The evidence favoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in July 2015, is before our eyes. It was negotiated between the Iranian government and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China and one other: Germany (P5+1). For much of the time prior to the negotiated interim agreement, the U.S. pursued a highly bellicose policy toward Iran and Iran speeded its development of a nuclear program that could be preparatory to having nuclear weapons capability. That history also makes evident why the rejection of the signed agreement is likely to have extremely grave consequences for the United States. (more…)
Posts Tagged ‘Foreign Policy’
Posted in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Middle East, Peace and War, U.S. foreign policy, tagged De-escalation, Foreign Policy, Hamas, Israel, Israel/Palestine, Middle East, Palestinians, peace, United Nations on August 1, 2014 | Leave a Comment »
By Nimrod Goren
(Originally published on the I24News website, July 27, 2014)
Israel can no longer rely on Egypt to broker between itself and Hamas; a fundamentally new set-up is required.
The list of “wannabee-mediators” between Israel and Hamas is long. Those that have offered assistance in brokering a ceasefire include the UN, the Quartet, the US, the EU, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Turkey, the Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Tunisia, China and Russia.
It was not always like that. In previous rounds of Israel-Hamas violence the overall formula was rather clear. It was the Egyptians, with American backing, that would eventually deliver. In 2012, after operation Pillar of Defense, the Egyptians were even designated as the guarantors of the Israel-Hamas understandings. (more…)
The fallout from the killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad allows for a closer look at US-Pakistani relations, which has been deteriorating for some time. Historically relations between the two have been turbulent and unpredictable, going through periods of exceptional cooperation to sanctions. It appears that the manner in which bin Laden died only exacerbates the already tense relations between the two (the public spat between US Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pakistani General Ashtaq Kayani, Chief of the Army Staff is indicative of the deteriorating relations). Pakistanis are extremely weary of the way the United States conducts towards them, expecting that US aid money ensure Pakistani unquestionable fidelity. US policymakers do not realize that ordinary Pakistanis assert that their leaders, government officials, businessmen may be for sale, but not Pakistan and not them, who have the toil under the corruption that US aid fuels. (more…)
The death of Osama Bin Laden has prompted a myriad of emotions, discussions, and questions among the PARCC bloggers. Gearoid Millar will start the discussion with a piece reflecting on the failure of the field of conflict resolution to shift paradigms and practices. Miriam Elman will follow with thoughts on the future role of Al Qaeda. I am struck by how symbolism and practice have changed from World War II and now, regarding perpetrators of war crimes. For the United States, bringing leaders to trial was a powerful symbol of crime and punishment – and the rule of law- and the model for the new world order. Why has America changed its views? What opportunities have been lost? Isn’t this symbolism now more important than ever?
Bin Laden is Dead: The Legitimization of the Military Option and the Failure of Conflict Resolution
by Gearoid Millar
I write these words on May 2nd 2011, after watching news of the death of Osama Bin Laden on the morning news shows. In those reports I saw images of jubilant crowds outside the White House and in the streets of New York. After almost 10 years of violence, the application of U.S. military force, and the deaths of tens of thousands in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, the symbol of the 911 attacks has been killed, with a bullet to the head. This most violent of state acts, not the final killing of Bin Laden but the use of force throughout the region over the last 10 years, is in many ways being legitimated by this additional act of violence, this final application of force. The jubilation witnessed in these crowds, the feeling of justice, or vindication, or just general euphoria that drives such celebrations, is understandable, but in many ways it is also ominous and disconcerting. It says something about our society’s acceptance of death and ruin as foreign policy practices. This acceptance shows that our reliance on state violence reflects, not only failed diplomacy, but our own social norms and the lack of alternatives to violence. (more…)