Latest International Debates

Turmoil in Zimbabwe:
Recent Elections and Their Aftermath
Should the United Nations Security Council Approve Economic Sanctions Against Zimbabwe?
(Excerpted From International Debates, November 2008)

Zimbabwe, formerly the British colony of Rhodesia, has a long history of conflict. For the last three decades, its fortunes have been tied to those of its president, Robert Mugabe, who wrested control from a white minority government in 1980 to become the country’s first black leader. President Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) has been the dominant political party ever since.

At the start, Mugabe, a Marxist, ruled in a conciliatory manner, yet factional differences continued between the ZANU Party and the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) Party. ZAPU is led by Joshua Nkomo, Mugabe’s former ally in the “Patriotic Front,” which fought for independence from minority rule. The two parties achieved a peaceful merger in 1988, but the formation of the ZANU-PF (Patriotic Front) made Zimbabwe effectively a one-party state, unchallenged by any significant opposition until the end of the 1990s.

In the early 1990s, Zimbabwe began to experience a period of political and economic upheaval. Opposition to the Mugabe government ? by then plagued with corruption scandals, unemployment, and hyperinflation ? grew, led by the newly formed Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and its leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.

In 2000, the MDC succeeded in defeating a referendum on a draft constitution that would have increased Mugabe’s power. Shortly thereafter, thousands of independence war veterans, backed by the government, violently seized hundreds of white-owned farms, in the process evicting not only the farmers but farmhands and their families. In response, most Western donors, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, cut off aid to Zimbabwe, and in the ensuing parliamentary elections, the MDC succeeded in capturing a significant number of seats.

In the 2002 presidential election, Mugabe was declared the winner over challenger Tsvangirai, but international observers condemned the balloting as seriously flawed. The United States and the European Union instituted embargoes against Zimbabwe and froze party officials’ financial assets.

Again in 2005 parliamentary elections were marred by repressive actions: Expatriate Zimbabweans were not allowed to vote and the government used food distribution to influence an increasingly hungry population. The situation continued to deteriorate as Mugabe began Operation Restore Order, destroying tens of thousands of shanty dwellings and street stalls. A United Nations envoy sent to assess the scope of the operation estimated that the drive left some 700,000 people homeless.

In January 2008, Mugabe announced that “harmonized” elections would be held the following March. This spelled the collapse of talks between ZANU-PF and the MDC, mediated by South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki and intended to define mutually agreeable terms for free and fair elections. Once again, the campaign environment was tainted by violence and media coverage biased toward Mugabe, who attacked the opposition as agents of white supremacist attempts to recolonize Zimbabwe.

Half the voters braved intimidation to vote for change ? the biggest turnout since 1980. The country split down the middle, with towns and cities voting overwhelmingly for the opposition MDC while the ruling ZANU-PF Party won a clear majority of the rural poor. Tsvangirai claimed victory but later boycotted a run-off, citing the continuing unfairness of the process and concern for the lives of his supporters, who were the targets of widespread postelection violence. The run-off took place in June, as scheduled, and Mugabe was declared the winner and inaugurated for a new six-year term as president.

International reaction was swift and negative. The United States and Britain spearheaded a campaign aimed at persuading Mugabe to step down, but these efforts hit a roadblock when a proposed United Nations resolution to impose new economic sanctions on Mugabe’s government was vetoed by Russia and China.

In mid-September, after protracted negotiations overseen by leaders of South Africa and Mozambique, Mugabe and Tsvangirai signed a power-sharing agreement stating that Mugabe would continue as president and maintain control over the army and Tsvangirai would serve as prime minister. It is hoped that the deal will pave the way for better times, but donor nations have adopted a “wait-and-see” attitude before committing themselves to helping rebuild a country that has suffered so many setbacks in the past.

Foreign Policy and the 2008 Election:
Contrasting Approaches to Global Affairs and Relationships
Highlights of the Democratic and Republican Platforms
(Excerpted From International Debates, October 2008)

Although the crisis in the financial sector became the focal point of the 2008 presidential election, international issues — including two America-led wars in the Middle East — have polarized the electorate and led to contentious disagreements between the two political parties. While the United States’ military operation in Iraq, now in its sixth year, is presiding over relative reductions in violence, the war in Afghanistan, now entering its eighth year, is growing more intense. There is a simmering conflict between Russia and Georgia, turmoil in global oil markets, a debate over global warming, and unrest in Pakistan. Given these and other significant challenges worldwide — including the rise of China — it is no surprise that American voters are paying close attention to each party’s international priorities.

