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.

NATO and coalition forces are attacking the heart of the Taliban’s financial power. Eradicating the opium production will be a major goal of the surge because the drug trade finances the arms being used in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a very ethnically diverse country with Pashtu’s and Balochis in the South, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazarra in the North. I could not find information on the demographics of the Afghan military, but I assume that it is not as ethnically diverse as the country. Therefore, even if the surge succeeds in the short term – eradicating Poppy on a massive scale – I don’t see the Afghan army having the ability to enforce poppy eradication efforts as American and NATO troops leave the country ,as they eventually must. The US still cannot control the drug trade in its own country, so why would poorly trained, ill equipped and unmotivated Afghan regulars be able to enforce poppy eradication in Helmand? The monetary incentives to grow poppy are just to great to ignore for poor Afghan farmers. The Pashtu’s would likely not welcome an Army of Tajiks and Hazarra’s monitoring their territory. Afghanistan is a very tribal country that is in no way like a state found in the Western Hemisphere. I think this is the biggest mental hurdle for Westerns to accept. Creating a traditional state that is found in the Western Hemisphere is an unrealistic goal for NATO in Afghanistan. The Europeans are already clamoring to get out of Afghanistan and once one country begins withdrawing their troops a flood of countries leaving Afghanistan will follow. The European political elite and the European people are not behind the Afghan mission. This is shown by European countries refusing to send troops to Southern Afghanistan, where the majority of the fighting takes place, and the refusal of any European country to send addition troops to Afghanistan for the Afghan surge. Obama is extremely popular in Europe and even his requests were met with inaction.

Unfortunately I think the Afghan surge was a purely political move by the Obama administration. They know that poppy production cannot be stopped by 17,000 addition troops and they know our NATO allies are wavering in their commitment to Afghanistan. We are holding on to the country solely for geopolitical advantage. The country is strategic located in the middle of Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Iran. However, as a student of history, Afghanistan has been perennially difficult to subdue and mold to aspiring empires. The Russians, British, Chinese, Greeks, Indians, and Persians have at times throughout history tried to control the area and have all failed leading to vast expenditures and causalities bringing some of these empires down. America should not make this mistake. American involvement in overseas expeditions is a huge mistake in the 21st century. The gain in geopolitical advantage and natural resources is more than offset by financial loss, the militarization of foreign policy, the distortion of America’s image – American being perceived as an empire, not a benevolent state, and unnecessary military exposure to hostile powers. The US relies on the Russians to transport nonmilitary goods to Afghanistan, it relies on air bases in Kyrgyzstan – at great monetary costs – to transport military supplies, it relies on Pakistan airspace and seaports to transport military supplies, and more importantly in order for any modicum of success it relies on the people of Afghanistan to reject the Taliban, drug lords, and local warlords. On the latter point, the U.S. had dazzling military success, however, there is no way to ensure long term political success in the country without the support of the Afghan people. When the local populace does not support U.S. goals, victory turns into failure in the news, like Vietnam.
So what should be NATO goals in Afghanistan? To be continued…

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.

An important article this Sunday caught my eye in the NY Times. Europe is beginning to grapple with the carbon limits it imposed upon itself by building a massive solar power plant in Morocco. The plant will transmit clean, renewable, solar energy through an advanced electric grid to Europe. It will be the largest solar plant of its kind in a region that receives vast amounts of sun light. Building a solar plant of this scale would not be practical in Europe because the strength of sunlight hitting Europe is weaker, therefore, the solar plant would be less efficient than one located in the Moroccan desert. Furthermore, land is cheaper and the population is vastly less dense in Morocco. There is a bevy of international organizations working together including: TREC, the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation; Eumena, or European Union, the Mediterranean and North Africa; the Union of the Mediterranean; and the Club of Rome.

This experiment will hopefully become a model for international cooperation on the use of solar power in the most efficient areas (areas that receive the most sunlight) and then transmitted to the more densely populated areas. By 2050 Europe can be completely powered by solar energy from North Africa and the Middle East. However, the catch to this would be an almost complete dependence on North Africa for energy. Replacing one source of power: oil and gas – supplied from the Middle East and Russia with another source: Solar energy supplied from North Africa. Actually increasing Europe’s reliance on Islamic and autocratic governments for its energy, rather than decreasing it. However, there are two relatively radical ideas that I would suggest to solve this problem.

1) The Possible Addition of North African Countries to the EU.
2) A Euro-North African-West Asian Power grid
3) In addition to large thermal energy power plants, millions of small photovoltaic solar panels on houses, businesses, etc.

Obviously the first two ideas are extremely far fetched in 2009, the third idea is already happening to some extent in Germany, but not nearly fast enough or extensive enough across Europe. Europe and North Africa already have a framework of cooperation in the EuroMediterranean Partnership, but the partnership was created to promote peace, stability, and economic opportunity – not the development of a common energy relationship. Don’t get me wrong – there are ways to create a power system that could exist outside of the EU, but to calm European fears about North Africa hypothetically producing the vast majority of its energy a very close partnership would have to exist, and I believe that “EU” membership would enhance not only energy cooperation between Europe and N. Africa, but social development, economic development, and create perpetual peace in the Mediterranean region. EU membership would also allay fears in North Africa that the Europeans are colonizing vast tracks of their land again for solar power plants, considering the vast majority of investment would be European. Geographically this relationship just makes sense. Europe has vast population centers demanding energy, N. Africa has vast deserts teeming with the possibility of unlimited solar energy. The only foreseeable impediment’s are transmission, cultural fears, and initial investment costs. These are large, possibly politically impossible impediments, but I’m an optimist.

What I would love to see is the United States lead the way by creating numerous thermal solar plants in the Southwest U.S. and Northwest Mexico. Similar problems exist for the U.S.; transmission, and initial investment are the biggest, but I would like to see a power sharing grid that spans the North American continent to reduce redundancy.

Nuclear energy, wind energy, and geothermal energy (and frankly coal and natural gas plants if they’re clean) could be used to supplement the mainly solar power charged grid to compensate for night, and clouds, as well as, smaller solar photovoltaic panels on cars, buildings, etc. around the country. A grid like this would almost completely reduce European and North American reliance on fossil fuels and the unstable regimes that peddle them like drugs. A massive alternative energy power grid would put the liberal democratic states on much more solid footing at home and abroad.

Source:
Europe Looks to Africa for Solar Power
TOM ZELLER Jr.
NY Times June 21, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/business/energy-environment/22iht-green22.html?ref=world