Politics and Government

  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    Unanswered Questions About Slaughter of Nigerian University Students
    There are more questions than answers about the atrocious murder of university students at Mubi in Adamawa state, northeastern Nigeria, on October 1, independence day. Even the number of victims is unclear, with estimates ranging from twenty-five to forty. Some apparently were shot, others butchered with knives, and mangled corpses were displayed along walls. Some victims were Christians, some Muslims. The Nigerian press reports that the murderers were dressed in military uniforms and called their victims by name. No organization has claimed responsibility for the slaughter. Boko Haram, the radical Islamic movement that is waging war on the Nigerian state, has been active in Adamawa–it destroyed communications towers there recently. But there has been no comment from any of its purported spokesmen. Some of the Nigerian press speculates that, nevertheless, Boko Haram must have been behind the attack. The Nigerian military launched a crackdown on Boko Haram in Mubi last week, arresting 156 suspected members. Could the murders be retaliation? Other press, including the New York Times, suggest the context for the killings may have been a bitterly contested student election at one of the universities that pitted southern, Igbo candidates against northern candidates. (The former presumably were Christians while the latter may have been mostly Muslim.) There is a history of pogroms against Igbos in the northern half of the country—one was a precipitating factor to the outbreak of the civil war in 1967. Mubi was under a curfew at the time of the murders; under those circumstances, the military dress would have facilitated the murders’ movement. The uniforms also raise the question of whether some of the security forces may have been complicit in the murders. As the graph above shows, violence in Adamawa has been ongoing. However, there has been virtually no reporting of it in the Western press until now. The state’s population is evenly divided among Christians and Muslims. Historically, Adamawa has not been a center of ethnic and religious conflict. Adamawa is not a Sharia state. It is not clear to me why the levels of violence have spiked periodically since Christmas 2011. Three institutions are based in Mubi, which is near the Cameroonian border: the Federal Polytechnic, the School of Health Technology, and Adamawa State University. The murders took place at a privately-constructed student hostel occupied by students from all three. It is likely that the residence included students from all over Nigeria. In the aftermath of the killings, the Federal Polytechnic has been closed and examinations postponed. There have been wholesale student departures from Mubi. According to the Nigerian press, a government spokesman urged residents not to panic, and said that President Goodluck Jonathan “was doing enough to checkmate terrorism.” Nevertheless, the Mubi atrocity will feed a popular perception that the government can no longer ensure security in large parts of the country.
    Blog Post by John Campbell October 3, 2012 Africa in Transition
  • Americas
    Latin America’s Growing Social Network
    In 2000 only 8 million Latin Americans were active online. Today that number has ballooned to 129 million regular users—more than a 1000 percent increase—with almost all (127 million) signing in to their social media accounts at least once a month. The number of absolute and relative users differs by country, but the upward trend has been steady across the region, led in sheer number by Brazilians and in time dedicated by Argentineans and Chileans (10 hours and 8.7 hours a month respectively). Facebook dominates for most of the region, with 114 million unique Latin American visitors monthly, spending over a billion combined hours on status updates, wall posts, and photo browsing. Twitter comes in a (distant) second place, with some 27 million Latin Americans expressing their thoughts in 140 characters or less (here #Mexicans and #Brazilians outpace their neighbors). Millions more in the region access sites such as Orkut, Slideshare, Tumblr, and the more professionally oriented LinkedIn. The region’s politicians have noticed, and adapted. Social media platforms offer direct access to millions of constituents and, during campaign time, often provide a means to avoid media regulations. While most Latin American politicians are active online (Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia’s presidents all have over one million followers), no Latin American political figure has embraced social media as wholeheartedly as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Though he once famously referred to Twitter as a “tool of terror,” today Chavez is the second most followed president in the world (coming in only behind President Barack Obama), with 1700 tweets, 3.5 million followers, and a rumored