The Drunk Diplomat

Well the G-8 meeting in Italy is wrapping up today. These big powerhouse meetings never seem to produce anything substantive… only pledges for this, money for that, help for Africa, etc. Understandably, most of the leaders come from democracies so they cannot just promise to do anything because they have to deal with domestic public opinion and their legislative branch. However, some of the most important players are not democracies. Are these states counter productive to the grander goals of the original G-7 group of industrialized democracies? Now it’s like the G-20 – a smorgasbord of aging democracies, quasi-capitalist autocratic one party states, and random states from underrepresented regions to give the group a more “global feel.” For instance, does South Africa and Egypt really represent Africa? Will South Africa’s presence in any way improve the conditions for citizens of Mozambique, Ghana, or Congo? I highly doubt it, South Africa is at the G-20 because it is currently the largest economy in Africa, a former British colony, and a young democracy that will fight for issues that will improve it’s national interests – not Sub-Saharan African interests.

Furthermore, how can the United States and the other European democracies be champions of human rights if they are constantly brokering deals with China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Constantly, like China already is, promoting economic growth over environmental sustainability, human rights, and freedom of speech. Three traditional pillars of the Democratic West’s critique of the various autocratic governments found in the East; including Russia, China, most of the Middle East, parts of Southeast Asia, etc. This “G-8″ (really a G-40) meeting was a prime example. Hu Jin Tao had to leave early to oversee the crackdown on Uighur Muslims in Xinjang province. The Uighur are denied religious freedom, freedom of speech, and I’m sure they are now being tortured and held against their will by the Chinese state for expressing they inalienable right of freedom of assembly.

There was not a peep to be heard from the supposed Free, Democratic, Liberal West. “We don’t want to embarrass China or critique China during a recession!” It may hurt our precious economy! Well I say that’s Bull Shit. Everyone knows exactly whats going on in Xinjang, government repression – old school style – cops in the streets bashing heads, the erroneous taking of prisoners, torturing the leaders, repression, violence, and media silence.

The G-20 has its place, but the G-7 (minus Russia) should not be dissolved. Even as the West is supposedly in decline (not really decline, bu the rise of the rest) it cannot stop putting pressure on other governments or lower its standards for fleeting economic gain. The Chinese go to Africa with no demands for human rights reforms or environmental reforms. 10 years later the Chinese have destroyed the local environment and impoverished the people by welcoming corruption. The US goes to Africa demanding human rights reforms and environmental protections – 20 years later the country is a functioning democracy ready to work on its own.

Obama is in Russia this week negotiating with Medvedev and ole Vladimir about a pretty large range of issues:

1) Iran
2) North Korea
3) Georgia
3) Russia’s WTO membership
4) Economic / Financial Crisis
5) Cyberwarfare
6) Nuclear Disarmament (START treaty, etc.)
7) European Missile Shield

Wow what an agenda! And those are just the issues that I can think of of the top of my head; not to mention each one has a million nuances to them, but on the last point about the European Missile Shield is where I will focus today.

After the invasion of Georgia by the Russians the Czech Parliament ratified the missile shield radar to be placed in the country – kind of a knee jerk reaction to the Russian invasion, but definitely not what the Russians were expecting! I think part of the motivation to attack Georgia was to intimidate other former Soviet satellite states, and of course, Kosovo declaring independence with Western support in spite of vocal Serbian and Russian opposition. Georgia, the Russians thought, would be an example, as if the Russians were saying, we’re back, respect us!! Of course, this did not work, and here we are with Nicaragua and Russia as the only two countries in the world that recognize Abkhazia and South Ossestia as a sovereign states.

So here we find ourselves, the Eastern European countries have ratified documents allowing the installation of a missile shield, but the Russians are adamantly opposed to it. If the Obama administration goes forward with the proposed missile installations in Poland the radar station in Czech Republic are all other possible agreements with the Russians or help with Iran/NK/etc off the table? Would the Russians actually help the US with other geopolitical hot spots if the US agreed to forget about the shield? The shield’s installation would be largely symbolic, the Russian missile arsenal would have no problem overwhelming the installations – and that’s assuming the shield was installed to counter the Russians in the first place – the official line is that it is being built to counter future Iranian missiles headed to Europe.

I think Obama probably understands that as much as the US would like to separate the panoply of issues facing the two countries – the Russians will not. The missile shield is a sticking point because it is a baby step, in Russian opinion, to a larger missile defense apparatus in Europe – changing the geopolitical balance. Furthermore, the Russians feel betrayed by the US for expanding the NATO alliance into former Soviet client states and the construction of these sites would be akin to “twisting the knife” in a very prideful and hurt Russian people.

