark Twain

You don’t have to be a serious news junkie to know that there is currently a lively debate ongoing in the media on the issue of combating Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden. Commentators from across the political spectrum have laid out countless detailed plans for fighting the pirates both at sea and on land, and some such as CNN’s Jack Cafferty and Rick Sanchez have even put the question directly to their audiences. However, all of the solutions presented seem to involve some level of military force used against Somalia, specifically US military force, and the major differences between the plans are over questions of financial cost and political willpower. To put it bluntly, the real question at hand is how many Somali people we really feel like killing right now.

But why do we insist on making this debate so narrow and yet still complicated when it doesn’t have to be either? Unlike the conventional wisdom of US military violence and nation building, which has an atrocious rate of success, there is a myriad of solutions available which have not yet even been attempted with Somalia, yet are far more likely to produce the desired long-term stability. Given the huge challenges facing the United States from its two ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global financial crisis, isn’t it time we explored some of these other options?



The conventional wisdom is very simple. While they all agree that the Navy SEAL snipers killing the pirates was really cool, the generally liberal, realist, soft power crowd is pushing for an increased naval presence, that is ships with weapons, in the Gulf of Aden, the hawkish, bold-faced imperialist folks are asking for air strikes and special forces strikes against pirate sanctuaries in Somalia, and the population at large is especially craven, calling for public hangings of pirates and shoot-on-sight rules of engagement for US Navy ships in the region. Typically when presented by experts and commentators, these plans will also feature a data set debunking the other side’s plan, which means that when put side by side, they cancel each other out with no shortage of irony.

The consequences of these plans are also simple. The end result of all of them, no matter whether they succeed or fail, is that the US is going to kill a lot of Somalis. None of the plans even attempt to address the root causes of piracy in the gulf, like hellish poverty, illegal over-pollution, and the absence of basic human services in Somalia. So in order for these options to succeed, you’d have to believe that these desperate, armed-to-the-teeth gangsters from an apocalyptic-level failed state will be so incensed at the sight of a dead body that they’ll permanently abstain from the only profession that brings their family any shred of dignity and sustenance. Amazing logic, right? If you knew how much people were paid to come up with ideas like that, your head would explode.

But there are other options available. Rather than falling back on the usual tool of military violence, they instead focus on the seeds of instability and piracy in Somalia.

Seemingly the most obvious idea would be to ask the Somalis themselves what to do about piracy.  Are they asking for food, money and an end to illegal toxic waste dumping in their fishing grounds? Or are they asking for 200lb JDAMs to be dropped on their villages? You could ask even the most destitute, illiterate among them, and I’m sure they’d have an opinion either way. However, I’ve yet to see one actual Somali in the mainstream discussion, it’s mostly the usual suspects in the media foreign policy elite whose opinions are deemed worthy of consideration. At the very least they could lay out a clear, concrete set of grievances to be acknowledged in whatever response the US eventually chooses.

Instead of special forces, why not deploy diplomats to Somalia? The European Union would be the most desirable, as the catastrophic circumstances of Somalia would require the most skilled negotiators available. Director of the Global Governance Initiative Parag Khanna writes of their prowess, “Charlemagne’s efforts to resurrect the Roman Empire have been succeeded, over a millennium later, by the multipronged armadas of Brussels Eurocrats steadily colonizing Europe’s periphery, in the Baltics, the Balkans, and, eventually, Anatolia and the Caucasus. The Eurocrats’ book is not the Bible but rather the acquis communautaire: the 31 chapters of the Lex Europea, which is rebuilding EU member states from the inside out.” Great, if they can do all that, why couldn’t they handle building a state in Somalia?

Provided they are dispatched with the same resources and support as their military counterparts are, these diplomats could succeed in laying some framework for a sovereign Somali government. Aid agencies and other NGO’s have shown they are capable of operating in extremely hostile environments with only a hint of a functioning state, such as Rwanda and Sudan. It’s possible that a skilled diplomatic mission could assist the Somalis in creating enough of a foundation of statehood for these aid agencies to join with humanitarian assistance.

