Current Topics On:Russa, US and Velezuela

Murder, Moscow-style
21 - 01 - 2009

The killers have no fear because they know they will not be punished. But neither are their victims  afraid, because when you defend others you cease to fear.
On 19 January in the centre of Moscow Anastasia Baburova, a journalist with Novaya gazeta, and the lawyer Stanislav Markelov were shot dead. The killer stood behind them and aimed at the back of the head. He had no reason to fear. Not one such public political assassination has yet led to a trial or conviction.
Stanislav Markelov was an exceptional lawyer.
He took on hopeless and dangerous cases. A Moscow attorney, he was constantly in Chechnya, representing the interests of the victims of extra-judicial punishment and torture. He also dealt with cases elsewhere of those who had been attacked by Russia's fascist groups.
Stanislav defended those who were killed or humiliated by the State. He was a friend to our newspaper and its legal advisor. He was responsible for the civil cases of Anna Politkovskaya, defending those she wrote about. He represented our journalists in court. Stanislav was attorney for the family of Igor Domnikov, an editor with Novaya gazeta who was murdered in 2000, and tried to force the authorities to open criminal proceedings against those who were behind that killing and who remain, to this day, at liberty.
Anastasia Baburova only joined Novaya gazeta in October 2008.
She very much wanted to work for the newspaper and decided to investigate crimes committed by Russia's Nazi groups. She had very little time to do her job.
In essence, Stanislav and Anastasia were simply decent people who could not tolerate what the majority in our country has accepted. That was enough for the lords and masters of Russia to issue their verdict, for those who are allowed to kill in our country.
These were the latest killings of those who did not fit within the present system. A 34-year-old lawyer who defended Chechens against Russia's military, and defended Russia's soldiers from their corrupt commanders. He spoke out against the neo-Nazis who are supported by the regime and defended Russia's anti-fascists whom the regime sends to prison. Markelov defended journalists and rights activists and was himself a defender of human rights. As a consequence in the elite milieu of the capital's attorneys he was regarded as an outsider.
25-year-old Nastya Baburova was also a romantic rebel, an anarchist who took part in the anti-fascist movement and the Dissenters' marches.
It was no accident that she found herself in such company: she quite consciously chose that path in life. In the eyes of the regime and ordinary people, who only want to keep out of trouble and quietly survive the present regime, Nastya's choice also made her an outsider. Therefore few people in our country could die as she did, struggling to apprehend the assassin. In the office in front of which Stas and Nastya were shot people heard gunfire and even understood immediately what had happened. They were afraid to go out, however, or even to glance through the window.
The motive behind Markelov's murder could be found in almost any of his cases. These include that of Budanov. Stanislav Markelov was demanding that new charges be brought against ex-colonel Budanov, just released on parole, for the rape of Elza Kungayeva. The chances of success were quite high since the details of the rape that preceded her 2000 murder by Budanov are recorded in the case materials.
It could well be that the former superiors and accomplices of "Cadet", the policeman Lapin from the remote Khanti-Mansiysk region, were behind Monday's killing. Lapin was eventually sentenced to 11 years imprisonment for the abduction, torture and murder of a Chechen lad Zelimkhan Murdalov. (Stanislav Markelov represented his parents in court.) Lapin's superiors also took part in such abductions and torture sessions. Warrants were issued for their arrest several years ago but, supposedly, no one knows where they are.
The order to kill the lawyer could have come from Chechnya. Markelov with provocative bravery took on cases concerning the secret prisons built in the Kadyrov family's native village of Tsentoria, where Chechens are tortured and killed.
After the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, with whom Stanislav Markelov was closely linked through North Caucasian affairs, we realised that more of our people ─ the newspaper's journalists, lawyers and rights activists ─ could be next. After Anna was killed many people waited for the regime to speak clearly and take decisive action. What we actually heard would have better not been said. On Monday the list of our losses was continued by Markelov and Baburova. It's no surprise. We are not the only ones to pick up the message being sent out by the regime: all the country's fascist trash also understand it very clearly.
It was not by chance that Stanislav and Nastya had been friends for many years (she was only 25!) They were people who had an absolutely clear understanding of good and evil. Such abstractions acquire meaning when people act.
The killers have no fear because they know they will not be punished. But neither are their victims afraid, because when you defend others you cease to fear. Those today who are fearful are the people who keep out of trouble, trying to survive these bad times, when the bad times (for some reason) never seem to end.

(Source:Open Democracy)


************************************************************************************************************


Barack Obama: hope, fear... advice
openDemocracy
A new, young, African-American president opens a fresh political era in the United States and the world. openDemocracy authors offer their thoughts on the prospects.

19 - 01 - 2009


We asked some of our authors around the world to respond to the following:
"About the Barack Obama administration, please tell us:
1 one thing you hope for
2 one thing you fear
3 one piece of advice you would give"

Paul Rogers Conor Gearty Antara Dev Sen

Ehsan Masood Mariano Aguirre Ivan Briscoe
Paul Gilroy Peter Kimani Dejan Djokic
Emily Lau Andrew Stroehlein Michele Wucker
John Hulsman Patrice de Bee Ramin Jahanbegloo
Onyekachi Wambu
Tanya Lokshina Camille Toulmin
Volker Perthes Steven Lukes James Crabtree
Mustafa Akyol Susan George Todd Gitlin
Jim Gabour Arthur Ituassu Sergio Aguayo
Hsin-Huang Michael Hsiao Noriko Hama Carne Ross
Ann Pettifor Michael Edwards Bissane El-Cheikh
 