The presidential nominees, Democratic Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona — whose foreign policy positions are embodied in their party platforms — have decidedly divergent views of the world and how the United States should manage its relations with allies and adversaries alike. Democrats frame much of their international outlook in terms of how it contrasts with the foreign policy of Republican President George W. Bush. They view Bush Administration policies, such as the preemptive war in Iraq and a willingness to take other unilateral actions abroad in the past eight years, as having significantly damaged the United States’ image throughout the world. A principal goal for Democrats is to rebuild U.S. prestige by engaging in diplomacy, working in concert with allies, and negotiating in good faith with adversaries.

In their platform, Republicans stress a strategy of “peace through strength” — in which the president has the power and freedom to respond to challenges and opportunities without being micromanaged by Congress.

In Iraq, Democrats have called for a measured but steady drawdown of U.S. troop levels over 16 months, eventually leaving a small security force. They would send at least two additional combat brigades, or roughly 8,000 more troops, to Afghanistan while stepping up development aid to that country. Republicans oppose withdrawal timetables and state that the United States will only leave Iraq only “in victory and with honor.”

The Democrats view the United Nations as an institution in need of reform, but want the United States to be a more active participant. In particular, the platform endorses adoption of the UN Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015.

The Republican platform identifies the United Nations as “scandal-ridden” and “corrupt,” and asserts that it is not a substitute for American leadership. On social issues, the GOP argues that any UN actions must emphasize the importance of the “fundamental institutions of marriage and family” — and that international family planning organizations that provide abortion information should not be funded.

On the issue of global climate change, Democrats seek to convene a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols in which nations agree to cut carbon emissions. Republicans believe in a cap-and-trade system that would protect the U.S. economy.

Both parties know that this is a perilous time in American history, even as they put forth contrasting visions for moving forward. The new president will inherit a wide range of foreign policy challenges, including two wars, a seriously overstretched America military, and, quite likely, a financial crisis with global implications. It now falls to the American people to weigh both candidates’ positions on the issues and cast their ballots in an election that the world is watching closely.

The Crisis in Georgia:
The Battle for South Ossetia and Abkhazia
Is Russia Honoring the Ceasefire Agreement in Georgia?
(Excerpted From International Debates, September 2008)

On August 8, forces from the Republic of Georgia — a former Soviet state located in the far southeastern border of Europe and Asia — entered South Ossetia, a breakaway province within Georgia’s internationally recognized borders. The military incursion triggered a full-scale war between Russian and Georgian forces, leaving hundreds dead and causing an international crisis that produced sharp verbal sparring between major international powers on the United Nations Security Council.

The Georgian action was the culmination of months of increasingly heightened tensions between Russian and Georgian ethnic groups within the contested region.

Georgian forces shelled South Ossetian military positions, and Russian officials claimed that 10 of its peacekeeping soldiers were killed in the attacks. Shortly after Georgia began its attacks, Russia responded with overwhelming military force.

Within a few days, Georgia’s military were routed and withdrew from South Ossetia, giving Russia control of the region — as well as another breakaway Georgian province, Abkhazia. On August 12, Russia agreed to a ceasefire, stating that its military objectives had been accomplished, save for some “mopping up,” and that Georgia had been “punished.”

On August 13, French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that he had brokered a peace agreement between Georgia and Russia calling for both sides to cease hostilities, pull troops back to positions they had occupied before the hostilities began, allow humanitarian aid into the conflict zone, and facilitate the return of displaced persons. Observers on the ground in South Ossetia reported that there were only scattered signs of Russian withdrawal, however.

Meanwhile, on the UN Security Council, Russia was the target of sharp rebukes from other members, including permanent members like the United States and the United Kingdom, and elected members, such as Belgium, Croatia, Italy, and others.

Russia said its actions were justified in protecting the Russian ethnic minorities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia — and cited North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombings throughout Serbia in 1999 to protect ethnic minorities in breakaway Balkan provinces as precedent for its actions. Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin issued a particularly sharp rebuke to U.S. criticism of possible Georgian civilian casualties, saying that they were coming “from the lips of a representative of a country whose action we are aware of in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Serbia.”

Although Georgia may be in what is to most Americans a little-known corner of the world, the battle for South Ossetia and Abkhazia has important strategic ramifications for the United States and Western Europe. It is located between the rich Caspian Sea oil fields of Baku and the Mediterranean ports of Turkey, providing a key pipeline beyond Russian control. It is a young democracy in a region that has long been controlled by totalitarian regimes And it is one of the first nations to officially adopt Christianity as a state religion. Prior to the latest conflict, Georgia had taken preliminary steps to be admitted into NATO and, perhaps eventually, the European Union.

