reflectivepundit

What to Make of Hero's Welcome for Pan Am Flight 103 Terrorist?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In my mind, the intentional detonation of a bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988 and the killing of 270 persons aboard and on the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland, marked the beginning of the age of catastrophic terrorism. 

Now, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahithe only person convicted for mass murder was released by Scottish authorities on "compassionate" grounds so that he can die at home in Libya surrounded by his family.
No wonder, that the families of the victims are outraged. They did not even have a chance to say good-bye to their loved ones beforeFlight 103 was blown out of the sky and disintegrated into billions of pieces. 

Terrorists are not in the business of compassion. They hate and kill indiscriminately.  

But even more troubling than the decision to free al-Megrahithe's release are the incredible images of the hero's welcome that was staged in Tripoli for the Lockerbie terrorist. There is no doubt that Gadhafi arranged for his son Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi to bring the former agent home aboard a government plane and orchestrated the glorious homecoming.

If Gadhafi intends to tell the world that the festive reception was for a man wrongly blamed for the downing of Flight 103, he will not convince those governments and peoples that matter. The released Libyan was not used as a scapegoat by the United States and other western countries to highlight Libya's state sponsorship of terrorism, but was actually a victim of Gadhafi without whom no Libyan agent would have plotted the horrific terrorist strike. 

The fact that Gadhafi staged the homecoming celebration for al-Megrahithe in defiance of contrary advice by Scottish and other Western authorities raises new doubts about his sincerety, when it comes to his swearing off support for terrorism and the abondonment of WMD-programs. 

Signaling different behavior in the post-9/11 years, Gadhafi was rewarded in that Libya returned into the family of nations and was taken off the U.S. State Department's lists of state sponsors of terrorism that results in a host of sanctions.

Now, Gadhafi, acted once again like the leader of a rogue state.  

Bill Clinton and the Freed Hostages: A Win-Win for the U.S. and North Korea?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Who wouldn’t be touched by the images of joyful and relieved former hostages Euna Lee and Laura Ling, their families, friends, and colleagues? As far as the hostages and their loved ones were concerned, Bill Clinton’s humanitarian mission to North Korea was the right and only thing to do. After all, the imprisoned American reporters had conveyed in their phone calls home that the ransom demand by North Korean officials was the request that former president Bill Clinton were to visit Pyongyang. Thus, the deal was struck before Clinton touched down on North Korean soil: A special pardon by Dear Leader Kim Jong Il would free the two American reporters and allow Clinton to bring them back to America.

So, why isn’t there universal praise for Clinton’s successful trip that the White House characterized as a purely private initiative? Well, as one would expect the former U.S. president’s visit to the most isolated and oppressive country on earth was used as propaganda fodder by North Korea’s dictatorial leadership that promptly received the visitor as if he was still in office, when he touched down in Pyongyang. The images of Clinton's reception and those showing Kim Yong and Clinton side-by-side were publicized all over the world. In that, the North Korean leaders got precisely what they and the rulers of other rogue states are after: attention by big names and players on the world stage and the quasi-legitimacy that comes along with sitting at the same table as legitimate political actors. 

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is very critical of Clinton’s trip and mission. He told Agence France Press, "I think this is a very bad signal because it does exactly what we always try and avoid doing with terrorists, or with rogue states in general, and that's encouraging their bad behavior.”

If Bill Clinton’s marching order from the White House was to solely focus on the release of the two reporters, few observers believe that North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and capabilities were not discussed during the meetings. After all, among the top level officials that greeted Clinton at the airport was North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator Kim Kye-gwan. At issue is whether to criticize or applaud efforts to once again try to convince North Korean leaders to abandon their nuclear weapons program.

Under the headline “Paying Kim’s Price,” The Wall Street Journal, “If it turns out that if a new nuclear negotiation really was begun during Mr. Clinton’s visit, it will also send the signal to North Korea that the worse its behavior, the more it stands to gain from the U.S. And it will mean that Kim’s price will be even higher to spring the next American hostages.”

When Peace Negotiations Fail: Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Reporting about talks between “intermediaries” and the Taliban as well as other militant factions in Afghanistan, Dexter Filkins wrote recently that these secret negotiations have taken place “for months,” “accelerated since Mr. Obama took office” and have been conducted with the blessing of the Kabul government and without opposition from Washington. Reportedly, the Taliban and other militants insist that the removal of U.S. and coalition forces from Afghanistan must be part of any peace deal, whereas the Obama administration demands that the Taliban disarms as precondition for negotiations. Imagine for a moment that the two sides would agree to each these conditions and come to a peace agreement.

