Governments in the twenty-first century are faced with a variety of global security risks including terrorism, war and conflicts, stereotypes/ misconceptions and ideological conspiracies, to name but a few.

These risks have manifested themselves in a verity of different ways, by actual violent attacks on citizens (September 11th, 2001) or through “verbal attacks” expressed via social media.

These social media assaults work to create negative public opinion trends that, in turn, cause citizens to suspect and mistrust governments and institutions. The power of ideology is immense, and can reel in people that would normally never be attracted to terrorism, encouraging them to participate in destructive activities against their own as well as other countries. Osama bin Laden, to name the most prominent example, managed to attract individuals to subscribe to and glorify his ideology by demonizing the US and the West via verbal propaganda.

Any attempt to analyze how to prevent and tackle the many forms of global risks that plague our world today must review the primary causes and incentives for individual and group attraction to terrorism. Important factors to consider may arise from ideological reasons, lack of access to basic resources and rights, as well as the pervasive belief that individuals’ voices (no matter the values they espouse) are not being heard.

Therefore, it has become apparent in today’s interdependent world that the legitimacy of cause is of vital importance to both state and supranational governments. In establishing legitimacy in both the domestic and international spheres (public support for the government as well as the support of the international community) with the ultimate goal of reducing global risks and increasing security, a multi-level strategy is an absolute necessity. Despite its vital importance, the use of cultural diplomacy in addressing global risks remains largely underutilized. In many ways, the application of cultural diplomacy practices can complement the other, more traditional ways of increasing security (military measures or increased access to intelligence), by means of exposing and challenging destructive ideologies.

By helping to educate, enhance and sustain relationships, the application of cultural diplomacy can assist in building and improving dialogue, understanding and trust between governments and citizens all over the world at the local, national and global levels. The stronger the relationships between citizens and governments, the more trust will be fostered and the less ideological incentives there will be for citizens to resort to terrorism and violent activities. Bringing governments and citizens together into a constructive dialogue will profoundly increase mutual understanding, confidence and trust can be accomplished relatively easily through cultural exchange programs as well as grass-roots community initiatives supported by governments.

By engaging the fields of art, music, sports, religion and civil society and by working in partnership with representatives of those fields and other cultural diplomats, governments can more effectively communicate their messages within and beyond their borders and move closer to their citizens. This closeness will be sustained over time; however can immediately reduce major gaps or conflicts.

In addition, by endorsing cultural diplomacy, which is generally accepted as a positive and constructive activity throughout the world, governments can demonstrate their support for cultural diversity and multiculturalism and improve their images abroad.

The most notable benefit of including cultural diplomacy practices and tools into national agendas, however, is that it is cost effective compared to the alternatives. In addition, cultural diplomacy is inherently constructive in nature, as to destructive alternatives such as military or police action.

While cultural diplomacy as an international-relations tool can be applied across the board, implementation of particular strategies and tactics of course need to be crafted on a case-by case basis, taking into account all relevant historical, political, economic and cultural factors.

General Dempsey and Mr. Panetta spoke two days after Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who lost to Mr. Obama in 2008, became the first senator to call for American airstrikes on Syria as “the only realistic way” to stop what he called a slaughter there. Both General Dempsey and Mr. Panetta faced sharp questions during their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee from Mr. McCain, who is the panel’s ranking Republican.

Senator McCain, who proposed air strikes against Syria’s military targets, cited the example of former President Clinton, who used military force to answer the crisis in the Balkans during the mid 1990s. The problem is that using the model of a previous intervention ignores the realities of the situation on the ground, the international climate surrounding the situation, and assumes that the outcome of the intervention will be similar to the previous scenario. The New Republic’s Lawrence Kaplan best addressed this fallacy prior to last year’s NATO intervention in Libya.

Source: Euronews

As for the sober reality:  the Syrian opposition is barely organized, and the conflict on the ground is much more complex than the David vs. Goliath fight being broadly portrayed. The conflict in Syria goes beyond the authoritarianism of the Assad regime, and also involves the complicated interactions between race, religion and economic circumstance. No amount of military intervention can address long term societal problems instantaneously.  If anything, the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught policymakers that any intervention by foreign forces is rarely an easy, clean cut affair. Instead, good intentions can become painful, drawn out exercises in sorting out fights and maintaining a tenuous peace. Even the “relatively successful” intervention in Bosnia was fraught with difficulties, and had many analysts questioning the future value of the activity.

While many analysts wish it was more convenient, the situation in Syria nowhere resembles that of Libya, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc, and replicating the same strategy would be foolish. An air strike as proposed by Senator McCain may halt the progress of the Syrian army, but the strategy also runs the high risk of civilian casualties, as has been seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. For now, the Obama administration’s use of diplomatic pressure and indirect support for the Syrian opposition will be the best way to ensure that the right thing is done, while waiting for the nature of the conflict to become clearer.

When states become bureaucratized, war becomes a proposition of precarious value, an unmanageable risk to institutional integrity. State bureaucracies, fundamentally concerned with the maintenance of the domestic environment, come to view war as a policy more likely to undermine the state structure than to bolster it. It follows that conflict diverts resources away from the domestic environment and endangers the state itself. Modern states thus tend toward risk-aversion and therefore, abstain from international conflict in favor of diplomatic negotiations. Thus, it is these institutional, rather than ideological factors that are central in understanding the outbreak of war, or the maintenance of peace. States are no longer willing to endanger the political order and their own authority through external conflict.

The most relevant of examples can be seen in the relations between the U.S. and USSR. As a conflict between two well-institutionalized states, the Cold War exhibited a high degree of risk aversion and low conflict. Despite concern about Soviet willingness to initiate aggression with the West, the general trend of US-Soviet relations from the late 1940s to the late 1980s clearly reflects the mutual caution of the two superpowers, who obviously wished to maintain the status quo. A more specific example can be seen during what many consider to be the pinnacle of the Cold War—the Cuban Missile Crisis. Once the situation brought the U.S. and the Soviet Union to a crisis level, both sides quickly moved to defuse the situation. This was most visible in the U.S. use of a naval quarantine rather than an air strike or invasion against Cuba, and Kennedy’s offer to remove missiles in Turkey. Similarly, upon the realization that the U.S. saw the missiles in Cuba as a matter of vital national security, Khrushchev quickly backed away from the brink, admitting the error of his actions and barring the use of nuclear weapons stationed in Cuba even in the case of US attack. In conclusion, the US-Soviet interaction during the crisis indicated that neither country was seeking a confrontation, and both were doing everything they could to avoid one.

Traditionally, the simple explanation for the long peace of the Cold War was not seen as the relative institutionalization of both nations, but rather the overwhelming threat of nuclear weapons. However, this does not explain American inaction during the time in which it enjoyed an overwhelming advantage in nuclear weapons. It was very likely that the institutional, rather than ideological factors in each country, prevented any major armed conflicts between the two superpowers. According to political scientist John Mueller, nuclear weapons were not the primary factor in preventing superpower conflict, but rather the lessons of World War I and II—that large-scale war is costly and of limited value. As he succinctly pointed out, “Even allowing for stupidity, ineptness, miscalculation, and self-deception in all these considerations, it does not appear that a large war, nuclear or otherwise, has been remotely in the interests of the essentially contented, risk-averse, escalation-anticipating powers that have dominated world affairs since 1945.”

