National self determination

Since WW I the US has tried to balance the concept of national self determination as articulated by President Woodrow Wilson with the real politic need to maintain the nation state system. The tension between the right of a state to maintain its territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self determination has caused a lot of diplomatic policy headaches. For most of recent history, the US has come down on the side of the stability of nation states, particularly when the states have been sympathetic to US foreign policy goals. With its rapid recognition of the new state of Kosovo following a unilateral declaration of independence by the Kosovars, the US has moved in the other direction. One can make the case that this was the right decision given that an independent Kosovo was probably inevitable following the US/NATO intervention in a Serbian civil war in the 1990’s. The US claims that this is a “special case” and does not create any precedents. US Special Envoy to Kosovo Frank Wisner argues that “Kosovo is a unique case”. Not everybody agrees. Russia has refused to recognize an independent Kosovo, supporting their Slavic brothers in Serbia. Spain and Greece have also said that they will not recognize Kosovo fearing an empowering precedent for their restive Basque and Turkman minorities. Israel is also trying to decide how they will deal with the problem. Statements by some Palestinian Authority ministers suggesting that the PLO should also unilaterally declare independence and pressure the international community for recognition have caused consternation on the part of those who hope for a negotiated two state solution. Others in Palestine and the international community have begun to be more vocal in advocating disbanding the PLO altogether, turning the whole problem over to the Israelis and pressing for one man, one vote. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert labeled this "the South African solution". This is the worst case scenario for Israelis, as demographics would mean the end of the “Jewish State”. For this to happen Palestinian politicians would need to voluntarily give up their power; not something politicians do easily. However, as the post Annapolis negotiations continue to drag on with no signs of progress, an “out of the box” solution becomes more and more likely. Stay tuned.

Common sense on immigration

Recently an international conference was held in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the subjects of immigration and migration. (For a discussion of this conference, click here) The booming economies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) require a large number of immigrant workers in order to sustain their rapidly growing construction, tourism and service sectors. Although it is not completely clear to me that there isn’t a bit of an economic bubble here (How many $7mm houses and 180 story office buildings can the world sustain?), government planners expect that the pace of growth will continue for the foreseeable future. In Dubai alone, immigrants outnumber natives by 3 to 1. These countries have made a decision that they do not want to become multicultural, multiethnic countries and, therefore, all of these immigrant workers are temporary workers. They have no path to citizenship. A number of NGO’s and international groups have been critical of the GCC countries for the treatment of the immigrant population and for the conditions under which they live. Because many of the GCC countries are tourism dependent and, therefore, very sensitive to their image, when the sending countries who supply most of the workers requested an opportunity to discuss the problems the GCC countries readily agreed. Most of the sending countries are South Asian countries such as the Philippines and India. They are concerned that the labor migration be a win, win, and win for the sending countries, in terms of repatriated funds, for the receiving countries, in terms of access to cheap labor and for the migrant workers themselves, in terms of providing a better income for their families. The conference, facilitated by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and International Organization on Migration (IOM), was a very civil dialogue among the interested parties. There was little arguing or posturing. In general the parties agreed that most important factors were enforceable standards in both the sending and receiving countries and status for the migrants in order that they would have access to the enforcement agencies in the receiving countries. Of all the issues discussed, there was vast agreement that status was the most important. No status is a recipe for abuse. While talk is easy and it remains to be seen how much of what was agreed to will actually be implemented, it seems to me that the US could learn a lot from this effort at establishing a win, win and win situation. So much of what passes for debate on the immigration issue in the US quickly devolves into partisan wrangling and name calling. Not everything discussed in Abu Dhabi applies to the US as these are small countries with small dense populations and the US is a large empty country with a large multiethnic population. We certainly, however, could learn the lesson that rational dialogue among the interested parties has a greater chance of success that yelling at each other.

We are a democracy and we are responsible

During my recent trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran, I met two Iraqi retired school teachers during a stop for tea and ice cream. These guys were Shia Muslims from southern Iraq, the folks who had been oppressed by Saddaam Hussein and who were supposed to greet the US invasion with open arms. They were, however, very angry at the US, calling US troops “blood thirsty” and saying that the US won’t help Iraq because “Israel controls the US government”. They said “Why don’t you rise up and overthrow your government?” I tried to explain to them that in the US, the way we “overthrow” the government is through a peaceful process of elections. This did not seem to pacify them much. A few days later, when I was having tea and ice cream with two Iranians (If you see a pattern here, you are right.), we were discussing my observations that both Arabs and Iranians don’t hate Americans. On the contrary they like Americans and admire America’s openness, dynamic economy and innovative technology. They may have some qualms about American culture with its emphasis on materialism and sex and its focus on individualism to the detriment of family and community, but on the whole they have positive feelings about America and Americans. What they hate is the US government and its policies, but they seem to be able to separate Americans from their government. The Iranians agreed with me, but one of them said, “You are right, although that may change. You are a democracy and you are responsible for your government”. As we approach the election season (Seems as though we have been in it forever already.) we should ask ourselves who we want to be making American policies toward the rest of the world, what we want those policies to look like and who we want to be the face of those policies in the world. Depending on the choices that we make, the answer to the question frequently asked after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” may be easy. We are a democracy and we are responsible.