Showing posts with label foreign affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign affairs. Show all posts

Monday, January 19, 2009

Expansionist Statements of Russian Naval High Command Are Cause for Concern

File:Kuznetsov 960111-N-9085M-002.jpgConfirming possibilities raised posted September of last year on Unequal Time's sister blog, Dancing With Bears, the Russian Navy has announced its intention to establish a continued naval presence in international waters outside of Russia's own maritime jurisdiction.  As reported by Russia Today's English online edition (by way of our friend at the Naval Open Source Intelligence blog), Deputy Chief of Russia's Armed Forces Staff, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, is quoted as saying:

"The political decision on this matter has been made. Bases will settle down on Sokorta Island (Yemen), in Tartus (Syria) and Tripoli (Libya). Now it’s very difficult to say when these bases will appear in these countries, but in several years time it undoubtedly will happen. From both the economic and the technical military point of view, there is no other way to solve the problem of our Navy’s regular presence in distant sea areas for the protection of Russia’s national interests."

Although the Russian navy's global reach has been continuing its policy of forced contraction in recent years - as evidenced by their withdrawal of the strategically valuable Vietnamese port of Cam Ranh in 2000 - mainly due to a lack of funding stemming from the weak Russian economy.  Recent growth in Russia's defense industry, combined with an emphasis on power projection should awaken the minds of Western policymakers to the very real possibility that there is an endgame in progress.

Despite its massive size, Russia has many of the same problems of historic powers that had to rely on maritime superiority as a means of promoting domestic economic prosperity.  Nearly surrounded by a host of allies of convenience or outright enemies, the Russian Federation cannot build its power on a foundation of over dependable over-land or straight-line airborne routes.

There are reasons to believe that the Russians have shifted policy to one that is drastically more expansionist.

  • the Russians have been given permission by the Icelandic government use of the former U.S. airbase at Keflavik, Iceland (read here)
  • Russian and Venezuelan naval vessels participated in joint exercises in the Caribbean in the fall of 2008 (read here)
  • Russian Federation commits to full funding for completion of GLONASS global satellite navigation system, a system that in addition to its surface navigation capabilities was originally designed as a ballistic missile targeting system (read here)
  • Joint exercises in December 2008 with Indian navy ships in the Indian Ocean to train on carrier-destroying tactics (read here)

There are more data points on this curve; these items must be considered along with a tidal wave of arms agreements, mutual defense agreements, and other developments that have been made between Russian and many other nations across the globe.  All indications would point to some intention by the sleeping bear to enhance its power position across the globe particularly in their commitment to making GLONASS fully operational.

As Americans begin to assess the incoming Obama administration, they should do with a firm understanding of the geopolitical events currently unfolding.

###

Cross-posted at Dancing with Bears.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Russia and Iran Running Hand-in-Hand to the Finish Line

Image:Atomic women Iran.JPGHow bad does something right under our nose have to stink before we take notice?

Israel's DebkaFile is reporting that, according to Russian and Iranian sources, Atomstroiexport - a Russian firm that has previously been confirmed as the operator of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant - will be putting the plans for completion into high gear with a projected completion mid-2009.

From the DebkaFile article:

Sergei Kiriyenko, director of the Russian company, visited Tehran on Nov. 27 to tie up the final stage of the reactor's construction. Kiriyenko, former Russian prime minister and personal emissary of the incumbent prime minister Vladimir Putin, again assured the Iranians that the reactor would be ready to go within a few months.

The Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, begun by the German firm Kratwerk-Union A.G. (a unit of Siemens A.G.)  in 1975, abandoned by the Germans in 1979, bombed by the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq War (1985-1988), has never been online.  An agreement with the Russians in 1995 for supply of a light water reactor put a timeline back on the table for completion and now it would seem that there is some extra impetus to get the first reactor online sometime next year.

Since 1998, the United States has been opposing the nuclear program there on the grounds that it was unnecessary for the region's power needs and therefore was being used as cover for the development of other technologies.  Since then, it has been a focus of the world's concerns regarding the potential for Iran to develop weaponized plutonium.

My guess is that it will be finished just in time to be razed to the ground.  The site is on the shores the Persian Gulf, an tactically uncomplicated strike by sea-borne assault.

Is this a casus belli in the making?  An ambush?  Or does Bushehr represent a real threat?

###

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Obama’s Promise of Renewing American Diplomacy With Europe: D.O.A.