Russia, on the other hand, sees Georgia as squarely within its sphere of influence, and it resents NATO’s encroachment into what used to be its national borders.

For the moment, some Russian forces remain in South Ossetia and Abkhazia even in the face of international outcry. And despite Russia’s calls for his resignation, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili remains in power. Stability in the region remains balanced on the knife’s edge, presenting an enormous challenge for UN mediators, the Security Council, and the United States to ensure that the bloodshed of August does not lead to increasing instability in the region and further conflict.

The Question of Tibet:
Independence and Chinese Claims of Sovereignty
Is Tibet an Inalienable Part of Chinese Territory?
(Excerpted From International Debates, May 2008)

Situated in southwest China on a high Himalayan plateau, and long associated with meditation and Buddhist serenity, Tibet has a history of periodic strife. The roots of its modern conflicts can be traced back to the early twentieth century, when the Qing Dynasty was overthrown in China and the Chinese Republic was established. Tibet expelled all Chinese troops and asserted its independence under its spiritual leader, the 13th Dalai Lama.

For nearly half a century, Tibet functioned as a de facto independent nation, without interference from China or any other country. That changed quickly with the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. The communists claimed Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and forced its government to begin negotiations to accept such status. The 14th (and current) Dalai Lama signed a 17-Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, which professed to guarantee Tibetan autonomy and respect the Buddhist religion while recognizing Chinese sovereignty and allowing a civil and military presence in Lhasa, Tibet’s capital. Some areas of Tibet became known as the Tibetan Autonomous Region and others were incorporated into neighboring Chinese provinces.

The agreement proved difficult to maintain, however, and in 1959, a Tibetan uprising occurred. The Dalai Lama fled and about 80,000 of his followers fled to India, where he set up a “Government-in-Exile.” Subsequently, China put aside the agreement and established its own government in Tibet. The Dalai Lama denounced the accord, asserting Tibet’s right to self-determination.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Cultural Revolution launched by Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong led to the destruction of most Tibetan monasteries and many cultural artifacts. Bitter relations have continued since that time, with periodic protests and violence and sporadic talks between China and the Dalai Lama’s representatives producing no results.

Underlying all these events have been reports, extensively documented by the U.S. State Department and others, of continuing human rights abuses and repressive social and political controls in Tibet. A new round of disturbances, said to be the largest in Tibet since 1989, broke out on March 10, 2008, the anniversary of the failed 1959 uprising. The initially peaceful protests by Buddhist monks from three different monasteries quickly escalated and ended in a bloody clash with Chinese security forces and the imposition of martial law.

Meanwhile, the debate over Tibet’s status continues. The position of the PRC is that Tibet has been an indivisible part of China since the thirteenth century and that the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1949 peacefully liberated its people from an oppressive past.

Supporters of the Tibetan cause maintain that its claims to independence are historically justified because Tibet was self-governing throughout most of its existence.

In recent weeks, China appeared to bend to international pressure. The government announced that it would meet with envoys of the Dalai Lama, who has agreed to yield to Chinese administrative control of Tibet in exchange for religious and cultural independence. Absent a real breakthrough, however, it seems inevitable that China’s leaders will have to contend with continuing protests and international reproach until Tibet is granted the freedom it craves.

Iraqi Refugees:
Scope of the Crisis and the Humanitarian Response
Is the U.S. Government Effectively Addressing the Iraqi Refugee Situation?
(Excerpted From International Debates, April 2008)

Prior to the U.S-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, many human rights experts predicted the region would be inundated by a wave of refugees fleeing the violence. The United Nations and other organizations set up aid shelters in anticipation of a flood of Iraqis that never came. Fighting between U.S. and Iraqi uniformed forces ended quickly, and it appeared that the Iraqi population would remain relatively stable.

After five years of occupation and insurgency, however, the trickle of Iraqi refugees has turned into a deluge, and the end result is a demographic landscape that bears a striking resemblance to the dire predictions of mass exodus and ethnic cleansing of the pre-war months. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), up to 2 million refugees have left Iraq — about 8 percent of the country’s prewar population — and another 2.2 million have fled violence and sectarian strife to other parts of Iraq itself.

The refugees who have made it into these neighboring countries are often treated like second-class citizens, forced into the underground economy and discriminated against by the local population. Palestinians have been particularly at risk, as they were recent arrivals to Iraq and have no homeland to return to. Of the 25,000 to 30,000 people living in prewar Iraq, the United Nations estimates that only 5,000 Palestinians remain; the rest have fled — many to refugee camps along the Iraqi border — or been killed.

