On July 7th the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in an Address before the Arab Ambassadors stated that his Government was looking at the necessity of terminating foreign presence on Iraqi land and restoring full sovereignty. The U.S. public diplomacy machinery began operating in full swing after the statement was released and has emerged with a self justifying explanation: the remarks of the Iraqi Prime Minister are reflective of the confidence in the stability and democratic progress of Iraq facilitated through the efforts of the Coalition Forces. The venue and timing of the comments are being considered crucial. The regional concerns over Iraq’s stability were expected to be put at rest, while convincing the local population of the independence of the Iraqi regime ahead of elections in autumn.
The more serious considerations behind the demand to begun negotiations for a withdrawal strategy and date have evaded popular attention.
In September 2007, 17 Iraqis died as a result of unjustified and unprovoked shooting at the Nisour Square. Personnel of Blackwater Worldwide, a private agency contracted by the U.S. to operate in Iraq, were involved in the shooting. A week later the Iraqi Government revoked the license of Blackwater to operate in the country. In the last week of September, Blackwater received a contract worth up to $92 million from the U.S. State Department. In April 2008 the assignment to provide personal protection for diplomats in Iraq by Blackwater has been renewed for the third year. The FBI is still investigating the killings at Nisour Square; more than 30 witnesses have been questioned and three Iraqis have testified before the Federal Grand Jury in May 2008. Neither the lives of the ordinary Iraqis nor the decisions of the Iraqi Government were taken into consideration while renewing the contracts for Blackwater.
“This is bad news,” Sami al-Askari, advisory to Prime Minister Maliki said, “I personally am not happy with this, especially because they have committed acts of aggression, killed Iraqis, and this has not been resolved yet positively for families of victims.” The neglect of such crucial Iraqi concerns by the U.S. has in fact prompted the demand for withdrawing foreign troops from Iraqi soil.
The Nisour Square killing is not an isolated incident. In February 2007 a Blackwater sniper shot three Iraqi guards, without provocation, ironically from the terrace of the Iraqi Justice Ministry. In October 2007 a Blackwater personnel was so heavily drunk that he killed the bodyguard of the Iraqi Vice-President. In the same month an Iraqi civilian was shot for simply driving too close to the State Department convoy.
The Iraqi Government has come to realize that the U.S. is attempting to run the Iraqi state through private contractors who cannot be held accountable for their misdeeds. The Report from the American Congressional Research Service in July 2007 clearly indicated that the Iraqi government has no authority over private security firms contracted by the U.S. Government. A shocking incident in the Green Zone in 2006 has demonstrated that the Blackwater personnel have gained greater impunity than the regular U.S. armed forces. A SUV driven by Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee. The Blackwater guards disarmed the army soldiers and forced them to lie on the ground at gunpoint until the vehicle was recovered.
Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater has been a major financial supporter of the Republican Party. Hence Republican Presidential candidate John McCain is an obvious supporter of Blackwater. Even Democratic Presidential candidate Barak Obama has refused to rule out the deployment of private security companies in Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki has realized that the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq is a lucrative business venture for the American private firms like the Blackwater Worldwide. Echoing the popular sentiment the Iraqi Foreign Minister stated that there will not be ‘another colonization of Iraq.’ This is precisely the reason that Iraq has demanded more time for discussions on the Status of Force Agreement with the U.S.
The mission statement of Blackwater Worldwide reads: “Blackwater efficiently and effectively integrates a wide range of resources and core competencies to provide unique and timely solutions that exceed our customers stated needs and expectations”. The poorly equipped yet struggling indigenous Iraqi forces might be no match for the Blackwater, but it will surely be a national armed force serving and remaing accountable to the Iraqi people.
