Elizabeth Shackelford – Chicago Tribune https://www.chicagotribune.com Get Chicago news and Illinois news from The Chicago Tribune Thu, 30 May 2024 17:40:38 +0000 en-US hourly 30 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.4 https://www.chicagotribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/favicon.png?w=16 Elizabeth Shackelford – Chicago Tribune https://www.chicagotribune.com 32 32 228827641 Elizabeth Shackelford: South Africa’s election could bring a reckoning https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/05/31/column-south-africa-election-anc-corruption-mandela-shackelford/ Fri, 31 May 2024 10:00:31 +0000 https://www.chicagotribune.com/?p=15970121 South Africa’s election this week is the most consequential since the first post-apartheid election 30 years ago. It is the first time that the African National Congress (ANC), the liberation movement that brought the country freedom, might not secure the majority of votes. 

A party that has long banked on loyalty, while shirking good governance, is finally being called to task for its failure to deliver better lives for its people. 

Nelson Mandela, an anti-apartheid activist who spent 27 years in prison under the apartheid regime, led the ANC to its first victory in 1994, with 70% of the vote. In 1999, after a single term in office, Mandela chose to leave power, bucking a trend in postcolonial Africa of leaders seeking to remain “president for life.” It was a remarkable move that many believed put the country on the right path.

1999 was the year I arrived in Cape Town. It was my first experience living abroad, and I went there to witness a society’s rapid transformation from one of institutionalized racism and white rule to one of equality. 

South Africa’s struggle had a special appeal to me because I was born and raised in Mississippi. I knew that our fight against racism was ongoing and wondered if we had lessons to offer from our country’s experience. I would come to believe South Africa had lessons for us instead. 

Inequality was massive and baked into the system. Overcoming it overnight was an impossible task, but the new government was taking it head on. I saw the effects of this firsthand at the University of Cape Town, where I studied for a year. I learned about it in courses on South African politics and history. But I learned far more from what I saw around me every day as a student living within that change.

In just a few years, the university had transformed from an almost exclusively white student body to 50-50. That was hardly equitable in a country where more than 90% of the country is nonwhite, but it was progress. The segregated education system had done nothing to prepare Black students for a university education, which was a source of frustration to all, though there was a sense of purpose in the collective effort to overcome it. I felt the pride and justice in the struggle I saw around me. 

I studied the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dedicated to bringing the inequities and abuses of the apartheid era to light. The honesty and transparency with which the new government was taking on the past were remarkable to me, coming from a state where de facto segregation persisted and was ignored by white society and the government. 

I left South Africa inspired by the change that could be accomplished quickly with hard work, determination and a commitment to inclusivity. I still have a painting of the Rainbow Nation hanging in my office today. South Africa then was an inspiration to the world. 

Since then, though, the country has lost its way, and South Africa today reflects none of the hopeful struggle I witnessed there 25 years ago. 

South Africa’s challenges were never going to be easy to overcome, but unaccountable leaders, poor governance and corruption sealed its fate. Mandela may have chosen to leave power, but his party did not. The ANC came to believe it was entitled to loyal public support for its role as liberator, so it did little to try to earn it. 

The outcome is astounding. The government’s policy for Black Economic Empowerment has been corrupted, enriching a few instead of spreading the wealth. South Africa has the world’s highest unemployment rate, at over 35%, and remains the world’s most unequal country decades after apartheid. Its homicide rate is at a 20-year high, one of the highest in the world. Perennial infrastructure problems have left the country subject to rolling power cuts and lack of water. South Africans are poorer now than they were in 2006. It’s no wonder the state has failed to deliver, given endemic corruption across the political class, which the current government has recognized but failed to address.

This week’s election might finally hold the ANC to account, at least a little. Ironically, the biggest threats to its support are spinoff parties whose leaders also bear responsibility for the ANC’s long series of failures. But if the ANC is forced to build a coalition to maintain power, it would have to make concessions and admit its flaws — something it hasn’t done before. 

If anything, the ANC’s reign is proof that elections alone aren’t enough for equality or even the most basic human needs. As I’ve heard many times before in fragile democracies across Africa, you can’t feed your children votes. 

But if this election could put South Africa on a modest path to more accountable government, perhaps the Rainbow Nation could again become a source of hope for the world.  

Elizabeth Shackelford is the Magro Family Distinguished Visitor in International Affairs at Dartmouth College and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

]]>
15970121 2024-05-31T05:00:31+00:00 2024-05-30T12:40:38+00:00
Elizabeth Shackelford: An alarming number of people are suffering displacement across the world https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/05/17/column-refugees-displacement-sudan-gaza-congo-shackelford/ Fri, 17 May 2024 10:00:22 +0000 https://www.chicagotribune.com/?p=15926107 If the world today feels particularly violent, that’s because it is. After generations of progress toward greater peace in the world, the past couple of years have seen that trend reverse. The most recent data on conflict, from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, shows that 2022 and 2023 each saw more conflict than any year since the end of the Cold War.  

At the same time, worsening climate change is fueling more extreme weather and deteriorating environmental conditions. These two factors have combined to create the biggest forced displacement crisis the world has ever seen.

As of mid-2023, 110 million people were forcibly displaced globally, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency. After relatively stable numbers since the fall of the Soviet Union, the march of displacement has been on a sharp trajectory upward. Those numbers have almost tripled since 2011.

Much of this increase is due to internal displacement, when people are forced to leave their homes but without crossing international borders. Most internally displaced people, or IDPs, are women and children who face high risk of abuse and exploitation. Many remain trapped between conflict zones and lack economic opportunities, education, basic health care or security.