Of the countries known or believed to possess nuclear weapons, the U.S., China, France, Russia, UK, Israel, India, and arguably even North Korea, have historically strong state institutions. The same cannot be said for the lone wild card Pakistan, which has a barely-functioning central government and very little in the way of state institutions. Likewise, Iran also has a tumultuous recent history with state institutions. If Iran ever does develop nuclear weapons, they will not have the same incentives as most other nuclear powers to preserve the status quo, especially when the current regime already faces political turmoil from within its own borders. Nuclear powers have never gone to war with each other, despite their occasional bellicose disputes. When on occasion they do go to war with a non-nuclear power, the use of nuclear weapons has never been a factor, even in defeat—e.g., USSR/Afghanistan. Can we be assured a nuclear Iran would exercise this same restraint?

For this reason, the U.S. foreign policy of supporting stable regimes around the world is often criticized. No doubt, the U.S. would prefer to support democratic regimes, but even stable despots are worth supporting for the sake of regional security. It appears that with the spread of institutional state structures over time, the propensity for war declines, viewed as a policy with little to gain and much to lose. Because of this trend, the bureaucrat may be the real force that ushers in global peace.

Mr. Seidemann, a legal expert on Palestinian-Israeli relations in Jerusalem, has spent the past twenty years lobbying senior-level officials in Washington, Paris, London, Moscow, Cairo and both halves of Jerusalem to broker a two-state compromise which would, if not cure the cancerous conflict eating away at Middle East relations, at least put it into remission.

Cause of Death

“A surge of settlement activity the likes of which we have not witnessed since the early 1970s,” Mr. Seidemann explained, has enabled me “to project with a fair degree of authority what the map of Jerusalem will look like in two years time.”

From that projection two “unprecedented” conclusions can be drawn, he said. First, “the map of Jerusalem will be so Balkanized geographically and demographically that a political division of the city will no longer be possible.”

Second, the White House is for the first time in history completely beholden to Israeli leadership. “During the last six months, my Prime Minister Netanyahu has said in word and in deed, ‘President Obama you have no leverage over me on this issue. I know and you know you will not engage me publicly and probably not privately on these issues until probably after the November elections. I am at liberty to act with impunity.”

The United States’ February 18, 2011 veto of “its own language” on a Security Council resolution condemning settlement activity, together with the defunding of UNESCO a day after Palestine achieved full statehood membership there, reflect Washington’s “colossal trend of self-marginalization” in the peace talks, he said.

Next week, Mr. Seidemann plans to tell President Obama in person that if he chooses to cow to Israeli pressure and ignore the settlements issue until after the November elections, “by the time you get back there may not be anything left to talk about.”

But “short of catastrophe,” he added, “there is not going to be any engagement from Washington until after the elections. And maybe then none.”

A War of Rebirth?

“What I have described here is a state of acute disequilibrium in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Mr. Seidemann said while calling attention to the brewing war next door in Syria. “Having two states of disequilibrium simultaneously creates pressure along the tectonic plates. These things correct themselves in one of two ways: either a new robust political paradigm – which is not in the cards over the next several months – or an armed conflict. I have a feeling that there is a war waiting to break out there to realign things. It just hasn’t decided where it will break out and over what.”

Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Ammar Awad (A general view of a Jewish settlement known to Israelis as Har Homa and to Palestinians as Jabal Abu Ghneim is seen near Jerusalem November 16, 2011. Israel said on Tuesday it will invite bids soon for constructing 814 homes in occupied land it considers part of Jerusalem, pursuing a decision to speed up building in settlements after Palestinians won full membership in the U.N. cultural agency).

The U.S. has taken a lead role in “Westernizing” the world. What is important to note, however, is that the U.S. no longer maintains economic hegemony in the world. New innovations in communication, transportation, and information technology have leveled the playing field. Rivals such as China are jockeying for position in underdeveloped markets throughout the world. They are not only looking for markets for their goods and services, but they also hunger for the natural resources that many of lesser developed countries possess. The West in general and the U.S. in particular, have long been demonized as purveyors of materialism. Godless mercenaries peddling their wares and forcing their ideology on all they come in contact with. This plays right into the hands of the low-profile Chinese, who have been quietly expanding their global footprint. While the U.S. and its Western allies wage wars in the Middle East and Asia, the Chinese are forging close ties with countries like Pakistan. Despite the billions of dollars that the U.S. is pumping into Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is the Chinese who will be best positioned to benefit from any newly-generated resources and economies in the region.

The real danger of Congressman Paul’s message is that it is far too light on foreign policy and thus, projects the wrong image. Defining military intervention as U.S. foreign policy is a page straight out of “Anti-American Propaganda 101” and only confuses the issue. No doubt, the U.S. needs to be much more judicial with its use of the military and have a cogent plan for a stepped-up use of diplomacy. However, the mere presence of our military overseas fulfills a critical foreign policy objective–power projection. The use of Realpolitik has served the U.S. well in dealing with the likes of China and the former Soviet Union, without ever firing a shot. The distinction needs to be made between military presence and military intervention. Moreover, although the military can be a tool of foreign policy, it should never define U.S. foreign policy. The biggest foreign policy problem for the U.S. is perception. If the U.S. is to ever maintain its place in the world and not be outpaced by the Chinese and others, it must improve its image. Most political pundits do not give Paul much of a chance of becoming the Republican nominee. Nevertheless, Congressman Paul has the ear of America for the time being and as such, a huge responsibility. By all means, speak your mind. However, be aware of your impact on your followers–perception is reality.

REUTERS/Deborah Gembara – Detainees participate in an early morning prayer session at Camp IV at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay

On New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama signed into law the post-9/11 practice of detaining terrorist suspects indefinitely without charge. Shock and awe waves rippled through the blogosphere in response to the move, not least because Obama had threatened to veto an earlier version of the bill. Other grumbles included its lack of temporal or geographic limitations, which signaled to some the potential for military detention of anyone, anywhere, anytime.

But despite congressional approval of the well-worn practice, most rights wonks don’t expect any significant change in the frequency or type of indefinite detentions going forward. They do, however, maintain that the practice breaches international humanitarian law and undermines counterterrorism efforts.

One such expert, Martin Sheinin, professor of international law and UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism from 2005 to 2011, spoke with me about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its potential to derail US counterterrorism efforts.

The War on Law

To put the controversy in context, Mr. Sheinin explained why Washington supports indefinite detention:

“The NDAA builds upon the well-established rule in international humanitarian law (law of armed conflict) that during an international armed conflict combatants, i.e. soldiers of one of the states involved in the war, can be detained as prisoners of war until the end of hostilities. When there is an international armed conflict and when someone is a combatant, then such detention does not amount to arbitrary detention that would violate international human rights law.”