Twitter account staff of 200. Political incumbents aren’t the only ones using social media to advance their causes. Mexico’s #YoSoy132 movement exploded onto the scene through a YouTube video and a Twitter hashtag bearing its name. Chile’s student protestors use Twitter and Facebook to organize protests and release statements, recently starting an English language account @Mobilized2011 to reach the international media. And Venezuela’s political opposition hasn’t shied from taking on the master in this realm: opposition front-runner Henrique Capriles may only have half the numbers of followers as Chavez, but he (presumably with the help of his team) has three times the number of tweets. This frenzy of activity has attracted journalists, commentators, and ordinary citizens. Joining in, many share minute by minute news updates, and retweet, like, and share political minutiae and commentary across the globe, letting gaffes and ideas alike go globally viral in hours. Social media has taken on life and death seriousness in places such as Mexico, where reporters and civilians alike tweet real time crime reports, at times paying the ultimate price for their bravery. Whether for established politicians, opposition activists, the press, or voters, social media has become a dynamic battleground, increasingly shaping the narrative. But in this brave new world of political interaction, how much will social media actually matter? In the book Going Public, Samuel Kernell argues that when politicians find new ways (and reasons) to engage directly with constituents, the initial effects are quite powerful, transforming politics as usual. But he also finds that these effects diminish quickly as the public becomes “fatigued.” While Kernell is talking more about the rise of radio and television in politics, there is reason to think that social media may follow a similar path as its predecessors. As the novelty wears off, newsfeeds become saturated, and other technologies emerge, these platforms will likely overtime become less useful and effective in shaping the political arena. Still, at least for now, social media campaigns will play a defining role in Latin America’s politics.
    Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil October 3, 2012 Latin America’s Moment
  • Iran
    Iran’s Murky Political Future
    Economic woes caused by sanctions and mismanagement, coupled with an upcoming political transition, have created new uncertainties in Iran, says expert Farideh Farhi.
    Interview with Farideh Farhi and Bernard Gwertzman October 3, 2012
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    South Africa’s Bond Rating Downgraded
    In the aftermath of the Marikana strike and associated violence, the rand has remained highly volatile against the dollar. Industrial unrest is spreading in the mining and trucking industries.  Last week, Moody’s, the international ratings agency, downgraded the South African government bond rating from A3 to Baa1. It cited uncertainty about the government’s ability to address the country’s socioeconomic problems as justification. Yesterday, Bank of America warned of the risk of a further credit downgrade by Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch if the uncertainty persists. What is happening? Far from going away after the mining giant Lonmin settled with the strikers at Marikana, labor unrest has spread throughout the mining industry.  The Financial Times estimates that eighty thousand workers are on strike, perhaps 15 percent of the underground labor force.  Most of these strikes are illegal. Ominously, the Financial Times reports that the strikers are not negotiating through “establishment” trade unions tied to the governing African National Congress (ANC) but instead using “workers’ representatives” that are more militant. The gold mining giant Anglo Gold Ashanti has announced that it may curtail its operations in South Africa if the labor unrest continues. Twenty thousand transport workers are also on strike over wage disputes, resulting in shortages ranging from medicine and gasoline to cash at ATM machines. This directly impacts the general population in a way that the striking miners do not. Violence has been reported, but no deaths. President Jacob Zuma is using the South African National Defense Force to supplement the police. The proverbial “elephant in the living room” is the ANC’s December convention where Zuma’s party leadership, and likely his continued presidency, will be directly challenged. As of today, I think Zuma will surmount those challenges.  But if the labor unrest intensifies, Zuma’s odds will decline. At the very least, there is now a climate of political uncertainty as well as spreading labor unrest.  International investors–and the international ratings agencies–do not like uncertainty. South Africa is not in crisis, but I would watch the rand exchange rate.
    Blog Post by John Campbell October 2, 2012 Africa in Transition
  • United States
    Aid to Egypt: What’s the Rush?
