WhirledView

America's Asian Pivot

By Patricia H. Kushlis

At the Santa Fe World Affairs Forum’s symposium “Our World in Ferment” on April 17, China expert and Deputy Director of the Kissinger Institute for US-China Relations Douglas Spelman described the change in US policy direction in Asia over the past 18 months as more of a pivot towards Southeast Asia as opposed to one directed at the continent’s North where US attention has been fairly constant, and intense, for some time.

On the April 23 international news, a BBC correspondent reporting from the island of Palawan near where US and Filipino forces were engaged in Balikatan, the bilateral annual war game exercises held under the Mutual Defense Treaty, reported on the heating up of military tensions between China and the Philippines over who controls what in the South China Sea.  An aside: Palawan is an island where I once spent a week at a charming ecotourism resort a year after the US bases had been kicked out of the Philippines by one vote in the Philippine Senate.

Believe me, the reporter has a pretty cushy observation perch from which to observe military exercises as well as snorkel on the side.  

A Chinese Lake?  Maybe not

The Chinese consider the South China Sea a Chinese lake – made more valuable through exploration by international companies for likely oil and gas under the seabed.  Palawan is, by the way, just south of the South China Sea. A BBC report argues that it is precisely because the Filipinos and Vietnamese have signed contracts with international companies to explore for those riches in the disputed territorial waters they claim as their own that set the Chinese off.

The area in contention is called Scarborough Shoal. The Schoal lies within the broader area known as the Spratly Islands, tiny basically uninhabited dots in the sea.    

The rationale for the US pivot towards Southeast Asia has centered on keeping the sea lanes open. This is part of long standing US security policy in the region. What’s new is the Chinese challenge to it. Most of the shipping to North Asia passes through the Straits of Malacca then northward through the South China Sea.  The claims by Asian nations for control of their pieces of this sea bed off the coasts of southern China, Vietnam and the Philippines have been fuses waiting for a match for years. 

With China’s economic rise, it’s increasingly heavy handed approach to Southeast Asia has become more pronounced.  On the one hand, Chinese leverage is major in the areas of trade and economics where China has become the region’s dominant trading partner.  This is not necessarily bad for the US.  When I lived in Southeast Asia in the early 1990s, the Japanese were economically dominant in the region but that trade dominance did not negatively impinge upon the freedom of navigation through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore or the South China Sea.             

On the other hand, a deeply held fear of China’s growing security desires has sent ASEAN governments scurrying to find protection from other big powers further away.  The US is the obvious choice despite a residue of anti-American anti-colonialism in the Philippines and the mistakes of the Vietnam War – both of which seem to have been all but forgotten or at least, in the face of their larger concern, brushed under the carpet for now.

Santa Fe World Affairs Forum - Global Unrest Symposium April 16-17, 2012

April 1 Update

The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum

Join us on April 16 to 17,2012 for A Two Day Symposium on Global Unrest

Most recent commentary on the state of the world deals with revolution in one country or turmoil in a single geographic or cultural area.  The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum believes that it is time to examine these challenges and upheavals as part of a global phenomenon.  A SFWAF symposium to be held at St. John’s College on April 16-17 will look at the clash between change and status quo in Europe, China, Russia, and Mexico.  The symposium, co-sponsored with the University of New Mexico Center for Science, Technology and Policy, will provide for ample interaction between speakers and attendees.

The featured speakers for this symposium are:

EUROPE: Dr. Dieter Dettke, currently Foreign and Defense Policy Professor, Security Studies Program, Georgetown University, previously Executive Director for the US and Canada, Friedrich Ebert Foundation and staff director for the US-German Committee in the Bundestag, will help us understand a continent-wide social, political and economic flux. 

Ms. Teri Schultz, freelance international reporter for NPR and CBS News Radio and EU correspondent for Global Post will discuss the financial crash that threatens more than Europe’s image of unity.

RUSSIA: Dr. Raymond R. Smith, University of North Texas (Dallas) and former State Department political analyst is a specialist in Russian affairs.  Smith, author of Negotiating with the Soviets and The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats, will explore this question: “Is 21st Century Russia Doomed to be Authoritarian, Unlikeable and Threatening?”

