Lowering Expectations in Iraq?

U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq

The linked article reflects the lowering of expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq that now seems to be permeating official Washington. Not much of a choice given the realities on the ground, one might argue.

It was never realistic to expect that everything would sort itself out easily or quickly. It remains an illusion that state-building is something quick, easy or cheap. All the experience that we have speak to the contrary.

But that doesn’t mean that it can’t be done – it only means that it requires far more of strategic patience, political coalition building and economic resources than almost everyone that was part of the more vocal debates prior to the Iraq war realized.

They were often mesmerized by simplistic comparisons with what they believed they had achieved in Germany and Japan after 1945. But those situations were entirely different.

In Japan the US occupation authorities de facto ruled through an intact state structure under the ultimate authority of the Emperor. And in Germany everything was facilitated by the fact that the Americans were seen as the only thing that could save them from the threat of Soviet communism.

Iraq was always going to be different. There was no state authority left. And the US was rather seen as allied with at the least one state considered by many to be an enemy, namely Israel. A confrontational stance towards Iran didn’t help too much either.

Add to that a distinct shortage of troops, a naive underestimation of the political and economic challenges and a tendency to go for short-term solutions time after time and it’s hardly surprising that one now sees difficulties everywhere.

It will take a decade or so until we can judge how things will work out.

Things could go distinctly bad prior to that – and that we will certainly notice – but things are unlikely to go distinctly good in any time frame lesser than that.

The Critical Battle in Iraq

Federalism Emerges As Deal-Breaker in Iraq – Yahoo! News

Media reports create the impression that the security situation is the most serious of the challenges in Iraq today.

Serious as it is, I would argue that it is the constitutional process that will really decide what happens in and with Iraq in the years to come.

By Monday, the different concepts should be brought together in a common proposal for a new constitution.

At the center of the debate is the degree to which Iraq will be a federal state with substantial powers for its different regions. And among the powers that are under dispute are the powers of responsibility for the oil revenues of the country.

In fact, the oil revenue question is central to the entire battle. One can have regions with very substantial autonomy, but if they don’t have access to financial resources they tend to be adjunct to the centre anyhow.

Sicily in Italy can serve as an example. For historical reasons it has a very far-reaching autonomy within Italy, but since most of the financial resources of the Sicilian authorities are coming from Rome it does not necessarily makes that much of a difference.

In Iraq it is hardly surprising that both the Kurds in the North and lately also the Shiites in the South want to have control of oil revenues. That’s where the oil is. And it is as natural that the Sunnis in the center are dead against is, and want Baghdad in control.

So we have seen the Americans coming in strongly to favour the Sunni position on this issue, knowing that if oil revenues are not flowing through Baghdad there are very scant possibilities of the country remaining some sort of united entity in the years to come.

These are other issues – notably those concerning the role of Islam in society – are now on the table as one rushes to complete the constitutional talks in order to meet the August 15 deadline.

We’ll see. Positions are very entrenched – and perfectly logical. As things stand now, it looks somewhat unlikely that the deadline will be met, unless there is a serious fudging of the more difficult issues.

Henry Kissinger on Exit Strategies

Lessons for an Exit Strategy

In a thought-provoking article in the Washington Post, Henry Kissinger compares the emerging discussion on a so called exit strategy from Iraq with what happened in Vietnam three decades ago.

His conclusion is clear:

”Because of the axiom that guerrillas win if they do not lose, stalemate is unacceptable. American strategy, including a withdrawal process, will stand or fall not on whether it maintains the existing security situation but on whether the capacity to improve it is enhanced. Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.”

And for this to be possible there is also the need for a political framework more stable than the one that is there now. He writes this as Iraq is only days from the deadline set for reaching agreement on its new constitution, and in a situation where there is no firm regional framework for the attempts to create stability in Iraq.

His indirect message is that it is certainly too early for a discussion on the withdrawal of substantial US military units from Iraq. Neither the security nor the political conditions are as yet in place.

It is difficult to disagree with that assessment.

Confused Norway Coming?

Valg 2005 – Aftenposten.no

On September 12th, Norway will elect a new Storting. The election campaign is likely to get going more seriously around the coming weekend.

