Monday, January 26, 2009

A change of climate you can believe in

At this moment in time, it probably ranks about third place in his in-tray, behind the economy and two ongoing wars. But the environment, to many, easily surpasses these two dominant problems. To effectively tackle climate change, President Obama will need two things: money and political will. Unfortunately he doesn’t have the former yet but an economic recovery will see to that. The political will is there, but Americans fear terrorism and nuclear conflict over climate change at this moment in time. Dealing with these two threats will force the possibility of environmental disaster up the domestic agenda. To many, climate change represents a superior threat, but reflecting the problems facing the United States, it is languishing in third at the moment.

Obama has hit the ground running on every other issue, and today it was the environment. Reversing years of Bush neglect, Obama has embarked on a sweeping range of policies to cut emissions. These include allowing individual states to set their own limits of emissions and imposing fuel efficiency standard on the nation‘s carmakers. Obama also reiterated his campaign pledge to reduce US dependence on foreign oil.

The Obama administration has set out a comprehensive New Energy for America plan. This will create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion in clean technology; significantly reduce imports from the Middle East and Venezuela; expand plug-in Hybrid cars throughout the US; increase the proportion of electricity from renewable sources; develop an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. The first aspect of this plan: job creation and economic development is a masterstroke. It will clearly help America out of the recession, but it also appeals to those American capitalist ideals - enterprise and wealth creation. The Obama plan could create a first generation of enviro-capitalists.

The holy green nexus of clean technology and commerce represents a future for the American economy. It has been noticed by wealthy Arab states, who are embarking on similar projects. Is this the solution to the two critical problems of the day? Climate change and economic uncertainty.

The response to this challenge is due to be included in his $825bn stimulus package. The dire state of the US economy will mean tight restrictions on emissions may not be feasible, at this moment in time at least. Carmakers are also in a dire financial position, so imposing fuel efficiency regulations will also be difficult.

The last eight years have been full of frustration and inaction. The tone for the next four (and hopefully eight) years has been set. Shortly after his election victory, Obama was unequivocal: “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all, delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.” In his inauguration speech he emphasised that the United States would "roll back the spectre of a warming planet" and "restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise healthcare's quality and lower its cost[…]harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.” This direct message contrasts to UK environmental policy which seems at best contradictory and counterproductive, at worse linked to big business interests.

Creating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol will be a priority for Obama. The next global gathering in 2009 is the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. This might be too long to wait. Domestically any agreement through Congress may be difficult. Republican opposition might be added to by Democrats, wary of the impact on employment and the economy, especially in blue collar states.

One key difference between this administration and the previous - when it comes to the environment - is its indebtedness to corporate interests. Whereas the Bush administration was beholden to oil corporates, as seen in his campaigns where the vast majority of donations came from corporate executives and in some extremely dubious influence on energy policy by oil companies like Exxon Mobil. Obama pursued a grass roots fundraising strategy and his corporate links lie in technology, banking and universities.

The final development of energy policy under Obama is the change of personnel within DoE. The new Secretary Steven Chu is a strong advocate of alternative energy and nuclear, as an alternative to fossil fuels. Placing a Nobel winning scientist at the heart of energy policy shows that ideology and cronyism no longer will determine decisions in this critical department. Scientific fact will be the new mantra. The State department will also have a climate change envoy and, who knows, Al Gore might even be asked to help.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Blessed are the peacemakers

In another highly assertive statement of diplomatic intent, President Obama has appointed two envoys for the two foreign policy priorities of his administration. Richard Holbrooke will be special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, while George Mitchell will seek peace between the Arabs and Israelis. The task facing these two highly experienced diplomats cannot be underestimated. But within the Democrat foreign policy establishment, these two individuals have the strongest CVs.