CHINA: Dr. Douglas Spelman, former State Department China expert, now Deputy Director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D. C., will focus on  “China’s Rise: Promise or Problem?”

MEXICO: Dr. Lois Meyer, linguist and professor, School of Education, University of New Mexico, and author of the book New World of Indigenous Resistance, will explore the effects of globalization on indigenous resistance movements in Mexico and the Americas.

The Symposium, which takes place at St. John's College in Santa Fe, opens at 2:00 on Monday, April 16 with registration, the presentations on Europe and a welcome reception. The Symposium resumes with morning and afternoon sessions on Tuesday, April 17.  Admission fee of $65 for members and $80 for non-members includes the welcome reception, morning pastries, lunch, coffee/tea and refreshments.

St. John’s College, the University of New Mexico Latin American and Iberian Institute,  the Albuquerque Council for International Visitors, the International Studies Institute (ISI) at the University of New Mexico, the Albuquerque Committee on Foreign Relations (ACFR) and the  the New Mexico Chapter of the Fulbright Associationare are partner organizations for this symposium.

TO REGISTER:  Send an email to waforum@gmail.com and include your organizational affiliation.  You may pay with your credit card using our Paypal account. You can access Paypal directly by clicking on this link or send your check to The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum, PO Box 31965, Santa Fe. NM,87594.  Checks should be made out to The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum.  To help keep our records straight please note on your check that it is for the April 16-17 Symposium.  If you are a member of a cosponsoring or partner organization which makes you eligible for member rates please also so note. Your payment guarantees you a place, but it is non-refundable after Tuesday, April 10 if you are unable to attend.  Reservations will be taken on a first come, first serve basis.

It is also possible to register only for the Monday session about Europe ($40) or the longer Tuesday session about China, Russia and Mexico ($50).

For information on Santa Fe accommodations please click here for the link to the Santa Fe Convention Bureau's listings.

For additional symposium information, please e-mail us at waforum@gmail.com

 

Candidates for an Underground Railroad: Afghan Women

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Little by little U.S. policy makers are beginning to realize that a war with the Taliban can’t be won.  Why not?  Because it’s almost impossible to extricate or isolate “the Taliban” from the rest of Afghan society. 

Here, for instance, is a less than exhaustive list of how and why Afghan menfolk get involved with the Taliban:  Theology.  Ethnic loyalty.  Yearning for justice and order.  Traditional mores.  Excitement and adventure.  Disgust with corruption in Kabul.  Money. Self-protection.  Anti-American, anti-foreigner sentiments.  Fear, threats or duress. 

Unfortunately for American (or NATO) aspirations, no one incentive can counter or neutralize  each and all of these motivations.  As far as theology is concerned, there is a civil war going on within Sunni Islam.  Since this is not our battle, we can’t win it.  What's more, our influence is negligible—or worse: by confronting the Taliban, we create sympathy for beleaguered fellow Muslims even among those who actually loathe the Taliban.  The U.S. has also been unable to mitigate corruption within a central government functioning under a Constitution imposed by foreigners, whose fingerprints taint it beyond redemption, corrupt incumbents or not.  Traditional Afghans ask:  wouldn’t Sharia or simple Paktunwali be preferable?  Fear is more elemental.  Fear goes away when the Americans patrol, though relief is usually tinged with the shame of depending on non-Afghans for security. When the Americans move on to the next village, district or province, however, the guys with the guns are Taliban again.  Time to grow the beard back.

So it’s not surprising that a new Washington consensus is emerging: bring the Taliban in from the cold.  Get them to buy into the system.  More wishful thinking! If the Taliban leadership (or even lower level types) were sincerely amenable to joining in a government according to the present rules, why have they been fighting all these years?  Who honestly believes the Taliban, even in partial power, will respect women’s rights (defined according to Western standards) even if they promise to do so? Isn’t this the likely scenario: they’ll persuade their non-Taliban male colleagues to limit women’s opportunities, little by little, until it’s back into the box, ladies. 

The Taliban may take a while to regain the unchallenged upper hand in much of Afghanistan, and that’s the bright side for American forces.  With a little luck, the Yanks will be gone, the war lords will regroup and the re-Talibanization can be blamed on U.S.-favored Afghans who refused to use a proven model effectively. Whew!