The United States does not need a missile shield in Europe.

1) “If you build a higher wall, I will build a higher ladder” – the missile shield is only as good as the current missile technology, if we really want to encourage the Russians to build better, and more novel ways, of delivering nuclear warheads a missile shield would be the way to go.
2) The Bush administration pulled out of the ABM treaty with Russia to build his missile shield because of the threat coming from rogue nations. As discussed earlier, no Rogue nation would dare launch a missile from its soil a at Europe or the US because the retaliation would be devastating, thereby, ending the regime. Considering most rogue nations main goal is the preservation of the regime, launching a preemtive attack on the US or its allies would be mean doom for the existing regime. The threat coming from rogue nations is fictional and Iran will not fire a missile at Western Europe.
3) The US has poured billions of dollars into a system that has only proven itself effective a handful of times. Shooting down a missile, with another missile, is like shooting one bullet with another. There are much better, cheaper, more efficient, more diplomatic ways of reducing the threat of a rogue missile attack.
4) If the Obama administration wants to accomplish anything further with the Russians they will figure out a way to diplomatically stop construction of the missile shield. I understand this will anger the Poles and Czechs because they stuck their necks out for the US, but the cons outweigh the pros in this situation. Russia is still an important power that needs to at least be neutral towards the US and not hostile. The Czechs and the Poles should still receive the vast majority of military support offered to them even though the missile shield will not be built.
5) The missile shield idea is not popular in Europe, if the Europeans don’t think they need it, why should we impose it on them? We already pay for the vast majority of the worlds security.

I’m currently reading Cobra II, a book about the build up and eventual invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration. Even though I read about foreign policy on a daily (hourly really!) basis I sometimes find myself forgetting that the U.S. still has 130,000 troops in Iraq, as well as, 70,000 contractors, not to mention thousands of other U.S. government personnel from the State Department to the Agriculture department. As (former) President Bush stated in 2006 when he announced the surge strategy the main goal of the surge was to create stability so political compromise could be accomplished. Unfortunately, that goal has not been met. There is no national oil law, the status of Kirkuk is unknown, members of the Sunni awakening movement are being arrested by Maliki, Baghdad still has daily bombings, corruption is ubiquitous, the power and water service are still not at pre-2003 levels, Arab states still refuse to establish embassy’s in Iraq, and the list goes on….

Historians may look back hundreds of years from now and use Iraq as a case study. In the coming years an experiment that was initiated 6 years ago will come to a dramatic close as American soldiers begin to withdraw. After, trillions of dollars, the deaths of over 4,000 Americans, and the literal displacement and death of millions of Iraqi civilians – will a viable, free, stable, democratic Arab country actually exist in the Middle East? George Bush said it would exist, he also said Iraqi oil money, WMD’s would be found, and that Saddam was a major existential threat to the U.S. All lies, one can only be hopeful that the pessimists are wrong and Iraq pulls through… Is the glass half full or half empty? Because now is the time to start taking bets as American soldiers are definitely leaving en mass, can the Iraqi’s pull themselves together or will Iraq fracture? Will George W. Bush’s doctrine of preemptive action with a twist of nation building be successful?

I don’t know. The worst part about it, no one knows, not even the Iraqi’s.

Here are some things to consider:

1) Attacks have “decreased” but IED attacks and major bombings are still a daily occurrence, especially in Baghdad
2) National Iraqi elections take place in early 2010 – will Sunni participation be up? If the Shia faction lead by Nouri al-Maliki is the victor, will its legitimacy be honored by the loosing parties?
3) When American troops leave, will Iran or Saudi Arabia try to fill the power vacuum?
4) Will the Kurds cooperate with the Iraqi government about Kirkuk?
5) Will an oil law ever be passed?
6) Will Kurdish terrorists stop attacking Turkey and Iran?
7) Will fighting between Sunni’s and Shia’s flare up again?

