President Obama is visiting Kenya this week. This is his first trip to his father’s country of birth since becoming president, and people in Kenya are certainly treating it like a homecoming.

Here with me to discuss the symbolic and political relevance of this historic trip is Wycliffe Muga, the Weekend Editor of the Star Newspaper in Kenya.

Wycliffe and I have a rather lively conversation about what this trip means to ordinary Kenyans, what impact it might have on the Presidency of Uhuru Kenyatta (who recently had war crimes charges against him dropped by the International Criminal Court) and why Obama may let down some distant relatives from his father’s family village.

This is a great curtain raiser to his trip and a great discussion about US-Africa relations. Muga argues that Obama is falling short of his two predecessors in designing big, game changing African development programs.

Get the app. Subscribe in iTunes or Stitcher to listen later

The post Kenyans are Elated to Welcome President Obama. But There’s Some Big Disappointment, Too appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Barack Obama just left Ethiopia, the last leg of his high-profile visit to the African continent, the last of his four official trips to Africa. After spending some time in Kenya, President Obama traveled for two days of events in Ethiopia, where he met with Ethiopian and other leaders, and, most notably, gave the first ever address by a sitting U.S. president to the African Union. While his visit to Kenya elicited a lot of local interest – partly, of course, due to the fact that he shares ancestry with the people of Kenya –  his visit to Ethiopia generated less frenzy, though his remarks during the African Union speech were discussed around the world. Here, we unpack some of the key themes of his message to African leaders.

Repositioning the U.S. as a better partner for Africa than China

President Obama addressed the African Union from the headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa, a $200 million building inaugurated in 2012 – and fully funded, right down to the office furniture, by China. He spoke at length about the need for opportunity creation in Africa, and for growth sustained by economic development, touting the U.S. as the kind of partner that will help build capacity and support African goals. Further, in a more or less direct jab at China, Obama said that countries which invest in Africa should do so in the spirit of real economic partnership. “Economic relationships can’t simply be about building countries’ infrastructure with foreign labor or extracting Africa’s natural resources,” Obama told the African Union. China has been hungry for African resources, and has made billions of dollars of investments and loans to African countries, in a bid to secure said resources necessary to fuel China’s own booming growth and population.

Meanwhile, the U.S. presence – particularly economic – in Africa is nowhere near as mighty as that of China. Its primary trade partners in Africa are South Africa, Angola and Nigeria, and most of that trade centers around energy. If the U.S. is to foster a “real economic partnership” with Africa, the challenge, in the coming years and decades, will be to broaden economic ties with more countries and more industries, and not only treat the continent as a dumping ground for U.S. exports. The recent 10-year renewal of AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act), which gives African nations duty-free access to U.S. markets for certain goods, is a necessary step forward, however, much remains to be done to ensure that Africans can benefit from a more robust economic relationship with the United States.

Ethiopia, the “Fledgling Democracy?”

Obama drew heavy criticism for describing Ethiopia’s government as “democratically elected” – even though the most recent elections saw the ruling party win 500 of the 547 parliamentary seats, and took place in a climate of intimidation and fear, with no observers – other than those of the African Union – allowed in the country. Furthermore, in the context of the fight against terrorism and extremism, Ethiopia has also been tightening laws surrounding freedom of speech. Ethiopia is the 4th largest jailer of journalists in the world, and, despite the release of some of the bloggers detained since April 2014 mere days before President Obama’s visit, the fact remains that Ethiopia is not a shining example of democracy in Africa, something which even Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn acknowledged, somewhat, describing Ethiopia as a “fledgling” democracy, emerging from “centuries of undemocratic practices.”

And while this may be true, it is unfortunate that countries allied with the U.S. in the fight against terrorism seem to get a free pass when it comes to undermining political and civil rights, when this is justified in the context of the “war on terror.” Particularly as the U.S. itself struggles to balance liberty and security, it is not in a strong position to criticize its African allies when they do the same.

During his remarks, Obama tread very carefully, and spoke generally of the need for African nations to “fully protect the rights of their people,” even praising the Ethiopian prime minister for acknowledging that his country has a long way to go as far as democracy is concerned. African allies to the United States know that their security partnerships and arrangements are more important to their American counterparts than a commitment to democracy, and particularly as China – whose presence on the continent is increasingly stronger – has absolutely no qualms regarding the state of political and civil rights in Africa, the U.S. is not in a strong position to push for further democratization.

President for Life

Obama drew applause – and laughter – from the audience when he used his own experience to talk about the need for heads of state to step down at the end of their legal mandate.

It has been an extraordinary privilege for me to serve as President of the United States.  I cannot imagine a greater honor or a more interesting job.  I love my work.  But under our Constitution, I cannot run again.  I can’t run again.  I actually think I’m a pretty good President — I think if I ran I could win.  But I can’t. So there’s a lot that I’d like to do to keep America moving, but the law is the law. And no one person is above the law.  Not even the President.  And I’ll be honest with you — I’m looking forward to life after being President. I won’t have such a big security detail all the time.  It means I can go take a walk.  I can spend time with my family.  I can find other ways to serve.  I can visit Africa more often.   The point is, I don’t understand why people want to stay so long.   Especially when they’ve got a lot of money.

Obama even directly mentioned Burundi, which just held a very dubious presidential election where President Nkurunziza won his bid to stay in office for a third mandate, despite constitutional term limits. While elections do not a democracy make, the right to vote in a private, independent manner, in elections that are free and fair, and provide people with choice, is absolutely essential to a healthy democracy. Obama tried to speak to this issue in a personal way, attempting to steer clear from a more moralizing approach about the need for strong institutions, rather than strong men (which was Obama’s message in 2009, during his first visit as President to the continent).

Indeed, as African nations are grappling with their responsibility to support democracy, through free and fair elections, but also through the expansion – not the restriction – of human, political and civil rights, economic and security imperatives have a tendency to trump these issues. As the U.S. seeks to become a better partner for Africa, it must examine how it weighs the need for democracy with the need to fight terrorism in the region. Shying away from a strong stance on civil and political rights is a mistake, and will not serve the best interests of Americans in the long run.

The post Unpacking Obama’s Message to the African Union appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Obama addressed the closing session of the Summit to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the United Nations this afternoon, making a passionate plea for the world to come together and work to achieve the ambitious agenda of the newly-created Sustainable Development Goals, a blueprint meant to guide global development efforts over the next 15 years. UN Dispatch breaks down the main themes of his speech before the United Nations

“Development Works”

The tone of President Obama’s message was generally positive and optimistic. He referred to the great advances made in the past 15 years on meeting key development targets: slashing maternal mortality and global hunger rates, improving access to education for children, and the general decline of poverty. “More than one billion people have lifted themselves out of poverty,” the President said, “ the entire world can take pride in those achievements.”  “Let the skeptics and cynics take note—development works.”

But, he warned, “We understand our work is nowhere near done. We can take pride in what we have accomplished, but we cannot be complacent.” He asked that the world take into account the “lessons that we have learned, so that we can dramatically improve outcomes,” and said “We know how it works, we know how to do this.”

