reflectivepundit

Northern Ireland and the Media’s Failure to Highlight Non-Violent Conflict Resolution

By Brigitte L. Nacos
After decades of violent and often lethal sectarian conflict during which the people of Northern Ireland suffered through many “black” days, Monday of this week signaled finally hope for a peaceful future. When Ian Paisley, the hard-line leader of the Protestant Democratic Unionist Party, and Gerry Adams, a former “soldier” in the Irish Republican Army and leader of the largest Catholic Party Sinn Fein, sat down at the same table and agreed to form a coalition government, it was a triumph for non-violent conflict resolution whatever difficulties remain on the road to a lasting peace. Although the agreement was truly historic, had its roots in a peace initiative by the Clinton administration, and was certainly not only of interest to Irish-Americans, it did not get the news attention it deserved in the United States. Thus, on Monday night, ABC’s World News devoted 71 words, NBC’s Nightly News 69 words, and the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric not a single word to what Williams called “a history-making power-sharing deal.” Leading newspapers did report more extensively—but not in major front page stories either. An article in yesterday's Washington Post about the need for a brokered peace in Iraq refers to the example of Northern   Ireland. And some bloggers raised the question whether a lesson can be learned from the Northern Ireland example in Israel.

The “War on Terrorism” and America’s Diminishing Moral High-Ground

By Brigitte L. Nacos
This weekend, during her latest trip to the Middle East, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized the Egyptian government’s proposed constitutional amendments which, as Glenn Kessler reports in the Washington Post, “will limit opposition parties, suspend judicial supervision of elections and enshrine sweeping police powers” according to human rights groups. Egyptian Foreign Minister Gheit labeled Dr. Rice’s remarks as “interference” and President Mubarak “rejected the criticism, saying his government would not bend to outside "pressure, dictation or prerequisites." Were it not for the Bush administration’s violations of civil liberties, basic rules of the game in the American system of governance, and internationally recognized human rights, Dr. Rice’s words would have credibility and weight—not so much amongst the targets of this sort of criticism but at home and in democracies abroad. As it stands, the Bush administration’s conduct and exploitation of the so-called “war on terrorism” or ill-labeled “war on terror” has elevated “these three words into a national mantra,” as former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski puts it, “and has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S.standing in the world.” In other words, the administration’s overreaction to 9/11 and the many excesses in so-called anti- and counterterrorist measures have diminished America’s moral high ground as beacon of democracy. Brzezinski is right when he argues that the administration has fostered a culture of fear in the years after 9/11 and that such a “culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own…”

Prospect of Yet Another Push for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

By Brigitte L. Nacos
After dragging their feet during the first term of the Bush presidency and then some, administration officials, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, intensify the recently launched push to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and get the two-state solution on the way. Reportedly, Dr. Rice does not want to rely merely on the existing peace-seeking Quartet (European Union, United Nations, Russia and the
United States) and the two principals (Israel and the Palestinian Authority); she aims at involving a new Quartet of Arab governments (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates) in her new peace initiative. And what are the odds of this new initiative to succeed? According to the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, “The unknown, as Rice heads to the region today, is whether this will add up to the beginnings of peace -- or to more stalemates and disappointment.” The question is whether the inclusion of the new Quartet can make a difference this time around. Rice has reportedly the ambitious goal as Kessler reports “to bring together the Quartet, the Arab Quartet, Israel and Palestinian leader Abbas for a single meeting. This would publicly bring together Israeli and Saudi officials for the first time since 2000; such a high-profile meeting between the Jewish state and the keeper of Islam's holiest sites would be considered a breakthrough -- especially by Israelis -- and a coup for Rice.”
Maybe a breakthrough for Israelis and a coup for Rice, but one wonders whether this would also be a breakthrough and a coup for peace and a workable the two-state solution. While the two Quartets can pressure both the Israeli government of Ehud Olmert and the Palestinian Authority’s headed by President Mahmoud Abbas, Israelis and Palestinians are the ones to make compromises on important issues for the sake of peace—for the sake of their people.

