Assad has a case of the Tuesdays

If you’re a Canadian, you’re probably familiar with Heritage Minutes (all of which are orders of magnitude more entertaining than any high school lecture on the fur trade I remember enduring), but you might not be aware of a few new ones that were released in the mid-2ooos, mostly having to do with foreign affairs. Check this one out. That Dextraze guy is a boss. He could give us all some tips on dealing with Syria.

In a move that should surprise absolutely no one, Syrian President Bashar Assad appears to have forgotten that he was scheduled to withdraw his troops and stop using heavy artillery this Tuesday, according to a peace agreement negotiated with former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, now an envoy to Syria with the UN and the Arab League. President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have conferred about it; both say more aggressive action from the UN Security Council is needed.

As much as I have little faith in the Security Council these days, considering the presence of member nations who are less than pro-peace, pro-pluralism or pro-democracy, there is something they could do: send in the peacekeepers. The UN Peacekeeping Force was specifically designed to oversee peace processes between and within states. Assad can’t argue that the agreement doesn’t exist; perhaps he would move more quickly with some “help” from this force.

Once that gets done, I’d like to look into bringing up Assad on charges of crimes against humanity. If using that phrase seems pre-emptive to you, consider the criteria for such a charge as outlined in this paper:

• There have been attacks on populations of people who had not been engaged in hostilities.
• There is a definite link between the acts (of killing unarmed rebels) themselves and the underlying “attack” on these populations.
• These populations are connected by their political opposition to Assad, and to a lesser extent ethnicity (he is an Alawite, a branch of Shia Islam, while most Syrians are Sunnis).
• The attacks are systematic, having come from the Syrian government over a sustained period of time with a great cumulative effect on human life.
• We can presume mens rea because the attacks are being carried out by the Syrian military, of which Assad is commander-in-chief.

It’s safe to say the international community has exhausted its diplomatic options. Much like Muammar Gaddafi (may he roast in peace), Assad must fall for this situation to be resolved. Let’s give him a little push.

Let’s get out there and kick some Assad

Many wonder why the U.S. seems to be resting on its laurels on the Syrian crisis when the Libyan crisis didn’t take much discussion at all, at least by comparison. Israel is certainly a factor – no U.S. president would risk turning control of a country so close to Israel and Hezbollah over to a Muslim Brotherhood, at least not without a treaty already in place. But there are two others: 1. Muammar Gaddafi was a global terrorist whose legitimacy never existed. 2. Only Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has the political appetite for it at home.

As of yesterday, McCain was the first U.S. senator to recommend air strikes on Syria, establishing safe havens there as they did in Benghazi, Libya. He is convinced that the Syrian city of Homs is already lost and, in the absence of a political solution or any other foreign nation willing to step up, the only way to hold off President Bashar Assad’s military is with foreign air strikes. He also urged the involvement of NATO and Arab League allies, for good measure.

I continue to attribute the bulk of the success of the Libyan revolution to the organization of the rebels. Whether because of poor timing or a lack of resources, no such organization exists in Syria. They don’t have a National Transitional Council. They don’t even have a solitary figure to regard as a natural replacement for Assad. There’s little chance that they would be able to form a crack fighting force under these circumstances.

McCain’s defensive argument might make sense if it were the job of the United States to deal with other countries’ despots. The fact is that American and Israeli interests were better served when Assad was just a president who didn’t like dissenters. The more regional stability there, the better for the West. I am absolutely not defending Assad’s actions – he has shown his true colors in this crackdown – but this explains the slowness on the part of the U.S. Let that be a reminder to everyone who thinks President Obama doesn’t care about those people.

There is more hope for a diplomatic solution in Syria than there ever was in Libya, but not much of one so far, and there’s no way around laws prohibiting assassination of foreign heads of state. If neither diplomacy nor Assad’s death happens and the U.S. is desperate to assure a pro-Western, non-Assad Syrian president, air strikes might end up being the best way to go. I don’t imagine McCain relishes the idea himself, but at least he’s honest about the prospects.

