A bipartisan conversation on foreign aid and national security

Earlier today I had the opportunity to attend a program entitled "Americas Global Leadership: Impact on New Hampshire," featuring Senator Kelly Ayotte (R- New Hampshire) and former Secretary of Homeland Security and Pennsylvania Governor, Tom Ridge.  The event, which was organized by the US Global Leadership Coalition and co-sponsored by a variety of local partners, including the New Hampshire Institute on Politics at St. Anselm University, The New England Council and the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire, drew a diverse crowd of elected officials and military veterans, as well as civic and religious leaders.

In a wide-ranging conversation Senator Ayotte and Governor Ridge made the point that there are both practical and moral reasons for the U.S. to help other nations in their time of need, especially when it comes to providing support for vital infrastructure and strengthening civil society. Along these lines, I though Governor Ridge made an excellent point when he suggested that if a member of Congress had raised the idea of sending aid to bolster public health infrastructure in West Africa a few years ago, they might very well have drawn the ire and scorn of critics - and yet today, he said, that person might be regarded instead as farsighted in light of the ongoing Ebola crisis, a disaster in which weak public health systems abroad now pose an indirect threat to the United States.

Given the very real challenges the U.S. and its allies face today, from ISIS to Ebola to how to approach Russian aggression in the Ukraine, I was somewhat heartened to hear from these two leaders, who chose to come to Manchester and address serious questions of how America acts and is perceived in the world, and to see them do so under the banner of a nonpartisan organization. Perhaps if more people were willing to engage in discussions like the one I heard today, discussions that focus on the issues themselves, instead of engaging in hyper-partisan shouting matches, we might be able to get more done, both in this country and beyond.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2014.

Nonprofits are vital to the health of any civil society

Earlier this week I was at a dinner in Boston where the American Jewish Committee was honoring a local philanthropist and among the speakers was Brandeis University President Fred Lawrence, who noted in his remarks the important role that nonprofit organizations play in bolstering civil society. It was just one sentence, but immediately it struck me that this is not only true, but an important idea that is often overlooked.

When the public turns its attention to societal ills, the media focuses in on the issue at stake and it's usually elected officials who feel the heat. If we are lucky, and our better angels prevail, we can muster bipartisan support for a thoughtful, thorough solution, and in the best cases, elected officials work in partnership with the public to address the problem at hand. Often though, it takes more than just media attention or political leadership to solve deeply rooted problems.

To maintain a healthy civil society, any nation needs certain things, among them a free press, accountable government and respect for the rule of law. In the evolution of our own democracy in the U.S., nonprofit organizations (and the informal groups that proceeded the creation of non-profit status) have also played a pivotal role in nearly every important movement that helped to shape American society as we know it today, from the fight to end slavery to the battle over women's suffrage, environmental preservation, and the civil rights movement.

Around the world today there are plenty of places where leaders are struggling with difficult problems, including much of the Middle East and North Africa. Many of these challenges revolve around human rights, security and economic development, which, at the macro level, require action by governments and international bodies. At the same time it's hard to imagine that these places might not also benefit from greater activity by non-governmental organizations which could help build institutions and set positive norms, without having to woo an electorate. Such an effort would not be without danger - history has shown that community leaders can be just as vulnerable to danger as elected officials - but in a political environment that is either too repressive or too chaotic to allow ideas about human rights or democracy to find a place in government, sometimes it's the nonprofit organizations and the people who lead them who can make a difference.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2014.

Senators lead the way in Middle East security as a bipartisan issue

 

At this moment media coverage of the Middle East is largely focused on the very real threat posed by ISIS and the massive humanitarian crisis taking place in Syria. With a significant increase in Western involvement in Iraq and Syria, as well as Turkey's decision to play a role in combating the terror group, it’s not surprising that these stories are the focus of attention, but there are other serious issues in the region which also need to be addressed, including the aftermath of this summer’s war between Israel andHamas. 