Paul Rogers, professor, Bradford University
1 That the Barack Obama administration takes immediate and sustained action on climate change
2 That it is unable to break free of past policy on Israel and Afghanistan
3 Play it long, but don't forget you have a much more substantial honeymoon period than is usual - use it.
Ehsan Masood, journalist with Nature, London
1 Visionary leadership, and some fresh thinking - ok, so that's two things
2 A younger man full of idealism, overwhelmed by voices of caution and the scourge of special interests
3 Remember that what is good for the planet as a whole is also good for America.
Paul Gilroy, professor, LSE
1 That Obama will tell the Israeli government to release Marwan Barghouti
2 That the Israeli government will not listen
3 Read up on the history of the British empire's overthrow and collapse so that he can understand why releasing Barghouti might be helpful.
Emily Lau, Hong Kong legislator
1 That President Obama can bring peace to the middle east and the rest of the troubled world by healing the wounds caused by misguided policies. That his administration can introduce policies which will seek to eradicate the deep-seated hatred which has built up over the years, hatred which makes people willing to sacrifice their lives in order to get even. I hope the president can show a more humane and humanitarian face of America, win more friends and make fewer enemies
2 That some people in the United States may not like the new president and do nasty things to him
3. Lead the American people towards adopting a new lifestyle that is more frugal and less wasteful. It is time for Americans to learn the meaning of sustainable development, to stop exploiting limited resources, to remember that tens of millions of people live in abject poverty - and be thankful for what they have got.
John Hulsman, scholar-in-residence, German Council on Foreign Relations
1 Barack Obama's seeming genius in using symbolism suggests that he comprehends his (and his compatriots') place in the overall story of the American experience. Through his using the Lincoln bible for the inauguration, to tracing the great emancipator's steps on his rail journey to Washington, to his trip to Philadelphia to pay his respects to John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, Obama truly seems to know and feel that we Americans are part of this larger, more glorious narrative, and that we must try (and surely we will fall short) to live up to it. This is precisely what President Bush had no feel for, making his descent into constitutional shredding far easier. If one doesn't value America's great example, why should it matter? Obama seems to truly value the American past as a guide for America's future; that is what I hope for
2 Democrats in the United States, and the left in general, are wonderful at grasping the many facets of problems. They have proven less able to separate those policy goals that are essential to grapple with and solve from those that it would merely be nice to deal with; by being fixated on the complexity of things, the left tends to lack judgment about their relative importance. The results are policy laundry-lists that take the place of making genuine choices. Amid the multiple crises confronting the United States, I fear for Obama that his immediate advisors may revert to this dangerous habit
3 Instead of a laundry-list that squanders both your great promise and your current popularity, focus on a very few things. The first (and second, and third) should be the economic crisis - this is why you were elected, and the best immediate way you can help the country and the world. However, you also have a chance to set the parameters for a new era; the time you live in may not be of your choosing, but how it evolves can, to some extent, be determined by your administration. Whatever the foreign- policy issue, whatever the immediate, keep this larger strategic point in mind: you will be the first president to lead America in this new age of multipolarity. Enticing the rising powers to be part of the new order, making them status-quo powers defending efforts at global governance - and not revolutionary powers out to destroy it - is the task history has set you. This broader imperative should always guide you, as you make your way through the day-to-day crises you will have to confront.
Onyekachi Wambu, African Foundation for Development
1 At last, a formal apology for slavery and dispossession of the native Americans - the two original sins of the republic
2 Business as usual
3 Trust your instincts. People like you and believe in your appeal for change. They are also patient - but you should begin to define this change more clearly and deliver on it.
Volker Perthes, director, German Institute for International and Security Affairs
1 That the United States actively and consistently engages in conflict-resolution, starting in the middle east. This would be the real practical translation of Joseph Nye's concept of "smart power", which the new secretary of state has already introduced to the official lexicon of American foreign policy during her testimony in the Senate hearing. If America were to engage in seeking a fair solution for the conflicts between Israel and its neighbours that basically accepts the legitimate interests of all regional parties, this would restore US credibility in the wider Muslim and much of the rest of the world, and make it much more difficult for the ideologues of jihadism to gain support and adherents in the region. Perhaps even more important, such an engagement may offer the last hope to actually implement a two-state solution that would allow Israel and Palestine to live peacefully with - or at least alongside - one another. The blueprints for a peaceful settlement are all there. It needs international - i.e., American-led - even-handedness and firmness to translate them into reality
2 That a Barack Obama administration could be distracted from pursuing its foreign-policy agenda through a combination of factors that already are known and present. Among them are a deepening economic crisis that may spur protectionist tendencies; special domestic interest-groups that would try to subvert a more inclusive and fair US policy in the middle east; and short-sited actions by other international players (Russia, Iran, North Korea or certain non-state actors) that would try to test the strength of the new administration at an early stage, either to embarrass the new administration or to prove to their own and other societies that the US is still the enemy.
3 In order both to achieve the goals set out under the "hope" category and to avoid the risks under the "fear" one, the main advice is from the beginning to seek solutions and pursue global policies in the most inclusive way. That means getting the emerging powers (China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, and - prospectively - even Iran) to address issues of real globality (i.e. issues that do not just affect the entire world but that also cannot be solved without global cooperation) and to rebuild the structures of global governance. Everyone knows that the present composition of global-governance institutions and clubs (the United Nations Security Council, the G8, IMF, World Bank and others) no longer reflects the distribution of real (both hard and soft) power in the world; nor do these institutions and clubs invite those who have gained in the relative power-shifts to take real responsibility.
Mustafa Akyol, journalist, Turkey
1 That President Obama can pave the way for peace in the middle east. It will be a very tough road, especially after Israel's brutal onslaught in Gaza which killed hundreds of children and carved hatred into millions of hearts. To achieve peace, he will need both to find a way - directly or indirectly - to talk to Hamas and convince of the need for a two-state solution; and to impose some sanity and restraint on Israel, whose brutality is seen as "state terrorism" by millions of Muslims in the region.