A new report from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center found that recent conflicts in Sudan, Gaza and the Democratic Republic of Congo accounted for almost two-thirds of new conflict displacement. Internal displacement has reached a record-breaking high of 75.9 million, up almost 50% from only five years ago.

The scale is alarming. Mass migration can carry destabilization elsewhere. Just consider the impact of Europe’s refugee crisis in 2015 on European politics. That year alone saw more than 1 million migrants enter Europe — more than a fourfold increase from 2014. Far right-wing nationalist parties thrived on fearmongering that was focused on migrants and gained a foothold in parliaments and in public attention that remains a threat to the European Union’s identity and values today.    

Mass migration can be even more threatening to states that are politically, economically and institutionally weak. These countries are less resilient to shocks, so instability on the border can precipitate conflict within, perpetuating a vicious cycle that only increases displacement. This is, in part, what the world has been witnessing already.

But it’s important to look beyond just numbers. People who are displaced from their homes suffer immensely, and it’s rarely short term. Violent internal conflicts — the cause of most of today’s displacement — last about a decade on average. The uncertainty of war leaves hundreds of thousands in limbo. Rebuild your life elsewhere, or wait to return home?

Even once these conflicts end, the destruction and uncertainty remain. Many factors will prevent people from returning home. Often, homes have been destroyed, or others have moved in and taken claim. Depending on a conflict’s outcome, members of displaced communities may not feel safe or welcome to return. They may lack the financial capacity to rebuild their lives, or their homes may lack economic opportunity to do so. After years or even generations living elsewhere, frequently in makeshift camps with minimal amenities, many displaced families may simply have lost hope to try.

I spent time in refugee and IDP camps in Uganda, Kenya and South Sudan after South Sudan’s civil war broke out in 2013. As a U.S. Foreign Service officer, I took testimonials from hundreds of victims who fled to these camps to escape violence. It saddens me deeply to know that tens of thousands of these displaced people remain housed in camps to this day. Even as that war technically ended in 2020, the lack of accountability for the violence that drove them away means that many victims simply don’t believe they will be safe if they return. Much of that violence was committed by the government that remains in power today.

What I remember the most from the people I met was the look in their eyes. This was early in the war, when wounds and fear and dismay were still fresh. I expected anger and emotion. What I saw instead was simply a deep, unmistakable sadness for what they had seen and what they’d been forced to leave behind.

These people were resilient and determined as well — one would have to be to even reach these camps despite the obstacles and danger. I couldn’t help but wonder how one musters the courage to face each day with such uncertainty and trauma.

This kind of suffering was in decline until only recently, but today, it is unacceptably on the rise.

Consider how you would feel and react if you were forced from your home with no resources, safety net or certainty. Consider a person, a mother or father or child, bearing this burden and suffering this cost.

Now multiply that by 110 million.

If you aren’t alarmed by what those numbers mean for global security and stability, perhaps consider what it means for our humanity as well.

Elizabeth Shackelford is the Magro Family Distinguished Visitor in International Affairs at Dartmouth College and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

]]>
15926107 2024-05-17T05:00:22+00:00 2024-05-16T13:01:51+00:00
Elizabeth Shackelford: College protests and the right side of history https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/05/03/column-student-protests-palestine-south-africa-shackelford/ Fri, 03 May 2024 10:00:19 +0000 https://www.chicagotribune.com/?p=15900734 Student protest movements in America are often messy and divisive, but they tend to be on the right side of history. If President Joe Biden doesn’t take the anti-war protests more seriously, he is likely to end up on the wrong side of history and the November election as well.

From the Vietnam War and civil rights movements in the 1960s to the anti-apartheid protests of the 1980s and Black Lives Matter in 2020, these efforts sought to tackle the role of U.S. institutions and government in perpetuating injustices.

Many might detest their methodology, and we should all clearly oppose violence or hate speech within their ranks, but the broad causes are just and historically vindicated.

These protests will be vindicated too. America’s young people are not alone in opposing continued U.S. support of Israel’s actions in Gaza. A Gallup poll released in March showed that 55% of Americans today disapprove of it — a shift from the beginning of the war, when most Americans wanted the U.S. government to robustly support Israel’s war efforts.

For those who ask why students aren’t protesting Hamas, it’s because these institutions aren’t supporting or helping finance the terrorist group.

Across the country, student groups are specifically targeting their colleges and universities, where they expect their influence will be greatest, calling on them to divest funds from corporations and businesses that support Israel’s military action. Specific calls to action vary, from divesting from any companies and institutions linked to Israel to any companies linked to arms manufacturing generally.

This approach most closely echoes the protests against South Africa’s apartheid government, which are credited with pushing 155 universities to divest from companies that supported or profited from apartheid and the U.S. government to enact a divestment policy as well.

But student demands today face more obstacles. Opposition to Israeli government action is far more polarizing than opposition to the South African apartheid regime was then. Political support for Israel within the U.S. system is so strong that it has secured laws in more than 30 states that prohibit state governments from doing business with companies that promote divestment from Israel.

This could prove a real challenge for educational institutions even if they are open to protester demands. University administrators are already facing loud criticism from Republican political leaders in Washington who are calling on some to resign. Navigating the divide between free speech and hate speech is particularly fraught in light of the history of antisemitism in our country and beyond.

Institutions across New York City have seen major protests, providing easy access for journalists as well as outsiders fueling tempers on both sides.

Officials at Columbia University and New York University called in the police to break up encampments, leading to hundreds of arrests, which only seemed to stoke the fire. On Tuesday, dozens of protesters occupied a building at Columbia, and hundreds of heavily armed NYPD officers stormed the hall that night to clear it. Yale, Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tulane and Tufts are also seeing significant encampments and protests, and protesters have been arrested in more than 20 states so far.