    Texas Rep. Kay Granger has put a hold on $450 million in aid to Egypt, and this has caused consternation in the Obama administration. Granger is a member of the Committee on Appropriations and chairs the subcommittee on foreign operations, so she is a powerful figure. Her brief explanation of the hold is this: This proposal comes to Congress at a point when the U.S. - Egypt relationship has never been under more scrutiny, and rightly so. I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance and I cannot support it at this time.  As Chair of the Subcommittee, I have placed a hold on these funds. The State Department took a dim view of the hold, as follows: As the president made clear more than a year ago when he pledged a billion dollars in support from the American people to the people of Egypt if their transition stays on track and continues, and as the secretary said when we were in Cairo in July, on Friday we here at the State Department notified the Congress of our intention to disburse $450 million in budget support to the government of Egypt in two tranches,” she said. Thereafter, we had some interest in that from the Congress, so we are obviously going to have to work with the Congress in the coming days and weeks to explain why we think this money is so essential at a time of almost $12 billion in budget gap in Egypt, why we think supporting the democratic trajectory of Egypt in a phased way is in U.S. interests, because we obviously firmly do. Granger is right—not to block aid to Egypt forever, but to wonder why we must rush forward right now. To begin with, Egypt’s “democratic trajectory” under its new Muslim Brotherhood government is no sure thing. Consider this August statement from the Committee to Protect Journalists and entitled "Egyptian Government Attempts To Suppress The Media:" President Mohamed Morsi’s government and allies are pushing back against critical news coverage, suppressing critical journalists and state-run newspapers, putting a journalist on trial, and attacking three journalists on the street, according to news reports. "This is a troubling backward step that Egypt’s newly elected President Mohamed Morsi should not be taking," said CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney. "We urge President Morsi to reverse this course immediately and demonstrate his commitment to press freedom." Moving forward with all the aid requested can be seen as simply dismissing such concerns and sending a message that they do not trouble us. Then there is the Morsi response when a mob attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Egypt is not Libya, where one can really question the ability of the police and military to keep order. The security forces in Egypt are strong enough, but were never told to act. On September 11 a crowd of about 2,000 was permitted to reach the walls of the U.S. Embassy and scale them, and tear down the American flag. Others circulated within the compound for hours, and we are lucky none of them harmed American personnel. This assault should never have been permitted, and Morsi has yet to offer a real apology for failing to protect our facility—the kind of full and sincere apology the Libyans have offered. Finally, why now? Egypt has apparently been in no great rush to conclude its agreement with the IMF. Moreover, where’s $450 million in cash from each of Egypt’s friends in the Gulf? For the most part, Gulf Arab oil producers have made deposits at the Egyptian central bank—but the money is supposed to stay there, not be spent. If we are serious about bailing out the Morsi government, why just hand money to Egypt instead of seeking some kind of agreement from other donors that they too will lend a hand? Why not demand that they match, or double, what we contribute? As things stand, we cannot be clear on the new Egyptian government’s economic policy, foreign policy, or respect for democracy. Here is part of the New York Times report on Morsi’s speech at the United Nations: Mr. Morsi rejected Mr. Obama’s broad defense of free speech a day earlier at the United Nations, saying “Egypt respects freedom of expression, freedom of expression that is not used to incite hatred against anyone.” “We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not seek to impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us,” said Mr. Morsi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed.” So much for freedom of speech as we understand it. Rep. Granger did not say she thought Egypt was an enemy, or a lost cause; she said she cannot support the assistance “at this time.” That suspension of judgment seems wiser than a rush to embrace the new government of Egypt.    
    Blog Post by Elliott Abrams October 2, 2012 Pressure Points
  • Asia
    Evaluating Suu Kyi’s and Thein Sein’s Trips to the United States
    The past two weeks have probably been the most high-profile weeks for Myanmar in the United States since the uprisings and crackdowns in Myanmar in 1988. The much-awaited visit of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi drew crowds that could be compared, in some ways, only to visits of Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. And Suu Kyi, in many ways, delivered, showing flexibility on sanctions that will allow for a much greater U.S. presence in Myanmar, displaying the humor and lightness of touch at events that was concealed by years of harsh government policy toward her, and offering a level of forgiveness of her former jailers that could help show the way forward for reconciliation in a future democratic Myanmar. Mynamar president Thein Sein, meanwhile, got much of what he wanted during his less acclaimed, but just as important, visit. His meeting with Hillary Clinton in New York demonstrated the importance the Obama administration places on Myanmar, the United States agreed to dramatic changes in sanctions policy, and Thein Sein returned home to Yangon to a hero’s welcome. But both leaders’ trips have had their pluses and minuses. Here is my take: Aung San Suu Kyi On the plus side, Suu Kyi emerged as a more complete politician and speaker, being able to leave the confining status of icon and appear as a real, funny, and down-to-earth person. She also appeared to have a solid understanding of the ways and means of the American capitol, not an easy thing to understand for