Do Not Censor Hezbollah via Twitter

http://www.elusivepeace.com

Is Syria Suffering From a Family Business Conflict?

http://www.elusivepeace.com

Is Syria Suffering From a Family Business Conflict?

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

As a professional peacemaker, I tend to look at conflicts from the perspective of the people instead of politics. In the process of mediating thousands of conflicts, large and small, I find that conflict dynamics tend to fall into predictable patterns. This is especially true in family business conflicts. The same themes arise over and over again such that the conflict dynamics are predictable and systematic.

 While reading about the Syrian uprising some months ago, I read a brief mention of President Bashar al-Assad's younger brother, Maher. Maher, as it turns out, controls the military and is apparently the one responsible for the violent oppression of the protesters. I had wondered about that because Bashar was trained as medical doctor--an opthamologist---with no interest in politics or power until he was recalled to Syria by his father, the late Hafez al-Assad. So why would a western-trained physician married to a British-born Syrian woman who was a Citibank investment banker, lead his country into civil war? It began to sound like a classic family business conflict. When I started digging, I found all of the elements that I routinely see in deep conflicts. Of course, this is all highly speculative as I have never met the Assads or anyone that knows them. However, the superficial parallels to the trajectory of a family business suggest that the Syrian civil war is the result of an on-going, essentially unresolved, family business conflict.

 Here's the analysis I have constructed from the public records.

 The Family Business Founder

 Hafez al Assad assumed power in Syria, founding the family business. He essentially forced a buyout in a bloodless military coup in November 1970 as he capitalized on  internal conflict between the Baath Party’s more moderate military wing and more extremist civilian wing. Like any family business founder, he established an authoritarian regime with power concentrated in his own hands. His thirty-year presidency was characterized by a cult of personality, developed in order to maintain control over a potentially restive population and to provide cohesion and stability to the government. This management approach to government, while creating stability and wealth for the family, came at a cost. Dissent was harshly eliminated, the most extreme example being the brutal suppression in February 1982 of the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, the country’s economy suffered, and progress was hindered by an overstaffed and inefficient public sector run overwhelmingly according to Baath Party dictates.

 From the founder's perspective, however, all was well. Hafez had three sons, Basil, Bashar, and Maher, and a daughter Bushra. As is typical in many family businesses, the oldest son Basil, was crowned as the successor and heir-apparent.

 From a young age, Basil was groomed to be the next president of Syria. He was chief of presidential security while running a highly publicized anti-corruption campaign within the regime, and frequently appeared in full military uniform at official receptions, signaling the regime's commitment to the armed forces. He also had a reputation for driving fast cars and living a faster life.

 The Succession Plan Goes Awry

 In January 1994, driving his Mercedes at high speed through fog to Damascus International Airport  Basil crashed into a motorway roundabout and died instantly. The succession plan was just thrown out the window, and with it the seeds of future conflict were sown into the soil of Syria. Basil was sometimes referred to as "Basil the Martyr", and numerous squares and streets have been named after him. His statue is found in several Syrian cities, and even after his death he is often pictured at billboards with his father and brother. Thus, in his death, he continues to symbolize the aspirations of his late father.

 The Physician Turned Dictator

 Unlike his brothers, Basil and Maher, and his sister, Bushra, Bashar al-Assad was quiet and reserved. Bashar had no interest in politics or the military and, until Basil's death, never talked about politics with his father.

 Bashar excelled during his primary and secondary education in the Arab-French al-Hurriya School in Damascus. In 1982, he graduated from high school and studied medicine at Damascus University. In 1988, he graduated from medical school and began working as an army doctor in Syria's biggest military hospital. Four years later, he went to the United Kingdom for postgraduate training in ophthalmology. Bashar became fluent in French and English, and while in London, met and married a Syrian-born British investment banker. At the time, Bashar had few political aspirations and looked destined to have a normal professional career as a second son of a political leader. Thus, to his surprise, he was recalled in 1994 to join the Syrian army, after Basil's unexpected death. Without his consent, he had been appointed by his father as the family successor.

 Over the next six and half years, until his death in 2000, Hafez groomed Bashar for power. To establish his military credentials, Bashar entered the military academy at Homs. He was fast-tracked to colonel in five years. To consolidate the military power base for Bashar, old divisional commanders were retired and replaced with young Alawite officers loyal to the family. In public affairs, Bashar was granted wide powers. He became a political adviser to his father, was head of the bureau to receive complaints and appeals of citizens, and led a campaign against corruption.

 Hafez al Assad died in 2000. The Syrian parliament immediately passed a law reducing the qualifying age for president from 40 to 34 and unanimously affirmed Bashar as president. In a general referendum, Bashar received 97 percent approval from the Syrian public.

 The Younger Brother-Power Behind the Throne?

 Maher al-Assad, Bashar's youngest brother, was born on December 8, 1967. Like his brothers and sisters, he was raised out of the public spotlight. Maher went to the Academy of Freedom School for his secondary education and studied business at Damascus University. After graduation, he pursued a career in the military. When Basil died, Maher was considered as a possible successor to Hafez. Maher's reputation as hot-tempered perhaps influenced Hafez's decision to appoint Bashar as heir to the family business.

 

 After Basil's death, Maher assumed command of a brigade in the Republican Guard and distinguished himself as a good commander. His time as brigade commander allowed him to gain valuable military experience and build personal ties with his officers. After the death of his father in 2000, he was promoted from major to lieutenant colonel. and became commander of the Republican Guard. The Republican Guard is a 10,000 strong unit whose loyalty is said to be guaranteed by the revenue it receives from the Deir ez-Zor oil fields. Maher also became commander of the army's elite Fourth Armored Division.

 In June 2000, Maher was elected to the ruling Baath Party's central committee.

 Maher  has been alleged to be deeply involved in many corrupt schemes. According to Fortune Magazine, Maher benefited from the billion dollar money laundering operation at the Lebanese al-Madina bank. Al-Madina was used to launder kickback money of Iraqi officials and their partners in  illegal profiteering from the UN's oil-for-food program. Sources put the amount laundered through al-Madina at more than $1 billion, with a 25 percent commission going to Syrian officials, including Maher.

 Maher has often appeared in public with Bashar and is said to be one of his closest advisers.

 Maher, along with his brother-in-law General Assef Shawqat, who is married to sister Bushra, and Bashar are said to form the inner circle of power in the Assad regime. Shawqat was the former head of intelligence.

 Since the beginning of the Syrian uprising in mid-March, Maher's troops have played a key role in violently suppressing protests in the southern city of Daraa, the coastal city of Banias, the central province of Homs and the northern province of Idlib.

 The United States imposed sanctions on Maher for human rights violations in Syria. The EU sanctioned Maher for being the principal overseer of violence against demonstrators during the 2011 Syrian uprising.

Conflict Over Direction of the Family Business

 As I noted above, father's governance of the family business was characterized by stability and centralized rule based on his personal authority. Bashar, faced with the difficulties of his time, chose to lead ‘his’ Syria in a different direction. These ‘plans’ for a regime change received wide attention under the metaphor ‘Damascus Spring’ and included broad economic and political reforms. It was a period of high optimism among the Syrians: the period saw the emergence of some seventy ‘dialogue clubs’ for discussions between Syria’s civil society and its political elites - opposition parties played an active role in this period - and two private magazines, Ad-Dumari and Al-Iqtisadiyya, began operations. Bashar had great liberalizing plans as indicated by his inaugural speech to the nation on July 17, 2000.

 His plans were short-lived, however. Maher, apparently incensed at the loss of power, position, and privilege a liberalized Syria would mean, eventually convinced Bashar to back away. Bashar quickly learned that he was surrounded by men who ascended to power under the old patronage system. They were inclined not to give up their power to the masses.

 Resolution

 The US-led invasion of Iraq ended the Damascus Spring as the Syrian elites feared liberalization would destroy their power, position, and privilege.  Bashar probably was moved away from his personal inclinations by a complex calculus that included his sense of obligation and loyalty to his father and family, his belief that Maher as his replacement would be a real tyrant, his thought that he could play a moderating force on the extreme elements of the Syrian leadership, concern for his personal safety and security and that of his family, and protection of his personal position, privilege, and power. As a result, he acceded to his brother's advice and allowed the government to clamp down again on dissent, liberalization, and creation of a civil society based on the rule of law.

 The decision led to another 10 years of relative stability in Syria. However, the oppression of the Sunni majority, the continued corruption, and the absence of economic opportunity for young Syrians created the same dynamic as was seen in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. In this case, however, the family's business partners, Russia, China, and Iran, have provided shelter from the rest of the international community. Civil war has been the result.

 At the present, I would guess that personalities dominate the inner circle. Bashar is by far the best educated, but is quiet and reserved. Maher is not stupid, but apparently has a violent temper that is just barely controlled. We don't know much about brother-in-law Shawqat, but it does not take much to imagine that the former head of the state intelligence apparatus is strong-willed. It looks like two against one in the family board room fights.

