O/D/1 Blog

Nina Hachigian writes a very <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd2ecfe-88d0-405d-af94-6b17bd723ed7">thoughtful essay</a> in <em>The New Republic</em> arguing that the next administration should connect its domestic political agenda to a foreign policy predicated on international institutionalism in a way similar to how Franklin Roosevelt used momentum from the New Deal to build the international architecture of today. <blockquote>To create political space for these steps, the Obama administration must, as Roosevelt did, connect for the American people its foreign policy goals with its domestic agenda. The administration should begin in four discrete areas--the economy, health care, energy, and terrorism. Americans' well-being is directly at stake in all of these policy areas, and in each, the administration can leverage the domestic debate to draw the linkages between our welfare at home and architectures abroad.</blockquote> This is an idea well worth exploring a bit further.  Take terrorism for example.  On September 28 2001, the Security Council passed resolution 1373, one of its most sweeping resolutions ever.  It ordered, under Chapter VII authority, UN member states to enact national legislation to criminalize terrorism and terrorist financing and to  cooperate with each other on counter-terrorism issues. The resolution also created the so-called Counter-terrorism Committee (CTC) to monitor the implementation of the resolution.  The CTC got off to a rough start--at first it had no budget--but it eventually came to life.  In 2006, the General Assembly adopted a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.  Though notably lacking a definition of terrorism, the Strategy is significant for the fact that it is essentially a global endorsement of Resolution 1373 (which, after all, was only voted on by 15 members of the Security Council).     

These are all positive steps toward a global counter-terrorism regime. Still, they are a pittance compared to what is required for sustained international cooperation on counter-terrorism.  A more long term solution may be the creation of a separate international structure dedicated exclusively to counter-terrorism.

This is not as far off as it may seem. In an earlier era, with most of civilization living under the threat of nuclear apocalypse, the world banded together to create the International Atomic Energy Agency.   Like the IAEA an international counter-terrorism agency would mostly be a technical agency, meaning that its staffers would help countries deal with day-to-day law enforcement work like customs and forensic accounting. It would also, like the IAEA (which monitors compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty) oversee compliance with 1373--which as a Chapter VII resolution carries the force of international law.  Finally, to <em>enforce</em> compliance, the new International Counter Terrorism agency could recommend action to the Security Council.  This is precisely what the IAEA did when faced with a recalcitrant North Korea and Iran.   

This may seem pie-in-the sky for now. But I imagine that so too did the establishment of the IAEA when President Eisenhower gave his famous <a href="http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Deterrence/Atomsforpeace.shtml">Atoms for Peace</a> speech to the General Assembly back in 1953. As Hachigian rightly observes, the time is right for this kind of bold policy making.  

Via Michael Tomasky, an interview with veteran UN negotiator Lakhdar Brahimi, on how the latter would advise President-elect Obama to deal with the crisis in Gaza.

He said that he will pay attention to this problem from day one. He also said when he went to Israel--and this is being quoted again and again--that if rockets were raining on my house I would definitely do something to stop it. Yes, do something. But what is it that you do? Kill innocent Palestinians because innocent Israelis are under threat? I think you look at the problem and you see that at the root of the problem is occupation. So if you want to protect your daughters, work to end occupation. There are lots of Israelis who share that view. Why do you support the most extreme Israelis? Why not look out for those brave Israelis who have very strong Zionist credentials, who fought for Israel, who believe in Israel and who think that what [their] government is doing is wrong? Why not take their view into consideration?

He must have made his analysis of what his inheritance is and what needs to be done to reestablish the kind of leadership the people of the United States have the right to aspire to. Do they want people to fear them, hate them, or do they want people to admire them and look up to them--a country that people have confidence in? I hope he will take the kind of decisions that will be good for the people of America.

Obama might not be able to be this frank, but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't take these questions into account, in a situation that will require that the United States do much more than "pay attention."

Day "one" is less than a month away. So far,  we've narrowed our field of ideas down to nine ideas for '09.  Stay tuned for the final round of voting, in which the nine category finalists will face off against each other. The winner earns a trip to Washington, D. C. for the innaguration.  

Voting will begin after the holidays. Until then, posting will be light.  Stay safe--and until then, you can always have your say.

H/T Yglesias and Dave Roberts, both of whom come down ambivelent on the proposal contained in this cartoon. It's is certainly an interesting concept though.