dougnoll’s posthaven

On September 12^th, 2001, Sami was scared and confused and did not want to go to work, or even out in public. He tells us that once it was learned that a group of Muslims were responsible for the attack of 9/11, every Muslim was affected negatively. At that moment he felt self-hatred for being a Muslim. However, his family forced him to go to work and face his fears.

Segment 2: Healing from 9/11.  When Sami was at work, two Jewish women came in to see him and talk to him about what happened. He was offered a safe-haven --- a place to hide and heal. Sami and these two women shared food, hopes, dreams, and tears on that day. They brainstormed about how to heal from 9/11. They decided to form a dialogue organization to bring together families of all races, religions and nationalities. They do not talk about politics or religion; they only socialize and have a good time together. Kids are encouraged to attend. At the moment the idea for the organization was created Sami says he felt an inner peace, and something inside him woke up and started paying attention.

Segment 3: The Attraction to Violence.  Doug believes there are a lot of people who are attracted to violence because they don’t have any choice. They perceive threats to their existence. In some areas, where there is a poor education system, the women are oppressed, and there is deep poverty and no hope, they turn to violence. They see a Western lifestyle that is affluent compared to their lifestyle, and it scares them. Their identity and existence are being threatened, and it angers them. As a result of this fear and anger, young men who have no hope are driven to violence.

Segment 4: The Division of Iraq.  Prospects for Iraq: Sami thinks one of the important objectives of the invasion of 2003 by the U.S. was dividing Iraq into three pieces. For the last 11 years the Iraqi people have woken up each morning to find themselves divided into different ethnicities. The invasion and its objectives were implemented, one after another. Baghdad is considered a mixture of people, although Southern Iraqis feel it’s dangerous to visit Baghdad. They are psychologically already divided. There are a lot of people outside of Iraq that want to see Iraq broken into a number of pieces. The goal is to fragment and dismember the country into smaller pieces. To find out more about Sami’s organization, please visit http://reconciliationproject.org/. 

To listen to the entire interview, CLICK HERE or visit http://wsradio.com/070314-reviewing-conflict-iran-middle-east/.

We spend more on recruitment into the military than we do on education. Why is this fact not catching people’s attention? When you look at polls you have a strong majority saying we should have never invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Nobody wants a new war, either. But when you ask people if we should stop having war or stop having a military, many people say NO WAY. They think the “evil people will get us.” This thinking spans both the left and the right. We tend to redefine war and tweak the numbers to accomplish a minimization of war deaths. In reality, the military doesn’t protect us from wars; the military creates wars. 

Segment 2: 190 Million Deaths.  During the 20^th century, 190 million deaths can be attributed directly or indirectly war, more than the previous two centuries. One thing people do is argue that proportionately speaking, 190 million isn’t as big a percentage because our population has increased. Even more unfortunately is that 85-90% of the deaths are civilian. The media does not discuss all the civilian deaths. In the U.S. we have a different standard of holding our government accountable. Since we have not had a war in our country in recent history, many people cannot possibly understand what war is really like. 

Segment 3: Planning for War.  David tells us that President Obama has tripled the troops in Afghanistan and is now pledging to keep 5,000 troops for 10 more years. When we put all our resources and efforts into planning for wars, we will end up getting more wars instead of avoiding them. Annual U.S. spending amounts to $1 trillion per year! David thinks we are making an effort to dominate the entire globe.

Segment 4: A Highly Reactive Issue.  There is a myth of redemptive violence that is very much a part of our culture. How do we get people back to peace? First of all, David tells us to get rid of the TV and treat it as a dangerous weapon. TV is misleading. We are trained to believe that the U.S. government intervenes to protect people from evil and the bad guys, but in reality the horrors are usually brought about by the government intervention. It is a highly reactive and non-integrated issue. To find out more about David’s work, visit www.davidswanson.org.

To listen to the entire interview, please CLICK HERE.

Segment 1: “We’re going to war.”

Our guest on this edition of The Doug Noll Show is no stranger to war and espionage. Art Keller is a former CIA officer who served in the Counter-Proliferation Division, a unit responsible for spying on and sabotaging Weapons of Mass Destruction programs. He also has worked on terrorism cases and his last assignment was as acting Chief of Base in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Art’s personal journey began after high school, when he joined the army and then studied foreign affairs in college. His interest in foreign affairs led him to apply to the CIA and after an arduous selection process (he applied multiple times, and later found out that was the norm) he was accepted into the CIA organization. He wound up in the Counter-Proliferation Division with instructions to keep an eye on weapons of mass destruction. It was Art’s job to cover Iran’s missile program, and he does not believe that Saddam Hussein ever had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, his Chief of Station returned from headquarters and announced that “the decision had already been made: we’re going to war.” It was shocking.