even the most grizzled Washingtonian. She was consistent in her messages of forgiveness and reconciliation, and she at least tried to move forward from her previous stance of simply ignoring the issue of violence in Rakhine State. She appeared to be gaining a better understanding of what she does and does not know about the state of international relations, and of Burmese politics, today —a critical skill for any politician. She demonstrated that she was moving beyond icon to politician, and that her visits outside Myanmar would be as much about listening as speaking. On the minus side, Suu Kyi still has nowhere near the type of support network and brain trust that she will need if her National League for Democracy party (NLD) is indeed going to contest and probably win the 2015 elections, putting it into place to run parliament. Burmese businesspeople who spoke in advance of Suu Kyi’s trip noted that, although top NLD people have reached out to the business community and been getting a better sense of Myanmar’s economic needs, the NLD still has no coherent economic ideology, or even a real sense of how it wants to handle Myanmar’s economic opening and looming investment boom, other than calling for investment to broadly benefit all Burmese. Suu Kyi herself takes advice from both Burmese and foreign economists and businesspeople with great expertise, but she does not yet have a mastery of the many crosscurrents within the NLD, including some who want to open the doors to more investment and some who, like many Burmese, have a deal of (well-earned) skepticism and outright xenophobia about foreign aid and investment. During her trip, Suu Kyi still did not convince many foreign businesspeople, economists, or analysts that the NLD was prepared to be a governing party. That said, there are of course over two years until 2015, and this is a party made up of many people who focused their whole life on one cause: ridding the country of military rule. Can the party adapt now that its goals are far broader? In my next blog post, I will analyze the visit of President Thein Sein.
    Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick October 2, 2012 Asia Unbound
  • Rule of Law
    A Global Trust for Rule of Law
    The rule of law is critical for people to have a meaningful opportunity to thrive. Still, for billions of people around the world today, the rule of law exists on paper but not in practice. Even though a theme for the United Nations General Assembly High-Level Panel in fall 2012 is rule of law, various UN programs devoted to rule of law have not had a transformative impact. Traditional intergovernmental institutions will never offer enough to achieve systemic change. To supplement them and achieve what they alone cannot, the United States should take the lead to forge a more nimble partnership with public, private, and nonprofit sectors and establish a Global Trust for Rule of Law ("Global Trust"). Similar to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria ("Global Fund"), a diverse board of donor states, philanthropists, rule of law experts, and civil society representatives would run this Global Trust. Its purpose would be to build developing nations' capacity to implement rule of law and unleash the potential of marginalized groups worldwide, promoting not only human dignity but, crucially, global economic growth. The Problem "Rule of law" consists of procedures giving all people in a society meaningful access to justice, unimpeded by corruption or discrimination. It is needed not only for people to enjoy basic liberties, but most important to fully tap their capabilities to flourish economically. Consider how much more of an economic miracle India could be if disadvantaged castes enjoyed full access to justice, instead of facing discrimination and even bonded labor. So too would Arab nations be more economically dynamic (and stable)—on a broader foundation than fossil fuel resources—if they did not discriminate against women as workers and entrepreneurs. Moreover, establishing a trustworthy, predictable legal context is a magnet for increased foreign investment. For all these reasons, rule of law will galvanize a society's economic growth. Numerous laws and treaties have been adopted guaranteeing rights. Yet developing countries need international help to implement rule of law. The world's preeminent "human rights" institutions do not focus on rule of law. The UN Human Rights Council has only a limited capacity-building mandate, the International Criminal Court (ICC) focuses on accountability after atrocities have been committed, and the European Court of Human Rights does not address the absence of fundamental legal or law enforcement institutions within states. Over forty UN entities working in 110 nations on programs dedicated to rule of law in the past twenty years have not yielded systemic change. Nor have those of the World Bank and other international financial institutions acting alone. Because private sector and civil society assets will never be fully integrated into efforts of traditional institutions beholden to member states and their lowest-common-denominator agendas, a quantum leap in rule of law requires mobilizing other important partners. Time for a Global Trust Leveraging the respective capabilities of developed and developing countries, international institutions, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private sector actors, a new Global Trust for Rule of Law could spur that leap. Its primary function would be to provide grants and technical advice to NGOs and governments dedicated to enlarging access to legal rights and rule of law capacity where both are weak. It should be a cooperative partnership helping nations asking for help. Among other activities, it would support projects to train lawyers or prosecutors, help citizens gain access to justice institutions, and spread public awareness about corruption. Labeling this entity a "trust" would evoke not only a fund but the very confidence in rule of law that societies need to develop both politically and economically. Governments and multilateral institutions offer convening power and seed money as partners. With a huge stake in predictable rule of law, businesses must also be integral partners, and they will motivate states to seek the Global Trust's help given the