However, the idea of using a European solution to an American foreign policy problem is almost unthinkable, and multilateral coalitions are, at best, frowned upon. That doesn’t mean the US only has to use its military might though. It has other powerful, untapped resources at its disposal. Namely, the massive organized Peace Movement.

The Peace movement, as with any organized political movement, comes complete with its own elite policy wonks, its own intelligentsia, and even its own media and social systems with which to organize and direct broad and diverse groups of people. The American Peace Movement also has the added benefit of never being allowed into mainstream political debate, and is therefore free of the corrupt hypocrisy and institutional apathy that typifies other foreign policy sects. Likewise, it also means that they’re not currently tied up with other issues like Iraq and Afghanistan like the rest of the foreign policy elite.

The price of utilizing American peace activists would be dramatically less than any of the other options currently up for debate. While the cost of US military power is in the trillions, and even skilled EU bureaucrats can charge exorbitant salaries, peace activists have shown they are capable of operating highly effectively with little to no funding available.  Given a small amount of funding and protection, the results they could achieve in Somalia might be quite groundbreaking. Perhaps its time to constructively engage them in the task of stabilizing Somalia. They may have some very interesting ideas particularly as it concerns mobilizing Somali citizens into a coherent bloc capable of projecting statehood.

Of course these options are very vague and untested, nowhere near as precise as the options laid out in the mainstream debate. Some might even find it absurd or ridiculous to suggest dispatching a phalanx of European diplomats or appointing Cindy Sheehan as Special Envoy to Somalia, but my point is only to show that there may be other options worth exploring and debating besides the standard military response.

Don’t Blink: Obama Administration Funds the Civil War in Palestine

Related Post: Gaza War - How the US Re-Armed Israel

On April 9, President Obama sent his 2009 supplemental budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Congress. Predictably, most of the media coverage was simply carried over and adapted from the previous battle over funding for the military.

For example, some attention has centered upon the stiff opposition to Secretary of Defense Gates' decision not to order additional F-22 fighters. While this discussion is important, particularly on the usefulness of F-22 fighter planes in Iraq, there was something else in this supplemental budget that seems to have escaped notice.

We find this on page 6:

$0.8 billion to support the Palestinian people, strengthen the Palestinian Authority, and provide humanitarian assistance for the crisis in Gaza.

Even compared to the $85 billion plus total of the supplemental budget, $800 million for Palestine is nothing to sneeze at. And assuming you stop reading here, almost a billion dollars to “support the Palestinian people” actually sounds like a pretty good idea. But that’s not the entirety of it. The money is broken down into several sections scattered throughout the budget.

A section called “Migration and Refugee Assistance” has $150 million, including:

$25 million for assistance to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and $125 million to support emergency humanitarian needs in Gaza and the West Bank

Then we have a massive chunk of money in the “Economic Support Fund” section:

$556 million for West Bank/Gaza including $200 million for budget support to the Palestinian Authority; $93 million for institutional capacity building, and investments in education and social services in the West Bank; $12 million for humanitarian assistance in the West Bank; $60 million to promote West Bank economic growth; $30 million to support governance and rule of law in the West Bank; $95 million to support programs in Gaza to improve basic human needs, support economic recovery, create jobs, and restore some humanitarian essential services; $61 million for immediate humanitarian and food relief to Gazans through well-established international organizations; $5 million for contractor and locally engaged staff, program oversight, and related security and other support costs

And finally, hidden away in the “International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement” section, we find this gem:

$109 million to train and equip Palestinian security forces and to enhance security along the Gaza border [emphasis added]

What’s missing? There’s no mention of Hamas. That’s because:

This provision prohibits the use of Supplemental funds for assistance to Hamas, Hamas-controlled entities, or any power-sharing government of which Hamas is a member. Assistance may be provided to a power-sharing government acceptable to the United States if the President certifies to the standards in section 620K(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Foreign Assistance Act. It is expected that such a power-sharing government would speak authoritatively for the entire Palestinian Authority government, including its ministries, agencies and instrumentalities. This provision also would allow the President to utilize the waiver authority provided in the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 for the purposes provided. [emphasis added]

Got that? Let’s break it down.

First off, note that only a slice of the money is even allocated to the Gaza Strip, under the control of the democratically elected Hamas government, while the majority goes to the West Bank, held in the iron grip of Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority. While the Palestinian Authority, like Hamas, was also democratically elected, their electoral mandate expired long ago, and by the time this money reaches them, their term limits will be ancient history. The idea of any democratic government existing in the midst of Fatah’s repressive police state is a highly dubious proposition, but contrasted with the internationally certified elections that brought Hamas to power in the Gaza Strip, the notion of democracy in the West Bank is simply laughable.

Second, the budget essentially nullifies any diplomatic efforts being carried out between the leadership of Hamas and Fatah. Perversely, it does this by ensuring that any diplomatic arrangement would have to be absurdly unacceptable to both parties. Either Hamas accepts a “power-sharing” deal in which they have no power at all over the Fatah “government, including its ministries, agencies and instrumentalities”, or Fatah agrees to share power with Hamas at the price of losing $815 million a year in US funding, not to mention whatever the International Community is paying them.

Mahmoud Abbas, President of Palestinian Authority, with Ramadan Shallah, Secretary General of Islamic Jihad

Finally, this funding ensures that there will continue to be violent confrontations in the Gaza Strip. Where does $109 million worth of paramilitary training go in Gaza if it can’t go to Hamas? It goes to Fatah, or more specifically, to their military wing. That would be the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, an internationally designated terrorist group responsible for at least 130 Israeli deaths, and that’s just counting the suicide bombings.

The Al-Aqsa brigades are also known to collaborate with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. They are the group fond of lobbing Qassam rockets at schoolchildren in southern Israel. So not only will this money provoke conflict between Hamas and these freshly equipped and trained Fatah militants, but these resources will undoubtedly be used in acts of terrorism against Israel, and we know how Israel usually responds to these things in Gaza.

There you have it: for the low price of $815 million, American tax-payers have propped up an oppressive dictatorship, intensified a Palestinian civil war, enabled acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians, and provided the excuses Israel needs to further pummel the Palestinian population.

And all this tucked away in a supplemental budget. No, not even the regular US government budget, this is the extra money they spend just on fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But hey, at least they’re not talking to Hamas. Those guys are terrorists.

Scowcroft In Turkey: Did Someone Talk About 'Hate'?

Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush and the former Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush, gave an interview to the Aksam newspaper as the Chairman of the American Turkish Council in Turkey last week. This interview is important because General Scowcroft's confessions are shocking!

He stated that the PJAK, the Iranian wing of the PKK operating against Iranian armed forces, was supported and encouraged by the Bush Administration. The 84-year-old former adviser added that the US administration did not want to go after PKK forces during the Iraq War as the Northern part was more quiet than the Southern fronts where they were waging a war; whereas the situation changed with the Obama Administration.

Here is the full transcript of the related part of the interview conducted by the Turkish journalist Nagehan Alci:

N. A. – It is alleged that a winding-up decision will be taken for PKK in a Kurdish General Gathering in Erbil in April. Do you think that it is possible?

B. S. – I hope that it is. For me, the optimum situation is ceasefire. At the end of the day, at least, the Kurdish Provisional Government will be persuaded; an agreement will be signed; and border passings will be prevented. There are many ways to end this situation but the most important one is to put an end to the terrifying situation taking source from PKK now.

N. A. – Do you mean that PKK's ceasefire decision is in favour of the US?

B. S. – Yes, absolutely it is.

N. A. – Why? What changed?

B. S. – PKK and its PJAK branch were also operating against Iran. That is why we were giving support to and encouraging them. However, the situation has changed. We do not want to give harm to the people we want to get on well with. We want Iran beside us.

N. A. – Do you mean that there is no need to support PKK?

B. S. – Yes, there is a new approach towards Iran in our agenda. We were fighting on the Southern fronts during the Iraq war. The Kurdish region was relatively more quiet to the rest fronts. We did not want to waste our power by going after PKK. Indeed, it was not possible as well.