As long as the White House seeks congressional authorization and NATO participation, I will grit my teeth and go with it. Reducing interventionism would be so much easier if the world had fewer assholes.

You should look into getting a constitution

There is an unsettling number of people in the West, generally young and hyper-left-wing, whose propensity toward cultural relativism has led them to believe that Israel is a fundamentally racist, xenophobic state that relies on the military for absolutely everything. Their opponents, who are more difficult to peg by either age or politics, tend to respond by reminding them that the surrounding states are considerably worse. Let’s hope the latter continues to have the right idea in the face of growing right-wing sentiment in the Knesset.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is working to avert some of the bills proposed by more sharply ideological members of his own center-right Likud party, which include:

• limits on foreign government funding of domestic activist groups
• barring Muslim clerics from calling citizens to prayer through loudspeakers
• requiring all Supreme Court justices to have served in the Israeli military, from which Arab citizens are exempted

But these three have already passed:

• penalties for Arab citizens who describe Israeli statehood as a nakba, or “catastrophe”
• a ban on calls to boycott Israel or Israeli sentiments
• revocation of citizenship for those charged with terrorism

To a certain extent, I can understand the funding limits, although I would rather see these activist groups refuse to take money from foreign governments (or any, mind you) on principle. And there’s no reason not to have that citizenship law in place, assuming that by “terrorism,” we mean committing or intending to commit a terrorist act and not, say, linking to a pro-terrorist website. As for the military requirement, I’d sooner remove the Arab exemption.

Everything else is unquestionably a restraint on speech that does not directly incite people to violence. I assume that anyone in favor of those laws is more worried about the preservation of a Jewish state. If you are one of them, ask yourself why Arabs come and stay in Israel. Are they in league to make it progressively less Jewish? Or are they seeking refuge in a state that is, compared to the rest of the Middle East, progressive?

While I understand as well as anyone the worth of a Jewish state, Israel has derived its strength from pluralism and a willingness to tolerate dissent, which Jews are morally obligated to promote. Subverting these for the sake of cultural protection is antithetical to every reason Israel was made a state.

The snakes dressed as oil salesmen

Most Western countries have imposed rounds upon rounds of sanctions upon Iran’s central bank. So why do they announce fresh sanctions on a seemingly perpetual basis? One reason is because direct sanctions on the bank itself only go so far, which is why Congress is pushing legislation that would sanction other central banks that still do business with Iran’s. The second reason, of course, is oil. Always oil.

Those two reasons have been intertwined in this bill, as it stipulates that transactions between Iran’s central bank and others would have to be for the purpose of buying or selling petroleum. Food, medicine and medical supplies would still be eligible for sale, although I doubt anyone trusts the Iranian regime to distribute it fairly. The Obama administration wants plenty of time before the bill is enacted and the sanctions are applied. Congress wants it done now.

It might seem like an easy choice: wait and let them fund more nuclear weapons development, or just get it done. But if that were to happen, there’s a good chance of a serious disruption in energy markets, with the world’s fourth-largest oil producer experiencing weakened ability to sell its wares. And even then, they might still have a few customers. An all-out oil embargo might solve that faster, but history has made us wary of trying that out.

Thus, the measure put forward by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) empowers President Obama to decide when the energy markets are safe for new sanctions. (We’ll assume that his advisers will enable him to make the call as best as possible.) It seems like a fair compromise. The biggest benefit may be a renewal of the truth that energy production by ethical nations is not only an economic necessity, but a defensive one. Why do you think Israel has been at the forefront of getting off oil altogether? It’s not all environmental!

I am happy to report that the U.S. is doing more to make foreign aid distribution increasingly contingent on vital matters such as human rights and the refusal to sponsor terrorism. All peaceful nations should take the same approach to international markets. This is not merely protectionism, which would only be done in the interests of benefiting domestic producers. There can be no free trade with an unfree nation. Had they left this one out of the markets until they cleaned up their act, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

And in the meantime, you might want to step up your game in producing your own energy or enhancing trade with trustworthy countries that already do. No sense in quitting a job before you’ve found a new one.