Dispelling the notion that development does not work, or is not effective, is a key area for leaders to actively engage in. Indeed, without the belief that development DOES work, that the world can come together to ensure that the basic needs of every human being on Earth are met, is essential for the long term success of the SDG agenda. Belief that investments in sustainable development can yield a return – human, social, financial – is fundamentally important for a robust, global commitment to translate into effective action.

Threats to Success

“Perhaps because it’s my seventh year speaking to the UNGA, I become more likely to speak my mind,” Obama said, “We will never achieve our goals if we don’t address the insidious threats to people’s lives. If we don’t take care of some other elements of development, we can’t meet [the SDG} goals.”

So what are the threats to sustainable development?

Bad governance

President Obama adopted a stern tone when talking about the importance of having governments and institutions be accountable to the people they are supposed to represent. He mentioned specifically the importance of addressing illegal, illicit financial flows which benefit the few at the expense of the many. “Governments have to embrace transparency and the rule of law,” Obama said, making it clear that he believes that sustainable development goals cannot be achieved in places where leaders and institutions deliver justice to some and not all.

Inequality

“Every country has to grapple with this issue – even here in the United States,” Obama said, adding that while “the most powerful would like to keep things as they are, when poor children are more likely to be sick and die than children across town[… ] that holds all of us back.”

Old attitudes

Obama, husband and father to three strong women, made it clear that he believes denying rights and opportunity to women will delay the realization of the SDGs. He challenged the global community to not accept “tradition” as an “excuse” for the discriminatory treatment of women. “I don’t have patience for “we have our own way of doing things,”” Obama said, “I understand, we understand, that there is a long tradition in every society of discriminating against women, but that’s not an excuse for not taking a new path to ensure that everyone in society has opportunity.”

Lack of attention on Africa

“What I saw on a recent trip [to Africa] gave me hope” Obama said. Indeed, Africa is one of the fastest growing regions in the world, and with a growing population, so do the expectations for increased opportunity and growth and improved livelihoods. “Young Africans want business, trade not aid,”said Obama, and he called on the global community to join the United States in investing in Africa to help it realize its potential and achieve success.

War

“It’s no coincidence that half the people living in poverty live in places affected by chronic conflict and violence.” In a thinly-veiled reference to Syria, Obama said that there are humanitarian crises and refugees which we cannot ignore, that we must deliver the urgent aid that is needed right now, and that countries that can should do more to accommodate refugees. But, Obama added, “our efforts have to be matched by the hard work of diplomacy,” reminding countries that, in the context of sustainable development, difficult political decisions and positions must be taken in order to tackle the root causes of underdevelopment.

Climate change

“All of our countries will be affected by a changing climate, but the world’s poorest people will bear the heaviest burden. We will be seeing climate change refugees. This is a moral calling,” said Obama. With the important Paris meeting only two months away, there is a clear and important opportunity for the world to commit to an action plan around climate change. Contrasting with Indian Prime Minister Modi’s comments from a couple of days ago (“The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is the bedrock of our enterprise for a sustainable world”), Obama said he wouldn’t accept the false choice between economic growth and effective action on climate change.

“This must be the work of the world”

“We suffer no illusions of the challenges ahead, but we have to commit ourselves to it. Our most basic bond, our common humanity, compels us to act,” Obama said. Indeed, in spite of the significant hurdles in the way of achieving sustainable development for all, it is essential for coalitions of partners to come together in bold new ways to help move the agenda forward. Already, for example, the UN Secretary General announced $25 billion in commitments over the next five years to address preventable deaths of women, children and adolescents, and ensure their health and well-being.

“This next chapter can’t fall to the old divides between developing and developed nations. All nations have work to do including in the US,” Obama added, “here in this country, we are still working every day on perfecting our union.”

In addition to committing the United States to the SDG agenda, Obama even hinted at what his post-presidency might look like when he said that he is “committing the US to achieving the SDGs, as long as I am President, and well after I’m done being president, I will keep fighting for jobs, healthcare that reduced inequality – even after I’m president. It’s work for all of us, not just governments and politicians.”

Obama finally exhorted all sectors of society – governments, business, charities, philanthropies, citizens – to come together to fulfill the promise of the SDGs.  “Our new development goals are ambitious, but they are achievable if we work together, if we meet our responsibilities to each other.”

“This must be the work of the world,” Obama said.

The post Obama: “Development works” appeared first on UN Dispatch.

There is a lot to appreciate in Jeffrey Goldberg’s long exploration of President Obama’s foreign policy views. But perhaps nothing so succinctly sums up president Obama’s understanding of American power in the context of the United Nations as these two quotes from Obama:

The president also seems to believe that sharing leadership with other countries is a way to check America’s more unruly impulses. “One of the reasons I am so focused on taking action multilaterally where our direct interests are not at stake is that multilateralism regulates hubris,” he explained. He consistently invokes what he understands to be America’s past failures overseas as a means of checking American self-righteousness. “We have history,” he said. “We have history in Iran, we have history in Indonesia and Central America. So we have to be mindful of our history when we start talking about intervening, and understand the source of other people’s suspicions.”

This concept has a rich intellectual lineage. In one form, it’s known as “strategic restraint” which is the basic idea that the USA, as the world’s leading power after World War Two, created an international system, including the United Nations, which deliberately imposed constraints on the USA’s ability to act unilaterally. But, in accepting these constraints for itself, the USA in fact created an international system that enabled the USA to remain a dominant world power for the foreseeable future. Should the USA ignore the rules of the road it created and more or less unilaterally, the USA could undermine its standing in the world and it’s relative ability to project power. The Iraq war is a good example of this. Nothing so deeply punctured the mystique of American power as the hubristic invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The second quote is equally instructive, and perhaps a corollary to the idea that the USA should remain a restrained, retrenched global power. Engaged American leadership, says Obama, is absolutely necessary for progress on some of the most important and urgent global challenges.

“I want a president who has the sense that you can’t fix everything,” he said. But on the other hand, “if we don’t set the agenda, it doesn’t happen.” He explained what he meant. “The fact is, there is not a summit I’ve attended since I’ve been president where we are not setting the agenda, where we are not responsible for the key results,” he said. “That’s true whether you’re talking about nuclear security, whether you’re talking about saving the world financial system, whether you’re talking about climate.”

American leadership is both indispensable, and America should not go it alone. Wise concepts to live by.

The post “Multilateralism regulates hubris” — a Pearl of Foreign Policy Wisdom from President Obama appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Obama’s final address to the United Nations General Assembly was not a foreign policy speech. He barely mentioned key global accomplishments of the last nine years like the Paris Climate Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals or the Iran Nuclear Deal. Neither did he analyze key failures, like Syria. There were no applause lines, and little soaring oratory.

Rather, President’s Obama used his final address to the world to make an argument for the power of liberalism — at home, internationally, and even in the hearts of individuals around the world.

This was an interesting choice.  Indeed, he spent more time discussing the important role of unions in reducing income inequality than, say, conflicts in the middle east or Africa. “Economies are more successful when we close the gap between rich and poor,” he said. “That means respecting the rights of workers so they can organize.”  President Obama also acknowledged that the the liberal economic order that has been forged over the past half century is leaving too many people behind and creating concentrations of wealth that are ultimately unsustainable. “The existing path to global integration requires a course correction. Too often, those have ignored inequality amid and among nations,” he said.  Indeed, parts of his speech sounded more like Bernie Sanders on the stump than a president’s address to the United Nations.

