As we wait for the bailout bill, sorry the rescue package, to be passed by our “country first” Congress, and as we wait for the low expectations debate tomorrow evening, one may wonder what is happening around the rest of our “interconnected” world.
Well, here is my quick perusal of headlines this morning:
First to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Los Angeles Times discusses how the insurgence in Afghanistan is escalating and how warlords now direct attacks against U.S. forces from havens in Pakistan, and how
Despite a flurry of U.S. airstrikes against their organizations and million-dollar bounties on their heads, the Pashtun chieftains have been able to operate, and even expand their networks, largely unmolested from bases spread along the border with Pakistan.
The New York Times reports that even General Petraeus admits to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan in “Insurgents in Afghanistan Are Gaining, Petraeus Says”, “Certainly in Afghanistan, wresting control of certain areas from the Taliban will be very difficult.”
Security gains remain “reversible and uneven,” with the main threats coming from Iranian-backed militias and the Shiite-led Iraqi government’s slow integration of volunteer Sunni fighters, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday. Potential is growing, moreover, for politically driven violence as ethnic, tribal and religious groups vie for influence in advance of provincial elections planned in coming months, according to the congressionally mandated quarterly Pentagon report on security in Iraq.
The number of Iraqi security forces killed in September rose by nearly a third, to 159, compared with the same period last year, Associated Press figures showed yesterday. U.S. troop deaths for the same period fell by nearly 40 percent, to 25. The figures are a sign that the U.S. military is increasingly relying on the Iraqis, including U.S.-allied Sunni fighters, to take the lead in operations so they can assume responsibility for their own security and let the Americans eventually withdraw.
While the “political” talk is all about troop reductions in Iraq, the Seattle Times reports
Six Army brigades, a National Guard unit and three military headquarters have been ordered to Iraq next summer in a move that would allow the U.S. to keep the number of troops largely steady there through much of next year.The planned deployments involve about 26,000 troops and would maintain 14 combat brigades in Iraq from about February to early fall. But the decisions do not rule out potential changes as military leaders assess the security there and eye more troop withdrawals.Even as violence in Iraq has plunged in the past year, cautious Pentagon leaders have resisted insistent public and congressional calls for more rapid and hefty troop pullouts. Instead, top commanders insist the security situation remains fragile, and the improvements reversible.
The United States needs new weapon systems, including missile defenses and other advanced military capabilities, to deter and counter China’s steady buildup of nuclear and conventional arms, according to a draft internal report by a State Department advisory board. U.S. defense policy has stressed missile defenses against Iran and North Korea. The report, by the Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board (ISAB), is the first to recommend such defenses against China, including technology in space.
Should China now be added to the Axis of Evil?
Talking about weapons systems, U.S. weapons exports rose about 45 percent to $33.7 billion in the just-ended fiscal year, the highest total since 1993, as the Defense Department increased sales in the Middle East to improve security in the region. This according to Bloomberg.com
One of the beneficiaries of such weapons systems sales is our ally, Israel.
The Defense Department formally notified Congress that it wants to sell Israel as many as 75 of the latest-model fighter jet, which is being developed under a contract led by #Lockheed Martin Corp. A sale could be worth as much as $15 billion. It would mark the first order from outside the original team of countries working on the jet, the F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter.
The Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter loaded with tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition said in an interview on Tuesday that they had no idea the ship was carrying arms when they seized it on the high seas.
“We just saw a big ship,” the pirates’ spokesman, Sugule Ali, said in a telephone interview. “So we stopped it.”
The pirates quickly learned, though, that their booty was an estimated $30 million worth of heavy weaponry, heading for Kenya or Sudan, depending on whom you ask.
Perhaps unrelated to this, but potentially very applicable and ominous, the Navy Times reports in “AfriCom goes operational”:
After spending the past year under the wing of European Command, the fledgling U.S. Africa Command became fully operational Wednesday — even as it remains headquartered in the middle of Europe.
Stuttgart, Germany, is not the likeliest location for this hybrid military-civilian command that hopes to promote security ties between the U.S. and African nations, help build Africa’s ability to fight terrorism and piracy and focus on “war prevention rather than war fighting,” as AfriCom’s Web site proclaims.
But concerns among both U.S. and African officials about establishing a permanent American presence on the continent combined to block an effort to place even part of its headquarters in Africa.
Finally, talking about (Stuttgart) Europe, and recalling that Russia-Georgia conflict a long, long time ago, the New York Times reports that:
The European Union on Wednesday began deploying 200 civilian monitors across parts of Georgia, witnesses and officials said, despite earlier threats by the Russian military to bar them from buffer zones surrounding the separatist enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
A European Union official said that the unarmed monitors had been allowed through Russian checkpoints at several places to enter the buffer zone. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters.