You would have to believe in the fairy tale to expect that such an arrangement would work in the real world--certainly not as long as Taliban leader and bin Laden ally Mullah Muhammad Omar and his Afghan counterparts spread violence and terror in order to hold and expand their power positions in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Officially, it is the goal of the Obama administration to win over “moderates” within the Taliban and thereby strengthen the support base for peaceful cooperation and legitimate participation in Afghan public affairs. But neither this official position nor the indirect talks with Taliban and other militant leaders promise any progress in the search for a peaceful solution in Afghanistan.

One does not have to look further than neighboring Pakistan for evidence. After all, it was the peace-agreement between the Pakistani Taliban and the provincial government of the North-West Frontier region of early 2009 and approved by the national parliament that led to civil war-like conditions, terrorism, and, most of all, a colossal humanitarian crisis. As part of the settlement, the army withdrew from the region. But although the agreement gave the Taliban the right to impose the most extreme form of sharia law and de facto control over the SWAT valley, the extremists did not lay down their arms as they had agreed to. Instead, they fought to expand their rule of terror into other regions of the country with the goal to take down the central government and bring their brand of religious rule to all of Pakistan. 

In short, the agreement that surrendered a whole province with a population of 1.5 million to the Taliban emboldened the extremists to mount a brutal offensive beyond the Swat region shortly after the “peace” deal was agreed to.

Note to Pres. Obama: Public Diplomacy Must Aim at Largest Audience

By Brigitte L. Nacos
That President Barack Obama is sticking to his campaign promise of changing America’s foreign policy approach was obvious, when he granted his first formal White House interview to the Arab TV-network  al-Arabiya and used the occasion as a platform to address the Arab and Muslim street. As Karen DeYoung reports in the Washington Post, the responses to the president’s outreach “have been largely positive.” But her assessment is not based on polls of or interviews with regular Arabs and Muslims but rather on the reactions of various government officials. While there is no doubt that leaders of governments and of non-governmental groups took notice of Obama’s promise for a new start in America’s relations with the Muslim and Arab world, one wonders how many members of general public in these countries watched the actual interview.

Unfortunately, by selecting the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya network rather than the Qatar-owned al-Jazeera, the White House selected a moderate medium with a rather modest viewership over a more Arab-centric network with the by far largest audience in Arab countries.

This, then, was a missed opportunity in public diplomacy in that it did not aim for and did not get the attention of the largest segment of the targeted audience. As the 2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll of the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland found by surveying representative samples of the public in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, taken together al-Jazeera has 53% of the audience whereas al-Arabiya has only 9%. Similarly, a December 2008 survey found that more than 50% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza al-Jazeera was the most watched satellite television compared to 10% for al-Arabiya.

Unlike traditional diplomacy or government-to-government communications—often during person-to-person contacts--, public diplomacy is directed to foreign publics and therefore must aim at reaching the largest number of people. You do not have to agree with the medium of communication as long as you are assured that an interview, a speech, and messages in whatever form are aired in their original form. In other words, al-Jazeera, not al-Arabiya, is the by far best platform for public diplomacy with Arabs and Muslims.

Israel and Hamas: It is Time for Soft Power

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Robert Gates, the present and future U.S. Secretary of Defense, writes in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs that “military force will continue to play a role” in the struggle against terrorists but that the “United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory.” The same holds true for Israel. Just as Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah did not weaken the Lebanese group, the current military conflict in Gaza will not weaken Hamas nor the organization’s will and ability to fight on.  

States that are faced with domestic or transnational terrorism will not and should not altogether exclude military options in form of air-strikes or commando raids against terrorist hide-outs, weapon depots, training facilities, or for the purpose of freeing hostages. But even if successful, such limited measures accomplish only modest objectives (i.e., the decimation of a group’s leadership, the rescue of hostages)--they are not likely to end terrorism or destroy terrorist organizations.

