Pelosi and US Foreign Policy
Rizwan Ghani
April 13, 2007
It took Washington 191 years to resolve Alaska oil revenue issue. Under the circumstances issue of sharing of oil revenue alone can keep Iraq embroiled in security chaos for another century. To save Iraq will Bush keep US troops in Iraq for that long?
Reports of US lawmakers’ readiness to visit Iran at this stage are “testing” Republican reaction. The news also reflects that Pelosi and her team are committed to find a way out of Iraq chaos despite strong criticism from the Republican who tried to spin her ME “fact-finding” visit as some kind of “negotiation” trip.
A brief look at US State Department’s priorities1 show that FP is all about developing democratic friendly relations and in addition to the White House the Senate and Congress2 are also key players in country’s FP direction, thereby showing that Pelosi was well within her rights to take the trip.
Positives of Pelosi’s visit have already been recognized internationally including crucial Syrian role in release of naval crew and prospects of opening of dialogue between Syria and Israel. Under the circumstances if Congressman Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Committee and Speaker Pelosi decide to visit Iran both US FP priorities and ISG recommendations recognize and legitimize such steps.
With attack on Iraqi parliament and destruction of Bridge linking east and west Baghdad Pelosi as speaker is under additional pressure to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats to bring an end to the Iraq deadlock. The latest spill over in African states resulting in hundreds of death and political uncertainty with prospects of full scale fallout needs immediate steps to restore peace in the region. Same is true for deteriorating Afghan situation which is fast losing European support.
Experts and Skeptics of Bush’s failing Iraq policy have raised questions with reference to legitimacy and effectiveness of the Malki government, revamping of country’s security forces, role of constitution in current security situation including equitable distribution of oil revenue and the use of force to solve political problem.
Critics view parliament attack as an inside job with no external links including al-Qaeda. Since security of the Parliament, as reported, was the responsibility of Iraqi security forces such observations cannot be ignored.
Bush’s call to Iraqi govt. to initiate process of political reconciliation show that Washington is aware of its seriousness. It is one of the core issues that hamper ongoing peace efforts in the country.
Whether it is a result of Baghdad’s failure to involve across the board political stakeholders in nation building process or fragility of Malki government s now more than ever dependent on religious leaders than public, the blast is a blow to the credibility of Malki govt. And Iran’s denial to allow use of their airspace is a signal of withdrawal of political support for Baghdad due to no progress on the case of five missing Iranian diplomats. Saddar’s latest anti-coalition statement may be its extension.
Saleh Ul Matleq, MP Iraq and head of National reconciliation movement has repeated call for total revamping of country’s security forces. It is feared that country’s security forces have been infiltrated by the militia and repeated security failures are their doings. Public has lost confidence in Iraq police and other security forces. Like the past they demand professional security forces that are completely free of sectarian bias.
Pressure is building up to revise the “de-bathification” law to incorporate disenfranchised sections of society into political process and jobs to help restore peace and security. Sistain’s veto of last attempt by Iraqi parliament to review de-bathification bill has threatened reconciliation steps.
The current proportional system of voting given in the constitution has been rejected by Iraqis because instead of promoting democracy it promotes sectarian and tribal affinities. In its current form it is inherently “divisive” in spirit. Public is seeking its revision. They want division of Iraq into “straight forward eighteen” constituencies in which like any other democracy Iraqi politicians will be held accountable for their performance than automatically ending up in the parliament due to proportional system that rests on sectarian and tribal vote bank than performance. Something that Iowa Gov. Thompson also gave in his plan to solve Iraq crisis.
Equal distribution of natural resources revenue is another critical Current reservations over contents of present oil draft need to be addressed. Iowa Gov. Thompson’s suggestion of distribution of revenue on lines of Alaska oil law in which center, state and individuals share equal amount coupled with Norwegian model of oil revenue spending could be good starting point. The model allows 10 percent profit to investors with remaining ninety percent deposited in the national exchequer. Four percent is annually released in national economy while remaining amount is deposited as pension for the public. Transparency in the process will alleviate public apprehension.
Iraqi govt. will be least willing to make a law that will ensure equal distribution to all parties. Darfur situation is result of Khartoum’s unwillingness to implement oil law that allows Southern Sudan to claim fifty percent of oil revenue. Even Alaskan history of sharing of oil revenues shows that things only got moving once OPEC stopped oil supply to the West in 1973 under 1977 to cope with energy needs in emergency. And it took Washington 191 years to resolve Alaska oil revenue issue. Under the circumstances issue of sharing of oil revenue alone can keep Iraq embroiled in security chaos for another century. To save Iraq will Bush keep US troops in Iraq for that long?
Latest security developments in the green zone have once again raised questions about troop surge strategy. Gen. Patrays and Bush are defending a failing Iraq strategy with force which in fact needs a political solution. And Bush for want of realistic view of his policy is doling out longer duty tours and stretching US forces perilously thin with no logical end in sight.
With Bush and Cheney taking sides Pelosi has to take charge and bring both Republicans and Democrats together to bring an end to Iraq deadlock in national interest. Sunday meeting with Bush could be the start point to initiate a plan including benchmarks for Baghdad and troop withdrawal timeline. Pelosi in her appearance in Jay Leno show reiterated her resolve over Iraq, no blank check on the war.