If TMV readers express and interest for similar, albeit somewhat “militaristic”, summaries of what is happening in the world outside US, stay tuned.
Forget the war with Russia quote. Yes, that was a terrifying - but clarifying - moment in that it revealed the utter folly of pushing NATO membership for Georgia or Ukraine. Smart politicians are never supposed to admit to a possible war with Russia, even if it’s technically possible. And her “perhaps so” comment is getting WIDE play already (front page on the Washington Post, for example).
But far more troubling for me was her moose-in-the-headlights look when asked about the Bush Doctrine. See the video here.
As a college professor I know when my students are BSing. It’s usually quite obvious. I call on them to answer a question about the reading and they give some completely vague talking point response. Charlie Gibson sensed it here with Sarah Palin too, and he pressed the issue. He had to actually tell her what the Bush Doctrine is: pre-emptive strikes and anticipatory self-defense.
I guarantee you that most people who read The Moderate Voice know what the Bush Doctrine is. We’ve been debating it since 2002. And if they didn’t know it, they wouldn’t pretend to be ready to serve as VP.
How could Palin have flubbed this basic question about current national security policy? It was THE justification for the war in Iraq. There are dozens of books out there on it. Everybody in the McCain foreign policy camp knows the Bush Doctrine backwards and forwards - many of them helped write it. And yet she doesn’t know what it is?
What’s worse is that when she was finally told what the Bush Doctrine was - anticipatory self-defense and pre-emptive striking - she still flubbed it. She answered that the US could respond militarily in the case of an “imminent threat.” Well, that’s actually traditional war theory and NOT the Bush Doctrine. Remember all those defenders of the Iraq war insisting that Bush NEVER claimed Iraq was an “imminent” threat? How many times did we debate the meaning of “imminence?” The reason for that exchange was clear: if Iraq posed no imminent threat, then war was unjustified…UNLESS, you accept the Bush Doctrine that advocates war even when the threat is NOT imminent.
And then when asked about an application of this doctrine in Pakistan - something that Barack Obama got a lot of flak for early on but that has become much less controversial since - she punted again. I honestly got the impression that she doesn’t know if Pakistan has nukes, why Pakistan is of strategic importance, or what’s been happening there in terms of their leadership.
Those of us who were skeptical of the Sarah Palin nomination predicted this would happen. Every day she spent in scripted rallies, the call would grow louder for her to show her actual knowledge and beliefs. And when given an interview with a man deemed appropriately “deferential,” she still flubs it.
The question now is whether or not John McCain will let her speak unscripted again before the debates. Apparently her “regular mom” schtick is better protected by shielding her from even softball policy questions.
But, hey, I’m biased. What do other people think? Did she come across as somebody ready to step in as VP, and as President in a moment’s notice if need be? Did she pass what Hillary Clinton called the “Commander-in-Chief” threshold?
September 11th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Sometimes spin control plans — even those that audaciously change the rules of the media-politician game as practiced over the last half of the 20th century up until this month — can go wrong. ABC News’ exclusive and highly-touted interview with the still-under-wraps-from-the-media GOP Vice Presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin has produced a headline that is probably making the McCain campaign cringe
The Swamp reports:
ABC News offers this headline for its exclusive interview with Sarah Palin, the Republican Party’s nominee for vice president:
“GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY.”
And the interview tonight supports the headline: “Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help,” Palin says in the interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson.
ABC News billed the interview, Palin’s first with the national media since the Republican Party nominated her for vice president last week, as a far-reaching talk about many corners of the world. This is new territory for the governor of Alaska.
Which again raises the question: isn’t this the way our media and political cultures are now set up — to grab for the jugular as quickly and tightly as possible? Wasn’t it just a few days ago that Barack Obama used the phrase “lipstick on a pig” which some pundits affirm referred not to Sarah Palin but which set off a mainstream news media and blog headline war, ads from the McCain campaign insisting it was aimed at Palin herself? Demands for both accuracy AND not making a candidate’s words look as badly as possible are apparently relative (depending on whether it favors your own candidate or not…). Back to our original post as run earlier:
Now the question is how the Democrats will react to what seems to be a gift from political heaven. The reason: it plays right into their argument that Palin is under-wraps in an unprecedented manner — there is no comparison for any Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate in recent history being kept at such arm’s length from the media — and is only being allowed to talk to the press on substantive issues in this one interview while she reportedly undergoes intensive prep sessions by McCain advisers (reportedly Bush administration supporters who will give her one perspective). MORE:
In the first of three airings of her interview with ABC’s Gibson, Palin characterizes the Russian invasion of Georgia as “unacceptable” and warns of the threats from Islamic terrorists and a nuclear Iran.