For this reason I was glad to see that Senator Kelly Ayotte (R) of New Hampshire and Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. (D) of Pennsylvania co-authored a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, highlighting 3 key areas relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which need to be addressed, and demonstrating that the security of the United States and its allies in the Middle East is not a Democratic or Republican issue, but clearly bipartisan.

One of the things I really liked about this letter is that it acknowledges the difficult, yet vital, balance which needs to be struck between providing humanitarian aid to Gaza and maintaining the security of the State of Israel. This is an important idea, and one which is not given voice often enough, in my opinion. I don’t think there is anyone who could look at Gaza today and say that there is not a desperate need for assistance, yet at the same time, it would be utterly foolish to expect that Hamas is the solution to this problem. 

As the Senators adroitly note in their letter, “Ultimately, we must seek Gaza’s demilitarization.”

They go on to write that it is the Palestinian Authority which should lead the way in both the West Bank and Gaza – it’s the right idea, but a difficult one to imagine happening any time soon, given that Hamas ran the PA out of Gaza by employing considerable violence not that long ago. Nonetheless, I agree that ultimately it would be to the benefit of both Israel and the Palestinians if Gaza were not under the control of Hamas.

Finally, the Senators address efforts by the Palestinian Authority to circumvent the established peace process by going directly to several international bodies, such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, to seek some form of de facto recognition from the international community.

This is not a new tactic, but it is one that I think has the potential to do great harm to the prospects of peace in at least two ways, first of all it demonstrates a lack of confidence in the peace process itself, which I think sends a terrible signal not only to Israeli negotiators, but to the many nation states which have put considerable time and effort into trying to keep this process alive. Secondly, this kind of activity draws energy, attention and resources away from the actual peace process itself.

History has taught us again and again that there are no simple or easy solutions in the Middle East – centuries worth of competing ideological, religious and political claims all often conspire to thwart even the most clever and altruistic attempts at bringing peace – but a crucial step in working toward this goal lies in clearly identifying the particular challenges we face at this moment. By focusing on the importance of encouraging good governance in Gaza, the need to limit Palestinian Authority efforts to circumnavigate the established peace process, and highlighting the threat a resurgent, rearmed Hamas poses to Israel, I believe that Senators Ayotte and Casey, along with 86 of their Senate colleagues have helped to do just this.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2014.

Sea levels, along with economic incentives, are rising

This past weekend a reported 300,000 people took to the streets of New York City to call attention to the negative effects of climate change. Making the key changes and bringing the necessary resources to bear on this difficult challenge is not going to be easy, and will certainly take leadership across many sectors and segments of society. The announcement by members of the Rockefeller family this morning that they would have their major charitable foundation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, divest from fossil fuels is one example of the kind of leadership we need on this issue.

Regardless of their actual existing investments in fossil fuels, there is important symbolism in the family's decision that whatever profits they might realize as a result of this particular investment, the viability of the planet is more important. The fact that their family fortune is rooted in fossil fuels only adds to the merit of this decision. Of course this decision is not entirely altruistic. As Valerie Rockefeller Wayne says at the end of a piece in the Washington Post, if her ancestor were alive today, he would likely invest alternative fuel sources himself.


And there's nothing wrong with this - if there are ways to encourage both environmentally friendly practices at the same time as economic growth, I'm all for it.  In fact, there's every reason to think that as rising sea levels inch closer to swamping not just ports but major cities themselves, and drought and erratic weather damage crops and threaten infrastructure, more and more business and civic leaders will find it increasingly difficult to ignore the impact of climate change. Ultimately, it may be the economic factors that push us toward a comprehensive, lasting solution on this issue.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2014.

We all breathe the same air

While it's almost impossible today to think of a major topic of discussion which has a clear solutions that everyone can agree upon, there are a few issues which are so immediate, so pressing, that if we don't find a substantive answer soon, the consequences are not only dire, but potentially irreversible. One such issue is the current climate disaster, which poses a threat to people living in every corner of the globe. Environmental issues are not limited to the glittering cities, impoverished slums or hidden hinterlands - what happens in one place invariably impacts the lives of people living in another.

