This week on Fareed Zakaria GPS, the weekly question is: "Do you think that President Obama will be able to negotiate a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians in this term? Why or Why not?"
Here is my response to his question (which I did in fact email into the show):
I believe that it will be unlikely that President Obama will be able to negotiate a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians in this current term. First of all, it is almost out of the question that there is a one-state solution. Given the losses faced by both sides, the strong historical claims that both states have, as well as the large number of third-party states that are deeply invested in supporting one side or the other in this conflict, it would seem unlikely that a one-state solution would be viable.
Secondly, given the most recent Israel-Gaza conflict and the events that transpired, Palestinians, most likely, would be more than hesitant to engage with Israel in negotiations because of a great sense of distrust. Negotiations cannot be successfully conducted when each party is actively thinking the worst about their counterparts.
The only real opportunity for a peaceful settlement would require Syria to play a significant role as not only a mediator but as a negotiator. The only way for any resemblance of a peace between Palestinians and Israelis would likely require a prior deal between Israel and Syria. For such a deal to occur would require Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syria. If that were to happen, Syria could then place friendly pressure on Palestinians to agree to a deal with Israel. All of this, of course, would be complemented by US pressure on Israel to conclude a peace deal with the Palestinians.
In terms of Obama's ability to affect this process, he would obviously be able to direct US influence on Israel but that would essentially be the extent to his real influence. Seeing as Obama can only lend his influence but no real decision-making ability, the likelihood of Obama brokering a peace is small. There are simply too many non-US components to this type of scenario for Obama to be truely influential in any peace deal between Israel and Palestinians.
Now it may be possible for Obama to have a greater degree of success in helping to achieve peace between these two parties but given the complexity, Obama will require more than the 4 year term he currently has. If he is able to secure a second term in office then the likelihood would dramatically increase.
- blenCOWe
Showing posts with label Peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peace. Show all posts
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Some Thoughts on Somali Piracy
Now that Captain Phillips has been rescued from his pirate captors and the Maersk Alabama is on its way, I have some thoughts on the problem of the Somali pirates. The recent conflict over the American ship and the French Navy's assault to rescue a yacht have escalated this piracy problem. Until these recent events, the clashes with the pirates have not been deadly but now the pirates are already vowing revenge against those that killed their comrades. This will inevitably lead to future violent clashes between the pirates and the naval forces patrolling the international shipping lanes.
The situation with the pirates is looking more and more likely to becoming a real threat to international peace and security. If this continues, states are going to start defending their ships more proactively with force. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, states may defend themselves from armed attack until the Security Council acts upon the situation. Furthermore, the Security Council has already decreed that states may use military force to defend their ships.
It is a scary idea to think that the seas off of Somalia could be the next international conflict to start racking up a large deathtoll. With these waters being so vital to shipping and the alternative route around Cape Horn being cost- and time-expensive, the large number of states whose ships use these sea lanes will almost certainly mean that any conflict will be large and widely inclusive. Another international flashpoint is the last thing this world needs with peacekeeping forces already being stretched thin, no functional government in Somalia to help restore order and other conflicts in Africa already garnering international attention.
Unfortunately, the reality appears to be that there is no quick solution to this and the only foreseeable end to this is building government and order in Somalia, which is unlikely given the attention of major powers being elsewhere. So in the end, piracy has returned to the forefront of international affairs...
... cue the next Disney Pirate's sequel!
- blenCOWe
The situation with the pirates is looking more and more likely to becoming a real threat to international peace and security. If this continues, states are going to start defending their ships more proactively with force. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, states may defend themselves from armed attack until the Security Council acts upon the situation. Furthermore, the Security Council has already decreed that states may use military force to defend their ships.
It is a scary idea to think that the seas off of Somalia could be the next international conflict to start racking up a large deathtoll. With these waters being so vital to shipping and the alternative route around Cape Horn being cost- and time-expensive, the large number of states whose ships use these sea lanes will almost certainly mean that any conflict will be large and widely inclusive. Another international flashpoint is the last thing this world needs with peacekeeping forces already being stretched thin, no functional government in Somalia to help restore order and other conflicts in Africa already garnering international attention.
Unfortunately, the reality appears to be that there is no quick solution to this and the only foreseeable end to this is building government and order in Somalia, which is unlikely given the attention of major powers being elsewhere. So in the end, piracy has returned to the forefront of international affairs...
... cue the next Disney Pirate's sequel!
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Russia's already won
According to the BBC, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been able to broker a deal between Russia and Georgia to come to a peaceful resolution to the recent fighting in and around South Ossetia.