“We’ve got to keep an eye on Russia,” says Palin, whom supporters have credited with knowledge of foreign affairs for residing in a state that sits next door to Russia — “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia here from Alaska,” she says in the interview. “For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country (Georgia), unprovoked, is unacceptable.” Was it unprovoked, she is asked, and yes, she replies, it was.
Palin also is asked if she would support Israel’s right to strike Iran militarily if the Iranians posed a nuclear threat to the Israelis. “I don’t think we can second-guess what Israel needs to do to defend its nation,” she says, and repeats, when asked to clarify it a second time: “We cannot second-guess the steps that Israel needs to protect itself.”
About one year ago, Rep. Henry Waxman noticed—not that it was hard to notice—that Vice President Cheney believed that his office is in a unique Constitutional position. That it is exempt from various government requirements that apply to every other branch of government.
Cheney’s claimed exemption, then, was on the requirement for executive agencies to report each year to the National Archives on the volume of documents that they classify or declassify.
At the time, Waxman wrote to Cheney:
It would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials.
Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, has said: “[Cheney’s position] undermines oversight of the classification system and reveals a disdain for presidential authority”…”It’s part of a larger picture of disrespect that this vice president has shown for the norms of oversight and accountability.”
Well, Cheney’s disrespect for the norms of oversight and accountability and for other government requirements apparently continues.
In a Sunday LA Times article, “Suit seeks to save Cheney files,” Christopher Lee of the Washington Post describes how:
Historians and open-government advocates are concerned that Vice President Dick Cheney, who has long bristled at requirements to disclose his records, will destroy or withhold key documents that illustrate his role in forming U.S. policy for the last 7 1/2 years.
Although, according to Lee, “Cheney has not disclosed his plans for his papers, nor has he argued publicly that any are exempt from the 1978 law,” Stanley I. Kutler, an emeritus professor and constitutional scholar at the University of Wisconsin Law School, and others, including the American Historical Assn. and the Society of American Archivists, “are not reassured,” and were planning to file a lawsuit to protect the people’s records from just one more of Cheney’s infamous pre-emptive attacks. Good for them!
Fortunately, we only have five more months of this Imperial Presidency and Stealthy Vice Presidency. But perhaps, someone should ask the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate how she feels about these issues…if we can ever get her to grant an interview to the common press.
Footnote: By the way, has anyone seen our secretive VP lately? I wonder why he wasn’t at the Republican Convention. Someone told me he was in Georgia to announce a $1 billion package to help fix that state’s schools, hospitals, bridges, highways and other infrastructure. About time that we do something for our own country. Oops, sorry: Someone just told me I had the wrong Georgia. Oh well, our Georgia will have to wait until the next administration—if it is the right one.
William Kern, from our “competing” site “Worldmeets.US” reports on an August 29 article in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, how “the Dutch intelligence service has halted a very successful operation to ’sabotage’ Iran’s weapons program due to an imminent American attack that would have put its activities and personnel at risk.”
(I say “competing” in a friendly way, because I translate Dutch and Spanish articles for Worldmeets.US’ competition, WatchingAmerica.com)
Anyway, I found the story very interesting and somewhat alarming. While I found no updates in the Dutch press over the weekend, I did find that there is an awful lot of “chatter” on the subject in Dutch blogs.
The following are some translated passages from one of those blogs.
The site “Argusoog” reports in detail on “Operation Brimstone” from a few weeks ago, a joint U.S., U.K. and French naval exercise in the North Atlantic, “as preparation for a naval blockade against Iran, which will probably lead to war in the Persian Gulf.”
It also reports:
At the end of May, the U.S. Senate accepted legislation where it was proposed to block the Persian Gulf. This would under international law be seen as a declaration of war. We can see this as intimidation to elicit an attack from Iran. As today’s news in De Telegraaf tells us, it looks like NATO itself will initiate the attack…Would the present administration in Washington attack Iran? Before November 4, when a new president will be elected?
The post then discusses recent U.S.-Russia tensions:
The recent entry into the Black Sea of 15 NATO navy ships, with an additional 15 ships on the way. Russia’s recent initiative to send its naval ships to the Mediterranean, where the Russians now have a naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus.
Venezuela’s plans to shortly receive the visit of a Russian fleet, coinciding with the visit of Russian president Medvedev.
Russia’s declaration that it will arm its ship-launched ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads as a response to the U.S. building of the “missile shield” in Europe and NATO’s involvement in its conflict with Georgia.