Segment 2: A Corrupted Process.

In order to make the best policies, the policy makers need to know what’s really happening in a particular area. If we shape our intelligence around our policy objective (instead of the other way around) the process will be corrupted. Art spent a few months in 2003 and 2004 near Baghdad in 140 degree weather looking for weapons in the desert. By August 2003 it was clear to him that he was just going through the motions, but he had his marching orders and dutifully followed them out. He became certain there were no WMDs to be found. No one came forward with any viable information.

Segment 3: The Slow and Meticulous Dance.

The negotiations have resumed with Iran and the West over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Historically, peacemaking arms control has been a very slow and meticulous dance. There is a lot of distrust. From the viewpoint of the U.S., Iran hasn’t wanted to negotiate in good faith. Art says Iranians think very differently from us, but they do think. They have a very keenly developed sense of their own self-interest, which does not include having their whole country destroyed. A lot of it has to do with national pride. For example, they can’t believe Pakistan has a nuclear weapon and they don’t.

Art is greatly concerned about Israel and how they take actions without considering American interest. They have a proven record of bombing other people’s nuclear facilities (Iraq and Syria) as well as assassinating weapon scientists. It is an established pattern.

Segment 4: It’s Not About the Gadgets.

The CIA’s definition of assassination is killing someone - usually for political reasons - from a country with whom you are not at war. Art’s book, Hollow Strength, is about assassinations, secrets and espionage. It’s technically fiction but is based on his real life experiences. Human Intelligence is not about gadgets; it’s about relationships with people. Ask yourself this question: How bad would it have to be in your own country for you to be a spy for another country?  

To listen to the complete interview:

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

In early January 2012, the Obama administration sent a letter to the Iranian government through diplomatic channels. The letter stated the consequences of an Iranian attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz and requested direct talks. Whether Iran agrees to talk remains to be seen. Certainly, the talks will be secret and low level unless they produce tangible benefits for both sides. How would a professional mediator approach these talks as a negotiator?
Understanding the interests of both the Iranian and American perspectives is a critical first step.
The Iranian government first and foremost wants to protect its power, position, and privilege from internal and external threats. The Shia Islamic regime sees as many threats from Sunni Islam as from the West. The Bush presidency handed Iran a rare opportunity to gather power and influence in the Middle East when Bush decided to topple Iran’s primary enemy, Sadaam Hussein. Since the overthrow of Hussein and his Baathist regime, Iran has increased its influence in Iraq through its support of the Iraqi Shia. Iran has an interest in preserving and increasing its influence over Iraqi politics. Likewise, Iran wishes to see the al Assad regime retain its power in Syria. Iran also wants to avoid a situation in which the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, among others, decide to bring down the al Assad regime. To the east, Iran wishes to exert influence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are bordering countries.
In summary, the Iranian interests are regime preservation, increased political and economic influence in the region, and continued support of Shia Islamists. It does not want a war with the West.
American interests are likewise straightforward. America does not want oil supplies disrupted; it does not want failed states in the region to be sanctuaries for terrorists; it does not want a war with Iran; it does not want Islamic sectarian strife to widen or intensify; it wants stable political and economic regimes in oil producing countries; it would like to see governments in the region respect human rights more consistently; it would like to see Iran abandon nuclear weapons development. The US is or soon will be discussing peace with various Taliban elements as a prelude to exiting Afghanistan. Iran has levers it can pull in Afghanistan and Pakistan that could block those discussions. The US therefore does not want Iranian interference in talks with the Taliban.
Political realities will also influence these conversations. The initial representatives of both countries will not be high level policy makers. They will each have limited authority to make concessions and no authority to make binding agreements. Their conduct will be scrutinized by opposition elements in each country and subject to severe criticism. Thus, the early conversations will be conservative, confirmatory, and exploratory. They will be conservative because the domestic political realities will not permit a radical shift in the strategic relationship between Iran and America. They will be confirmatory as each side assesses whether their working hypotheses of each other’s interests are correct. They will be exploratory as each side tests for potential gains from continued discussions.
Negotiation style, modulated by culture, will also be an important element of preparation. The Iranians may at times demonstrate aggressive, threatening negotiating behaviors. The Iranian government wants to be respected and feared, internally and externally. National pride is significant, bringing the psychology of identity into the negotiation. American negotiators may be more linear and bottom line oriented. The negotiations might be something like rug merchant meets used car salesman. Frustration over negotiating styles should be anticipated. Preparing for a conflict in negotiation customs, methods, and styles will therefore be important.
Trust and accountability will also be an issue requiring preparation. When the value of what is being negotiated is well known and the exchange mechanisms are well-established, successful negotiations can occur with very little trust. In this negotiation there will be no easily determined valuation of interests and certainly no agreed upon exchange mechanism. Thus, trust becomes a central issue. How will each side assure itself that the other side will abide by agreements?
Similarly, the talks will have to occur secretly. However, one side or the other might see an opportunity to exploit the situation by talking to the media. Maintaining confidentiality will be a challenge.
This is a situation that calls for preparation, analysis, and role play rehearsal. The US representatives would be well-served to practice in simulated negotiation sessions that explore all of the challenges and roadblocks that might be anticipated with the Iranians. They should master a number of different negotiation processes including integrative as well as distributive processes. They should be psychologically prepared for any number of possible behaviors and have counter-tactics for each. They should be skilled at listening for what is being said and for paying close attention to what is not being said. Likewise, they should pay close attention to what they say, how they say it, and what they do not say.
These will not be mediated conversations. US-Iranian back-channel negotiations have a poor track record so there is no reason for optimism. However, conversations of any kind are better than silence and certainly better than war. The US can improve the chances of success by careful and thorough preparation of its representatives.