[This essay was subsequently published as Crosscut.com's Weekend Essay on November 29, 2008 under the headline "Obama and Europe: How long a love-fest?" with some minor editing and revision.]

image The bells of all Europe’s cathedrals seemed to ring in unison as the polls closed on Election Night in America earlier this month. In his rhetoric on the domestic campaign trail, President-elect Obama asked Americans to respect the judgment of Europeans that Bush’s foreign policy had been an abject disaster, not a leap of faith in that most American voters opinions coincided with those across the pond.

So, too, on his controversial summer world tour, Obama acknowledged to a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin that the prevailing attitude in Europe was that America was “part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right”, validating their animosity toward American values without stipulation.

Therefore, it was no surprise that, as results of the American election began appearing on televisions across the European continent, celebration was spontaneous and jubilant.

In Leicester, England, in the days following Obama’s victory over Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Kwame Boyce-Deacon, a fourteen year-old black Briton went to his barber to have the image of Obama shaved into the hair on the back of his head. His reason and purpose were clear. “Obama is the first black President of America and I'm the first black model of Obama in Leicester – which is special for me,” Boyce-Deacon said.

The euphoric reaction to the idea of America’s first black president was not confined to capricious Brit teens.

Lady Scotland, Britain’s attorney general, said, “This wonderful election demonstrates that the dream of Martin Luther King that there would come a time when people would be judged not by the colour of their skin but the quality of their character has arrived.”

In sync with the waves of political and social ecstasy, Rama Yade, France’s junior minister for human rights, said, “This is the fall of the Berlin Wall times ten. America is re-becoming a New World. … On this morning, we all want to be American so we can take a bite of this dream unfolding before our eyes.”

The election represented more than just a repudiation of the Bush Doctrine and validation of European desires to have America resume a partnership role in world affairs, rather than one of leadership. For many Europeans it was a symbol that barriers to minorities were falling further, and for the president-elect, his status as an icon in Europe must have encouraged him to feel that his goals of working with Europe to achieve his foreign policy objectives were attainable. The unfortunate irony is that the rallying of Europe’s citizens around a symbol of ethnic minority achievement will be the precise undoing of Obama’s European agenda.

At first consideration, the idea that at a time when Europe’s citizenry - for the first time since 9/11 - are claiming solidarity with Americans, Obama might have any difficulty repairing alliances seems ill-conceived. After all, with Obama’s election to the American presidency, Europe has forgiven us for our sins and given us an opportunity for redemption.

What a relief. Now I can visit Auschwitz and not feel ashamed of my country.

There is hypocrisy, however, in Europe’s treatment of America, evident in their over-loud feedback to our politics. European condescension of their little American cousins has a history equal in bulk to that of America’s rescuing their lard from so many wars rooted in squabbling over what crown head of Europe would dominate the people of [insert name of darker-skinned and resource-rich region here].

Underscoring this typical European blind arrogance, an unnamed Frenchman was quoted on Election Night as saying, “Finally, a victory over racism in the whole world.”

The entire world? Are we to conclude that America’s election of a black man eradicated racism the world over? Surely, Europeans do not have to look all the way to America for an example of diversity in the highest of government offices. Can they not refer to the history of German chancellors, French presidents and British prime ministers to find minority role models? No? Let us expand our query to include Spain, Italy, Austria, Switzerland the Benelux nations. Still none? Scandinavia? Greece? The Balkans?

USA: 1 – Europe: 0.

Although Europe’s leaders and heads of state most certainly did lean down from their perches of moral superiority to pat the United States on the head and tousle our hair a bit, statements on Obama’s election ranged from guarded to non-substantive.

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, called Obama’s election a “historic victory”. French President Nicholas Sarkozy proclaimed that his presidency “raised enormous hope in France, Europe and beyond.” Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev’s comments post-election did not even mention President-elect Obama by name. No commendations from Europe’s top tiers of power for the defeat of racism, just restrained and generic statements of support, typical of those made during any presidential power transition.

With Obama’s approval ratings in Europe riding higher than those of the continental heads of government, why would these leaders choose to ignore an opportunity to jump on coattails and hail America’s black champion? To answer that question requires understanding the European climate concerning ethnicity and race. As stated by Trevor Philips, a black politician in the United Kingdom who now heads the British Equality and Human Rights Commission:

“It would be very difficult for somebody like Barack Obama to find their way through the way we do things. I don’t think that the public of this country would be at all resistant to electing a black Prime Minister … My point is that it is very difficult for people who don’t fit a certain mould – to do with gender, to do with race and to do with class – to find their way into the upper reaches of politics.”

