What prompted P.M. Maliki’s demand for withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq?

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.

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’.

Is the U.S. creating another Al-Qaeda in Iraq?

The U.S. is waging a global war to fight terrorism and defeat Al-Qaeda. The human, financial and psychological costs of the war on terror have been immense. The U.S. is attempting to adopt every possible military and non-military approach to meet the challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan- the two active theaters of the war on terror. But what appears strange is that the U.S. continues to commit the same strategic mistakes, in countering terrorism that facilitated its emergence in the first place. The roots of Taliban and Al-Qaeda can be traced to the resistance movement against the Soviet invasion of 1978. The U.S. had provided military support to the anti-Soviet movement, thereby assisting the consolidation of the Taliban. The inability of the U.S. to foresee the implications of arming the Taliban in a country characterized by political instability, social divisiveness and economic impoverishment has contributed in making terrorism an unmanageable challenge. It was a short-term solution that created long term problems.

The U.S. approach in Iraq, unfortunately, is following much the same course. The U.S. is arming and even giving pay-cheques to Sunni groups on the pretext of gaining local support for fighting the Al-Qaeda. In November 2006 Sunni tribal leaders approached the Coalition forces and suggested to form organized armed groups to resist the attacks by the Al-Qaeda terrorists. The U.S. obliged by providing arms and military training to these groups and initiating an incentive based payment method. The members receive a bonus for periods devoid of major attacks by opposition forces. The experiment referred to as the “Awakening Councils” by the U.S. forces and Al-Sahwa by the Iraqi people, was even commended by President George W. Bush in his 2008 State of Union Address. The President referred to it as ‘the surge by the Iraqis’. The services of the Al-Sahwa members are used by the Coalition forces to manage the security by countering insurgent groups, including the Al-Qaeda terrorists. In order to establish the indigenous character of the Al-Sahwa group and strategy, the U.S. forces refer to its members as “Sons of Iraq”. But these “Sons of Iraq” are performing important public diplomacy functions for the U.S. Abu Azam, one of the founders of the Al-Sahwa has referred to the threats that his group is facing from Iran and Syria in the process of stabilizing Iraq. The U.S. insistence that Iran is seeking to de-stabilize Iraq is expected to gain credence if a segment of the Iraqi population supports the claim. The Al-Sahwa is indeed serving as a multi-task force for the U.S. But history is repeating itself a little too soon for the U.S. Once again the U.S. is opting for a short term solution that could create long term problems.

There are several problems associated with the formation and operation of the Al-Sahwa. Most of the members of the Al-Sahwa are former Ba’ath party members, military and security officials who served under the Saddam Hussein regime. The Sunni population of Iraq has come to form a dominant segment of these new groups. The Sunni ruling class under the Saddam Hussein regime has come to be dominated Shias under the new political set-up. The sectarian rivalries have been further fueled by this turn of political fortunes in Iraq. Given these political and sociological realities in Iraq the emergence and strengthening of the Al-Sahwa forces is a matter of concern. By arming a Sunni segment of the population, which had been close to Saddam Hussein, the U.S. is re-enforcing sectarian and political divisions within Iraq. The Al-Sahwa, much like the Taliban, is attempting to achieve its religious and political aims through the U.S. The activities of Al-Sahwa clearly demonstrates this fact. In February this year, the group suspended cooperation with the Coalition Forces and demanded resignation of the Police Chief of Diyala Province, who happens to be a Shia. The common people still live in the midst of fear as according to them members of the Al-Sahwa have merely changed allegiance from Saddam Hussien to the Coalition Forces. A representative from the Iraqi Interior Ministry has expressed the opinion that Al-Sahwa has emerged as third security force in the country along with the Army and Police. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has agreed that intelligence reports establish that the Al-Qaeda operatives have been able to sneak into the Al-Sahwa groups creating major security concerns. The members of the Al-Sahwa are operating with a strategic purpose in mind and have clearly stated that they will resist any attempt by the U.S. to abandon the group after the short-term goals of the Coalition forces are achieved. In an interview with Patrick Cockburn, one of the Al-Sahwa leaders had threatened to go war against the U.S. forces and Iraqi government if the demands of his group were not complied with. (link: http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick03072008.html)

Under these given conditions will the Al-Sahwa emerge any different from the Al-Qaeda after the Coalition Forces withdraw and these armed Sunnis are deprived of any role in the regular Iraqi Army?

