WhirledView

All The Things We Don't Know

by Cheryl Rofer

Giustino is wondering about the lack of response he's getting about his sighting of Arnold Rüütel, former President of Estonia and former Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian SSR. I should mention that Giustino is in Estonia and talking to Estonians. I would expect a full complement of blank stares in the US.

Rüütel is one of those enigmas that I don't suppose we'll ever know the full story on. His career began in agronomy, and he rose to become the rector of the Estonian Academy of Agriculture in 1969. His friends encouraged him to set his sights on higher political office, and he made his way through the system to become Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian SSR in 1983.

In the late eighties, until the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, Estonia led most of the innovations in the Republics that moved toward their independence without poking the bear hard enough to bring down the tanks. Rüütel was the Chairman, and he was invited, twice, to Moscow to explain his Republic's untoward actions and to receive orders for his actions upon his return. Like that he was not to sign the Sovereignty Resolution, which declared that the laws of the ESSR prevailed over the laws of the Union on Estonian soil. He signed it upon his return, which he wasn't at all sure would happen, the likely alternative being imprisoned in Moscow.

So Giustino saw Rüütel the other day near the National Library, across the street from where that statue of the Bronze Soviet Soldier once stood. He is taken with the nickname "Silver Fox" for Rüütel, and has been using it in recent conversations. He hasn't been getting much reaction, certainly not what he seems to expect. There are a few possible reasons for this.

Not Baghdad. Not Cairo. Jakarta—or Jerusalem

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

It’s said that Barak Obama, once inaugurated, wants to give a speech in a Muslim majority country. He would use his full name Barak Hussein Obama. The question is where. Maybe the decision has already been made. Maybe negotiations are already under way. If the decision's still pending, here are some thoughts which might be taken into consideration.

The Undeserving

The corrupt Mubarak regime in Egypt not only viciously represses all sorts of dissent, it makes life vary hard for Coptic Christians, an indigenous community that dates back to the very origins of Christianity. Saudi Arabia’s history of extreme total intolerance, even for non-Sunni Muslim sects, is also disqualifying, and I must mention the regime’s tendency to avert its eyes from its subjects tendency to fund murderous militants around the globe. The controversial and uncompleted mission in Iraq makes Baghdad an iffy locale, and Teheran, though intriguing from a dare-the-lion’s-den point of view, would allow for a rapid nasty rebuttal from President Ahmadinejad, who’s tied with Hugo Chavez for world’s least diplomatic big mouth. Jordan's too small, and Syria is still playing games. As for the other North African capitals, to say nothing of the sub-Saharan countries, they don’t offer a sufficiently prestigious stage, and the security problems in Islamabad would be stratospheric.

Emphasizing Tolerance

That leaves Jakarta, which should have topped the list in the first place. Sure it’s not an Arab capital, but, as a devout woman friend of mine, an officer of a Muslim university located in Medan, used to say, “There’s a difference between Arab culture and Islam. Islam shouldn’t be an Arab franchise.” In fact, most Muslims aren’t Arab. Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. (Pakistan is next.) And yet, in spite of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Indonesia has, from its beginnings as a post-colonial independent country, adopted an official creed of tolerance for all believers. (The “believer” bit is crucial; the creed doesn’t recognize atheism aka non-belief in some God.) Numerous approaches to Islam thrive in Indonesia; Christians are free to proclaim their faith and worship openly; Hindus dominate Bali; multiple indigenous belief systems survive in Papua. The foundational decision that only religious tolerance could hold the archipelagic nation together doesn’t mean that bloody clashes between Muslims and Christians, for instance, have not occurred, some quite recently. Salafism and political Islam have made some inroads of late, and the suicide bombing in Bali a few years ago was a very rude wake up call. The good news is that the collaborators/planners have been identified, apprehended and punished by the state. On top of all that, after years of repressive military rule, Indonesia now chooses its leaders through the ballot box.

The Jackpot Choice

So there are lots of very good reasons why Obama should seriously consider Indonesia for the projected address. But if not Jakarta, then Jerusalem. It would be a bold and appropriate choice, especially if the speech were pitched, not merely to Muslims, which does seem a bit like pandering, but to all people of faith (or non-faith). Many analysts and political observers believe that the Obama administration needs to tackle the Israel/Palestine question firmly and immediately after assuming office. The question of the status of Jerusalem is one of the long-standing sticking points and someone has to break the log jam. No one can deny that ancient Jerusalem is a geographical palimpsest and a pilgrimage site for Jews, Christians and Muslims. What better place to speak in support of tolerance, mutual respect, peaceful co-existence and religious freedom?

