The Good News Continues
Afghanistan has a new constitution; and new negotiations get under way between India and Pakistan, and between Israel and Libya.
These are all pieces of very good news. President Bush deserves a lot of credit, particularly for the first. Afghans led by Hamid Karzai of course have worked hard on their new constitution, but they wouldn't have had the opportunity if the U.S. and its allies had not removed the Taliban. See the NYT today.
The President's "special emissary," Zalmay Khalilzad, obviously played an important role. He is another person with a lot of post-secondary education and experience in the U.S. He writes in the Washington Post today, emphasizing the new importance of women, and giving credit to the UN.
(Here is an article which is somewhat pessimistic. It says the war lords still have too much sway in the country, they intimidate a lot of law-abiding people, and they won too many concessions in the new constitution. It suggests the U.S. should have given more attention to Afghanistan after the defeat of the Taliban.)
Glenn Reynolds joins those who want to give full credit to Bush, and point out how wrong the most gloomy predictions were just a few months ago. He wisely does not try to clarify how much has been done by force, and how much by diplomacy; obviously both are necessary, or at least, a meaningful threat of force is necessary along with diplomacy.
Reynolds links to Colin Powell's New Year's Day message in the NYT, which promises initiatives by the Bush Administration to further democracy in Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Powell mentions Cuba specifically. Then he emphasizes relationships with allies, including Russia, India, and China. He mentions recent free trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and the countries of Central America. He says "narco-traffickers and terrorists are on the defensive thanks to strong United States support for a resolute Colombian government". Of course, in connection with Iraq he can't resist mentioning WMDs.
Powell's list of accomplishments and commitments refers more to diplomacy than military offensives. It does not seem the same as a neo-con plan to spread democracy and bring about regime change in entire regions by military interventions. Yet it is breath-takingly bold in its own way.
Powell says: "we are resolved as well to turn the president's goal of a free and democratic Middle East into a reality." This sounds like regime change in Syria and Iran, sooner or later.
(Compare this confidence to what is still apparently the attitude of the British Foreign Office in Iraq: it can be assumed as a given that democracy is impossible, so let's keep working with the minority Sunnis, even Baathists; they expect to be the rulers, so we shouln't annoy them too much.)
Nothing really on Pakistan here except Reynolds' brief reference to new India-Pakistan negotiations.
One strange news item: the U.S. is providing military assistance, as requested (but contrary to the wishes of Russia), to the government of Georgia (south of Russia). Private-sector advisors are being provided, under contract to the Pentagon. Also Bush wrote to Shevardnadze, the former President, for stepping aside rather than resorting to more violence, and urged him to provide advice to the new government.
This provides the U.S. a chance to help fight terrorists, including some that might be associated with Al Qaeda; there is also an opportunity to protect a new oil pipeline. Still, this does seem to be an example of coming to the defence of a new and fragile democracy, to use a phrase of Powell's.
|