As much as some people may want to deny the danger of climate change, whether out of ignorance, laziness or greed, I think that for any thinking person to deny the danger is both morally reprehensible and a tad ridiculous. Frankly, the greed factor aside, I don't really understand how environmental protection and limiting the long-term negative impact we have on our natural environment leads to such contentious arguments.

I have yet to meet a person who doesn't need clean air, water and food to live.

Given this, one could be forgiven for thinking the topic of the environment would be a natural place for all people, regardless of ideological bent, political affiliation or religious persuasion, to meet.

There is some precedence for moments of profound leadership and unity around environmental issues. I was reminded of this today as I listened to the PRI program Science Friday in my car. During the show one of the guests pointed out that President Nixon had played a role in the passage of several important environmental initiatives, including his creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Natural Resrouces. Even Nixon, whom I would hardly hold up as an exemplar champion of civil society, realized that the American public wasn't so keen to breathe polluted air.

So on the face of it, one would think that the environment should easily be a clear-cut bipartisan issue. But it isn't - either because the fossil fuel industry has found a few too many friends among Republicans, or because democrats don't see this issue as useful for fundraising, or for other selfish reasons. But before I get too cynical, I do think that with a big enough demonstration of support by citizens, that adressing climate change could become more important in the minds of political leaders. For this reason, I was excited to see media reports about a major rally to draw attention to this issue, called The People's March Against Climate Change, this coming Sunday in New York City. The rally is being held close to a planned UN summit on the same topic, and I'm hopeful that this demonstration of support will spur action not just on DC, but in state capitals as well.

At the end of the day, I suspect that I'm not the only one who doesn't care if it's Democrats or Republicans, grassroots organizers or big business, which finally addresses this problem. Like billions of other people on this planet I'd really just like clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and if we can leave a few trees standing, that would be nice too.


Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2014.

On to Syria - but what happens next?

Last night President Obama took to the airwaves to address the nation and discuss the US response to the terrorist group ISIS. Reading the transcript of the speech, it struck me that one of the things he sought to do was to place future action against ISIS in the context of the broader war on terror,  reminding Americans of recent victories in the fight against Al-Queda in Somalia and Yemen, while at the same time highlighting his winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was a sensible tone to strike in a nation weary of war and leery of new conflicts abroad. But the President quickly shifted from recent accomplishments to the potentially explosive nature of the threat posed by ISIS, citing its potential to spread death and chaos across the Middle East and beyond.

Then he laid out a plan to confront the ISIS threat that is dependent on a number of things which may realistically be beyond the control of Mr. Obama, including the effectiveness of the Iraqi Army to conduct large-scale ground operations and the willingness of Congress to approve an expedited request for $500 million to train Syrian opposition fighters. In fact, the entire enterprise is riddled with question marks and possible outcomes that could quite possibly plunge the US into another major war in the Middle East, with no foreseeable means of exit. But as the President points out in his remarks, in reality we have little choice but to confront ISIS.

As the US expands its role in the Middle East to include targeting of ISIS in Syrian territory, though, a whole new set of questions arise -  to what degree will this campaign benefit Bashar Al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War? How long will the coalition assembled by the President last? What happens if (god forbid) a US plane and its crew are shot down over Syria?

I'm sure there are many people far more expert than I who are pondering these very same questions tonight, but they are questions that that the American public should be asking as well. As President Obama rightly said, ISIS represents a major threat to both the Middle East and the West, but as we begin to write this next chapter in the history of the region and US involvement within it, we should keep in mind that wars in this part of the world, and the consequences that result, often have a tendency to spiral out of control in dangerous and unexpected ways.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2014.

In a world of shifting borders, where should we draw the line?