But that is not necessarily a bad thing, because the implication is that illiberalism at home–in the United States or elsewhere–can lead to a fracturing of the UN system and liberal international order it represents. “Our system is so successful, that people take it for granted that world powers no longer fight world wars,” he said. He cited actions like Russia’s annexing of Crimea or Chinese provocations in the South China Sea as chipping away at the principle that rule of law should replace rule of the jungle. “I’m convinced that in the long run giving up some freedom of action but binding us to international rules enhances security, and not just for us…As imperfect as they are, the principles of open markets, accountable governments and international law that we have forged provide the firmest platform for human progress,” he said.

And finally, President Obama connected the persistence of the liberal international order to the contents of an individual’s character, including the value of personal traits like empathy. “Our identities don’t have to be defined in opposition to others,” he said. “The choices of human beings created World War Two. But individuals also created UN…and we have shown that we can choose a better history.”

Sitting in a prison cell, a young Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote that, “Human progress never rolls on the wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God.”  And during the course of these eight years, as I’ve traveled to many of your nations, I have seen that spirit in our young people, who are more educated and more tolerant, and more inclusive and more diverse, and more creative than our generation; who are more empathetic and compassionate towards their fellow human beings than previous generations.  And, yes, some of that comes with the idealism of youth.  But it also comes with young people’s access to information about other peoples and places — an understanding unique in human history that their future is bound with the fates of other human beings on the other side of the world.

So, in his final speech to the world, President Obama made his closing argument, for liberalism in countries, internationally, and in the hearts of individuals. It’s a fitting send-off for the president, whose own country faces a profoundly stark choice over these ideals in just 50 days time.

(More key quotes to come as transcript becomes available.)

The post President Obama just gave his final address to the UN General Assembly and it was not a foreign policy speech appeared first on UN Dispatch.

I was in Ethiopia just a few weeks after the 2008 US elections.  Obama-love was everywhere. Taxi drivers wore Obama hats; hawkers sold bootleg DVDs of his Democratic National Convention acceptance speech; I even purchased an Amharic language translation of his  autobiography “Dreams of My Father,” (which used the title: “The Secrets of Greatness and Change.”)  The head of the African Union told me that he considered Obama to be “president of the African diaspora.”

Five years later, it is clear that Obama is still absolutely loved in parts of Africa. His speech today marked his third trip to the continent since becoming president, and his second to South Africa this year.

It’s a stirring speech, with some classic Obama oratorical flourishes. But watch the speech for the crowd’s reaction. He’s still got the juice.

The key question from a policy perspective is how can Obama leverage his personal popularity in his remaining time in office to advance the cause of freedom and dignity in the parts of Africa that love him so.

The post Africa Still Loves Obama appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Obama’s commencement address to West Point Graduates this week was billed by the White House as a major foreign policy address. But there were some conspicuous absences from the talk. What was notable about this speech? And how does this fit into Obama’s overall foreign policy legacy? Here to put the talk in context is Matt Duss of the Center for American Progress.  

Previous episodes

Episode 18: Zalmay Khalizad, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the UN.

Why Libya is Suddenly on the Verge of a Civil War 

Episode 17: Gov Bill Richardson, he frees hostages.

The Foreign Policy Implications of India’s Elections

Episode 16: Carolyn Miles, CEO of Save the Children

What Boko Haram Wants

Episode: 15 Laura Turner Seydel, philanthropist

Episode 14: Douglas Ollivant, Iraq expert

Episode 13: Gary Bass, historian

Episode 12: Mark Montgomery, demographer

Episode 11: Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watcher

Episode 10: Live from the UN, Volume 2.

Episode 9: Mia Farrow, humanitarian activist and Goodwill Ambassador

Episode 8: Suzanne Nossel, Big Thinker

Episode 7: Live from the UN, Volume 1. 

Episode 6: PJ Crowley, former State Department Spokesperson

Episode 5: Octavia Nasr, reporter

Episode 4: Arsalan Iftikhar, “The Muslim Guy”

Episode 3: Dodge Billingsley, filmmaker.

Episode 2: Laura Seay,  @TexasinAfrica

Episode 1: Heather Hurlburt, national security wonk

The post What Obama Left Out of His West Point Speech appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Obama suggested very strongly last night that the USA may bomb ISIS targets in Syria. His invocation of Somalia and Yemen as possible models for a Syria intervention made explicit that the USA intends to launch strikes against individuals in Syria.

But would this be legal?

From a domestic standpoint there is some debate about whether or not the President needs to secure congressional approval for this kind of action. From an international perspective the UN charter is rather clear on the circumstances in which one country can bomb the territory of another.

There are basically three criteria that could make this legal.

1) The Security Council authorizes the intervention. Chapter VII of the UN Charter gives the Security Council the sole legal authority to authorize international interventions when the government of the territory on which the intervention is taking place does not consent to the intervention. In other words, bombing a country without that government’s consent to have its territory bombed isn’t legal unless the Security Council says so. This is why the intervention in Libya was technically legal; and why the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not.

In this case, the Security Council will almost certainly not authorize international intervention against ISIS in Syria because veto-wielding Russia would almost certainly object to such a resolution.  This is not to say that Russia is in any way aligned with ISIS–in fact, ISIS threatens Russia’s allies in Damascus. Rather, Moscow would likely object to a Security Council resolution authorizing strikes against ISIS for the simple reason that Moscow does not want to give the USA any possible pretext for eventually turning its bombs on regime targets. For the past four years, Russia has steadfastly objected to any Security Council resolution that had even the remotest possibility of leading to intervention against Assad. From a Russian perspective, if Moscow accedes to a bombing campaigning Syria, Pandora’s Box could be opened. So, this route for making a US-led bombing campaign in Syria is not likely to succeed.

2) The country asks for help to deal with a threat on its territory. This is by far the most common legal authorization for international intervention. This is how the USA justified intervention against ISIS in Iraq. The government of Iraq asked for international assistance to deal with ISIS on its territory, and the USA obliged. It’s pretty clear cut: A country has the right to ask foreign powers for military assistance against an internal threat. So will Assad give the USA consent to bomb ISIS targets on its territory? It’s not likely. The Obama administration has also consistently stated that it would not coordinate any potential strikes with the Assad regime, which the USA considers illegitimate. So, consent from the Syrian government is not being sought by the Obama administration, but neither would it likely to be forthcoming. Unless some accommodation is made, this route is probably shut.

3) “Collective Self Defense” is invoked.  Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines the principle that countries have an inherent right of self defense, and that this extends not only to a country protecting itself, but other countries coming to the defense of the country under threat. This is called collective self defense. Here’ Article 51.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

In other words, if the UN Security Council is not able or willing to take action, a country may defend itself from armed attack–and that includes asking other countries to help it defend itself. In this instance, it is probably a stretch to consider ISIS a threat to the United States; the execution of two American journalists does not constitute an armed attack against the USA. However, Iraq has almost certainly been attacked by ISIS elements based in Syria. Iraq is a member of the United Nations in good standing. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the principle of collective self defense as enshrined in Article 51 applies in respect to Iraq. Iraq has a legal right to defend itself; and it has a legal right to ask other countries to help it do so.  This, of course, is more of a slippery argument than getting a Security Council resolution. But article 51 was inserted into the UN Charter for a reason–and the criteria seems to be satisfied in this instance.