2 That he will be tamed and co-opted by the Washington establishment. That . "experts" will convince him that "this is the way we do things here, sir." That he will be forced to retreat from some of the revolutionary and much-needed steps he promised or hinted he would take, such as talking to Iran, the Taliban and Hamas. And that, as a result, the world will start to see him only as a lighter version of the George W Bush administration - a new Bush with a smiling face.
3 Mr President, please, please, do not give up your promise for change. You have vowed to follow a policy based on pragmatism, not ideology. Be very much aware that some people will sell their ideology to you in the cloak of pragmatism. Do not forget the suggestions and sentiments of the good people who supported you in your earliest days. Moreover, I know you are a modest and humble man, but let me still remind you of a piece of advice which every Ottoman sultan was publicly given during his inauguration ceremony: "Don't be arrogant, my sultan, God is greater than you."
Jim Gabour, writer, New Orleans
1 I can only hope for intelligence. Plain, down-to-earth intelligence. And not the waterboarding / spy-satellite sort, but rather an ongoing ability to think through ideas and then speak words that are attached to reality and signify deeper understanding. Subject-verb-object is an overt sign, something missing the last eight years, that we are being led by significant thought rather than rampant cowboy hormones
2 I fear the inevitable corruption of a Pure Concept. I can only worship at the altar of what has been accomplished. But I fear what I have seen all too many times: the reality of making things work always sullies that gleaming ideal. It is necessary. It is inevitable. But, while dealing with it, I can only wish it would not happen
3 Truth is not a variable concept. It is a hard-edged, scarred and pitted, bitterly rusty blade that slices in one direction only. Accept that, and live with it.
Roger Scruton, research professor, Institute for the Psychological Sciences
1 That this presidency will lay to rest the myth of America as a "divided" society, in the grip of "white racism"
2 That the great increase in presidential power that could result from the society-wide belief that presidents can change things in fundamental ways
3 Futile as the advice may be - don't go the way of Roosevelt and the New Deal; don't bail out failing financial institutions; don't subsidise failing industries.
Hsin-Huang Michael Hsiao, director, Center for Asia-Pacific Area Studies, Taiwan
1 That President Obama can arrange his policy priorities so that he can act both as the national leader of the United States and a global leader. In domestic terms, that he can stabilise the American economy and reform its problematic financial order, so that the US's economic crisis will be addressed and a world recession averted
2 That President Obama may be too ambitious in attempting to deal with too many demands from all fronts - liberal and conservative, domestic and international; and thus ends up in a situation of too many words of promise and too few actually achievements. In specific terms, that he might be too compromising in dealing with authoritarian regimes in order to remedy the US's past unilateral diplomacy - and that as a result, democracy as a universal value could be sacrificed
3 Uphold and advocate freedom, human rights, justice, and democracy for the global community. One way to do so is for him to formulate a workable, consistent and sensible "democracy-promotion action-plan" in which the US would firmly and consistently support, protect and strengthen all new democracies in the world.
Ann Pettifor, Advocacy International
1 That the United States rejoins the community of nations as a respected peer; no longer acts as a militaristic and intolerant empire; and helps bring peace and stability to the middle east, and justice to the Palestinian people
2 That powerful commercial forces will prevent his administration from providing the American people with a free and universal healthcare system
3 Break with the economics profession's orthodoxies; wipe the slate clean, and then implement Keynesian monetary policies to help the US create debt-free money, or low-interest credit for investment in a localised steady-state economy based on clean technology and millions of green-collar jobs.
Conor Gearty, professor, LSE
1 That the United States returns to the community of states that share the values of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law - not as camouflages for selfish state action but rather as part of a genuine commitment to civilised cooperation
2 That President Obama will not dare to be different, will not seize the moment - and instead retreats into a bland centrism, thus failing to serve the interests of the American people and the people of the world
3 Use the monstrosity of Israel's Gaza war to challenge the Israeli government. For President Obama to say nothing about Gaza will be to give the Israelis a blank cheque - and Obama's cosmopolitanism will lie in shreds. If he is unable to confront Israel directly, a serious commitment by Obama to international law and the United Nations will transform the US's relationship with Israel in the medium-to-long term - for Israel needs to reject international law and the UN in order to act as it currently does.
Mariano Aguirre, director, Norwegian Peacebuilding Centre
1 See 2
2 See 3
3 Pay attention to the poorest of the world. In 2009, the United States's real global role will be acknowledged for the first time. George W Bush's government was a desperate coercive attempt to limit social change and freedoms in the US itself while seeking to torpedo the multilateral system. It was leadership through force. Barack Obama, despite his rhetoric of positive leadership after the disastrous Bush era, is aware of the limitations of a country in such deep crisis and even long-term decline that it can no longer be regarded as the sole global superpower.
China, the European Union, India, Brazil and Russia are already regional powers and some of them are becoming global in scope. Washington, its military might notwithstanding, will find that without close cooperation with others it is increasingly difficult to tackle situations such as insurgency in Afghanistan, violent crisis in Pakistan, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - or international-trade disputes.
President Obama should pay attention to the different forms of violence directly related to poverty and inequality, and to the lack of state institutions. Climate change reduces natural resources needed for survival and intensifies competition. High food prices will create more poverty, and the financial crisis will increase inequality. The interplay of all these factor portends more social and armed conflict.
Barack Obama's administration should remember that greater poverty and inequality - even out of the rich world's sight - is a global problem for everyone. The need for solutions to are urgent. These should start by bringing new and old actors in the multipolar world together to draw up a common plan to protect the poorest against the impact of the crisis, and reformulate the dominant - and failing - models of growth and trade.
(Translated from Spanish by Fionnuala Ni Eigeartaigh)
Peter Kimani, journalist, Kenya
1 There are many in our midst who think that Barack Obama invented the word "hope". And perhaps he did - by demonstrating to millions of Americans that they could dream again - and that everything is possible.
Still, hope is a big word for the millions who have lost, or are about to lose their jobs, and have vested their hopes in him to secure their futures.
Some cynics say the only reason Obama was overwhelmingly elected by whites was to bequeath him the shell that's the American economy.
But that's to miss the point. For him to have won the nomination of a Democratic Party that once supported slavery, and then the endorsement of the whole nation, is a powerful testament to the nation's political evolution.
It is also in its way a tribute to globalisation - and an experiment that should be tried elsewhere, in Europe.
I hope too that Obama's governance will sustain international interest in Kenya, and help bring to book those responsible for organising and funding the mayhem in December 2007, in which 1,300 people were killed.
