Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Seventy five years ago this month Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered his famous Four Freedoms speech at his third inauguration. His call for freedom of speech and religion with freedom from want and fear has carried through the decades and remains a guiding vision for how to create a better world.

c2447164937969a269b8274187aca9bfRoosevelt was articulating the goals of the world struggle then underway against Nazism and aggression. His words provided the foundation for the subsequent Atlantic Charter and many of the ideas that emerged in the UN Charter.

At the founding conference of the United Nations in 1945, U.S. Secretary of State Edwin Stettinius echoed Roosevelt’s ideas. “The battle for peace has to be fought on two fronts,” he said. “The first front is the security front, where victory spells freedom from fear. The second is the economic and social front, where victory means freedom from want. Only victory on both fronts can assure the world of an enduring peace.”

These ideas remain alive. Today government leaders and scholars understand and support economic development as an effective and essential means of avoiding conflict and creating conditions for peace. Goal 16 of the recently adopted UN-sponsored Sustainable Development Goals calls for the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies to help overcome poverty. Freedom from want is linked to freedom from fear.

The fourth is the least familiar of Roosevelt’s freedoms. He described it as a worldwide reduction of armaments to the point where no nation could threaten aggression against another. Today we recognize this as a call for progressive disarmament and common security.

This is the mission of the Fourth Freedom Forum, the organization I once directed and still serve as chair of the board of directors, a foundation that works to reduce nuclear dangers and develop nonmilitary means of countering terrorism and other security threats.

The tradition of the Four Freedoms carries on in many human rights, development, peacebuilding and disarmament organizations. All who support civil rights and religious freedom and promote development and peace are following in that rich heritage.

Thanks to FDR for pointing the way and helping us realize the essential interconnectedness of core human freedoms. Our task always is to follow that path.

The adoption last week of new UN sanctions on ISIL marks an important step forward in the international campaign to isolate, weaken and suppress the so-called Islamic State.

On Thursday the UN Security Council approved Resolution 2253, a landmark measure that consolidates and strengthens international sanctions against ISIL and gives greater strategic focus to the global fight against the threat.

The 28-page resolution is perhaps the longest sanctions resolution ever adopted. It includes 34 preambles, 99 operative paragraphs and two extensive technical appendices each with dozens of specifications for implementation. If length is a measure of political intention, this is a serious resolution.

With the passage of Resolution 2253 the Security Council has finally renamed its main counterterrorism sanctions committee the “ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee.” Previously it was known as the Al-Qaida and Taliban Committee and then the Al-Qaida Committee. The name change is long overdue and means that the Committee can now concentrate on ISIL as the main international terrorist threat.

The resolution reiterates the obligation of all states to freeze the financial assets, prohibit entry or transit, and prevent the supply of arms or military equipment for all individuals and entities associated with ISIL.  It prohibits a wide range of specific forms of financial interaction with ISIL or its supporters and obligates all states to cooperate in implementing these restrictions. It calls for more vigorous compliance with Financial Action Task Force provisions against the financing of terrorism.

The resolution urges states to submit the names of individuals and entities to be targeted for sanctions and includes the usual provisions for listing and delisting those designated for UN sanctions. It also maintains and extends the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsperson, which receives and processes requests for delisting in the event of inadvertent listing.

The resolution directs the Sanctions Committee and its Monitoring Team (the most vigorous of the Security Council’s expert panels) to report on specific instances and general patterns of non-compliance, and to recommend corrective actions that the Council could take in response. It also authorizes the Committee to hire additional experts to focus on ISIL and to recommend capacity-building assistance for states that need help to enforce the sanctions.

The resolution requests the UN Secretary General to provide within 45 days an initial “strategic-level report that demonstrates and reflects the gravity” of the threat from ISIL and the range of Member States efforts to counter that threat, and to provide updates every four months thereafter. It calls for the Monitoring Team to cooperate with other UN counterterrorism bodies to submit recommendations for strengthening global enforcement of sanctions against ISIL.

The resolution breaks new ground in three respects.

It was jointly sponsored by the United States and Russia, indicating the ability of Washington and Moscow to work together on countering ISIL despite their many differences on other issues. This should give greater impetus to the global fight against the group.

It focuses Security Council counterterrorism sanctions on ISIL and provides additional mandates and resources for the Council’s Sanctions Committee and Monitoring Team to do a better job of identifying and correcting problems of noncompliance.

It calls on the Secretary General and UN counterterrorism bodies to provide greater strategic-level focus on the threat from ISIL and measures to counter it.