Why does this matter?  The USA has sometimes excepted itself from norms applied to other countries in respect to international law. The invasion of Iraq was transparently illegal; and the US-led bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999 also did not have Security Council approval. Still, many countries around the world, particularly American allies in Europe, take international law very seriously. They would be loathe to join a coalition to fight ISIS in Syria without a strong legal backing. So, in the coming days and weeks as the USA builds this coalition to fight ISIS, pay special attention to the international law the Obama administration invokes to justify its potential action in Syria.  It matters if we want to build a world where the rule of law puts limits on a country’s ability to use force against other sovereign countries. And it matters if this coalition against ISIS is to be as broad-based as possible.

The post Obama Wants to Bomb Syria. Is that Legal? appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Obama took a break away from activities at UN Headquarters to make his annual appearance at the Clinton Global Initiative today. After making a few jokes about the havoc his presence always causes on New York City traffic, Obama took the opportunity to highlight the important role civil society plays around the world.

In comparison to the other appearances the president makes during the week – this year includes his annual address to the UN General Assembly, an address to the UN Climate Summit and hosting a UN Security Council meeting on the rise of foreign fighters in wars around the globe – CGI provides a chance to talk about important, albeit lighter, issues that impact the world. With all the events going on this week, focusing on the contribution of civil society seems an appropriate topic to raise.

Obama started by noting that the most important title a person can have is never president or prime minister, but rather that of a citizen. Often, both in democracies and non-democracies, it is through civil society that many people fight to gain the full rights and dignity that help societies grow and prosper.

These citizens remind us why civil society is so essential. When people are free to speak their minds and hold their leaders accountable, governments are more responsive and more effective. When entrepreneurs are free to create and develop new ideas, then economies are more innovative, and attract more trade and investment, and ultimately become more prosperous.

When communities, including minorities, are free to live and pray and love as they choose; when nations uphold the rights of all their people -— including, perhaps especially, women and girls -— then those countries are more likely to thrive.  If you want strong, successful countries, you need strong, vibrant civil societies.  When citizens are free to organize and work together across borders to make our communities healthier, our environment cleaner, and our world safer, that’s when real change comes.

Such change is vital for progress but in countries that are less than free, pushing for this change can come at a high price for those on the frontlines. Obama highlighted numerous activists around the world who have faced harassment, imprisonment and death for trying to bring about change within their countries. While it is important to remember the sacrifices made, it is also important to remember what civil society has accomplished around the world. We would not have the world we do today if not for the perseverance of civil society groups who frequently push us to do better and speak out for those whose voices are lost amongst the many.

Yet civil society, particularly with NGOs, is facing rising crackdowns from several governments around the world. This is not an issue of developed versus developing states as sometimes represented in the media, but rather an issue of governments who fear the power of their own people. From Hungary to China, harsh new laws targeting NGOs are pushing civil society out of the public sphere. This phenomenon appeared to be the real focus of Obama’s address and the presidential actions he announced today.

Those actions include directing all federal agencies to consult with civil society more regularly in decision making processes as well as establishing centers of excellence around the world to serve as incubators for civil society actors to turn their ideas into concrete results. Obama also announced new initiatives to help “embattled NGOs” in oppressive states, the finalization of regulations to making financial transfers between international donors and civil society easier for all involved, and legal and political support for organizations battling these overbearing NGO laws.

Throughout the address, Obama pointed out the struggles civil society faces, suggesting that the issues raised today have been of concern for the US government for quite some time. Tomorrow the focus will shift to the General Assembly and the Security Council as well as the many urgent crises currently facing the international community. But behind the scenes will be civil society and today’s speech was one way of not only acknowledging the role they play, but to shine a light on the conditions they often must overcome to bring about the change we all seek.

The post Obama Champions Civil Society at #CGI2014 appeared first on UN Dispatch.

Barack Obama’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly is being widely praised as one of his best speeches to date in terms of delivery and style. But between the soaring rhetoric there was substance.

To understand the significance of the speech it’s helpful to understand a subtle tension that has existed at the United Nations among member states over how to best fight terrorism. This tension can best be described as the the need to confront and kill terrorists through bombing and drone strikes on the one hand, and on the other hand reducing the factors that make young men want to join ISIS or al Qaeda in the first place. (In UN Speak, disrupting these push factors is often referred to in short-hand as “countering violent extremism.”)

In debates about terrorism at the UN, the United States has historically emphasized the former, and most other countries in the world have typically emphasize the latter. What was so striking about Obama’s speech today was that even as American bombs are dropping on terrorist targets in Syria and Iraq, he chose to focus his remarks on the softer side of the global fight against terrorism. And, in fact, he did not even use the term the “global fight against terrorism.” Rather, he directly invoked the need to fight the attractiveness of “violent extremism” no fewer than four times.  This is the key passage.

 Collectively, we must take concrete steps to address the danger posed by religiously motivated fanatics, and the trends that fuel their recruitment. Moreover, this campaign against extremism goes beyond a narrow security challenge. For while we have methodically degraded core al Qaeda and supported a transition to a sovereign Afghan government, extremist ideology has shifted to other places – particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, where a quarter of young people have no job; food and water could grow scarce; corruption is rampant; and sectarian conflicts have become increasingly hard to contain.  

Obama’s emphasis on fighting terrorist groups by fighting the “trends that fuel their recruitment”  has practical implications for diplomacy at the UN. For one, it means that the rest of the world–specifically the developing world that does not tend to want to focus on terrorism at the expense of development issues — may get behind a US-led strategy at the UN.

We will see this manifest later today,  President Obama is leading a Security Council meeting that is expected to adopt a legally binding, Chapter VII resolution, that obliges all UN Member states to take specific measures to prevent their citizens from flocking to Syria to take up arms. This is a crucial issue to the national security of the United States and many other member states. Intelligence agencies believe that between 12,000 to 15,000 foreigners have joined arms with ISIS and al Nusra in Syria. There is a deep and legitimate fear that these fighters will come home, battle hardened, and carry out attacks elsewhere in the world. The measure at the UN today could help staunch that flow.

But the measure is also accompanied by a section titled “countering violent extremism” that “Encourages Member States to engage relevant local communities and non-governmental actors in developing strategies to counter the violent extremist narrative that can incite terrorist acts, address the conditions conducive to the spread of violent extremism, which can be conducive to terrorism, including by empowering youth, families, women,  religious, cultural and education leaders, and all other concerned groups of civil society and adopt tailored approaches to countering recruitment to this kind of violent extremism and promoting social inclusion and cohesion;” 

This provision is why the resolution will pass unanimously. And it is why most of the rest of the world will want to line up behind the United States.

So, yes this was an impressive speech. But for those at the United Nations it was also a very public signal that the USA will not loose sight of the root causes of terrorism even as its takes its fight to the battlefield in Syria and Iraq.

How the UN Fights Terrorism, a backgrounder:

The post The Subtle, But Substantive Policy Shift in Obama’s UN Speech appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Obama is visiting Kenya this week. This is his first trip to his father’s country of birth since becoming president, and people in Kenya are certainly treating it like a homecoming.