Killing Children to Kill: Where is the Outrage?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In a report about the latest violent incidents in Iraq the Associated Press reports about continued violence in Iraq and mentions “a claim by the U.S.military that insurgents used children in a weekend suicide attack…” And Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations on the Joint Staff, said reportedly that “this was the first reported use of children in a suicide car bombing in Baghdad.” But contrary to the military’s terminology, this was not at all another case of “suicide” attacks but rather an even more unspeakable act of terrorism in which two innocent and presumably clueless children were blown up and killed—right after the adult perpetrators had jumped out of the car and fled. What kind of adults does it take to use children as decoys in order to get past a U.S. military checkpoint and then detonate a bomb? Seeing two children in the backseats of the car, the vehicle’s driver and passengers were deemed not suspicious. According to Agence France Presse (quoted in the New York Times) an unidentified American military official said that “bombers parked the vehicle across the street from a school then ran away, leaving the children inside.” Again—this was not a suicide attack--or what I call homicide-suicide mission--but a new kind of cold-blooded murder that killed ten Iraqis—the two children in the car and eight other civilians nearby.

9/11 Superstar Giuliani on his way to the White House?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
If you are interested in gauging presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, his rise to become the Republican Party’s current frontrunner, and the contradictory traits recognizable in his public and private life, read today’s op-ed article by Andrew Kirtzman in the Washington Post. Kirtzman, a correspondent for WCBS-TV in New York and the author of a book about Giuliani (Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City), provides an interesting portrait of the former mayor of New York City before, during, and after the horrific 9/11 attacks. At the end, Kirtzman leaves readers with several questions: “Would his instinct for dividing politicians into friends and enemies plunge the White House into a Nixon-era bunker mentality? Or would his confrontational style usher in a refreshing era of Truman-style bluntness? Finally, has Giuliani's penchant for drama diminished, or would he careen in the White House from one tabloid-style controversy to the next?” Advising voters to consider such question, Kirtzman provides his own answer: “If the past is any guide, a Giuliani White House would be dominated by his outsize personality. The public had better figure out now whether that would be a good thing.”

The Beleaguered Administration and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad’s Confession

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) was the operational chief of Al Qaeda and the key figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks as well as dozens of other horrific terrorist strikes. This ruthless architect of major terrorist acts that killed many thousands of innocent men, women, and children must be held accountable for his unspeakable deeds. Captured four years ago (March 2003) in Pakistan, KSM has been interrogated, tortured, and pumped for information by American and perhaps foreign interrogators for years. The administration has justified “aggressive interrogation” methods, including so-called water boarding, by claiming that captured terrorists like KSM had provided valuable information that prevented further terrorist incidents and helped otherwise in the war on terrorism. For years, information about Khalid’s involvement in Al Qaeda’s violent activities was leaked bit by bit. In other words, not all that much about KSM was terribly new. Yet, the administration’s revelation that Khalid claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, the 1993 strike against the World Trade Center, and a list of other acts of terrorism before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay became instantly the dominant news on Wednesday. This morning, it was stunning to hear network TV-anchors talk about KSM’s “stunning” confession of his 9/11 role—as if they never heard about KSM spilling the beans on his past as Al Qaeda’s chief of operations and his key role in the 9/11 attacks. By releasing a partial transcript of Khalid’s Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing four days after the session was held last Saturday, the otherwise less forthcoming administration fed the media beast with “news” that the White House must have welcomed far more than headlines about its mounting problems and scandals—from critical Iraq war debates (see, for example, No Quarter) to the Walter Reed Hospital revelations and the transgressions of Attorney-General Gonzales.

Be Careful What You Wish For

By David Epstein

Now that calls for Gonzales to resign are in full swing, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon, including Hillary (a sure sign that mainstream opinion is swinging that way). As this morning's Times story reports, even Republicans are getting into the act, with the soft-spoken Sen. John Ensign of Nevada telling us that he is now "very angry" and the blunter Sen. Tom Coburn from Oklahoma terming the administration's actions "idiocy."

(Ensign's statement reminds me of the scene in "Pretty Woman" where Richard Gere tells Julia Roberts: "I was very angry with [my father]. It cost me ten thousand dollars in therapy to say that sentence: 'I was very angry with him.'")

A typical analysis of the politics of the situation notes that this would all have blown over had the Democrats not taken over Congress in the midterm elections. Krugman's latest column, for instance says

The Bush administration has been purging, politicizing and de-professionalizing federal agencies since the day it came to power. But in the past it was able to do its business with impunity; this time Democrats have subpoena power, and the old slime-and-defend strategy isn’t working.

This is all certainly true. But it reinforces the notion that it's dangerous to have only one party control government, which is of course the mainstream view of why we have so much divided government these days.