2 Barack Obama has raised people's expectations to the stratosphere, but has to come down to earth and offer realistic solutions to his country's many challenges
He has also promised to rout out the old Washington ways and set in place more pragmatic, people-sensitive structures to uplift the poor by making the rich pay a little more for their comforts.
But Obama has made a few faltering steps by returning to power several old Washington hands, who might tie his own if not arm-twist him to abandon his reformist agenda.
I fear Obama will soon realise the limitations of his power by reconciling the America that he hopes to create, and the one that has been running since 1776.
Overall, I fear Obama's or Americans' reality-check, when it finally dawns, will break their hearts - even if he doesn't break his promise.
3 That Obama strives to be true to yourself. In election campaigns, politicians say what the electorate want to hear. But in running the affairs of the state, a leader has to be fair to all citizen, especially those that did not vote for him as they're likely to be more critical.
The clearest advice is to avoid senseless wars. Obama also has to be more decisive than his predecessors on Palestine, and recognise that its unresolved crisis has offered militants a useful reference-point to justify their carnage on hapless citizens of the world, wherever they are to be found.
Andrew Stroehlein, International Crisis Group
1 That Barack Obama signs up the United States to the International Criminal Court. It would be one of the best ways to signal a clean break
2 That the US fails to act in the event of renewed mass ethnic or sectarian cleansing in Iraq - as both Obama and Hillary Clinton's deeply worrying comments during the campaign suggested might happen. The idea that American forces would stay on base and/or continue their withdrawal in such circumstances would be a horrific abdication of responsibility
3 Don't wait seven years to start working all-out on a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine. A split Palestine, an Israeli election and the fresh wounds of the Gaza conflict make it seem like the worst possible time to push a peace process. But it's never an ideal time - and the longer the delay, the harder it becomes.
Patrice de Beer, journalist, France
1 That Barack Obama proves able to sustain the very hope he aroused in the United States and in the world - because hope itself (as he seems to understand) can make marvels, win support for controversial measures, and become a driving force for change
2. That this very hope will be exceeded by the expectation he has aroused, including in Europe - for America's interests will remain paramount
3 Remain your own man, follow your own path, stay committed to your goals - even as you (as you must) listen to others and remain open to ideas, including the bold or unconventional. Don't be diverted by day-to-day politics, opinion-polls, electioneering. Never forget, after all, that FD Roosevelt was re-elected in 1936 more because he kept to his strategy despite its slow impact than because he sought public favour.
Tanya Lokshina, Russia researcher, Human Rights Watch
1. That the Barack Obama administration improves the United States's human-rights record, thus enabling the country to regain leverage in international affairs
2. That the the strains in the US-Russia relationship will continue, making it more difficult to constructively raise human rights at a bilateral level
3. Develop with the European Union a common approach on human rights in Russia - and ensure that it is a robust approach.
Steven Lukes, professor, New York University
1. The current financial crisis and economic recession and forthcoming depression are just the latest manifestations of Barack Obama's luck, for they afford him, at least initially, extraordinary latitude to pursue a transformative political agenda. Part of that agenda is already declared to be green and part is egalitarian, notably with respect to healthcare and educational provision. My hope is that he will push further in a social-democratic direction (to which the United States has hitherto been so inhospitable), extending public provision of public goods and changing the American meaning of "welfare" from negative to positive
2. On the campaign trail, Obama became ever more committed to sending large numbers of troops into Afghanistan. The question is whether this was shrewd campaign rhetoric or a sincere declaration of future strategy. My biggest fear is that it might be the latter. This bodes major disaster, in the light of all we know about Afghan politics and the history of interventions in that country. What I fear is that Obama and his secretary of state may see Afghanistan as the next arena within which to continue pursuing the war against terror
3. My advice - unnecessary, it seems - is not to ignore but to discount the political advice of intellectuals, certainly to treat their political judgments with appropriate scepticism. He shows every sign of taking advice from many quarters, including community organisers, and indeed encouraging conflicting viewpoints, while taking expert advice (e.g. on climate change and on scientific questions), on the basis of data and professional competence. My advice is: encourage intellectuals in their various pursuits but treat their political opinions as having no special weight.
Tarek Osman, writer, Egypt
1 That in an era of great changes and pressures in the world, Barack Obama will have the right combination of good judgment and steadfastness to steer a course for the United States that is energetic and ambitious but not aggressive or antagonistic
2 That despite his calm demeanour, wise performance, and conspicuous intelligence, Obama could yield to the increasingly apparent "wounded lion" impulse in US politics
3 Be yourself. Remember that the millions of Americans who voted for you, and the hundreds of millions all over the world who cheer your arrival in the White House, look to you with admiration and high expectations - not to the machinations of Washington.
Susan George, writer, France
1 For us all, an end to military adventurism; for Americans, to join the civilised world by ensuring universal healthcare
2 Larry Summers and all his works; in general the Clinton retreads in positions of influence
3 Put all your chips on massive conversion to an ecological economy: quality jobs and infrastructure will be the by-products.
Arthur Ituassu, Pontifícia Universidade Católica, Rio de Janeiro
1 Barack Obama's arrival in the White House reflects the exhaustion and failure of a long conservative-nationalist current in the United States, and the emergence of a potential political realignment which could shape a new, liberal political framework of national and international harmony. I hope for the success of this project
2 The project's failure could create great dangers, such as a vacuum of power and ideas in the United States that could be filled by extremism and violence. In that event, the scenario might resemble Paul Kennedy's vision of a great power struggling hard against its own decline. The US is a political machine of ideas; without them the country perishes
3 The project I have outlined will require strong doses of political creativity and open-mindedness. History offers only some hints here: the unprecedented challenges that lie ahead make necessary - most of all, it might be said - a new political language. In the face of international terrorism, globalisation, disease, inequality, environmental problems and economic crisis - how can politics be an instrument for a political community to live in peace, freedom, and solidarity?
Noriko Hama, Doshisha Business School, Japan
1 That with the coming of Barack Obama, America will finally enter the 21st century and begin to realise that - despite what Thomas Friedman says - the world is in fact round. There are actually people living out there beyond America's immediate horizons
2 That the coming of Obama makes America regain confidence in the wrong way. People suffering from self-disillusionment can be quite perceptive
3 That Obama remains true to his acceptance-speech declaration that he would be "always honest with you". Honesty is always the best policy.
Michael Edwards, Demos, New York