When the “global war on terror” was waged following 9/11, he said, the possibility of indefinite detention was extended to terrorism, “far beyond genuine situations of international or even non-international armed conflict. And it extends indefinite detention to persons who are not combatants. For instance, persons who are held to have provided substantial support to terrorism would be subject to indefinite detention.”

Against that background, Mr. Sheinan suggested several ways in which violating human rights in the course of countering terrorism can “backfire.” Rights violations can “add to causes of terrorism,” he said, “both by perpetuating ‘root causes’ that involve the alienation of communities and by providing ‘triggering causes’ through which bitter individuals make the morally inexcusable decision to turn to methods of terrorism.”

Further, “these kinds of legal provisions are always open for bad faith copying by repressive governments that will use them for their own political purposes.” Though such copying was found to be less common than expected, “repressive governments may do so for their own political purposes.”

“It is hard to see any practical advantage gained through the NDAA. It is just another form of what I call symbolic legislation, enacted because the legislators want to be seen as being ‘tough’ or as ‘doing something.’ The law is written as just affirming existing powers and practices and hence not providing any meaningful new tools in the combat of terrorism,” he concluded.

With Washington simultaneously fostering democratic transitions across the Middle East and North Africa and gambling on military exits from Iraq and Afghanistan, such “backfires” may well hamper development of the rule of law and respect for human rights when they are needed most.

As any student of the region will tell you, throughout its history, Afghanistan as a country has never been more than a loose confederation of competing tribal factions and ethnic groups. As a crossroads between Central Asia and the Middle East, Afghanistan has seen its share of invasions from Alexander the Great to our present U.S. forces, and served as a chessboard for the British and Russian empires of the 19th and early 20th centuries in their “Great Game.” Yet, in all that time, the people of Afghanistan united only when it became necessary to do so, in order to throw off the yoke of its foreign invaders. This then begs the question, are we on a fool’s errand?

During this election cycle, the topic of foreign policy has been featured in a number of Republican debates. Time and again, two major threats to U.S. and global security have been underscored–Iran and Pakistan. Afghanistan’s neighbor to west, Iran’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric and attempts to secure nuclear arms pose a growing area for concern. Bordering Afghanistan to the east, Pakistan already possesses nuclear arms and a chaotic decentralized government. Both countries exhibit either open hostility or marked indifference to the U.S. Both countries harbor extreme Islamic factions willing to use any means to advance their causes. Like it or not, Afghanistan appears poised to once again serve as a strategic chessboard.

In 2004, I served as the U.S. Department of State representative on a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in central Afghanistan. The job of the PRT was to bring some sense of order and stability to the region. To accomplish this, the PRT instituted a number of building and regional improvement projects, all the while meeting with local warlords in an attempt to get them to lay down their arms. My job was to sell the idea of central government to them. I soon learned how the Afghan people had survived for so long in the face of so many foreign invasions–they were the ultimate opportunists, saying whatever we wanted to hear in order to receive our largesse. All along, their allegiances never wavered from their tribes and ethnic groups. Central government meant nothing to them in their daily struggles.

Why then, do we think this latest attempt to form a national government will succeed? Hopefully, the generals in the field and policy-makers in Washington know the answer–it will not. History shows us the opportunistic culture of the Afghan people has served them well over the eons and despite our best efforts, chances are the Afghans will continue to do what serves them best. Any thoughts that the Afghans will not cozy up to whoever offers them the best deal after the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan, are naïve at best. Iran and Pakistan despite their bellicose natures, are still sovereign states subject to pressure from the international community. If we allow Afghanistan to again devolve into a lawless tribal region, this will allow those radical elements in Iran and Pakistan that we are so concerned with, to play out their nefarious machinations in an area free from any international leverage. We are damned internationally if we leave Afghanistan, and damned domestically if we do not. I only hope the current and any future administrations read their history books before deciding whether U.S. forces should remain or withdraw from the new Great Game.

Tunisia. With a homogeneous and well-educated citizenry, distaste for Islamist extremism, and recent free and fair elections, Tunisia stands the most to gain from the “Arab Spring.” A year ago in January, the Tunisian people disposed of former dictator Zine Abidine Ben Ali and, with some difficulty, set up a transitional government. In October, Tunisians took their first step toward democracy and voted in the national assembly elections, with the Islamist Al-Nahda party winning the most seats. Less than a month after the elections, Al-Nahda formed a coalition with the center-left and secular Ettakatol party and began to shape the interim government. In the new year, Tunisia’s primary objective will be the re-writing of the constitution and the transition from an interim government to one that will, after a quarter century, reflect the will of the Tunisian people.

Morocco. Despite widespread protests early this year, Morocco’s opposition movement was unsuccessful in transitioning Morocco from a constitutional to a parliamentary monarchy. Last July, King Mohammed VI introduced constitutional reforms, including the appointment of the prime minister from the political party with the most seats in parliament and giving the prime minister new powers, including the ability to dissolve parliament and make appointments. Last month, Morocco held parliamentary elections and, like Tunisia, the Islamist party—the Justice and Development Party (PJD)—was the clear winner. The PJD succeeded in claiming 107 out of 395 seats, considerably short of an absolute majority. As a result, the PJD will form a coalition with the nationalist Istiqlal party. Many in the opposition movement remain frustrated as they believe that this will force parliament to compromise meaningful democratic change. While some protests may continue into next year, the monarchy is still widely popular.

Bahrain. A Shia-majority country ruled by a predominantly Sunni government has resulted in major sectarian divisions. Last February, Bahrain’s youth-led opposition movement took to the streets, demanding democratic reforms. Their calls were quickly overshadowed by the country’s leading Shia opposition movement, al Wefaq and related entities. Bahraini security forces responded by violently suppressing the opposition, leading to dozens of deaths.

Crown Prince Salman has attempted to negotiate with the opposition movement on several occasions but has been quickly rejected. Al Wefaq refused to engage in July’s National Dialogue and in the special elections last October, which filled the seats vacated by al Wefaq members earlier in the year.

In November, the government-directed Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry gave a detailed account of the effects of the crackdown earlier this year. Bahrain is processing these recommendations and has pledged meaningful reform. The opposition has characterized the government’s vows to reform as meaningless.

Considering past attempts to overthrow the government—encouraged by the regime in Tehran—Bahrain’s opposition movement is likely to maintain momentum well into 2012 unless the government follows through on its reforms and ensures that they have a positive and noticeable impact on the Bahraini people.

Egypt. Amid weeks of violence and protests against Egypt’s military-led transitional government, Egyptians headed to the polls last week to cast their ballots in the country’s first free and fair elections. Since the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak last February, the military—credited with protecting protesters against regime brutality—has used a ham-fisted approach in restoring governance to Egypt. Promises for a speedy transition have not been kept, and the military has attempted to reserve special influences for itself, particularly over budgetary matters.