 Bashar's Dilemma

 I would not be surprised if Bashar al-Assad to this day is deeply conflicted over his choices. He might be a true tyrant, but his background, education, professional training and chosen life trajectory before recall to Syria suggests otherwise. I think Bashar al-Assad is a liberal man caught in a Byzantine world of Syrian politics and power. He cannot escape safely because he knows too much and has compromised too much. I doubt, however, unless he is deeply self-deceptive, that he sleeps well at night. He might be fooling himself, but I think he is too intelligent to be completely self-deceptive.

 Advice from the Family Business Consultant

 The business is bankrupt. It was probably insolvent at the time Bashar took it over from his father. His reorganization plan had no chance of success because the entrenched interests could not tolerate the change. Yet, his plan was probably the only path to avoid eventual violence and civil war. Bashar has no easy way out. If he could find a way to move his family to safety, he might consider resigning. His brother Maher or brother-in-law Assef Shawqat would probably assume power, and the civil war would intensify as the insurgents saw his resignation as validation of their power. From Bashar's perspective, resignation would make matters worse, not better, for the Syrian people. He has already been labeled a war criminal for allowing his brother to brutalize civilian populations. He probably faces indictment from the ICC for war crimes and human rights abuses. Resignation would also be a betrayal of family, which is unthinkable in his culture.

 Remaining in power is not viable either. Even the normally quiescent and malleable Arab League has condemned his government and is preparing to impose stiff sanctions. Turkey has threatened to cut off Syria's electricity. Both the US and the EU are escalating economic and political sanctions. Only the objections of Russia and China prevent the Security Council from condemning the Assad regime and bringing the full force of the international community against it.

 If this were a true family business, my advice would be to sell or liquidate. The conflict will only destroy the remaining family wealth. Even if the current civil war can somehow be stopped, there is no long term upside for the Assad family. The oppression will not stop the protests and cannot contain the Sunni majority forever. The dramatically changed political environment in the Middle East no longer tolerates autocratic rule when that rule is harsh and despotic. Thus, the new business environment dictates a radical change in strategy.

  And, at the end of it all, there is the moral dilemma. How does a liberally trained opthamalogist married to an investment banker live with himself over the deaths of 4,000 civilians, clear and present inequity and injustice, and continued government sanctioned-violence perpetrated in his name?

 My advice, as a professional peacemaker, is to resign and face the consequences of past decisions. The shame of family betrayal will be great, but staying in the business will only lead to greater personal, family, and national betrayal. The Assad family business conflict doesn't seem a lot different than a lot of other family business conflicts and the outcomes are just as sad and predictable.

 

Douglas E. Noll is a lawyer turned peacemaker, professional mediator, and author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books, 2011).www.elusivepeace.com

Climae Change Neogtiations in Durban South Africa

http://wradio.com

THe Doug Noll Show-Talking About Climate Change Negotiations

http://wsradio.com

What's Wrong with America: Ideology and Injustice Collide

http://onlywire.com/r/59385016

Author of Elusive Peace Exposes Dynamics of Civil Unrest

http://www.elusivepeace.com

Elusive Peace A CPR Book Award Finalist

http://onlywire.com/r/59237656

What's Wrong With America-Ideology and Injustice Collide

Let's consider what makes this time slightly different than previous times of unrest. The essential facts are that most Americans are suffering through the deepest economic depression since the 1930s. We barely avoided a complete economic collapse and may still see an economic collapse if the euro fails.  With so many homes worth less than the loans against them, the American consumer economy is simply upside down. This is unique in our history--unprecedented home ownership with unprecedented loss of value. Second, the disparity in wealth between the top 1% and rest of American society is huge. Although wealth disparity has occurred in the past, this time around it is highly noticeable because of the media. There is also a complete social disconnect between the elite wealthy segment of society and everyone else. The very wealthy just do not understand the economic pain of the average American.

In terms of distributive justice, America is out of balance. Distributive justice is based on a three-legged stool of equity, equality, and need. Equity says that we should be rewarded based on our contributions. The more profits I make, the more I should be paid. Equality says that as equal members of our society, we should all be entitled to an equal share of the benefits. Need says that there are some in our society-the young, the sick, and the elderly--who cannot take care of themselves and must therefore be supported. This idea of distributive justice is very basic. Imagine an extended family 150,000 years ago. You go out and slay the wooly mammoth and drag big parts of it back to the fire. Equity says that you get the first, choicest haunch because you undertook the effort and risk to kill the mammothand drag it back to the campfire. Equality says that each adult member of the tribe gets a fair share for being a contributing part of the group. Need says that the children, the elders, and the sick get a share because the well-being of the group requires it. As long as the wooly mammoth is divided with these ideas in mind, everyone feels a sense of justice. Unfettered capitalism gives equity primacy in policy making. Unfettered socialism gives equality primacy in policy making. Neither system works without controls to keep all three legs in balance. This is the essential truth missed by politicians--there has to be balance between equity, equality.

If any of these legs gets out of balance, we experience a sense of injustice. That is what is occurring now in America. The wealthy and the anti-tax Republicans feel a deep sense of injustice that the profits they reap from their efforts are not being properly rewarded. The vast majority of Americans feel that, as equal members of society, they have been abandoned economically by the wealthy. All the money seems to flow to the top of the economic pyramid. Many Americans, wealthy and not, feel like the entitlement programs for the needy are taking up too much resource. So, the result is a feeling of deep and abiding injustice on all sides. There is no right or wrong answer here. What is needed is a recognition in Washington of this sense of injustice. The Republicans and Democrats should be engaging in a reasoned, civil dialogue  that results in policy decisions that balance equity, equality, and need to the general satisfaction of the American people.

In terms of the future of America, there are reasons for optimism. Fundamentally, as long as we maintain the Constitution without significant power imbalances and as long as we protect the Bill of Rights, we will prosper. We have huge resources, an innovative workforce, and a large protected land mass. The pressing needs for the future include making sure that every child has food, shelter and safety, is well-educated, and has economic and social opportunity. We must revert back to teaching critical thinking through science, mathematics, and language skills so that our children can deal with the ambiguity and complexity of the modern world.

We have to tax ourselves to invest in infrastructure. We have to debate the need for a military that costs fifty cents out of every federal tax dollar we pay out. We have to make hard policy choices and compromise where we can.

What will kill us is decisions driven by mindless ideologies, left or right, that focus on protecting power, position, and privilege. That attitude, now prevalent in political circles, will surely destroy us because we will not be able to respond to the rapidly changing world environment. The American people will have a choice in November 2012 between ideology and compromise. We shall see how they choose.

Doug Noll, author of Elusive Peace interviewed tomorrow am on The Lyceum: Critiques of Ancient and Modern Understanding

http://onlywire.com/r/55511222

Doug Noll, author of Elusive Peace interviewed on The Lyceum: Critiques of Ancient and Modern Understanding with Dr. Michael Kell Friday at 7 AM Pacific Time on World Talk Radio Variety Channel

http://elusivepeace.com

Author of Elusive Peace Teaches Incarcerated Women Principles of Peacemaking

http://elusivepeace.com

The Doug Noll Radio Show

http://thedougnollshow.com

Peace Advocate and International Affairs Expert Warns Against Military Intervention in Iran

http://www.elusivepeace.com

The US Consideration of Military Action Against Iran-Dangerous to the Future of America

Military force shouldn’t be ruled out as a response to an Iranian assassination plot on U.S. soil, the top House Republican on intelligence issues said on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I don’t think you should take it off the table,” said Representative Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Rogers said other options would include rallying the international community against Iran or taking action against Iranian operatives in Iraq. Noticeably absent was any mention of aggressive non-violent or even peaceful ways of responding to the Iranian assassination attempt.

This is an another example of a way of thinking that is dangerous to the future of America. The idea is that violence or the threat of violence must be responded to with overwhelming pre-emptive violence. It rejects the law of lex talionis, an eye for an eye, which calls for restraint in the exercise of retributive power. One of the unintended consequences of having the most powerful military in human history is the belief that vexing problems can be solved with overwhelming, brute force. It didn't work for the Romans, and it will not work for America.

International relations has been a contact sport for a long time. But how foolish is it to consider a military operation against Iran? Iran poses no existential threat to the United States. Its government, while annoying, is in internal disarray. Its political, economic, and moral power is so weak that it must resort to terrorism and assassination to carry out its international agenda. It threatens to develop nuclear capabilities, but knows that Israel would not hesitate to snuff it out if the threat truly materialized.

Publicly considering military options against Iran is therefore beyond stupid. This kind of retributive, vengeful thinking has led us to a trillion dollar deficit caused by unbridled military spending and two wars in the first ten years of this century. Neither war, by the way, has turned out well for America.

The Iranians know that the US will not be flying Predators over Isfahan or dropping cruise missles into downtown Tehran. They are undoubtedly embarrassed at being caught in a clumsy, amateurish assassinaton attempt against the Saudi Ambassador to the US. But the idea that the US would respond to a botched assassination attempt with military force is ludicrous. First, the assassination attempt was aganst a Saudi official, not an American. It would seem that the fight would be between the Arabs and the Persians, not the US and the Persians.