prospect of increased business investment. An alliance solely of NGOs would raise as many suspicions from illiberal governments about outside meddling as would these other actors, without the benefits they offer. While the UN is insufficient as an implementer, it can provide a Global Trust legitimacy in the eyes of Egypt, China, and others through its definition of rule of law based on procedural consistency and judicial independence rather than necessarily Western-style democracy. The UN secretary-general's report Delivering Justice establishes: "The United Nations defines the rule of law as a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated. . . . It requires . . . legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency." The Global Trust should draw lessons from two models: the Global Fund and the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF). The Global Fund demonstrates the value of mobilizing the resources and comparative advantages of foundations and the private sector, rather than giving lead responsibility to a single UN entity with vested interests (in this case, the World Health Organization, or WHO). Likewise, the lesser-known UNDEF shows the importance of a framework insulating budgets from the narrow priorities of member states, while still offering the legitimacy of a highly respected body. Most important, UNDEF evinces the wisdom of supporting nimble non-UN implementers and civil society organizations, which are guaranteed a role in at least 85 percent of its grants. Scaling up this model, the Global Trust should prioritize civil society actors, concentrating its work in nations where governments welcome its help and where progress will be most likely. Structurally, the Global Trust should also mirror the Global Fund and UNDEF. It would have an autonomous governing board composed of representatives from developed and developing countries, the UN and international financial institutions, NGOs, relevant foundations, representatives of the private sector, and civil society institutions. A regional representation allotment would allay concerns about a Western bias. Funding from and decision-making influence of any single donor—including the United States—would be limited (e.g., a 10 percent ceiling), with no veto power for any board member. A technical committee of experts across cultures charged with evaluating grant applications would report to the board. Like those of the Global Fund and UNDEF, Global Trust grants would be performance based and disbursed in stages once benchmarks are met. To avoid the kinds of corruption and misappropriation charges that have dogged the Global Fund, the Global Trust's board would need to appoint the strongest of inspectors general to ensure grants are properly appropriated and projects are proceeding on time and within budget limits. In a trust designed to fight corruption and impunity, accountability will be essential to its credibility. The many potential grantees might include, for example, the Bachpan Bachao Andolan group in India, which champions children's freedom from onerous labor. Another might be the American Bar Association's Rule of Law Initiative. This program trains justice sector professionals, helps local institutions that provide pro bono legal assistance to the poor in some fifty countries, and supports government–civil society partnerships in developing countries with high corruption, such as Nepal and El Salvador. Building Backing for a Global Trust With other powers and private actors unlikely to do so, the United States should broker consensus on structures and provide seed funding for a Global Trust. It should cohost a meeting with a major rising power—such as Brazil, Indonesia, or Turkey—based on the latter's desire to be a leader and model. There will be governments, even democratic ones, loath to let the Global Trust give grants to organizations within their borders. These skeptical states can be convinced this partnership is premised on helping the disadvantaged and unleashing economic potential (not ousting governments). A procedural definition of rule of law and limits on any actor's donations and influence will demonstrate that the Global Trust cannot be a Trojan horse for U.S. parochial aims. Reluctant states may come to cooperate as they observe successes where states welcome the Global Trust's help. The amount of seed money needed to get the effort up and running would be relatively modest—perhaps as low as $140 million (the amount given to the State Department's bilateral "democracy fund" last year). Based on the experience of the Global Fund—with which donors have repeatedly employed a wait-and-see-what-the-United-States-gives strategy—a significant initial pledge by the United States would be critical in leveraging other resources. Given the difficult budgetary environment and skepticism of foreign aid in the United States and Europe, will legislatures support this initiative? There may be greater flexibility for developed countries to provide seed money than conventional wisdom suggests. Since the financial crisis, U.S. pledges to the Global Fund have actually increased. Likewise, in March 2012, cash-strapped Japan offered $340 million to the Global Fund, its largest donation ever. To be sure, the White House will need to persuade Congress that an investment in the Global Trust would have an enormous multiplier effect in prosperity, pluralism, and peace, compared to dollars spent elsewhere. And it would. Conclusion Weak rule of law in the developing world deprives countless people of legal rights and, hence, an opportunity to thrive economically. A Global Trust for Rule of Law could begin to close the gap between rights that exist on paper and those that can actually be enjoyed. Drawing on the Global Fund and UNDEF as models of best practices and effective partnerships, a Global Trust, autonomous of any one state or the UN, would cultivate rule of law capacity-building projects in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and other developing regions by supporting deserving proposals from states and civil societies. It would quickly become a nimble catalyst to build trust in access to justice and economic opportunity in those societies. So too would it inexorably accelerate global economic growth. Investing in such a trust would be a high-value bargain.