And these are just the short term questions! There are too many for anyone to be certain what Mesopotamia will look like in 2 years, but think about 10 years! America may have just trained the most effective and leathal army in the Middle East and armed them with the best weapons on the market. It’s not talked about, but Iraq is not, by any stretch of the imagination, pro-Israel. How about another authoritative ruler comes into power in Iraq, allies with Iran, and goes on to wreak havoc on the Kuwaiti’s, Saudi’s, etc. Meanwhile the Kurds try to form their own state, bringing attacks from Turkey, a NATO ally, that in turn makes the U.S. choose between it’s NATO ally, Turkey, and the Kurds, one of the most pro-American people in the world. I still believe the Kurds secretly want their own state, just a FYI, the Kurds have their own oil law already, they fly their flag – not the Iraqi flag, and their are border checkpoints to get into Kuristan from Iraq – not to mention the Kurds are a Sunni, have been repressed by Arabs for over a hundred years, and have their own army. Sure smells like the beginnings of a viable state to me.

There are so many fractures in Iraq and so many unanswered questions it is impossible to see how the state will be intact in 10 years, but who knows! No one thought the surge would work and it did! Maybe I’m just looking to deep into the tea leaves…. I hope someday that I can visit Baghdad and tour the archeological remains of Babylon.

The news coming out of Pakistan today is the kind of news that we need to hear on a daily basis from the Af-Pak region if we are going to defeat and marginalize the Taliban. From the Washington Post:

Pakistani tribesmen seeking revenge for a deadly mosque bombing attacked militant strongholds for a second day Monday, while the country’s Taliban leader faced rare denunciation from within insurgent ranks.

the article continues…

In the most striking example of growing anti-Taliban sentiment, up to 1,600 tribesmen in the Upper Dir district formed a civilian militia force to fight militants they hold responsible for last Friday’s suicide bombing that killed at least 33 people in a packed mosque. Such militia are known in Pakistan as lashkars.

I’ll admit, I don’t completely understand the intricate tribal politics of South Eastern Afghanistan or North Western Pakistan, but this comes as good news to me. The United States has a perception problem with the vast majority of Pashtun’s in this region, and frankly with Muslims around the world. What the Pashtuns miss, due to a panoply of reasons, is that the U.S. is a benevolent country with no territorial ambitions in South Asia. Our objective is the spread of education, infrastructure, and rule of law in this region to prevent future attacks. The Taliban’s objective is Sharia law, selective Islamic education, and a return to the 11th century with an aggressive posture towards the free Western world. The choice seems stark to you and I because we have the benefits of education, wealth, and air conditioning… but imagine a Pashtun boy growing up in Waziristan whose only source of information is through a Madrassa. He has pride about his people, his country, and his religion. He hears rumors about the U.S. from authority figures such as his Imam, his family, or Taliban veterans. They say the U.S. is on a crusade to destroy Islam, they want our land, their education will brain wash you, they will take your women, etc. If the boy has no other source of information other than what these authority figures tell him, why should he believe the U.S. is benevolent and trust us? Now multiply this by a few generations and we reach the conclusion of Pashtun’s sheltering Talbian fighters from the United States and increased Taliban recruitment to fight the United States.

This is why the Lashkar militias are vital to the United States success in the region. Ironically, superior military power will not end this war. Pashtuns, and other citizens of the tribal areas must come to the conclusion that the Taliban does not have their interests at heart. That it is the Taliban bombing their Mosques, demanding bribes for protection, dealing drugs in their communities, etc. They must come to realize that the Taliban are no better than gangsters that use Islam to cover their atrocious deeds.

We need more Lashkar militias and less predator drones.

Source:
Pakistanis attack Taliban over mosque bombing
RIAZ KHAN
Washington Post, June 8, 2009

Without a preemptive strike on North Korea by the United States and South Korea Pyongyang could do some serious damage if this article from Foreign Policy is correct. I found this quote particularly intriguing.

As for North Korea’s Special Operations Forces (SOFs), South Korean estimates now place their numbers at as many as 180,000 men. North Korean SOFs are probably among the best- trained, best fed, and most motivated of all the forces in their military. They routinely undergo intense training that includes carrying 50 pounds of sand for 10 km in one hour, hiking in extreme cold weather, martial arts methodologies that include fighting with three to 15 opponents, and even using spoons and forks as weapons. Troops also engage in intense marksmanship training and even daily knife-throwing training. They can attack quickly, reaching key nodes in South Korea by aircraft, through tunnels in the DMZ, or even by maritime vessel.

Interesting stuff, I would still take the South Korean and U.S. military over the North any day, but it is often overlooked that the North takes its military readiness seriously. The entire country isn’t starving and it’s citizens have been brain washed for over 50 years, so I could perceive a situation where the North’s aristocracy get the army riled up and ready to fight like a Kamakazi pilots, 1,000,000 strong.