And while he’s at it, if he’s got the guts, Obama can revive the notion that the holy city of Jerusalem, its ancient core, if not all of the modern city, should belong to the adherents of no one faith. There are many ways this could be brought about. It could even be governed (no doubt awkwardly, at first) by a consortium of representatives of all three faiths who see it as sacred ground.

Another View

Helene Cooper thinks Jerusalem is impossible because a speech there would inevitably open up a horrible can of worms. Yes, it would. And about time. The dialogue has to happen sooner or later, and nothing Obama can say will improve our relations with the Muslim world until the Israel/Palestine gangrene is arrested.

As for her belief that Jakarta is too easy a choice, especially given Obama’s youthful connection with Indonesia, why not send an implicit but bold message that he understands that Islam transcends Arab ethnicity, meanwhile solidifying relations with an important country in a very important part of the world?

Good Luck With the Cats, Steven Chu!

by Cheryl Rofer

Scientists, with a tiny bit of pride, like to think that their managers have a job that can be compared to herding cats. Steven Chu, Barack Obama’s choice for Secretary of Energy, has undoubtedly heard the metaphor and has probably contemplated it at various times during his career.

Chu may well be the first Nobel Laureate to become an officer of the President’s Cabinet. He certainly will be the first national laboratory director to become Secretary of Energy. And that is valuable experience for him to have: having seen the system from below.

He is being hailed for directing research at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) toward solutions to global warming (The Guardian, New York Times). But that’s not all there is on the Secretary of Energy’s plate.

If I were giving a briefing for or to the Department of Energy, I would present an organization chart. So here is the current one for the Department. Yes, I know; I can barely read it, too, and I’ve tried a couple of things to improve it. This is better, but I can’t import it directly into the blog.

Women in the News, According to Deborah Howell

by Cheryl Rofer

If I recall correctly, some time ago Deborah Howell, the Washington Post's ombudsman, wrote that it really would be nice if the Post had more female reporters and editoral writers. This must have been a slow week for newspaper corrections, because she's gone back to that theme.

If I recall correctly, I wrote a small post in response about how, some long time before, one of the Post's editorial page editors had mourned the lack of female op-ed writers and had asked for bloggers and others to volunteer. We responded and got, I think, one e-mail back, followed by silence. After writing that post, I e-mailed Howell with a link to it. The response to that was an automated one that Howell was on vacation for some weeks, followed by silence.

So here we are again. I guess I'll send her a link to this post. Commenters may predict her response, if they feel so inclined.

But she's lowered her sights. Yes, she barely mentions that more women opining on the op-ed page would be nice, but here's how to get women really involved.

Opportunities abound, especially on Page 1, to draw in women with stories about families, relationships and parenting. The Post in print has precious little coverage of those topics outside of Style advice columnists.

And maybe the Post could dumb down the vocabulary and provide more pictures of children and animals?

I think I read somewhere that Howell's contract with the Post is ending and she will be replaced by a male ombudsman. We can hope that he's actually up to the job.

A Reality Check on Public Diplomacy

By Hans N. Tuch, Guest Contributor

Hans Tuch retired from the U.S. Foreign Service as a Career Minister in 1985. He also taught at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Georgetown University and the University of Missouri-Kansas City in the disciplines of Public Diplomacy and Inter-Cultural Communications.

l. Public diplomacy (by definition of the word "diplomacy") is a Government process to communicate with foreign audiences in an effort to gain understanding and support for our nation's ideas and ideals, our institutions and culture as well as our national goals and policies.

2. The focus of U.S. public diplomacy is in the field--carried out by professional Foreign Service public diplomacy officers at our embassies and consulates (see Mike Canning's "The Overseas Post: The Forgotten Element of our Public Diplomacy"). Our field officers are guided and backstopped by public diplomacy headquarters in Washington which sets policy, advises the White House and coordinates with other government agencies and private organizations. ( Radio and TV broadcasting and Internet operations, while located in Washington, are in effect also field operations geared toward the pertinent populations in foreign countries.)