The Belgian publication HLN.Be in its Flemish edition reports tomorrow on Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez giving Russia the “green light” for the future transit of Russian military ships and aircraft via Venezuelan territorial waters and airspace. Chavez reportedly pointed to the “strategic alliance” between his country and Russia.
According to the publication, Chavez says:
Russia is a strategic partner of Venezuela, and everyone needs to know this…If Russian aircraft need a Venezuelan airport to refuel, they are welcome.
Either the Dutch press is being overly alarmist and sensationalist, or we have been too engrossed in our presidential races and, just very recently, too focused on the immediate and rising threat of hurricane Gustav, to notice other rising threats and dangers.
For future translations of such Dutch and other European press reports, keep an eye on WatchingAmerica.com
Even as all eyes turn to the impending storms in the south with their possible impact on the upcoming Republican convention, and lips are flapping over Sarah Palin’s nomination, it is worth remembering the unfolding story on the Russo-Georgian border. No matter who next occupies the West Wing, they will need to step into the office with an effective, comprehensive plan for dealing with an increasingly complicated situation in Eastern Europe.
In the early 1300’s, the medieval version of Georgia was ruled by King George the Brilliant. Recouping losses incurred by Queen Rusudan’s disastrous appeasement of the Mongols, he restored the nation’s earlier borders and regained access to the Trebizond coastal area on the Black Sea. This was accomplished using a clever balance of alliances in a historically volatile part of the world. Recent events along the Russian border demonstrate the current dearth of brilliance and the penalties modern Georgians may expect to pay.
Russia’s pace of egress from Georgia was uncertain, yet the withdrawal seemed inevitable from the outset. The Kremlin will fall back to their own lands with residual forces perched in the disputed territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This protracted exit may provide a window of opportunity for pensive reflection and analysis by pundits, U.S. government officials and presidential candidates alike. Among each of these classes we have observed a rattling of sabers combined with what seems to be a nostalgic desire to revisit the bad old days of the cold war, with an easily defined evil empire. Georgia provides an all too convenient damsel in distress, chained outside the cave of the Russian bear with plaintive wails for rescue rising on the morning breeze.
Tempting though the analogy may be, the roles of the actors might be hard to define, and slaying the beast may provide unwelcome trophies. Georgian President Saakashvili’s methods since his ascension to power have certainly called his democratic bona fides into question, and his ham-handed attempts at triangulating the United States against Russia’s interests in the region have doubtless left some in the current administration with a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.
Paul Saunders, a Bush surrogate and executive director of the Nixon Center, wryly noted, “it wouldn’t matter to Georgia’s president whether the United States was a democracy, a theocracy or ruled by Martians so long as he could use Washington to change the dynamics of Georgian-Russian relations.”
Calls for Russia’s departure have abounded, along with suggestions that they be expelled from the G8, excoriated by more properly civilized nations and, ideally, drawn if not quartered. Such admonitions came quickly from Republican candidate John McCain, followed by a more reluctant, though equally bellicose response from the vacationing Barack Obama. One of the few voices of caution and diplomacy, surprisingly, came to us from Libertarian hopeful Bob Barr, who questioned the cost vs. benefit analysis of prodding the Russian bear with America’s few remaining sticks.
Such prudence might be well advised, as demonstrated by the jaw-dropping timing of Secretary Rice’s announcement that our next missile defense batteries would be in the keeping of Poland and the Ukraine. The Kremlin responded with an even greater lack of enthusiasm than was demonstrated for our earlier plans in the Czech Republic, declaring that such installations might well be the target of full scale military attacks. The dreaded nuclear option was even invoked in their harangue, leaving little doubt as to who they feel is the true big dog on the Eastern European block.
Summoning France’s president to the principal’s office to settle down the warring parties was another fractured brick in an already crumbling wall. While the new administration in Paris carries a more “Bush Friendly” brand, the international community has not forgotten the now infamous Freedom Fries incident. President Medvedev certainly struggled to contain a smile when letting the French mediate the matter rather than some envoy from the Beltway.
In the end, America and her NATO allies have likely learned a valuable lesson regarding the viability, wisdom and intentions of Eduard Shevardnadze’s replacement. The Georgian leader may have been similarly enlightened as to the full extent of the West’s commitment to his administrative longevity. Putin – with his presidential proxy in tow – has played some strong cards and found the West unwilling to go all in against a potential royal flush.