The demand of Prime Minister Maliki is less reflective of his confidence in the stability of Iraq and more a sign of the growing apprehensions over the privatization of the Iraqi reconstruction efforts.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
John McCain and Barack Obama: Choices on Shaping American Internationalism during the new Presidency
The policy through which the United States chooses to interact with the world decisively impacts the general course of international politics. From the decision to make the world safe for democracy by participating in the First World War to the campaign for promoting liberal democracy by containing communism; from building regional coalitions through economic and strategic pacts to pre-empting security threats to world peace, the internationalism pursued by the U.S. has been distinct and pioneering. With the inauguration of the new Presidency due in January 2009, the world eagerly awaits the new principles through which the U.S. would seek to define its interactions with the rest of the world. The eight years of Bush Administration and the imminent challenges facing the nation have created a necessity for re-defining American internationalism. The Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates have elaborated upon their respective principles to engage with other countries, which appears to cut across party lines to represent the unwavering American dream to be a world leader.
John McCain’s Address at the Hoover Institution on American Foreign Policy in May 2007 was replete with reference about ‘America as a nation endowed with a purpose’. He referred to the inadvertent U.S. mission of fighting the terrorist networks and emerging autocracies around the globe. The policies of China and Russia were criticized and Iran and North Korea were cited as countries threatening a peaceful order of democratic nations. In order to meet these challenges McCain has suggested overhauling the nation’s foreign policy, defense and intelligence agencies. The basic tenet of this transformation is building partnerships among the democratic nations. McCain does not rule out the military option for meeting prospective challenges, but refers to widening the military capabilities to meet these challenges more effectively. In his words, “We must never again launch a military operation with too few troops to complete the mission and build a secure, stable, and democratic peace. When we fight a war, we must fight to win.”
In the name of reviving the vital democratic solidarity John McCain simply seeks to shift the burden of American foreign policy adventures onto other democratic nations. He seeks to further refine the strategies of George W. Bush by institutionalizing such a partnership so that other member states come to shoulder an automatic obligation for the decisions taken by the U.S. The obstacles encountered by the U.S. in undertaking such missions through the U.N. are tactfully addressed by disqualifying China and Russia from such a grouping. His expectation that the new alliance would act where the U.N. has failed clearly demonstrates his design to insulate the U.S. policies from the control and scrutiny of the world body. McCain’s rhetoric appears impressive when he states that “To be a good leader, America must be a good ally.” But the purpose of his rhetoric gains clarity when he demands that America’s partners to be good allies too and accept an equal responsibility to build peace and freedom in the world. McCain has christened his new venture as ‘The League of Democracies’ and promises to call a Summit of world democracies during his first year as the U.S. President.
The foreign policy advisers of Barack Obama happen to be pioneers and supporters of the concept of ‘Concert of Democracies” fashioned on lines similar to McCain’s League of Democracies. Ivo Daalder and Anthony Lake, who happen to be Obama’s advisers of foreign policy, have written extensively on forging an Anglo-American Democratic Alliance to meet emerging challenges. Ivo Daalder has co-authored an article, “Democracies of World Unite” published in American Interest, where he emphasizes the value of institution based multilateralism instead of the ad hoc problem oriented multilateralism of the Bush Administration. In his view a Concert that brings established democracies together into a single institution would be best suited for countering the new global challenges. In referring to the obstacles of the U.N., exclusion of Russia and China and espousal of the objectives of the Concert, Ivo Daalder’s vision is a replica of McCain’s League of Democracies.
Anthony Lake has been the Co-Chair of the Princeton Project on National Security, the final report of which favors the idea of a Concert of Democracies for carrying out military interventions around the world, outside the framework of the UN Security Council. In an article in the July/August 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs, Barak Obama stated that America cannot met this century’s challenges alone; and the world cannot meet them without America. He further emphasizes on the need for strengthened institutions and invigorated alliances and partnerships to meeting the global threats; perhaps an indirect recognition of the Concert of Democracies. He seeks to build an America that fights immediate evil, promotes an ultimate good and leads the world.
The world is eagerly awaiting the end of the Bush Presidency in anticipation that the new administration, equipped with better policies and intelligent realizations from past mistakes will re-fashion America’s interactions with the world. It is widely expected that the American internationalism will be characterized more by dialogue and less by confrontation; more by cooperation and less by intimidation; more by justice and less by double-standards. The early signs of the foreign policy orientations of John McCain and Barak Obama have bellied such hopes. Nature of partnership with allies might change, warning signals to rogue state might undergo transformation and justifications for bypassing the UN might become more refined; in short the nature of American internationalism could change in form, but little is expected to change in substance. Irrespective of their party affiliations, both Presidential candidates view the status of America among the community of nations as “First Among Equals”. Hence with either a Democratic or Republican President at the helm of affairs, the U.S. is expected to continue a policy of ‘aggressive internationalism’.