University of Arizona campus police dispersed protests on Wednesday with chemical irritant munitions, and University of California, Los Angeles administrators asked the police to intervene after 200 counterprotesters stormed the pro-Palestinian encampment, leading to violent clashes.

Riot police arrested 90 students at Dartmouth College within hours of the start of a peaceful demonstration, leading guest speaker Josh Paul to cancel a panel discussion in which he and I were to discuss — of all things — democratic dissent.

While most of the protesters across the country appear to be peaceful, it’s a ripe space for agitators, particularly those who hope to soil public perceptions of the protests for political gain. But observers should not let the extreme actors or detractors cloud the important message these students are trying to send: The situation in Gaza is inhumane and untenable, and those in a position to do something about it must act.

No one expects university officials to be able to end the war, and no one denies Israel’s right to defend itself. But it’s reasonable to expect a thoughtful conversation about whether these universities can do more to ensure they aren’t helping perpetuate disproportionate civilian harm.

Northwestern University and Brown University have each offered thoughtful paths forward. Northwestern forged an agreement with student protesters to allow them to petition the school for changes in how the university invests its money in exchange for removing their tents and ending the demonstrations. Officials at Brown have agreed to a timeline for discussions with students of their demands and to hold a vote of university leadership on whether to divest thereafter. The students have agreed in return to dismantle their encampment.

Other universities would be smart to take a similar approach, agreeing to meet the students with greater transparency and dialogue instead of with force.

Student activists might learn from this experience too. Otherwise, like the Vietnam protests of 1968, these demonstrations could help usher in a president far less sensitive to their concerns.

Elizabeth Shackelford is the Magro Family Distinguished Visitor in International Affairs at Dartmouth College and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

]]>
15900734 2024-05-03T05:00:19+00:00 2024-05-03T11:34:43+00:00
Elizabeth Shackelford: With war and US dysfunction, NATO at 75 faces an uncertain future https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/19/column-nato-75-years-russia-ukraine-war-donald-trump-shackelford/ Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:00:47 +0000 https://www.chicagotribune.com/?p=15873158 This month marks the 75th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Russian aggression in Europe has undoubtedly renewed the pact’s sense of purpose, but what its future will look like is not yet clear.

The trajectory of the war in Ukraine will be the determining factor in NATO’s path, which, in turn, rests on political decisions within the United States. The European countries that make up the bulk of NATO and need its security the most can only wait to learn what fate lies ahead, at the mercy of dysfunctional American politics.

Will Congress pass the Ukraine aid package before it’s too late for Ukraine? And will Donald Trump prevail in November in winning a second term? NATO has three possible paths, and more than anything else, the answers to these two questions will shape it.

NATO’s best possible future comes with a yes to the first question and no to the second. This would provide Ukraine with its best chance to prevail against Russia, with NATO’s help, and would ensure a durable American commitment to NATO for the future, both of which should deter future Russian aggression. Even if Ukraine were not able to militarily prevail, it should be able to withstand an all-out defeat and would be in a stronger position to negotiate an end to the conflict.

This outcome would bolster NATO’s renewed sense of purpose with a renewal of confidence too. A battle-hardened Ukraine would likely be offered membership in NATO (or some other security partnership) as well as the European Union, giving Western European nations a greater buffer between them and the historic Russian threat.

Time is not on NATO’s side, though, and any significant delay in the passage of additional American aid for Ukraine could be fatal. Though European countries are now much more serious about filling the gap in military assistance, they lack the military industrial capacity in the near term.

Russia is on the offensive, enabled by months of artillery shortages for Ukraine’s army. In recent battles, Russia’s firepower advantage has been at least fivefold that of Ukraine, and that’s set to double in the coming weeks without an influx of supplies from Ukraine’s partners. No amount of bravery or determination can overcome such an imbalanced onslaught for long.

With House Republicans in the United States — or more specifically, the small but powerful subset aligned with Trump — continuing to stall a vote on the Ukraine aid package, the outlook is bleak, and Ukraine’s position is getting more tenuous by the day.

If that aid fails to come in time, and Ukraine ultimately falls to Russia’s assault, NATO has two possible paths ahead, depending on the results of the American election in November.

In a world where Ukraine falls but President Joe Biden wins a second term, we can expect a renewed and robust U.S. commitment to NATO, which has strong bipartisan support. If the pro-Russia wing of the Republican Party is shut out, Congress and the White House would likely go all in to boost European security as it confronts an emboldened Russia. Biden shouldn’t allow this to lead to a return to European complacency, though. One would think the risk of this period should make that less likely.

If Trump wins a second term in November, however, U.S. withdrawal from NATO is almost certain. This would likely ring the death knell for Ukraine as we know it, whether or not Congress passes a Ukraine aid package now. That aid package would, at best, act only as a stopgap relief.

Trump has made clear that, given the opportunity, he would end support for Ukraine and would pull America out of NATO. This is what Russian President Vladimir Putin is betting on and promoting with misinformation targeting American voters. This means delay is sufficient for him right now. If Putin’s troops can maintain even a stalled war until November, Putin knows he will be facing a weakened NATO without American firepower, should his preferred candidate prevail.

U.S. withdrawal from NATO would light a fire under Europe, likely leading to a mobilization of military industrial capacity unlike any Europe has seen since World War II, to prevent or defeat future Russian aggression against NATO member states. But that wouldn’t happen soon enough to save Ukraine, and an arms race on a continent with a long history of bloody war isn’t exactly a positive outcome for NATO either.