Progress in implementing the provisions of Resolution 2253 would go a long way toward reducing the global threat from ISIL and cutting off its vital sources of money and supply. The United States, Russia and other powers should continue working together through the Security Council to assure effective implementation of these measures and to generate steadily increasing pressures against ISIL.

French military strikes in Syria are an understandable reaction to the killings in Paris, but they will not diminish the threat from ISIS and could make it worse.

As Andrew Bacevich reminds us, the United States and its partners have been waging war against terrorism for decades, killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries, but the extremist threat continues to grow, aroused in part by our attacks. Military strikes from the West are exactly what the militants want, providing fodder for recruitment and justifying what is otherwise unjustifiable. Will we fall into that trap again?

Air strikes cannot defeat terrorism, and a ground invasion of Syria or Iraq would be unacceptable politically and unsustainable militarily. A more realistic and effective response is needed to counter the growing ISIS threat.

Instead of pursuing the illusion of military solutions, France should join with the United States and other countries to assemble a powerful global coalition to impose tougher UN sanctions. The immediate goal should be to further isolate and weaken ISIS and cut off its vital sources of finance and supply. Greater efforts are also needed to address the underlying grievances and conditions that generate violent extremism.

If there is to be ‘war’ against ISIS (in the figurative sense), the United States, France and other countries must bring this struggle to the UN Security Council and mount a massive international campaign that is commensurate with the threat. Russia and China are on board with this agenda and will more readily cooperate if the mission is authorized through the UN.

The Security Council has imposed some initial sanctions against ISIS, but these measures have not been effectively implemented. Tougher resolutions are needed to enforce compliance with existing sanctions and establish greater authority for stronger measures.

A concerted effort is also needed to shut down the cyber jihad ISIS and its supporters are waging on the internet. Why do we allow these groups to continue using social media to glorify violence, spread hatred and recruit terrorists? This is a challenge that no state can solve on its own, where an international response under a UN mandate is urgently needed.

Many other steps can be taken to undermine ISIS and reduce the threat of extremism: more vigorous diplomatic efforts to achieve a ceasefire and political solution in Syria and political power sharing arrangements in Iraq; increased funding for the millions of refugees who have been forced to flee the conflict; sustained support for peacebuilding and development programs in the Middle East and among refugee populations in the West to address the underlying conditions that give rise to terrorism. All are approaches uniquely suited to UN involvement.

The UN was created 70 years ago to address threats to international peace and security. Let’s use the world body now to counter the clear and present danger posed by ISIS.

The proposed steps will not bring immediate results, but concerted international action can strengthen the fight against violent extremism and will avoid the harmful blowback effects that will almost certainly result from more military action.

The decision to halt troop withdrawals and keep nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan is further evidence of the failure of American policy. After 14 years of military effort—with more than 2,300 U.S. troops killed, thousands more severely wounded, and the expenditure so far of more than $700 billion—the United States has been unable to suppress the Taliban or stabilize the country behind a legitimate government capable of providing effective security.

The Taliban insurgency is stronger than ever and has gained control over significant parts of the country. The number of Afghan civilians and soldiers dying in the war is higher than ever and continues to rise.

Maintaining U.S. military forces in Afghanistan guarantees that the war will continue, although the U.S. State Department has said there is no military solution in Afghanistan. It further delays and diminishes the prospects for attempting to achieve a negotiated political agreement that could end the bloodshed. The continued presence of foreign forces reinforces the Taliban narrative—that it is fighting to free the country of foreign influence—and feeds violent extremism in the region.

President Obama’s decision comes in the wake of the appalling massacre two weeks ago that killed 22 doctors, nurses and patients at the Médécins sans Frontières hospital in Kunduz. An American AC-130 gunship repeatedly shelled a known medical facility, the largest in the area, and continued firing even after frantic MSF staff called American military headquarters pleading for a halt to the attack. MSF has charged that the incident was a violation of the Geneva Conventions and possibly a war crime.

How can the U.S. presume to have moral authority to act on behalf of Afghanistan after such an atrocity, and after the futility of its efforts through so many years at such high human cost?

Yes, the prospects for Afghanistan are grim. Many of the hopes for security, human rights and democracy that motivated the international intervention remain unfulfilled. But continuing to pursue military solutions will not work, and will likely make matters worse. The moral costs of continuing the war outweigh any conceivable military outcome.

It is long past time for the United States to focus instead on the pursuit of negotiations to resolve the conflicts in Afghanistan and the region through political means rather than war.

Foreign Policy Follies

To keep my blood pressure down and preserve some semblance of sanity, I have not watched the Republican debates or listened to the candidate speeches. I’ve read the newspaper accounts, especially their foreign policy statements, and I am appalled at the ignorance of what’s being said and the degradation of what passes for political discourse.