I am not arguing for a preemptive attack on North Korea, but it is terrifying to think the North has the power to completely decimate a country with the 15th highest GDP in the world and kill millions on a whim. No one knows the politics or mental stability of Kim Jong Ill’s son, Kim Ill su, the perceived successor. However, as a 26 year old kid, he will probably be influenced by the North Korea aristocracy, therefore, his top priority will be to maintain the North Korean regime, which rules out any kind of attack on the South.

Let’s hope the Obama administration does not underestimate the North Koreans.

Source:
Is North Korea a Paper Tiger?
Bruce Bechtol
Foreign Policy, June 2009

The big news today is that Kim Jong Ill has supposedly chosen his son Kim Jong un to be the next leader of North Korea. The kid, errr, Dear Leader, is only 26 years old. The question confronting us now is: will we let another generation of North Korean’s suffer torture, repression, brain washing, etc. under the new Dear Leader? The options still seem grim. Ideally the United States wants a unified Korean peninsula. With a unified Korean peninsula the threat of a war on the Korean peninsula is completely reduced, as well as, the threat of nuclear proliferation, and possible attacks on Japan and the West Coast of the United States. The United States would still have a foot print in the region for balance, but I hardly doubt the Korean’s would let us have 35,000 troops on the peninsula like we do now if there is a unified Korea.

The regime is fundamentally flawed like the old Soviet Union, so it seems that eventually it will implode, but what happens when it does is the big question. In my opinion, realism towards North Korea means 3 things.

1) A Preemptive military strike by the United States is out of the question.

2) Bargaining with South Korea and China to increase pressure on the regime, put helping with a future refugee crisis, monetary incentives, food aid, energy aid, humanitarian aid, etc. on the table – even a semi-Marshall Plan for the new unified peninsula may sound good. Assure the Chinese that the United States will not have a major military presence on their border if the North Korean regime crumbles. Assure the South Korean’s the United States will provide massive aid for the unification of the country and bringing equanimity between the North and South.

3) The United States cannot trust the North Korean’s to dismantle its nuclear program, it just will not happen. The Nuclear program is the “ace in the hole” for the North Koreans.

The United States must find a way to infiltrate North Korea and find a weak spot in the regime. Unfortunately, the best actions may be no action. The U.S. may have to view North Korea as a “castle siege” and continue to squeeze the country of food, energy, and technology aid. There are no good options in this scenario. Any preemptive military action, even if greatly successful, will result in the destruction of Seoul and possibly Tokyo. The U.S. cannot afford to be seen as a the instigator in any conflict with the North Korean’s especially if our allies will be taking the brunt of the damage from North Korea artillery and missiles.

The North has warned the United States about “illegally searching” it’s ships as a pretext for war. I would call their bluff on this one. As we cannot preemptively attack the North, they will not attack South Korea or Japan because we will flatten their country, and they know this. If the United States, in conjunction with our allies, believes that the North Koreans are proliferating nuclear material then we must take action to halt that proliferation. However, this action must be done tactfully and always in conjunction with South Korea and Japan. The United States cannot be viewed as taking unilateral action against North Korean vessels.

More to come…

Source:
N. Korean Leader’s Youngest Son Named Successor
Blaine Harden
June 2, 2009

Interesting piece by Sebastian Mallaby at the Council on Foreign Relations about China’s transformation from a relatively quiet player in the international finance game to a state that searching for ways to end the dollars global dominance. China is stuck in a quandary, if it starts to sell off its estimated 1.5 trillion dollars worth of U.S. Currency the currency will continue to loose value and the Chinese will loose money. However, if the country continues to purchase more dollars (as expected) the country becomes, oddly and ironically, more dependent on the whims of the United States Federal Reserve. The Chinese worry that Ben Bernanke is printing lots of money to inflate our way out of debt, but as a result the 1.5 trillion dollars China owns become less and less valuable. Mallaby argues that China is attempting to create a market for the yuan (Chinese currency) to eventually replace the global dominance of the dollar, but this is probably not possible while China manipulates it’s currency to keep it artificially low to help it’s exports. It’s a catch 22 for China, if it allows its currency to float, therefore appreciating, it’s export sector will be damaged due to increased overseas prices and potentially reducing job growth in it’s massive urban centers, potentially creating unrest. However, if China does not allow it’s currency to float the dollar is almost assured to be the standard global currency for years to come.

Source:
Beijing’s Would-Be Hundinis
Sebastian Mallaby
CFR, May 26 2009