[Also Posted on http://www.juancole.com/2008/05/bhasin-guest-editorial-is-us-creating.html]

George W. Bush and His State of Union Addresses

"I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to serve the public interest with courage, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it, as well."
These sentiments were expressed by President George W Bush while inaugurating his presidency in 2001. After eight years in office, his State of the Union Address on 28th January 2008 summed up his tenure, though the role of conviction, public interest and compassion in framing policy is open to debate. 9/11 determined the focus of Bush presidency on the global war on terror. But the roots of his 'global campaign for freedom' runs through all his State of the Union Addresses, including the one delivered before 9/11.
In his Inaugural Address in 2001, the President clearly stated that America would build her defences beyond challenge, lest weakness invites challenge, and weapons of mass destruction will be confronted to spare the new century their horrors. In his own, "the enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world, by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom." The assault on the challengers to American freedom was made eight months before the terrorist strike on the World Trade Centre.
The agenda spelled out at the inauguration of the Bush presidency remains ambitious towards the end of Bush's presidential tenure. At the close of his first presidency, he had re-emphasized the challenges encountered in the global war against terrorism. The State of Union Address in 2004 referred less to American successes, and more to local problems and the inherent difficulties of the democratic experience. In the first four years, President Bush had the determination to realize the tasks set forth but the 2005 State of the Union Address made it clear that much had yet to be accomplished and that the journey was longer and more challenging than the one already traversed. In his 2008 State of the Union Address, President Bush explicitly stated that the "???enemy is still dangerous and more work remains". He further asserted, "Our enemies in Iraq have been hit hard. They are not yet defeated, and we can still expect tough fighting ahead."
The Bush era's foreign policy has impacted strongly on domestic politics in a characteristic American 'awe and shock' style. In his State of the Union Address in 2007, President Bush proudly announced the economic growth of America and referred to the low rate of unemployment and inflation. The 2008 State of the Union Address occurred in the midst of strong fears of an economic recession. Armed with an Economic Stimulus plan and several other strategies, Bush has attempted to allay growing economic fears in America. The grim economic conditions have multiplied the criticism of the Bush presidency over his Afghanistan and Iraq policies. His presidency has indeed diversified the challenges that America faced when he took oath as President in 2001.
The hall mark of the Bush Presidency has been an intense self-defined justification of his executive actions. It is some kind of pre-emptive rationale to defend every policy of his administration. In his various State of the Union Addresses, President Bush refers to the movement for peace in some areas and the death and devastation in others. But according to him, the advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists -- evil men who despise freedom, despise America, and want to subject millions to violent rule. Nowhere is the failure and violence attributed to flaws in US strategy and approach. Foreign policy during the Bush presidency has been based on a clear premise: that people, when given the chance, will choose freedom and peace. The timing for exercising this choice and the qualifications required for democratic rule are defined by the Bush administration. For countries like Iraq and Iran the time had come, while for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia the choice of freedom has still not arrived.
The faith in America's democratizing mission runs through all the State of the Union Addresses delivered by President Bush. In the twilight months of his presidency, it is hoped that he will leave behind some positive and promising examples of sustainable freedom and democracy around the world. President Bush is right in stating that "the actions of the 110th Congress will affect the security and prosperity of our nation long after this session has ended." But time will tell whether the effect of his actions will lead to more challenges or more rewards for the American nation.

Protect America Act – Protection or Infringement.

Protect America Act (PAA) is a piece of legislation for modernizing foreign intelligence law to better protect America. The provision of the PAA are sought to be included into the updated version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The PAA was passed by the Congress in July 2007 and was due to expire on February 15 2008. The House of Representatives has not re-authorized the Act for the ensuing year. With the expiration of the Act the PAA authorized current intelligence activated will not expire immediately as all such activities are authorized for a year.

What the PAA protects and what it threatens?

The Act allows the Administration to collect information without any oversight by the Congress or the courts. President Bush and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell have through their speeches and comments painted numerous scary scenarios threatening America if the Act is not passed. If one merely happens to read these comments, it would seem more likely to be a threat call from the Al-Qaeda rather than a speech from the American Head of State. For example Mike McConnell commented, “those living on American soil are likely to suffer a horrendous act."

Under this act the Attorney General and not the Secret Intelligence Courts, warrants year-long surveillance of people believed to threaten US and stationed outside the US. Though the Act is aimed at gathering information about people outside the US, calls and emails that are monitored in the process can potentially involve a US based party or person. In such a scenario the Act clearly infringes upon the civil liberties of US citizens. The Act contains no clarification about the issue of Americans’ calls and emails being intercepted in the process. The Act also provides legal immunity for the telecom companies cooperating with the Administration for realizing the new surveillance programme.

Beyond these technical discussions the PAA threatens a basic principle of the US Constitution - principle of ‘checks and balances’. Can the Executive be authorized to conduct intelligence surveillance without being accountable to the other branches of the Government of the people of America?

NATO – Realizing the US foreign policy objectives

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Summit 2008, the Summit Declaration reiterated NATO as an essential forum for security consultations between Europe and North America. The discussions at and decisions of the Summit demonstrate the kind of the partnership that exists between the European countries and the US. NATO has been and continues to remain a forum for implementing the US foreign policy objectives in Europe rather than a platform for a genuine trans-Atlantic partnership.