1 Clean, open, positive and powerful government in the public interest
2 Too much calculation of the potential damage that might be done to cross-party cooperation by strong action on key but contested issues like Israel-Palestine, gay rights and corporate regulation
3 Remember the real meaning of Martin Luther King's "beloved community" - the complete transformation of society and its structures - not the anaemic version of "more volunteering and community service".
Antara Dev Sen, The Little Magazine, Delhi
1 That ethics would play as great a role as self-interest in Barack Obama's foreign policy, and that he would focus on ushering in peace in the middle east and south Asia
2 That in troubled south Asia he would make matters worse for India by trying to "solve" the Kashmir problem while indulging Pakistan to wean it away from the partnership of terror it has with Afghanistan
3 For global security the United States would need to address deeper issues than just the frontline of terror in Pakistan and Afghanistan. A real - even if gradual - change in foreign policy is necessary. Also, do recognise that "solving" the Kashmir dispute will not end Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. It would be great to see from the Yes We Can Man a genuine, principled attempt to normalise relations with Iran, be constructively even-handed in the middle east and help make Pakistan and Afghanistan accountable, responsible democracies.
Ivan Briscoe, Fundacion para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Dialogo Exterior, Madrid
1 That a full and free public-health system is created that will include all 50 million uninsured Americans, and illegal immigrants too. Treating all citizens as equal bearers of the right to exist is a more potent and deeper reform to foreign policy than any shuffle in the state department
2 That a Blackberry-crazed president, in the middle of an unceasing flow of business-closures and bank-collapses, with 100,000 troops camped around the Khyber pass and a Mexican narco strike-force in charge of Arizona, decides that it is time to keep everyone happy by printing lots of dollars
3 Every shift in paradigm (from the war on terror, "read my lips" tax policy, the war on drugs, or carefree support for Israel), before it is greeted as inevitable, will be treated as despicable. In short: the best speech to a lobby banquet is the one followed by a long silence.
Dejan Djokic, Goldsmiths College, London
1 That, following years of disastrous attempts to dominate the world, the US under President Obama does not head towards a "splendid isolation"
2 That it does. But, in today's world of climate change, credit-crunch, the middle-east conflict, the gas crisis, and political tensions throughout the world - I fear more than one thing
3 Throw away your Democratic predecessor's reading-list on the Balkans (and your immediate predecessor's, presuming he had one). I'd be happy to supply a new one!
Michele Wucker, World Policy Institute
1 That President Obama will usher in a new era of United States leadership that recognises and empowers other nations as stakeholders in the common pursuit of solutions to shared global challenges
2 That high expectations will overwhelm the need for patience, persistence and forbearance
3 Keep long-term goals in sight, while finding approaches to immediate and urgent problems that can strengthen the likelihood of successful global collaboration being able to surmount future challenges in our interdependent world.
Ramin Jahanbegloo, University of Toronto
1 Perhaps never in the past thirty years have the hopes of so many people for positive change in international relations rested on one administration or even one person as they do on Barack Obama. My hopes are for a kind of political leadership that would overcome intolerances, prejudices and inequalities around the world, and help all nations to struggle and to preserve ideals of democracy and peace. The results will include peace in the middle east; the effective closedown of the Guantánamo detention facility; an overall economic recovery; and a new image of America in the world
2 That the huge expectations invested in Obama by African-Americans and many marginalised members of American society, who see him as a new Martin Luther King Jr, will lead to bitter disappointment. But my greatest fear is that he might lack that historical feel which world leadership, to be persuasive and bring non-violent reforms, absolutely requires
3 If the Obama administration wants to address concretely the problems of the middle east, it has no other choice but to engage adequately and non-violently in a constructive dialogue with Iran, Syria and the Palestinians; remove troops from Iraq and Afghanistan; and try to overcome the real obstacles in the path toward peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Thus if I were an advisor to President Obama, I would suggest to him to be and to act as a man of dialogue with an open mind and a spirit of tolerance.
Camilla Toulmin, International Institute for Environment & Development
1 See 2
2 See 3
3 Be clear. Please use your powerful skills to communicate ideas, values, and beliefs to help people understand that we can change ourselves and the world.
Be bold. Deeds speak louder than words. Europe's current leaders are strong on declamatory power but weak on action. But they'll follow a strong lead from you - so show them what can be done.
Be a listener. Most of all to James Hansen, the Nasa scientist and climate expert who understands that climate change is the big one. An agreement on an ambitious, robust and fair global deal in 2009 has to be the top priority. This is not just an "environmental" priority - it is vital to our very survival. We must have a sustainable, healthy ecosystem if we are to support the banks and businesses that help produce our daily bread. There is no bailout for the planet!
James Crabtree, Prospect
1  That his eight years in office are competent, sometimes inspiring, uncorrupted, and brave; that in this case, all political careers don't end in failure
2 The arc of most progressive leaders is a lesson in how quickly these moments of hope can be lost. To expect Barack Obama to continue the pattern is simply reasonable - either because he himself fails, or because he is torn down. The number-one job of the political right now is to make Obama a "normal" politician - in the pit, as grubby as the rest. They will surely succeed, though what is key is the extent to which Obama can in the process preserve what is original about him
3 Get some rest.
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
1 That there is tough-minded intervention in the middle east, heading toward a regional deal (not a West Bank one strictly) policed by many countries and/or agencies, including two states in Israel/Palestine and the shut-down of the West Bank colonisation. (You didn't ask what I expect, only what I hope)
2 That Obama's caution instinct will outrun his transformative instinct
3 Use your vast mobilisation network, the millions who worked for you in the campaign, to lean on waffling Democrats and would-be centrist Republicans (those that remain).
Sergio Aguayo, Colegio de Mexico
1 That one of the sources of Barack Obama's appeal becomes a norm: that a man of his background has been able to symbolise the spirit of rationalism, which since the French revolution is the main legitimator of public life. He is so well regarded in Mexico in part because he reminds people of Benito Juárez, the (Zapotec) Indian president who resisted the French invasion of Mexico in the 19th century
2 What is at stake is the impact that individuals can have in history. Will Obama tame the powers that be, or will he be defeated like so many others? That is the question that is haunting the world
3 Never forget the slums of Chicago.
Carne Ross, Independent Diplomat
1  That the United States pays more heed to local realities, and less to abstractions whether neo-conservative or liberal
2 That neocon blinkers will be replaced by liberal ones
3 Do the right thing in Western Sahara, forgotten till today and where only the US can make a difference: by at last pressuring Morocco to allow self-determination and free the Saharawi people.
 