John McCain’s Address at the Hoover Institution on American Foreign Policy in May 2007 was replete with reference about ‘America as a nation endowed with a purpose’. He referred to the inadvertent U.S. mission of fighting the terrorist networks and emerging autocracies around the globe. The policies of China and Russia were criticized and Iran and North Korea were cited as countries threatening a peaceful order of democratic nations. In order to meet these challenges McCain has suggested overhauling the nation’s foreign policy, defense and intelligence agencies. The basic tenet of this transformation is building partnerships among the democratic nations. McCain does not rule out the military option for meeting prospective challenges, but refers to widening the military capabilities to meet these challenges more effectively. In his words, “We must never again launch a military operation with too few troops to complete the mission and build a secure, stable, and democratic peace. When we fight a war, we must fight to win.”
In the name of reviving the vital democratic solidarity John McCain simply seeks to shift the burden of American foreign policy adventures onto other democratic nations. He seeks to further refine the strategies of George W. Bush by institutionalizing such a partnership so that other member states come to shoulder an automatic obligation for the decisions taken by the U.S. The obstacles encountered by the U.S. in undertaking such missions through the U.N. are tactfully addressed by disqualifying China and Russia from such a grouping. His expectation that the new alliance would act where the U.N. has failed clearly demonstrates his design to insulate the U.S. policies from the control and scrutiny of the world body. McCain’s rhetoric appears impressive when he states that “To be a good leader, America must be a good ally.” But the purpose of his rhetoric gains clarity when he demands that America’s partners to be good allies too and accept an equal responsibility to build peace and freedom in the world. McCain has christened his new venture as ‘The League of Democracies’ and promises to call a Summit of world democracies during his first year as the U.S. President.
The foreign policy advisers of Barack Obama happen to be pioneers and supporters of the concept of ‘Concert of Democracies” fashioned on lines similar to McCain’s League of Democracies. Ivo Daalder and Anthony Lake, who happen to be Obama’s advisers of foreign policy, have written extensively on forging an Anglo-American Democratic Alliance to meet emerging challenges. Ivo Daalder has co-authored an article, “Democracies of World Unite” published in American Interest, where he emphasizes the value of institution based multilateralism instead of the ad hoc problem oriented multilateralism of the Bush Administration. In his view a Concert that brings established democracies together into a single institution would be best suited for countering the new global challenges. In referring to the obstacles of the U.N., exclusion of Russia and China and espousal of the objectives of the Concert, Ivo Daalder’s vision is a replica of McCain’s League of Democracies.
Anthony Lake has been the Co-Chair of the Princeton Project on National Security, the final report of which favors the idea of a Concert of Democracies for carrying out military interventions around the world, outside the framework of the UN Security Council. In an article in the July/August 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs, Barak Obama stated that America cannot met this century’s challenges alone; and the world cannot meet them without America. He further emphasizes on the need for strengthened institutions and invigorated alliances and partnerships to meeting the global threats; perhaps an indirect recognition of the Concert of Democracies. He seeks to build an America that fights immediate evil, promotes an ultimate good and leads the world.
The world is eagerly awaiting the end of the Bush Presidency in anticipation that the new administration, equipped with better policies and intelligent realizations from past mistakes will re-fashion America’s interactions with the world. It is widely expected that the American internationalism will be characterized more by dialogue and less by confrontation; more by cooperation and less by intimidation; more by justice and less by double-standards. The early signs of the foreign policy orientations of John McCain and Barak Obama have bellied such hopes. Nature of partnership with allies might change, warning signals to rogue state might undergo transformation and justifications for bypassing the UN might become more refined; in short the nature of American internationalism could change in form, but little is expected to change in substance. Irrespective of their party affiliations, both Presidential candidates view the status of America among the community of nations as “First Among Equals”. Hence with either a Democratic or Republican President at the helm of affairs, the U.S. is expected to continue a policy of ‘aggressive internationalism’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)