As awareness of the refugee situation grows, the U.S. Government has increasingly been called on to address the situation.

Administration officials acknowledge that the Iraqi refugee situation is dire, but they contend that the recent improved security situation in Iraq has led to a leveling off of refugee numbers. And U.S. funds to aid refugees have increased; Congress provided $200 million in emergency funding to the Migration and Refugee Assistance Account, of which $149.4 million will support Iraq-related humanitarian programs. In addition, $110 million was provided in emergency funding to the International Disaster Assistance account, of which $80 million is planned for Iraq assistance. In total, the United States will contribute $208 million in humanitarian assistance for displaced Iraqis in the first half of Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, approximately $37 million more than FY 2007.

Administration critics counter that even with recent increases, current funding levels are not enough — particularly when compared to the vast amounts being spent on military operations in Iraq. Helping the Iraqi refugees is an opportunity for the United States to build international goodwill — an opportunity, they say, that is being squandered.

Given the number of refugees involved and the impact that such large population displacements are having on the entire Middle East, the Iraqi refugee situation is considered to be on the scale of other massive humanitarian crises of recent times, including those in Sudan and the Balkans. If the United States hopes to achieve stability in Iraq, quickly and effectively solving this refugee problem is essential.

Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence:
The Relationship with Serbia Enters a New Era
Should Kosovo Be Recognized As an Independent State?
(Excerpted From International Debates, March 2008)

On February 17, 2008, Kosovo — a poor, predominantly Muslim region of the former Yugoslavia — declared its independence from Serbia. The move marked a turning point in a long and bloody struggle for self-determination that escalated after Yugoslavia’s collapse and the death of its communist ruler, Josip Broz Tito, in 1980.

Kosovo’s population of 2 million is 90 percent ethnic Albanian and 6 percent ethnic Serbs. The Albanians do not want to be a part of Serbia, a predominantly Christian Orthodox nation; yet Serbians view Kosovo as their ancestral heartland and the cradle of their civilization.

In 1989, Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic revoked Kosovo’s autonomy as a Serbian province, which it had enjoyed since World War II, and implemented direct rule from the capital of Belgrade. As conflicts between Kosovo Albanians and Serb forces became more intense in the 1990s, Milosevic initiated a campaign of ethnic cleansing that killed thousands of Albanians and drove 1.5 million from their homes.

In 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervened militarily, and Milosevic withdrew his forces. Subsequently, the United Nations Security Council suspended Belgrade’s rule over Kosovo and placed the province under interim UN protection, with security provided by a NATO peacekeeping force. Under UN administration, Kosovo developed its own democratic institutions, a multi-ethnic and professional police force, and a judiciary.

Still, Kosovo’s undefined status remained a source of instability and violent eruptions continued.

On February 17, 2008, the Kosovo Assembly declared Kosovo’s independence in line with the Ahtisaari recommendations. Under the plan, the Serb minority would be guaranteed positions in local government and parliament and proportionate representation in the police force and civil service. The Serbian Orthodox Church would be given special status.

The announcement touched off exhilaration and celebration in the streets of Kosovo and an angry response in Serbia — where demonstrators stormed the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade — and in the Serbian enclaves of northern Kosovo. International reaction was sharply divided.

The United States immediately recognized Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state and agreed to establish diplomatic relations between the two countries. The majority of European countries followed suit. Many other nations — most notably Russia — so far have refused to do so.

Those favoring Kosovo’s independent status believe that implementation of the Ahtisaari plan is the best means to promote peace, stability, and prosperity in the region.

Serbia and its allies maintain that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence breaches international law and will spur similar secessionist movements around the world. They also warn of increased tensions and inter-ethnic violence in the province and destructive consequences for international relations.

Kosovo’s parliament is pressing ahead.

History suggests that there will be no easy reconciliation; yet with Serbia and Kosovo each aspiring to join the European Union, the latest upheaval also could represent an opportunity for both sides to move forward.

Pakistan on the Brink:
The Future of a Key American Ally
Is the Present U.S. Foreign Aid Package to Pakistan Adequately Addressing the Problems in the Region?
(Excerpted From International Debates, February 2008)

The nation of Pakistan has been much in the news recently, mostly for negative reasons. On November 3, 2007, the country’s president, Pervez Musharraf, issued an emergency declaration cracking down on an uncooperative judiciary and stifling free speech and assembly. Although the state of emergency was lifted the following month after a domestic and international outcry, on December 27, former Prime Minster Benazir Bhutto, the charismatic head of the most influential opposition party, was assassinated in an orchestrated shooting/suicide bombing attack that also killed 60 bystanders.