Last week’s first round of parliamentary elections took place among an explosion of violence when police cracked down on protesters in Tahrir Square. Despite this, 62 percent of eligible voters (9.7 million) cast ballots, making it the largest voter turnout in Egypt’s history. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party won 36.6 percent of the vote, while the hard-line Salafi Al Nour Party won 24.4 percent. The next round of elections will take place next week and the last round the first weekend in January. If the Islamists continue on their current trajectory, it is likely that they will control parliament. While the Muslim Brotherhood has pledged a moderate Islamist approach toward governance, women and minorities are fearful that the government will reduce their rights.

Libya. Experiencing one of the bloodiest uprisings in the “Arab Spring,” Libya witnessed a civil war that started in February and ended with Colonel Muammar Qadhafi’s death in October. When the Qadhafi regime began the widespread killing of opposition activists, the Obama Administration felt compelled to act—but only with the approval of the United Nations. In March, the U.N. adopted Resolution 1973 authorizing a no-fly zone over Libyan territory. After taking the initial lead in implementation, the Obama Administration quickly pawned the mission off on NATO, with the U.S. claiming the nonsensical role of “leading from behind.”

After a long summer of fighting that saw the opposition vacillate between gaining and losing ground, the opposition liberated Tripoli in August and captured and killed Qadhafi in October. As the Transitional National Council looks toward elections and the formation of a central government, it will face numerous security challenges, including spoilers looking to hijack the political process, weapons proliferation, and armed militias that operate independently of the interim government. The country’s interim leaders hope to hold parliamentary elections as early as June. As a country that has not held elections in more than four decades, the interim government is starting from scratch on election procedures. While 2011 saw the liberation of the Libyan people, 2012 will represent the success or failure of the new Libya.

Syria. Facing poor socioeconomic conditions and political oppression as in other Arab Spring countries, last winter, Syrians revolted against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. On February 4, Syrian activists initiated the country’s uprising against with a “day of rage.” However, it wasn’t until March when a government crackdown in Dara’a fueled the full mobilization of the opposition.

With widespread unrest throughout the spring and summer, the Assad regime has lost significant support from its neighbors and in the international community. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, though slow to denounce his former friend, has called upon Assad to step down and has provided significant support to the opposition. Last month the Arab League followed the United States and the European Union in levying sanctions against the regime. Currently, the Arab League is in negotiations with Assad to allow observers to investigate the brutality inflicted upon protestors. According to the U.N., up to 4,000 people have been killed.

The Assad regime is quickly losing influence, as many of its once-reliable partners have turned against it. The Sunni merchant class, which once profited off the regime, is starting to feel the impact of the sanctions and could soon abandon Assad. If the regime falls, the Syria’s once-suppressed Muslim Brotherhood is likely to fill the power vacuum and is considered by many as the heir to the regime. Despite its claims of moderate Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood is prone to double-speak. It’s unclear as to how a Shiite-dominated government would treat the minorities in Syria, particularly Christians, who often fare better under authoritarian regimes. It is becoming increasingly likely that in 2012 Syria will undergo a government transition. With power dwindling rapidly, the Assad regime is running out of options.

Yemen. Yemen’s uprising has escalated to the brink of civil war. Divided according to tribe, the country is split between loyalists to the regime and an opposition movement supported by General Ali Moshen, leader of Yemen’s First Armored Division and a regime defector. Despite President Ali Abdullah Saleh handing over authority to his deputy, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, last week, Saleh retains influence and maintains control over the regime’s security forces.

Since February, Yemen’s opposition movement has called for Saleh to step down. An attack on the presidential compound in June resulted in a wounded Saleh fleeing to Saudi Arabia. While away, protests continued but declined in momentum. In September, Saleh’s unexpected return reignited protests. Despite the embattled leader’s pledge to vacate power on three separate occasions, he continued to thwart the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) transition deal. It wasn’t until last month, when the GCC threatened with sanctions and the freezing of family assets, that Saleh agreed to a transition. While the GCC deal empowers Hadi to take over as interim leader effective immediately, it permits Saleh to keep his title until February’s elections. The opposition movement, which was not included in the formation of the deal, adamantly rejects it, as Saleh and his family were offered immunity from prosecution and the government will not be overhauled. In addition, Saleh still controls the security forces.

Yemen’s governmental instability has distracted attention from the growing terrorist threat. In September, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) occupied Zinjibar, the capital city of Abayan province. Forces are currently combating militants and have pledged to retake the city. The U.S. has acknowledged Yemen’s increasing attractiveness to terrorist activity. In October, Anwar al-Awlaki, the infamous AQAP propagandist and a high-value target, was killed with the assistance of Yemeni forces. While President Obama applauded the new transition deal, it is far from ideal and offers no guarantees to Yemen’s stability. With elections scheduled for February, Hadi stands as the only candidate and, according to the GCC deal, will run the country as a transitional figure until the next elections. With continued crackdowns, the opposition movement has made it clear that it will continue with its protests well into next year.

If the Universe had ears, I imagine it would hear the Earth rumbling.

Africa: Extreme Violence and Corruption
Let’s start in one corner and make our way across. In Africa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has experienced continued violence and mass rape. Some tie the violence to the illegal mineral trade, believing that the violence has traveled the physical path used by smugglers. (Read “Congo’s Mineral Trade in the Balance” for more information.)

Corruption in the Congolese government is rampant, and the gap between the wealthy and those in extreme poverty is massive. Fortunately, just this week Congo held elections. There is, of course, no assurance that the results will be legitimate, but democracy often struggles when corruption is so prevalent. America succeeded through democracy because it was a gradual process. In nations where the UN flies in ballot boxes and people are told to pick their favorite candidate, it often backfires. (Look at Rwanda for an example of this.) Still, at least some progress is being made.

Moving over to Somalia, we see a nation that recently experienced the worst drought in decades, and subsequently high mortality rates. Over 29,000 children died from starvation over a period of 90 days.

Here is a very informative video on why the international community did not see this coming, and how international aid distribution affected response to the crisis.
Fault Lines, Somalia

Middle East: Spring Has Sprung
The Middle East has seen a year of intense turbulence – regimes toppled, heavy-handed dictators squashing public protests, men setting themselves on fire to express their fury.

In Egypt, Kamal el-Ganzouri has been (re)appointed as Prime Minister.  This may be good news for the under-privileged class, since he seems to have a positive economic agenda.  In fact, he received a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in Economics.  As with any country facing revolution, the Egyptian economy is not doing very well at this moment, being effectively labeled an “economic winter” following the Arab Spring.

Europe: A Crumbling Euro?
Skipping over other countries in the Middle East facing similar circumstances as Egypt, let us turn to the Euro.  What a mess!  It’s possible that the Euro will disintegrate in 2012, according to an article run in the Economist on Nov. 26.  Greece seems to carry the blame for part of the problem – after “stretching the truth” on their debt in order to become part of the European Union, they have had to usher in some serious austerity measures that have upset their citizens.  There is a possibility that they will face bankruptcy in the coming months.  Greece would no longer be able to pay its officials, utilities would be shut off, and Greek banks would be in hot water, since the state owes them around 60 billion Euros.

