Nobel Peace Prize-Worthy

Who got these two longtime enemies together?

Armenia and Turkey signed a landmark agreement Saturday to establish diplomatic ties, after a dramatic last-minute intervention by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to keep the event from falling apart.

The accord, aimed at ending a century of hostility stemming from Ottoman Era massacres, was brokered by the Swiss over the past two years, with the help of French, Russian and U.S. officials. Clinton had been in frequent contact with the two sides in recent months to help seal the deal.

But just as she arrived at the University of Zurich for the signing at about 5 p.m. Saturday, Clinton heard that the Armenian side was objecting to a Turkish statement prepared for the ceremony, officials said. Clinton's motorcade made a U-turn and raced back to the hotel, where a U.S. diplomat was talking to the Armenians.

In the hotel parking lot, Clinton sat in her black BMW sedan in a soft rain for about an hour, talking on one phone to the Armenian foreign minister and on another to the Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu. Finally, she went into the hotel to invite the Armenian foreign minister, Edward Nalbandian, to drive with her to the university, where his Turkish counterpart was waiting.

Once there, further hours of negotiating ensued with a broader group of international diplomats, including Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, before the documents were signed. In an apparent compromise, neither the Turks nor the Armenians made a statement at the ceremony.

Could we see two in a row for the Obama Administration? (Probably not, the principals themselves are probably more deserving; this excerpt is written in an American paper for an American audience.)

Actually, some Armenians and their representatives in Washington are upset that the accord puts off the question of whether Turkey committed genocide against the Armenian people to a "committee of historical experts" for study. They want an immediate acknowledgement based on the known facts. Armenians throughout the world are not entirely pleased with the document. But the Armenian people will likely by helped innumerably by the opening of borders and normalization of relations with their most powerful neighbor.

Let's hope we see more agreements like this soon.

Obama In Ankara

As promised, Barack Obama gave an address in a Muslim capital within the first 100 days of his Presidency. Speaking to the Turkish Parliament, he praised the Turkish people (including shout-outs to basketballers Hedo Turkoglu and Mehmet Okur) and argued for strong bilateral relations. The most talked-about portion of the speech will probably be the part where Obama insists that the West is not at war with Islam.

I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.

But I also want to be clear that America's relationship with the Muslim work cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaeda. Far from it. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding, and seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. And we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better - including my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them.

Above all, we will demonstrate through actions our commitment to a better future. We want to help more children get the education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes, and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship.

Obama delivered that bit with sensitivity and the exact right point of view, seeking to align the Muslim world on the same side as the West against the perversion of their faith. And he pushed for a two-state solution in the Middle East, engagement with Iran, and the denial of safe havens for terrorism in Iraq and Af-Pak, and sought Turkish aid in those efforts. All fine and good.

But on the issue of Turkey's own past, Obama backslid from his past rhetoric on the subject and approached with more typical caution. It was smart to couch this in the context of Turkey's admission to the EU, and the political reforms necessary for that accomplishment. But Obama certainly pulled his punch.

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods. Facing the Washington monument that I spoke of is a memorial to Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. And our country still struggles with the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans.

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History, unresolved, can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there are strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. While there has been a good deal of commentary about my views, this is really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.

We have already seen historic and courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These contacts hold out the promise of a new day. An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations. That is why the United States strongly supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia.

The Turkish people know that Obama has called the Turkish repression of Armenians a genocide, and that's what he's referring to when he discusses "my views." He tries here to disassociate from the debate and let the Turks and the Armenians move forward with dialogue. But we have commitments to the truth in discussing human rights, and should not sidestep them. Obviously, remaining mute has not resolved this tragedy over close to 100 years. Matthew Yglesias has some good thoughts on the need for outside forces pushing Obama to the truth on this subject, and I think there's a direct parallel to world leaders pushing the Turks.

Realistically, long-run international humanitarian considerations just aren’t going to be the controlling priority of the United States government. “Pragmatic” stuff like what Obama did in his speech is bound to happen and it doesn’t really matter who you make senior director of what on the National Security Council. It’s important, however, to have strong voices in civil society capable of making the point that this kind of pragmatism, and the also-inevitable pragmatism that will surround discussion of China human rights issues, is really pretty awful. I’m not even sure it’s the wrong choice for the president to make—Turkey is an important ally and the United States has nothing to gain from poking a stick in their eye. But I’m very glad that as a private citizen, rather than a government official, I don’t need to make that choice. And I’d sort of rather that our Pulitzer Prize winning authors (he's talking about genocide expert Samantha Power -ed.) were in my position rather than in the position of being on the inevitably-losing side of internal arguments about this sort of thing.

