Archive for the ‘United States’ Category
Pakistan Beyond ‘AFPAK’
The Obama Administration before taking office was well aware that Pakistan would be the most compelling threat for the U.S, foreign policy in the coming days. President Obama’s AFPAK strategy was presented as an attempt to restructure America’s approach in dealing with the Al-qaeda- Taliban challenge. In terms of strategy and approach President Obama’s Pakistan policy appears sound, but it needs to be realized that the nature and degree of crisis confronting Pakistan is yet to be fully grasped. The greatest test for the Obama Presidency will not be to deal with the Taliban threat but to fully comprehend the Pakistan challenge. Click to continue…
President Obama’s Diplomatic Outreach
The U.S. has for long sought to define and relate to its allies in unambiguous terms. President Bush epitomized this approach in his famous ‘either with us or against us’ speech and through his policy of pre-emption. The Obama Presidency appears to have opened with the objective of de-categorization of countries in U.S. foreign policy. President Obama is challenging the traditional tags for casting friends, enemies, competitors or facilitators while discarding the rigid criteria of ‘either with us or against us’. President Obama’s foreign policy approach puts Lord Palmerstone’s contention into action: “We have no permanent allies, we have no permanent enemies, we have only permanent interests.” This change of policy goes beyond a simple transition from Republican to Democratic administrations; it involves a transformation of global relations. Click to continue…
The Roxana Saberi Diplomacy
The case of Roxana Saberi has dominated international news during the past week. After being arrested for purchasing a bottle of wine in January this year, Roxana Saberi has been charged for spying by Iran and sentenced for eight years imprisonment. Saberi’s fate is being viewed as determining the future course of U.S. - Iranian relations. Critics of President Obama’s goodwill policy have raised Saberi’s issue as a vindication of the previous aggressive and non-conciliatory policy vis-à-vis Iran. While President Obama is gravely concerned about the safety of Saberi, he has continued to assert the value of diplomacy in resolving the issue and the Administration has not issued any threatening statements. 
The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has personally intervened in the matter and asked the chief prosecutor to ensure that Saberi is provided with full rights to defend herself, including a fair trial. The Iranian Judiciary has been quick to respond to the President’s appeal by expressing willingness for a careful, quick and fair consideration of an appeal against the earlier court ruling. Saberi’s lawyer has twenty days to file an appeal. So the issue will dominate media headlines and official discussions in the days ahead.
Is the Saberi issue a diplomatic challenge or a diplomatic illusion? Is Saberi being used as a smokescreen by President Obama and President Ahmadinejad to initiate diplomatic measures opposed by neo-cons and hardliners in the U.S. and Iran? The unfolding of the diplomatic and political drama indicates that this contention could be possible. Click to continue…
The Obama era of National Security Reform
Two important developments in the recent days are hinting at real changes in the U.S. national security approach. President Obama’s promise of change is proving not to be mere rhetoric; concrete policy proposals are being discussed for transforming the security apparatus and approach of the U.S.
[Photo Courtesy:www.whitehouse.gov/]
It’s now called “AFPAK”
There is a recent and overwhelming influx of the term “AFPAK” in jargon of international relations. The term owes it origin to the new policy approach adopted by the Obama Administration. The intragency review of the international strategy in Afghanistan headed by Bruce Riedel concluded that the counter-terrorism efforts need to focus on the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. So now we have the AfPak war. Though President Obama’s intentions can barely be doubted there are some serious concerns that the U.S. will have to contend with in dealing with “AFPAK”.
[Photo Courtesy: Reuters/Jason Reed] Click to continue…
Muslim Public opinion on Terrorism and U.S. policies
Terrorism is as much detested by the majority of the global Muslim population as is U.S. troop presence in Muslim countries. A recent study of public opinion in predominantly Muslim countries reveals that the population is widely opposed to the use of violence for religious purposes. However, they endorse the Al-Qaeda’s mission to expel U.S. forces and bases from territory of Muslim countries. Here are few interesting figures from the Survey:
-
Across eight Muslim publics on average, 66% considered the presence of U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf as a bad idea. The opposition is largest in Egypt (91%) but also considerable in the NATO member state of Turkey (77%)
-
From 87% (Egypt) to 62% (Indonesia) of the population believes that the U.S. seeks to weaken and divide the Islamic world.