If the present opinion polls are to be relied upon there is a certain probability that Jens Stoltenberg from the Workers Party Ap will take over as Prime Minister from Kjell Magne Bondevik from the Christian People’s Party.

Then, Norway would move from a coalition of the centre-right to a coalition of the centre-left.

It’s difficult to see that there are many grounds for dissatisfaction in Norway. The economy is one of the star performers in the OECD, and the high oil prices aren’t making things worse.

The centre-right government, with conservative Höyre having most of the cabinet positions, has been doing rather well over the past few years, although one could perhaps detect a certain sign of governing fatigue primarily in the Prime Ministers party.

The governing coalition has also had some difficulties keeping the challenge from the rightist populist Progress Party at bay. It looks like it will be doing rather well in the election.

If there will be a centre-left majority in the Storting, it will be a rather diverse one, and a Stoltenberg government will be a coalition between his Ap, the Socialist Left Party SV and the profoundly misnamed Centre Party Sp.

On economic policy, these parties can probably agree on higher expenditures, higher taxes and more of public monopolies. It’s not what Norway needs, but that’s another issue. But on foreign and European affairs, they are profoundly divided.

Both the SV and the Sp are against not only membership of the European Union – that issue will remain off the agenda – but also the present European Economic Area agreement as well as the agreement under which Norway will contribute to one of the so called battle groups being set up by the European Union. It is not difficult to foresee that this will risk creating problems for the government, as well as making Norway a somewhat less predictable international partner.

The Centre Party in particular has a profoundly xenophobic approach to everything outside the borders of Norway. For them, even the World Trade Organisation is something that must be rejected outright.

In addition, SV remains opposed to Norway’s longstanding membership of NATO, although they are most unlikely to press that issue.

This should contrast with an Ap that has always been a champion of Norway in NATO, and has a leadership that genuinely believes that the country should become a member of the European Union. They will have to govern with very strange bedfellows on these issues.

And foreign affairs are not unimportant for Norway. From having been an important member of NATO during the cold decades of the 70’s and 80’s, they have ended up in semi-isolated backwater after having again rejected EU membership in 1994. Norway needs to assert itself constantly in order not to be too marginalized on the international stage, and this requires a foreign policy that has the capability of being active on numerous different stages.

Given its handicap, Norway has not been doing badly in these respects in the last few years.

But a government deeply confused and divided over fundamental questions of foreign affairs will certainly not be an asset for the future.

Room for Talk

Bush Cautiously Optimistic as Iran Offers to Negotiate

Well, there seems to be room for more of diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear issue. Even the White House is sending out small signs of white smoke when it comes to the possibility of extending the political process.

We’ll see what comes out of the IAEA meeting. In all probability Teheran will be given some time to get its act together after the installation of the new president.

In the meantime, everyone is accusing everyone over the breakdown of the latest six-party talks over the North Korean nuclear issue.

Critical Battle Ahead in Japan

The Japan Times Online

With 125 votes against 108, Prime Minister Koizumi lost the critical vote in the Upper House of the Diet of Japan for bill to reform Japan Post. In July, he very narrowly secured the bill’s passage through the Lower House.

Now, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has deceided to dissolve the Lower House and seek a new election, probably in mid-September. He will go into that election with his LDP party divided over the wisdom of this particular reform.

It’s a daring and important move. For all its success during past decades, the structure of the Japanese economy needs reform, and the virtual monopoly the gigantic Post Office has on cash transfers in the economy is very much part of what needs to be changed.

But as always there are deeply entreched interests keen on preserving the status quo. These have now rebelled with the help of the leftist opposition and parts of the Liberal Democratic Party. There were significant defections also in the vote in the Lower House.

The election battle will be a battle for the soul of the LDP and for the future of reform in Japan. It’s been somewhat jokingly said that the LDP is neither liberal, nor democratic or a party. It’s certainly a very broad coalition including those favouring a heavy government and state guidance on most issues and those that want a leaner government and a more pronounced market economic course.

Now Koizumi will take this battle to the voters. He’s unlikely to allow the LDP dissidents to stand for the party, which means that they in many cases might well stand against the party. He can take losses and still survive – but there are limits to it.