A Labour party representative to the British Parliament, Sadiq Khan, addresses the political conditions in a way that shines more light on the quickening that worries Europe’s establishment.

"In Britain you can't make a brilliant speech and get noticed in the way Barack Obama did. You have to rise up through the ranks in parliament. Our history is different. Mass migration - slavery - took place to America 400 years ago. Condoleezza Rice is the fourth generation of her family to go to university. Our mass migration has only happened over the last 40 to 50 years. But our recent progress has been far steeper than in the US - we have been much quicker."

The fluorescent pink, green and yellow-striped elephant – bound, gagged and stuffed in the water closet during the Europe’s mid-November Obamafest – has been Europe’s own problems with immigrant populations and a lack of cultural integration. America has shattered the illusion that it could not elect a minority person to our highest executive office. The spotlight now shines on Europe, and that kind of light cascading through its mirrored halls of power must be blinding to the elite establishment that wants to preserve their own history and traditions while maintaining social harmony.

Despite trivial and anecdotal statistics of interracial and same-gender couples walking down the streets of Paris or Amsterdam without causing a stir, most large European cities have developed ghetto districts of immigrant populations – many from North Africa the Middle East and Central Asia; many culturally Arab, Berber and/or Muslim. These communities are typically isolated and dominated by poverty, consume a disproportionate amount of public resources and often choose not to assimilate into their host country’s culture. In many such places – as cited by Bruce Bawer in his controversial book "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within", governments grapple with Muslim populations that openly defy Western democracy and the rule of non-Sharia law.

Therefore, when considering its European strategy, the Obama administration must consider the following question: Will the European establishment allow Obama to lead the world when to do so would create an upsurge of potential energy within ethnic communities to fight for proportional representation in government, energy that could quickly become active and transform Europe in ways that the establishment is unprepared to handle?

There is every reason to believe that Europe will eventually overcome its institutional biases concerning race, ethnicity and culture. It is, however, not a change that can be forced and societies have sometimes alarming reactions to change that moves too fast.

The widespread popularity of Obama among the European people – combined with the plug-and-play compatibility of his self-assessed “mutt” heritage – could become a fuel source for minority movements, some of which will openly challenge the legitimacy of the status quo. Obama is already a poster-child for minority movements. With his crowning by some as a world leader, it may simply not be in the interest of Europe’s power elite to grant him greater status by allowing him to stand as a leader on the international stage. From a Machiavellian perspective they would be alienating themselves from their own bases of power, thus making re-election less likely. Even if their motives are less self-preserving and more concerned with the continuation of their forms of government, an ascendant Obama could be used as a symbolic leader of a broad range of anti-establishment movements.

It would seem then, that Europe will have no choice but to allow the waltz of diplomacy to be conducted while finding ways to bar Obama from taking the lead or the spotlight. President Obama will be forced to operate within the same box as President Bush, pursuing America’s interests without the support of European leaders. Obama knows that he must resist the temptation to gain the approval of the Old World Order to appear strong at home. Doing so will mean favoring policies that promote American interests and alienate our allies in Europe and those allies, because of their own domestic concerns, will be more than glad to conduct relations with a style that tips toward adversarial.

If an adversarial dialogue is inevitable, Obama will have little choice but to adopt a more unilateral approach to foreign policy. To pursue any other course would find his 2012 re-election campaign rummaging the drawers for fancy clothes to dress up a set of mediocre achievements.

The results of Europe not letting Obama 'in the room' could be real and disastrous.  NATO expansion, Russian aggression and Middle Eastern tensions will all force us to work in some way with Europe to bridge gaps and broker agreements.  The emphasis of Obama's foreign policy team should be to formulate strategies that coerce or triangulate Europe, but which do not require voluntary agreement on their part. 

Of course, Europe could set it itself on a different course. Instead of fighting against minority inclusion and proportional representation they could begin conceiving of ways to reshape a society restrained by so much ivy and stone. When we can read in the New York Times that a person of color has assumed the helm of France, Germany or Britain, only then will a minority American president be truly welcomed into the clique of Europe’s elite.

###

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Castro to Obama: Take Your Flag Back

As reported by multiple news outlets, including the Miami Herald, Cuban President Raúl Castro has stated that he is willing to meet with President-elect Obama on "neutral ground", suggesting that the Guantánamo Bay United States Naval Base would be an ideal location.