    Policy Innovation Memorandum by Mark P. Lagon October 2, 2012 International Institutions and Global Governance Program
  • Iran
    WAITLIST: A Conversation with Ali Akbar Salehi
    Play
    Related Reading: Iran: The Nuclear Challenge, Council on Foreign Relations, edited by Robert D. Blackwill
    Event with Ali Akbar Salehi and Lawrence Wright October 1, 2012
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    Debate Continues Over a Permanent African Seat on the UN Security Council
    The annual United Nations General Assembly debate, which brings over one hundred heads of state to NYC, ended today. As part of the series of speeches made by each country delegation, the foreign minister of Mauritania, Hamadi Ould Bab Oul Hamadi, and the foreign minister of Algeria, Mourad Medelci called, inter alia, for a permanent African seat on the UN Security Council. Their remarks are a reminder of the importance of this issue to African elites continent wide, who regularly cite the scope and importance of UN activities on the continent. But, leaving aside the multiple obstacles to any changes (or “reform”) in Security Council membership criteria, Africans are divided over which country would occupy a permanent African seat. Hence, discussion of a permanent African seat on the security council often has an air of unreality. The African media usually identifies Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt as the leading candidates for a permanent seat. Nigeria’s spokesmen refer to the country’s population–some 165 million–and its long history of leadership in UN activities, especially UN peace making and peace keeping operations going back to Congo in the 1960s. South Africans cite the size and modernity of its economy–the largest in Africa--and the country’s successful transition to “non-racial” democracy. Its elder statesman, Nelson Mandela, is probably the most celebrated African political figure now living. Egypt has a large population, a large economy, and a history of diplomatic activism. However, many sub-Saharans would regard the country as ineligible for an “African” seat because it is part of the Near East. (The U.S Department of State assigns Egypt to the Bureau of Near East Affairs, not the Bureau for African Affairs.) Though both governments downplay it, there is a rivalry between Nigeria and South Africa for leadership of sub-Saharan Africa. Its most recent manifestation was the contest for the position of Chairperson of the Africa Union Commission. After a long deadlock, it was won by Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, a South African former minister of health and of foreign affairs. Many of the small francophone states opposed the candidacy of a South African, and Nigeria was unenthusiastic. Some Africans believe the rivalry between Nigeria and South Africa could be solved by creating two permanent African seats. That hardly seems likely. Indeed, there seems to be little movement on the broad issues of Security Council reform. But, for African elites, the issue will not go away, and it is a potential irritant in their relationships with the permanent members of the security council, whom they perceive as opposed or indifferent to reform. African intellectuals often looked wistfully for some alternative to the security council, but thus far have found none. South African enthusiasm for its membership in the BRICS owes more than a little to this frustration. Security Council reform is often seen as contingent upon wider reform of the entire UN system—including difficult issues such as funding or personnel. African states could make a better case for a permanent seat if they actively worked toward a broader reform agenda. For the most part, however, they have not.
    Blog Post by John Campbell October 1, 2012 Africa in Transition
  • Political Movements
    South Africa’s Eroding ’Grand Bargain’
    The miners’ strike reveals the growing frustration over the political bargain that ended apartheid but did little to ease systematic economic inequalities, writes CFR’s John Campbell.