If they end up bankrupt in 2012, it will impact not only the EU, but the entire world.  Our banking system is so globally integrated that what happens to one of us happens to all of us.  A report in the New York Times had this to say:

“From global airlines and shipping giants to small manufacturers, all kinds of companies are feeling the strain as European banks pull back on lending in an effort to hoard capital and shore up their balance sheets.

The result is a credit squeeze for companies from Berlin to Beijing, edging the world economy toward another slump.

The deteriorating situation in the euro zone prompted the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Monday to project that the United States economy would grow at a 2 percent rate next year, down from a forecast of 3.1 percent growth in May. It also lowered its economic outlook for Europe and the rest of the world, and a credit contraction could exacerbate the slowdown.”

The U.S.: A Waking Nation
To make a long story short regarding the U.S. economy, things are looking slightly more up than they were in 2008.  We are not in an official recession, but we probably will be tomorrow.  In a late September, 2011, report, the Economic Cycle Research Institute said that a double-dip recession was imminent and inevitable.

“It’s either just begun, or it’s right in front of us,” said Lakshman Achuthan, the managing director of ECRI. “But at this point that’s a detail. The critical news is there’s no turning back. We are going to have a new recession.”

Setting that aside, the Occupy movement is a significant symbol of the people of the West’s disenchantment of the current economic system.  Old activists and new are filling the streets with signs and chants, claiming things like “Banks got bailed out, we got sold out,” and the now worn-out phrase, “I am the 99%.”  While the message is often muddled and the method is portrayed as chaotic, one thing stands out:  the juxtaposition of massive corporate profits and the highest foreclosure rate in recent history does not sit well with tens of thousands of American people. 

In a country known for keeping up with the Jones’ and climbing the corporate ladder, the Occupy movement is to me the most unexpected event of 2011.  The world is in revolution, and much of it is tied to economic policy.  When the elite of the world grow more powerful and wealthy every day, while more families fall below the poverty line, there is a problem.  South America has known this for years.  The indigenous people of many South American countries are the ethnic majority, but ethnic (often white) minorities are the ones who own the resources and have the wealth.  While this disparity is not nearly as pronounced in the U.S. as it is in, say, Brazil, it is becoming clear to many people that it is headed that way.

And as a friend of mine recently said, the demographics in the U.S. are changing.  By 2020, whites will be in the minority compared to Hispanics and blacks.  Is it possible that the U.S. will become a nation where the ethnic minority is the market-dominant majority, as Amy Chua describes in her book “World on Fire?”  Yes, possibly, and that usually does not end well.

Looking Ahead to 2012
What does all this mean?  The Earth grumbles and shakes, but will it settle back into a comfortable hum or shatter in further revolution and a melting economy?  Occupy may fizzle out, or it could become a strong political force.  The elections in the Middle East may usher in an Arab Summer, or it could place Islamic parties in power that would create repressive theocracies, like in Iran.  At this very moment, it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood is ahead in Egyptian polls.

Economically, things do not look well.  Unemployment benefits will soon run out for millions of Americans, which will result in millions of additional foreclosures.  Drastic changes need to be made, but as of now, nothing useful is being passed through the House.

In Europe, Greece will either have further austerity measures and risk riots from discontent citizens, or lose EU status.

Meanwhile, CEOs of corporations continue to amass huge profits, while their employees lose their homes.

Person of the Year
The 99% of the world.  It will be the People who change the world, not the elite or dynastically wealthy.

Book of the Year
Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty, by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo.  This book discusses how poverty and aid influence the lives of those who make less than a dollar a day.  It describes how those in extreme poverty live, and imagines a world beyond poverty.

2011 evidenced our inability to predict substantial change and respond to tumultuous events. The ramifications of foreign policy decisions will not show their true colors for some time. Below, I discuss notable states – Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Qatar, Cuba, Burma, Ivory Coast, Norway, Israel, and Palestine – that I believe are important because of their effects on peace and diplomacy, as well as their demonstration of how rather unexceptional American exceptionalism is. As always, please share what events you feel are important for decision making in foreign policy in the comments section below, and you can connect with me on twitter. Wishing a Happy and Peaceful 2012 to all!

I. Summary of the Past Year

A plethora of significant events occurred in 2011 that will continue to shape international relations and foreign policy strategies. For my purposes, I will focus on the decisions surrounding a few significant events that I believe will have notable long-term ramifications, good and bad.

A. US, UK, and other allies’ efforts to facilitate Palestine’s isolation

I know this can readily be lumped under ‘news of the same’ because discourse on Israel-Palestine is so entrenched, with parties on all sides talking at each other, rather than with each other; nonetheless, the US’ threatened veto of Palestine’s full state membership within the UN General Assembly is notable for many reasons. It foremost is a clear instance in which the US has placed itself as an obstructionist to Palestinian efforts to achieve liberty. This is amplified due to the US’ demonstrated inability or lack of will to cajole Israel to cease settlement expansion. I have to ask, how does the US believe Israel, Palestine, Arab states, and Arab streets will respond? What will change, or what will stay the same as a result?

I expect it to be a flashpoint for further extremism on all sides. Israel will likely react with further settlement expansion and anti-Arab political/legal measures, Palestine may seek to put further responsibility for state functions and administration on Israel to hamstring Israel and draw international legal attention, and terrorists, extremists, and states will likely capitalize on the discord to further their own political goals.

B. Focus of effort to isolate Iran

The majority of attention has been placed on delegitimizing and stymieing Iran‘s nuclear program. The IAEA’s most recent report was heralded by many as proof of Iran‘s nuclear weapons program. (I believe the main areas of concern are built upon speculation and, moreover, that there is no legal basis to forbid certain nations from procuring nuclear weapons; this is outside of this discussion, though). The US, UK, EU, and others have taken further steps to isolate Iran and cripple its economy. In addition, the apparent covert assassination campaign targeting civilians and military personnel involved in nuclear or military programs is extremely provocative (and obviously illegal). Further tension building measures include the US’ lack of support to self-determination in Shi’i dominated Bahrain, possible removal of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the US’ foreign terrorist organizations list, and Israeli threats of a military incursion into Iran. US claims that Iran is behind an amateurish plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US, as well as other planned attacks in the US, suggest that there is little hope for rapprochement with Iran. The US’ choice to avoid lending transparency and legitimacy to the claim suffers, though; for instance, the US or Saudi Arabia could hold Iran accountable if they brought Iran to the International Court of Justice, apparently an unthinkable idea.