Rather than a confident and renewed NATO, European security would be led by a fearful and defensive one. That Europe would likely turn inward, too concerned with its own defense at home to play a positive role worldwide. This means that, at NATO’s 75th birthday, NATO’s future isn’t the only one in question.

Elizabeth Shackelford is the Magro Family Distinguished Visitor in International Affairs at Dartmouth College and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

]]>
15873158 2024-04-19T05:00:47+00:00 2024-04-18T13:09:05+00:00
Elizabeth Shackelford: As Russia’s actions demonstrate, our world order is fraying https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/05/column-russia-putin-moscow-attack-torture-world-order-shackelford/ Fri, 05 Apr 2024 10:00:49 +0000 https://www.chicagotribune.com/?p=15832041 The world has grown so desensitized to the offenses of Vladimir Putin’s Russia that the visible signs of torture on Islamic State terrorist suspects in court for the recent attack in Moscow sparked little reaction. After all, why be surprised? 

The Russian government is no stranger to accusations of torturing people in custody, and it has violated international law in many other ways, both before and since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It has struck civilian targets with reckless abandon following an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state. It has stolen more than 19,000 children from their Ukrainian families and relocated them against their will to Russia or Russian-occupied territory. It likely assassinated Putin’s biggest political opponent in prison recently. 

The sheer number of offenses is staggering, but even so, Russia has previously sought to hide its crimes, deny them or defend them within the parameters of international law. Though it didn’t go as far as the George W. Bush administration with its legal gymnastics to justify torturing terrorist suspects, Russia’s prior actions gave a nod to a set of widely recognized international rules and norms. 

That is the response of a bad actor that still believes accountability might apply, whether legally or in the court of public opinion. Intentionally distributing videos of agents of the Russian state committing violent acts of torture is not. 

The behavior of the Russian government has worsened because Putin has no fear that he will suffer consequences. The general playbook of overwhelming his detractors with too many criminal acts is starting to gain ground internationally, while he succeeds in quashing opposition at home too. 

More worrying, though, is that it isn’t just Russia. Impunity is contagious. Russia led the charge in assassinating opponents on foreign soil, but today, there are credible allegations against India, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Rwanda for lethal attacks against perceived adversaries overseas. These aren’t all pariah states. Three remain close partners of the United States and have incurred no real consequences for these offenses against human rights and national sovereignty.

A suspect in the Crocus City Hall shooting sits in a courtroom in Moscow on March 24, 2024. (Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP)
A suspect in the Crocus City Hall shooting sits in a courtroom in Moscow on March 24, 2024. (Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP)

When the United States has chosen to call out offenders of international law and norms, it’s been met with credible cries of hypocrisy and double standards. America does the international order no favors when it lambastes countries of the global south for not condemning Russia’s crimes while blocking meaningful action by the United Nations Security Council against Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza’s civilians. 

If America is unwilling or unable to cajole its friends to abide by a set of international standards, what hope do we have of reining in the bad acts of others?  

Call it the rules-based order, the liberal international order or a system of international law. It’s been with us in some form since the end of World War II, and, although deeply flawed, it has had notable successes. Greater predictability and engagement facilitated an explosion in global trade. Poverty rates around the world declined dramatically. Democracy spread for decades. It sought to prevent interstate wars, and it succeeded in diminishing them significantly, for a while. 

This system was always applied on a curve. It was never powerful enough to rein in an unwilling superpower, but it did help shape state behavior and kept the bulk of it within certain parameters or risk the consequences. States that wholly bucked the system, such as North Korea, merely remained exiles, outside the constraints or benefits of the world order. Other states’ actions outside the norms could, and often did, garner a collective response.

As one example, as recently as 2012, even Russia and China voted in support of U.N. Security Council resolutions to condemn a military coup in Mali and authorize sanctions and a peacekeeping force. This used to be unremarkable, but unanimous actions like this simply don’t happen anymore. A rash of military coups across the Sahel in recent years couldn’t even muster a unanimous expression of concern.  

A bit like Santa Claus, the system’s efficacy only ever extended as far as global belief in it did. During the Cold War, that global belief was grounded in the fragile cooperation of two competing superpowers. They allowed and fostered conflict where it suited them, but they still managed to prevent war between two nuclear powers. 

Today, I’m not confident our existing system can do even that. Countries big and small across the globe no longer believe in it. The United States, once the system’s primary guarantor, appears no longer willing or able to play its part. 

It can be easy to ignore the signs that our system of order is fraying, given how nebulous that order already was. But if that system continues to retreat, we will be left with only chaos — the kind that agents of chaos, such as Putin’s Russia, thrive on. 

If the global community of states, such as it is, cannot manage to resuscitate the order we had, we ought to start looking hard for a better system to replace it. 

Elizabeth Shackelford is the Magro Family Distinguished Visitor in International Affairs at Dartmouth College and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

Submit a letter to the editor, of no more than 400 words, by emailing letters@chicagotribune.com. To review our criteria, click here.

]]>
15832041 2024-04-05T05:00:49+00:00 2024-04-03T14:16:40+00:00
Elizabeth Shackelford: Haiti can’t right itself without restoring security — and a working government https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/03/22/column-haiti-gang-violence-government-turmoil-solutions-shackelford/ Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:00:10 +0000 https://www.chicagotribune.com/?p=15756666 Since President Jovenel Moïse’s assassination in July 2021, Haiti has seen a total breakdown in security and political systems.

Haiti’s security services are no match for the gangs currently controlling 80% of the capital city. The country has no elected leaders, and its unpopular acting prime minister just agreed to resign when gangs shut down the international airport, preventing his return to the country. Haiti’s insecurity is connected to a long-standing political crisis, as many powerful political actors have been implicated in criminal networks rather than trying to dismantle them.