Here with me to discuss the symbolic and political relevance of this historic trip is Wycliffe Muga, the Weekend Editor of the Star Newspaper in Kenya.

Wycliffe and I have a rather lively conversation about what this trip means to ordinary Kenyans, what impact it might have on the Presidency of Uhuru Kenyatta (who recently had war crimes charges against him dropped by the International Criminal Court) and why Obama may let down some distant relatives from his father’s family village.

This is a great curtain raiser to his trip and a great discussion about US-Africa relations. Muga argues that Obama is falling short of his two predecessors in designing big, game changing African development programs.

Get the app. Subscribe in iTunes or Stitcher to listen later

The post Kenyans are Elated to Welcome President Obama. But There’s Some Big Disappointment, Too appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Barack Obama just left Ethiopia, the last leg of his high-profile visit to the African continent, the last of his four official trips to Africa. After spending some time in Kenya, President Obama traveled for two days of events in Ethiopia, where he met with Ethiopian and other leaders, and, most notably, gave the first ever address by a sitting U.S. president to the African Union. While his visit to Kenya elicited a lot of local interest – partly, of course, due to the fact that he shares ancestry with the people of Kenya –  his visit to Ethiopia generated less frenzy, though his remarks during the African Union speech were discussed around the world. Here, we unpack some of the key themes of his message to African leaders.

Repositioning the U.S. as a better partner for Africa than China

President Obama addressed the African Union from the headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa, a $200 million building inaugurated in 2012 – and fully funded, right down to the office furniture, by China. He spoke at length about the need for opportunity creation in Africa, and for growth sustained by economic development, touting the U.S. as the kind of partner that will help build capacity and support African goals. Further, in a more or less direct jab at China, Obama said that countries which invest in Africa should do so in the spirit of real economic partnership. “Economic relationships can’t simply be about building countries’ infrastructure with foreign labor or extracting Africa’s natural resources,” Obama told the African Union. China has been hungry for African resources, and has made billions of dollars of investments and loans to African countries, in a bid to secure said resources necessary to fuel China’s own booming growth and population.

Meanwhile, the U.S. presence – particularly economic – in Africa is nowhere near as mighty as that of China. Its primary trade partners in Africa are South Africa, Angola and Nigeria, and most of that trade centers around energy. If the U.S. is to foster a “real economic partnership” with Africa, the challenge, in the coming years and decades, will be to broaden economic ties with more countries and more industries, and not only treat the continent as a dumping ground for U.S. exports. The recent 10-year renewal of AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act), which gives African nations duty-free access to U.S. markets for certain goods, is a necessary step forward, however, much remains to be done to ensure that Africans can benefit from a more robust economic relationship with the United States.

Ethiopia, the “Fledgling Democracy?”

Obama drew heavy criticism for describing Ethiopia’s government as “democratically elected” – even though the most recent elections saw the ruling party win 500 of the 547 parliamentary seats, and took place in a climate of intimidation and fear, with no observers – other than those of the African Union – allowed in the country. Furthermore, in the context of the fight against terrorism and extremism, Ethiopia has also been tightening laws surrounding freedom of speech. Ethiopia is the 4th largest jailer of journalists in the world, and, despite the release of some of the bloggers detained since April 2014 mere days before President Obama’s visit, the fact remains that Ethiopia is not a shining example of democracy in Africa, something which even Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn acknowledged, somewhat, describing Ethiopia as a “fledgling” democracy, emerging from “centuries of undemocratic practices.”

And while this may be true, it is unfortunate that countries allied with the U.S. in the fight against terrorism seem to get a free pass when it comes to undermining political and civil rights, when this is justified in the context of the “war on terror.” Particularly as the U.S. itself struggles to balance liberty and security, it is not in a strong position to criticize its African allies when they do the same.

During his remarks, Obama tread very carefully, and spoke generally of the need for African nations to “fully protect the rights of their people,” even praising the Ethiopian prime minister for acknowledging that his country has a long way to go as far as democracy is concerned. African allies to the United States know that their security partnerships and arrangements are more important to their American counterparts than a commitment to democracy, and particularly as China – whose presence on the continent is increasingly stronger – has absolutely no qualms regarding the state of political and civil rights in Africa, the U.S. is not in a strong position to push for further democratization.

President for Life

Obama drew applause – and laughter – from the audience when he used his own experience to talk about the need for heads of state to step down at the end of their legal mandate.

It has been an extraordinary privilege for me to serve as President of the United States.  I cannot imagine a greater honor or a more interesting job.  I love my work.  But under our Constitution, I cannot run again.  I can’t run again.  I actually think I’m a pretty good President — I think if I ran I could win.  But I can’t. So there’s a lot that I’d like to do to keep America moving, but the law is the law. And no one person is above the law.  Not even the President.  And I’ll be honest with you — I’m looking forward to life after being President. I won’t have such a big security detail all the time.  It means I can go take a walk.  I can spend time with my family.  I can find other ways to serve.  I can visit Africa more often.   The point is, I don’t understand why people want to stay so long.   Especially when they’ve got a lot of money.

Obama even directly mentioned Burundi, which just held a very dubious presidential election where President Nkurunziza won his bid to stay in office for a third mandate, despite constitutional term limits. While elections do not a democracy make, the right to vote in a private, independent manner, in elections that are free and fair, and provide people with choice, is absolutely essential to a healthy democracy. Obama tried to speak to this issue in a personal way, attempting to steer clear from a more moralizing approach about the need for strong institutions, rather than strong men (which was Obama’s message in 2009, during his first visit as President to the continent).

Indeed, as African nations are grappling with their responsibility to support democracy, through free and fair elections, but also through the expansion – not the restriction – of human, political and civil rights, economic and security imperatives have a tendency to trump these issues. As the U.S. seeks to become a better partner for Africa, it must examine how it weighs the need for democracy with the need to fight terrorism in the region. Shying away from a strong stance on civil and political rights is a mistake, and will not serve the best interests of Americans in the long run.

The post Unpacking Obama’s Message to the African Union appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Obama addressed the closing session of the Summit to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the United Nations this afternoon, making a passionate plea for the world to come together and work to achieve the ambitious agenda of the newly-created Sustainable Development Goals, a blueprint meant to guide global development efforts over the next 15 years. UN Dispatch breaks down the main themes of his speech before the United Nations

“Development Works”

The tone of President Obama’s message was generally positive and optimistic. He referred to the great advances made in the past 15 years on meeting key development targets: slashing maternal mortality and global hunger rates, improving access to education for children, and the general decline of poverty. “More than one billion people have lifted themselves out of poverty,” the President said, “ the entire world can take pride in those achievements.”  “Let the skeptics and cynics take note—development works.”

But, he warned, “We understand our work is nowhere near done. We can take pride in what we have accomplished, but we cannot be complacent.” He asked that the world take into account the “lessons that we have learned, so that we can dramatically improve outcomes,” and said “We know how it works, we know how to do this.”