Iran has ratcheted up the rhetoric similarly by championing its supposed disruption of Israeli, US, and other states’ intelligence networks targeting it inside and outside of Iran; it is little coincidence that these reports were released around the time that Hezbollah made similar claims. And just in case we cannot connect the dots, Hezbollah’s recent rocket attack on Israel should have driven home the point. Iran‘s overtures to Turkey concerning the former’s willingness to share nuclear technology with the latter were also astute, although unlikely to be taken up. For the future, I expect little to change, minus a few more dead Iranians, maybe a military strike or two, and the continuation of sanctions; however, these may necessitate the Iranian regime to endear itself through reciprocal strikes on Israel or other foes.

C. US’ resignation to a military controlled Egypt

The US appears to have resigned itself to de facto military control of Egypt through its lack of insistence on Egyptian civilian control of the military. The idea – evidently posited by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) – that the constitution will allow for an exception to civilian oversight for the military is disconcerting for Egyptians and most who support democratic principles. The possibility exists that the US will insist upon civilian control of the military following democratic election of a president, but I am skeptical; for example, the US’ highly questionable concerns over the Muslim Brotherhood and other proponents of political Islam in Egypt may be reason enough for the US not to fervently oppose such an exception. This construction would be in line with Turkey’s past model of the military being the guarantor of legitimacy, but it is problematic.

For one, the Egyptian military is a nepotistic industry in itself, which seeks not only to control governance, but also investment and commerce. Simply put, the military does not want to lose its patrons – the Egyptian people and US aid  - which have funded endless business ventures that have lined its officers’ pockets. This struggle will have serious implications for Egypt and the region, precluding the likelihood of a capable government taking office and stability taking root. Furthermore, although the military may portray this exception as allowing it to safeguard Egypt from Salafist extremism, it will likely serve the opposite by driving more recruits into the welcome arms of terrorists – note the head of al-Azhar’s recently conveyed opposition to SCAF attempts to secure control, a momentous statement from such a respected cleric.

D. Honorable mentions

Qatar demonstrated itself as a promising and adept leader in the Arab world through its involvement in contentious matters, such as Libya, this year. I expect it to serve as the new vanguard for self-determination and diplomacy in the region; to be reasonable, I do not expect it to breakout too much from the Sunni-Shi’i divide, but there is still promise.

Another point of promise is Burma (Myanmar). The Burmese government has come far in the past year, creating a semblance of democracy and releasing some political prisoners, but it still has much further to go. The release of remaining political prisoners, free and fair elections, and the ability for elected representatives to effect the will of the people will be the proof. Some believe that this is merely Burma’s attempt to rid itself of US sanctions and unify the ethnic majority so that it can then militarily confront ethnic minorities. I object to the former in light of the regime’s ability to flourish despite the sanctions, and I hope the latter is not the case. Although I place little long-term faith in the personality cult surrounding Aung San Suu Kyi, I hope that she and the overall voice of the people will protect minorities, such as the Rohingya.

Another state that I hope the US will break from its intransigence with is Cuba. Raul Castro’s support for governmental term limits and the recent allowance of private property serve great promise. I expect Obama to still be fettered by the anti-Cuba lobby, but one can only dream.

II. Most Unexpected Event

Two different events come to my mind on this question, both focused on the effect that one human can have on peace. First, I was pleasantly surprised that the Ivory Coast’s President Alassane Ouattara was able to assume his position despite the best efforts of former president Laurent Gbagbo. Violence surrounded Ouattara’s assumption of the presidency, but I hope that is finished. Only time will tell where Ouattara will lead the Ivory Coast, as well if his policies will be inclusive. For the second, an extremist, Anders Breivik, also shaped the course of things to come, albeit through his visceral views of muslims and their role in Europe. Breivik’s July car bomb and armed assault in Norway resulted in numerous deaths, but his hatred foretells that domestic terrorism will continue to plague states. Moreover, northern states will need to confront festering xenophobia, similarly present throughout the US, Europe, Russia, etc., before we witness even more devastating attacks.

III. Person/Group of the Year

The most significant actor of 2011, in my opinion, was Turkey. Its status as the setting for ongoing espionage wars between Iran, Israel, the US, and others; burgeoning role in the Near East and Maghreb, including intervention in Libya and Syria; successful subjugation of the Turkish guarantors’ of secularism – the military; nuclear ambitions; persistent support for Palestine; overtures to Hezbollah; and controversial policies towards Kurdish opposition warrant series attention. Because the US often missteps or is absent in the region, Turkey has been able to exploit discord and assert itself as a leader and facilitator. And needless to say, while I disagree with Turkey’s address of the Kurdish question, I am encouraged by its otherwise progressive and principled actions.

IV. Forecast for 2012

I already touched upon a few of my expectations for future developments, but one other notable expectation warrants discussion. On Afghanistan, I expect ISAF efforts will force operational evolution of the Taliban. I am skeptical that anyone is examining this sufficiently. For one, my experience there impressed upon me that ISAF – mainly meaning the US – cannot even record actual opposition activities, let alone try to predict their evolution. As ISAF asserts its military prowess, expect things to get even murkier and dirtier.

V. Favorite Book of 2011

Unfortunately, my time has been too limited to read any 2011 books! I was able to read a few older books that I believe are quite interesting, though, including Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones, Edward Said’s Orientalism, and Seven Pillars of Widom by TE Lawrence – all more ‘oriented’ for Near East aficionados.

“Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons”
~ R. Buckminster Fuller

Much has been made about how the late technology giant Steve Job “changed our lives”. The Discovery Channel, not to be outdone by all the media hoopla surrounding his death, will air a one-hour documentary on Sunday 30 October entitled, iGenius: How Steve Jobs Changed the World. The program description states, “Steve Jobs was a creative and technological visionary who quite simply changed society as we know it. As co-founder and CEO of Apple Computer, Jobs ushered in personal computing to the masses, which in turn led to new innovations which completely changed our way of life.”

(Source: Google photos)

With praise like this, surely we will be seeing this tech demi-god’s face on Mount Rushmore in a few years. No, I am not a Steve Jobs or Apple “hater”.  Truth be told, I consider my IPad to be my most trustworthy non-human companion and I am enamored with all the other ultra-cool products in the Apple products pantheon. However, I have grown frustrated observing the extent to which our tech obsessed society celebrates “cool” gadgets and the super-rich entrepreneurs who bring them to market. Is it just me, or are we missing the real story and opportunity that contemporary tech breakthroughs offer to a world that confronts chronic challenges that threaten our collective prosperity and security? While the developed ‘West’ distracts itself with innovative gadgets, reality T.V. shows, new means of connectivity, and the other toys of modernity, the ‘Rest’ of the world (you know, that large swath of humanity in the blind spot of much of the West’s consciousness) wallows in the muddy waters of poverty, disease, exclusion, and hunger all while staring at a blank wall of hopelessness.

Friends, when will we see a shift in focus from iGeniuses and their gadgets to eDevelopment solutions that promise to transform the way the world feeds, shelters, cures, educates, and shares? Here are a few statistics related to the Rest that should serve as warning flags for us in the West.

• According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world.

• Number of children in the world, 2.2 billion – The number in poverty 1 billion (every second child).

