AAM DISPATCH

In a break from the past, the Obama administration has signaled its willingness to engage the International Criminal Court (ICC) by participating in a conference with members of the ICC. The US has not changed its policy on joining the court and still has major concerns over international prosecutors potentially trying US officials and the US military. The suggestion that an unaccountable prosecutor, independent from the Security Council and the rest of the UN system, remains a point of contention. From the Washington Post:

Although U.S. officials have come to support prosecutions of specific cases, such as in Darfur, they have long worried that an international criminal court might seek to constrain U.S. military action around the globe by carrying out politically motivated prosecutions of American soldiers. “There remain concerns about the possibility that the United States . . . and its service members might be subject to politically inspired prosecutions,” [Stephen J. Rapp, the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes] told reporters in Nairobi.

The ICC was established in 2001 to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Its chief prosecutor is pursuing war crimes cases in Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic and the Darfur region of Sudan. It has become one of the key actors on the world stage to bring justice and affect the peace process in situations of ongoing conflict. The struggle for the US is about what America’s relationship should and could be with the ICC.

What is the future path for the court and the critical benchmarks going forward? John Bellinger, former Legal Adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Leslie Vinjamuri, Assistant Professor of Politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London discuss whether cooperation between the US and the ICC is possible and if the ICC it has the clout and international buy-in to extend its de-facto jurisdiction beyond Africa.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Learn more about the ICC in Judging the International Criminal Court.

Javier Barrera ICC, International Politics

When questioned about the administration’s next steps regarding the war in Afghanistan, both Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agreed that although the media has been debating the possibilities of a troop surge or a draw down, the real issue at hand is how to fulfill the US commitment to the Afghan government and achieve President Obama’s goals for resolving the conflict.

In an exclusive interview taped last night at the Lisner Auditorium in Washington, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and Frank Sesno, Director of The George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs, pressed Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates on several of the most critical issues facing this administration. Much of the conversation centered on the war in Afghanistan, where recent controversy has brought into question public and international support of continuing the war. Secretary Gates steered away from the terms “winning” or “losing,” and focused only on achieving President Obama’s goal to disrupt and dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Are those goals achievable? “Absolutely,” Gates answered.

Although neither Gates nor Clinton would comment on the advice given to the President, they both made it clear that the either/or context in which the debate on the war in Afghanistan is taking place is counterproductive. Gates acknowledged that the situation in Afghanistan is “serious and deteriorating,” and that the Taliban has gained momentum. Gates called the Afghanistan/Pakistan border the “epicenter for jihad.” Clinton added that, “It is difficult enough to deal with the challenges emanating from Afghanistan and Pakistan and the continuing threats from al Qaeda. But to do it when there is so much pressure to make a snap decision is really counterproductive.”

However, both Clinton and Gates repeatedly stated, “We will not leave Afghanistan.” Referring to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s and the withdrawal of US support for the mujahedeen after the defeat of the Soviet Union, Secretary Gates made it clear that, “There should be no uncertainty in our commitment” to Afghanistan, and referred to it as a country vital to US strategic interests.

Both Clinton and Gates emphasized the need for both civilian and military presence in Afghanistan, and cooperation between their departments. While the military is necessary for establishing and maintaining security, Clinton and Gates both praised recent increases in State Department and USAID presence on the ground as a method to smoothly transition from a military operation to a peacekeeping mission. Clinton explained, “That’s an issue that is very difficult for the military to take on a sustained basis… And I appreciate what Bob said [that] trained civilians are force multipliers. They can begin to do the civilian interaction with tribal elders and others that will help to make the environment more secure that our Marines and soldiers have helped to create.”

Listen to the full program, Power and Persuasion, to hear their perspectives on the war in Afghanistan, nuclear negotiations with Iran and engagement with Pakistan.

Jaci Dickerson Foreign Affairs, International Politics, State Department

With the US imposing tariffs against the import of tires from China, the World Trade Organization will be taking center stage as China brings its case to the WTO panel for a ruling on the issue. US tariffs of up to 35% on Chinese-made tires runs “counter to relevant WTO rules” and “is a wrong practice abusing trade remedies,” an official Chinese statement said.

The White House says President Obama acted under a provision in the US-China agreement on Beijing’s WTO membership that lets Washington slow the rise of Chinese imports to give American industry time to adjust. From UPI:

The Chinese mission in Geneva said it hoped “all sides will understand its determination to firmly fight against trade protectionism so as to commonly safeguard the multilateral trading system by respecting WTO rules.”

The WTO is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. In November 2001 the conference in Doha, Qatar, provided a mandate for negotiations on a range of subjects concerning the implementation of the present agreements, namely the Doha Agreement.

But what is the status of the Doha Agreement and the current state of the WTO during a global financial crisis? The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently hosted a panel of speakers who gave their input on the economic crisis, protectionism and the future of the WTO.