If Democrats want to retake the White House in 2008 and keep Congress for a while too, they should leaven the conversation with a few more reminders to the public about how it's the Republicans that keep mismanaging the government and then lying about it. They need to emphasize that politics doesn't have to be like this, isn't always like this, and in fact wasn't like this when Democrats were in control. They made good policy and the country did well; the Republicans make bad policy and get us to where we are today.

What's that you say? The Democrats can't hit the Republicans too hard on this in 2008 because they have their own "baggage?" Nonsense. Clinton (Bill, that is) had a scandal during his presidency too, but it never had to do with his governing or policy making. That's why he had approval ratings in the 60's -- over twice our current president's approval level, mind you -- all the way through the impeachment proceedings/attempted coup d'etat.

This is what Gore didn't understand in 2000 (which is why he didn't really deserve to win, even though he really did win) and what Kerry refused to drive home in 2004 (because he couldn't bring himself to speak in simple, declarative sentences). The Democrats better hope that in this case, the third time is the charm.

There they go again...

By David Epstein

Once again, the Democrats have formed a firing squad and lined up in a circle. I refer to the current debate on the Iraq war vote, and in particular, whether Hillary's vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq will be a major detriment to her campaign. She has come under such attacks from her own party on this, that it's easy to lose sight of the real culprit. I'll give you a hint -- he still lives in DC, and has a large house not too far from where Congress does business.

Democracy, Pelosi’s Iraq Plan, and the Washington Post’s Editorial Page

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In a democracy, citizens’ policy preferences are supposed to influence governmental decision-making. But that fundamental premise of the rules of the game in democratic systems is often ignored by the Washington Post’s editorials when it comes to the Iraq war. The paper’s lead editorial today criticizes sharply House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s plan to force President Bush’s hand in the Iraq mess by controlling funding and setting benchmarks for the withdrawal of American troops as a means to “winning votes in the United States.” In other words, the Post’s editorial page is well aware that the majority of Americans rejects the administration’s Iraq policies and supports the congressional Democrats’ oppositional positions. That is the message of public opinion surveys.

Why, then, is the Pelosi plan so out of bounce for the Washington Post’s editorial page? Because “the only constituency House Speaker Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush’s supplemental war funding bill are "the people of the country that U.S, troops are fighting to stabilize.” What kind of logic! The editorial condemns the Speaker for listening to the majority of Americans and ignoring Iraqis. For one, decision-makers in a democracy should be guided by their own citizens in the first place. But in this case, Iraqis were not ignored either since most Iraqis have also come to oppose a long-term presence of American-led coalition forces. What the Post editorial conveys is this: Those in charge of the editorial page, just like the Bush administration, know what is best for Americans and Iraqis—never mind what public opinion here and there reveals.Is this the kind of democracy that the Post’s editorial writers and the administration they support so staunchly have in mind for Iraq?

The Limits of Manipulation: U.S. Public Opinion and the War on Terrorism

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Most Americans are far more realistic than the Bush administration in judging the impact of the Iraqwar on the threat of terrorism. According to a new poll commissioned by The Third Way National Security Project, 55 percent of the public believe that the invasion of Iraq has made the United States less safe and 54 percent think that the Iraq war “is a distraction that diverts resources and attention away from the real war on terror.” I assume, the majority means that the real war on terrorism would concentrate on hunting down Al Qaeda leaders and followers around the world. Moreover, as Washington Post columnist David Broder writes, “Large majorities -- including most Republicans -- reject Vice President Cheney's contention that the absence of a second attack means we are safer. Instead, they say that the threat of terrorism has increased since 2001, and they believe that the war in Iraq has made us less safe, not more.” Indeed, four of five Americans disagree with the Vice President on this count (89 percent Democrats, 87 percent Independents, 67 percent Republicans). Three of four Americans (85 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Republicans, and 75 percent of Independents) believe that “in the last few years, the US has focused too much on lofty ideals. We should focus instead on real threats to our own security.” These attitudes of the majority of Americans are contrary to the administration’s views. Like the President, most Americans believe that terrorism is a very serious threat (in fact, 86 percent consider “terrorism as serious a threat to America and the world today as Nazism and Communism were in the 20^th century), but a majority no longer supports major assumptions and goals of his administration’s counterterrorist policies. Thus, two thirds of Americans want a foreign policy that protects American security regardless of “whether it spreads or ideals or not.” Nearly three of five Americans want the U.S.to consider negotiations with Iran and Syria, if that would be helpful to America’s security interests.