International partners are working with Haitian political and civil society and business groups to piece together an acceptable transitional government, but consensus has been slow, and how it will regain control remains an open question.

There are no quick fixes, but some paths to peace are more promising than others. If Haiti and its international partners can learn from past mistakes, Haiti’s inevitably long road ahead could provide a sustainable foundation for a better future. That’s a big “if,” though.

Haiti faces two distinct but related crises: widespread insecurity and a broken political system. For that reason, the deterioration in Haiti often brings comparisons to Somalia. As a U.S. diplomat who served in the latter, I can offer this lesson: Security gains will remain fleeting in the absence of inclusive, effective governance.

After 15 years of a regional peacekeeping mission and close security cooperation with the United States and several other countries, the Somali state remains weak and untrusted, government services are still negligible and terrorist attacks continue. If Haiti wants a better outcome, it must take its political dysfunction as seriously as its insecurity.

Like Somalia, Haiti can’t address its security problems without foreign aid. Haiti’s police force is weak, insufficient to take on the gangs, and also marred by criminality and corruption. Haiti’s national army is barely operational, disbanded in 1995 after facilitating multiple coups, and only reinstated in 2017 following the exit of a United Nations peacekeeping operation.

But Haiti’s history of foreign intervention does not instill confidence. Since the Haitian Revolution in 1791, Haiti has been invaded several times, including by the United States in the early 20th century. Foreign interventions since the 1990s have been less nefarious, aiming to restore democracy and provide humanitarian aid. But they still haven’t been particularly successful, and often they’ve arguably caused more harm than good.

This past makes it critical today that some passably credible Haitian authority be in place to sign off on the presence of a foreign force.

Opposition to such a force has already brought together dozens of disparate gangs that had previously been fighting each other. If the Haitian public views a foreign force as illegitimate, that could strengthen the gangs’ position, just as they are vying for political legitimacy. (Although, “Trust us, we’ll protect you from … us” isn’t particularly convincing.)

This brings us to the sticky question of what political authority will come to the rescue. All parties and partners agree it must be a Haitian-led effort. But, when criminality and corruption are intertwined with the most powerful players in the country, where do you go for credible Haitian representation?

The Caribbean Community, also known as CARICOM, has taken the lead in negotiating the answer, in consultation with Haitian actors and a few other countries, including the United States. Its solution, announced earlier this month, was informed by proposals submitted by Haitian groups, including a fairly robust civil society coalition. It calls for a Transitional Presidential Council with seven voting and two nonvoting members to appoint a new interim prime minister who will preside over the arrival of international security assistance and organize elections.

The approach appears inclusive, representing not only civil society but also political parties and the business community. The gangs are perhaps the only notable group left out. Only one of the invited parties has opted out and rejected the proposal so far.

The hard part begins once that government is in place, though. Its legitimacy will be judged not only by who it appears to represent but also by its performance. Specifically, it will be judged by whether or not it can return security to the country. Elections are nice, but they probably aren’t as important to the people of Haiti today as their families’ safety. Ultimately, it will be judged on whether it can provide the essential services that Haitians today lack.

The government will have its work cut out for it and will need the support of a wide range of partners to set it up for success. That won’t come from a small band of Kenyan police — the only firm commitment to a multinational force for Haiti so far (and even Kenya has paused deployment in the absence of a sitting government).

The success of addressing these dual crises each hinges on the other. If Haiti doesn’t have the support of a multinational force sufficient to take on the country’s brutal and well-armed gangs, the painstaking inclusive political exercise will be for naught too.

Elizabeth Shackelford is the Magro Family Distinguished Visitor in International Affairs at Dartmouth College and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

]]>
15756666 2024-03-22T05:00:10+00:00 2024-03-21T15:28:16+00:00
Elizabeth Shackelford: With Israel, the United States isn’t as weak as it’s acting https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/03/08/column-united-states-gaza-israel-hamas-war-shackelford/ Fri, 08 Mar 2024 11:00:19 +0000 https://www.chicagotribune.com/?p=15695897 At least 30,000 people have been killed so far, famine is on Gaza’s doorstep and children are dying of hunger. And yet, the U.S. government continues to rely on persuasion to urge Israel’s government to change course. This strategy has failed dramatically.

U.S. officials have made clear that, while Israel’s cause is just, its approach to this war has imposed unjustifiable suffering on the civilian population and undermined prospects for long-term peace and stability. If the U.S. government really wants this to change, it must stop blindly underwriting the war.

Officials in President Joe Biden’s administration like to point out that steady pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has delivered small results, but it’s hard to take these claims seriously.

The U.S. government urged Israel to avoid a large ground invasion early on. Israel launched it anyway. It urged Israel not to carpet-bomb the south as it did in the north. It did anyway. The U.S. military urged Israel to use smaller, more precise weapons in Gaza’s dense urban areas. Israel’s military continued to drop unguided 2000-pound bombs anyway. The United States urged Israel not to conduct raids on hospitals. It did anyway.

The Biden administration has told Israel it must not reoccupy Gaza and must plan for an eventual two-state solution. Netanyahu has made crystal clear that his day-after plan is total occupation, and he openly scoffs at the idea of a Palestinian state.

Biden administration officials have repeatedly pleaded with Israel to allow enough lifesaving aid to enter Gaza to prevent famine and widespread outbreak of disease. And yet, the Israeli government has made it nearly impossible to deliver sufficient aid to a civilian population entirely within its control and at its mercy.