Russia and China find themselves in the enviable position of being power players in an increasingly complicated muddle with Iran and Venezuela, fully aware of America’s overextended military position on other fronts. Our next president will lack the luxury of treating Russia like some kicked dog in the ruined backyard of the former Soviet Union, with discretion and diplomacy trumping rumbling rhetoric.
This brings us to the question which should be put to American hawks: why would Putin wish a return to a failed and economically untenable Soviet Union when a more compact and manageable Tsarist hegemony would be far more desirable? And if there is to be fresh Russian royalty in Eastern Europe, perhaps a modern version of courtly intrigue would prove more efficacious than American armies trundling across the Caucasus Mountains.
Russia turned to its fellow members in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (formed to build relations between China and former Soviet republics) for backing in its actions against Georgia and specifically in its recognition of the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.The member states of the SCO are Russia, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. States with “observer” status are India, Iran, Pakistan and Mongolia. (Bloomberg) Eurasia.Net predicted that Russia would find “succor” in the East. Didn’t quite go that way. Condemned by its fellow G8 members (BBC 8-27-08) and looking for support from its fellow SCO members, Medvedev seems to have met mainly with shrugs.
August 28th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Tensions are rising between Russia and the European Union as the EU talks of possible sanctions — and Russia pointedly tests a new intercontinental missile.
At issue: Russia’s invasion of Georgia and the larger issue of whether Russia now intends to clamp down on what goes on in its neighborhood, whether those in its neighborhood like it or not. The BBC reports:
EU leaders are considering sanctions “and many other means” against Russia over the Georgia crisis, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has said.
But he said he hoped the matter would “be solved by negotiation”.
Moscow’s military action in Georgia and its recognition of independence for rebel regions has angered the West.
At a key summit, Moscow’s Asian allies have not followed suit in recognising independence but Russia’s president says he has their “understanding”.
There’s a reason besides a military one that explains why the EU is treading lightly: every day Russia pumps 1.2 million barrels down the Druzhba pipeline to fuel Europe — and it’s economy. But the EU’s exploring sanctions signals that, more than ever in recent years, Russia is now facing diplomatic isolation.The White House issued a statement saying it was “premature” to talk of sanctions.
Meanwhile eyebrows have been raised over Russia’s new missile test, coming as the threat of sanctions was raised and several other events that were likely displeasing to Moscow:
August 26th, 2008 By MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
I’m being facetious, of course. But she’s apparently on her way to war-torn Georgia, if she isn’t there already.
“McCain has been a staunch supporter of Georgia in that country’s clash with Russia, and sending his wife there underscores his commitment,” notes the AP. “It also could deflect attention from Michelle Obama’s convention speech in Denver as the Obama campaign seeks to introduce the family to voters.”
Really.
McCain may be a staunch supporter of Georgia, but he’s also a stupid one, rooted firmly in Cold War politics, talking tough with nothing to back it up but his own unstable temperament, pushing policies bound to aggravate Russia and drive a wedge into the heart of U.S.-Russian relations.
And now Cindy’s off to do what? Broker peace? Smile for the cameras and pretend she has a clue?
This is politics, nothing else, with the clear intention of undermining Michelle Obama: While she’s giving a speech, it will be said, Cindy McCain is off risking her manicure life in a dangerous foreign land. McCain may or may not care about Georgia, but he certainly cares about his political fortunes, and, as always, he’s willing to do anything, and take advantage of any opportunity, even sending his wife over to Georgia for a photo-op, to score points.
The media will no doubt give him a free pass — and Cindy, too (see Time, for example, which presents her as a courageous do-gooder unmotivated by political considerations) — because they always do, but the real McCain is fully in evidence here: dangerously wrong on policy, shamelessly opportunistic on politics.
He’s just grasping for attention this week. Try to ignore it.
President Dmitry Medvedev has declared that Russia formally recognises the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The move follows a vote in both houses of parliament on Monday, which called on Moscow to recognise the regions.
The move, in defiance of a specific plea from the US president, provoked a wave of protest from Western countries. (BBC News1)
While we are waiting for Barack Obama to announce his vice-presidential pick, and while we are waiting for Russia to pull all its troops out of Georgia—what was it that Adlai Stevenson said to Russia’s Zorin at a Security Council meeting during the Cuban missile crisis? Something like “…until hell freezes over”?—I want to say just a few words on a good opinion piece by former Moscow correspondent for Time magazine, Andrew Meier, in Wednesday’s LA Times.
Discussing the Russian military intrusion into Georgia in his “Let Russia join NATO,” Meier laments both Russia’s aggressive behavior and the West’s ineffective response:
Let no one be deceived: Putin has drawn a dangerous new line. Russian troops have trespassed into a sovereign nation for the first time since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But all such retributive Western campaigns are misguided and, like every attempt to twist Russian arms since the end of the U.S.S.R., sure to backfire.