    Expert Brief by John Campbell October 1, 2012
  • Lebanon
    Film Screening and Discussion: Tomorrow We Will See
    Play
    Please join Shibley Telhami and film director Soraya Umewaka for a screening and discussion of the film Tomorrow We Will See, which follows a new generation of artists and designers living in Beirut.
    Event with Shibley Telhami, Soraya Umewaka and Douglas Jehl October 1, 2012
  • Iran
    A Conversation with Ali Akbar Salehi
    Play
    Iranian minister of foreign affairs Ali Akbar Salehi discusses Iran's nuclear program, sanctions, and the country's relationship with the United States.
    Event October 1, 2012
  • Lebanon
    Film Discussion: "Tomorrow We Will See"
    Play
    Shibley Telhami and film director Soraya Umewaka discuss the film Tomorrow We Will See, which follows a new generation of artists and designers living in Beirut.
    Event October 1, 2012
  • Americas
    New From CFR: Felipe Calderón and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf at the Council on Foreign Relations
    This week, Mexican president Felipe Calderón and Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf both spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations. In his speech on Monday, President Calderón, who is in his last months in office, described what he called a transformation of Mexico’s economy in recent years. Though poverty remains, he said, Mexico has a robust middle class, improved health and educational systems, and a strong export-oriented economy (video and transcript). He also discussed continuing challenges in security and the rule of law. On her blog, CFR senior fellow Shannon O’Neil analyzes President Calderón’s speech, writing: To sum up the past six years in office, Calderón highlighted his country’s achievements in concrete numbers: opening 140 new public universities, building or repairing 3,000 new health clinics, and constructing or repairing some 20,000 km of roads. He also spoke more conceptually of Mexico’s successes: arguing that its adherence to free trade and fiscal responsibility enabled a quick recovery from the 2009 global financial crisis, the rise of Mexico’s middle class, and its increasing global competitiveness. You can read the full blog post here. In her speech today, President Johnson Sirleaf highlighted the progress Liberia has achieved during her six-year tenure, with accomplishments ranging from impressive economic growth to better government institutions to higher school enrollment for girls. She also noted that substantial development challenges remain, including high youth unemployment, a rapidly growing population, and vast infrastructure needs. Overall, President Johnson Sirleaf’s ambitions are striking: she wants Liberia to be free from official development assistance in ten years and to attain middle-income status by 2030. You can view the video of her speech here or below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M5VKLFOUP_I
    Blog Post by Development Channel Staff September 28, 2012 Development Channel
  • United States
    Middle East Matters This Week: The UN Debates Amidst Regional Turbulence
    Significant Middle East Developments Israel and Palestine. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly yesterday within minutes of one another, with each focusing on divergent issues. Abbas lashed out strongly at Israel and called for the creation of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu, in turn, attempted to convince world leaders, the United States in particular, that a red line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear program to avoid a military confrontation. I wrote a "First Take" analyzing both leaders’ speeches yesterday, which can be read here. Iran. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, said today that Israel’s purported threats of military action only serve to reinforce Iranian “determination to continue in the same direction.” On Wednesday, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad addressed the UN general assembly for the last time as president of Iran in a speech seemingly to lack his usual fire and infamous Holocaust denials. My colleague Ray Takeyh prepared an excellent "First Take" on the Iranian leader’s remarks. On Tuesday, Iran’s Intelligence Ministry claimed it possessed new evidence of attempts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program through computer-virus infected equipment from the United States, France, and Germany. The announcement followed a statement over the previous weekend that Iranian security officials had discovered explosives inside equipment purchased from the German company Siemens. President Obama in New York.  President Barack Obama spoke before the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, paying tribute to slain Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and then providing a vigorous defense of freedom of speech, particularly in the Middle East. Connecting the transformations across the Arab world to the ideals of the United Nations and to freedom of speech, Obama said “true democracy, real freedom is hard work.” Before concluding, Obama addressed Iran’s nuclear program, saying, “the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” For an excellent analysis of the President’s speech, see my colleague Jim Lindsay’s "First Take" here. Egypt.  