American acceptionalism

By Carl 

(Pun intended.) 

So here's President Obama, talking about America's role in the world last night:

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. To allow a slaughter in Benghazi would have been to "brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and... would have been a betrayal of who we are.

For ten years, we've been endlessly reminded of America's "special" place in world affairs. America is the world's biggest economy, has the world's biggest armed forces, is the policeman to the world... yet can't hunt down one skinny sick Saudi in a small region that straddles the border of two of the most desolate regions in the world.

Even the strongest have limitations.

Now, none of this is to say that America shouldn't throw its weight around when necessary, and Obama alluded to this last night in the negative:

We must always measure our interests against the need for action.

Again, fair enough. When our interests are at stake, we ought to be prepared to take measures to protect ourselves.

But what threat does Qaddafi pose to us? After all, he voluntarily shut down his nuclear program (although given the level of interest the Bush administration had in him, and their effectiveness in addressing terrorism, one has to wonder if indeed this ever happened) and cozied up to the previous administration. No one has claimed that he has had aspirations against us, and if anything, he's presented a face of reconciliation for Africa, offering his aid to the situations in Somalia, Darfur, and Zimbabwe.

Again, there's no judging his sincerity on these, either.

The slaughter in Benghazi is certainly a legitimate concern of Obama's, and the world's, and it was nice that Obama put on the veneer of legitimacy by asking for the U.N.'s blessings on this mission, and did so without sending his secretary of state in to do a snake-oil presentation complete with vials of white powder. Too, Qaddafi suffers from his own world image, one that seemingly did not endear him to any of the Security Council who could have vetoed the action (China and Russia abstained).

Of particular interest to me, however, was the curious lack of invitation to powers-to-be to assist in patrolling the world now. Nations like China, Brazil, and India, with their steaming-hot economies and massive expansion of trade and influence, are living off our military dime. It's about time they started ponying up. China has a strongly vested interest in North and Central Africa. Brazil certainly by dint of its location will look to Africa as a trade partner, and India with its billions of people must have some eye on Africa and its enormous resources and access to Europe and the Americas.

So the question I want to ask Mr. Obama is, Why not China? Why not India? Why not Brazil? I accept that it had to be us in the past, but why now? Have we gotten so locked into the old Cold War thinking that, if America doesn't do it, this will not hold? That it will turn socialist/Islamist/terrorist without American intervention?

It's a new century. You're a new-age man. Surely it's time to think outside of the box.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Hope's last chance?

Guest post by Ali Ezzatyar 

Ali Ezzatyar is a journalist and American attorney practising in Paris, France.

(Ed. note: This is Ali's fourth guest post at The Reaction. Last month, he wrote on dictatorship in Tunisia and Egypt and on the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. In January 2010, he co-wrote a post on Iran with Bryan Tollin. On the situation in Egypt, he was recently quoted by Robert Fisk at The Independent. -- MJWS)

**********

Comparisons to Ceausescu, while initially pessimistic, could turn out to be understated. Qaddafi is digging in and Libya is moving closer to what may be a prolonged and bloody struggle for the country's future. The international community and the United States in particular continue to wonder what role they should play in helping the good guys win.

Surely, it would have been difficult for any U.S. president in 2011 to seriously consider intervention in Libya. But on the eve of his election, one would have thought that Barack Obama was the exception. Promising a break from the past with the Muslim world, the usual suspicion and presumption of ill-intent that followed a U.S. president to the Middle East was tabled in Obama's case. But a combination of unfulfilled promises has relegated him to a class of leaders who must tread with extreme caution in Libya; still, he continues to have a rare opportunity that he should exploit.

He came to power partially on the perception that his unique persona and experience, and the policies and goodwill that would emanate therefrom, could reverse the Bush-era suspicion harnessed towards America almost everywhere in the world. Obama's domestic and international behavior on most everything Middle East, though, has been a disappointment.

Whatever the reality may be, his policy thus far in Iraq and Afghanistan is mostly seen as a continuation of an unpopular status quo. Everyone, including Israel, is complaining about his lack of coherence. On certain domestic issues that are especially important to increasingly well-connected followers abroad, he has again failed to live up to expectations. He signed an extension to the Patriot Act without reforming its most controversial portions. Just this week, he also ordered trials at Guantanamo Bay to resume, casting his promise to immediately close the prison even further into oblivion.