Uri Dadush, Director of the Carnegie International Economics Program:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Steve Charnovitz, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Reginald Jones Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Arvind Subramaniam, Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Javier Barrera Economy, International Politics

This past June, President Obama delivered his address to the Muslim World from Cairo. It was no accident that it emphasized the principle of religious freedom. From Obama’s speech:

The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq. Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it.

In recent years, the Middle East has seen growing sectarian conflict, and a rising tide of extremists promoting a bloody and intolerant form of Islam. This issue of religious liberty extends far beyond the Muslim world. Religious persecution is on the rise around the globe, from Russia and India to swaths of sub-Saharan Africa.

But why is religious freedom so important to the US? Tom Farr served as the first director of the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom. That office was set up just over a decade ago after Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act—which made the promotion of religious freedom a component of US foreign policy. Listen to an excerpt from America Abroad’s latest program, The First Freedom.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Javier Barrera International Politics, Religion

At the recent “Strategic and Economic Dialogue” in Washington, DC, high-level Chinese and American officials met for two days of talks on a range of important issues. The meetings, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, covered a variety of hefty topics including climate change, counterterrorism, and global economic recovery. And as is often the case when high-level meetings between American and Chinese officials take place, many were listening for mention of one issue in particular—human rights. Here’s what President Obama said in his opening remarks:

Just as we respect China’s ancient and remarkable culture, its remarkable achievements, we also strongly believe that the religion and culture of all peoples must be respected and protected, and that all people should be free to speak their minds. And that includes ethnic and religious minorities in China, as surely as it includes minorities within the United States.

Support for human rights and human dignity is ingrained in America. Our nation is made up of immigrants from every part of the world. We have protected our unity and struggled to perfect our union by extending basic rights to all our people. And those rights include the freedom to speak your mind, to worship your God, and to choose your leaders. There are not things we seek to impose— this is who we are.

Raising the issue of human rights with China was a delicate task at an event designed to strengthen US-China cooperation on a range of important issues, and especially at a time when China is the world’s largest shareholder of American debt. As a result, President Obama was careful not to seem to be imposing American ideals upon the Chinese. But many had hoped the President would take a tougher line. Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) was among those disappointed with the level of attention paid to human rights during the talks:

I think the Obama Administration is AWOL on human rights. And with all do respect, I think the Congress, maybe both political parties, are actually AWOL on human rights. But the conditions in China for human rights or religious freedom are worse today than they have been in the last ten years…And the Obama Administration, if you looked at the report that came out the other day, they just had this joint meeting with Secretary Clinton and Secretary of the Treasury Geithner with the Chinese – it was economics, economics, economics. And no real discussion on human rights, religious freedom. And so I think it’s perhaps the debt that we have where we’re so indebted to the Chinese, they’re buying our paper, our currency, but the Administration doesn’t talk very much about human rights, doesn’t do anything with regard to it and I think there’s less interest unfortunately in the Congress than I’ve seen for a long, long while.

A press release issued at the end of the two days of talks said that both sides “discussed ways to enhance mutual understanding and positive cooperation on human rights issues through our Human Rights Dialogue and other initiatives on the basis of equality and mutual respect” and that they would seek to hold the next Human Rights Dialogue before the end of the year. But to some human rights advocates, the fact that human rights were not afforded the same prominence as the other issues discussed at the “Strategic and Economic Dialogue” was still a disappointment.

Monica Bushman China, Congress, Economy, Human Rights, International Politics, Religion, State Department

In a post titled, Jay-Z vs the Game: Lessons for the American Primacy Debate from Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch draws similarities in the rivalry between the rappers Jay-Z and The Game and “the nature of hegemony and the debate over the exercise of American power.” Jay-Z is one of the best-selling hip-hop artists of all time and The Game is an up-and-coming rapper who is challenging Jay-Z’s popularity and dominance over the hip-hop music charts. Lynch makes the case that Jay-Z is the closest thing to a hegemon the rap world has known for a long time, much like US dominance over world affairs. How should Jay-Z confront his rival? An excerpt from the post:

Nobody, but nobody, in the hip hop world has [Jay-Z's] combination of hard power and soft power.  If there be hegemony, then this is it.

But the limits on his ability to use this power recalls the debates about U.S. primacy. Should he use this power to its fullest extent, as neo-conservatives would advise, imposing his will to reshape the world, forcing others to adapt to his values and leadership? Or should he fear a backlash against the unilateral use of power, as realists such as my colleague Steve Walt or liberals such as John Ikenberry would warn, and instead exercise self-restraint?

As China and other emerging states, like India and Brazil, start to take their place as world leaders, can their rise lead to better global economic and political order? Does China’s rise as an economic leader threaten US dominance especially during an economic crisis? Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore and author of “The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Power to the East” and Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and author of “The Return of History and the End of Dreams,” both draw different conclusions in Power Shift on whether the US should welcome this new world order and if US democracy is still the dominant ideology of the 21st century.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Javier Barrera China, Foreign Affairs, International Politics

A pipeline project designed to reduce Europe’s reliance on Russian gas was given new life as government representatives of five European countries joined Turkish officials to sign a transit agreement on the so-called Nabucco pipeline, which would stretch 2,000 miles from the Caspian Sea to Austria through Turkey. The Caspian Sea holds a rich supply of oil and natural gas reserves.

