Foreign Policy Misc.

An answer to Oscar's post a couple of weeks ago on the Mexican election comes in this week'sNew Republic, which profiles the post-election strategy of defeated candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Leon Krauze noted that when he was well ahead in the polls, López Obrador campaigned as a strong democrat."When it comes to democracy, you either win or lose," said he."I'm a democrat and I've always said so. Yes, we will respect the [Mexican electoral tribunal] IFE's ruling." Krauze concludes:

To some, López Obrador's bet appears to hinge on diminishing Calderón's legitimacy, thereby hindering Mexico's governability for the next six years. Tainted by a supposed fraud, a Calderón presidency would not go far, paving the way for a López Obrador return in 2012. Simply put, the PRD's candidate seems to be gambling with national paralysis for the sake of his own political future. What a curious bet for a self-proclaimed democrat.

Meanwhile, yesterday's New York Times devoted its op-ed section to solicited short pieces on the current Middle East crisis. Given that more than 80 percent of the Israeli public supports PM Olmert's policy, I would have thought that Times could have found one Israeli who would make the argument for Olmert, rather than instead turning to Richard Perle. But most of the suggestions were common-sense: involve the international community, increase the power of the Lebanese government. How to accomplish these goals, of course, remains a mystery.

Then there was Rashid Khalidi. One wonders why the Times even bothered to solicit a piece--the paper just could have printed a block item,"Rashid Khalidi says the US and Israel are at fault." And, of course, Khalidi does just that, adding for good measure,"This crisis is rooted in Israel’s nearly 40-year occupation of Palestinian lands and its occupation of Lebanon from 1982 to 2000."

During the 1980s, LASA--though very left-wing in its outlook--nonetheless was quite influential, especially with House Democrats, in explaining the root causes of Central American instability. But now--at a time when we need better understanding of the Middle East--who in any position of influence would listen to figures from the MESA establishment?

As a suggestion of the kind of expertise that Khalidi chooses not to provide, an impressive article in today's Times of London. Iranian commentator Amir Taheri explicates the multiple and intricate links between Hezbollah and Iran, and making a convincing case for viewing Hezbollah is an arm of Iranian foreign policy. Such a thesis, of course, doesn't forward Khalidi's let's-blame-Israel philosophy. Why let the facts get in the way of a good argument?