NATO had originated during the Cold War to counter the alleged domination of the European continent by former USSR. Though the cold war context no longer exists, NATO is rooted in its initial psychological moorings. The US continues to mentor and guide the functioning of NATO, while granting some superficial semblance of NATO as an equal partnership with the European countries.

The US insisted on allowing Georgia and Ukraine to join the NATO, while the European nations, Germany and France in particular, opposed the move. The Summit decided to review the application of Georgia and Ukraine in December 2008, which is interpreted as a success of European diplomacy vis-à-vis the US. On the controversy of the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the US eagerly towed the position adopted by the European nations. These decisions are being highlighted as an evidence of the ability of the European nations to counter the imposition of the US agenda on the continent.

Analysis of the more important decisions of the Bucharest Summit provide a better perspective of the kind of partnership that exists between the US and Europe through NATO.

The support of European states for the US sponsored comprehensive missile defense architecture has been the most prominent victory for the US at this Summit. In defending the need for missile defense President Bush had referred to past attacks like the 9/11 tragedy and the plausible threat of attack by Iran. Hence the US threat concerns clearly dictate the NATO missile defense strategy. The principle of indivisibility of allied security is a strategy by the US to realize its strategic goals on the European continent.

NATO could not be left untouched by the ongoing public diplomacy campaign of the Bush Administration. The declaration announced the launching of a new NATO TV channel on the internet which would include regular news updates and video reports, in particular from regions of Afghanistan. The rationalization for the decision was underlined through the need for providing appropriate, timely, accurate and responsive communication with local and international audiences in relation to NATO’s policies and engagements in international operations.

America’s search for reducing the burden of international responsibilities through expanding partnerships is reflected in the Summit Declaration. Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, Partnership for Peace, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the recently evolved individual Tailored Cooperation Packages indicate the diverse ways in which the US is building alliances through NATO to create multiple centers for sharing responsibility.

In keeping with the emerging concerns over America’s non-military challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan the Declaration refers to a comprehensive approach to address the future security issues. Equal importance of employing civil and military instruments in NATO operations was emphasized. The US fears withdrawal from Iraq would embolden local militias supported by Iran and thereby complicate its efforts at sustaining a Middle East peace process. The term of the NATO Training Mission in Iraq was extended through 2009 upon the request of the Iraqi government. The declaration highlighted the need to develop and field modern, interoperable, flexible and sustainable forces. These forces are expected to conduct, upon decision by the Council, collective defense and crisis response operations on and beyond Alliance territory, on its periphery, and at strategic distance, with little or no host nation support. This sounds much like the agenda of an activist US foreign policy.

The energy demands in the US are rising and so is the unrest among the oil-exporting countries which has led NATO to delineate a more prominent role in the field of energy security. NATO is expected to engage in the following fields: information and intelligence fusion and sharing; projecting stability; advancing international and regional cooperation; supporting consequence management; and supporting the protection of critical energy infrastructure. The Council in Permanent Session has been tasked to prepare a consolidated report on the progress achieved in the area of energy security for consideration at the 2009 Summit.

On substantive issues the US has dominated the stage, while the European countries played a decisive role with regard to certain procedural and membership issues. The US diplomacy has worked at its best in giving to the European nations a victory point for basking in the glories of an equal partnership with the US, while realizing vital strategic and political objectives of the US policy on the Continent.

Perception Management- Realism Revisited

The US is innovating on strategies for elaborating and refining the application of Morgenthau’s national interest defined as power principle. The most promising strategy in the American arsenal is the multi-dimensional public diplomacy campaign. A host of institutes and projects are commissioned with the task of providing PR services for the US foreign policy.

The Freedom Promotion Act 2002 instructed the US secretary of State to make public diplomacy an integral component in the planning and execution of US foreign policy

Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy is a bipartisan panel created by Congress and appointed by the President to provide oversight of U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics.

America Abroad Media provides in depth analysis of international affairs and facilitates cross cultural discussion of international issues and America’s role in the world.

Business for Diplomatic Action is a private sector task force with the mission to enlist the US business community in actions to improve in the world with the goal of once again, seeing America admired as a global leader.

The Office of Global Communications was formed in 2002 to coordinate strategic communications overseas with regard to American policies and values -- with greater clarity and through dialogue with emerging voices around the globe.

The contributions of John W. Rendon, Charlotte Beers, Karen P. Huges cannot be under-estimated; the recent appointment of Sada Cumber as US Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Countries adds a new dimension the US public diplomacy campaign.

The US has added a new dimension of ‘perception-management’ to the power projection principle of Realism.