State of the statehood

Somewhat predictably, the Palestinian Authority’s bid for statehood and United Nations membership has brought pro-democracy activists from all quarters to their side. Here’s a snippet from my friend Steve’s short essay on the subject: “How can we as Canadians oppose such a movement when our stance . . . has been to evolve a revolutionary stance on Human Rights, the constant advancement of equality of the peoples of the world and an immense effort to aid the oppressed?”

He goes on to point out that Palestinians were “forced from their homeland” in 1945; I will, for now, refrain from pointing out the many instances of those same people rejecting Israeli offers of old and new land afterward. Instead, let’s discuss the bid. The Palestinians have been living, for all intents and purposes, as an independent body, without enjoying the benefits of statehood. But the U.S., Canada and Israel won’t back their bid, thus a “showdown” looms.

Personally, I would like to see a State of Palestine, if only so they can get out of geopolitical purgatory. But there are some very good reasons why that has not happened yet. First, Hamas’s involvement in Palestine’s inner circle and continued control of the Gaza Strip. There can be no hope for a peaceful two-state solution as long as genuine terrorists have that leverage. It is not too much to ask for more moderate officials to choose between them and statehood.

Second, Israeli settlements. While the West Bank and Gaza Strip are generally thought of as “Palestinian,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been strident in his allowances to Israelis who wish to settle there. Anyone who is concerned for Israeli welfare should know that this is an utterly stupid idea. Why they would want to settle there, save proving that they can, escapes me. Political posturing is not worth the opportunities for renewed infighting.

Third, east Jerusalem. I would charitably define it as the “Muslim half” of the city; nonetheless, there’s no way Israel will give it up without a lot of fighting, and even that’s a lost cause for the Palestinians. The one thing they might agree on in this arena is that they’d both hate my solution. If that results in no more than the two high-fiving and going out for a beer, fine with me.

The North American and Israeli rejection of Palestine’s bid for statehood is not nearly as simple as opposing a democratic movement; all three nations have embraced it for themselves. I only ask that the pro-statehood crowd consider the above three issues when making their cases. Resolving them would be the surest signs of an approaching end.

Fayyad for president! (or whatever they call it)

If there were a Hall of Fame somewhere in the world for bad decisions, the one by the moderate Palestinian Fatah faction to form a unity government with their anti-Israeli extremist counterparts, Hamas, would have a gallery all to itself. That may be on track to becoming much less of an issue if Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is elected to head a transitional Palestinian government. With any luck, his election may infuriate Hamas enough to break out on its own once more.

Fayyad has a background as an economist, having been educated at the University of Texas, of all places, and having worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. He is head of the centrist Third Way party, billed as an alternative to the Hamas-Fatah dichotomy; most of you probably didn’t know the party existed. He is routinely described as “pro-Western,” which in itself is cause for Hamas to oppose him.

Unfortunately, Third Way only posted one-digit support in the 2006 elections, so its future looks far dimmer than that of Fayyad himself. You might wonder what Fatah would have to gain from electing him as head of the government. I suppose the wisdom at the time they struck the deal with Hamas was that it would, in effect, “neutralize” them and make them active, open-minded participants in dealings with Israel, the U.S. and international bodies.

It’s a nice idea in theory, but if we look at the Palestinian situation as having three key players – Hamas, Fatah and the collective West, which includes Israel – it goes absolutely nowhere when two of those sides are unwilling to make major concessions. Hamas will not agree to recognize Israel. The West will not agree to recognize Hamas unless it recognizes Israel. Fatah is in the middle, grasping fruitlessly for a compromise. There can never be much of one unless somebody gives an inch.

The unity deal may hold off a few bombing campaigns, but Fatah has far more to gain, by all measures, from taking a more pro-Western approach. A clear separation between the two parties would make Hamas much easier to control. I would hope that their long-term planning skills are lacking enough that they’ll make their continued participation in the unity government contingent on Fayyad not being appointed to head it. (I doubt they’ll read this.)