In response to President Obama’s UN remarks calling free speech a universal value, Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi called for restrictions on offensive speech in his General Assembly remarks on Wednesday. Instead, he urged the UN to consider international action against speech that defames religions, saying “Egypt respects freedom of expression…Not the freedom of expression that deepens that deepens ignorance and disregards others.” Morsi criticized the world’s approach towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calling it shameful that a “member of the international community would continue to deny the rights of a nation that seeks independence.” He also declared that stopping the bloodshed in Syria is “our main concern.” Speaking separately to Charlie Rose, Morsi reaffirmed his doubts about the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States, saying, “However I do not see any tribunal that was held in a clear way to decide for sure who did this and who helped who.” Syria. Rebel and regime forces continued to clash in Aleppo today in the second day of what has been termed a major offensive by the opposition. The escalation follows reports that Wednesday was the deadliest day of the uprising with three hundred and five deaths reported across the country. Rebel forces also bombed headquarters of the army and air force in Damascus on Wednesday. The leadership of the Free Syrian Army has relocated from Turkey to the “liberated areas” of Syria, according to a video statement released on Saturday by Colonel Riad al-Asaad, the FSA’s commander-in-chief. On Wednesday, Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi used his UN General Assembly remarks to declare his support for Assad’s departure and his opposition to foreign intervention, contrary to Qatari emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, who called the previous day for a unilateral Arab intervention to stop the conflict. Libya. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters on Thursday that the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi “was a terrorist attack.” U.S. intelligence officials have shared their belief that the militants involved were largely connected to Libyan Islamist militant group Ansar Al-Sharia, but that one or two individuals had connections to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The State Department has continued to withdraw staff from the embassy due to heightened security alert. Mohammed Magarief, the head of Libya’s new General National Congress, promised to disarm militias, but a militia attack on a Tripoli hotel Tuesday housing members of the GNC and an admission that a large number of shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles were stolen over the weekend underscores the difficulty of the task. Quotes of the Week “We are in an election period, so maybe this isn’t a diplomatic way to say it, but I hope that after the election the American government looks at this matter in different way.” – Qatari prime minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani told CNN on Monday “The legitimacy that I represent before you today was not the product of a fleeting moment... this revolution... was triggered by a long struggle of genuine national movements that sought a life of pride and dignity for all citizens. It is thereby reflecting the wisdom of history and sending a clear warning to those attempting to put their interests before the will of the people.” – Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi said in his first address to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday “It is time for Israel to turn around, look at the future we share, and make a just and lasting peace with the Palestinians.” – King Abdullah II of Jordan said on Tuesday in his address to the UN General Assembly “The two-state solution is the only sustainable option. Yet the door may be closing, for good.” – UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the UN General Assembly on Tuesday “The economic conditions in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem were much better before Oslo.” – Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of Hamas, said in an interview on Tuesday While We Were Looking Elsewhere Gaza. Hamas’ leader Khaled Meshaal will not seek reelection as the movement’s head, Salah Bardawil, a senior Hamas official confirmed on Sunday. Potential candidates to replace Meshaal include current Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and deputy chief of Hamas Mousa Abu Marzouq. Meanwhile, hundreds of protesters in Gaza called for Hamas’ overthrow on Tuesday after a three-year-old boy died in a fire caused by a lit candle during a power outage. The boy’s father proclaimed that he holds “both the governments in Gaza and in the West Bank responsible for what happened to us,” while Taher Al-Nono, a Hamas spokesman, blamed Egypt for delaying efforts to solve the energy crisis in Gaza. Also on Tuesday, Qatari ambassador Muhammad al-Imadi announced that Qatar is planning on providing $450 million in assistance to the Gaza Strip over the next three years. Kuwait. Kuwait’s highest court rejected a bid by the government on Tuesday to change the electoral boundaries. The opposition had promised to take to the streets in protest if the ruling was in favor of the government. This Week in History This week marks the eightieth anniversary of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On September 23, 1932, King Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud issued a royal decree that unified the kingdoms of the Hejaz and Najd into one realm. The unification of the Hejaz and Najd capped three decades of conquest led by Ibn Saud, beginning with the capture of Riyadh in 1902, and the subsequent establishment of the Saudi state that exists today.  
    Blog Post by Robert Danin September 28, 2012 Middle East Matters