In the interview - conducted by international communist superstar, actor Sean Penn - Castro went on to say that at the conclusion of the meeting he could give Obama a gift.  His idea?  To "send him home with the American flag that waves over Guantánamo Bay."

Despite Castro's errors of fact - the base at Guantanamo is technically not neutral ground, and the flag that flies there is not Cuba's to give - this smacks of taunting, a challenge to a fledgling world leader by an upstart nation.  Cuba may feel emboldened to poke a stick in the eye of Obama with the Soviet Russian Federation Navy currently sailing in the Caribbean, plus commitments by the Russians to build a space launch complex on Cuban soil and bolster anti-aircraft defenses for the small despotic island. 

It is a very minor flea on the dog, in terms of international relations, but those working the American desk in other nations' foreign ministries will be watching carefully.  Obama's reaction will begin to create a data set by which foreign governments might predict or manipulate his responses to situations.

My guess is that the flag over Guantanamo won't be moving any time soon.

###

Thursday, November 20, 2008

NYT Sources: Iran Has Enough Material for One Nuclear Bomb

It appears that there is now credible evidence that Iran has produced enough weapons-grade material to build one weapon, as reported by the New York Times on Wednesday.

This is something that I wrote about last month, by way of a story run by Israel's DebkaFile.  That piece was focused mainly on the proximity of intelligence details about Iran's nuclear capability to the tough-talking remarks of now-Vice President-elect Joe Biden at a Seattle fundraiser.  I did, however, I pose several key questions that President-elect Obama will need to answer to the American people in order to devise a response to an Iranian threat that does not a) conflict with any current doctrine, or with a doctrine he wishes to set or b) destabilize the region or kick off a wider conflict.  The questions I posed, relevant to the Iranian issue, were:

    • How do you see our relationship with Russia, considering Russia's recent strengthening of ties with our enemies in key areas of the world?
    • What will be your criteria for determining when and how to apply the force of the US military?

Russian involvement (and to a lesser extent the participation of France and Germany) will be a key factor in what courses of action are available to the United States in dealing with any existential threat posed by Iran.  Iran's insistence on possessing a nuclear weapon demonstrates its desire to become a dominant Middle Eastern state, and we cannot rule out the possibility of an attack on Israel.  At this point, whatever country would come the aid of Israel may find themselves engaged with Russia, due to mutual defense agreements.

This writer is glad that attention is being drawn to this issue, but I fear that the die may have been cast.  With the current state of international affairs, it would be rash to place Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) as head of the State Department, in what is a vanity posting designed to appease party big wigs.  Direct experience in foreign affairs and high stakes diplomacy is required to navigate the coming crisis and despite Ms. Clinton's undeniable savvy and intellect, she would not be the right person for this task.

###

Friday, October 24, 2008

Iranian Foreign Minister Threatens Attacks on London... With Non-Existent Nuclear Arsenal?

In browsing Brit Hume's Political Grapevine column this morning on FoxNews.com, I found this not-so-surprising morsel:

London Calling

An Iranian Foreign Ministry official says his government should target one of the United States' closest allies to ensure that President Bush does not attack Iran during his final weeks in office.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reports Wahid Karimi was quoted as saying, "The last two months of Bush's presidency... will be the worst days of his presidency for Iran and during them he can exploit his power to carry out political adventurism and an ill-conceived operation. If so, how can we restrain him?"

He adds, "The most appropriate means of deterrence that Iran has, in addition to a retaliatory operation in the [Gulf] region, is to take action against London."

What was shocking was the insinuation of transcontinental strikes against the British capital when Iran has never publicly admitted its use of terrorism to advance it's national foreign policy goals, nor has it even made veiled threats to use extra-national groups to do its bidding.  Either this represents a stark change in Iran's policy - embracing the open use of terror as a 'legitimate' form of warfare - or they are signaling some other kind of attacks.

Is there an attack that could be launched on one continent and cause widespread damage in another?  Well, sure, the advanced nations of the world could launch a nuclear strike from a continent away, but Iran isn't in that league.  Right? 

Iran would have to have long-range missile technology as one would expect from a country operating its own space program.  They would need to be within months of developing a nuclear payload.  They would also have to have a military treaty with a powerful - and heavily armed - ally to discourage immediate retaliation. 

If we can't find any evidence of those factors, we can disregard their threats as the rantings of a pariah state.