If you liked Iraq and Afhganistan, you will love Somalia. I wonder what will be necessary for the elites in the diplomatic and international community to wake up to the fact that the system is not working. How many Rwandas, Bosnias, Iraqs, Afghanistans, and now Somalia, will it take to shift the way the world addresses deep conflicts and the crises that emmanate from them?
Somalia is a text book example of international failure. The warning signs for drought, famine, poverty, and death of tens of thousands of children have been well-known and documented for months, if not years. South-central Somalia is controlled by the militant semi-organization al-Shabaab. Al-Shabaab is paranoid about international NGOs, and a year ago, banned aid agencies from helping the Somali people in that region. In southern Somalia, there is no government; no sense of any authority, except for al-Shabaab. Al-Shabaab has no experience in managing humanitarian disasters because it is not truly a governmental organization.Nevertheless, al-Shabaab appeals to many Somalis, not because of an affinity for the radical Islamic goals of the organization, but because of economic and social interests. Like the Taliban in 1991, al-Shabaab ended the reign of the secular warlords. Unlike the Taliban, al-Shabaab has not been able to consolidate power or influence under a unified front. Its many factions only  unite against the Transitional Federal Government, another extraordinarily weak and ineffective organization. Other than the common enemy, it's every group for itself.
Even if NGOs could get in, daunting logistical problems exist. Only one port in the country is open to aid agencies, which is Mogadishu. Kismayo is not open because it is controlled by al-Shabaab. Port facilities are nonexistent; there is no machinery in place, and the port, roads, and transportation infrastructure has not been rehabilitated in the last twenty years. The region is full of checkpoints manned by local militias extorting money from anyone delivering food, water, and supplies to the people. Somalia is about as anarchic as a "country" can be.
The international system fails in this situation because it continues to make the false assumption that each nation is sovereign. Under the Treaty of Westphalia, each sovereign nation is represented by a "head of state" presumed to have the power to speak and negotiate with other "heads of state." Al-Shabaab is not cohesive; it is a string of loosely aligned factions. No "head of state" speaks for al-Shabaab. No one person speaks with one voice for al-Shabaab. The traditional model of diplomatic negotiation is simply not well-adapted to anarchy of this type.
So what should be done? If you want a radical solution that will surely offend most of the international community and politicians of all persuasions, have the UN Security Council declare Somalia a failed state and impose a UN Protectorate status on the country. It would be nice if the African Union endorsed this plan, but not essential. Bring in a powerful, well-funded, and well-trained UN military force with a broad mandate to restore order with force wihen necessary, followed by a civil service bureacracy to set up and run a government, an interim court system to establish the rule of law, humanitarian relief, health care, and education. Plan on a 20 to 30 year mission, maybe longer; hopefully shorter. Rebuild the country from the ground up, trying to be as sensitive to the cultural, clan, and tribal ties as possible. Fnd the best and brightest young people, educate them, and groom them as potential political and civil society leaders. Be prepared for resistance, push back, and localized terrorism. Don't have a timeframe and don't withdraw when the project becomes politically unpalatable. Deal with corruption quickly, making clear that it will not be tolerated. Teach people the essentials of nonviolent conflict resolution, leadership, and consensus-building, using as much of the indigenous knowledge as possible. Use common sense and compassion whenever possible in making decisions. Put smart people in place with full authority and don't second guess them. Insulate them from the inevitable influencers looking for personal advantage. Try not to make decsions based on the lowest political common denominator.
As a professional peacemaker, I can't see any other way out of the quagmire of Somalia. My nose wrinkles at the idea of nation-building (look at Iraq and Afghanistan), but what other options are there? If anyone has some, let me know.

Doug Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts.