dougnoll’s posthaven

At this early stage in the 2012 presidential election cycle, foreign policy is not high on the list of hot topics. However, there are explosive issues brewing around the world that will fall straight into the lap of the next president. Thinking about how he or she might respond to these issues is therefore an important exercise in choice.

Kenya is a case in point. After the 2007 presidential election in Kenya, violence erupted as evidence of rampant electoral corruption erupted. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan was called upon to mediate the dispute between the two political factions. Although he ostensibly orchestrated a power-sharing agreement that ended the violence, his mediation efforts, while well-intended, utterly failed to address the structural issues that caused the violence in the first place. In fact, his mediation efforts likely created the foundation for a Kenyan genocide in 2012 (http://elusivepeace.com/chap8.html).

The Sentinel Project, in a recent report, states that Kenya faces a very real possibility of genocide arising in the next election cycle in 2012. (http://thesentinelproject.org/situations-of-concern-2/kenya/). There are reports of tribal militias engaged in an arms race in advance of the December 2012 elections, which creates the potential for mass inter-tribal violence at a level not seen since the Rwandan genocide in 1993. There are unresolved structural problems around land ownership, distibution of wealth, corruption, tribal rivalries, and access to patronage that are simmering within the country. In the northeast province, over 500,000 Somalis have gathered as refugees from the Somali drought, famine, and violence. This humanitarian disaster is adding stress to a country torn by political, economic, ethnic, and tribal conflicts.

Normally, most Americans don't think much about Kenya's problems, if they think about Kenya at all. Maybe the closest one comes to Kenya is looking at the Starbucks coffee packages that advertise fair traded coffee from Kenyan farmers. Kenya does not pose much of a national security risk either. It is not a resource-rich country and certainly is not an oil-exporter. To most Americans, it is just another impoverished, corrupt African country struggling with the legacies of post-colonialism, AIDS, and deep internal conflict (http://elusivepeace.com/chap11.html).

However, the potential for genocide is real. Genocide is a diplomatic, public relations, and domestic political nightmare for an American president. One need only look at the studied indifference of the Clinton administration to the unfolding events in Rwanda to see that genocide is a dirty word in American political circles. In fact, Clinton administraton lawyers argued that the term "genocide" should not be used to described the massive horrors in Rwanda because that would implicate certain international obligations that the US would prefer to avoid.

This aversion to genocide is precisely why examining how a prospective president might deal with it is so valuable. It helps measure the integrity, intellect, and moral strength of the candidate.

Predicting how the current Republican candidates might respond to the imminent threat of a Kenyan genocide is, of course, impossible to predict. However, the public statements and speeches provide some insight into what could be a range of expected responses.

Rick Perry

RIck Perry has been characterized as a hawk internationalist  His approach to foreign policy and national security appear to be a natural extension of his personality: aggressive, unapologetic, and instinctive. His evangelical religious faith seems more Old Testament than New, which suggests a streak of vengeance, a preference for power as a means of solving problems, and a notable lack of compassion He has presided over 234 executions in Texas, a modern record. Despite evidence suggesting innocence, Governor Perry has refused to commute death sentences. In his book, he described himself in as "the kind of guy who goes jogging in the morning packing a Ruger .380 with laser sights, loaded with hollow-point bullets, and shoots a coyote that is threatening his daughter's dog." He attended Texas A&M when it was still a military academy. During the mid-1960s when most college students were protesting the Vietnam War, supporting civil rights, and generally heaving over old social structures, Perry spent his time with his hair cropped short, pants creased, and back straight. He was part of a minority of college students supportive of the Vietnam war and the military during his formative college years as he joined the Air Force in 1972 after graduating with a degree in animal science.

How would a president Perry respond to genocide in Kenya? The best guess is that he would not be inclined to intervene because US national security interests would not be at stake. The obligations of international law to prevent genocide would be legal technicalities that would probably escape him. His apparent proclivity towards impulsive violence (e.g., the coyote incident) would not extend to helping people in a far off land find peace. He would speak platitudinously, but would not commit US resources to preventing mass violence.

Mitt Romney

MItt Romney is the son of former presidential candidate George Romney, former Republican governor of Massachusetts, founder and CEO of the venture capital firm Bain Capital, and president of the organizing committee for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Romney ran for president in 2008, dropping out of the race on February 7, 2008.

In April 1965, Romney registered with the Selective Service, the government agency in charge of the military draft during the Vietnam War. He was not considered readily available for military service until December 1970 because of military deferments granted on the basis of his religion. When he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual draft lottery. At that time, no one drawing higher than 195 was drafted.

Romney's foreign policy positions were not well-defined in his 2008 campaign and are not well-developed as of yet in the 2012 campaign. His campaign website urges the use of "soft power," which suggests a different philosophy towards genocide than that of Perry. Romney advocates streamlining a fractured and bureaucratic foreign policy establishment through the use of regional envoys.

How would a president Romney respond to genocide in Kenya? The best guess is that he would seek a coalition of willing partners to provide some type of intervention under the direction of a regional envoy in charge of African affairs. He appears to be inclined towards international collaboration with allies in solving problems, and seems to understand the importance of relationships. Romney would probably support, but not overly-fund, a UN, NATO, or African Union sponsored peace effort in Kenya. He does not appear to have an interest in developing world peace when US national interests are not directly at stake. Still, he seems sufficiently experienced and motivated to prevent genocide within reasonable limits.

Michelle Bachman

Michele Bachman, a former tax litigation attorney with the IRS, is a member of the House of Representatives and serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

According to Wikipedia , Bachmann was a member of the first class of the O. W. Coburn School of Law, then a part of Oral Roberts University. While there, Bachmann studied with John Eidsmoe, whom she described in 2011 as "one of the professors who had a great influence on me." Bachmann worked as a research assistant on Eidsmoe's 1987 book "Christianity and the Constitution", which argued that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, and should become one again. She received an L.L.M. in tax law from William and Mary University and worked for the Internal Revenue Service until leaving to raise her family.

Bachmann states she was called by God to run for the seat, and that she and her husband fasted for three days on the decision. She was elected to Congress in 2006 and is the founder of the House Tea Party Caucus.

Mother Jones reports that Bachman has been advised on foreign policy matters by Frank Gaffney.Gaffney is a former Ronald Reagan Pentagon official who has become one of the leaders of the right-wing anti-Islam crusade. Team B II was an ad hoc group formed by his Center for Security Policy which last year produced a report, "Shariah: The Threat to America," on the existential threat posed by radical jihadis in the United States government.

How would a president Bachman respond to a genocide in Kenya? She has outlined the following criteria for US interventions overseas:

    "My view of foreign policy is that we need to be careful and circumspect about United States intervention in any foreign nation. Number one, does that nation pose a threat to the United States? Number two, have they attacked the United States? Number three, are there vital American national interests at stake? Number four: the security of the American people." (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/15/michele-bachmanns-foreign-policy/)

From all of the available information, it appears that Bachman would not be interested in preventing a humanitarian disaster arising from genocide unless it directly affected her perception of US interests. In all likelihood, she would defer to regional organizations such as the African Union to intervene in a purely African crisis. She does not see the US as a force for world peace.

Jon Huntsman

Although not a front runner in the Republican primary contest, Jon Huntsman has far and away the most foreign policy experience. The former ambassador and heir to a massive chemical conglomerate fortune is one of the most globally minded candidates within the Republican party.

Huntsman attended the University of Utah, performed a brief stint in Washington, DC as a intern for Utah senator Orrin Hatch and as a staff assistant to Ronald Reagan. He returned to Utah to work in his father's company, Huntsman Corporation. He eventually graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in international politics. In the meantime, the Huntsman Corporation became an international conglomerate. Huntsman began his political career in the George H.W. Bush adminisration and was eventually named US ambassador to Singapore. He was the youngest head of a US diplomatic mission in over a century.

After his public service, Hunt returned to Utah to take on the position of vice-chairman of the board of Huntsman Corporation.He was named US Trade Ambassador by George W. Bush in 2001. In 2004, he was elected governor of Utah. In 2009, he was appointed by President Obama as Ambassador to China and resigned in 2011 to take up his campaign for president.

Huntsman's foreign policy team includes former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, Council of Foreign Relations head Richard Haass and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, all foreign policy realists who served President George H.W. Bush (Bush I)

How would a president Huntsman respond to a  genocide in Kenya?

This guy would probably act responsibly and maturely to the imminent threat of genocide. He has been tutored by deep international experience and would understand the political, social, cultural, and economic nuances of any US intervention to prevent or stop a genocide. He would work with regional organizations such as the African Union, but at the end of the day, if an intervention were called for and no other choices remained, he probably the right thing and commit US diplomatic and military forces to stop a catastrophe.

Barack Obama

President Obama has not been dealt an easy hand as president. He inherited two wars and a collapsed economy that rivals the Great Depression in severity, economic dislocation, and political unrest. He has been insulted by the prime minister of Israel, the foreign minister of China (at the COP 15 Climate Change meeting in Copehagen) has had difficulty articulating a response to the Arab Spring, and has not articulated a clear foreign policy strategy to guide decision making in the 21st century. He has not demonstrated any creativity or leadership in foreign affairs, despite the early promise implicit in his Nobel Peace Prize. This is in part due to circumstances beyond his control and in part due to his relative inexperience in foreign affairs before taking office. However, he takes the problem of genocide seriously. He has directed an interagency review aimed at creating an intragovernmental Atrocities Prevention Board. This board will be charged with warning the president of impending atrocities and recommending ways to prevent them using diplomatic and military.

How would President Obama respond to a genocide in Kenya?