This looming threat presents a dilemma for Senator Obama, a man who has advocated unilateral disarmament, reductions in defense spending and dismantling our nuclear arsenal?  There is every reason to believe that the next decade or two will present America with her greatest challenges since the Civil War.  The next president will set the tone for how we address those challenges in national security and the economy, and the first leg of any journey establishes its course.  If the first leg of our march through the approaching storm takes us into dangerous territory, such a miscalculation may prove disastrous.

In times of peril, whether they are centered around our corporeal or financial survival, Obama's idealism will only invite conflict.  A case in point is Jimmy Carter, a man who met challenges by using his own worldview as his diplomatic playbook.  During Carter's time in office, Soviet-styled communism gained a foothold or expanded its grip on every continent.  Americans sat helpless and frustrated as our citizens were held hostage for 444 days in Tehran, and the world took note.  As Carter conducted experiments on his own theories on international relations, the real world continued on its course. 

Obama shows striking similarities to Carter in his willingness to make events a testing ground for his idealistic principles.  His attitude toward negotiation - even if he has truly moderated his position from "no preconditions" to something more diplomatically sound - only works if the opposing parties end-game is to achieve diplomatic objectives.

(It sure would have been nice to see his senior thesis on nuclear disarmament negotiations so that we could at least have a basis to begin understanding his philosophy on high-level negotiations.  Alas, he is the only person I know who didn't, out of some vanity, keep a copy laying around.  Come to mention it, even his wife had a copy of hers on the Princeton library shelves, although it was pulled until after the election.)

Just as Chamberlain believed that Hitler's aggression was a tool used to obtain other concessions, it is never safe to assume that war and conquest are not the goal of your enemy.  That is not to say that war is the only end to the troubles with Iran (and please pay attention to Russia skulking along the baseboards) but it does mean that has to be a possibility considered in the calculus of our decision-making process.  It is unclear whether Obama truly understands how to work the formula to arrive at a solution that will protect America.  He shows more interest in proving an academic point.

The first responsibility of our leaders is to define where our national interests lie and act to protect the lives of Americans.  Idealist foreign policies and the leaders who cling to them don't generally cover that territory very well.  We can see that in all occasions when Obama has been asked to provide details for how he would handle foreign affairs.  He points to the past - the Bush years - as the reason America is on unstable ground, but he offers no definition of what our interests are and how he will protect them.

(It can't go without saying that for someone who has railed against the Bush White House and the war in Iraq, he has gratefully accepted the endorsements of an entire cadre of Bush neo-conservatives and General Powell.  If we flip back a few years in our history textbooks you will remember that Powell is the man who "fabricated evidence" according to Jonathan Schwartz writing for Huffington Post on February 5, 2008:

Powell's loyalty to George Bush appears to have extended to a willingness to deceive the United Nations, Americans, and the coalition troops about to be sent to kill and die in Iraq.

Doesn't this completely invalidate Obama's claim that he will be taking the country in a new direction?

Back your regularly-scheduled commentary.)

Without a doubt, there are other issues facing the country, most of them carrying crushing penalties awaiting us if we fail to effectively grapple with them.  The potential of violent conflict supercedes all such issues.  Jefferson wrote "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as the rights of Man in that necessary order or priority

When we hope for better hearts in our enemies, we give them safe passage to strike at our own.  Without life there is no liberty, no happiness.

Remember the pigeon

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Harris Poll: McCain Preferred by One Percent of French

I can think of no better reason to vote for McCain.

Brevity is the shortest path to truth.  This one speaks for itself.  I grabbed the story from Fox News.

If that didn't do it for you, maybe knowing that the speaker of Iran's parliament, Ali Larijiani, would prefer an Obama presidency will tip the scales. You can peruse that tidbit at the Telegraph UK site.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

High Flying Espionage 'Agent' Caught Spying on Iran's Nuclear Facilities

Remember the Pigeon

As rumors swirl around Iran's nuclear program, it was only a matter of time until a spy would be caught in the act of gathering up-close intelligence.  The first prisoner has been taken and we only hope that it will be returned with all of its feathers intact.

You read that right.  The first spy caught inside of Iran during this time of international intrigue was nothing other than a pigeon, as reported by the London Telegraph's online edition.