Second, the US military budget is already stretched to the breaking point in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Does the Congress intend to come to the people of America asking if yet another war should be funded by an increase in taxes? Ironically, Mr. Rogers of the party that wants to dismantle government and elimnate all taxes, suggests that another expensive military adventure should be on the table. Fourth, even if the American people wanted a war with Iran, the vast majority of US allies do not.  A US military option is not a realistic or appropriate response to the assassination attempt.

Unfortunately, this kind of primitive thinking about the use of power permeates Washington.  One would hope that more thoughtful leaders would step forward to decry the wrong notion that attempted violence must always be met with overwhelming retributive violence. There are many other ways to respond effectively to this type of petty aggression. We need some maturity in the halls of power to prevent the further decline of America into a reactive, fear-based international tyrant.

Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).

Here's What's Really Beneath Occupy Wall St.

http://onlywire.com/r/53188007

Occupy Wall St.-Capitalism Meets Distributive Justice

The Occupy Wall St. protest movement is reminiscent of the social movements of the past. Beneath the headlines, however, there are deeper issues that deserve more thoughtful attention, including a consideration of the tension between distributive justice and the nature of capitalism. This tension, which is rarely, if ever, discussed, is at the core of the problem.

Distributive justice concerns how scarce resources are shared in a family, community, or society. Distributive justice has three components: equity, equality, and need.

Imagine we are in a clan 100,000 years ago. I go out one day and slay a woolly mammoth all by myself. I drag the carcass back to our encampment one hunk at a time. Around the fire that night, I get the first choice of wooly mammoth haunch. No one complains because I was the guy that brought home the bacon, so to speak.

This illustrates the first leg of the three-legged stool called distributive justice. It is about equity. Equity says that I should receive in proportion to what I contribute. If I contribute a lot, I should get a lot. If I do not contribute much, I should not get as much as the guy who contributed more.

Once I have my mammoth steak, all of the adults take their shares of the sizzling meat. We are all equal members of the clan and are entitled to equal shares of the meat. This illustrates the second leg of the distributive justice stool: Equality. Because we are equal members of the clan, we share equally. Being an equal member entitles me to an equal share of the group resources regardless of my contribution.

There is still some woolly mammoth meat cooking on the fire. Several of the adults cut off pieces and feed the children, the few who are sick, and the elders. This is the third leg of the stool: Need. In every group, there are members who cannot provide for themselves, but nevertheless have a claim on group resources. The young, the sick, and the elderly have a claim on the meat because of their need. Without the meat, they would starve. Because of their age or health, they cannot fend for themselves.

Distributive justice is therefore the delicate balance of equity, equality, and need. We each perceive that balance subjectively. Massive wars have been fought over perceived imbalances in equity, equality, and need. When someone claims unfairness around wealth, resources, or economic development, distributive justice is in play.

The Occupy Wall St. movement can be understood in the context of distributive justice as a massive feeling that the equation between equity, equality, and need is out of balance. The protesters feel that the corporate finance world has taken more than its fair share of resources, has set itself above the majority of society by garnering special tax breaks, bail outs, and de-regulation, and has failed to acknowledge and respond to the distributive justice demands of equality and need.

Capitalism and socialism are both mechanisms for attaining distributive justice. Capitalism emphasizes equity-you are rewarded based on your personal success. Socialism emphasizes equality and need-everyone gets a piece of the pie sufficient unto one’s self. Both mechanisms are deeply flawed if left unbalanced. Unrestrained capitalism leads to the kinds of distributive imbalances the Occupy Wall St. protesters are complaining about—the rich are getting richer while everyone else is suffering. Unrestrained socialism crushes the entrepreneurial behaviors needed to create wealth and leads to oppressive, repressive, and unproductive societies.

When conflicts arise over the distribution of resources, peacemakers ask the parties to explore the imbalances in the distributive justice equation. Solutions are found that help rebalance equity, equality, and need. In large social justice movements, however, this type of dialogue is impractical. Typically, the US government has had the responsibility to address large scale distributive inequity, inequality, and need through taxation, regulation, and redistribution policies. These policies have ebbed and flowed depending on economic conditions and demands of American society.

The problem today is that the US government is so polarized that it cannot act. This works to the advantage of the wealthy, who wish to see the status quo condition of distributive justice maintained. After all, it is the limited taxation and de-regulation of the financial industry that has brought about the huge aggregation of wealth on Wall St. Likewise, the wealthy would like to see re-distribution policies (Social Security and Medi-Care) deeply cut or eliminated.

Health care reform is a distributive justice policy designed to balance equality and need with the limited resources of the US health care system. Those who prefer equity argue vehemently against a national health care agenda. Those who are priced out of affordable health care argue just as vehemently for a system that treats people relatively equally and takes care of those in need. Both sides are right. The conflict is about what the balance should be.

Unfortunately, the political leadership in Washington, DC has no interest in finding compromise on basic distributive justice issues. As a result, a social protest movement has started and gained some momentum. If enough people find that the Occupy Wall St. movement resonates with their own sense of distributive injustice, the movement will translate into votes in 2012. Wise political leaders who value their positions should be taking note and not ignoring the demands to correct this fundamental sense of imbalance.

 

Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).

How Will the Next American President Respond to A Genocide in Kenya?

At this early stage in the 2012 presidential election cycle, foreign policy is not high on the list of hot topics. However, there are explosive issues brewing around the world that will fall straight into the lap of the next president. Thinking about how he or she might respond to these issues is therefore an important exercise in choice.

Kenya is a case in point. After the 2007 presidential election in Kenya, violence erupted as evidence of rampant electoral corruption erupted. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan was called upon to mediate the dispute between the two political factions. Although he ostensibly orchestrated a power-sharing agreement that ended the violence, his mediation efforts, while well-intended, utterly failed to address the structural issues that caused the violence in the first place. In fact, his mediation efforts likely created the foundation for a Kenyan genocide in 2012 (http://elusivepeace.com/chap8.html).

The Sentinel Project, in a recent report, states that Kenya faces a very real possibility of genocide arising in the next election cycle in 2012. (http://thesentinelproject.org/situations-of-concern-2/kenya/). There are reports of tribal militias engaged in an arms race in advance of the December 2012 elections, which creates the potential for mass inter-tribal violence at a level not seen since the Rwandan genocide in 1993. There are unresolved structural problems around land ownership, distibution of wealth, corruption, tribal rivalries, and access to patronage that are simmering within the country. In the northeast province, over 500,000 Somalis have gathered as refugees from the Somali drought, famine, and violence. This humanitarian disaster is adding stress to a country torn by political, economic, ethnic, and tribal conflicts.

Normally, most Americans don't think much about Kenya's problems, if they think about Kenya at all. Maybe the closest one comes to Kenya is looking at the Starbucks coffee packages that advertise fair traded coffee from Kenyan farmers. Kenya does not pose much of a national security risk either. It is not a resource-rich country and certainly is not an oil-exporter. To most Americans, it is just another impoverished, corrupt African country struggling with the legacies of post-colonialism, AIDS, and deep internal conflict (http://elusivepeace.com/chap11.html).

However, the potential for genocide is real. Genocide is a diplomatic, public relations, and domestic political nightmare for an American president. One need only look at the studied indifference of the Clinton administration to the unfolding events in Rwanda to see that genocide is a dirty word in American political circles. In fact, Clinton administraton lawyers argued that the term "genocide" should not be used to described the massive horrors in Rwanda because that would implicate certain international obligations that the US would prefer to avoid.

This aversion to genocide is precisely why examining how a prospective president might deal with it is so valuable. It helps measure the integrity, intellect, and moral strength of the candidate.

Predicting how the current Republican candidates might respond to the imminent threat of a Kenyan genocide is, of course, impossible to predict. However, the public statements and speeches provide some insight into what could be a range of expected responses.

Rick Perry

RIck Perry has been characterized as a hawk internationalist  His approach to foreign policy and national security appear to be a natural extension of his personality: aggressive, unapologetic, and instinctive. His evangelical religious faith seems more Old Testament than New, which suggests a streak of vengeance, a preference for power as a means of solving problems, and a notable lack of compassion He has presided over 234 executions in Texas, a modern record. Despite evidence suggesting innocence, Governor Perry has refused to commute death sentences. In his book, he described himself in as "the kind of guy who goes jogging in the morning packing a Ruger .380 with laser sights, loaded with hollow-point bullets, and shoots a coyote that is threatening his daughter's dog." He attended Texas A&M when it was still a military academy. During the mid-1960s when most college students were protesting the Vietnam War, supporting civil rights, and generally heaving over old social structures, Perry spent his time with his hair cropped short, pants creased, and back straight. He was part of a minority of college students supportive of the Vietnam war and the military during his formative college years as he joined the Air Force in 1972 after graduating with a degree in animal science.

