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.

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.

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…

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.

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

The ECSC, founded in 1957, was the precursor of the European Union. The organization was created to unite the Western European powers against the Soviet Union and create common markets for Western Europe. There were visions of what the ECSC would evolve into, if it would evolve at all, but I doubt that many foresaw the breadth of integration the Maastricht Treaty would bring in 1992 to create the European Union, a short 35 years. Furthermore, the Schengen Agreement signed in 1985 provided the rights for Western European citizens free movement across borders without passports.

Could the Schengen Agreement be something of a precursor for the status of Eastern Russia and Siberia? Russia is in the midst of a massive demographic decline, especially in the East. With such vast sparsely populated areas, the general decline in population of the entire country, and the declining power of their conventional military – is it really a stretch to see Russia, China, and the Stans create some kind of free movement treaty in 30 years? There are three factors beyond Russia’s demographic and military decline that lead me to believe the SCO will provide the framework for some kind of freedom of movement to the Chinese in Siberia.

The first is the enormous amounts of pollution, garbage, and toxic waste the Chinese are producing and will produce at an ever accelerting pace the next 30 years. There are estimates that China, alone, will produce as much greenhouse gases that the entire world produces today by 2050. That’s a lot of smog and health problems. The climate change caused by China’s greenhouse gas emissions alone may force massive migrations to areas that have clean water and away from the polluted mess that China’s mainland may become.

The second is the emerging middle class in China. The demand for natural resources, land, food, and water may not be sustainable when China has a middle class parrellel in wealth to the US. Imagine 300 million (possibly more out of 1.5 billion) more people on the planet living like the average US consumer, in China alone. Their demands may eventually push the Chinese government to create some kind of access to the verdant lands in the North.

The third is that Chinese immigration to Russia is the fastest it’s been in recent history. Since the fall of the Soviet Union Chinese laborers and traders have been flooding into Siberia and the Far East. Also, an ultimatum the Chinese have issued to Russia in regards to it’s WTO bid is that it must allow Chinese laborers into Russia at some pace.

In my opinion something like a Schengen Treaty is really for the SCO is not that far fetched in the future. It’s difficult to keep 300 million Chinese crammed together in Northern China while there are millions of empty acres of land to the North. Russia may decide it cannot fight history any more and create some kind of agreement through the SCO so the Chinese can have access to their far East before they loose it completely.

He is getting twitter feeds and emails from Iranians on the ground. His website is also hammering the main stream media for its lack of coverage and I agree. A regime change or revolution in Iran would be a huge deal to the United States. It would also be nice if the MSM gave a little background and context to the Iranian elections. I doubt most American’s know that Iran has elections, and women vote in those elections. Yet, there is no coverage or analysis on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox explaining the importance of the resistance in Iran, nor the implications the success or failure of the resistance will have on the Iranian nuclear program, Iranian support for Shia groups in Iraq, Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and the flow of oil in the world.

The Death of the Main Stream Media
The (fraudulent) election results came in on Saturday, but the major American news organizations were either slow or shallow with their coverage. Iran has been, and will be, a major story in the United States so I was very surprised that the coverage was so light. However, as events progressed on the ground in Iran, riots, protests, government shutting down cell phone and internet networks, Media 2.0 took over. Blogs, twitter feeds, facebook status updates, cell phone text messaging, etc. Raw data was flowing into the internet for the world to see and to rally support inside Iran. A kind of Pandora’s Box is opened when a country embraces the use of information technology. The “essence” of the internet is freedom of information. It is the ultimate Library at Alexandria, printing press, newspaper, organizational tool, and more, rolled into an ever expanding massive blob. As much as the mullahs try to censor the internet and cell phones people will find a way around them. I think it may be impossible to censor the internet due to it’s sheer size and variety.
The vast majority of Iranian citizens are under 30 and tech savvy. This crowd demands reform, voted in what they thought was a free, and it was stolen from them. Being young, using new powerful information technology to organize, and feeling cheated will ultimately lead to some change in Iran… Whether Mousavi becomes president, Khamenei is ejected as Supreme Leader by the Guardian Counsel, or something dramatically different happens is yet to me seen, but the winds are defiantly blowing the right direction for change.

Viva la Revolution!

EU Military Expenditures: $312.259 billion
U.S. Military Expenditures: $651.163 billion
NATO Military Expenditures: $1.049 trillion
World Military Expenditures: $1.470 trillion

EU GDP: ~$18.342 trillion
US GDP: ~ $14.002 trillion
World GDP: ~ $54.863 trillion

The first thing I take away from this is the crazy amount of money NATO countries spend on their military’s compared with the rest of the world, about 70% of the entire world’s military expenditures come from NATO countries. However, it is actually BIGGER, consider these other American non-NATO allies: Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Israel. If we add their military expenditures to NATO, the total NATO and U.S. Allied military budget is a WHOPPING 1.1942 trillion or 81% of the entire world’s military expenditures. These totals do not even count allies such as Mexico, Pakistan, Columbia, Singapore and more, nor does it include countries that we will probably never have a conflict with such as Brazil and India.
But here is the question. Now that the Soviet threat has been removed and most likely not coming back anytime soon, nor have the Chinese expressed any interest in spreading an ideology such as Communism like the Soviets, but seem rather introverted. Why is the United States still footing the bill for Western European Security?
I assume that the Europeans would be just as affected, if not more so due to geography from terrorist threats coming out of Central Asia, East Africa, or the Middle East, or pirate activity around the straits of Malacca, or instability in the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East, East Asia, etc. The Europeans are the largest trading partner of China, therefore, any conflict on the Korean peninsula would have a major affect on their economies just like it would to the U.S., but we are the U.S. is footing the bill for security in East Asia.
Where do the Europeans spend the money that the U.S. is spending on the military? They spend it on their generous social welfare state, and agricultural and industrial subsidies that give their businesses undue advantages in the world economy and provide a better social safety net for their citizens.
I was extremely disappointed that the Europeans did not offer any more troops for the Afghanistan mission, nor increase their economic aid to at least pay for some American military expenditures. Past grievances aside, any major deterioration in the Middle East or Central Asia will cause serious geopolitical, energy, and economic damage to the United States and Europe.
A major European argument for this imbalance is their major contributions to educational, health, and infrastructure in the third world through foreign aid. I will discuss this more in a later 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