• Close to half of all people in developing countries suffer at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits.

• Indoor air pollution resulting from the use of solid fuels [by poorer segments of society] is a major killer. It claims the lives of 1.5 million people each year, more than half of them below the age of five: that is 4000 deaths a day. To put this number in context, it exceeds total deaths from malaria and rivals the number of deaths from tuberculosis.

•  Survival for children Worldwide:

- 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France,   Germany, Greece and Italy)
-  1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation

(Source: UNICEF)

Indeed, there remains lots of work to be done to create a more equitable world. Can some of the tools we take for granted in the West be leveraged to help to ameliorate some of these problems? The answer is an unequivocal ‘Yes’.

(Source: Google photos)

Thankfully there are non-profit organizations and even public ones like the U.S. Department of State that appear committed to harnessing all types of technology to help partner countries to confront the most vexing global challenges. Last October, at a Science and Technology event in Bogota, Colombia, Ms. Maria Otero, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affair  stated,   “We live in a world of increasing interdependencies and thus of shared global challenges- the challenges of economic development and growth, of providing our youth with a promising future, of improving health care for all our citizens, of sustainable agriculture, of energy security, of clean accessible water, of environmental conservation and of climate change effects. We live in exciting times where the scale of challenges being discussed here today is being matched by human ingenuity. Investment in S&T to provide joint technological and policy answers that mitigate the impact of global issues is therefore imperative. Every country’s competitiveness, development, prosperity, and stability will depend on having the capacity to fully participate in the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century.”

Bravo U.S. Department of State! I hope in the near future our increasingly tech centered society will begin to open our eyes to how technology can be used to bring about profound “society altering” transformations throughout the world. Perhaps private business, indeed all of us, will awake to the reality that it is good business (and good global citizenship) to extend a helping hand to the Rest as they struggle up their respective development Mount Everests. I am hopeful that all tech producers, as well as consumers, will collectively form a global coalition of partners, indeed a network, to harness technology to really “change the world”.

By the way, although I will be watching the iGenius documentary I plan on helping to write the eDevelopment story – its so much cooler!

In a speech last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated, “At this time the mission was embarked on, there were a lot of critics, about whether it was the right mission, at the right time, with the right force…There were an awful lot of questions about the mission overall and I think the critics have really been proven wrong.” Unlike his predecessor, Robert Gates, Panetta was a strong supporter of U.S. intervention from the start. Gates, on the other hand, argued that Libya’s uprising did not constitute a “vital national interest.” Despite Gates’ apprehensions about the mission, U.S. participation produced results that otherwise would have been difficult—if not impossible—for NATO to achieve.

While NATO is close to fulfilling its mission, it has done so with difficulty. On March 22, 2011, NATO acted on United Nation Security Council Resolution 1973, authorizing member states and regional organizations to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya. The mission lacked many resources of which the U.S. was obliged to compensate for, including, trainers, targeting specialists, refueling tankers, intelligence and surveillance capabilities and reconnaissance platforms (Global Hawk and Predator drones).

Such dependence on the U.S. proved frustrating, especially in light of President Obama’s statement that the alliance, not the U.S., would take the lead on this mission. The glaring inequalities evidenced in the Libya operations are reminiscent of those seen during NATO’s mission in Kosovo (KFOR). There, the U.S. provided all of NATO’s jamming capabilities, 90 percent of the air-to-ground surveillance and 80 percent of the air refueling tankers. U.S. fighters and bombers delivered 90 percent of the precision-guided munitions as well. In today’s economy, the U.S. cannot afford to shoulder Europe’s load, particularly when those operations take place in Europe’s back yard.

Last summer, Secretary Gates gave his last policy speech to NATO, lamenting its transformation into a two-tiered alliance in which some members sacrifice blood and treasure in combat operations while others sit and watch. Similarly, Secretary Panetta urged NATO members “to share the burden of protecting common interests” and “commit to addressing growing gaps in our military capabilities even as we confront the challenges of fiscal austerity.” NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen echoed similar sentiments: “We could not have carried out this operation without the unique and essential assets from the U.S. This is no breaking news that we need help from the U.S… Smart defense can only work if it is done together; it is not an excuse to reduce budgets.”

The alliance has grappled with this very challenge since its inception. Currently, only Albania, France, Greece, the United Kingdom and the United States meet the Alliance’s benchmark to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. Europe is under severe economic pressure to implement austerity measures, and the U.S. defense budget has taken a beating, severely limited U.S. military capacity. Additional cuts being discussed in Washington would further reduce many of the same assets essential to the Libya operation—stealth aircraft, carrier battle groups, amphibious capabilities.

As Secretary Panetta stated, budget cuts “cannot be an excuse for walking away from our national security responsibilities.” Other NATO allies have also expressed exasperation at the lack of commitment on behalf of their fellow members. At the Conservative Party conference last week, Britain’s Defense Secretary, Dr. Liam Fox, scolded NATO members who have failed to meet the 2 percent benchmark, saying, “You cannot expect to have the insurance policy but ask others to pay the premiums.”

NATO allies must acknowledge that despite the tough economic times, they must work together to evenly distribute responsibility for the common defense. The U.S. has proven itself a ready and willing partner in the alliance and has compensated where the alliance has faltered. For NATO to remain the most effective military alliance in modern history, allies must stand by their commitments to transatlantic security.

September 11th was a gorgeous day up and down the eastern seaboard—cool, crisp, and not a cloud in the sky. A day you felt great to be alive. I had just settled down in my Russian class when a rather rattled classmate burst through the door exclaiming, “A plane just hit the World Trade Center!” My first thought was that this was just a repeat of 1945, when a B-25 bomber accidentally flew into the Empire State Building in heavy fog, killing 14 people. However, a growing commotion in the hallway outside our classroom caused us all to rush out the door, despite our Russian teacher’s protests. In the common area, students had gathered around a TV, which was tuned to CNN. The unforgettable image of planes crashing into the World Trade Center seemed totally surreal. As we watched in morbid fascination, a friend who was in Spanish-language training joined me and relayed a bizarre observation. He said that while in class, he had witnessed an airliner fly past his classroom window at tree-top level. No sooner had he told me this then we heard a loud bang. At the time we simply thought someone had slammed a door, having no idea that American Airlines Flight 77 had just crashed into the Pentagon.

By now, it was obvious the United States was under attack. Mass hysteria was also kicking in, fed by the media. The shock of witnessing spectacular attacks on American icons created not only a feeling of helplessness, but fed into a growing panic. Reports of car bombs outside the State Department and the Capitol led us to believe the federal government was being targeted. FSI administrators announced that FSI was being evacuated, as it too was considered a target. We were also informed that all bridges and access points in and out of Washington were being closed. All I could think of was my poor wife back in the middle of a war zone as I hopped in my jeep and drove like hell to get back there. I beat the road closures and found my wife in our hotel room, transfixed to the television in the same state of disbelief that had affected us all. After several hours trapped in our room, witnessing the endless footage of death and destruction, I became stir-crazy and felt the need to be around other people. I called a friend and we agreed to meet for a drink. I will never forget walking down the middle of normally bustling streets, not a soul in sight with the exception of soldiers setting up watch posts on certain street corners. As we crossed an empty Pennsylvania Avenue it hit me—life as I knew it was over.