The core issues mentioned earlier are the impediments to realization of security objectives in Iraq. If Pelosi can manage a consensus approach on these issues in both houses, America should be looking at a successful and honorable withdrawal from Iraq. But without recognizing the areas of concern mentioned earlier there is little hope.
The latest political developments and North Africa, Asia and ME are spillovers of political meddling. These changes initiate a pattern of abuses both at state and individual level. Such regimes openly usurp constitutional and individual rights and resort to torture to suppress political difference and violate basic human rights through use of state instruments including police.
All this in turn adversely affect economic activities and peace and security that in turn spreads poverty and even extremism due to non-availability of jobs, nepotism and absence of fear of accountability.
It is time to review such policies and introduce alternate steps so that leaders of such countries abide by national laws and observe good international administration and leadership practices. International watch groups, anti-corruption organizations, ICJ, Common Wealth, EU and even UN organizations can play their role to help hold transparent elections, strengthen local justice system. Through such checks and balances local governance can be improved that ultimately translate in peace and stability. That in turn will reduce poverty, extremism and allied complications.
Finally, in light of US public opinion3 and areas mentioned earlier Pelosi, Democrats and Republicans have huge responsibility to bring an end to Iraq chaos so that US troops join their families. Similarly a comprehensive review of US FP in step with state dept’s priorities at global level can avoid further loss of life, restore peace to help safe return of millions of refugees. On board Bush can help accelerate such steps as part of US foreign policy.
Thus if purely viewed from US Foreign policy priorities Pelosi has served country’s interest manifold as compared to Bush, something that politicians need to recognize beyond party lines in national interest. And from this perspective reports of Iran visit in theory offers a positive prospect.
Footnotes:-
1. According to State Dept., foreign policy priorities for 1990’s were:
Promote democratic values: human rights, political choice, the rule of law, and self determination. When barriers to these democratic values come down, prospects open wide for legitimate govt., revitalized societies, and improved relations.
Fostering global growth by promoting market principles.
Promoting secure global environment that is vital if democratic and market values are to flourish.
Working with all allies against new transnational threats.
Reshaping and renewing alliances and other important ties.
Refer: Government by the People, National Version 16th Edition page 536
2. Key Players in Foreign Policy:
2nd paragraph. The Constitution put control of foreign policy in the hands of those who run the national government: the president, the Senate, and, in some cases, the Congress as a whole.
Refer: Government by the People, National Version 16th Edition page 539
The Politics of Making Foreign Policy: Public Opinion. Page 543.
Refer: Government by the People, National Version 16th Edition page 543
Reports of US lawmakers’ readiness to visit Iran at this stage are “testing” Republican reaction. The news also reflects that Pelosi and her team are committed to find a way out of Iraq chaos despite strong criticism from the Republican who tried to spin her ME “fact-finding” visit as some kind of “negotiation” trip.
A brief look at US State Department’s priorities1 show that FP is all about developing democratic friendly relations and in addition to the White House the Senate and Congress2 are also key players in country’s FP direction, thereby showing that Pelosi was well within her rights to take the trip.
Positives of Pelosi’s visit have already been recognized internationally including crucial Syrian role in release of naval crew and prospects of opening of dialogue between Syria and Israel. Under the circumstances if Congressman Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Committee and Speaker Pelosi decide to visit Iran both US FP priorities and ISG recommendations recognize and legitimize such steps.
With attack on Iraqi parliament and destruction of Bridge linking east and west Baghdad Pelosi as speaker is under additional pressure to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats to bring an end to the Iraq deadlock. The latest spill over in African states resulting in hundreds of death and political uncertainty with prospects of full scale fallout needs immediate steps to restore peace in the region. Same is true for deteriorating Afghan situation which is fast losing European support.
Experts and Skeptics of Bush’s failing Iraq policy have raised questions with reference to legitimacy and effectiveness of the Malki government, revamping of country’s security forces, role of constitution in current security situation including equitable distribution of oil revenue and the use of force to solve political problem.
Critics view parliament attack as an inside job with no external links including al-Qaeda. Since security of the Parliament, as reported, was the responsibility of Iraqi security forces such observations cannot be ignored.
Bush’s call to Iraqi govt. to initiate process of political reconciliation show that Washington is aware of its seriousness. It is one of the core issues that hamper ongoing peace efforts in the country.
Whether it is a result of Baghdad’s failure to involve across the board political stakeholders in nation building process or fragility of Malki government s now more than ever dependent on religious leaders than public, the blast is a blow to the credibility of Malki govt. And Iran’s denial to allow use of their airspace is a signal of withdrawal of political support for Baghdad due to no progress on the case of five missing Iranian diplomats. Saddar’s latest anti-coalition statement may be its extension.
Saleh Ul Matleq, MP Iraq and head of National reconciliation movement has repeated call for total revamping of country’s security forces. It is feared that country’s security forces have been infiltrated by the militia and repeated security failures are their doings. Public has lost confidence in Iraq police and other security forces. Like the past they demand professional security forces that are completely free of sectarian bias.