Dispelling the notion that development does not work, or is not effective, is a key area for leaders to actively engage in. Indeed, without the belief that development DOES work, that the world can come together to ensure that the basic needs of every human being on Earth are met, is essential for the long term success of the SDG agenda. Belief that investments in sustainable development can yield a return – human, social, financial – is fundamentally important for a robust, global commitment to translate into effective action.

Threats to Success

“Perhaps because it’s my seventh year speaking to the UNGA, I become more likely to speak my mind,” Obama said, “We will never achieve our goals if we don’t address the insidious threats to people’s lives. If we don’t take care of some other elements of development, we can’t meet [the SDG} goals.”

So what are the threats to sustainable development?

Bad governance

President Obama adopted a stern tone when talking about the importance of having governments and institutions be accountable to the people they are supposed to represent. He mentioned specifically the importance of addressing illegal, illicit financial flows which benefit the few at the expense of the many. “Governments have to embrace transparency and the rule of law,” Obama said, making it clear that he believes that sustainable development goals cannot be achieved in places where leaders and institutions deliver justice to some and not all.

Inequality

“Every country has to grapple with this issue – even here in the United States,” Obama said, adding that while “the most powerful would like to keep things as they are, when poor children are more likely to be sick and die than children across town[… ] that holds all of us back.”

Old attitudes

Obama, husband and father to three strong women, made it clear that he believes denying rights and opportunity to women will delay the realization of the SDGs. He challenged the global community to not accept “tradition” as an “excuse” for the discriminatory treatment of women. “I don’t have patience for “we have our own way of doing things,”” Obama said, “I understand, we understand, that there is a long tradition in every society of discriminating against women, but that’s not an excuse for not taking a new path to ensure that everyone in society has opportunity.”

Lack of attention on Africa

“What I saw on a recent trip [to Africa] gave me hope” Obama said. Indeed, Africa is one of the fastest growing regions in the world, and with a growing population, so do the expectations for increased opportunity and growth and improved livelihoods. “Young Africans want business, trade not aid,”said Obama, and he called on the global community to join the United States in investing in Africa to help it realize its potential and achieve success.

War

“It’s no coincidence that half the people living in poverty live in places affected by chronic conflict and violence.” In a thinly-veiled reference to Syria, Obama said that there are humanitarian crises and refugees which we cannot ignore, that we must deliver the urgent aid that is needed right now, and that countries that can should do more to accommodate refugees. But, Obama added, “our efforts have to be matched by the hard work of diplomacy,” reminding countries that, in the context of sustainable development, difficult political decisions and positions must be taken in order to tackle the root causes of underdevelopment.

Climate change

“All of our countries will be affected by a changing climate, but the world’s poorest people will bear the heaviest burden. We will be seeing climate change refugees. This is a moral calling,” said Obama. With the important Paris meeting only two months away, there is a clear and important opportunity for the world to commit to an action plan around climate change. Contrasting with Indian Prime Minister Modi’s comments from a couple of days ago (“The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is the bedrock of our enterprise for a sustainable world”), Obama said he wouldn’t accept the false choice between economic growth and effective action on climate change.

“This must be the work of the world”

“We suffer no illusions of the challenges ahead, but we have to commit ourselves to it. Our most basic bond, our common humanity, compels us to act,” Obama said. Indeed, in spite of the significant hurdles in the way of achieving sustainable development for all, it is essential for coalitions of partners to come together in bold new ways to help move the agenda forward. Already, for example, the UN Secretary General announced $25 billion in commitments over the next five years to address preventable deaths of women, children and adolescents, and ensure their health and well-being.

“This next chapter can’t fall to the old divides between developing and developed nations. All nations have work to do including in the US,” Obama added, “here in this country, we are still working every day on perfecting our union.”

In addition to committing the United States to the SDG agenda, Obama even hinted at what his post-presidency might look like when he said that he is “committing the US to achieving the SDGs, as long as I am President, and well after I’m done being president, I will keep fighting for jobs, healthcare that reduced inequality – even after I’m president. It’s work for all of us, not just governments and politicians.”

Obama finally exhorted all sectors of society – governments, business, charities, philanthropies, citizens – to come together to fulfill the promise of the SDGs.  “Our new development goals are ambitious, but they are achievable if we work together, if we meet our responsibilities to each other.”

“This must be the work of the world,” Obama said.

The post Obama: “Development works” appeared first on UN Dispatch.

There is a lot to appreciate in Jeffrey Goldberg’s long exploration of President Obama’s foreign policy views. But perhaps nothing so succinctly sums up president Obama’s understanding of American power in the context of the United Nations as these two quotes from Obama:

The president also seems to believe that sharing leadership with other countries is a way to check America’s more unruly impulses. “One of the reasons I am so focused on taking action multilaterally where our direct interests are not at stake is that multilateralism regulates hubris,” he explained. He consistently invokes what he understands to be America’s past failures overseas as a means of checking American self-righteousness. “We have history,” he said. “We have history in Iran, we have history in Indonesia and Central America. So we have to be mindful of our history when we start talking about intervening, and understand the source of other people’s suspicions.”

This concept has a rich intellectual lineage. In one form, it’s known as “strategic restraint” which is the basic idea that the USA, as the world’s leading power after World War Two, created an international system, including the United Nations, which deliberately imposed constraints on the USA’s ability to act unilaterally. But, in accepting these constraints for itself, the USA in fact created an international system that enabled the USA to remain a dominant world power for the foreseeable future. Should the USA ignore the rules of the road it created and more or less unilaterally, the USA could undermine its standing in the world and it’s relative ability to project power. The Iraq war is a good example of this. Nothing so deeply punctured the mystique of American power as the hubristic invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The second quote is equally instructive, and perhaps a corollary to the idea that the USA should remain a restrained, retrenched global power. Engaged American leadership, says Obama, is absolutely necessary for progress on some of the most important and urgent global challenges.

“I want a president who has the sense that you can’t fix everything,” he said. But on the other hand, “if we don’t set the agenda, it doesn’t happen.” He explained what he meant. “The fact is, there is not a summit I’ve attended since I’ve been president where we are not setting the agenda, where we are not responsible for the key results,” he said. “That’s true whether you’re talking about nuclear security, whether you’re talking about saving the world financial system, whether you’re talking about climate.”

American leadership is both indispensable, and America should not go it alone. Wise concepts to live by.

The post “Multilateralism regulates hubris” — a Pearl of Foreign Policy Wisdom from President Obama appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Obama’s final address to the United Nations General Assembly was not a foreign policy speech. He barely mentioned key global accomplishments of the last nine years like the Paris Climate Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals or the Iran Nuclear Deal. Neither did he analyze key failures, like Syria. There were no applause lines, and little soaring oratory.

Rather, President’s Obama used his final address to the world to make an argument for the power of liberalism — at home, internationally, and even in the hearts of individuals around the world.

This was an interesting choice.  Indeed, he spent more time discussing the important role of unions in reducing income inequality than, say, conflicts in the middle east or Africa. “Economies are more successful when we close the gap between rich and poor,” he said. “That means respecting the rights of workers so they can organize.”  President Obama also acknowledged that the the liberal economic order that has been forged over the past half century is leaving too many people behind and creating concentrations of wealth that are ultimately unsustainable. “The existing path to global integration requires a course correction. Too often, those have ignored inequality amid and among nations,” he said.  Indeed, parts of his speech sounded more like Bernie Sanders on the stump than a president’s address to the United Nations.