3. Public diplomacy, in an attempt to affect the attitudes and opinions of foreign publics, involves the entire communications spectrum: contemporary communication technology, as well as such methods of intercultural communication as cultural and educational exchanges, libraries, publications, English teaching and, above all, people, among them professionally qualified foreign service officers specializing in public diplomacy.

4. Information and Cultural programs are inter-related: Long-term cultural and educational programs are designed to create a climate of knowledge and understanding of the United States that is necessary as a basis for foreign peoples to comprehend and accept policies and ideas promulgated through short-term information programs.

5. For U.S. public diplomacy to be effective it must include the very important "learning experience." If we strive to be successful in our efforts to create understanding and support for our society and for our policies, we must first understand the culture, language, history, psychology and motives of the people with whom we wish to communicate.

Hillary?

By Patricia H. Kushlis

That’s right. Hillary’s nomination for Secretary of State raises a huge question mark in my mind. It’s unclear to me why Obama offered her the appointment or why she accepted it. I would have much preferred to see her on the Supreme Court where she could have been counted on to weigh in on issues for which her expertise is well suited, and where she could and would make a major difference on issues near to her and my heart.

But Secretary of State?

Does she realize how shrunken the State Department has become and will she be willing to spend the capital to turn the situation around? Does she understand how demoralized its professional staff is?

How does she plan to handle that new category of employees created by the Bush administration called Schedule B – created to place W loyalists in positions they can hold onto for life – unless the individual position itself is abolished in its entirety? Talk about W’s Trojan Horses and the expansion of the political spoils system, once again, at the expense of professionalism.

Does Hillary understand how the post Cold War “reforms” that destroyed the US Information Agency and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and emaciated USAID happened during her husband’s watch and that to wrest many of their former functions and budget back from the free wheeling Pentagon where they now reside under W’s hyper-militarized foreign policy may not be easy?

With heavy-weight national security experts Bob Gates staying on as Secretary of Defense and General Jim Jones becoming the new NSC Advisor, will Hillary really have the foreign affairs acumen and managerial skills needed to lead this country’s oldest and most prestigious bureaucracy? Or will she be marginalized – or marginalize herself - and read out of decision-making particularly related to the warzones?

Or will her strong political connections on the Hill and elsewhere allow her to re-inject at least some of State’s power and influence back into the US foreign policy decision-making process. And will she do so?

A future Hillary fiefdom – I doubt it.

I disagree with Peggy Noonan and others on the right of America’s political equation who argue that Hillary is likely to turn State into a Hillary fiefdom accountable unto herself.

What does concern me, however, is the fact that the civilian foreign affairs bureaucracy – and State as its lead agency – have been decimated and politicized under the W regime – and to demilitarize US foreign policy these bureaucracies will need major renovation and reinvention.

Administrative vision and implementation required

This means not just strong diplomatic smarts and excellent contacts but also strong – almost Herculean - administrative skills and vision. I wonder if Hillary and the new team will have them. If not, there will be little she can do to promote US foreign policy abroad effectively in the long run. Obama’s charisma and Hillary’s personal acquaintance with a whole host of foreign leaders from her time as First Lady and Senator will only last so long and take them and this country so far. Above all there needs to be a coordinated public diplomacy effort: State has conclusively demonstrated over the years that it cannot deliver.

Mumbai: Need a Crisis? Here’s a Plan

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

The murderous attack on Mumbai engendered reactions that came close to horrified admiration. The attack from the sea was audacious. It was extremely well planned. It was brilliantly executed.

But who masterminded the massacre and why? And why was it brought off now, which is to say about two weeks ago? I had a hunch about the latter, but I couldn't post it because my out-of-the-classified-information-loop civilian imagination had to leap too wide a gap. The stepping stone I needed only came to light (for me) on Sunday.

Lashkar in the Cross Hairs

Meanwhile the who, organizationally speaking, was quickly identified by India and—India should be very grateful for this—by the U.S., which threatened to step in if Pakistan failed to follow up against Lashkar-e-Taiba, one of the Islamist proxies created some years ago by Pakistan’s military. LET’s founding purpose? To make India’s portion of Kashmir too hot for India to hang on to. Although it was politically necessary for Pakistan’s less than inspiring President Zardari to play hard to convince, the evidence was compelling enough, and it was made sufficiently public, to force Islamabad to raid a militant training camp outside of Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. During those days of hesitation, Zardari was probably also haunted by the violent reaction to his predecessor’s bloody raid on the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad a few years ago.