Miraculously, though, with the wave of unrest in North Africa and the Middle East, Obama's foreign policy credentials in the region have been partially revived. In January, American intervention directly lead to Ben-Ali fleeing Tunisia. The story is similarly positive in Egypt, as President Obama's personal conversations with Mubarak in the days leading up to his departure were historically unprecedented in the scope of their rebuke and insistence; the State Department is even rumored to have been very critical (if not threatening) in Bahrain, where the U.S. has a military base, during "consultations" on the paths forward for the king.

From what can be gauged of the region's opinion of how things have been handled thus far, the reaction is overwhelmingly positive. No burning American flags or effigies of Obama; rather, the U.S. is appearing to come out on the right side of events, without having dictated the results of a crucial, strategic Arab nation's political future.

Among disappointment and positive surprise, Libya, then, is a sort of tie-breaker. Obama needs to be the galvanizing force that ensures the world, and not just the U.S., stands on the side of Libya's people. This should include support for a U.N.- or NATO-led no-fly zone to prevent the strafing of civilians, more humanitarian aid to Libyan refugees, and strong diplomatic support for the Libyan people. But further intervention, such as tactical support for Libyan rebels, should also be considered. At this juncture in history, such intervention is unlikely to engender a negative perception, even if the rebels lose. Consider, furthermore, what all of the parties have to gain.

Through the popular, secular uprisings that are spreading through the region, al Qaeda and terrorism are being dealt a crucial blow that billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan have yet to accomplish. But Obama must note that the clock is ticking and the jury is still out. Compared to the potential cost of inaction, decisiveness in Libya is simply crucial. Over the course of the next year, a partial reversal of decades of negative U.S. perception could instigate the new era of mutual respect and interest that Obama spoke about in his June 2009 speech in Cairo. That event would mean, among other things, a fundamental blow to extremists everywhere in the region and a huge boon America for decades to come.

Corruption kills -- especially in sub-Saharan Africa

Guest post by Aaron Scheinberg 

Mr. Scheinberg, a Truman National Security fellow, is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and served in the Army for five years. He was an infantry and tank platoon leader in Iraq from 2005-07 and was awarded the Bronze Star for combat service in the “Triangle of Death” before becoming a Civil Affairs Officer in the Babel Province of Iraq. Upon leaving the military, he enrolled in a dual degree program at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government (MPA/ID) and Columbia Business School (MBA). He spent this past year working in international development and fighting corruption in Tanzania. This is his first guest post at The Reaction.

In a region where over 70 percent of citizens still depend on subsistence farming to survive, and where the number of people living on less than a dollar a day has increased fifty percent over the last 15 years, any barrier to growth in farming and agro-business can literally kill millions. And who is to blame for strengthening this hideous poverty trap? Certainly, some blame lies with the African governments and international donors, but one of the most corrosive agents operating in Africa today is China. President Obama must take advantage of Chinese President Hu Jintao's recent visit to the U.S. to press China on its enabling of corruption in Africa.

This past summer, as part of my internship for the Harvard Kennedy School International Development Program, I had the opportunity to work in East Africa. I joined a social for-profit company called Anza Technologies that sells low-cost, "poverty alleviating" products to rural subsistence farmers. Our business model relies on the fact that we can make our products out of recycled materials and sell them for a very low price. Every cent matters when it comes to these farmers, yet we’re constantly struggling with the high costs of distribution. The culprit – other than poor roads and railway systems – is corruption.

In fact, bribery along the supply chains in Tanzania accounts for 10-33 percent of the total cost of transportation and distribution. Along the major road from Dar-es-Salaam to Iringa, an average truck is stopped between 10 to 15 times by police and traffic cops. Foreign businesses must decide whether to "grease the wheels" and pay off these police or take a long-term outlook and refuse to engage in bribery. But of course, not only do these businesses pay the bribes, they account for bribery as a "cost of doing business" in Africa.