Exactly. And in the same way, it's pragmatic for the Turks to deny the acts of their ancestors in Armenia, but strong voices in the international community ought to make the right noises on the side of truth. Otherwise, there is never a "good time" to bring up such things and the past just gets buried in the most corrosive way possible.

...Obama took a question on this at a press avail today and reiterated his views:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As a U.S. senator you stood with the Armenian-American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide and you also supported the passage of the Armenian genocide resolution. You said, as President you would recognize the genocide. And my question for you is, have you changed your view, and did you ask President Gul to recognize the genocide by name?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, my views are on the record and I have not changed views. What I have been very encouraged by is news that under President Gul's leadership, you are seeing a series of negotiations, a process, in place between Armenia and Turkey to resolve a whole host of longstanding issues, including this one.

I want to be as encouraging as possible around those negotiations which are moving forward and could bear fruit very quickly very soon. And so as a consequence, what I want to do is not focus on my views right now but focus on the views of the Turkish and the Armenian people. If they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history, then I think the entire world should encourage them.

And so what I told the President was I want to be as constructive as possible in moving these issues forward quickly. And my sense is, is that they are moving quickly. I don't want to, as the President of the United States, preempt any possible arrangements or announcements that might be made in the near future. I just want to say that we are going to be a partner in working through these issues in such a way that the most important parties, the Turks and the Armenians, are finally coming to terms in a constructive way.

Q So if I understand you correctly, your view hasn't changed, but you'll put in abeyance the issue of whether to use that word in the future?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I'd like to do is to encourage President Gul to move forward with what have been some very fruitful negotiations. And I'm not interested in the United States in any way tilting these negotiations one way or another while they are having useful discussions.

Basically... I'm not saying the word, my views are the same, and hopefully the Armenians and the Turks can work it out and get me off the hook.

The Biden Foreign Policy

Joe Biden was wrong on Iraq, though he sought to limit the authorization for use of force. Prior to 9/11 he openly worried about terrorists threats coming from "inside the belly of a plane" instead of the phantom threats from ballistic missiles. He's been in the national spotlight for long enough to have a lot of hits and misses. But on balance, there are a wealth of sources to draw from to understand Joe Biden's conception of foreign policy and how that would impact an Obama Presidency.

One aspect is clear: Biden believes in the forfeiting of national sovereignty in cases of genocide or humanitarian crisis. The obvious question is where you draw the line and who gets to decide such a boundary. If this is simply genocide I would be somewhat inclined to agree, though whether that means direct military intervention is not clear to me. How genocide or humanitarian crisis is determined is more vague. Biden is certainly willing to use force as part of what he called in 2004 "enlightened nationalism," where American interests are protected in the way he describes here:

And the second thing is, so there's kind of a new standard that has emerged that I think is the combination of what I refer to as this enlightened nationalism. That we operated our national interests in every circumstance where we can under the umbrella of the international rules and the international community. But where the damage and danger is irrefutable, we reserve the right to act in our own interest or in the interest of humanity, if we have the capacity. And that is a different standard than existed the first 27 years I was a United States senator.

That is different than the standard and the rationale of our neoconservative friends. They argue the exercise of force is important because we are at the apex of our power and that we are more enlightened than the rest of the world. And when we have the ability to exercise force it allows us to leverage our power in direct proportion to the moral disapprobation of the rest of the world. So if I say, you guys are going to have a hell of a lot more -- if there's ten people in the room and there's a guy out in the hall screaming and he's bothering us and I say we ought to stop that guy, we ought to stop that guy. And everyone says, "Oh no, no this guy's a bad guy, this is gonna cause all these problems and there'll be dadda dadda da," And if I say, I don't care what the hell all of you think and I get up and I go beat the shit out of the guy, and I come back in and sit down. They're all going to look around. When you misbehave, and then I say, "hey man," you're going to go "whoa, whoa, whoa." These are the nine guys that aren't going to be able to constrain him. He doesn't care what anybody else thinks. That's what they mean by leveraging power [...]