Iran arrests pigeons 'spying' on nuclear site Iranian security forces have arrested two suspected 'spy pigeons' near the Natanz nuclear facility.By Our Foreign Staff
Last Updated: 7:45PM BST 20 Oct 2008
A pigeon - Iranian security forces have arrested two suspected 'spy pigeons' near the Natanz nuclear facility. One of the pigeons was caught near a rose water production plant in the city of Kashan in Isfahan province, the Etemad Melli newspaper reported. It said that some metal rings and "invisible" strings were attached to the bird, suggesting that it might have been somehow communicating what it had seen with the equipment it was carrying."Early this month, a black pigeon was caught bearing a blue-coated metal ring, with invisible strings," a source told the newspaper.The source gave no further description of the pigeons, nor what their fate might be.Natanz is home to Iran's heavily-bunkered underground uranium enrichment plant, which is also not far from Kashan.The activity at Iran's controversial uranium enrichment facility is the focus of Iran's five-year standoff with the West, which fears it aims to develop nuclear weapons. The Tehran government insists its programme is intended to generate power for civilian use only.Last year, Iran issued a formal protest over the use of espionage by the United States to produce a key intelligence report on the country's controversial nuclear programme.It is also highly suspicious of Israel, whose extensive intelligence activities are not known to include the use of pigeons.

The Western world holds its breath until news of the pigeon's fate is disclosed by Iranian officials.  Word is that Amnesty International and PETA are dispatching a special negotiations team to Tehran.  More details as events unfold.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

US Intelligence Estimates Iranian Nuke by February 2009

Israel's DebkaFile has reported today that US intelligence sources have briefed government leaders - including the two main presidential candidates, Senators McCain and Obama - on recent changes in the national intelligence estimates regarding Iran's nuclear capability.  According to those unconfirmed reports, current estimates indicate that Iran is likely to have built its first nuclear weapon by February of 2009, around the time we will be inaugurating the next president.

This revelation places Senator Biden's tough talking remarks about the challenges Obama would certainly face in a much different - and darker - light.  When Biden received this sensitive information about Iran in his intelligence briefing, he had several choices in how to deal with it.  Abandoning discretion, Joe opted to share his special knowledge with party insiders.

Like a teenaged boy showing his father's girlie magazines to his friends, Biden giddily teases.  In doing so he simultaneously sent a message to voters and our enemies that nothing is secret if it can be used to make Joe look impressive.  America's security is of less importance to Biden than the aggrandizement of the egos of he and his running mate. 

Will Colin Powell be taking calls from reporters this afternoon?  Does he wish to comment on what he thinks an Obama administration should do with a Middle Eastern nation on the verge of obtaining weapons of mass destruction?  Or will he simply pass out from the concussion wave emanating from the collision of karma and déjà vu?

The focus of the campaign is shifting swiftly back to foreign policy.  Economic security is trumped by issues of survival and a nuclear Iran would seem to fall squarely into the latter category.

We have every reason to believe that this threat is real and it places much of what is happening in the world into sharper relief.  We can expect the tone of campaign speeches to become more serious.  McCain must use what he can of media coverage and the Internet to force his opponent  to finally answer questions that he dodged in the first presidential debate. 

  • How do you see our relationship with Russia, considering Russia's recent strengthening of ties with our enemies in key areas of the world?
  • How will you address the issue of leaving Iraq, if Iran becomes a belligerent actor armed with atomic weapons?

And the big one:

  • What will be your criteria for determining when and how to apply the force of the US military?

For those who are worried that Obama may be in trouble if foreign affairs and national security become the point issues in the campaign, put the sleeping pills down.  Obama is a skilled campaigner, surrounded by a team of detail-oriented tacticians.   In fact, make sure to near a television on October 29th, the night of the planned Obamathon across the major networks.  I feel an October Surprise in the wind.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Biden Debuts Obama's 'Speak Loudly and Speak Loudly' Foreign Policy Style

It happened right here in my hometown of Seattle, WA. (Please-Keep-Him-Just-a-)Senator Joe Biden dropped what could become his most serious gaffe of them all.

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking," Biden said.

"Remember I said it standing here. if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough -- I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen," Biden continued.

Does the Obama-Biden ticket view international terrorism and geopolitics as a kind of Survivor challenge? Machismo has no place in foreign relations because it winds up costing jobs, lives or both.

The hubris of the Obama-Biden ticket has now reached critical mass, Biden's recent remarks outshining even the "take 'em out" bravado displayed by Obama in comments about how to deal with Osama bin Laden in his ilk.