Since the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the United States has relied on Pakistan as a bulwark against Islamic extremism given that the nation occupies a key geostrategic position in South Asia, bordering both Iran and Afghanistan. Over the past six years, the United States has provided Pakistan with roughly $10.6 billion in aid, a large majority of which has been directed to the Pakistani military.

The latest developments in Pakistan have caused great concern among policymakers at the White House and in Congress, where debate continues over the best means ensure that the nation is a stable, dedicated ally of the United States as it continues to combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The situation is further complicated by Pakistan’s often tense relations with India, its status as the only Islamic nation to possess nuclear weaponry, and its apparent willingness in the past to share this technology with such nations as North Korea, Iran, and Libya.

While the Bush Administration has been openly critical of Musharraf’s emergency declaration and his refusal until recently to resign his post as army chief of staff, it has stood by the embattled president as the best means to ensure that the country doesn’t fall into the hands of forces even more hostile to the United States and its policy objectives. Although administration officials said they reviewed current aid levels in recent months, they concluded that any decrease or modification of current levels of military and economic assistance could dangerously destabilize the nation and hinder its ability to participate in the “Global War on Terror.”

Critics also contend that the current balance of aid to Pakistan tilts too heavily toward the military, while economic and social supports are neglected — assistance that could improve the quality of life of average Pakistani citizens and make them less likely to back radical Islamic factions.

No matter the result, the United States will find itself in a delicate position of attempting to protect its interests amid growing uncertainty in a part of the world where the attacks of September 11, 2001, were hatched and where avowed enemies of America continue to gather.

Controlling Global Warming:
The Bali Roadmap and Beyond
Should a New United Nations Climate Change Treaty Set Specific Emissions Targets for Developing Nations?
(Excerpted From International Debates, January 2008)

Concern about the effects of climate change is growing rapidly in the United States and worldwide, stimulated by advances in scientific, technological, and economic understanding of the risks of global warming, and options for managing them.

The year 2007 may have been a turning point, as leaders of nearly all countries accepted the need for rapid — and global — solutions. In October, former Vice President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) received the Nobel Peace Prize for their work to raise awareness about the urgency of global warming and its impact. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, released in November, concluded unequivocally that the Earth’s climate has warmed over the last century, and that while natural factors have played a role, most of the rise in “globally averaged temperatures” since the mid-twentieth century “is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic gas concentrations” — in other words, human activity.

Without sharp cutbacks in emissions of industrial, transportation, and agricultural gases, the IPCC warned, rising seas, droughts, severe weather, and species extinction will result. The panel urged industrial nations to commit to emissions cuts of 25 to 40 percent by 2020.

In December 2007, nearly 200 nations met in Bali, Indonesia, to launch negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement made under the United Nations Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1997.

The Kyoto Protocol obligates participating developed nations to mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over the period 2008 to 2012. By the end of 2007, 174 parties had ratified the Protocol. The United States — which emits about one-fifth of total global greenhouses gases each year — signed the agreement but has never ratified it. President George W. Bush has stated that he opposes the exemption it grants to developing nations and is concerned about the treaty’s potential to strain the economy.

One of the most contentious issues at the Bali Conference was whether to set targets for developing nations. The United States, Canada, and Japan supported binding numerical targets for developing nations, in particular China. Most other industrialized nations expressed a readiness to make further commitments of their own, as long as the major emitters of the developing world — including China, India, Brazil, and South Korea — could agree, at least in principle, to gradual and differentiated targets. These industrialized nations argued that any future agreement should look to developed countries to continue taking the lead on curbing emissions while giving developing nations incentives to limit their emissions increases.

A breakthrough came after two weeks of talks, when the United States dropped its opposition to a proposal by the main developing nation bloc requiring rich countries to do more to help the developing world fight rising greenhouse emissions. The resulting “Bali Roadmap” — agreed to by the delegates — sets the parameters for a two-year negotiation process on a new climate change treaty to be finalized by the 2009 UNFCCC conference in Denmark, but fails to include any explicit emissions reductions goals or targets.

Environmental groups and some delegates and observers criticized the agreement as weak and a missed opportunity. All parties, however, said they remained committed to spending the next two years crafting a more comprehensive global solution. Many participants were also looking ahead to new U.S. leadership, hoping the winner of the 2008 presidential election would breathe new life into the process.

View 2007 Debates