Holbrooke has a long career of government service, dating back to the early 1960s. His posts included formulating Vietnam policy, State department East Asian and Near Pacific, and Ambassador to Germany and the United Nations. He has also had senior roles in investment banking, academia and international NGOs. But he is probably best known as the chief architect of the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995. Achieving a lasting peace in the Balkans after the worst conflict in post War Europe was no mean feat. Although Milosevic remained in power and led Serbia into another war in Kosovo in 1999, these accords have held since. Co-ordinating a peace between the Taliban, Afghan army and NATO will be equally difficult, especially when one party - the Taliban - is uncompromising and seeks no form of negotiation. But at some point, the Western forces might have to sit down with some unpleasant figures. Having dealt with those responsible for ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans, Holbrooke has the necessary experience.

Obama stated in his inauguration speech that a “peace” would be sought in Afghanistan. The model may be the Balkans, where a vast international armed force flooded the region and secured a peace. The failures in Afghanistan have been down to insufficient troops - allowing the Taliban to regroup, Holbrooke and Obama intend to counter these past mistakes without making new ones. A lack of diplomatic focus on the region was also a major fault in Bush policy for South Asia, especially from 2003 to 2006, as Iraq dominated American foreign policy. But Holbrooke sees a regional solution, as set out in a recent Foreign Affairs essay: “Afghanistan's future cannot be secured by a counterinsurgency effort alone; it will also require regional agreements that give Afghanistan's neighbors a stake in the settlement. That includes Iran -- as well as China, India, and Russia,” and of course Pakistan. He identifies four critical areas: “the tribal areas in Pakistan, the drug lords who dominate the Afghan system, the national police, and the incompetence and corruption of the Afghan government.”

An equally intractable war was the crowning achievement of George Mitchell. His work as Special Envoy to Northern Ireland during the Clinton Administration led to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. Half Lebanese, Mitchell has a similarly long and distinguished career in public service. A senator for many years and also bizarrely chairman of Disney, he also led international law firm DLA Piper - probably good experience given the number of legal conundrums thrown up by the Middle East conflict. The parallels between Northern Ireland and Palestine have often been raised, as a source of conflict resolution. The comparison is often rejected by Israelis who see Hamas’ statements calling for the destruction of Israel as a totally different order to the IRA. But just as the IRA had a grudging support in Republican communities, Hamas has a similar position with the Palestinians. They may be thugs, but at least they stand up for you. For the West, the parallel is clear. We eventually dealt with the IRA, despite years of denouncements. We may well have to deal with Hamas, as a democratically elected movement. Critically Mitchell has the background to be respected by both sides - he seems the most logical and best choice for this extremely difficult role.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Gaza - amid the rubble

So the dust settles in Gaza, and looking at the footage that is emerging, there are tonnes of it. Both sides are claiming victory, even though deep down neither believes it. And neither does the outside world for that matter. The Israeli military claim that 25% of the 1,300 plus casualties were Hamas militants; Hamas stated today that as few as 48 of its gunmen had been killed. Hamas may not have portrayed themselves as anything other than a uncompromising militant group, but Israel’s image on balance has taken a serious blow. Global protests are one thing, are expected and dismissed, but the possibility of a war crimes investigation by the UN is a different matter. Israel has made unprecedented efforts to put their case to the international media. But the spin doctors have been working overtime to justify Israel’s brutal onslaught. Amidst this confusion on the ground, a regional picture has become equally cloudy. The neighbouring states have lined up against each other in their political battles for regional hegemony. Nobody has gained from this three week crisis.

The Israeli PR machine has consistently sought to portray Hamas as a militant organisation, hell-bent on Israel’s destruction, a proxy of Iran, a threat to its own people. Israel has been simply defending itself against rocket fire, even though most of the rockets prior to the end of the ceasefire on December 20 had been fired by non-Hamas militants like Islamic Jihad. This cassus belli had a cogent argument, but the disproportionality of their response has quickly undermined their reasoning. The obscene numbers of children, women and innocents killed has put Israel on the PR defensive.