President Obama's instinct would be to build a coaltion of the willing to address the problem. However, to the degree that dissension within his administration grew around a response, he may deliberate too long and eventually accept a compromise solution that would prove to be too little, too late. If there was unanimity among his advisors, he might act more decisively. However, he has shown a proclivity for putting off tough decisions and then, when the crisis is upon him, engaging in a flurry of activity. The current fiasco over the Palestinian admission to membership in the UN is an example of how careful forethought could have prevented the last minute attempts to avoid a showdown in the Security Council.  However, President Obama appears to have the moral courage to do the right thing. In a second term, with a legacy to worry about, he could very well live up to the mantle of the Peace Prize by a swift, well-thought out intervention to prevent or stop a genocide.

Asking how candidates might respond to horrific events like genocides may be a venture in speculation. However, the exercise can help every American make a more informed decision about who she or he chooses as the next president. Hopefully, the Kenyans will not slide into genocide. It will take moral courage for the next president to help prevent the Kenyans from doing themselves in.

Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).

Americans could lose a lot if the US exercises its planned veto in the Security Council vote on the Palestinian application for admission to the United Nations. The question that is not being discussed is whether the loss is worth it.

The first thing to know is that the issue is not about Palestinian statehood. The media essentially has it wrong when it describes the UN vote as one creating a Palestinian state. The UN does not have the power to create a state. The issue is whether the Palestinian Authority will be admitted as a member to the UN. There are non-states who are members of the UN, such as the Vatican, and there are states that are not members of the UN, such as Taiwan and Kosovo. Being a member of the UN is not the same as being a state. Thus, the US is really opposing a membershp application, not a referendum on statehood.

Second, to gain admittance to the UN, the Palestinian Authority would have to accept the tenets of the UN Charter. Among other things, this would require a recognition of Israel's right to exist and a rejection of violence. Since Hamas rejects Israel's right to exist, the Palestinian Authority will be placed in a difficult dilemma. It can join the UN and accept Israel's right to exist, or it can reject membership and continue to oppose Israel's right to exist. The unintended consequences of the Palestinian Authority admission to the UN might actually work to the benefit of the US and Israel.The media doesn't talk much about this important issue either.

Third, a US veto against a symbolic membership application that does not have the force of law and may actually advance US and Israeli interests will be very, very costly. A veto will dispel any notion of the US's impartiality as a mediator in the Middle East peace process. A veto will be seen as an implicit endorsement of continued settlement construction in the West Bank. A veto will be seen as implicit endorsement of the non-peace regime of Benjamin Netanyahu. A veto will be viewed as inconsistent with the professed American values of freedom, self-dtermination, and democracy. Thus, a veto may cause important moderate elements the Arab world to turn away from the US as a model of peace, democracy, and protector of human rights. A veto will be used by radical political Islamists to incite further violence against the US, particularly the US military. A veto will harm US efforts to find peaceful solutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. A veto, in short, will make foreign policy initiatives in the Islamic world much more difficult. The cost to ordinary Americans will be reflected in continued unpopular military expenditures and a possible decline in national security, at least overseas.

The pro-Israel lobby and American Jews supporting Israel would say that all of this does not matter. What is important is the survival of Israel. However, they do not explain how the Palestinian membership in the UN threatens Israel's survival. This is a classic example of reactive devaluation: If it's good for the Palestinians, it must be bad for Israel. Israel's supporters are automatically and emotionally rejecting anything that could concievably benefit the Palestinians. Since they see the conflict in purely distributive terms--one side's gain must mean the other side's loss--any Palestinian gain must cause harm to Israel. However, a reasoned examination of the effects and implications of admission to the UN fails to uncover a cost to Israel. How, exactly, is Israel injured by the Palestinian admission to the UN? The media isn't asking this question either.

Finally, President Obama has precious little negotiation leverage over Netanyahu. To remedy the lack of leverage, he should withdraw the US threat of a veto. The more strategic approach might be to say, "The US has not decided on its position on the application of the Palestinian Authority for UN membership. Whether the US votes in favor, opposes, or abstains will depend largely on the willingness demonsrated by the Israelis and the Palestinians to progress towards a durable peace. The US is committed to peace in the region and will support those who aspire for it through their concrete actions. It will not support those who merely talk peace, but are unwilling to compromise." From this position, the US may leverage the parties to the peace table. Netanyahu has to know that the US may not oppose the Palestinian bid for membership in the UN. If he backs off of his hawkish, aggressive positions and compromises with the Palestinian Authority, great. If he remains opposed to compromise, including cessation of settlement construction, he bears the consequences in the Security Council vote. The same is true for the Palestinians.

That kind of sophisticated negotiation strategy seems unlikely because the domestic political costs at the beginning of a presidential electiion cycle will be too high. However, the cost of not alienating the pro-Israel special interests will extract a higher cost for world peace. Ultimately, American taxpayers will have to foot the bill for that price.

Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).