Japan is the second largest economy in the world that is gradually coming out of a decade of economic stagnation. What happens there affects us all.

The elecion – September 11? – will result in either an acceleration of reforms under a continued Koizumi government and a reformed LDP, or complete political gridlock with obvious negative economic consequences.

September will then be the month with key elections over key economic issues in two key global economies – Japan and Germany.

New Rift in Israel

Haaretz – Israel News – Leader of the extreme right

It was of course highly opportunistic of Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resign from the Israeli government when the evacuation from Gaza was bound to happen. He wants to disrupt as much as possible.

Bibi is a media-savy and opportunistic politician who has now placed himself as leader of the extreme right in Israel, intent on blocking any move towards any sort of rapprochment with the Palestinians or implementation of the road map of the international community.

He will undoubtedly split the Likud party and create waves in Israeli public opinion. But he is most unlikely to derail the disengagement, and might as a matter of fact make it marginally more possible that there will be a continuation thereafter.

Ariel Sharon is fighting his battle with the lawbreakers and extremists of Israel. He deserves support.

Iranian Nuclear Crisis?

Statement by the IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei on Iran

It was hardly to be expected that there would be a speedy and easy resolution to the issues connected with Iran’s development of advanced nuclear technologies. And now we are obviously approaching a crisis point.

Tomorrow Monday Iran is expected to reject the offer that the European Union after lengthy preparations presented to them on Friday. That in itself is hardly surprising. It looks as if the offer was rather vague on key points, and any bargaining around a deal is likely to be rather prolonged.

At the same time Teheran has announced that it will resume some limited enrichment of uranium at its Isfahan facility. Under existing treaties it has the right to do so, and it has made clear that it will not do it until IAEA has installed monitoring equipment so as to assure that no material is diverted for non-civilian purposes.

But still this means that Teheran crosses the red line that has been laid down by both the United States and the European Union. The EU has asked for a special meeting of the Board of IAEA on Tuesday to look at the details and how to react.

There might well be those in Washington that will be gloating over a perceived failure by the Europeans to sort out the issue. But they might well reflect on the fact that at the same time the latest round of six-party talks on the issue of the actual nuclear weapons in North Korea has been suspended without achieving much at all.

And the North Korean situation is by all standards worse. The country has left the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is already assumed to have a limited number of nuclear devices already, and could well start exporting technologies and capabilities as well.

Iran, by contrast, is rather far from that. Leaks from the latest US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran say that while the US intelligence community believes with ”high confidence” that Iran is determined to develop a nuclear weapon, it is ”moderately confident” that Iran is unlikely to make a weapon before the beginning to the middle of the next decade.

This is a more relaxed assessment of the situation than previous ones, and certainly less alarmist than those marketed by some other nations.

Iran certainly builds up capabilities and competencies, but it seems to be at the least a decade behind the North Koreans.

If the confrontation now heats up, there will be pressure to take the entire issue to the UN Security Council in order to try to get a decision on some sort of sanctions. The problem is only that such a decision might well be very difficult to get and that, if that happens, sanctions might as well lead the Iranians to accelerate their program and leave the NPT.

Then, of course, there are those advocating military action. But here the risks are very real indeed. Iran has the power to destabilize in both Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places. At the very best, air strikes could set back an Iranian program by some years, perhaps even less. And an invasion of Iran is not something that the US is even in the vicinity of having the capacity for given how its army is bogged down in Iraq.

In international affairs there are often situations where there are no ideal or immediate solution, and the only alternative is really to struggle along with the issue and hope that time improves prospects for solutions.

In Iran it seems as if we have more time than in the case of North Korea. Continued talks might well be not only the only realistic but also the best solution.

Robin Cook

BBC NEWS | Politics | Cook’s resignation speech

It is truly sad news that Robin Cook has died during a hiking vacation in the hills of Scotland. He was undoubtedly one of the profiles of the politics of Britain, and served as Foreign Secretary between 1997 and 2001.

That was the time – among other things – of the Kosovo war. He was somewhat less than pleased with me when I on the evening of the beginning of the NATO bombning said that I thought we would see a million refugess from Kosovo in the weeks and months to come. Up until then, there had hardly been any refugess from the fighting in Kosovo.