While American companies may not be immune to such bribery, it’s the BRIC countries, most notably China, that are most likely to engage. Transparency International's Bribe Paying Index reveals that China is one of the largest suppliers of bribery around the world (second only to Russia), particularly in Africa. With all of the rhetoric surrounding China’s desire to invest in Africa, leaders should beware of the cost that comes with such investment.

Consumers in sub-Saharan Africa also need to beware of China's so-called "investments." This summer I witnessed first-hand the huge influx of fake and sub-standard consumer products from China into the local village and city markets. Chinese businessmen trying to make a quick yuan dumped millions of dangerous consumer and electronic goods onto unknowing consumers and unregulated markets.

For some poor farmers, these products were just an inconvenience, breaking down long before they should have. For others, the goods were a real health hazard, made with harmful materials and wires that were prone to starting fires. By pushing prices so low and subsequently de-legitimizing entire industries, these businessmen squeezed honest dealers out of the market. The situation has gotten so bad that last week the Tanzanian government issued a 30-day ultimatum for Chinese businessmen to leave the Kariakoo market entirely, one of the largest markets around Dar-es-Salaam.

The culture of corruption and its acceptance by the Chinese starts at the top. It's no wonder that Chinese businesses in Africa are so comfortable with unethical actions when Hu Jintao's own son was involved in a corruption scandal in Namibia in 2009. Therefore, targeting China's leadership is essential to solving this crisis. President Obama needs to use the Chinese president’s recent visit as an opportunity to pressure China to act more responsibly around the world, particularly in Africa.

Instead of furthering the suffering of the African people, foreign businesses should team up together to form an ideological-economic union that will fight bribery. If the thousands of businesses in Africa jointly decide to refuse to pay bribes along the supply chains, pressure will mount against the police and companies engaging in bribery.

And African citizens must demand products that come from "corruption-free" companies. Any "prisoner's dilemma"-type risk in this union could be ameliorated through education in the long-term costs of corruption. The end of bribery and corruption is good for business and is good for the African people.

In his upcoming book The New Harvest: Agriculture Innovation in Africa, Harvard Kennedy School Professor Calestous Juma shows that Africa could make the transition from a hungry importer to self-sufficiency in a single generation. Africa could feed itself in our lifetime. The first step, the step we can take today, is to reduce the debilitating corruption propelled by the Chinese. It's clear that business as usual is not working. We must change our strategy now to prevent millions from starving in the future.

Reasons for concern

By Carl 

It really looks like the entire South Asia/Middle East/Northern Africa is about to go up in flames:

1) King of Jordan Dismisses His Cabinet 

2) Poland warns Belarus: Change or risk overthrow 

3) Turkey: Mubarak Should Leave Now 

4) India: Raja's arrest does not affect credibility of PM, govt: Congress 

5) Pakistani soldier killed in border clash with Afghanistan (Roundup) 

6) Report: Russia to retaliate against Ireland over spy claim 

7) ANALYSIS-Palestinians expect a boost from new Egypt 

8) Qatar men linked to terrorism attacks 

9) Tunisian Interior Minister Says Security Services Spark Unrest 

10) UPDATE 1-W.African currency zone worried about Ivorian fall-out 

11) Sudan's protests triggered by long-term economic, political frustrations 

12) Mubarak Fails to Quell Protests as Turmoil Spreads to Yemen 

13) How leaders of Bahrain, Jordan, Syria and Yemen plan to keep control 

14) Unrest in Egypt Risks Spreading Into Algeria, Standard and Poors Forecasts 

15) African Unrest Puts Europe's Gas at Risk as Oil Gains 

And then there's Egypt...

Look, a few of these, and I think with a little diplomacy and a lot of patience, we might see a peaceful resolution that enhances stability, in the short-term at any rate. What this kind of instability does is makes US foreign policy become a hodgepodge, because not only are these nations troublesome, but any tinpot dictator worth his salt, like Muammar Qaddafi, is going to start rattling sabres, looking to cut a deal with the US that will blow up in our faces eventually like Saddam Hussein did.

In the meantime, it only takes a spark...

This. Is. Scary.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)