How would a president Perry respond to genocide in Kenya? The best guess is that he would not be inclined to intervene because US national security interests would not be at stake. The obligations of international law to prevent genocide would be legal technicalities that would probably escape him. His apparent proclivity towards impulsive violence (e.g., the coyote incident) would not extend to helping people in a far off land find peace. He would speak platitudinously, but would not commit US resources to preventing mass violence.

Mitt Romney

MItt Romney is the son of former presidential candidate George Romney, former Republican governor of Massachusetts, founder and CEO of the venture capital firm Bain Capital, and president of the organizing committee for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Romney ran for president in 2008, dropping out of the race on February 7, 2008.

In April 1965, Romney registered with the Selective Service, the government agency in charge of the military draft during the Vietnam War. He was not considered readily available for military service until December 1970 because of military deferments granted on the basis of his religion. When he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual draft lottery. At that time, no one drawing higher than 195 was drafted.

Romney's foreign policy positions were not well-defined in his 2008 campaign and are not well-developed as of yet in the 2012 campaign. His campaign website urges the use of "soft power," which suggests a different philosophy towards genocide than that of Perry. Romney advocates streamlining a fractured and bureaucratic foreign policy establishment through the use of regional envoys.

How would a president Romney respond to genocide in Kenya? The best guess is that he would seek a coalition of willing partners to provide some type of intervention under the direction of a regional envoy in charge of African affairs. He appears to be inclined towards international collaboration with allies in solving problems, and seems to understand the importance of relationships. Romney would probably support, but not overly-fund, a UN, NATO, or African Union sponsored peace effort in Kenya. He does not appear to have an interest in developing world peace when US national interests are not directly at stake. Still, he seems sufficiently experienced and motivated to prevent genocide within reasonable limits.

Michelle Bachman

Michele Bachman, a former tax litigation attorney with the IRS, is a member of the House of Representatives and serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

According to Wikipedia , Bachmann was a member of the first class of the O. W. Coburn School of Law, then a part of Oral Roberts University. While there, Bachmann studied with John Eidsmoe, whom she described in 2011 as "one of the professors who had a great influence on me." Bachmann worked as a research assistant on Eidsmoe's 1987 book "Christianity and the Constitution", which argued that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, and should become one again. She received an L.L.M. in tax law from William and Mary University and worked for the Internal Revenue Service until leaving to raise her family.

Bachmann states she was called by God to run for the seat, and that she and her husband fasted for three days on the decision. She was elected to Congress in 2006 and is the founder of the House Tea Party Caucus.

Mother Jones reports that Bachman has been advised on foreign policy matters by Frank Gaffney.Gaffney is a former Ronald Reagan Pentagon official who has become one of the leaders of the right-wing anti-Islam crusade. Team B II was an ad hoc group formed by his Center for Security Policy which last year produced a report, "Shariah: The Threat to America," on the existential threat posed by radical jihadis in the United States government.

How would a president Bachman respond to a genocide in Kenya? She has outlined the following criteria for US interventions overseas:

    "My view of foreign policy is that we need to be careful and circumspect about United States intervention in any foreign nation. Number one, does that nation pose a threat to the United States? Number two, have they attacked the United States? Number three, are there vital American national interests at stake? Number four: the security of the American people." (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/15/michele-bachmanns-foreign-policy/)

From all of the available information, it appears that Bachman would not be interested in preventing a humanitarian disaster arising from genocide unless it directly affected her perception of US interests. In all likelihood, she would defer to regional organizations such as the African Union to intervene in a purely African crisis. She does not see the US as a force for world peace.

Jon Huntsman

Although not a front runner in the Republican primary contest, Jon Huntsman has far and away the most foreign policy experience. The former ambassador and heir to a massive chemical conglomerate fortune is one of the most globally minded candidates within the Republican party.

Huntsman attended the University of Utah, performed a brief stint in Washington, DC as a intern for Utah senator Orrin Hatch and as a staff assistant to Ronald Reagan. He returned to Utah to work in his father's company, Huntsman Corporation. He eventually graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in international politics. In the meantime, the Huntsman Corporation became an international conglomerate. Huntsman began his political career in the George H.W. Bush adminisration and was eventually named US ambassador to Singapore. He was the youngest head of a US diplomatic mission in over a century.

After his public service, Hunt returned to Utah to take on the position of vice-chairman of the board of Huntsman Corporation.He was named US Trade Ambassador by George W. Bush in 2001. In 2004, he was elected governor of Utah. In 2009, he was appointed by President Obama as Ambassador to China and resigned in 2011 to take up his campaign for president.

Huntsman's foreign policy team includes former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, Council of Foreign Relations head Richard Haass and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, all foreign policy realists who served President George H.W. Bush (Bush I)

How would a president Huntsman respond to a  genocide in Kenya?

This guy would probably act responsibly and maturely to the imminent threat of genocide. He has been tutored by deep international experience and would understand the political, social, cultural, and economic nuances of any US intervention to prevent or stop a genocide. He would work with regional organizations such as the African Union, but at the end of the day, if an intervention were called for and no other choices remained, he probably the right thing and commit US diplomatic and military forces to stop a catastrophe.

Barack Obama

President Obama has not been dealt an easy hand as president. He inherited two wars and a collapsed economy that rivals the Great Depression in severity, economic dislocation, and political unrest. He has been insulted by the prime minister of Israel, the foreign minister of China (at the COP 15 Climate Change meeting in Copehagen) has had difficulty articulating a response to the Arab Spring, and has not articulated a clear foreign policy strategy to guide decision making in the 21st century. He has not demonstrated any creativity or leadership in foreign affairs, despite the early promise implicit in his Nobel Peace Prize. This is in part due to circumstances beyond his control and in part due to his relative inexperience in foreign affairs before taking office. However, he takes the problem of genocide seriously. He has directed an interagency review aimed at creating an intragovernmental Atrocities Prevention Board. This board will be charged with warning the president of impending atrocities and recommending ways to prevent them using diplomatic and military.

How would President Obama respond to a genocide in Kenya?

President Obama's instinct would be to build a coaltion of the willing to address the problem. However, to the degree that dissension within his administration grew around a response, he may deliberate too long and eventually accept a compromise solution that would prove to be too little, too late. If there was unanimity among his advisors, he might act more decisively. However, he has shown a proclivity for putting off tough decisions and then, when the crisis is upon him, engaging in a flurry of activity. The current fiasco over the Palestinian admission to membership in the UN is an example of how careful forethought could have prevented the last minute attempts to avoid a showdown in the Security Council.  However, President Obama appears to have the moral courage to do the right thing. In a second term, with a legacy to worry about, he could very well live up to the mantle of the Peace Prize by a swift, well-thought out intervention to prevent or stop a genocide.

Asking how candidates might respond to horrific events like genocides may be a venture in speculation. However, the exercise can help every American make a more informed decision about who she or he chooses as the next president. Hopefully, the Kenyans will not slide into genocide. It will take moral courage for the next president to help prevent the Kenyans from doing themselves in.

Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).

 

What Now in Afghanistan?

The assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was spearheading the reconciliation process with the Taliban in Afghanistan, has changed the dynamics of peace in Aghanistan. The Afghan government has evidence that the assassination, carried out by the Quetta Shura Taliban headed by Mullah Omar and based in Pakistan, was supported, encouraged, and perhaps financed by the ISI, the Pakistani Intelligence Service. The Pakistanis vehemently deny this charge. However, it would seem that Pakistani influence in Afghanistan is on a severe decline.

As a response to the assassination and the evidence linking it to the Pakistani intelligence service, the Afghanistan government has turned to India, seeking stronger ties and a reliable peace partner. This is infuriating and probably frightening the Pakistani military and intelligence service. The whole point of the Afghanistan adventure, from their perspective, was to de-stabilize the country, keep it in a low level of insurrection and civil war, and control the insurgents from Pakistan. They could thereby assure themselves that Afghanistan would not pose an existential threat on their western border. However, the continued duplicity that Pakistan has used as its chief strategy now seems to be backfiring. The US is tired of the lies, double-dealing, and outright deceptions carried out by the Pakistani military and intelligence service. This became apparent after Osama bin Laden was discovered living 750 yards from the Pakistani military academy and was assassinated by Seal Team 6. Now the Afghanistan government has turned against Pakistan as a direct result of Pakistan's involvement in the Rabbani assassination. Obviously, Pakistan is not a willing partner in the creation of a stable, neutral Pakistan and is beening ostracized from the process. What might this mean for a peace process?

First, any legitimate peace process will have to start inside of Afghanistan. No matter what any other country may wish, the Afghan people have to decide that they want peace, not war. This will by necessity be an internal process and therefore cannot be constrained by traditional 18th century diplomatic negotiations favored by the international foreign policy establishment. In other words, at the outset, there will be no high level peace talks between diplomats, envoys, and heads of state. 

Instead, if any peace process is to be effective and enduring, it must be organized and implemented from within Afghanistan. The stakeholders must include tribal leaders, village and regional councils (both shuras and jirgas), urban civil society leaders, women's rights leaders, government ministers, Pashtun, Tajik, Hazzari, and Uzbek ethnic representatives, and rule of law advocate, among others. The process must be carefully designed, fully funded, and organized by a mediation and facilitation team dedicated to a very long, arduous process. Lasting peace in Afghanistan will take 10-15 years to accomplish, not 6 months.