Hamas for their part have missed the opportunity to gain positive PR. Lacking the professional expertise and of course being under siege, they have been unable to define themselves as a legitimate resistance movement to the outside world and alter prejudices about what they stand for. Their pronouncements have appeared quite far fetched. Not quite in the Comical Ali mould, but threats have come to nothing, Israeli troops haven’t died in the predicted numbers. Their supposed military prowess seems to have turned out to be a paper tiger. The problem in assessing claims has been partly caused by Israel’s ban on foreign journalists. But it is also not unlikely that Hamas have exaggerated their relative strength to prove their worth to the Palestinian population. It does seem probable that their personnel has not been depleted, a large proportion of their arms have been destroyed, and their political and social infrastructure has been severely hit. However they may have held back in the face of Israeli military superiority.

It has been left to foreign experts to cast some insight. Sir Jeremy Greenstock was clear in his analysis of Hamas, having had contacts through the Forward Thinking thinktank. Hamas did not advocate the total destruction of Israel; their notorious charter, written in 1987, had never been put into practice; they were not controlled by Iran; and their rule did not resemble the Taliban. Israel has been sharp in its linking of Hamas with the war on terror and Iranian designs for regional hegemony. Not convincing arguments, but they’ve stuck to it and it was convincing enough to gain unequivocal American backing.

Most of Israel’s wars have a political dynamic both nationally and internationally, but this conflict has been remarkably and cynically shaped by such forces. The four dominant personalities in Israeli politics have all seen their fortunes shaped by this war in different ways. Ehud Olmert seeks redemption, before he steps down, for his appalling handling of the 2006 Lebanon war. Benjamin Netanyahu has egged the government on and raised Israeli hopes of a comprehensive defeat of Hamas. The ambiguous result will now aid his election prospects. Tzipi Livni has needed a war to prove her hardline credentials. And Ehud Barak, acting as Defence chief, knows that a good war for him, will provide a guaranteed place in any Labour-Kadima coalition. The forthcoming Israeli election has been vital to this war’s destiny, as has the imminent inauguration of President Obama. The ceasefire has happened just in time to not overshadow this momentous day in American history. It is hard to know how this war would have developed without this political context, or whether it would have happened at all.

So we are now at the status quo ante, but with more hatred and fear on both sides. Israeli politics is just as opaque and divided. The war and its failure to eliminate Hamas will strengthen extremist political forces, like Avigdor Lieberman, who equates the war in Gaza to the American war on Japan in 1945, and the enforced surrender rather than occupation. His comments are extreme, but they reflect a pervasive fear among Israelis, surrounded by enemies, with little sentiment for Palestinian suffering. “They brought it upon themselves” is the common Israeli viewpoint. Just as extremists on the Palestinian side reject the idea of an Israeli state, Israeli far right leaders promote equally uncompromising policies. Thankfully the Israeli Supreme Court has overturned a decision to ban two leading Israeli Arab political parties from the Knesset and the forthcoming elections. Israeli democracy is as shaky as Palestinian.

And what now for the Palestinians? Hamas looks likely to remain in power in Gaza and unless there is a settlement with Fatah, negotiations will still be stuck in a “three state solution”. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas’s position is fragile with little popular support and reports from Gaza tell of a
brutal renewal of internecine warfare. Has popular support for Hamas dropped? They have brought violence to the strip, but their message of defiance strikes a chord with every Palestinian.

The regional picture is even more confused. Two apparent sides have formed from the crisis, holding two parallel summits to discuss the crisis. Fatah, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are together on the pro-West position; Syria, Iran and Qatar have met Hamas representatives. Both sides offer totally opposing views on who is responsible for the conflict, but both, thankfully, seem united in providing financial support for reconstruction. This is nothing new. Arab states have often used the Palestinian issue to advance their positions in the region. The Obama administration’s quest for Middle East diplomacy will be even harder with such a division. However a clue to how Obama will tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies in this regional political quagmire. An all encompassing regional solution involving not only this conflict, but peace in Iraq and Iran's nuclear plans, is being touted as Obama's intention.