But that is not necessarily a bad thing, because the implication is that illiberalism at home–in the United States or elsewhere–can lead to a fracturing of the UN system and liberal international order it represents. “Our system is so successful, that people take it for granted that world powers no longer fight world wars,” he said. He cited actions like Russia’s annexing of Crimea or Chinese provocations in the South China Sea as chipping away at the principle that rule of law should replace rule of the jungle. “I’m convinced that in the long run giving up some freedom of action but binding us to international rules enhances security, and not just for us…As imperfect as they are, the principles of open markets, accountable governments and international law that we have forged provide the firmest platform for human progress,” he said.

And finally, President Obama connected the persistence of the liberal international order to the contents of an individual’s character, including the value of personal traits like empathy. “Our identities don’t have to be defined in opposition to others,” he said. “The choices of human beings created World War Two. But individuals also created UN…and we have shown that we can choose a better history.”

Sitting in a prison cell, a young Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote that, “Human progress never rolls on the wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God.”  And during the course of these eight years, as I’ve traveled to many of your nations, I have seen that spirit in our young people, who are more educated and more tolerant, and more inclusive and more diverse, and more creative than our generation; who are more empathetic and compassionate towards their fellow human beings than previous generations.  And, yes, some of that comes with the idealism of youth.  But it also comes with young people’s access to information about other peoples and places — an understanding unique in human history that their future is bound with the fates of other human beings on the other side of the world.

So, in his final speech to the world, President Obama made his closing argument, for liberalism in countries, internationally, and in the hearts of individuals. It’s a fitting send-off for the president, whose own country faces a profoundly stark choice over these ideals in just 50 days time.

(More key quotes to come as transcript becomes available.)

The post President Obama just gave his final address to the UN General Assembly and it was not a foreign policy speech appeared first on UN Dispatch.

I was in Ethiopia just a few weeks after the 2008 US elections.  Obama-love was everywhere. Taxi drivers wore Obama hats; hawkers sold bootleg DVDs of his Democratic National Convention acceptance speech; I even purchased an Amharic language translation of his  autobiography “Dreams of My Father,” (which used the title: “The Secrets of Greatness and Change.”)  The head of the African Union told me that he considered Obama to be “president of the African diaspora.”

Five years later, it is clear that Obama is still absolutely loved in parts of Africa. His speech today marked his third trip to the continent since becoming president, and his second to South Africa this year.

It’s a stirring speech, with some classic Obama oratorical flourishes. But watch the speech for the crowd’s reaction. He’s still got the juice.

The key question from a policy perspective is how can Obama leverage his personal popularity in his remaining time in office to advance the cause of freedom and dignity in the parts of Africa that love him so.

The post Africa Still Loves Obama appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Obama’s commencement address to West Point Graduates this week was billed by the White House as a major foreign policy address. But there were some conspicuous absences from the talk. What was notable about this speech? And how does this fit into Obama’s overall foreign policy legacy? Here to put the talk in context is Matt Duss of the Center for American Progress.  

Previous episodes

Episode 18: Zalmay Khalizad, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the UN.

Why Libya is Suddenly on the Verge of a Civil War 

Episode 17: Gov Bill Richardson, he frees hostages.

The Foreign Policy Implications of India’s Elections

Episode 16: Carolyn Miles, CEO of Save the Children

What Boko Haram Wants

Episode: 15 Laura Turner Seydel, philanthropist

Episode 14: Douglas Ollivant, Iraq expert

Episode 13: Gary Bass, historian

Episode 12: Mark Montgomery, demographer

Episode 11: Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watcher

Episode 10: Live from the UN, Volume 2.

Episode 9: Mia Farrow, humanitarian activist and Goodwill Ambassador

Episode 8: Suzanne Nossel, Big Thinker

Episode 7: Live from the UN, Volume 1. 

Episode 6: PJ Crowley, former State Department Spokesperson

Episode 5: Octavia Nasr, reporter

Episode 4: Arsalan Iftikhar, “The Muslim Guy”

Episode 3: Dodge Billingsley, filmmaker.

Episode 2: Laura Seay,  @TexasinAfrica

Episode 1: Heather Hurlburt, national security wonk

The post What Obama Left Out of His West Point Speech appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Obama suggested very strongly last night that the USA may bomb ISIS targets in Syria. His invocation of Somalia and Yemen as possible models for a Syria intervention made explicit that the USA intends to launch strikes against individuals in Syria.

But would this be legal?

From a domestic standpoint there is some debate about whether or not the President needs to secure congressional approval for this kind of action. From an international perspective the UN charter is rather clear on the circumstances in which one country can bomb the territory of another.

There are basically three criteria that could make this legal.

1) The Security Council authorizes the intervention. Chapter VII of the UN Charter gives the Security Council the sole legal authority to authorize international interventions when the government of the territory on which the intervention is taking place does not consent to the intervention. In other words, bombing a country without that government’s consent to have its territory bombed isn’t legal unless the Security Council says so. This is why the intervention in Libya was technically legal; and why the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not.

In this case, the Security Council will almost certainly not authorize international intervention against ISIS in Syria because veto-wielding Russia would almost certainly object to such a resolution.  This is not to say that Russia is in any way aligned with ISIS–in fact, ISIS threatens Russia’s allies in Damascus. Rather, Moscow would likely object to a Security Council resolution authorizing strikes against ISIS for the simple reason that Moscow does not want to give the USA any possible pretext for eventually turning its bombs on regime targets. For the past four years, Russia has steadfastly objected to any Security Council resolution that had even the remotest possibility of leading to intervention against Assad. From a Russian perspective, if Moscow accedes to a bombing campaigning Syria, Pandora’s Box could be opened. So, this route for making a US-led bombing campaign in Syria is not likely to succeed.

2) The country asks for help to deal with a threat on its territory. This is by far the most common legal authorization for international intervention. This is how the USA justified intervention against ISIS in Iraq. The government of Iraq asked for international assistance to deal with ISIS on its territory, and the USA obliged. It’s pretty clear cut: A country has the right to ask foreign powers for military assistance against an internal threat. So will Assad give the USA consent to bomb ISIS targets on its territory? It’s not likely. The Obama administration has also consistently stated that it would not coordinate any potential strikes with the Assad regime, which the USA considers illegitimate. So, consent from the Syrian government is not being sought by the Obama administration, but neither would it likely to be forthcoming. Unless some accommodation is made, this route is probably shut.

3) “Collective Self Defense” is invoked.  Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines the principle that countries have an inherent right of self defense, and that this extends not only to a country protecting itself, but other countries coming to the defense of the country under threat. This is called collective self defense. Here’ Article 51.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

In other words, if the UN Security Council is not able or willing to take action, a country may defend itself from armed attack–and that includes asking other countries to help it defend itself. In this instance, it is probably a stretch to consider ISIS a threat to the United States; the execution of two American journalists does not constitute an armed attack against the USA. However, Iraq has almost certainly been attacked by ISIS elements based in Syria. Iraq is a member of the United Nations in good standing. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the principle of collective self defense as enshrined in Article 51 applies in respect to Iraq. Iraq has a legal right to defend itself; and it has a legal right to ask other countries to help it do so.  This, of course, is more of a slippery argument than getting a Security Council resolution. But article 51 was inserted into the UN Charter for a reason–and the criteria seems to be satisfied in this instance.