Second, the focus of the international community, especially the US, should be on supporting this internal process and protecting it from outside interference (e.g. from the Pakistanis and their Taliban proxies). Pakistan may be the major spoiler because peace is the last thing it wants to see in Afghanistan, unless it is in total control of the government. Pakistan and its Taliban proxies must be isolated and persuaded to stay out of the internal peace process.

Third, to the extent feasible, the NGOs and diplomats working in Afghanistan should be offering peace-related resources to the stakeholder groups. This could include referrals to mediation and facilitation experts, training in negotiation and mediation, training in effective group decision-making, and the myriad other skills needed in any difficult peace process. Building a systemic capacity for peace processes, negotiations, facilitated conversations, and restorative processes will be as important as the actual peace work itself. The US could divert a small percentage of its military spending in Afghanistan, which would be enough to support a robust peace process for the  generation that the process will probably take.

Finally, the international community should stay out of the way except to provide support and expert advice when asked. It should shelter the process, provide security as necessary in support of the process, and keep Pakistan at bay. Only when the Afghanistan people are speaking with one voice under a leadership regime that all trust to speak for their interests should the circle widen to include regional states.

This view of peace is very different from the usual trajectory of international peace efforts. It requires those who have power or think they have power to step back and allow for Afghanistan self-determination. At the same time, those who have power and are truly interested in peace can use their power to protect the process from outside spoilers. It means becoming a servant to peace instead of a master of war. It means putting the interests of the Afghanistan people ahead of national economic or security interests. It's unlikely that this dedication to peace exists in the international community. However, peace in Afghanistan is unlikely without it.

 

Douglas E. Noll is a professional mediator, author, and speaker. His latest book is Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts.

What Americans Will Lose if the US Vetoes Palestinian Admission to the UN

Americans could lose a lot if the US exercises its planned veto in the Security Council vote on the Palestinian application for admission to the United Nations. The question that is not being discussed is whether the loss is worth it.

The first thing to know is that the issue is not about Palestinian statehood. The media essentially has it wrong when it describes the UN vote as one creating a Palestinian state. The UN does not have the power to create a state. The issue is whether the Palestinian Authority will be admitted as a member to the UN. There are non-states who are members of the UN, such as the Vatican, and there are states that are not members of the UN, such as Taiwan and Kosovo. Being a member of the UN is not the same as being a state. Thus, the US is really opposing a membershp application, not a referendum on statehood.

Second, to gain admittance to the UN, the Palestinian Authority would have to accept the tenets of the UN Charter. Among other things, this would require a recognition of Israel's right to exist and a rejection of violence. Since Hamas rejects Israel's right to exist, the Palestinian Authority will be placed in a difficult dilemma. It can join the UN and accept Israel's right to exist, or it can reject membership and continue to oppose Israel's right to exist. The unintended consequences of the Palestinian Authority admission to the UN might actually work to the benefit of the US and Israel.The media doesn't talk much about this important issue either.

Third, a US veto against a symbolic membership application that does not have the force of law and may actually advance US and Israeli interests will be very, very costly. A veto will dispel any notion of the US's impartiality as a mediator in the Middle East peace process. A veto will be seen as an implicit endorsement of continued settlement construction in the West Bank. A veto will be seen as implicit endorsement of the non-peace regime of Benjamin Netanyahu. A veto will be viewed as inconsistent with the professed American values of freedom, self-dtermination, and democracy. Thus, a veto may cause important moderate elements the Arab world to turn away from the US as a model of peace, democracy, and protector of human rights. A veto will be used by radical political Islamists to incite further violence against the US, particularly the US military. A veto will harm US efforts to find peaceful solutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. A veto, in short, will make foreign policy initiatives in the Islamic world much more difficult. The cost to ordinary Americans will be reflected in continued unpopular military expenditures and a possible decline in national security, at least overseas.

The pro-Israel lobby and American Jews supporting Israel would say that all of this does not matter. What is important is the survival of Israel. However, they do not explain how the Palestinian membership in the UN threatens Israel's survival. This is a classic example of reactive devaluation: If it's good for the Palestinians, it must be bad for Israel. Israel's supporters are automatically and emotionally rejecting anything that could concievably benefit the Palestinians. Since they see the conflict in purely distributive terms--one side's gain must mean the other side's loss--any Palestinian gain must cause harm to Israel. However, a reasoned examination of the effects and implications of admission to the UN fails to uncover a cost to Israel. How, exactly, is Israel injured by the Palestinian admission to the UN? The media isn't asking this question either.

Finally, President Obama has precious little negotiation leverage over Netanyahu. To remedy the lack of leverage, he should withdraw the US threat of a veto. The more strategic approach might be to say, "The US has not decided on its position on the application of the Palestinian Authority for UN membership. Whether the US votes in favor, opposes, or abstains will depend largely on the willingness demonsrated by the Israelis and the Palestinians to progress towards a durable peace. The US is committed to peace in the region and will support those who aspire for it through their concrete actions. It will not support those who merely talk peace, but are unwilling to compromise." From this position, the US may leverage the parties to the peace table. Netanyahu has to know that the US may not oppose the Palestinian bid for membership in the UN. If he backs off of his hawkish, aggressive positions and compromises with the Palestinian Authority, great. If he remains opposed to compromise, including cessation of settlement construction, he bears the consequences in the Security Council vote. The same is true for the Palestinians.

That kind of sophisticated negotiation strategy seems unlikely because the domestic political costs at the beginning of a presidential electiion cycle will be too high. However, the cost of not alienating the pro-Israel special interests will extract a higher cost for world peace. Ultimately, American taxpayers will have to foot the bill for that price.

Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).

Understanding the Legal Niceties of the Palestinian UN Bid for Statehood

The media will be paying close attention to the Palestinian bid for statehood because that bid sets up a classic human conflict of little guy against Big Guy, of justice vs. injustice, of self-determination and self-rule against opression and autocracy. Moreover, the US, which will oppose the Palestinian bid in the Security Council will be made to look as a power-mongering hypocrite. The media loves this because it sells newspapers and magazines.
However, the legal technicalities will probably escape media attention, and those technicalities are important.They are not that difficult to understand so here's a primer on the process.
First, there is a difference between statehood and membership in the UN. They are not the same thing. For instance, Taiwan is not a member of the UN, but it is a state. The Vatican is considered a state but it is not a member of the UN. Kosovo is considered a state by major powers, including the US and the EU, but it is not a member of the UN. Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002, but it was a state long before then. During the Cold War, many states had their application for membership at the UN vetoed (such as Ireland, Jordan, and some Soviet republics) but this did not mean that they were not states. So the Palestinians may be granted membership in the UN, but that does not confer statehood upon them.
This is complicated by the fact that international legal scholars do not agree on what "statehood" means. Neither the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) or the Montevideo Convention (1936) define the process of the creation of a nation-state. There are two terms used to described the formation of a nation-state: constitutitve and declarative. Constitutive means that a nation-state is recognized as such by other nation-states. Looks like a duck, walks, like a duck, quacks like a duck, must therefore be a duck. Declarative means that in addition to recognition, the nation-state must demonstrate independence from other authority, have defined geographical borders, a defined population, and control over the internal affairs within the borders and with the population. The declarative standard would be difficult for the Palestinians to establish.
All of this makes for good law review writing, but is politically meaningless. The reality is that an international consensus has to form around recognition of a nation-state. When the consensus has formed, there are legal procedures in place to codify the consensus into a legal reality. Without consensus, forming a new nation-state, e.g., Palestine, is impossible.
I should probably mention that consensus, in this context, means that all of the major military/economic powers agree generally on statehood. This is not a majority-rule situation, which is key to understanding the legal and political dynamics of the Palestinian situation. If one major power says no, there is no consensus, and nothing that is legally effective is likely to happen. And having said that, in the 21st century, wielding that kind of veto power may be politically very, very costly if the veto is against the sentiment of the rest of the world.
The process of seeking admission to the UN as a member starts with a formal letter from the leaders of the region seeking recognition as a nation-state to the UN secretary-general asking for acceptance as a full member to the United Nations. (See Rules 134-138) The letter has to include a declaration that the nation-state accepts the principles of the UN Charter. I've search the Internet to see if I could find a copy of any letter. So far, I have been unsuccessful. I don't think the letter has been delivered yet, which is interesting in its own right. Is this whole thing a negotiation ploy by the Palestinians? As a side note, one wonders how President Abbas can speak for Hamas in accepting the UN Charter on behalf of all Palestinians. Since Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, which would seem to be a violation of the UN Charter, its hard for me to see how the letter can legally be received as a good faith declaration of intent of all Palestinians. But that is a side issue.
When the UN secretary-general receives the letter, he is required to forward it to the current president of the Security Council, which in this case, is Germany. The president must convene a committee to study the request and submit a report to the UN Security Council.
The UN Security Council, upon receipt of the request and the report, debates the issue and votes to approve it or not. In this case, the US, bowing to Israeli political pressure, will veto the request.
If, by some miracle, the Security Council approved the request, the matter would be referred to the General Assembly where the request must be approved by a two-thirds vote. As of early September 2011, that vote would seem assured as 135 out of 196 members have indicated approval of membership for the Palestinians.
If the Security Council does not approve the request, the UN Assembly may pass a resolution approving the request, but the resolution has no force of law.
In essence, the Palestinian application for membership into the UN is a legally futile act. Politically, however, it may require the US to exercise veto power against the will of the vast majority of the members of the General Assembly in favor of Israel. One must wonder about the wisdom of that strategy from both the Israeli and the Palestinian perspective. The US, which is the largest, most significant financial supporter of both regimes, will be the biggest loser.
In summary, if the Palestinians apply for membership in the UN, they will fail. The process will polarize the US Congress in an election year. It will alienate Israel. It will leave the Obama Administration with yet another foreign policy mess. And, it will do nothing to change the status in the region. This looks like another dollar auction situation being played out by President Abbas against the advice of his senior advisors. (See my September 5, 2011 post Libya Needs a New Diplomacy for a description of The Dollar Auction.)
One last interesting point that has escaped the media's attention: If the Palestinians were admitted to membership in the UN, they would have access to the International Criminal Court. Cables released by Wikileaks seem to indicate that Israel considers this possibility, indictment of senior Israeli officials for crimes against humanity, a significant security threat such that Palestinian pursuit of an indictment would "constitute an act of war" against Israel. The existential and primal fear implied by this statement suggests that peace is a distant prospect in the region.