These guys really think -- Paul Wolfowitz is an idealist. He really thinks you can impose democracy. We all agree democracy -- if the world, if all the Middle East was a democratic institution, then in fact we and our interests are greatly enhanced because democracies tend not to go to war with democracies. But that's a far cry from being able to impose it.

The Kerry administration will understand, in my view -- I know this from a long time, I know John well. There is a need for you to work very hard to establish the soil under which the seeds of liberal democratic institutions can take root. That means public diplomacy, that means engaged in economic initiatives, that means political interchange, that means everything from student exchange programs to saying if you step across that line I'm going to blow you to kingdom come. There s a mix of those things. These guys don't think that, they think that all this soft power is useless. If you listen and you read Nye's book about soft power, it is ridiculed by these guys.

This lines up with the Times' interpretation of his foreign policy philosophy as one of diplomacy first and intervention last. He doesn't believe in going to war without popular consensus. And his belief in multilateralism and international treaties (like the ABM agreement) is unquestioned. And certainly, he has the proper perspective on the current situation in Iraq, having stepped off of the ill-conceived partition idea and more toward the Obama plan of phased withdrawal:

Biden argued that the costs of our involvement in Iraq have outweighed the benefits and have ironically strengthened the greatest challenge to U.S. interests in the region: Iran. But “the idea that we can wipe out every vestige of Iran’s influence in Iraq is a fantasy,” Biden said. “Even with 160,000 American troops in Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki, our ally in Baghdad, greets Iran’s leader with kisses—Iran is a major regional power and it shares a long border—and a long history—with Iraq. Right now, Iran loves the status quo, with 140,000 Americans troops bogged down and bleeding, caught in a cross fire of intra-Shi’a rivalry and Sunni-Shi’a civil war.”

Biden explained that by “drawing down, we can take away Iran’s ability to wage a proxy war against our troops and force Tehran to concentrate on avoiding turmoil inside Iraq’s borders and instability beyond them.”

But there's certainly a willingness to use force for what he considers the right reasons which is troubling. We hear a lot about the "right war" in Afghanistan and I truly hope that once the campaigning is over, somebody takes a look at that situation as it is and not as everyone wants it to be and decides to figure out the cost-benefit analysis. I believe we are safer when we are engaged with the world. But that is not the same thing as intervening as the world's policeman whenever we see wrongdoing, and we have a ways to go to restore our moral standing to have any credibility to make those decisions.

Overall, this is why I'm glad the ticket is the way it is and not inverted, but it's worrisome that Biden will have such a sympathetic ear on these issues.

World Report

I've got a lot of international stories that probably aren't worth a full post, so here goes:

• Opium: it's not just for Afghanistan anymore.

The cultivation of opium poppies whose product is turned into heroin is spreading rapidly across Iraq as farmers find they can no longer make a living through growing traditional crops.

Afghan with experience in planting poppies have been helping farmers switch to producing opium in fertile parts of Diyala province, once famous for its oranges and pomegranates, north- east of Baghdad.

Failed states eventually become narco-states. It's a fact of life. And the real question is whether or not this money is flowing, like to the Taliban in Afghanistan, to insurgent and anti-government forces.

• By the way, Pakistan is a complete mess. A fort in Waziristan has been overrun by Islamists, and the intelligence service has lost control of the key elements of the militant networks there. At the same time, the United States is slowly creeping forward with a greater military role inside the country, leading us into yet another untenable conflict.

• In Kenya, amidst credible evidence that the election was rigged, the resulting unrest has once again turned violent, with riot police using live ammo and killing protestors. The anti-government forces are now looking to economic boycotts and other peaceful protests to make themselves heard. What is very worrisome is the continued tribal violence, which is not limited to Kenya inside the region. Just next door in Rwanda, the ideology of genocide is still being taught in schools.

• Nicolas Sarkozy is no longer the darling of the right, I'd gather, after the fairly trashy saga of marrying an ex-model months after a messy divorce, after his ex-wife called him "a man who likes no-one, not even his children." Of course, the Republicans are the party of Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston... so maybe it's not a big deal.