Colombia - Fact Sheet Update

By Patricia H. Kushlis

In 2007, John Heard spoke at the Santa Fe World Affairs Forum on Colombia and US-Colombian relations and we included a fact sheet on Colombia, Plan Colombia and US-Colombian relations on WhirledView as a result.  It is now three years later and we decided it was time for an fact sheet update - so here it is.  It is a special page that is located at the top of our left hand sidebar under the category WV in Depth. 

Since then,  the Santa Fe World Affairs Forum has its its own website.  The URL is easy.  It's just http://sfwaf.org.  We invite you to visit it to learn more about the organization and the programs we have offered since it was formed several years ago.   

   

Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think: Book Review Essay

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Earlier this month, a friend recommended one “must read” book for inclusion in a short list of books and other materials on the Muslim world for a hand out at a recent symposium the World Affairs Forum held in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The symposium was entitled “Meeting Minds with the Muslim World” and was conducted on a “non-attribution” basis.

The “must-read” book was Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed. It was published in 2007 by Gallup Publishers and it should be at the top of the reading lists for all three U.S. presidential candidates, their advisors as well as American voters, the vast majority of who desperately need far more accurate information about Muslims and the Islamic world than the US media normally provides.

Short, well organized, timely and an easy read

Who Speaks for Islam? is mercifully short (184 pages). It is well organized and easy to read. Its findings are a distillation of reams of first rate data collected by the Gallup organization between 2001 and 2007 in hour long, face-to-face interviews using open-ended questions with tens of thousands of “residents of more than 35 nations that are predominantly Muslim or have substantial Muslim populations.” As I understand it, the book confirms the results of numerous – but far less comprehensive - opinion surveys conducted by other western survey research organizations over the same period.

These results presented in Who Speaks for Islam? explode virtually every assertion about the Islamic world and Muslim views of the West that the Bush administration has promulgated since 9/11 to justify its controversial policies in the Middle East.

Islam’s Silenced Majority: the “clash of civilizations” is a canard

First, according to Who Speaks for Islam?, there is no “inevitable clash of civilizations.”

Sorry Professor Huntington, I’ve also never agreed with your overly simplistic and often inaccurate divisions of the post Cold War world on questionably-drawn religious/ethnic grounds. This includes your monolithic characterization of the Islamic world. In Who Speaks for Islam?, Esposito and Mogahed demonstrate that a majority of the world’s approximately 1.3 billion Muslims do, in fact, value democracy and human rights. So, Mr. Bush, pray tell, where is the “inevitable clash of civilizations” based on irreconcilable differences of values upon which you have based our foreign policy for the past seven years?

Most Muslims do not hate the West, or the US, because of our values – despite what Mr. Bush and his neoconservative supporters at the American Enterprise Institute and other rightwing think tanks continue to attempt to shove down our throats through various media outlets – the problem is most Muslims object to America’s not living up to those values. This begins with human rights abuses at Abu Graib and Guantanamo, the administration’s covert rendition and discriminatory visa policies and moves on to its ill-considered invasion of Iraq coupled with unconditional support for a greater Israel.

The Gallup data also tell us that there are major differences between how Muslims view the West. Just as we should - but too often do not - recognize that the Islamic “world” is far from monolithic, the majority of Muslims realize that there are major differences between France and Germany, for instance, and the US. France and Germany come out far ahead because of American unilateralism based on the Bush administration’s militaristic approach to the world, in particular the invasion of Iraq and the administration’s one-sided support for a greater Israel’s domination of the Middle East.

War against whom? Against what?

The Almost Forgotten Colombia and Why It Shouldn’t be That Way – Speech by John Heard at the World Affairs Forum, Santa Fe, New Mexico

By PHK

In 2000, Colombia competed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for domination of the US headlines. Colombian drug lords, leftist guerrillas, and rightist paramilitaries were portrayed as running rampant. The US initiated “Plan Colombia” a multi-pronged five year approach to help stabilize the war-torn country. The five year follow-on, “Plan Colombia II” is now in progress. What does this mean? What has worked and what hasn’t? And is what happens in Colombia as crucial to the US as in 2000? These questions still demand our attention.