N. A. – What does this 'new approach towards Iran' include?

B. S. – We want to tell them that 'You are a big state in the region. You have many problems, with security being in the first place. We should talk on these through dialogue.' We have operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We want to solve the problems in the region so that everyone can feel safe.

So, it has been proven once more that the hawkish policies of the Bush Era were based on irrational, naïve and superficial evaluations and strategies. Using PKK which had already been designated a 'terrorist' organization by the United States of America against a country which has been accused of escalating the tensions through financing the terrorist groups against the US forces and innocent people of Iraq is far from the claim of pursuing a general 'democratization' plan based on the values of the Enlightenment: freedom, rationality and reason. This is not just a crime against the people of Iran and Iraq, but also against the American people who have been worrying over their children's future.

Another part of the story is apparent from the rest of his inconsistent statements. When his opinion is asked about Turkey's mediation efforts, General Scowcroft states: “Turkey's efforts are very meaningful and significant for us. The US does not know the region and its dynamics. This geography is Turkey's backyard. You have a history in the Middle East. We take heed of this.” If the US has no knowledge and experience in this region and pays attention to this, why did the Bush Administration ignore the wails coming from all around Turkey in the face of the increasing tensions between the Turkish armed forces and the terrorists/separatists and did not work with its ally in the region? If the main goal had been to democraticize and keep the region safe, then the Bush Administration would not have strengthened and encouraged an armed faction against two powerful states in the region.

I think these confessions are sufficient to give an answer to the basic discourse continuously pumped by the official institutions: “Why do they hate us?” Thank you General for your confessions... And thank you for being miles away from the decision-making process.

Petraeus v. Obama (Part 158): Israel and Iran

There was a bit of a media rumble this week over an interview that the new Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, gave Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. Netanyahu made it quite clear that he held open the option of an airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilties.

This is not dramatic news. Tel Aviv has been shaking an aerial fist at Tehran for years, but a unilateral Israeli operation, even if technically possible, risks an Iranian political and military response --- and reaction from other countries and groups --- throughout and beyond the Middle East.

So, at the least, Israel needs the US to cover its back. And the Bush Administration, despite all its pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian sympathies, refused such support in summer 2008.

This is where America's other President, General David Petraeus, enters the scene. Even as the Obama Administration has been pursuing engagement with Iran, Petraeus --- both directly and through acolytes --- has been loudly talking about Iranian support for insurgent operations against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Wednesday, the General went a step further. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “The Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it.”

This may not be an outright endorsement of a Tel Aviv strike, but it is comfortably close to acceptance of an operation. Petraeus didn't risk the usual (unsupported) pretext that Iran is close to a Bomb; instead, he stretched justification to “Iranian officials have consistently failed to provide the assurances and transparency necessary for international acceptance and verification”.

You could try out the explanation that the Obama Administration is playing "good cop, bad cop" with Tehran; on Tuesday, envoy Richard Holbrooke signals co-operation at The Hague conference on Afghanistan, 24 hours later Petraeus warns of consequences if Iran doesn't accept the extended hand.

That, however, is a fool's approach. The most casual observer could tell you that Iran does not react kindly to blatant pressure. And the consequences of Tehran walking away from talks in the face of Petraeus' threats, given the American position in Afghanistan, are far greater than they were in 2003 when the Bush Administration pulled a similar stunt.

No, the latest Petraeus intervention is as much a response to his President as it is to Tehran.

The General has a previous record on this issue. In 2007, he was serving under the then head of Central Command, William Fallon. The two men didn't see eye-to-eye: a year later, Fallon was gone with Petraeus on his way to succeeding him.

The standard narrative, for those who noted the battle, was that Petraeus had to get his Iraq "surge" past a resistant Fallon. That is certainly true, but more broadly, to deal with regional issues, Fallon advocated a strategy of engaging Iran rather than isolating it. That was also opposed by Petraeus.

Move forward two years. After the muddle in US policy, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clumsily trying to press Iran via the spectre of conflict with Arab states, Washington settles on the possibilities of a step-by-step engagement.

Who doesn't like that?

Israel. And President Obama's most prominent military commander.