In the weeks and months that followed, chaos seemed to reign, especially in the Capital. Air travel was halted, barriers and security appeared everywhere, and the city seemed more like a military installation than a tourist destination. Smoke from the Pentagon’s fires seemed to linger forever and the once self-important population now had an air of paranoia about it. However, 10 years later, most have adjusted. Post-9/11 means longer lines at airport security checks, otherwise life has returned to normal. Osama bin Laden is finally dead and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to be drawing down. Jobs and the economy are first and foremost in the minds of most Americans. Yes, as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11, our focus is once again on our domestic issues. This anniversary is a remembrance of all those who lost their lives on that fateful day 10 years ago, but it should also serve as a reminder of why the tragedy took place. America the invincible is vulnerable. In looking back, we need to see 9/11 as wake-up call.

In Samuel Huntington’s, “The Clash of Civilizations” and the eponymous theory that was put forth, Huntington argued that people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. Huntington maintained that it was not only wrong, but also egotistical and dangerous to think that Western civilization should be thought of as a universal civilization. Western civilization is just one of the major civilizations, and since older classic civilizations tend to strongly reject the influence of others, Western civilization is not likely to become a universal civilization.

The fundamental role of the classic civilization has always been to maintain and preserve the established forms of social life. This is clearly the goal of Islamic extremists and even many mainstream Muslims—the establishment and preservation of an Islamic state, governed solely by strict Sharia law. However, Western civilization possesses irresistible attractions on several levels and herein lies the dilemma for classic civilizations. The affluent consumer lifestyle brought about by successful Western civilizations becomes a subject to be talked about with envy in non-Western regions. This “threat” posed by the Western powers generates an inevitable nationalist response to the inroads of these industrial intruders. Classic civilizations must either embrace modernization or risk becoming economic and political subjects of the West. The nationalistic response to this clash of civilizations is the rise of fundamentalist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which look to repel the intruders by any means possible.

In looking back pre-9/11, it is easy to recall those halcyon days of naïveté, when America’s enemies were an ocean away. We were like the small town where nobody needed to lock their doors at night. The enemy was always out there; we just thought their methods too crude to reach us at home—at least not in the tragic and spectacular manner in which they did. The U.S. may still be a super-power, but as we saw 10 years ago, we are far from invulnerable. We must ask ourselves what have we done in the last 10 years to alter the paradigm? Have we done anything to mitigate this clash of civilizations, or have we only exacerbated it? Did America get woken up only to hit the snooze button? If so…

The time has come to reexamine how UN peacekeeping is conducted. A full and comprehensive review of UN peacekeeping should be initiated, with a particular emphasis on moving stalemated or static post-conflict situations toward resolution. If a peacekeeping operation does not appear to be advancing resolution of the issues, then the UN needs to explore alternatives and at least consider scaling back or otherwise restructuring those missions. In the interest of addressing both the underlying conflicts and maximizing the effectiveness of limited resources, the UN needs to be willing to examine critically whether some of these peacekeeping missions may actually be prolonging stalemates by not sufficiently forcing the parties to resolve their differences through political or diplomatic means. If it is determined that missions are contributing to stalemate, the UN needs to look for ways to invigorate the peace process or to begin moving these peacekeeping operations toward drawdown.

Criteria for identifying those missions ripe for innovative action should be established, in order to move ahead toward a final peace. Just as DPKO has worked to identify common elements of successful peacekeeping missions for possible replication, the UN should also work to develop means to identify the common elements of missions that have resulted in stalemate to help them avoid repetition of past mistakes. As soon as possible after the active phase of conflict has been brought under control by peacekeepers, efforts must be undertaken to distinguish between those remaining tasks that are appropriate for the DPKO and those more appropriately handled by other actors including other specialized UN agencies, regional or sub-regional organizations, or bilateral partners. Consequently, some missions will and should have, limited goals and correspondingly limited size and resources. UN peacekeeping operations should never be allowed to crowd out or substitute for a full and participatory political process aimed at complete conflict resolution leading to long-term and sustainable peace, development, and security.

Today’s increasingly multi-dimensional peacekeeping operations are far too expensive in both human and financial terms to undertake without a clear exit strategy in place from the beginning. Peacekeeping is far too critical to ever be allowed to stagnate. The UN must be fluid, resourceful, and innovative in how they do business or risk becoming irrelevant.

Ambassador Bosworth’s statement shows promise but also reflects an overarching problem in US Foreign Policy, best described by the lyrics of an Adele song: “if I can’t have you the way I want you, I quit.” It is often the diplomatic strategy of the United States to cease or drastically reduce dialogue with states that do not behave according to its expectations; until the US decides it wants something from that state. This is what US did during fifty years of relations with Pakistan and what it continues to do with North Korea.

Dr. Robert Carlin of CSIS captured this pattern perfectly in his March testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations committee:

“Our problems dealing with North Korea are not confined to one administration or party. In the deepest sense, they reflect our national inability, intellectually and emotionally, to understand how states work…Our difficulties are compounded by the fact that public discourse about the North in the US has long been crippled, condescending, irrelevant, and, like heartburn, episodic.”

In combination with domestic factors, the US’ approach has lead to a highly suspicious, defensive, and unresponsive North Korea.

If the events of the last year are any indication, it is clear the United States needs to change the way it approaches diplomatic relations with intractable cases like North Korea. Another portion of Ambassador Bosworth’s remarks on July 29 points toward a smarter approach. According to the Ambassador, if North Korea is ready for “improved relations with the United States and greater regional stability” then the United States is open to talks.

Creating an open dialogue is key for the future of the US’ relationship with North Korea. By finding overlapping interests to begin a dialogue the US can start to build a relationship, if not trust, with North Korea. Creating a stable dialogue would help solve one of the greatest obstacles the US faces in its dealings with North Korea—a lack of intelligence on the conditions within the DPRK. This is not to say that the US should discontinue the six-party talks; it should continue to pursue a non-nuclear North Korea. If there is no dialogue, then there is no chance for even modest progress. However, it is important for US negotiators to realize that at this point nuclear weapons are too important a part of the North Korean foreign policy strategy to give their weapons up any time soon.

In sum, the US should seize this opportunity to begin to build a new dialogue with North Korea. While it might be “talking for talking’s sake”, creating a channel for exchange will increase the US’ knowledge of North Korean thinking and build a basis for negotiations in the future. Hopefully, this will prove an effective model for US diplomacy and the US can move away from its current approach of “if I can’t have you the way I want you, I quit.” It might work for interpersonal relationships, but lets hope our nation can advance past the diplomatic strategy of twenty year-olds.