Bissane El-Cheikh, journalist, Lebanon
1 I hope that President Obama would implement in acts and deeds his promise of change. I hope that he and his administration would show enough wisdom to admit that this dream/promise means, in my part of the world, investing more in peace rather than war; and that it can only be achieved through a fair and viable solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
2 I fear the new young and dynamic president might drift apart from his dream, and become another "Washingtonian" carried away by the rules of the establishment
3 My advice for you, Mr President, is: do not make Israel your exclusive friend in the region. You can win hearts and minds by showing more pragmatism, fairness and equality in your foreign policy. You can be Israel's ally, but don't be its advocate. The rest of us have dreams too...

***************************************************************************************************************

The United States and Iran: a new course

openDemocracy
The relationship between Washington and Tehran is one of the most difficult and dangerous in world politics. But better understanding offers an opportunity for progress, suggests a group of twenty-one leading scholars, experts and diplomats - both American and Iranian - with years of experience studying and dealing with Iran. They propose a five-step strategy for a new US policy towards Iran, and expose eight misconceptions that are an obstacle to improved relations between the two states. 
24 - 11 - 2008


The joint experts' statement on Iran
Despite recent glimmers of diplomacy, the United States and Iran remain locked in a cycle of threats and defiance that destabilises the middle east and weakens US national security.
Today, Iran and the United States are unable to coordinate campaigns against the Taliban and al-Qaida, their common enemies. Iran is either withholding help or acting to thwart US interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza. Within Iran, a looming sense of external threat has empowered hardliners and given them both motive and pretext to curb civil liberties and further restrict democracy. On the nuclear front, Iran continues to enrich uranium in spite of binding UN resolutions, backed by economic sanctions, calling for it to suspend enrichment.This statement was published on 18 November 2008 under the auspices of the American Foreign Policy Project, in association with the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), 3D Security Initiative, and Just Foreign Policy, at a meeting hosted by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC)

The statement, including full details of the signatories, plus acknowledgments and a disclaimer, is here
US efforts to manage Iran through isolation, threats and sanctions have been tried intermittently for more than two decades. In that time they have not solved any major problem in US-Iran relations, and have made most of them worse. Faced with the manifest failure of past efforts to isolate or economically coerce Iran, some now advocate escalation of sanctions or even military attack. But dispassionate analysis shows that an attack would almost certainly backfire, wasting lives, fomenting extremism and damaging the long-term security interests of both the US and Israel. And long experience has shown that prospects for successfully coercing Iran through achievable economic sanctions are remote at best.
Fortunately, we are not forced to choose between a coercive strategy that has clearly failed and a military option that has very little chance of success. There is another way, one far more likely to succeed: open the door to direct, unconditional and comprehensive negotiations at the senior diplomatic level where personal contacts can be developed, intentions tested, and possibilities explored on both sides. Adopt policies to facilitate unofficial contacts between scholars, professionals, religious leaders, lawmakers and ordinary citizens. Paradoxical as it may seem amid all the heated media rhetoric, sustained engagement is far more likely to strengthen United States national security at this stage than either escalation to war or continued efforts to threaten, intimidate or coerce Iran.
Here are five key steps the United States should take to implement an effective diplomatic strategy with Iran:
1. Replace calls for regime change with a long-term strategy
Threats are not cowing Iran and the current regime in Tehran is not in imminent peril. But few leaders will negotiate in good faith with a government they think is trying to subvert them, and that perception may well be the single greatest barrier under US control to meaningful dialogue with Iran. The United States needs to stop the provocations and take a long-term view with this regime, as it did with the Soviet Union and China. We might begin by facilitating broad-ranging people-to-people contacts, opening a US interest section in Tehran, and promoting cultural exchanges.
2. Support human rights through effective, international means
While the United States is rightly concerned with Iran's worsening record of human-rights violations, the best way to address that concern is through supporting recognized international efforts. Iranian human-rights and democracy advocates confirm that American political interference masquerading as "democracy promotion" is harming, not helping, the cause of democracy in Iran.
3. Allow Iran a place at the table - alongside other key states - in shaping the future of Iraq, Afghanistan and the region
This was the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group with regard to Iraq. It may be counter-intuitive in today's political climate - but it is sound policy. Iran has a long-term interest in the stability of its neighbours. Moreover, the United States and Iran support the same government in Iraq and face common enemies (the Taliban and al-Qaida) in Afghanistan. Iran has shown it can be a valuable ally when included as a partner, and a troublesome thorn when not. Offering Iran a place at the table cannot assure cooperation, but it will greatly increase the likelihood of cooperation by giving Iran something it highly values that it can lose by non-cooperation. The United States might start by appointing a special envoy with broad authority to deal comprehensively and constructively with Iran (as opposed to trading accusations) and explore its willingness to work with the United States on issues of common concern.openDemocracy's many articles on Iran's politics and foreign relations include:

Ardashir Tehrani, "Iran's presidential coup" (27 June 2005)

Trita Parsi, "The Iran-Israel cold war" (28 October 2005)
Dariush Zahedi & Omid Memarian, "Ahmadinejad, Iran and America" (15 January 2007)

Kamin Mohammadi, "Voices from Tehran" (31 January 2007)

Fred Halliday, "The matter with Iran" (1 March 2007)

Anoush Ehteshami, "Iran and the United States: back from the brink" (16 March 2007)

Nazenin Ansari, "Tehran's new political dynamic" (16 April 2007)

Nasrin Alavi, "Axis of Evil vs Great Satan: wrestling to normality" (2 May 2007)

Rasool Nafisi, "Iran's cultural prison" (17 May 2007)

Nasrin Alavi, "Iran's circle of power" (23 October 2007)

Omid Memarian, "Iran: prepared for the worst" (30 October 2007)

Jan De Pauw, "Iran, the United States and Europe: the nuclear complex" (5 December 2007)

Nasrin Alavi, "Iran's new order" (28 January 2008)
Paul Rogers, "Israel, US and Iran: the tipping-point" (13 March 2008)

Sanam Vakil, "Iran's political shadow war" (16 July 2008)

Paul Rogers, "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war" (24 July 2008)

Nasrin Alavi, "Iranians' interrupted freedom" (29 September 2008)
4. Address the nuclear issue within the context of a broader US-Iran opening
Nothing is gained by imposing peremptory preconditions on dialogue. The United States should take an active leadership role in ongoing multilateral talks to resolve the nuclear impasse in the context of wide-ranging dialogue with Iran. Negotiators should give the nuclear talks a reasonable deadline, and retain the threat of tougher sanctions if negotiations fail. They should also, however, offer the credible prospect of security assurances and specific, tangible benefits such as the easing of US sanctions in response to positive policy shifts in Iran. Active US involvement may not cure all, but it certainly will change the equation, particularly if it is part of a broader opening.
5. Re-energise the Arab-Israeli peace process and act as an honest broker in that process
Israel's security lies in making peace with its neighbours. Any US moves towards mediating the Arab-Israeli crisis in a balanced way would ease tensions in the region, and would be positively received as a step forward for peace. As a practical matter, however, experience has shown that any long-term solution to Israel's problems with the Palestinians and Lebanon probably will require dealing, directly or indirectly, with Hamas and Hizbollah. Iran supports these organisations, and thus has influence with them. If properly managed, a US rapprochement with Iran, even an opening of talks, could help in dealing with Arab-Israeli issues, benefiting Israel as well as its neighbours.
Conclusion
Long-standing diplomatic practice makes clear that talking directly to a foreign government in no way signals approval of the government, its policies or its actions. Indeed, there are numerous instances in our history when clear-eyed US diplomacy with regimes we deemed objectionable - e.g., Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Libya and Iran itself (cooperating in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban after 9/11) - produced positive results in difficult situations.
After many years of mutual hostility, no one should expect that engaging Iran will be easy. It may prove impossible. But past policies have not worked, and what has been largely missing from US policy for most of the past three decades is a sustained commitment to real diplomacy with Iran. The time has come to see what true diplomacy can accomplish.
Read the list of experts
Annex: eight myths about Iran
United States policies towards Iran have failed to achieve their objectives. A key reason for their failure is that they are rooted in fundamental misconceptions about Iran. This annex addresses eight key misconceptions that have driven US policy in the wrong direction.
Myth # 1. President Ahmadinejad calls the shots on nuclear and foreign policy
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has grabbed the world's attention with his inflammatory and sometimes offensive statements. But he does not call the shots on Iran's nuclear and foreign policy. The ultimate decision-maker is the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the commander-in-chief of Iran's forces. Despite his frequently hostile rhetoric aimed at Israel and the west, Khamenei's track record reveals a cautious decision-maker who acts after consulting advisors holding a range of views, including views sharply critical of Ahmadinejad. That said, it is clear that US policies and rhetoric have bolstered hard-liners in Iran, just as Ahmadinejad's confrontational rhetoric has bolstered hardliners here.
Myth # 2. The political system of the Islamic Republic is frail and ripe for regime change
In fact, there is currently no significant support within Iran for extra-constitutional regime-change. Yes, there is popular dissatisfaction, but Iranians also recall the aftermath of their own revolution in 1979: lawlessness, mass executions, and the emigration of over half a million people, followed by a costly war. They have seen the outcome of US-sponsored regime-change in Afghanistan and in Iraq. They want no part of it. Regime-change may come to Iran, but it would be folly to bet on it happening soon.
Myth # 3. The Iranian leadership's religious beliefs render them undeterrable
The recent history of Iran makes crystal clear that national self-preservation and regional influence - not some quest for martyrdom in the service of Islam - is Iran's main foreign policy goal. For example:
· In the 1990s, Iran chose a closer relationship with Russia over support for rebellious Chechen Muslims
· Iran actively supported and helped to finance the US invasion of Afghanistan
· Iran has ceased its efforts to export the Islamic revolution to other Persian Gulf states, in favor of developing good relations with the governments of those states
· During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), Iran took the pragmatic step of developing secret ties and trading arms with Israel, even as Iran and Israel denounced each other in public.
Myth # 4. Iran's current leadership is implacably opposed to the United States
Iran will not accept preconditions for dialogue with the United States, any more than the United States would accept preconditions for talking to Iran. But Iran is clearly open to broad-ranging dialogue with the United States. In fact, it has made multiple peace overtures that the United States has rebuffed. Right after 9/11, Iran worked with the United States to get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, including paying for the Afghan troops serving under U.S. command. Iran helped establish the US-backed government and then contributed more than $750 million to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Iran expressed interest in a broader dialogue in 2002 and 2003. Instead, it was labeled part of an "axis of evil".
In 2005, reform-minded President Mohammad Khatami was replaced by the hardliner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But the same supreme leader who authorised earlier overtures is still in office today and he acknowledged, as recently as January 2008, that "the day that relations with America prove beneficial for the Iranian nation, I will be the first one to approve of that." All this does not prove that Iran will bargain in good faith with us. But it does disprove the claim that we know for sure they will not.