He then suggests a surprising solution (as the title gives it away): “There’s really only one lever left: Invite Russia to join NATO.”
Some of Meier’s arguments:
In Putin’s Russia, muscle — be it tanks or banks — rules. Gazprom, the state giant that controls at least 25% of Europe’s natural gas supply, hungers to enter the U.S. market. So do a raft of Russian oil giants and those who control the country’s sovereign wealth funds, flush with at least $157 billion in oil money. What should the West do? Many in Washington and on Wall Street will whisper the obvious reply: Bring them in. “If our goal all these years, since the Soviet breakup, has been ‘Get them to play by our rules,’ ” one former high-ranking national security aide in the Bush and Clinton administrations told me recently, “what better way to do it?”
And,
So too on the diplomatic front. Now is the time, before the conflagration in the Caucasus spreads, to reverse course and embrace Russia more tightly than ever.
While I agree that we need to appeal to Russia’s economic interests and “bring them in” economically and in other ways, I don’t believe that letting Russia join NATO is the solution. If including Russia in NATO, as Andrew Meier suggests, could “twist Russia’s arm” to become less belligerent and expansionist, perhaps we should push for a Global Treaty Organization (GTO) that also includes China, North Korea, Iran, etc., and then we can all just sit back and sing Kum ba yah, knowing that we are all committed to everyone else’s mutual defense.
Sadly, as history has shown us, treaties, alliances and defensive compacts alone, a panacea do not make. Neither does a foreign policy—such as we have seen during the past seven years—that relies on bullying, retribution, cajolement, and even bribery. In my humble opinion, diligent and intelligent diplomatic, social and, yes, economic efforts and programs have a much better chance to “twist” nations’ arms.
This week I’m finding it increasingly odd when I compare our country’s response to Iran vs. Russia. When Iran tells the world that they will “wipe Israel off the face of the map” we hear from numerous sources in our country that we will “take them at their word.” This takes place while Iran, while certainly dangerous on their own turf, is widely acknowledged as not having any nuclear weapons. (At least not yet.) Their enemy, Israel, is the only nuclear power in the region and has a formidable military force. Fair enough.
But strangely enough, when Russia tells us that they may take military action against any of their neighbors who allow American missile defense systems near their borders, a different response is seen from our Secretary of State.
Rice dismissed blustery comments from Russian leaders who say Warsaw’s hosting of 10 U.S. interceptor missiles just 115 miles from Russia’s westernmost frontier opens the country up to attack.
Such comments “border on the bizarre frankly,” Rice said, speaking to reporters traveling with her in Warsaw.
“When you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988,” Rice said. “It’s 2008 and the United States has a … firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland’s territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it’s probably not wise to throw these threats around.”
Compared to Iran, Russia is a formidable nuclear foe with significant conventional forces who (oh by the way) has already gone to the mat with one of their neighbors. They not only have the ability to lash out, but a demonstrated history of doing so. The question then becomes, why would we not take them at their word as we do with the Iranians? And would you not factor this into decisions regarding putting missile defense systems a few miles from Russia’s borders?
In the near future I’ll have a longer analysis of exactly what went wrong on the Russo-Georgian border, but for the time being I’m going to leave it to Dave Schuler at Outside the Beltway. And I think this may be our Quote of the Day when it comes to figuring out why Russia sometimes does what it does.
Is Russia, as Michael Mandelbaum, quoted in the column puts it (pooh-poohing the idea), “innately aggressive”? I don’t think so. But I do think that, like us, Russia is quite paranoid. Or, as Woody Allen once quipped, what’s a three syllable word beginning with ‘P’ that means you think that everybody’s against you? Answer: perceptive.
To take the old blast from the blogging past, go read the whole thing.
August 20th, 2008 By BRIJ KHINDARIA, International Columnist
NATO’s decision to freeze relations with Moscow and Washington’s inept handling of Pakistan are strategic foreign policy mistakes.
They are interlinked and give cause for celebration to al Qaeda and other rabid anti-Americans. The Western allies may regret them in coming years.
The mistakes stem from a conceit among US leaders including Barack Obama and John McCain that America is much more important for Russia than Russia is for the US. This should be reviewed seriously and with an open mind before it is too late.
At this time, the US needs partnership with Russia more than Moscow needs it. The Russians need only to do more business with the US and Europe, while Washington needs much more from Moscow.
A hostile Moscow can prevent the US from achieving the key foreign policy goal of promoting friendly democracies outside Western and Central Europe. It can delay stability in Kosovo, the Caucasus, Central Asia or the Middle East. It can also lay stumbling blocks to American access to energy sources outside the Middle East and Europe.