Given that I spend a good deal of time thinking about the history and present state of the Middle East, perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising that borders and boundaries have been on my mind a lot lately. After all, this is a part of the world which has survived the cartographic ambitions of the Romans, the Ottomans, and various European powers. While this periodic reconfiguration of national boundaries is not unique to the Middle East, it has played a powerful role in shaping the societies which inhabit, share, and often fight over, this land.

In the 20th century rampaging armies made a mess of Europe twice, and the period following the end of World War II saw the fracturing of empires and the emergence of newly independent nation states. Such actions are not consigned to the past, though, with various groups and states attempting to redraw the world map even as I write this. Their motivations are myriad, running from religious fanaticism to resurgent nationalism.

Perhaps the most peaceful of these movements can be found in Scotland, where voters will have the opportunity to vote tomorrow whether to leave the United Kingdom, ending roughly 300 years of union, or remain closely joined to their neighbor to the south. What the exact arrangement will look like if the Scots do decide to leave England is unclear, but if Scotland does vote to separate, there are a number of thorny challenges to consider, including economic and military consequences. Indeed, difficult days may lie ahead for Scotland and England, but at least in this particular case those on either side of the issue are going to decide the fate of this union through the political process.

In other parts of the world, things aren't quite so peaceful.

Far to the east of the United Kingdom, Russia has been making its own attempts at global reorganization, declaring itself the protector of Russian-speaking people wherever they reside, and using this pretext to launch a land grab in Eastern Europe. The first victim of this aggression was Crimea and then Moscow turned its gaze toward the Ukraine, supporting pro-Russian separatist groups in the eastern part of the country while maintaining the fiction that they were not also sending Russian soldiers to take part in hostilities. In addition to the lives claimed among combatants, and civilians on the ground who were caught in the crossfire, this conflict also claimed the lives of 298 people aboard Malaysian Airlines flight 17, who were unlucky enough to be over Ukrainian airspace when inept Pro-Russian militants were at the controls of a surface-to-air missile system.

Perhaps the most troubling attempt to redraw borders is happening in parts of Iraq and Syria, where ISIS or the "Islamic State," has pursued a violent path of religiously-inspired political hegemony. I have written before on this blog of the threat that ISIS poses to religious and ethnic minorities, as well as the danger it is likely to become to the West, with their blatant disregard for human life and distorted view of religion and reality. There is no question that this threat is real and persistent; it cannot be ignored. This terrorist organization threatens to undermine the territorial integrity of Syria and Iraq in the short term, and in the long-term they may even gain a foothold in Jordan. Many experts have identified the primary danger in such an outcome as the fact that it would provide ISIS and allied terrorist organizations a safe place in which to train and plan for attacks across. The fear is that it would be Afghanistan, post-Soviet withdrawal, all over again.

I think there is another danger as well, one maybe not as obvious but potentially just as damaging to the  people who live there:  Left to fester on its own, such a state would surely become a magnet for similarly-minded zealots, empowering this terror-based political entity to emerge  as a regional power, seeking political legitimacy from neighbors to weak or scared to oppose its leadership. This is truly the worst case scenario, but it's one worth considering.

Tonight the world may get the first clear picture of how the United States and its allies plan to confront the threat of ISIS, when President Obama makes a national address on television.  In the days to follow we are  likely to see how ISIS responds to what is likely to be a massive show of military force aimed at disrupting and destroying its crimes across the region.

While the outcome is uncertain, one thing we can count on is that as ISIS attempts to redraw the borders of the Middle East there is no chance that they would ever follow the example of Scotland and engage in a legitimate political process, or even that of Russia which may be susceptible to international sanctions. While Scotland represents a step forward in terms of a bloodless effort to gain independence and Russia represents something of the last century with its resort to proxy armies and "advisers," ISIS represents something else entirely, a draconian, malevolent force which gives no quarter to anyone.  Through their actions ISIS has told us loud and clear that they want to establish their own nation, now it is up to the rest of the world to tell them that there is no room in our modern world for what they represent.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2014.