Myth # 5. Iran has declared its intention to attack Israel in order to "wipe Israel off the map."
This claim is based largely on a speech by President Ahmadinejad on 26 October 2005, quoting a remark by Ayatollah Khomeini made decades ago: "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be wiped off/eliminated from the pages of history/our times." Both before and since, Ahmadinejad has made numerous other, offensive, insulting and threatening remarks about Israel and other nations - most notably his indefensible denial of the holocaust.
However, he has been criticised within Iran for these remarks. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself has "clarified" that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country" and specifically that Iran will not attack Israel unless Iran is attacked first. Ahmadinejad also has made clear, or been forced to clarify, that he was referring to regime change through demographics (giving the Palestinians a vote in a unitary state), not war.
What we know is that Ahmadinejad's recent statements do not appear to have materially altered Iran's long-standing policy - which, for decades, has been to deny the legitimacy of Israel; to arm and aid groups opposing Israel in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank; but also, to promise to accept any deal with Israel that the Palestinians accept.
Myth # 6. US-sponsored "democracy promotion" can help bring about true democracy in Iran
Instead of fostering democratic elements inside Iran, US-backed "democracy promotion" has provided an excuse to stifle them. That is why champions of human rights and democracy in Iran agree with the dissident who said: "The best thing the Americans can do for democracy in Iran is not to support it."
Myth # 7. Iran is clearly and firmly committed to developing nuclear weapons
If Iraq teaches anything, it is the need to be both rigorous and honest when confronted with ambiguous evidence about WMDs. Yet once again we find proponents of conflict over-stating their case, this time by claiming that Iran has declared an intention to acquire nuclear weapons. In fact, Iranian leaders have consistently denied any such intention and even said that such weapons are "against Islam".
The issue is not what Iran is saying, but what it is doing, and here the facts are murky. We know that Iran is openly enriching uranium and learning to do it more efficiently, but claims this is only for peaceful use. There are detailed but disputed allegations that Iran secretly worked on nuclear weapons design before Ahmadinejad came to power, concerns that such work continues, and certainty that Iran is not cooperating fully with efforts to resolve the allegations. We also know that Iran has said it will negotiate on its enrichment program - without preconditions - and submit to intrusive inspections as part of a final deal. Past negotiations between Iran and a group of three European countries plus China and Russia have not gone anywhere, but the United States, Iran's chief nemesis, has not been active in those talks.
The facts viewed as a whole give cause for deep concern, but they are not unambiguous and in fact support a variety of interpretations: that Iran views enrichment chiefly as a source of national pride (akin to our moon-landing); that Iran is advancing towards weapons capability but sees this as a bargaining-chip to use in broader negotiations with the United States; that Iran is intent on achieving the capability to build a weapon on short notice as a deterrent to feared US or Israeli attack; or that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons to support aggressive goals. The only effective way to illuminate - and constructively alter - Iran's intentions is through skilful and careful diplomacy. History shows that sanctions alone are unlikely to succeed, and a strategy limited to escalating threats or attacking Iran is likely to backfire - creating or hardening a resolve to acquire nuclear weapons while inciting a backlash against us throughout the region.
Myth # 8. Iran and the United States have no basis for dialogue
Those who favoured refusing Iran's offers of dialogue in 2002 and 2003 - when they thought the US position so strong there was no need to talk - now assert that our position is so weak we cannot afford to talk. Wrong in both cases. Iran is eager for an end to sanctions and isolation, and needs access to world-class technology to bring new supplies of oil and gas online. Both countries share an interest in stabilising Iraq and Afghanistan, which border Iran. Both support the Nouri al-Maliki government in Iraq, and face common enemies (the Taliban and al-Qaida) in Afghanistan. Both countries share the goal of combating narco-trafficking in the region. These opportunities exist, and the two governments have pursued them very occasionally in the past, but they have mostly been obscured in the belligerent rhetoric from both sides.
The experts (for full details, click here):
Ali Banuazizi (professor of political science and director, Islamic Civilisation and Societies Program, Boston College)
Mehrzad Boroujerdi (associate professor of political science at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs; founding director of the Middle Eastern Studies Program)
Juan RI Cole (professor of history at the University of Michigan)
James F Dobbins (former special envoy for Afghanistan and representative to the Afghan opposition in the wake of 11 September 2001)
Rola el-Husseini (assistant professor, the Bush school of government and public service, Texas A&M University)
Farideh Farhi (independent researcher and affiliate graduate faculty at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa)
Geoffrey E Forden (research associate in MIT's program on science, technology and society)
Hadi Ghaemi (coordinator, International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran)
Philip Giraldi (former CIA counter-terrorism specialist)
Farhad Kazemi (professor of politics and middle-eastern studies at New York University)
Stephen Kinzer (author and foreign correspondent)
William G Miller (senior fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars)
Emile A Nakhleh (retired senior intelligence service officer and director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program in the directorate of intelligence at the CIA)
Augustus Richard Norton (professor of international relations and anthropology at Boston University)
Richard Parker (founder and executive director, American Foreign Policy Project; professor, University of Connecticut school of law)
Trita Parsi (author; president, National Iranian-American Council)
Thomas Pickering (vice-chairman, Hills & Company; former US ambassador to the UN, Russia, Israel and other nations)
Barnett R Rubin (director of studies and senior fellow at the Center on International Cooperation of New York University; former special advisor to the UN special representative of the secretary-general for Afghanistan)
Gary G Sick (senior research scholar at Columbia University SIPA's Middle East Institute; adjunct professor of international affairs at SIPA)
John Tirman (executive director & principal research scientist, Center for International Studies, MIT)
James Walsh (research associate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

(Open Democracy)