If Fayyad were an American, many of us would probably want to elect him to one office or another. He deserves full-throated support from the U.S. and its allies.

Insert obvious “crossing the line” joke here

At no point did I want to write about the impasse, if we’re going to call it that, between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Discussions of what a Palestinian state would look like within an Israeli context make my brainstem plead for clemency. But, hell, everyone else in the political world is talking about it, so I might as well throw in something. Besides, it’s better than hearing my mom rant about it. (See yesterday’s snark.)

The dialogue that has formed after Obama’s address on his vision for the Middle East and North Africa has focused almost entirely on his comments on Israel, which only took up about a fifth of his speech. He suggested – this idea was barely set in Play-Doh, much less stone – that they return to the West Bank and Gaza Strip borders circa 1967, only with Israel and Palestine swapping some settlement land between themselves. Naturally, Netanyahu was less than pleased.

Can you blame him? Wherever Obama got this idea from, I’m sure it’s not entirely his idea and some hapless White House adviser mentioned it. You know how the Oval Office operates; to my knowledge, no president has ever thought entirely for himself. But it at least seems as though he forgot to inform Netanyahu about it before informing the press. It’s a rare blunder on Obama’s part, but a massive one.

But don’t kid yourself about the symbiosis between the U.S. and Israel. The former needs the latter not only to garner the politically influential Jewish vote, but to gain very valuable intelligence and technology for military activity in the Mideast. The latter needs the former for funding and protection. Netanyahu may not be particularly crazy about Obama, but he’ll have a pack of Republicans just waiting to be his new BFF.

Netanyahu says these borders would be “indefensible,” which makes sense if there is no defined corridor between the West Bank and Gaza, and if such a corridor would cut Israel in two, not to mention the fact that Jerusalem would be divided, too. Perhaps Obama knows full well that this is a non-starter and simply wishes to get Netanyahu in the same room with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. As far as I can tell, that’s our only hope.

If Abbas is willing to talk to Obama, Netanyahu will get nowhere by refusing to join them. If that’s what Obama has in mind, he didn’t play it subtly at all, but it might end up the most successful risk he’s ever taken. Stay tuned for updates.

Disposal Day #70: The sound and the fury

STORY #1: Solidarity for now

Yesterday, President Obama gave one of his Very Special Speeches, this time outlining his vision for the Middle East and North Africa, which I will break down into three general sections. The first explored recent democratic uprisings. We can sum up Obama’s points as follows: We stand with the protesters; we should engage on the basis of “mutual interests”; leaders should either listen to them or leave; social media is playing a huge role in their success.

Here are my responses to each of those points, in order: Some of those protesters have questionable alliances, and most have no alternative ready to take the lead; you should only engage if there’s a clear and present danger to your own citizens; some of those leaders are very useful geopolitically, which complicates matters; social media is definitely vital to all politics, and its use should be encouraged wherever possible.

STORY #2: Show them the money

And now onto Obama’s agenda for the economies of the countries in question: We should open up trade channels; we should encourage innovation of the kind seen in BRIC countries; we shouldn’t just give out foreign aid the traditional way; we will forgive $1 billion of Egyptian debt; we will open up Enterprise Funds of the post-Cold War variety; we will fight to reduce corruption and bureaucracy.

I can sum up my response more quickly this time. His talk of trade, innovation, entrepreneurship and anti-corruption is all well and good, assuming Egypt and Tunisia are equipped to take the lead on all these things in a short time. However, Obama will soon have to come up with a figure for how much will be spent on helping them, even if it is better than a standard lump sum. I doubt Americans have much of an appetite for their job creation.

STORY #3: Newsflash: Peace is good

And, finally, Israel and Palestine. What does Obama have to say about them? They each deserve their own state. Those states should exist peacefully alongside one another. To get there, they need to talk to each other. Also, Israel deserves to exist and they are a friend of America. Basically, anything any president has ever said about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ever. Also, he wants the 1967 borders, which include a little bit of Jerusalem spilling onto Palestinian land. Yeah. That’ll happen.