The Biden administration has stepped up its public criticism of Netanyahu’s government. On Sunday, Vice President Kamala Harris delivered the strongest words yet. “People in Gaza are starving,” she said. “The Israeli government must do more to significantly increase the flow of aid. No excuses.”

In December, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin warned that the extremely high civilian casualty rate risked driving civilians “into the arms of the enemy,” which would result in “a strategic defeat.” Last month, Biden himself said Israel’s military operations were “over the top.”

But these statements mean nothing when directly contradicted by what the U.S. government continues to do: protecting Israel from consequences on the world stage and providing it with the military aid that makes continuing this war possible.

Only a few weeks ago, the United States once again stood alone in vetoing a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire, and it has escaped no one that most bombs dropped in Gaza are from the United States. In only a few months, Israel has destroyed more of Gaza’s infrastructure than three years of war did in Aleppo, Syria, putting Gaza’s suffering at historic proportions.

That destruction is made worse by the dearth of humanitarian support. Thanks to Israel’s obstruction, only a fraction of the aid needed is entering Gaza. The enclave’s 2.3 million residents are in dire need of food, clean water and health care. Absent rapid changes to the humanitarian situation, hundreds of thousands will starve to death. It’s no wonder then that the few distributions that occur turn into chaos.

The U.S. response was to airdrop about 38,000 meals into Gaza on March 2 and again on March 5 — each an expensive and dangerous venture amounting to less than the contents of one full truck by some estimates. It was little more than a gesture to make conflicted senior officials feel better about the role they are playing in America’s continued faux helplessness.

The United States is Israel’s most important partner and advocate on the world stage. Israel is America’s biggest recipient of military aid by far, to the tune of about $4 billion a year. It has received more than $300 billion in U.S. aid since its founding, more than 50% more than the next highest recipient. U.S. assistance accounts for some 15% of Israel’s defense budget.

For Israel, this translates to a pretty significant dependence on the United States for its ability to wage war. But you wouldn’t know it by how America is acting. Instead of using this leverage, the Biden administration has made clear that its support is unconditional.

The closest it has gotten to conditioning aid was a directive last month to authorize cutting off military aid to countries that violate international protections of civilians. But this is a cynical gesture since U.S. law already requires such, and this redundant provision is still not being applied to condition support to Israel.

With Netanyahu counting on this war to keep him in power, no amount of friendly cajoling is going to persuade him. He will not change course until refusing to do so costs him. The United States is uniquely positioned to impose that cost by making U.S. military assistance contingent on Israel heeding America’s most urgent demands.

We have the leverage, and we have the laws. If we don’t have the will, we will pay the costs, now and for a long time to come.

Elizabeth Shackelford is a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

]]>
15695897 2024-03-08T05:00:19+00:00 2024-03-07T12:01:38+00:00
Elizabeth Shackelford: Dysfunction in US makes it clear that Europe is at risk for outsourcing its security https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/02/23/column-europe-defense-spending-nato-ukraine-russia-war-shackelford/ Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:00:38 +0000 https://www.chicagotribune.com/?p=15667838 The Munich Security Conference, the world’s preeminent annual gathering on international security, wrapped up last weekend. Global leaders and experts discussed a wide range of concerns, but the threat of Russia and fate of Ukraine took center stage. Events in recent weeks have enhanced the former and made the latter look bleak, just ahead of the second anniversary of the war.

This has European countries looking inward and wondering what that might mean for their own future security, at a time when their primary security guarantor — the United States — is looking fickle.

The conference opened to news of Alexei Navalny’s death in an Arctic penal colony. Navalny was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most effective critic and political foe, and whatever the proximate cause, Putin was the executioner. It’s hard to escape the fact that Putin will get away with it, which will embolden him further while giving other homegrown dissenters more pause.

The White House’s promise for more sanctions in response feels futile, as two years of intense economic punishment have failed to impede Putin’s bad acts. If anything, he’s more brazen. A Russian defector was just found dead in Spain, an indication that Putin isn’t afraid to conduct his vengeance on European soil either.

Russia also just secured its biggest battleground gain in nearly a year, when Ukraine withdrew from the key eastern town of Avdiivka after months of intense fighting.

The fall of Avdiivka put a spotlight on Congress’s failure to pass a new Ukraine military aid package. Weapons and ammunition stockpiles have been dwindling for months, leaving Ukraine heavily outmanned and outgunned by Russia. Those shortages clearly had an impact. With a majority in Congress in favor of continuing assistance to Ukraine, the decision by the Republican-led House to take a vacation rather than bring the aid bill to a vote exposes America’s highly dysfunctional political system and the peril of relying on it for one’s defense.

This is a hard lesson for Europe to learn after decades of doing just that. Unlike Ukraine, Europe’s dependence is the product of choice. Most European countries have taken steps recently to address defense shortcomings by increasing spending and exploring how to enhance their own industrial capacity. But the response is too slow, the gap too great, and they’ve nearly wasted two years with a lack of cohesiveness and urgency.

NATO’s lopsided reliance on the U.S. military is hardly new. Presidents and other political leaders have complained about it for decades, but the United States did little to urge change, either, content with the level of control it retained from its outsize contribution.

That reality, though, could change far more quickly than European countries could adapt — a fact not lost on the participants in Munich, after recent inflammatory statements from former President Donald Trump. Trump announced at a campaign rally that he would not abide by America’s treaty commitment to NATO if reelected and would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to NATO member countries that don’t meet NATO spending guidelines. Some dismissed it as campaign trail bluster, but John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said he has no doubt that Trump will find a way to abandon NATO if reelected.