Libya Needs a New Diplomacy

Libya needs a new diplomacy; not the tired, ineffective efforts of the modern diplomatic establishment. Here's why.

First, Gaddaffi is exhibiting the classic signs of the third phase of The Dollar Auction Game, a phenomenon well-known to conflict resolution theorists and practitioners, but absent from the lexicon of diplomats.

Speaking from his hiding place, believed to be in southern Libya, he said on Thursday Libya's "armed tribes" were still loyal to him and would fight on and expel the "colonisers".

"We will not surrender," he said. "We are not women and we are going to keep on fighting.

"If they want a long battle, let it be long. If Libya burns, who can govern it? So let it burn." (The Telegraph, September 1, 2011)

The Dollar Auction Game was invented by some theorists at the RAND Corporation back in the 1950s. Essentially, the game goes like this: The auctioneer offers up a $5 bill for sale. The rule is simple. The highest bidder wins the $5 for the highest bid and the second highest bidder, the loser, has to pay whatever his or her bid was to the auctioneer. I have conducted this game dozens of times with predictable results. The most memorable example was at a bankers' convention. The two hundred or so people in the room were all lenders responsible for loans ranging from $10 million to $50 million.

The auction began at 50 cents, and various bankers began bidding. At first, the attitude was "Hey, this is cheap. Maybe I can make a quick profit." Of course, everyone else in the room is thinking the same thing, and the price drives upwards. At around $3, the attitude changes from "This is a good deal" to "I want to win." The auction is now a game to be won or lost.

Eventually, as is almost always the case, the auction came down to two bidders. One was at $4.95, the other was at $4.99. The lower bidder went to $5. The game just changed again. Now, it was no longer a competition, it was "I know I am going down, and I am taking you with me." In that auction, I stopped the bidding at $20. I have of other auctions going into the thousands of dollars.

The Dollar Auction Game points out how emotions drive conflicts. Diplomacy is based on the assumption of rationality. However, rationality is the first thing to go out the window when people get into conflicts. Diplomats generally have no clue how to deal with the deep, intractable emotions in difficult conflicts, and therefore ascribe emotional conflict behaviors to "irrationalism." At that point, they wring their hands and call in the military. In this case, the world diplomats are talking about a UN military presence in Libya to deal with Gaddaffi's dollar auction situation. What they are not doing is thinking about Gaddaffi's psychology and developing processes for engaging him at a level that will de-escalate rather than inflame violence.

Second, while fighting has died down in Tripoli, life there remains very difficult. The Tripoli Post reported on Wednesday that much of the capital is without electricity and water. The pumps used to pump water from the man-made river to the reservoirs were not working because of the lack of electricity and the reservoirs were empty.

Though a cleaning campaign has started, some streets in Tripoli are strewn with torched cars and stinking garbage because trash had not been collected for months. Stores are closed, bombed planes sit on the Tripoli's airport's tarmac, and corpses crowd abandoned hospitals, though mass burials have been started.

To make matters worse, fuel prices have skyrocketed with the cost for a gallon fetching 28 times the normal price before fighting broke out. (The Tripoli Post, Friday, August 28, 2011)

As I have pointed in earlier blogs, the first priority of the National Transitional Council must be to get basic services back into the cities, including clean water, electricity, sewage, and sanitation. It recognizes this need and is asking for patience from the Libyan people. This is good.

At the same time, representatives of some 60 nations gathered in Paris Thursday at a Friends of Libya conference, aimed at helping the new Libyan authorities restore stability and a functioning economy to a country ravaged by rebellion and 42 years of dictatorship. Libya was represented by the two leaders of the rebels’ Transitional National Council — its chairman, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, and its prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril — who laid out the new government’s need for reconstruction aid and technical assistance. This was the classic, how-to-do-it diplomatic gathering. Speeches were given and sort of listened to. There was very little in the way of decision-making, and the likelihood of a rapid diplomatic response to the Libyan situation seems slim, next to zero. Even Secretary of State Clinton, who was present, offered nothing more than broad platitudes of support by the US.(New York Times, September 1, 2011)

What is happening is classic diplomatic failure. The international community supported an external military intervention in support of the rebels. For the 7 months of the campaign, no one apparently gave much strategic thought to what will be needed once Gaddaffi is tossed out. No one began the serious, difficult tactical planning for food, fuel, expertise, and logistical support necessary to get Libyans back to a semblance of normality while the National Transitional Council focuses on creating a new Libyan constitution and representative form of governance. Instead, at the end of the major offensive effort, they gather in Paris, not Tripoli, to debate, not act. They wish to avoid the debacle of Iraq, but lack the initiative of bold action to support the Libyan people.

What would a new diplomacy look like? First, the assumptions of rationality around human decision making would be given proper weight. Which is to say, not much.

Second, before anyone fired a cruise missile in February, a planning task force would have been convened to plan for the logistics of a post-Gaddaffi regime. Right now, there should be tankers and freighters off the coast of Tripoli filled with fuel, supplies, and support personnel to help the Libyans reconstruct their country. Because of the attitudes of the old diplomacy, it may be weeks or months before this happens. In the meantime, Libya will hang on the cusp of transformation or anarchy. Is this any way to run a modern world? The lesson here is that the old ways are not working. While the international community wants to avoid another Iraq, its behaviors, attitudes, and inaction virtually guarantee further turmoil and humanitarian disaster for the long-suffering Libyans.

Douglas E. Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books, 2011).

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict-Courageous Peace Leaders Wanted