Worse, nuclear non-proliferation will be almost impossible making Israel’s long-term security unachievable.
If Europe disdains Moscow, Russia’s geography allows it to more easily turn to China, India, Iran and the Middle East for business and trade. In this sense, Moscow is not a demandeur at Europe’s door.
Instead, Europe needs access to Russia’s increasingly wealthy markets stretching from the North Sea to the Pacific for a vast variety of goods and services. Russia has less need for the full depth of European markets because it sells only oil and gas.
Currently it supplies 25% - 40% of Europe’s needs but in less than 10 years, it could divert much of this to the East. That would also impoverish transit countries like Poland and Ukraine, placing a bigger burden on Western taxpayers to aid them.
Some hardliner US analysts pretend that in a crunch London, New York and Frankfurt could freeze Russian state and private financial assets to coerce good political behavior by Moscow. This is summer silly season talk.
There will be panic if Washington uses American banking giants to punish Russia, because almost all do 45% - 60% of their business outside the US and have major foreign sovereign wealth funds as shareholders. All investors from the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere would lose trust immediately, causing an economic depression in the US and Europe beyond anything imaginable.
In contrast, the wider world may not care if Moscow temporarily punishes Europe by turning off oil and gas because no one else depends so heavily on it.
Now, Washington wants to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO although Russia’s main naval warships are harbored in Crimean ports, which are under nominal Ukrainian sovereignty. This is a formula for war and not just Cold War.
Escalating US-Russia tensions will be a boon for al Qaeda, Taliban and other terrorists. They are already building strong foundations of power because of Washington’s other strategic mistake.
That mistake is the abandonment of Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf. This correspondent wrote before the Pakistani elections that Musharraf’s departure would give al Qaeda and Taliban acolytes the opportunity to destabilize and grab Pakistan.
This has started. Musharraf tricked Washington into forking over $10 billion in military and other aid. But he was not an Islamic obscurantist like current leader Nawaz Sharif or corrupt like Asif Ali Zardari, who leads Pakistan’s largest party.
At least, he had some control over the heavily Islamized army and intelligence services. His quarrelsome “democratic” successors have no power at all.
Pakistan has suffered over 100 very violent attacks all across its territory in just seven months. It is already slipping into the hands of fanatical anti-Americans hiding within the army and the political parties of Sharif and Zardari.
Lethal attacks on American and NATO forces in Afghanistan have also multiplied, causing more Western fatalities this year than ever before. Their technical sophistication has increased manifold.
Against this backdrop, further isolating Moscow might tempt it to cozy up to radical anti-Americans across Asia. There are many precedents for this. Then, the results of these two strategic mistakes may become unmanageable.
If Barack Obama was not already inclined toward him as a running mate, John McCain and Vladimir Putin in the past week should have helped make up his mind to choose Joe Biden.
His trip to Georgia as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee underscored his credentials to complement Obama’s idealism with the experience and know-how to navigate through a world of treacherous policy decisions.
“We must help Georgia rebuild what has been destroyed,” Obama said today in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. “That is why I’m proud to join my friend, Senator Joe Biden, in calling for an additional $1 billion in reconstruction assistance for the people of Georgia.”
In the bitter campaign ahead, Republicans would have a harder time persuading voters of their candidate’s superiority on national security against a ticket anchored by Biden’s five-year record of attempting to resolve the political knots in Iraq rather than pushing on with McCain’s mindless flag-waving about victory that is still costing American lives and billions of dollars.
The surest way now for Obama to answer attacks on his good judgment and doubts about his political maturity is to announce his choice of Joe Biden and get on with ending the Bush-McCain era in November.
August 18th, 2008 By BRIJ KHINDARIA, International Columnist
By whatever name, the Cold War has already begun because the NATO allies meet in Brussels tomorrow to find ways of punishing Russia for its invasion of Georgia. The premise of this search is hostility, not friendship.
At the same time, the invasion and Russia’s victory have revealed the true cost to America and Europe of the wars in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whatever the White House spin on the invasion and its aftermath, people outside the West see that Russia successfully stood by its friends in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
In contrast, Washington waffled despite Georgia’s coalition with the US and vital strategic importance to the entire West as a route for oil and gas supplies bypassing Russia. Currently, the US is bark without bite because its strength is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Vassals of the former Soviet empire quickly took shelter in NATO, the European Union or friendship with the US for protection against fresh subjugation by Russia, their historical oppressor. They emerged from a long night to hopes of enjoying national identity and pride in freedom and democracy assisted by the West.