• The fallout from President Bush's "Ignorant Abroad" act through the Middle East is just starting to be felt. After a right-wing faction pulled out of Ehud Olmert's government because of the slightest hint of peace talks with the Palestinians, Olmert put his hawkish hat on.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed on Thursday to wage a "war" to stop Gaza militants firing rockets into Israel, despite warnings by Palestinian leaders that Israeli military strikes would harm peacemaking.

"A war is going on in the south, every day, every night," Olmert said in a speech.

"We cannot and will not tolerate this unceasing fire at Israeli citizens ... so we will continue to operate, with wisdom and daring, with the maximum precision that will enable us to hit those who want to attack us," Olmert said, minutes after the air strike.

Israel has a right to defend themselves, but it seems to me that the immediate fallout from Bush's visit was a break away from peace and talk of war.

• Elsewhere, the Ignorant Abroad talked about freedom and democracy in Saudi Arabia while not meeting any democracy activists or dissidents, claimed that Egypt is moving toward political reform when he has done nothing of the sort, and basically spent his trip lavishing gifts on the Gulf states in the hopes that they would raise production of oil. And by the way, got no concession for his efforts. So, lies, incompetence, and failure. Just like at home!

There Is Still Power In What America Does

On Monday, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Ergodan announced he was happy with the President's offers of support, through intelligence and military contacts, to finally help manage the situation at the border with PKK rebels. By the way, the Turks still want more done to stop the rebels, calling for Iraq and the United States to arrest the commanders. So this could still blow up big. But I want to look at something else right now.

Ergodan also had this to say.

Erdogan also criticized a U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee resolution passed last month that labeled the killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I as "genocide." Under heavy pressure from Bush, House Democrats retreated from sending the measure to the full House of Representatives for a vote.

"There is no such thing as genocide. Those who claim it must prove it," Erdogan said.

Yet a day later, Turkey amended their own law restricting freedom of expression and banning "perceived insults to Turkish identity," which has been used in the past to arrest and imprison anyone speaking in public about the genocide, such as authors Orhan Pamuk and Hrant Dink.

There is no question in my mind that the amending of this law is a direct result of Congress' pushing to recognize the fate of the Armenians. Despite eventually derailing, this was a noble effort that bore fruit and had positive consequences for human rights globally. There is still soft power available to America, for some reason the Bush Administration has not wiped it all out. Under a Democratic President we will need to wield it more judiciously and toward the principles of justice. I hope we're up to the task.

Witnesses to History

I guess the House backed down on its bid to vote on recognizing the Armenian genocide, at precisely the moment when the Turkish Parliament voted to allow military incursions into northern Iraq. This has also sent stock markets tumbling and put oil at $87 a barrel.

Your assignment? Discuss the House and the President's relevance.

You may also want to read this informed article about the state of play in Kurdistan.

On The Problem From Hell

Yesterday the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks circa WWI. They've passed it in the past, but this time it may actually come up for a vote on the House floor. Normally I think these sense of the Congress resolutions are silly, but this is a powerful statement of solidarity with the Armenians, and could really impact future foreign policy, suggesting that the victims of genocide will no longer be consigned to the dustbin of history. On the other hand, Turkey is a NATO ally and helping connect supply lines in Iraq, and angering them may severely affect troops in the field.

In a rare and uncharacteristically strong condemnation, President Abdullah Gul criticized the vote by the House Foreign Relations Committee and warned that the decision could work against the United States.

“Unfortunately, some politicians in the United States have once more dismissed calls for common sense, and made an attempt to sacrifice big issues for minor domestic political games,” Mr. Gul said in a statement to the semi-official Anatolian News Agency. “This is not a type of attitude that works to the benefit of, and suits, representatives of a great power like the Unites States of America. This unacceptable decision of the committee, like similar ones in the past, has no validity and is not worthy of the respect of the Turkish people.”

The House decision prompted reaction on the streets of Turkey’s capital, Ankara, where the youth branch of the extreme leftist Workers’ Party laid a black wreath at the entrance to the United States Embassy and spray-painted the Turkish flag onto an Embassy wall. The group held Turkish flags, posters of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, and banners reading, “Armenian genocide is an imperialistic lie,” the Anatolian agency reported. The protesters called for the closing of the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey, which American troops use to supply the military in central Iraq. “The U.S. once more showed that it is not our strategic ally but an enemy,” the Workers’ Party branch said in a statement.