In the lull after the media frenzy around Irene, it is a good time to reflect on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. In a few weeks, the Palestinians will submit a resolution to the UN General Assembly that asks that Palestine be declared a new nation-state. Regardless of where you might stand on this issue, there are a lot of practical problems with the resolution. Besides the fact that the US will veto it in the Security Council, it is politically meaningless as long as Hamas and Fatah remain irrconciliably opposed to each other on fundamental issues of economic reform, governance, and recognition of Israel's right to exist. It's pretty hard to organize a nation-state when there are two bitterly opposed parties that cannot agree on what that state will look like.
Khaled Mashaal, who leads Hamas as its political bureau chief, must be wondering what the future will bring. Although safely enscounced in Damascus, he is at the epicenter of the Syrian uprising. He has been watching the revolutions in the Arab world as one corrupt regime after another is challenged by the people. In his Damascus headquarters, he has a front row seat to the violent and brutal repression of the Sunni majority by the al-Assad brothers. Maschaal appears to be a smart man, so he must be aware that the uprisings have had some effect on the Palestinian people in Gaza. Is Hamas' rule strong or tenuous? Hard to say, but life is not improving in Gaza due to Hamas. I wonder how long the Palestinian people will put up with the deprivation? Mashaal's power is based on war and violence, not peace. He is able to hold up the Israelis has evil oppressors, occupiers of sacred homeland, and opposed to justice for the Palestinian people. Take away the conflict and his power evaporates.
Fatah, in the West Bank, is slightly better off. Its non-elected "prime minister" Salam Fayyad has worked hard to created the beginning of a nation state, with economic reforms, a vastly improved security system, and relatively clean government. The head of Fatah, Mamoud Abbas, continues to take criticism for Fayyad. Despite the incursions of Israeli settlements, the Palestinians in the West Bank seem much better off than their counter parts in Gaza. Abbas and Fayyad seem to be the moderates in the triangle. While not overt peace leaders, they will endorse any agreement that is decent, fair, and sensible.
The Palestinian Authority, the nominal "government" of a nascent Palestinian state, has limited capacity as a self-governing body, both in policy and implementation. It lacks control over natural resources, borders, revenue generation, and the movement of persons, goods, and services within its walled, fragmented, and colonized territory. It lacks the material resources and institutional infrastructure to be a redistributive and interventionist state. Most of its public revenue comes from other countries, notably the United States (about $600 million per year), and its economy remains under the grip of Israel.
Netanyahu's government in Israel is facing economic protests over policies that have made the Israeli rich wealthier and have decimated the middle and lower economic classes. Netanyahu has used the conflict with the Palestinians as justification for many of his policies. In addition, Israel sucks up 20 percent of the total US foreign aid dollar. In 2011, the US will give Israel $3 billion in direct foreign aid or about $500 per Israeli citizen. This suggests to me that, like Mashaal, he cannot make peace with the Palestinians for the simple reason that his biggest reason for political existence will disappear with a decent peace agreement. Yes, the Zionist extremists are trying to drive the Israeli bus. At the end of the day, however, a strong peace leader will tell them to shut up, sit down, and behave themselves, and they will.
In the larger context, word is coming out of Egypt that a segment of the Egyptian population wants to revisit the Israeli peace accords. Other countries in the region are struggling with post-regime change reality or are on the verge of dealing with the problems of popular governance. Iran has spies everywhere, doing its best to stir up trouble for its Arab and Israeli enemies.
As the news media moves towards the next international feeding frenzy, which absent some unexpect international catastrophe or political incident, I predict will be the UN Assembly vote on Palestinian statehood, keep in mind that peace only comes with the installation of courageous peace leaders. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians have strong peace leaders. They are led by men who see continued violence and conflict, if properly contained, as serving their personal, political, and economic interests. Thus, for peace to occur, there will have to be regime changes instigated by the people, either through elections or protests, or both. There is no hope for peace as long as the current triumvirate of leaders is in the political mix of Israeli-Palestinian politics.
The UN Assembly vote, if it comes to pass, will be like Hurricane Irene, a lot of wind, water, and froth, but no real significance in the long term prospects for peace. The real hurricane rests with the people, and when they decide to move, change will happen suddenly, forcefully, and in a big storm surge of peace.

Doug Noll is a professional mediator and peacemaker. His latest book is Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books, 2011)

Libya at the Cross Roads: Genocidal Civil War or Peace?

I just read a paper by Rotary Peace Scholar Duncan Autry that paralleled the ideas I present in my latest book Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts. What we concluded from entirely different approaches is that the traditional means of achieving peace is doomed to fail. This is especially true if applied to Libya. Libya has a choice, and the wrong choice will lead to disintegration of its fragile civil society and a dive into chaos and genocide. Unfortunately, the wrong choice would be to follow the traditional strategy offered by international diplomats.

First, let's look at the traditional strategy. In conflict situations, the international community views its peacemaking tools as military intervention, diplomacy, and legal action. These can be effective in some circumstances. In Libya, they are worse than inadequate; they will make matters worse.

The military option has already been exercised. While the Ghadafi regime is on the verge of being removed, there are serious unintended consequences. First, major elements of Ghadafi loyalists, armed to the teeth, will remain in country. There is little likelihood of surrender without a bloody, long term, low level insurgency fought by the loyalists. Second, the rebels are now armed as well. The rebel force, rather than being a disciplined military group, is an ad hoc mixture of tribal and militia elements that are not under a central command and control structure. There is no simple, expedient way of disarming these people. In effect, a second group of highly armed elements is loose in Libya. Whether they lay down arms or choose become warlords, criminal gangs, or insurrectionists remains to be seen. Third, the NATO strikes have pretty much destroyed the infrastructure of the country.

The diplomatic option is ill suited for the problems facing the Libyan people. Diplomacy is predicated upon a horizontal negotiation where foreign ministers negotiate with foreign ministers, generals with generals, heads of state with heads of state, and so forth. It is very status conscious and precludes vertical negotiation within layers of a society or culture. In Libya's case, there are bound to be decades of injustice, injury, anger, and conflict that permeate through society that must be reconciled. Diplomatic efforts and so-called "political solutions" cannot and will not solve those underlying structural conflicts. In fact, negotiating a "political solution" often makes things worse because the solution leaves in place all of the problems that caused the conflict in the first place.

Legal action is likewise not a viable peace process. Generally speaking, legal actions, whether civil or criminal, deal with specific conflicts between individuals. Legal action is poorly suited to addressing structural conflict. In addition, legal action only works if there is an independent judiciary with the enforcement powers of an executive branch willing to support it, attorneys trained and capable of representing the parties, and a respected tradition of the rule of law that allows losers to accept defeat without violence. Obviously, Libya is ill-equipped for effective legal action as a peacemaking tool.

So what should the Libyans do to prevent social collapse, civil war, and genocide after Ghadafi? Here are some ideas:

First, the Trans National Council should recognize that it may not have the voice of all of the people. It should approach the task of rebuilding Libya with deep humility.

Second, it should provide basic services to the people as quickly as possible. Electricity, communications, transportation, food distribution, clean water, sanitation, and public safety (community-based policing) should be at the top of the first 60 days To Do list.

Third, create a clean government. Since a huge amount of money will be spent in this process, patronage and corruption should be stamped out and utter transparency should be the credo of the day. The opportunity and temptation for graft will be very difficult to reject. The TNC should use every means to stop dishonesty and establish ethical conduct in government. Want the counter-example and results--look at Hamid Karzai and the incredible corruption of the central government of Afghanistan.

Fourth, create jobs that pay working people decent wages so that they can begin to provide a decent standard of living for their families.

Fifth, and most important, bring in international consultants, mediators, and facilitators to design and implement a national dialogue process. The TNC has unveiled a new constitution that has many admirable virtues. However, not everyone is buying into it. This is the problem of top-down political solutions. There has to be a bottom-up piece too.

Train the best and brightest Libyans in mediation, conflict resolution, negotiation, and facilitation across the country. Intervene in every conflict at the lowest level possible with skill intervention when possible and appropriate. Support the tribal sheiks and their indigenous peacemaking processes. Get people talking about their vision and hope for the new Libya. Start the process of building a national consensus around that vision.

This dialogue process should not be mired down in bureaucracy, and should begin as soon as possible. It should be a vertical and horizontal process so that the very high and mighty are listening and talking to the lowliest farmer, women are being heard, young people are being given a voice, the professional class is being respected, and tribal leaders feel enfranchised. In short, the dialogue process, as a massive conflict resolution and transformation project, should touch the entire Libyan population up, down, across, and through social, economic, tribal, ethnic, familial, and political sectors.

Libya has the good fortune of having significant oil resources. It can afford to pay for some outside help. This not "how its done." However, "how its done" gave us Iraq, Afghanistan, the Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, and host of other failed situations and states. The Libyans have an enormous opportunity to show the world how to create real peace. Not the absence of conflict, but the resolution of conflict through respectful processes that engage everyone.

 

Doug Noll is a lawyer turned peacemaker, professional mediator, and author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books, 2011). www.elusivepeace.com

Where the US Republican Presidential Candidates Stand On Peace

I am interested in where the Republican presidential candidates stand on negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy as a means of solving intractable international conflicts. As I read reports about Governors Perry and Romney and Representative Michelle Bachman as the leading Republican candidates, I saw very little about their foreign policy positions, their negotiating skills, or their positions on war and peace. Some digging around the Internet provides early indications, based on past public statements, of how each would respond to an international conflict crisis. Here are some selected statements and my analysis where each candidate seems to stand on the issue of peace. I also include Senator Ron Paul because he has such a startling different position from the other candidates and therefore provides a useful contrast of philosophy about peace.

Rick Perry

"I see an America that has the strongest defense in the world, by an insurmountable order of magnitude. I see defense technology that is miles beyond our allies or adversaries, and servicemen and women who are better trained and equipped than anyone. I see a functional missile defense system protecting us and our allies, and I see modernized fleets of ships and aircraft that are unsurpassed in their ability to overwhelm the enemy. I see a world where America promotes peace through the strength of her forces, which continue to be used to protect freedom rather than in conquest."  November 15, 2010

"There is no reason to believe that armed conflict with any major power is imminent, but the world is rapidly changing, and the US must be prepared for the ramifications of shifting balances of power.

North Korea and Iran, in contrast, are utterly unpredictable and do present an imminent threat with their nuclear ambitions. Kim Jon Il's regime sunk a South Korean ship, the "Cheonan", for no apparent reason, killing 46 sailors. Iran is rattling its sabers and developing nuclear technology with impunity. Hugo Chavez is harboring communist rebels in Venezuela. All of these issues require our attention and investment in defense capabilities.

Yet it is clear that after decades of ignoring the constitutional division of authority, our bloated national government is distracted and running thin on resources to perform its central mission.