This sounds all and good but Russia has already achieved what it wanted in sending troops into Georgia. The ensuing peace process will take a long time to complete and until then, Georgia will be prevented from gaining full membership into the NATO alliance. Russia will likely drag its feet in completing the peace process just to prolong the time before Georgia can become a member. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to Russia if the peace process is ever completed because Georgia alone does not present a threat to the large federation and having already achieved its aims it has nothing really to gain from the process. Thus Russia wins.
I predict a long a fruitless negotiation coupled with a stalled NATO membership campaign.
- blenCOWe
This sounds all and good but Russia has already achieved what it wanted in sending troops into Georgia. The ensuing peace process will take a long time to complete and until then, Georgia will be prevented from gaining full membership into the NATO alliance. Russia will likely drag its feet in completing the peace process just to prolong the time before Georgia can become a member. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to Russia if the peace process is ever completed because Georgia alone does not present a threat to the large federation and having already achieved its aims it has nothing really to gain from the process. Thus Russia wins.
I predict a long a fruitless negotiation coupled with a stalled NATO membership campaign.
- blenCOWe
Sunday, July 20, 2008
A Final Push for Peace?
I fully appreciate the gravity of the United States sending William Burns to the nuclear talks with Iran but it seems to me that a lot of the recent discussion on the subject might be a little over-ambitious.
In the waning months of the his final term in the presidency, George W. Bush is attempting to create visions of peace to include in his legacy. He has pushed for a peace agreement between Syria and Israel and has ended 30 years of US unwillingness to work with the Iranians towards an amicable agreement.
These endeavours are admirable but unfortunately both of these actions will probably take longer than the remaining months that he has in office. To begin involvement in these situations knowing full well that they will last beyond his term is both ignorant and unrealistic. The next president, whether it is McCain or Obama, is under no obligation to continue whatever works he starts. Mr. Bush SHOULD know this and his foreign counterparts do too so what is Bush going to offer these people? The foreign leaders that Bush is trying to work with have no incentive to deal with Bush in earnest because they know that in five months they will be dealing with someone else. This is especially troublesome because of the distance the candidates are attempting to place between themselves and Bush's practices and record. The chance for continuity is slim and considering the volatile and rapidly shifting nature of international politics, the effort that Bush is putting in now is unlikely to produce lasting results.
For example, recent remarks have indicated that, in the Iran case, if the multilateral talks break down, the Iranians can expect conflict from the United States. How is Iran supposed to react to these comments? And how credible a threat can it be from the United States if the threat of conflict only lasts five months? This situation has the same effect as trying to place a withdrawal date in Afghanistan and Iraq. With a foreseeable end in sight, opponents need only bide their time so that at the right time they can disrupt the ongoing process.
Rather than attempting to forge deals himself, Bush could work with Congress and the Senate to create policy that can continue past these next presidential elections. This would be a much more effective use of his time and the taxpayers' money.
In the end, Bush has set high expectations for his final months in office and possibly might have set the bar a bit too high. It is beginning to look more and more like a last ditch effort to leave some remnants of peace in his lasting legacy.
- blenCOWe
In the waning months of the his final term in the presidency, George W. Bush is attempting to create visions of peace to include in his legacy. He has pushed for a peace agreement between Syria and Israel and has ended 30 years of US unwillingness to work with the Iranians towards an amicable agreement.
These endeavours are admirable but unfortunately both of these actions will probably take longer than the remaining months that he has in office. To begin involvement in these situations knowing full well that they will last beyond his term is both ignorant and unrealistic. The next president, whether it is McCain or Obama, is under no obligation to continue whatever works he starts. Mr. Bush SHOULD know this and his foreign counterparts do too so what is Bush going to offer these people? The foreign leaders that Bush is trying to work with have no incentive to deal with Bush in earnest because they know that in five months they will be dealing with someone else. This is especially troublesome because of the distance the candidates are attempting to place between themselves and Bush's practices and record. The chance for continuity is slim and considering the volatile and rapidly shifting nature of international politics, the effort that Bush is putting in now is unlikely to produce lasting results.
For example, recent remarks have indicated that, in the Iran case, if the multilateral talks break down, the Iranians can expect conflict from the United States. How is Iran supposed to react to these comments? And how credible a threat can it be from the United States if the threat of conflict only lasts five months? This situation has the same effect as trying to place a withdrawal date in Afghanistan and Iraq. With a foreseeable end in sight, opponents need only bide their time so that at the right time they can disrupt the ongoing process.
Rather than attempting to forge deals himself, Bush could work with Congress and the Senate to create policy that can continue past these next presidential elections. This would be a much more effective use of his time and the taxpayers' money.
In the end, Bush has set high expectations for his final months in office and possibly might have set the bar a bit too high. It is beginning to look more and more like a last ditch effort to leave some remnants of peace in his lasting legacy.
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