A picture worth a thousand derps

Now that the initial euphoria of Osama bin Laden’s killing has worn off, people are beginning to ask important questions. Some are necessary to ask, like “How will this affect the Afghanistan mission?” and “Where does Pakistan fit in?” Others make you roll your eyes as you would to a birther: “Did it really happen? I mean, really?” In order to answer that question, the White House could release photos of the dead bin Laden. But that opens up an entirely new can of worms.

Admittedly, I wondered this myself when I found out, thinking back to a clip I heard once of a radio announcer claiming World War II was over – and then getting the real story one minute later and having to ruin everyone’s fun. For the White House to find out seconds after their announcement that, no, bin Laden wasn’t dead yet would have been the worst back-track of all time. But it’s mostly Pakistanis who believe the U.S. is covering something up. Some won’t be satisfied without photographic evidence.

The official statement from the White House claims the photos are “gruesome” and could inflame unwanted emotions. Frankly, if people were all that concerned with grue, the slasher movie industry would cease to exist. The issue isn’t that it could gross people out; the issue is how al-Qaeda and smiliar groups will react. Already a spokesman has vowed revenge and called bin Laden a “martyr.” You knew that was coming.

For the Pakistanis to be convinced would probably require a statement from their own President Asif Ali Zardari. He has said nothing to imply anything other than the veracity of the U.S.’s claims. But some of the onus should be on him to prove it to his citizens. It would only be mildly safer for him to release the evidence; for the U.S. to do it could look like boasting, at least in the minds of bin Laden’s faithful.

In truth, it’s Pakistan’s government who should be worried about accusations of a cover-up. Administration officials have reportedly wondered what role they played, if any, in securing the Abbottabad compound for bin Laden and his family members. If President Obama or others demanded proof that they didn’t, they would be risking the strategic help the Pakistanis have provided in Afghanistan. The alternative would be to leave them looking very, very stupid.

The White House’s communications strategy from here on out should be to smile and say, “Pakistan, you tell this story so much better than we do.” We’ll figure out from there how to deal with them.

The protocols of the savers of Zion

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Admittedly, almost everything that comes out of his mouth is pretty failbulous, but this week it’s all about the slightly reasonable thing he said after the incredibly failbulous thing, and the sum failbulosity of the juxtaposition of those two things. And I promise I will stop saying “fail” or any permutation thereof for today.

It started in front of the United Nations (as in, the United Nations located in New York, within a 15-minute drive of Ground Zero) Security Council, where Ahmadinejad claimed that 9/11 was orchestrated partially by the United States in an effort to “save the Zionist regime.” He asked if it wasn’t time “to have a fact-finding committee. Here are the facts, nutjob: For the U.S. to orchestrate 9/11 would require the unyielding approval of the entire American (and, by his argument, Israeli) government and military. There is simply no way to pull that off without a leak.

Furthermore, I see no connection between Zionism and bombing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. If Ahmadinejad insists on having an independent commission investigate 9/11, he’ll have to come up with a much better reason than his own hatred of Israel. (I will avoid using the term “anti-Semitism” because not all Jews are Zionists. That tends to be taboo within our circles.)

Ahmadinejad later hosted a press conference, also in Manhattan, in which he said Iran would be willing to put a halt to uranium enrichment in exchange for nuclear fuel, allegedly for a medical research reactor. I am the first to say that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about Iran’s nuclear ambitions without irrefutable proof of attack plans. But it’s the worst PR in the world for him to maliciously accuse the U.S. and Israel one day and ask for some nuclear fuel the next.

In our classes, we are taught that writing a “key message” is a cornerstone of any communications strategy. This is Ahmadinejad’s key message:

“It was your fault! You did it to protect those dirty, dirty Zionists! You cannot be trusted! I implore the world to investigate you! And can we please have some nuclear fuel? Pretty please with a cherry on top? Not going to use it for weapons or anything. I mean . . . not going to use it for weapons or anything.”

He could use our help for his next visit.