-
Widespread support for involvement of Islamic parties and groups in national politics: 83% in Pakistan, 81% in Indonesia, 53% in Turkey, 50% in Jordan.
-
55% in Pakistan and 84% in Egypt disapproved of attacks on civilians in the U.S.
-
Significant numbers approved of attacks on U.S. troops based in Muslim countries: 83% of the Egyptians approved of the attacks on U.S. in Iraq.
-
According to 36% in Pakistan and 59% in Azerbaijan, the U.s. favors democracy only if the government is cooperative.
Highlighting the general views towards the U.S. the Survey concludes:
Views of the US government continue to be quite negative. The US is widely seen as hypocritically failing to abide by international law, not living up to the role it should play in world affairs, disrespectful of the Muslim people, and using its power in a coercive and unfair fashion.
It is interesting to note that some the most negative responses towards the U.S. have come from countries that are not traditionally considered threatening. This highlights the fact that despite cordial political relations, the Muslim population in many countries is opposed to the U.S. foreign policy strategies. Some of these figure and responses might help the Obama Administration in refurbishing the U.S. policy towards the Muslim world.
Islamist Extremism: al Shabaab Recruits Somali Youth in America
The U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a Hearing on March 11, 2009 on the evidence and implications that al Shabaab, an extremist Islamic group, was recruiting U.S. citizens for terrorist activities.
Al-Shabaab is a group of Somali Islamists operating in parts of Mogadishu and southern Somalia. Though the terror groups is not a direct threat to the U.S. its ability to recruit U.S. citizens for terror missions in Somalia emphasizes the dangers of homegrown terrorism in the U.S. Moreover, Al-Shabaab’s potential affiliation to the Al-Qaeda makes it a potent threat for the U.S. Young members of the Somali immigrant families living in Minneapolis have been exposed to the dangers of radicalization and many have left their homes to receive training in terror tactics. The threat is more immediate than what many would anticipate. There are confirmed reports that Shirwa Ahmed, U.S. citizen of Somali origin, was involved in a suicide bombing mission in Somalia in October 2008 killing 30 people. Senator Susan M. Collins succinctly points to the challenges confronting the U.S. in the wake of the recent al Shabaab recruitment drive: “Radicalized individuals trained in terror tactics and in possession of American passports can pose a threat to the security of the U.S.”
The F.B.I and National Counter-Terrorism Centre are devising strategies for dealing with the ensuing threat from al-shabaab. Nonetheless, the roots of the problem cannot be addressed through the official strategy of counter-terrorism. Abdirahman Mukhtar in his testimony before the Senate Committee elaborated on the issues of identity crisis, cultural conflict, economic challenges and language barrier faced by the Somali youth as possible factors preventing their assimilation with the mainstream American population. Complimenting the above views, Osman Ahmed, U.S. citizen of Somali descent, refers to the socio-psychological problems confronting his community in the U.S. The U.S. Government needs to evolve a holistic strategy moving beyond a purely politico-legal approach for countering spread of extremist within the national frontiers.
The Godfather Doctrine
The Godfather is a classic American movie centered on the rise, confrontations and adaptations of the Corleone family. The Godfather Doctrine is a book by John C. Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell to communicate, through the plot of the movie, the current state of U.S. foreign policy. Rather than attempting to explain the U.S. foreign policy through the complex theories of the disciple of International Relations, Hulsman and Mitchell use the analogy of The Godfather to connect to a wider audience. The reader may choose to agree or disagree with the authors, but this experiment at presenting a foreign policy parable is commendable.
After Bipartisanship at home, its multilateralism abroad
“On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.”
With these words was inaugurated the Presidency of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009. The promise of change that had dominated President Obama’s election campaign was expected to graduate as America’s new political philosophy at home and abroad. The emphasis on changing partisan bickering to bipartisan dialogue and hard power based unilateralism to cooperative multilateralism arrived with the new President to re-define America’s image and conduct.