We had a somewhat tense discussion over the issue in the always impressive room that is the office of the Foreign Secretary. I said that we will see who’s right. But the key thing was that we saw eye to eye on how to get out of the situation and get a good deal for Kosovo and the region.

In the end, there were app 800 000 refugees streaming out of Kosovo during the next three months.

He was an intense and highly intelligent man. He made both friends and enemies with intensity. He was probably more Old Labour than New Labour, but very much Labour.

His perhaps most brilliant movement was the speech that he delivered in the House of Commons as he resigned from the Cabinet in opposition to its policies over Iraq. He won a standing ovation from both sides of the house for his moral clarity.

I remember seeing it live on television, and was determined during the following days to write him a letter of congratulation and admiration although I did not share many of his views. But his was a stand of principle, and he demonstrated political courage and moral principle in a way one does not see too often.

I never did write that letter, and unfortunately never saw him thereafter.

Today, there are few better ways of remembering him than re-reading that speech.

Putin Rebuffed in Finland

YLE uutiset

It’s unfortunately not that common for Western leaders to directly take issue with President Putin when he starts to accuse the Baltic nations of numerous things.

But when visiting Finland for an otherwise friendly and apparently good visit, he had to face the firm views of Finnish President Tarja Halonen on the subject.

Putin urged Finland – scheduled to become the EU’s presiding country in the second half of 2006 – to work with Russia in order to ”resolve the problems” of Russians in Estonia and Latvia.

Zeroing in on the issue of citizenship, Putin alleged that the legal category of ”non-citizen” is unique to Estonia and Latvia. Terming this situation ”absolutely impermissible,” Putin accused Estonia and Latvia of withholding citizenship and otherwise restricting the rights of those people ”on ethnic grounds.” ”Ethnic discrimination is unacceptable,” he warned.

On this occasion again, Putin tried to portray the Baltic states as breaching European criteria for democracy and rule of law, and he asked the EU to help Russia correct this situation.

In her response, Tarja Halonen firmly made three basic points.

First, Estonia’s and Latvia’s legislation and practice ”correspond with the criteria for EU membership,” as well as ”meeting the requirements of the Council of Europe and the OSCE,” on citizenship and related issues. Moreover, ”It is normal for any state to set certain requirements and conditions for granting citizenship.”

Second, minority-related issues ”exist everywhere in the EU, and are resolved within the EU, as well as in cooperation with the UN and OSCE. ” This point clearly intends to prevent singularization of the Baltic states by Russia and to preclude intrusion into EU political processes by non-member Russia.

Thirdly, the policies of Estonia and Latvia are ”doing their best … actively encouraging the non-citizens to take up citizenship,” Halonen noted, citing the ongoing increase in the number of citizens.

Good. Russians in Estonia and Latvia certainly have more of democray and freedom and protection for their human rights than have Russians in Russia.

UN Reform Failing?

For reasons not immediately obvious to me, a change in the composition of the Security Council has been put at the very centre of the efforts to reform the United Nations at the upcoming session of the General Assembly in September.

There are of course reasons for doing so. The present set-up with the five permanent members was decided in 1945 and reflects the realities of the world of those days.

The so called G4 group has been launching itself with great diplomatic energy in order to become new permanent members, although without the veto powers of the original five. It’s Japan, Germany, India and Brazil.

But these things don’t come easily. Each has neighbours campaigning against them. Italy is doing whatever it can to block Germany, China is doing even more to block Japan, Argentina is up in arms over the prospect of Brazil entering the exclusive club etc, etc, etc…

In order to get sufficient support the G4 group has rather desperately been seeking the support of the sizeable block of African votes. But at the end of the day the African nations failed to reach agreement within themselves on any sort of solution that could fit into what the G4 was trying to win broad support for.

And in the meantime the United States and China has formed an alliance of convenience in order to prevent any new permanent members of the Security Council. They are, in short, not unhappy with the present state of affairs, and fears that any enlargement, even one with friends, will bring a more messy Council from their point of view.

That seems to be were we are at the moment. The G4 are running into difficulties due to the divisions of Africa. Washington and Beijing are seeking to mobilize against them as well. It all looks rather messy, and on present trends will result in masses of diplomatic smoke but not very much more.