John Heard is a former senior Foreign Service Officer with USAID, who spent most of his career in Latin America and recently returned to the US after four and one half years in Bogota as head of the Pan American Development Foundation Office (PADF), which administers major USAID projects there. Heard described the situation and discussed these issues at the September 17, 2007 World Affairs Forum in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

The text for John Heard’s presentation follows. It is entitled “Why we should pay attention to Colombia and support rational policies for our most important ally in Latin America."

(begin text)
The Major Points in a Nutshell:

• Afghanistan may be the world’s poppy capital, but Colombia is its coca capital and the US is the largest recipient: Over 70 percent of the cocaine in the US comes from Colombia. The US has spent over $5.4 billion trying to solve the problem since 2000 without success. This scourge poisons both the US and Colombia but for different reasons. Opium poppies are cultivated in Colombia too, but the crop is nowhere near as large or as important as coca.

• Terrorism: The continuing conflict in Colombia threatens US interests in the country and the region. Leftist guerillas hold hundreds of hostages including three US citizens. Both the guerillas and the partially demobilized United Self Defense Forces (paramilitaries) use terror as a weapon and they both thrive on the drug trade. Meanwhile, the conflict that began as an ideological one has morphed into one that is all about business - political and economic power. It is now 95% business and 5% ideological.

• Displaced persons: As a result of the conflict, between two and three million Colombians are internally displaced. This places Colombia second only to Sudan – despite a major US financed program to assist these people reintegrate into their communities.

• US investment and trade interests: Colombia is the eighth largest supplier of oil to the US. The largest operations are run by Occidental Petroleum, Chevron, Texaco, BP and Exxon. Colombia is a major supplier of coffee, oil, fresh flowers and garments. In fact, Colombian flower exports result in 200,000 jobs in the US and 90,000 in Colombia. Colombia is also an important market for US goods and services.

• US foreign assistance: Today US military and economic support for the Colombian government runs between $400 and $500 million per year. Of this, two-thirds to three-quarters are devoted to the military. The US Embassy in Bogota is one of the largest in the world with over 400 direct hire employees, 40 government agencies and hundreds of military and contract personnel – in uniform and out. Well over a hundred million dollars a year are awarded to business contractors and grantees (NGOs) for program implementation. We need to make sure the money is well spent.

• Current US policy: The goal is promotion of peace and reduction of the flow of drugs to the US through Plan Colombia II. So far – with the exception of a shaky ongoing paramilitary demobilization - it has not produced the results the US and Colombian Government seek.

• US-Colombian relations: the country under President Alvaro Uribe is a friend. Uribe, first elected in 2002, is extraordinarily popular. Over the years, the Colombian government has had warm relations with both Clinton and Bush administrations. The US needs all the friends it can have in Latin America: as it stands now, Colombia is flanked by anti-American leftist governments in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

THE THREE MAKE OR BREAK ISSUES: Continuing Conflict, War on Drugs, Grinding Poverty

1. The Continuing Conflict

Although Colombia’s level of violence – ordinary murder and crime rates have fallen - has been significantly reduced under President Uribe, internal conflict continues. Kidnapping and extortion remain high and thousands of families are driven, homeless, from their communities every month. This is a byproduct of a continuing war fueled by the proceeds of the drug trade. The situation in Colombia, however, is not like Central America after the fall of the Soviet Union where state-sponsored funding for insurgents dried up within a year or two.

The vicious circle: Hundreds of millions of dollars from the international drug trade feed the leftist guerillas and rightist paramilitaries – a seemingly unending revenue stream. The guerillas pay salaries, purchase modern weapons, and use modern communications technology, not only for internal communications but also to finance strong public relations campaigns in Europe and Colombia. They have professional websites and also strong recruitment programs.

The answer: In addition to military pressure, e.g. pursuing them where they live under Uribe’s Democratic Security program with better trained and strengthened military forces, the existing unending income stream needs to be cut.

Warning: Congress Likes Old-Fashioned Squiggles of Authenticity

By PLS

Nearly 75% of Americans have internet access, according to the latest surveys, and demand for rapid broadband service is increasing faster than demand for dial up access. Americans use thier computer-based connection to the world wide web for entertainment, information, communications and commercial transactions. Yet Congress prefers constituent snail mail to email.