Azerbaijan, an oil-rich country bordered by the Caspian Sea to the east, is seen as a potential principal supplier. This would be the second east-west pipeline that would bypass Russia, after the BTC pipeline, which originates in Azerbaijan. Russia currently supplies approximately 40 percent of Europe’s gas. From EurasiaNet:

“Now that the agreement is being signed, frankly an even more difficult process begins, as to what will fill the pipeline,” says Bulent Aliriza, director of the Turkey Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Signing the agreement was the easy part.”

Despite the signing, there are still no concrete agreements covering Nabucco’s supply. Azerbaijan is currently the most likely supplier, but it can’t fill Nabucco on its own. Other possible sources include Egypt, Syria and Iraq, whose Prime Minister, Nuri Al-Maliki, attended the signing ceremony in Ankara.

Europe wants to rely less on the Russian pipeline due to the frequency of the Russian-Ukraine gas disputes that caused major disruptions during the winter months. Russia is concerned because it is pressing for a competing pipeline and wants to maintain control over the region. Resource-rich Azerbajian is caught in the middle as it seeks to promote and produce oil and gas resources to Western Europe yet remain mindful of its Russian neighbor. Listen to an excerpt from Pipeline Politics and Caspian Conflict.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Javier Barrera Caspian Sea, International Politics

It’s not often that you get eight former Secretaries of State sharing the same byline, but yesterday that rarest of occurrences happened when the former secretaries, from Henry Kissinger to Condoleezza Rice, contributed a piece to Politico speaking out in defense of the two less affluent pillars of “smart power”: development and diplomacy.

A growing chorus—in fact, a cross-section of the defense, diplomatic and development communities—have sounded alarm bells over the State Department’s inadequate resources and the national security implications of a weak civilian infrastructure and workforce. One of the key institutions the secretaries cite is the Foreign Service. The US needs to engage not only with key governments in the Middle East but also with community leaders, college students and the Arabic-language press—key constituents in the battle for hearts and minds.

But it’s sending many of its foreign service officers out without the most critical of diplomatic tools: the ability to communicate in Arabic. In some embassies in the Arab world, upwards of 50 percent of the positions requiring Arabic language proficiency are filled by people who don’t meet the post’s requirements. The secretaries cited an American Academy of Diplomacy report saying that sending diplomats out into the field without language skills is like sending soldiers to war without bullets.

It seems that those controlling the purse strings have registered the State Department’s repeated calls for more funding for more officers. Earlier this month, the House passed the Foreign Relations Reauthorization Act, which includes a provision to add 1,500 new Foreign Service Officers over the next two fiscal years. A larger workforce could lead to a better prepared workforce, as it will allow for more time spent studying languages, and a solution to the proliferation of unfilled posts due to what one career Foreign Service Officer I spoke to called the ‘Baghdad tax’—the empty positions that are left as diplomats are pulled from other embassies to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On our next radio program, America’s Diplomacy Deficit, we look at this issue of language readiness and also explore how the State Department is doing on transformational diplomacy. Check America Abroad’s website in July.

Monica Villavicencio Diplomacy, International Politics

The Human Rights Watch International Film Festival is currently taking place and includes a film on the International Criminal Court. From The New York Times:

A selection of the festival’s stronger films would include “The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court.” This history of the tribunal, founded in 2002, follows the intrepid prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo over three years as he tries, without police backing, to issue arrest warrants to Congolese warlords and the president of Sudan.

The ICC was set up to investigate the world’s most serious war crimes, including genocide and crimes against humanity. Three permanent members of the UN Security Council: China, Russia and the US haven’t signed on to the court’s charter. In Judging the International Criminal Court, AAM takes a look at the arguments for and against creating the court and the trials of handing down international justice from The Hague, Uganda and the former Yugoslavia.

Watch the trailer for “The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court.”

Javier Barrera International Politics

In a recent speech given in Michigan, former President Bush defended his administration’s enhanced interrogation program. From US News and World Report:

Bush insisted “I made the decision, within the law, to get information so I can say to myself, ‘I’ve done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people.’ I can tell you that the information we got saved lives.”

On the first day of his presidency, President Obama issued an executive order banning the interrogation policies practiced during the Bush administration. Most recently, Obama released Bush Administration memos that detail the justification and use of water-boarding and the CIA’s other harsh interrogation methods to grill suspected terrorists. This reignited the debate over how to define torture. Although Obama and Bush disagree on how to deal with terrorists, they both agree on the threat of international terrorism. Listen to two excerpts from speeches by President Obama and former President Bush:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Listen to Interrogating Torture to learn more about the right, or wrong way to treat unlawful fighters.

Javier Barrera International Politics