Georgia just lost that pride and its national identity is under threat. Washington may now pour money into it but the humiliation is irreversible of a new nation free for less than 20 years after 190 years of Russian domination.
Poland may also learn a bitter lesson despite its NATO membership and recent agreement giving it patriot missiles and an anti-missile system. Unless the US has the power to deter it, Russia has pledged to point missiles in retaliation at Poland and the Czech Republic.
Diplomacy is the best course when facing powers like Russia but it cannot bring results if the underlying menace of force is not credible.
In the current situation of American weakness, there are few alternatives. Washington may have to acquiesce to South Ossetia and Abkhazia being delinked from Georgia just like Russia did earlier this year when the West supported independence for Kosovo.
It may also have to slow the militarization of Georgia, Poland and the Czech Republic to prevent growing Russian hostility. The Russian government is what it is. Short of overthrowing it, Washington has little choice but to simmer down.
This is lamentable. Russia invaded a close American friend, continues to block its main ports, destroyed its navy and some of its army, and threatens a $4 billion pipeline bringing oil to Europe from Central Asia.
Yet, Washington can muster only rhetoric about “consequences”. Even those, it cannot implement without help from very fractious European partners many of whom take pride in not following its lead.
There is a lot of talk in the US about punishing Russia with “isolation” through a cold shoulder from the G8, refusing entry into the World Trade Organization and slowing cooperation with NATO. This is bravado.
Europeans are hardly likely to stop buying Russian oil and gas to please Washington’s hardliners. Western companies with billion dollar stakes in Russia are also unlikely to pull out.
Russia cannot be isolated in world affairs if most countries outside NATO do not trust the US to protect them from retaliation. Being spurned by the West will hurt Moscow but also motivate it to build bridges with the East and South, where countries now generate enough wealth to buy what Russia has to offer.
That would further delink global wealth creation from reliance on US financial and commercial pathways, thus weakening American soft power.
Some of that delinking is already happening with the rise of the Middle East, Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and a few other emerging economies as new centers of global growth.
Russia has also begun talks to set up new security arrangements involving China and Central Asian countries but excluding the US and Europe.
In the end run, hard power and willingness to use it matter more than soft power. Only hard power can deter Russia or China from militarily entering the territory of America’s friends or coercing them.
Even weak nations like Sudan and Somalia do not change behavior because of American economic sanctions. But the US has no hard power available because of the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan. No amount of diplomacy can bridge this shortfall.
Perhaps soft punishments can make people within a country suffer, as in Iran, and eventually force a change of government by causing a rebellion. But that is debatable.
Many countries, including those in Central Asia, take risks to help the US against terrorism or help Europe to reduce dependence on Russian oil and gas. Their friendship is vital.
When such friends get into trouble with Russia or China, there are many good reasons for America to prefer cautious diplomacy. But that does not deter violent retaliation for siding with the US.
The Georgian invasion demonstrates that Washington is powerless to stop friendship with the US from reducing safety instead of increasing it. It was incapable of doing anything concrete during the invasion and acted only after Moscow declared unilateral ceasefire and the European Union secured an agreement.
Then, Condoleezza Rice pressured Mikheil Saakashvili to sign a revised version already cleared with Moscow without letting him raise objections. In today’s treacherous world, this demonstrates that Washington is an unreliable friend.
The question among many non-Americans and non-Europeans, who comprise three quarters of the world, is whether it is worth taking risks to help the US. Without their help Russia cannot be isolated regardless of NATO’s self-important declarations in coming days.
Georgia took risks and look what America did although the US President went personally to Tbilisi to promise unstinting support. Coming back from this one in non-Western eyes will be a long march for Washington.
That leaves a lot of room for Russia to entice those sitting on the fence and to destabilize others who side with the US but worry following the Georgia episode.
Evenas Russia pledged tobegin withdrawing its forces from neighboring Georgia on Monday, American officials said the Russian military had been moving launchers for short-range ballistic missiles into South Ossetia, a step that appeared intended to tighten its hold on the breakaway territory.
The Russian military deployed several SS-21 missile launchers and supply vehicles to South Ossetia on Friday, according to American officials familiar with intelligence reports. From the new launching positions north of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, the missiles can reach much of Georgia, including Tbilisi, the capital…. (NYT)
As a supplement to yesterday’s news round-up on Georgia, I thought I’d post on a comment at The Washington Post, where Paul J. Saunders discusses the role of President Saakashvili in the Georgian conflict. Saunders is executive director of the Nixon Center. (WaPo) He also served as senior adviser to the undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs from 2003 to 2005. (WaPo)