But wait! The retrograde factor gets worse.

Are you planning to get in touch with your Congressperson or Senator? Read on, after taking a look at the scribble to the left. How long did the deciphering take? I’m the one who dashed it off and I can hardly read it. But ghastly calligraphy isn’t the only problem. I wrote this “letter” as quickly as I could, without thinking—or trying not to, since not thinking isn’t my default mode. I was trying to write from the gut or the heart or whatever the inner organ of authenticity is. You see, I've discovered that our representatives in Washington take notice mostly when you give them guts gushing out on paper. The cruder the letter the more it's presumed to come from the heart—and the heartland. And should you take your education seriously, get a job, buy a computer, hook up to the net and try to think straight as you present your concerns, don't bother to write. Your thoughts won't impress the Congressional mind.

I learned alll this at a seminar held last month by the World Affairs Forum in Santa Fe. The guest speakers were a veteran lobbyist and a veteran Congressional staffer, whose identities I think I'd better protect. These two informants know how Washington works and how our representatives like their offices run. Our reps have their idiosyncracies, naturally, but both speakers reported a convergence in some areas, like how to treat mail flowing in from constituents.

So here’s the word from the experts: if you want staffers to read what you have to say and pass your message on to the boss, write in longhand and forget logic or reason. Be passionate. Spill your guts. Be warned that emailed messages won’t get much attention, even when you’ve composed every word yourself. And if you’re signing on to a mass lobbying effort from a favorite organization, however it’s sent, you might as well not bother.

I sympathize with a staffer’s impulse to delete thousands of identical messages from his/her Congressperson’s email in-box. (Though noting the number of such incoming items might be worthwhile.) However, considering the effort scrawl-reading requires, how can anyone justify a preference for scribbled letters sent by an ever decreasing minority of the population? Those figures I referred to earlier, the ones indicating that nearly 3/4 of us are wired, are already three years out of date. By now an even larger percentage of Americans are using the internet to transmit and receive information.

Old Moscow Merchants and New York Modernism – speech by Dr. James L. West at the World Affairs Forum, Santa Fe, New Mexico

By PHK

As I indicated in an earlier post, the World Affairs Forum held “A Window on Russia,” a day long conference on March 20, 2006 for Forum members and guests in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The two session event featured a morning on Russian politics, economics and U.S.-Russian relations and an afternoon on Russian art and architecture. It was held in cooperation with the Santa Fe Institute. CKR, PLS, and I were among those who helped make the conference work – and it worked very well.

The presentations were so content rich, well delivered and relevant to helping Americans understand the complexities of today’s Russia that with the speakers’ permission and help, we are sharing their written remarks – or excerpts from them - with a wider audience on WhirledView.

Our special thanks to Dr. James L. West, Professor of Humanities, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont and Randall R. LeCocq for their terrific presentations. Randall LeCocq’s speech “Russia under Putin” on Russian politics, economics and U.S.-Russian relations was posted in April; Jay West’s speech follows below.

We thank both Jay and Randy once again for their willingness to answer numerous questions and respond to a raft of comments. Much appreciation also to the Santa Fe Institute for making it possible for us to hold “A Window on Russia” on its premises – and for its staff's wonderful logistical and tech support.

Dr. West has focused his lengthy teaching career – first at Connecticut’s Trinity College then at Middlebury – on the interplay of history and culture particularly that of Russia, Eastern Europe and Germany. His most recent book Merchant Moscow: Images of Russia’s Vanished Bourgeoisie was published by Princeton University Press in 1997. A Russian edition is now in preparation as he describes below in his speech.
Here follows the text of a major portion of James West’s speech in Santa Fe on March 20. It is entitled “Old Moscow Merchants and New York Modernism."

(begin text)

For most of my career, I have studied the history of the pre-revolutionary merchants and entrepreneurs of Moscow. For much of this time, the pursuit has been like researching a vanished civilization. Soviet historians did their best to erase these "enemies of the people" from the historical record, and archives were relatively closed. It has only been over the last decade or so, as Russia once again began to grope its way toward an entrepreneurial market economy that these obstacles to research have been lowered, and the relevance of this kind of study has become once again clear.