Particularly alarming to me are the false claims about American weakness and the dangerous calls for more militarism. America’s standing in the world has indeed declined in recent years. This is not because we are weak militarily, however. The United States continues to spend more on its military than any other country, three times more than China and seven times more than Russia. Rather, we are less respected because we have used military force so cavalierly and ineffectively with such harmful consequences for so many years.

Also outrageous is the claim that the Obama administration is somehow responsible for the rise of ISIS. No mention is made of the disastrous U.S.-led invasion of Iraq which shattered the state, divided Sunnis against Shias, and sparked a massive insurgency that led to the rise of Al Qaeda and later ISIS.

It is also worth noting that the decision to withdraw American forces from Iraq was based on a 2008 security agreement between the Bush administration and the Maliki regime in Baghdad. The Iraqi government firmly rejected requests by U.S. military officials to allow American forces to remain in the country.

One additional point: Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 largely on the basis of his unequivocal pledge to end the war in Iraq. Many of us applauded him for fulfilling that promise. That’s how democracy is supposed to work.

Let’s hope our democracy is strong enough to withstand the new wave of military jingoism and can pursue more peaceful approaches for achieving American greatness in the world.

Julian Bond

One of the giants of our era has passed. Legislator, writer, poet, television commentator and university professor, Julian Bond was most of all an activist for justice and peace. He was an early leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) during the civil rights movement, served as chair of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and was a co-founder the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Like many others in the freedom movement Bond understood the link between the struggle for civil rights in America and the movement to end the war in Vietnam. He and other members of SNCC opposed the war and refused to serve in the military.

Bond became famous nationally in 1966 when he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives but was barred from taking his seat because of his antiwar stance. Another election was called in the district and Bond ran and won again, but still he was barred from serving. He ran a third time and won yet again, and finally was able to take his seat after a ruling in his favor by the U.S. Supreme Court. He served in the state legislature for twenty years.

In 1967 Bond wrote and published a SNCC comic book entitled Vietnam. The remarkable document provides an insightful analysis of the injustice and racism of the war. It holds up well after all these years. You can access it here (thanks to The Sixties Project).

I corresponded with Bond over the years but never met him in person until just a couple months ago in Washington DC. Bond participated in and helped to sponsor the conference, “Vietnam. The Power of Protest,” which commemorated the 50th anniversary of the U.S. military escalation in Vietnam and the beginning of antiwar protest.

DSCN9576 (1)

With Julian Bond and Jonathan Hutto at the “Power of Protest” conference

The “The Power of Protest” conference included an event at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. It was one of the last times Bond spoke in public. His remarks that day focused on Dr. King’s famous 1967 speech against the Vietnam War and included this quote: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

Prophetic words then that remain relevant today.

Bond’s last statement, sent to colleagues just before he died, urged support for the Iran nuclear deal.

He was one of our country’s most important leaders for justice and peace. He will be sorely missed.

Presente!

I am an enthusiastic supporter of the nuclear deal with Iran. The morning the agreement was announced I wrote an op-ed endorsing the agreement that was published by Fox News, which you can access here.

The nuclear deal has many obvious benefits. It blocks Iran’s ability to manufacture weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. It establishes the most rigorous nuclear inspections regime ever negotiated. It calls for lifting sanctions against Iran as it accepts enhanced monitoring and begins to implement nuclear reductions.

The success of the Iran negotiations confirms the value of sanctions as a tool of diplomacy. In our book The Sanctions Decade, George Lopez and I offered a bargaining theory of sanctions. Sanctions are means of applying pressure, but their effectiveness depends on offering to lift sanctions as an incentive for reaching a negotiated settlement.

Sanctions are best understood as tools of persuasion not as instruments of punishment. They are useful for persuading an adversary to come to the bargaining table, but they must be accompanied by meaningful incentives for cooperation.

In the case of the Iran deal it is obvious that sanctions played a decisive role in driving Iran to the bargaining table. President Hassan Rouhani of Iran stated quite bluntly last week that he was elected two years ago to remove the sanctions. Without the nuclear deal, he said, Iran would face an economic “Stone Age.”

Especially important in the Iran sanctions regime has been the unanimous support for targeted measures by the UN Security Council, including Russia and China. Also significant has been the strong financial and commercial restrictions imposed by the European Union.

The combined pressure of UN, European and U.S. sanctions applied effective persuasive pressure. The U.S.-led negotiating team offered to lift that pressure in exchange for Iran’s commitments to restrict its nuclear program. It’s a classic formula for how sanctions are supposed to work.