Why does this matter?  The USA has sometimes excepted itself from norms applied to other countries in respect to international law. The invasion of Iraq was transparently illegal; and the US-led bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999 also did not have Security Council approval. Still, many countries around the world, particularly American allies in Europe, take international law very seriously. They would be loathe to join a coalition to fight ISIS in Syria without a strong legal backing. So, in the coming days and weeks as the USA builds this coalition to fight ISIS, pay special attention to the international law the Obama administration invokes to justify its potential action in Syria.  It matters if we want to build a world where the rule of law puts limits on a country’s ability to use force against other sovereign countries. And it matters if this coalition against ISIS is to be as broad-based as possible.

The post Obama Wants to Bomb Syria. Is that Legal? appeared first on UN Dispatch.

President Obama took a break away from activities at UN Headquarters to make his annual appearance at the Clinton Global Initiative today. After making a few jokes about the havoc his presence always causes on New York City traffic, Obama took the opportunity to highlight the important role civil society plays around the world.

In comparison to the other appearances the president makes during the week – this year includes his annual address to the UN General Assembly, an address to the UN Climate Summit and hosting a UN Security Council meeting on the rise of foreign fighters in wars around the globe – CGI provides a chance to talk about important, albeit lighter, issues that impact the world. With all the events going on this week, focusing on the contribution of civil society seems an appropriate topic to raise.

Obama started by noting that the most important title a person can have is never president or prime minister, but rather that of a citizen. Often, both in democracies and non-democracies, it is through civil society that many people fight to gain the full rights and dignity that help societies grow and prosper.

These citizens remind us why civil society is so essential. When people are free to speak their minds and hold their leaders accountable, governments are more responsive and more effective. When entrepreneurs are free to create and develop new ideas, then economies are more innovative, and attract more trade and investment, and ultimately become more prosperous.

When communities, including minorities, are free to live and pray and love as they choose; when nations uphold the rights of all their people -— including, perhaps especially, women and girls -— then those countries are more likely to thrive.  If you want strong, successful countries, you need strong, vibrant civil societies.  When citizens are free to organize and work together across borders to make our communities healthier, our environment cleaner, and our world safer, that’s when real change comes.

Such change is vital for progress but in countries that are less than free, pushing for this change can come at a high price for those on the frontlines. Obama highlighted numerous activists around the world who have faced harassment, imprisonment and death for trying to bring about change within their countries. While it is important to remember the sacrifices made, it is also important to remember what civil society has accomplished around the world. We would not have the world we do today if not for the perseverance of civil society groups who frequently push us to do better and speak out for those whose voices are lost amongst the many.

Yet civil society, particularly with NGOs, is facing rising crackdowns from several governments around the world. This is not an issue of developed versus developing states as sometimes represented in the media, but rather an issue of governments who fear the power of their own people. From Hungary to China, harsh new laws targeting NGOs are pushing civil society out of the public sphere. This phenomenon appeared to be the real focus of Obama’s address and the presidential actions he announced today.

Those actions include directing all federal agencies to consult with civil society more regularly in decision making processes as well as establishing centers of excellence around the world to serve as incubators for civil society actors to turn their ideas into concrete results. Obama also announced new initiatives to help “embattled NGOs” in oppressive states, the finalization of regulations to making financial transfers between international donors and civil society easier for all involved, and legal and political support for organizations battling these overbearing NGO laws.

Throughout the address, Obama pointed out the struggles civil society faces, suggesting that the issues raised today have been of concern for the US government for quite some time. Tomorrow the focus will shift to the General Assembly and the Security Council as well as the many urgent crises currently facing the international community. But behind the scenes will be civil society and today’s speech was one way of not only acknowledging the role they play, but to shine a light on the conditions they often must overcome to bring about the change we all seek.

The post Obama Champions Civil Society at #CGI2014 appeared first on UN Dispatch.

Barack Obama’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly is being widely praised as one of his best speeches to date in terms of delivery and style. But between the soaring rhetoric there was substance.

To understand the significance of the speech it’s helpful to understand a subtle tension that has existed at the United Nations among member states over how to best fight terrorism. This tension can best be described as the the need to confront and kill terrorists through bombing and drone strikes on the one hand, and on the other hand reducing the factors that make young men want to join ISIS or al Qaeda in the first place. (In UN Speak, disrupting these push factors is often referred to in short-hand as “countering violent extremism.”)

In debates about terrorism at the UN, the United States has historically emphasized the former, and most other countries in the world have typically emphasize the latter. What was so striking about Obama’s speech today was that even as American bombs are dropping on terrorist targets in Syria and Iraq, he chose to focus his remarks on the softer side of the global fight against terrorism. And, in fact, he did not even use the term the “global fight against terrorism.” Rather, he directly invoked the need to fight the attractiveness of “violent extremism” no fewer than four times.  This is the key passage.

 Collectively, we must take concrete steps to address the danger posed by religiously motivated fanatics, and the trends that fuel their recruitment. Moreover, this campaign against extremism goes beyond a narrow security challenge. For while we have methodically degraded core al Qaeda and supported a transition to a sovereign Afghan government, extremist ideology has shifted to other places – particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, where a quarter of young people have no job; food and water could grow scarce; corruption is rampant; and sectarian conflicts have become increasingly hard to contain.  

Obama’s emphasis on fighting terrorist groups by fighting the “trends that fuel their recruitment”  has practical implications for diplomacy at the UN. For one, it means that the rest of the world–specifically the developing world that does not tend to want to focus on terrorism at the expense of development issues — may get behind a US-led strategy at the UN.

We will see this manifest later today,  President Obama is leading a Security Council meeting that is expected to adopt a legally binding, Chapter VII resolution, that obliges all UN Member states to take specific measures to prevent their citizens from flocking to Syria to take up arms. This is a crucial issue to the national security of the United States and many other member states. Intelligence agencies believe that between 12,000 to 15,000 foreigners have joined arms with ISIS and al Nusra in Syria. There is a deep and legitimate fear that these fighters will come home, battle hardened, and carry out attacks elsewhere in the world. The measure at the UN today could help staunch that flow.

But the measure is also accompanied by a section titled “countering violent extremism” that “Encourages Member States to engage relevant local communities and non-governmental actors in developing strategies to counter the violent extremist narrative that can incite terrorist acts, address the conditions conducive to the spread of violent extremism, which can be conducive to terrorism, including by empowering youth, families, women,  religious, cultural and education leaders, and all other concerned groups of civil society and adopt tailored approaches to countering recruitment to this kind of violent extremism and promoting social inclusion and cohesion;” 

This provision is why the resolution will pass unanimously. And it is why most of the rest of the world will want to line up behind the United States.

So, yes this was an impressive speech. But for those at the United Nations it was also a very public signal that the USA will not loose sight of the root causes of terrorism even as its takes its fight to the battlefield in Syria and Iraq.

How the UN Fights Terrorism, a backgrounder:

The post The Subtle, But Substantive Policy Shift in Obama’s UN Speech appeared first on UN Dispatch.