Despite some countries’ increased defense spending, the United States still contributes more than two-thirds of NATO’s budget. Europe’s two biggest economies — Germany and France — still spend below the pledged 2% on defense, though in a sign of heightened concern, both announced earlier this month that they plan to reach that target this year.

But increasing defense spending alone won’t be sufficient to replace what would be lost without U.S. backing. Enhancing European arms production, for example, doesn’t happen overnight, and arms producers need more firm financial commitments before they’ll invest in expanding production.

At Munich, some European leaders were blunt about the need for urgent action to avert Ukraine’s demise, which would bring Russia’s threat closer to their doorstep. The president of the Czech Republic said his country has located 800,000 shells elsewhere that could be bought and shipped to Ukraine quickly, and the Danish prime minister said Denmark will donate its entire artillery stockpile.

These moves might help plug a short-term gap for Ukraine but do little to enhance Europe’s security in the long term. Perhaps this period of uncertainty will pass with NATO little affected and Europe still secure. The House could still pass the Ukraine aid bill, boosting Ukraine before it’s too late. And if President Joe Biden is reelected, America’s commitment to NATO and Ukraine will be secure for at least another four years.

But even so, Europe should take the risk of an unpredictable America to heart and do what it takes now to enhance its security self-sufficiency. This might be its last opportunity to do so.

Elizabeth Shackelford is a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

]]>
15667838 2024-02-23T05:00:38+00:00 2024-02-22T12:25:28+00:00
Elizabeth Shackelford: Sudan falls apart while the world looks away https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/02/09/column-sudan-war-humanitarian-crisis-shackelford/ Fri, 09 Feb 2024 11:00:08 +0000 https://www.chicagotribune.com/?p=15632949 Headlines highlight the horrors of Gaza and Israel and the West’s debate over support for Ukraine, but another brutal war is raging far off the radar in Sudan.

It’s vulgar to compare the suffering. The unnecessary pain, trauma and loss in every conflict is tragic. These crises all call for action, but countries across the globe have mobilized to press for solutions for Ukraine and Gaza, while Sudan goes barely noticed. The scale and the nature of Sudan’s war demand more.

Sudan hosts the largest displaced population on earth. Nearly 8 million people have fled their homes since the war began in April. Three million are children. More than 1.5 million Sudanese have left the country, though, as they are surrounded by other unstable countries, they have nowhere safe to go.

As in Gaza, starvation is stalking Sudan — but on a far bigger scale. More than 20 million people, or 10 times the population of Gaza, face acute or emergency levels of hunger now. The most vulnerable are trapped where humanitarian access is blocked by ongoing fighting. Left unaddressed, this situation will become famine on an epic scale.

How can the world be so attentive to the plight of Gaza’s civilians and so unconcerned with those in Sudan? And what does the lack of attention mean?

As Gaza and Ukraine demonstrate, global attention doesn’t mean a quick end to conflict. But the United States and others have led serious, sustained diplomatic and humanitarian responses in Gaza and Ukraine. Though not sufficient, they are necessary to reduce suffering and restore peace.

In Sudan, no such serious response is underway.

The war is a fight for total control between Gen. Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, who leads the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and Gen. Abdel Fattah Burhan, the country’s de facto leader who heads the Sudanese Armed Forces. The two conspired in 2019 to oust Omar al-Bashir in a coup and obstructed civilian leadership, but they couldn’t agree on terms for unifying their forces and chose war instead.

In Khartoum, major landmarks and whole neighborhoods were leveled. The conflict then spread west to Darfur and then south. Crimes against humanity have been rampant.

The start of the war saw a flurry of diplomatic wrangling and uncoordinated attempts at peace. Saudi Arabia and the United States, the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development each led competing peace talks. None succeeded. Serious efforts would have coordinated and convened all interested and influential parties.

The U.S. response has not been serious at all, paling in comparison to prior responses even to crises in Sudan.

Take the conflict in Darfur two decades ago. Al-Bashir’s government used the Janjaweed, a proxy Sudanese Arab militia, to fight rebellion, and it unleashed brutal violence against the non-Arab population, while the Sudanese military bombed civilians from the air.

Human rights groups and activists responded with horror to reports of genocide and organized large public protests and campaigns in the United States and around the world. These actions spurred hearings in Congress and the United Nations Security Council. U.S. diplomacy was led by envoys reporting to the White House, indicating high-level attention on the issue.

International partners worked closely to negotiate a cease-fire and establish peacekeeping missions, first led by the African Union and then with the United Nations. The U.N. Security Council even referred Sudan to the International Criminal Court in 2005. The response was delayed and often fell short, but international engagement and pressure ultimately helped secure more than a decade of fragile peace.

Even with that level of engagement, the war in Darfur lasted years and killed an estimated 300,000 people. Imagine the damage this war could do with no efforts to rein it in.

Countries more engaged on Sudan today only fuel conflict. The United Arab Emirates, a close U.S. military partner, is the gravest offender, as it bankrolls and arms the RSF. The RSF has been on the offensive for months, suggesting a victory for the rebel forces could be in sight.

This has led other countries in the region to provide unwarranted diplomatic support to Hemedti as well. Instead of making him a pariah for widespread crimes against humanity, war crimes and possibly even genocide, many have rolled out the red carpet to receive him with the flare of a head-of-state visit.

If the United States and others continue to look away, dire humanitarian conditions will precipitate unimaginable suffering, and ultimately, someone will be rewarded for seizing power by force, which could inspire other armed groups in the region.

After months of calls from Congress, the United States will finally appoint a new special envoy. While it isn’t a cure-all, it’s an opportunity to reinvigorate America’s response and diplomacy on Sudan. We have influence with the UAE, should we choose to use it. Even if we can’t secure a particularly palatable outcome at this stage, we should aim to minimize the suffering and help get assistance to those in need.