It might be just as well. In Europe, there are more solid reasons for waiting for the day when it becomes realistic to ask that the European Union gets a permanent seat on the Security Council than to now seat Germany alongside Britain and France.

In the meantime, the rest of the UN reform efforts risks being neglected. A curious proposal to set up a so called Peace Building Commission is likely to get through, not the least because no one seems to have been thinking through the issue enough. It’s not really more of open commissions that the UN need for its future complicated state building missions.

We certainly need the United Nations for many of the future challenges.

But then we need a UN reform effort of a different quality than what it looks as if we are going to get now.

A Pro-Growth and Pro-Business Europe

Macleans.ca | Top Stories | World | Out with the old…

The reputed Canadian magazine Macleans has written about the the search for a pro-growth and pro-business Europe. It looks into the policies of Sweden, Slovakia and Estonia as well as on some of the recent debates on the subject.

It makes good reading. There are good things happening.

Increasingle, what is happening in the Tallinn-Bratislava process of competitive economic reforms is reshaping the economic and political landscape of Europe.

Among others things, Macleans notes that Angela Merkel has pointed at the tax reforms in Central Europe when discussing the reform challenges in Germany beyond what the CDU has so far been proposing.

Deep Worries for Future of Sudan

1A1: Sudan Page @Sudan.Net

The death of SPLM leader John Garang is a tragedy and potentially a deadly setback to the crucially important peace process in the country.

After his triumphant return to Khartoum on July 8th, Garang was also Vice President of Sudan, and it was the axis between him and President Bashir that was the key axis in a peace process more complicated than most.

Sudan is Africa’s largest country with an ethnic and geographic diversity that borders on the mind-boggling. Ever since achieving its independence in 1956, it has been seriously affected by the tension between its Northern and Southern parts. Wars have alternated with periods of relative peace.

In its latest version, this war went on for more than twenty years and caused more than two million deaths. It’s been one of the world’s most devastating conflict for decades.

It was not the least the Bush administration that put the issue of peace in Sudan high up on the agenda, and it played a key role in forging the agreement that resulted in Garang becoming Vice President of the country.

It’s a highly complex deal. And the task of truly implementing it will not be an easy one. Sudan has seen peace agreements before, but they have all failed some way down the difficult implementation stage.

In essence, the agreement foresees a six year transition period in which an effort is made to build a united country with a very high level of autonomy for the South. After these six years, a referendum will be held in which the South has the option of becoming an independent state.

Within the South, there were mixed emotions concerning the deal. Some undoubtedly see the six year period as little more than a waiting period for independence. John Garang was the man that could have made the difference. He genuinly believed in a united Sudan, and in all probability would have worked hard for the agreement to succeed and the country to stay together.

Now everything is up in the air. That the US is rushing high-level envoys to Khartoum is hardly surprising. A break-down of the peace process in Sudan could have devastating consequences for the entire region. One only wonders if the European Union will also wake up.

John Garang was important in keeping the South reasonable united. The ethnic diversity here is great, and numerous groups are in more or less open conflict with each other. But some sort of cohesion of the South is a precondition for making the North-South agreement work. If the South fractures, so does th possibilities for peace in the country.

This also affects Darfur. Here, efforts to achieve a political settlement has made very little progress. With Garang’s death and the new uncertainity in Sudan as a whole, the possibilities of progress here virtually disappears. The already reluctant rebel groups are unlikely to sit down and make a deal if the future of the entire country is suddenly uncertain. And militant groups on the Khartoum side might well think in similar terms.

Then, there is a severe risk of the human suffering just continuing.

My own contact with Garang were limited. I know some of the other Southern leaders better. But his political role and importance was always the decisive on the big and important issues. He was a strong – sometimes outright brutal – leader of the South that could also maneauver the chancelleries of the world.

Now Me Salva Kiir has been appointed as his succesor as leader of the SPLM and Vice President of Sudan. He’s the former military commander of SPLA, but his political skills is a somewhat more unknown quantity.

His main task now will be to keep the South together. If the South fractures, so does Sudan, and then the risk of a large part of Africa fracturing is very real indeed. The human suffering to follow risks being truly immense.