There are no lies being told here; what happened to the Armenians was unquestionably a genocide. Even those who voted against the resolution would agree with that. It is a very hard situation, however, to balance this principled call with endangering American lives. Turkey could raise a lot of havoc in Iraq, and they're already inclined to do so through cross-border raids into Kurdistan.

The tinfoil hatted part of me wonders if this is a deliberate provocation to force the US out of an even more volatile Iraq. I really don't think so, but it lingers in the back of my mind. I would, however, say that there's no conspiracy about allowing the Armenian people their just recognition.

Taste Of Your Own Medicine

It's amazing how crazy these right-wingers get when forced to defend their own beliefs. Case in point: the Instapundit.

It's finally happened.

The mainstream media finally sees Putz for what he is: not a moderate, reasonable "non-partisan" -- but a hard-right extremist. Columnist Paul Campos not only takes Putz to task for his assassination fantasies, he does so by equating him Ward Churchill -- exactly the right analogy.

See, Reynolds claimed that we should be quietly killing Iranian atomic scientists, as if that's possible. And now Paul Campos calls him on it.

Murder is the premeditated unlawful killing of a human being. Glenn Reynolds, the well-known University of Tennessee law professor who authors one of the Internet's most popular blogs, recently advocated the murder of Iranian scientists and clerics.

Of course Iran is not at war with America, but just as Reynolds spent years repeating Bush administration propaganda about Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, he's now dutifully repeating the administration's claims about supposed Iranian government involvement in Iraq's civil war.

Moreover, even if Iran were at war with the United States, the intentional killing of civilian noncombatants is a war crime, as that term is defined by international treaties America has signed. Furthermore, government-sponsored assassinations of the sort Reynolds is advocating are expressly and unambiguously prohibited by the laws of the United States.

Instapundit's amazing first reply is that Iran in fact HAS been at war with the US since taking hostages in 1979. Scott Lemieux gets this exactly right:

My question: when does he start calling for Michael Ledeen to be put on trial for high treason for helping to sell arms to a country the U.S. is at war with?

Ledeen and half the Reagan Administration, you mean.

Insty's second reply was printed today in the Rocky Mountain News, and Blue Texan does a nice job of eviscerating it.

Your false dilmmea! ("I'm just sayin'--isn't it really more reasonable to kill a few scientists and mullahs than nuke the whole country?"):

Campos chose to devote an entire column (“The right’s Ward Churchill,” Feb. 20) to a blog entry of mine from last week, in which I wondered why the Bush administration wasn’t acting covertly to kill radical mullahs and atomic scientists, rather than preparing a major attack on Iran. (Silly me, I thought this was advocating a less warlike approach).

Your apples-to-oranges comparison! ("Heads of state and terrorists" = "scientists and religious leaders"):

History first: There’s nothing beyond the pale about suggesting assassination and covert action as an alternative to warfare. In 1998, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Joseph Biden, D-Del., asked the government to look into assassination as a means of dealing with terrorists; Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., suggested assassinating Saddam Hussein the same year. On Jan. 3, 2001, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., introduced legislation to facilitate the assassination of terrorists.

And finally, your bogus WWII analogy! ("Just look at what we did to those Nazis when our nation was at war with them!"):

“Similarly, the September 1944 Allied bombing raids on the German rocket sites at Peenemunde regarded the death of scientists involved in research and development of that facility to have been as important as destruction of the missiles themselves. Attack of these individuals would not constitute assassination.”

This might be the first time Reynolds has been called out as a violent extremist. It's something he employs on a regular basis, and he can't take being on the other side. Especially when it was done in such a fact-based way. We've had a similar imbroglio with Mark Steyn, who said this...

Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since World War Two? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can't buck demography -- except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out -- as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can't outbreed the enemy, cull 'em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.

And then tried to backtrack and say he wasn't ENDORSING ethnic cleansing there, just predicting it as an outcome. Charming man. Humorously, one person that leapt to Steyn's defense was Instapundit himself, who has said in the past that genocide is "unavoidable."

It's amusing to see these people try to run away from their own words. They've been tarring their enemies with the foulest rhetoric for years, even decades, and now it's coming back to haunt them.