For those who agree, they might want to let their representatives in Washington know.

Elizabeth Shackelford is a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

]]>
15632949 2024-02-09T05:00:08+00:00 2024-02-08T11:20:38+00:00
Elizabeth Shackelford: Iran is at the tipping point. Will the US exercise its political will with Israel? https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/01/26/elizabeth-shackelford-iran-is-at-the-tipping-point-will-the-us-exercise-its-political-will-with-israel/ https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/01/26/elizabeth-shackelford-iran-is-at-the-tipping-point-will-the-us-exercise-its-political-will-with-israel/#respond Fri, 26 Jan 2024 06:00:00 +0000 https://www.chicagotribune.com?p=9903742&preview_id=9903742 The latest war between Israel and Hamas is the biggest conflagration in the Middle East today, but sparks and fires are emerging across the region. Each provides ample opportunity to launch a wider war. The common thread is Iran. This means the key to preventing escalation lies in Iran as well.

Iran, a Shia Muslim state, arms, trains and supports a network of militant groups across the region. While most tensions there historically fall along the Sunni-Shia religious divide, Iran’s “axis of resistance” includes groups on both sides.

Right now, Iran is stirring up trouble on a half-dozen fronts. It’s a major supporter of Hamas, the Sunni Muslim militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7. It bankrolls Hezbollah, which threatens Israel from the north. In the Red Sea, the Yemen-based and Iran-backed Houthis endanger global shipping. And in just the past two weeks, Iran has attacked targets in Pakistan, Syria and Iraq.

The United States would love to detach itself from the Middle East’s problems, but Iran is making that impossible.

Israel remains the main front of Iran’s aggression. Though the United States assessed that Iran was not likely involved in planning the Oct. 7 attack, Iran’s long-standing support certainly facilitated Hamas’ actions then and its continued ability to fight in Gaza now.

The most likely trigger for widening the war is Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, where Hezbollah, a Shia Muslim militant group, has frequently skirmished with Israel’s military. Hezbollah stepped up attacks after Oct. 7, in solidarity with Hamas, which led Israel to respond in kind. Fighting on the border continues to intensify.

Hezbollah was created by Iran in the 1980s specifically to oppose Israel. It’s well armed, boasts tens of thousands of fighters and generally does Iran’s bidding, for better or for worse. If Iran wants to keep this border from catching fire, it can.

Another high-risk flashpoint is the Red Sea, where the Houthis, a Shia militant group that controls most of Yemen, have been attacking ships for months, disrupting commerce and leading major shipping companies to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope. The Houthis claim they will continue targeting ships linked to Israel and its allies until Israel ends its war in Gaza.

The United States and the United Kingdom scaled up their response to striking Houthi targets inside Yemen. But the Houthis didn’t succumb to nearly a decade of Saudi Arabia’s pummeling during Yemen’s civil war, so it’s unlikely an air campaign will deter them. Unless the United States is planning a ground invasion — improbable under any circumstances and more so in an election year. It will need a different approach to liberate this critical shipping chokepoint.

More unexpected were the Iranian airstrikes on a Sunni militant group in southwestern Pakistan on Jan. 16. Iran claimed it hit a base of the insurgent group Jaish al-Adl, which Tehran claims has launched deadly attacks inside Iran. Pakistan insists the attack was unprovoked, ousted Iran’s ambassador and then struck Baluch insurgent training camps in southeastern Iran in retaliation.

The presence of militant groups on each side of this border has long been a source of tension, but the two countries have had mostly friendly relations, and these high-profile attacks were unprecedented. In a measure of good news, Tehran and Islamabad quickly agreed to de-escalate the situation.

But within 24 hours, Iran also launched missiles into Syria and Iraq. In Iraq, Tehran claimed it hit Israeli intelligence assets, and in Syria, it targeted the Islamic State. These are very different missions against very different foes, and Iran taking direct action rather than relying on proxies and plausible deniability was a clear departure from the norm.

Iranian-backed militants in Iraq have stepped up attacks on U.S. personnel and positions too, leading the United States to conduct significant airstrikes in response, in yet another sign of violence on the rise.

Most signs suggest that Iran, like the West, wants to prevent the conflict in Gaza from becoming a regionwide war. With an elderly supreme leader fighting for his legacy, major terrorist attacks on its territory and dust still settling from Iran’s biggest public uprising since the 1979 Islamic Revolution over the 2022 death of Mahsa Amini, this regime is not eager to stumble into a fight.

But Iran is clearly feeling the need to project power, and the risk of miscalculation or mistake gets higher by the day. Iran’s nonstate actors have less to lose, which makes them more unpredictable.

This isn’t great news for America’s own interest in keeping the war contained. Our ability to shape Iran’s behavior with diplomatic or economic levers died when we left the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, leaving us only military tools to lean on, which are risky at best and could drag us into direct conflict with Iran.

Iran’s proxies have all tied their recent actions to the latest war between Israel and Hamas, so the best path America still has to rein in Iran is where we still hold sway: Israel. We have the leverage to do so, by conditioning our generous military assistance, but do we have the will?

So far, politics say no. But if the alternative risks war with Iran, I hope we’ll reconsider.

Elizabeth Shackelford is a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

]]>
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/01/26/elizabeth-shackelford-iran-is-at-the-tipping-point-will-the-us-exercise-its-political-will-with-israel/feed/ 0 9903742 2024-01-26T06:00:00+00:00 2024-01-26T11:00:01+00:00