Biden's prediction should entirely erase the perception that he is a skilled diplomat. Loud talk is usually a replacement for a will to act, as most career statesmen will note. I suppose we can expect Joe to next begin conspicuously professing his bedroom prowess for all to hear?

I am now getting a clear vision of what the Obama Doctrine will look like in action and if you have a billowy white shirt, a cutlass and a rope to swing down on your enemies from, you can play along yourself. So much for that Obama rhetoric about the need to repair America's damaged reputation in the world.

It is ironic that Biden and Obama sound hungry to practice the kind of "cowboy diplomacy" that the Bush administration has been accused of, and this may be the beginning of the end. Perhaps this is all designed to generate backwind behind a slogan reaching as-of-yet untapped Obama voters, the Cowboy Left?

We can take our lessons, however, from the great Greek tragedies, in which the mighty are quickly felled by their own pride and arrogance when even their followers can no longer recognize the righteousness in their crusade. Unfortunately, in those stories it takes years for destiny to correct the balance and we only have two weeks.

Cross-posted at Sound Politics Public Blog.

Friday, October 17, 2008

What's More Important than The Economy?

This report comes from The Debka Review:

Russian live missile fire air exercise near Alaska
DEBKAfile Special Report
4 Oct.: Not since 1984, just before the fall of the Soviet Union, has Russia ventured to launch dozens of nuclear bombers for an exercise in which Tu-95 Bear bombers will fire live cruise missiles. Exercise Stability 2008 will take place Oct.-6-12 over sub-Arctic Russia, uncomfortably close to Alaska.

The exercise is part of a month-long war game described by Russian air force spokesman Col. Vladimir Drik as “practicing the strategic deployment of the armed forces including the nuclear triad.”

As part of the exercise, our sources reported exclusively on Oct. 1, that Russian ships armed with nuclear missiles will dock at Syrian ports Oct. 8, on the eve of Yom Kippur, before continuing to the Caribbean for joint maneuvers with Venezuela

Read the full story here.

If you didn't hear anything about this in the media, it's because the entire nation is distracted by the presidential campaign and the economic crisis.  The downplaying of the Russian threat within the dialogue of the election is actually prudent - public statements or shoe-pounding will set a Cold War into high gear and make it harder to pursue other foreign policy strategies.  The media's ignoring of these events, including:

  • The Russian Navy's maneuvers in the Caribbean, also to include live fire missile drills
  • Russian-Venezuelan military cooperation and sales of newest generation military tech to Syria, Iran and Venezuela, to name a few buying nations
  • Russia's intentions to build a space complex in Cuba, a potential back door for military missile hardware and technology
  • A large funding increase to allow Russia to complete the expansion and upgrades of GLONASS, their global satellite navigation system
  • Suspected sales of S-300 anti-aircraft and anti-missile missile systems to Iran, to be used in defense of a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities

There are many reasons to suspect that Russia may have determined that their fastest route to economic strength and international relevance is to become a hegemonic power, in much the same that the United States did in the wake of the Spanish-American War and following World War II.

There will be more posts on this as additional events occur.

Cross-posted at Dancing with Bears.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Will the Next President Inherit a New Cold War?

Presidential Candidates Must Be Quizzed on How They Would Handle an Expansionist Russia

America is now fully engulfed in election fever.  Republicans are energized by their ticket, Democrats have tasted blood in their own mouths and are responding to the ring of the bell.

The horse race, however, is obscuring from our view important events that will inform voters on Election Day.  Those who declare that a President McCain would merely execute the Bush foreign policy ignore one obvious and important reality - President Bush has not had to develop a comprehensive foreign policy doctrine to address a post-Soviet expansionist Russia.

Grappling with the enigma of Russia's new foreign policy will be the number one challenge of our next president.  It intersects with all other concerns.  Without safety and security, economic concerns and other social issues become secondary.  There is a reason that Thomas Jefferson ordered his causes as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". There is no duty higher than meeting the potential threat of a waking Russian bear. 

At its most benign, Russia intends only to achieve some measure of energy security with its new policy and it has no interest in engaging in a full-scale Cold War.  The malignant and more probable reality is that the old Soviet heart of Russia's power elite sings again with the dream of expansion.  Emboldened by America's low standing in the halls of power around the world, it is likely that they have foreseen a window of opportunity that must be seized.