But the raid on the LET camp, eventually, was on. Among those carted away was one Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakvi, who was directing the Mumbai operation from a supposedly safe distance. Cell phones are two-edged swords when it comes to orchestrating complex operations, however. The operatives may get the message, but so do the investigators. India has even found and arrested the guys who supplied the phones the attackers carried. They turned up in Kolkata, of all places. Other electronic communications methods, it seems, can also lead to perps, though the difficulty is greater.

Proxies Aren’t Perfect

As the U.S. discovered when its own Islamist proxies in the first Afghan War turned out to be less than grateful for the America weapons and money they used to run the Soviets out of Afghanistan, Islamabad is, perhaps, learning that the violent men it recruited to wreak havoc in Indian Kashmir have their own blowback potential. Well, that’s what Pakistan is asking us to believe, anyway. The LET is “a private organization.” It is “not the Pakistani state,”according to Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the U.S. This said, Pakistan was obliged to take some dramatic open action against the rogues, especially since India, which reacted with incredible restraint to previous death-dealing attacks attributed to Pakistan-backed agents, is less inclined to be philosophical this time. The Mumbai attack was too big and too embarrassing, and an election is coming up, so New Delhi wants blood or bodies to prosecute. The possibility that India might be in the mood for some sort of attack across the border is not being laughed off by anyone.

Still, Pakistan is probably hoping to have the last laugh here, again. It’s an old game. You round up the little guys, and let the big guys get away. In the case of the LET, long identified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and officially “illegal” in Pakistan itself, the sleight of hand is achieved by a cute little subterfuge. There’s an Islamist charity which serves as LET’s unbanned cover organization. That’s the oh-so-saintly Jamaat-ul Dawa, which operates schools, etc., and its oh-so-pious top leaders are considered inviolate because, it has been reported, if they were “grilled, it would be tantamount to civil war in Pakistan.” (Actually I think this is putting it a little too dramatically, but some violence could be expected.) What’s more, continues this writer, “militancy cannot be easily stamped out—it has a habit of reinventing itself.” The last time the U.S. pressured Pakistan to shut down LET military training camps, hundreds of its militants simply joined forces with Al Qaeda. That could happen again, Syed Saleem Shazad warns.

Global Zero

by Cheryl Rofer

Events seem to be moving toward nuclear abolition faster than I ever could have imagined.

There's a new organization out there with some pretty impressive names behind it: Global Zero.

The rollout is in Paris today, and then the show travels to Moscow and Washington.

In recent months, the threat of proliferation and nuclear terrorism has led to a growing chorus of government leaders from across political lines calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, including Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and U.S. President-elect Barack Obama. This new and unprecedented political support for getting to zero nuclear weapons from key governments around the world has made this goal – while still difficult – possible.

Global Zero’s public outreach will occur through worldwide media, online communications and grassroots organizing. The Global Zero website (www.globalzero.org) unveiled today will give the public the opportunity to get involved, beginning with signing the same declaration the Global Zero leaders have signed.

Global Zero also announced new polling results showing that international public opinion strongly favors this goal.

Global Zero leaders emphasized that eliminating nuclear weapons will not happen overnight but instead must be done through phased and verified reductions over a period of years. Key steps include:

* Deep reductions to Russian-U.S. arsenals, which comprise 96% of the world’s 27,000 nuclear weapons.
* Russia and the United States, joined by other nuclear weapons states, cut arsenals to zero in phased reductions.
* Establishing verification systems and international management of the fuel cycle to prevent future development of nuclear weapons.

Signers include Margaret Beckett, Richard Branson, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Chuck Hagel, Max Kampelman, Robert McNamara, Jack Matlock, Her Majesty Queen Noor, David Owen, Thomas Pickering, Desmond Tutu, Muhammed Yunus, and Anthony Zinni. And that's just within the first hundred. Check out the others.

David Miliband, currently UK Foreign Secretary, hasn't signed up, but he has an op-ed in today's Guardian saying many of the same things.

I'm wondering about when Vladimir Putin said he was for getting to zero, but that's a small quibble.

Very exciting. Go add your name.