Defense spending is not being squeezed out of the budget because of the explosion in entitlement spending." November 15, 2010

"Today we remember those sacrifices and pay homage to Americans who gave their lives in defense of freedoms we too often take for granted. But we also know that a black thread is woven into the complex fabric of human nature, a seam of depravity that feed a hunger for power, a willingness to violate every rule of decency to attain it, and cold-blooded commitment to maintaining it with an iron grip.

For that reason, we must always maintain a robust military capability, led by principled, decisive leaders who will employ it when necessary where freedom and security are threatened. Since the founding of our democracy, the threats to our freedom have shifted in their appearance and approach. But the guiding principles have remained the same. With our inherent sense of fairness, Americans do not like bullies and will stand up to defend what is right, no matter where in the world the threat exists." Memorial Day speech to veteran's group May 26, 2008

Governor Perry advocates for the strongest possible military force. This seems inconsistent with his desire for a much smaller, leaner federal government. There is nothing in Governor Perry's public statements so far that indicates that he would prefer patient, long term, diplomacy over military action. Like President George W. Bush, Governor Perry appears to believe that military strength solves the difficult problems of foreign affairs.

Interestingly, these statements seem inconsistent with Governor Perry's professed faith of Christianity. He is a self-declared evangelical Christian, which focuses on one's personal relationship with Jesus.  He seems to have formed his beliefs primarily on selective Christian principles that ignore the social commandments of caring about neighbors and loving enemies. His views seem contradictory to many of the teachings of Jesus, who advocated for a radical vision of peace.I think that Governor Perry would rather feel safe and secure behind a wall of military superiority than engage enemies at a deep emotional, intellectual, and spiritual level as equal human beings. He finds it easier to demonize and stereotype enemies as evil. He seems to lack the patience needed for peace, opting instead for the adrenalin of action. I would expect Governor Perry to to choose war over peace when the call is close.

Michelle Bachman

"Our courageous men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan are on the frontlines in the war on terror, but the horrific attack on 9/11 demonstrated that terrorists can bring the battlefield to our shores. For this reason, we must remain continually vigilant and ready with a broad based strategy that includes military action when necessary but also enhanced overseas intelligence capabilities, strengthened coalitions with willing partners and more effective and efficient homeland security." Campaign website, www.michelebachmann.com, “Issues” Nov 7, 2006

I was frankly surprised. This statement, along with her opposition to President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2007, indicates a more thoughtful and balanced approach to military action. Her vote against the troop surge was because she felt the American public did not have enough information to justify the increase in troops. She seems willing to require a higher standard of necessity before engaging in war. What is absent is any indication of her preference for negotiation and diplomacy over military action.

MItt Romney

"To battle the threat of radical Jihadists, we have sent the most courageous and brave soldiers in the world. But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years when troops were reduced by 500,000, when 80 ships were retired from the Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25%. We were told that we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend, but we didn’t get the peace. In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might--raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve.
Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008

"Q: In one of your recent debates, you refused to say whether waterboarding was torture. The director of national intelligence said flatly: “Whether it is torture by anybody else’s definition, for me it would be torture.” I wonder if that would influence you to conclude that waterboarding is torture, because you and McCain debated on that. McCain came down very, very firmly, saying waterboarding is torture.

A: You know, I just don’t think it’s productive for presidents to lay out a list of what is specifically referred to as torture. One of the reasons is that that term is used in the Geneva accord. And once you lay that list out, you are forever prohibiting the US from ever employing that technique, even in a circumstance where a city might be subject to a potential nuclear attack. And so we have found it wise, in the past, not to describe precisely the techniques of interrogation that are used here; also, so that people who are captured don’t know what might be used against them. " CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer Jan 13, 2008

"Q: You had said that the government should wiretap some mosques to keep tabs on Islamic extremists. Even without a judge’s approval?

A: No, of course not. But use the law to follow people who are teaching doctrines of terror & hate, and make sure that if they’re doing that in a mosque, in a school, in a playground, wherever it’s being done, we know what’s going on. There’s no question but that we’re under threat from people who want to attack our country in this global effort. We need to know about that, track them, follow them, and make sure that in every way we can, we know what they’re doing and where they’re doing it. And if it means we have to go into a mosque to wiretap or a church, then that’s exactly where we’re going to go. I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about. But don’t forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, & that’s what we’re going to have to do.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

"    America’s #1 Threat--Jihad: “The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims.”
    Radical Islam’s Plan: “I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam. Jihad is much bigger than any one nation. For radical Islam, there is one conflict and one goal--replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world.“
    Strength against Jihad: ”We need a stronger military. I propose that we sharply increase our investment in national defense. I want to see at least 100,000 more troops. I want to see us finally make the long overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense. We should commit to spent a minimum of 4% of GDP on our national defense. But increased spending must not mean increased waste.“
Source: The Man, His Values, & His Vision, p.109-10 Aug 31, 2007

"I asked Romney if he had considered what presidents are sometimes called to do, which is order attacks that kill lots of people. Romney replied, “America must remain the world’s economic and military superpower, and the best friend peace has is a strong America. You can’t be strong if you’re never willing to exercise that strength and show that strength. A 150-pound kid has to get in a lot of fights. A 250-pound kid covered with muscles who knows judo rarely has to fight.”

“If you have a strong enough military, no one will test you, and I think one of the reasons we face the challenges we do and we’re being tested on so many fronts is that people see we haven’t done a great job in the post-major conflict period in Iraq,“ he continued. ”We’ve been tested and have been found a little wanting. I think we need to be stronger. I don’t shrink at all from the need to protect this country and our sovereignty and our pre-eminence in the world.“
Source: A Mormon in the White House?, by Hugh Hewitt, p.190-191 Mar 12, 2007

Governor Romney seems to have an aggressive attitude towards the world. He dodges the difficult morality of torture. He sees the world in binary terms as black and white and good and evil. He demonstrates a primitive, school yard view of conflict when he says that size and strength equate to power and deterrence. He somehow misses the point of assymetrical warfare, which allows small, dispersed, "weak" forces to dominate a war zone. His statements about Islam indicate a view of force projection as the only means to peace. Instead of engaging those who violently differ with us, Romney appears to prefer military action. I see in his statements deep fear of engaging those he considers enemies at the deeper levels necessary for lasting peace.
 
Ron Paul

"Our Constitution gives us no authority to be the policemen of the world. All great nations end for financial reasons, and that is what’s happening today. We can’t afford it any longer. We spend a trillion dollars a year maintaining an empire. The Founders said: Be friends; trade with people; mix with people; don’t fight with people; don’t tell them what to do; practice diplomacy. But we are in this endless streak of interfering, involving, and dictating. We have two choices: we go to a country and we say “Do it our way or we’ll bomb you.” Then if they do it our way, we give them money. But we’re broke. We’re broke and we just can’t continue to do this. That’s what the dollar is telling us. The debt is too high, the dollar is weakening, the middle class is being wiped out, the international debt is so big, and we’re dependent on others, our good jobs are overseas. Who’s going to pick up the pieces? Are we going to restore REAL, conservative, Constitutional values to our country?" Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008

"Q: You recommend this: “I’d start bringing our troops home, not only from the Middle East but from Korea, Japan and Europe and save enough money to slash the deficit.” How much money would that save?

A: To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, it’s nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. You can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don’t need to be starting wars. That’s my argument." Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007

"Q: What motivates Al Qaeda?

It’s not because we are wealthy & prosperous & free. They come here because we are in their country. Permanent bases [in Iraq & elsewhere in the Arab world] just mean that we have expanded the opportunity for the terrorists to come here because there is greater motivation. So, if we want to protect ourselves against terrorism, we have to understand what motivates them. Even Wolfowitz admitted this. He said that the base in Saudi Arabia was an instrumental part of what motivated Osama bin Laden. So if we ignore that, it is at our own folly.

Q: When you made that point at the debate the other night, there were some boos that came out from that Republican audience. Are you in step with Republican voters?

A: I would say that since 70% of the American people want out of the war, and they are tired of it, the Republicans better pick somebody who is opposed to the war or have a new foreign policy, or they can’t win. Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer Dec 2, 2007

There is a lot in these statements to appreciate if you are a peacemaker. Senator Paul is obviously opposed the idea of America's military as a world police force, mostly because of the cost to the US taxpayer. He seems to be moving in the direction of peace, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. Withdrawing in the way that he suggests is not pragmatic. However, he may be open to balancing a drawdown of forces with increased funding of the State Department, the US Institute of Peace, and the the USAID. Even if the balancing were 100:1 so that for every hundred dollars in reduction of military spending there would be an increase in funding for peace, the investment in peace would far exceed today's minimalist levels of funding.

In summary, at this stage in the presidential primary campaign, it appears that Governors Perry and Romney are strong hawks with little interest in peace through negotiation, mediation, or diplomacy. Representative Bachman is slightly more moderate in that she requires a fairly high standard of necessity before she will commit to war. Senator Paul is by far the most likely to embrace techniques and processes of peace, but only because it is less costly and less intrusive on the American taxpayer.

Doug Noll is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books, 2011).