Russia's actions - in the recent days, weeks and months - are not isolated, and should be seen as part of a broader strategy.  They can also not be excused any longer as appeasement of hard-liners, as some have suggested in the past.  It also makes very little sense to read Russian actions as a temporary challenge to the United States' response to Russia's invasion of Georgia, namely sending our warships into the Black Sea.

The Venezuelan-Russian alliance could also be seen as advantageous for a Russia that has its mind set on influencing the world's energy resource supply and delivery.  But with Venezuela being a staunch enemy to the United States, Russia has no fear in "losing" any battle for oil rights or access to supply to America.

By deduction, we know there is more at work within the Russian strategy.  

In interpersonal terms, the relationship between Venezuela and Russia has just gone from holding hands to sleeping over.  If Russia was only leaving a toothbrush in the bathroom cabinet we could rest at night.  Tu-160 Blackjack long-range strategic bombers, capable of carrying nuclear payloads, landed in Venezuela yesterday, with an official explanation that they will be conducting training flights.  That's a toothbrush with operational range capable of delivering a first-strike nuclear payload Washington, D.C.

The Tu-160s arrived two days after joint Venezuelan-Russian naval exercises were announced for later this year - to be held in the Caribbean - and the same day that Venezuelan strongman President Hugo Chavez issued a 72-hour order to the United States ambassador to leave the country.

Despite official statements to the contrary, undoubtedly it has already occurred to officials at the State Department and the Department of Defense that Russia may be establishing its right to conduct military training exercises in our hemisphere for the purpose of establishing a more permanent military presence over time. 

In the past, it has only been the ability of the United States to project its power that has given us leverage in moments of diplomatic crisis.  What effect would a similar Russian ability have on international relations?  It would be foolish to assume that Russia has no such intentions of following the model the United States has already demonstrated to be a pattern for power expansion.

Understated comment of the week: It would be destabilizing.

Even if the Russians do not establish a more permanent military presence in South America, it has been clear over the preceding year that they are very comfortable in taking openly hostile statements in opposition to United States policy.  The knee-jerk response to our designs to build a missile defense system in Europe should have reminded policymakers that Russia is still very aware that its nuclear arsenal gives it power. 

Even a rusting giant can earn superpower respect at the negotiating table when their words are backed by atomic weapons.  The only piece that has been missing from Russia's application of its yet-to-be-determined foreign policy doctrine, was that the world had assumed that Russia was more concerned with economic growth than power expansion.  By invading Georgia, the threat that Russia is capable of using force to achieve its goals was given credibility.

We can leave the intricate machine of policy implementation and formation up to experts who have far more information than those of us without a daily briefing could ever gather.  We cannot, though, put off the hitting the presidential candidates on the "what ifs". Answers to these hard questions are not optional, and journalists should not accept less than directness or shy away from explaining to their readers, viewers and listeners why these topics are important.  The stakes are too high to move forward in blissful ignorance.

This is cross-posted at Dancing With Bears (http://dancing-with-bears.blogspot.com). 

Introducing My New Blog, "Dancing with Bears"

I am one of those political writers you know who have to remind themselves that it is all right for the president to deal with smaller issues than national security and foreign policy.  That is not only because foreign affairs have such a profound impact on domestic affairs - which they do - but this area of the president's responsibilities is the only one in which their performance can be measured along a continuum that has peace at one end and war at another.  That is why I am starting a new blog at http://dancing-with-bears.blogspot.com/ called "Dancing with Bears", a reference to the bears used to represent the two nations pursuing notions of achieving superpower status - China and Russia - and our relations with those countries.

Over the past two decades, the world has been transformed by a retreat of global communism and an ascent of global capitalism.  Bipolar theory was tossed out (not that it ever truly applied with the fundamental difference that always existed between Communist China and the former Soviet Union) and replaced with a very messy world.  On a macroscopic level, each nation existed in a state of nature where raw power - economic or military - largely determined behavior and outcomes.

In recent years, with China's economic rise and Russia's apparent embracing of expansionist policies, the rules have begun to shift once more.

This new blog is written for the purpose of discussing events that are shaping international relations, specifically in terms of regional and global power blocs.  Although it will contain a great deal of opinion and analysis, I will keep it readable for the non-wonks out there.  These issues are important to everyone, because what is happening out there has a very real effect on all of our lives, even when war isn't breaking out.  Therefore, I want the postings to be able

Go the blog over the next few weeks and read the material.  I will be cross-posting here occasionally, but only when I think the material will be of interest to readers of this blog.

Thanks for reading!  Keep coming back!