Typically, terrorists and insurgents hide among civilians in cities, towns, or villages. In such situations, even limited military operations are likely to result in collateral damage. One tragic example of high risk offensive actions was an August 2008 ground operation by U.S. Special Operation Forces backed by air strikes in the Afghan village of Azizabad, When the dust settled, more than 90 civilians—most of them women and children—were dead along with three dozen or so insurgents. The damage to America’s reputation in this Afghan village, in all of Afghanistan, and in the international community was far greater than the benefit of eliminating a few terrorists or insurgents. Military actions, especially when they involve the death of innocent bystanders, tend to rally supporters and recruit new ones. The mentioned commando operation and surgical strikes against al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan were followed by a surge in violence by the Taliban and al-Qaeda in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

The scope and risk of missile strikes and commando operations in the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan by the U.S. military pale in comparison to the Israel’s use of military force against Hezbollah in 2006 and now against Hamas in the Gaza Strip; the same is, tragically, also true with respect to the large number of innocent civilian victims. The outcry against Israel in generally hostile and friendly countries is fueled by the unspeakable “collateral damage” inflicted on the civilian population of Gaza. Ignored by the audiences of such conflicts is the fact that terrorists, by cowardly operating in the midst of civilians, put the lives of innocents at risk in the first place. But in the age of mass-mediated politics, perception trumps reality.

Negotiating with the Taliban? Forget It.

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Since Saudi Arabia brokered a meeting between Afghan officials and former Taliban leaders in Mecca several weeks ago, Afghan president Hamid Karzai has intensified his efforts to meet with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar for peace talks. Even though the U.S. government has placed a $25 million bounty on Omar’s head, Karzai guaranteed Omar’s safe passage to and from Kabul in case of actual negotiations. Never mind the position of the outgoing Bush administration on bi-lateral or multilateral talks with the Taliban. The incoming Obama administration should leave no doubt that the U.S. will not talk to Taliban representatives and is not in favor of Hamid Karzai doing so. Negotiations should be tried in almost all cases of international and domestic conflicts regardless whether nation states, non-state organizations, or both are involved. It would be a waste of time to negotiate with extremist Jihadi movements of the Taliban or Al Qaeda variety because they would not change their religopolitical agendas one iota but in the process win a degree of legitimacy.

The close ties between the Taliban and Al Qaeda and between Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden are no coincidence. Both leaders and both movements are the most extreme manifestations of Salafism. Afghanistan under the oppressive rule of the Taliban movement reflected what the Salafi school of thought envisions as societal ideal. To be sure, most Salafis do not resort to or support violence. But jihadi movements and groups do.And their religopolitical fanatism does not leave room for negotiated compromise. That's precisely what Sayyid Qutb, the influential jihadi theorist, prescribed in his guidelines for a jihadi vanguard.

Paying More for Gasoline to Fuel Alternative Energy Exploration

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Today, for the first time in more than three years, the price for a barrel of crude oil fell below $50 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. In many regions of the country the gasoline price dropped below $2 a gallon in more than 20 states—about half of the cost some four months ago. With unemployment rising and no end of recessionary conditions in sight, many Americans breathe a bit easier when they fill up their cars. Yet, the news about falling oil and gasoline prices is more bitter than sweet because of the direct relationship between the cost of old energy sources and the development of new ones. When old energy is cheap—or let’s say relatively cheap--interest and investment in alternative sources tend to drop regardless of the long-term consequences for a nation mostly dependent on foreign oil.

President-elect Obama has promised to change America’s energy policy that up to now was most of all for the benefit of the oil industry and others in the old energy sector. Even if the future president can convince congressional majorities to sign on to his ideas and funding requests, he must also enlist the private sector and the public at large to support an all-out effort toward new energy sources and energy independence.

Government alone cannot do the job. The private sector is the engine for developing various kinds of alternative energy sources and, in the process, firms and jobs that cannot be outsourced to companies and workers abroad. Unless the price of oil and of all old energy remains at high enough levels to add profitability into the calculus of alternative energy, entrepreneurs will not get involved and car companies and other corporations will not change their ways drastically.

Hillary Clinton: Best Pick for Secretary of State

By Brigitte L. Nacos
I have no idea whether President-elect Barack Obama will offer Senator Hillary Clinton the important secretary of state position. But I am convinced that Hillary would be an excellent choice and indeed the best choice among those mentioned for the post. After Obama and Clinton met on Thursday in Chicago, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, also in the run for the job, met with Obama on Friday. Perhaps John Kerry, another candidate, will be next to travel to Chicago. I agree with Gal Collins of the New York Times that Kerry’s personality is not well suited for the diplomat-in-chief position. Richardson would be a far better choice than Kerry because of his different persona and his diplomatic background (ambassador to the United Nations and negotiator who won the release of prisoners and hostage with North Korea, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Cuba).

However, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator Clinton is best qualified to be secretary of state from day one of the new administration in terms of the depth of her foreign policy knowledge, her extensive traveling abroad, and her positive image around the globe. President Obama’s victory on November 4th has been hailed in most parts of the world. With Hillary as secretary of state at his side, Mr. Obama’s campaign promise of CHANGE would gain more credibility abroad. Just imagine what a compelling message the image of an African-American U.S. president and a female U.S. secretary of state side by side at an international gathering would send to people here and abroad!

Moreover, by selecting Hillary, the incoming president would take an important step in the direction of those supporters of Senator Clinton who did not vote for him or did so reluctantly. This one important appointment would go a long way in reuniting Hillary’s most faithful fans with the Democratic Party under Obama’s leadership.

This Saturday morning, the Washington Post reports that Clinton, Richardson, and Kerry are top contenders for the attractive position. The fact that Senator Clinton has remained silent and not said that she is not interested seems to indicate that she wants the job. If the president-elect was not sure that she was his first choice before he invited her to Chicago, he should not have arranged a meeting that, as he must have known, would be reported. If he now decides in favor of Richardson or Kerry or someone else, it means snubbing Hillary in full public view. At this point, it would not be terribly credible, if Hillary were to declare that she is not and was not interested in becoming secretary of state.

Dealing with Iran: Military or Diplomatic Approaches?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
When North Korea blew up a cooling tower at its main nuclear power plant the other day, the pictures of the destruction were meant to be viewed and applauded around the world as they indeed were. While experts of North Korea’s nuclear program warned immediately that this tower, unlike other parts of the nuclear complex, was a rather benign structure that could be rebuilt easily, the symbolic and actual meaning of this rather dramatic scene should not be underestimated. While many unanswered questions and unsolved issues remain, the demolition of the cooling tower dramatized that progress has been made in the ongoing process of ridding North Korea of its nuclear weapons program. Soon after the cooling tower went down, President Bush announced North Korea’s removal from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism and the lifting of some sanctions. In short, a great deal of progress was made thanks to diplomacy with multilateral negotiations at its center.   

In his 2002 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush said of North Korea, Iraq, and Iran,
“States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.  By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States.  In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.”

Well, Washington was not indifferent, when it came to North Korea. Although there was no doubt that the country had the capability to build nuclear weapons, the Bush administration went and stuck to the diplomatic route—even after North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb underground in 2006.

Although there was far less certainty about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and especially an alleged nuclear program, the United States invaded Iraq, removed Saddam Hussein and his ruling clique but did not find WMD. Instead, esteem for the U.S. took a nosedive in the Arab and Muslim world and elsewhere. And five years after the invasion and in spite of the improvements in the wake of the so-called troop surge, the situation in Iraq remains highly problematic. The Bush administration’s plan to build a shining democracy in Iraq and thereby trigger a domino effect of similar reforms in the Middle East has not materialized.

So, what about Iran, the third state of Bush’s axis of evil? Contrary to its North Korea policy, the Bush administration has stuck to its refusal to negotiate with the Iranian government and its threats of military measures if Iran insists on building nuclear arms.

Supreme Court Ruling on Habeas Corpus: Terrorists Do Not Win

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Too weak to fight and defeat the security forces of states, terrorists engage in psychological warfare with two particular goals in mind: first, they aim at frightening, intimidating, and demoralizing the citizenry; second, they hope to push the authorities in democracies to overreact and violate the most esteemed democratic values, in particular the rule of law. There is ample evidence that major terrorist events result in high levels of public fear and anxiety. This was particularly true in the wake of 9/11. And in reaction to serious terrorist strikes and threats, whether domestic or transnational, democratic states tend to curb individual freedoms in the name of preventing further attacks. In this respect, the response of the U.S. government to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by a team of al-Qaeda hijackers was no exception. Several weeks after 9/11 Osama bin Laden told al-Jazeera reporter Taysir Alluni with obvious satisfaction that “freedom and human rights in America have been sent to the guillotine.” From the perspective of terrorists, success and failure of their violence are less measured by the number of people killed and maimed than by the psychological impact on and antiterrorism responses in societies they target. Terrorists win when they persuade citizens and elites of democracies that the most fundamental values of their societies, such as openness and restraints on executive power, are weaknesses.

This week’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision that ruled in favor of Guantanamo Bay detainees’ constitutional habeas corpus right—the right to challenge their detentions in federal court--denied al-Qaeda and terrorists in general a  victory in the on-going “value battle” against the United States. Whereas certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act as well as “aggressive interrogation,” “extraordinary rendition,” and outright torture practices provided terrorists with ample arguments to question and ridicule America’s commitment to democratic values, the latest majority ruling was a triumph for the very essence of democracy.