Pressure is building up to revise the “de-bathification” law to incorporate disenfranchised sections of society into political process and jobs to help restore peace and security. Sistain’s veto of last attempt by Iraqi parliament to review de-bathification bill has threatened reconciliation steps.
The current proportional system of voting given in the constitution has been rejected by Iraqis because instead of promoting democracy it promotes sectarian and tribal affinities. In its current form it is inherently “divisive” in spirit. Public is seeking its revision. They want division of Iraq into “straight forward eighteen” constituencies in which like any other democracy Iraqi politicians will be held accountable for their performance than automatically ending up in the parliament due to proportional system that rests on sectarian and tribal vote bank than performance. Something that Iowa Gov. Thompson also gave in his plan to solve Iraq crisis.
Equal distribution of natural resources revenue is another critical Current reservations over contents of present oil draft need to be addressed. Iowa Gov. Thompson’s suggestion of distribution of revenue on lines of Alaska oil law in which center, state and individuals share equal amount coupled with Norwegian model of oil revenue spending could be good starting point. The model allows 10 percent profit to investors with remaining ninety percent deposited in the national exchequer. Four percent is annually released in national economy while remaining amount is deposited as pension for the public. Transparency in the process will alleviate public apprehension.
Iraqi govt. will be least willing to make a law that will ensure equal distribution to all parties. Darfur situation is result of Khartoum’s unwillingness to implement oil law that allows Southern Sudan to claim fifty percent of oil revenue. Even Alaskan history of sharing of oil revenues shows that things only got moving once OPEC stopped oil supply to the West in 1973 under 1977 to cope with energy needs in emergency. And it took Washington 191 years to resolve Alaska oil revenue issue. Under the circumstances issue of sharing of oil revenue alone can keep Iraq embroiled in security chaos for another century. To save Iraq will Bush keep US troops in Iraq for that long?
Latest security developments in the green zone have once again raised questions about troop surge strategy. Gen. Patrays and Bush are defending a failing Iraq strategy with force which in fact needs a political solution. And Bush for want of realistic view of his policy is doling out longer duty tours and stretching US forces perilously thin with no logical end in sight.
With Bush and Cheney taking sides Pelosi has to take charge and bring both Republicans and Democrats together to bring an end to Iraq deadlock in national interest. Sunday meeting with Bush could be the start point to initiate a plan including benchmarks for Baghdad and troop withdrawal timeline. Pelosi in her appearance in Jay Leno show reiterated her resolve over Iraq, no blank check on the war.
The core issues mentioned earlier are the impediments to realization of security objectives in Iraq. If Pelosi can manage a consensus approach on these issues in both houses, America should be looking at a successful and honorable withdrawal from Iraq. But without recognizing the areas of concern mentioned earlier there is little hope.
The latest political developments and North Africa, Asia and ME are spillovers of political meddling. These changes initiate a pattern of abuses both at state and individual level. Such regimes openly usurp constitutional and individual rights and resort to torture to suppress political difference and violate basic human rights through use of state instruments including police.
All this in turn adversely affect economic activities and peace and security that in turn spreads poverty and even extremism due to non-availability of jobs, nepotism and absence of fear of accountability.
It is time to review such policies and introduce alternate steps so that leaders of such countries abide by national laws and observe good international administration and leadership practices. International watch groups, anti-corruption organizations, ICJ, Common Wealth, EU and even UN organizations can play their role to help hold transparent elections, strengthen local justice system. Through such checks and balances local governance can be improved that ultimately translate in peace and stability. That in turn will reduce poverty, extremism and allied complications.
Finally, in light of US public opinion3 and areas mentioned earlier Pelosi, Democrats and Republicans have huge responsibility to bring an end to Iraq chaos so that US troops join their families. Similarly a comprehensive review of US FP in step with state dept’s priorities at global level can avoid further loss of life, restore peace to help safe return of millions of refugees. On board Bush can help accelerate such steps as part of US foreign policy.
Thus if purely viewed from US Foreign policy priorities Pelosi has served country’s interest manifold as compared to Bush, something that politicians need to recognize beyond party lines in national interest. And from this perspective reports of Iran visit in theory offers a positive prospect.
Footnotes:-
1. According to State Dept., foreign policy priorities for 1990’s were:
Promote democratic values: human rights, political choice, the rule of law, and self determination. When barriers to these democratic values come down, prospects open wide for legitimate govt., revitalized societies, and improved relations.
Fostering global growth by promoting market principles.
Promoting secure global environment that is vital if democratic and market values are to flourish.
Working with all allies against new transnational threats.
Reshaping and renewing alliances and other important ties.
Refer: Government by the People, National Version 16th Edition page 536
2. Key Players in Foreign Policy:
2nd paragraph. The Constitution put control of foreign policy in the hands of those who run the national government: the president, the Senate, and, in some cases, the Congress as a whole.
Refer: Government by the People, National Version 16th Edition page 539
The Politics of Making Foreign Policy: Public Opinion. Page 543.
Refer: Government by the People, National Version 16th Edition page 543
Print
Email
