Bombing Iran

Why does anyone listen to the foreign policy ramblings of John Bolton? This is a guy who, prior to becoming the mouthpiece for the neocon underground and the worst US ambassador to the UN ever was once seen running around the halls Ukraine Hotel in Moscow shouting at his assistant about some missing papers - allegedly in his briefs. His continuing desire to bomb Iran - and the media's fascination with the former half-term governor of Alaska who incorrectly (as usual) attributes his statements to poor old Pat Buchanan - is counterproductive and tiresome.

Let's reiterate a couple of not so unimportant points. The enrichment of uranium to a percentage that can be used for reactor and medical purposes is permitted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Period. Iran has not been as open to inspectors as the International Atomic Energy Agency would like, but there still remains no credible evidence that Iran is anywhere near creating weapon's grade nuclear material.

Furthermore, President Ahmadinejad's order last week that created such hand wringing in the West directing the engineers at Natanz to begin attempting to enrich uranium to 19.75% for fuel at its only reactor which also produces medical isotopes that are fully consumed is not a directive to create atomic weapons. And - by the way - the government also provided notice to the International Atomic Energy Agency, also as required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Incidentally, why is the US so terrified of a country whose economy is in shambles and has a military budget smaller than Finland's? The US faced down the Soviet Union - but neocons and their ilk behave like craven cowards when faced with fourth rate military powers which can be obliterated in a nano-second or incompetent terrorists.

Sanctions of one sort of another will follow merely because everyone has lost trust in the Iranian regime. Fair enough. But let's stop listening to the pronouncements of advocates of failed military policies and especially giving any attention to the remarks of Sarah Palin who might be the least intelligent former government official on the planet and who is considered - aside from that Very Important Pundit David Broder in the Washington Post - by the vast majority of Americans unqualified to be POTUS.

Ukraine. What now?

Image via Wikipedia

For those who said that a Yanukovich victory would produce stability - a more important commodity than, say, democracy for many - well, how's that going?

The OSCE has pronounced the election

free and fair

for the most part. They should stop there and not take up (as they have done) the additional position that Yulia Tymoshenko should shut up and go away so that the government can be formed and Ukraine can move forward. The OSCE should know better since this is likely the last election of its sort that will take place as Yanukovich is very likely to do what Putin did to Russia and Yukoshenko did to Belarus. And with Russian assistance. Just sayin...

One of the options that is open to Tymoshenko is refusing to resign as PM and forcing a snap parliamentary election. I can't see her doing that unless negotiations fail utterly. Ukrainian politics is typically strident on the outside and negotiable on the inside. All the rhetoric from both sides - admittedly a little more from BYUT - is the cover for the internal negotiations.

Today, the situation became a little more complex with Our Ukraine saying it does not support her resignation. That gives her more leverage for a deal as she continues to demand a recount because Yanukovich has to negotiate in such a case - he can't form a government under the current split between Regions/Communist Parties and BYUT/OU-PSD and their respective allies. So much for stability.

Tymoshenko, under these circumstances, probably won't call new elections because it is likely that Our Ukraine - not her ally but who loath Regions in general and Yanukovich in particular - would lose all their seats (although most would go to her party - but not all).

The noise - studiously reported as fact by the Western media - hides the underlying maneuvering. I give it another week to sort itself out. As Radar O'Reilly used to say -

wait for it

.

Close but no cigar in Ukraine

Quick note from the airport in Dar es Salaam.

I admit I was surprised by the closeness of the election victory for Yanukovich in Ukraine. Tymoshenko has a couple of options, none of them very good, including acceding to the winner's demand that she resign as PM. That.Won't.Happen. Ignore the rhetoric coming out of the two camps. Negotiations have begun and Yulia still holds a number of cards, including denying Yanukovich a working government.

She won't call for demonstrations. No one would come. But she does have a big chunk of the Rada still. That could prove decisive for her future and for the future of a Yanukovich government - if he can form one.

And Moscow is silent.

Ukraine Election 2010

Image via Wikipedia

The loss of Ukraine to Russia following the election of Yanukovich on Sunday will significantly change the geo-political map in Eastern Europe and the Caucuses.

Assuming that the recent election process change by the Party of Regions in the Rada repealing the requirement that representatives of both candidates be present to supervise vote counting at polling stations is exactly what it seems - an effort to forestall any challenges to the vote due to fraud and the final destruction of the Orange Revolution forces - then the game is over.

In Eastern Europe, Poland and the Baltic States have good reason to become alarmed as Russia regains its historical base in Ukraine. A new line will be drawn and without support from their EU counterparts in Western Europe - particularly Germany -these NATO countries will be looking toward a virtually bankrupt Britain and the overstretched United States for bilateral support. Other than words, the US has committed to major military games in the Baltics during 2010 - a not so subtle hint to Moscow that the annexation of territory from Georgia is significantly different from similar attempts in the Baltics - all of which are NATO members.

The role of non-EU members will need to be ramped up in Eastern Europe to fill the compromised economic positions of Germany - dependent on Russia for energy - and France - whose President is more than easily persuaded to follow purely economic interests (e.g. potential sale of a Mistral class ship to Russia). After Sunday, Europe will be looking at a resurgent Russian Empire in the east - and not a democratic one.

In the Caucuses Georgia now stands alone following the loss of Ukraine to Russia. Previously an important ally, the two countries worked in tandem in opposing Russian expansionism. The relationship now could turn confrontational. Yanukovich was fiercely pro-Russian regarding the invasion of Georgia. When Yanukovich is elected it is likely that he will follow through on a promise to recognize Georgia's rebel regions as independent states. Moscow recognized South Ossetia and another rebel region, Abkhazia, as independent after the war, a move that has so far been followed by only Nicaragua, Venezuela and the Pacific island state of Nauru. This would be an easy foreign policy decision for Ukraine and would be an immediate sign that Ukraine will cooperate with Russia's foreign policies. Even Belarus has refused to take this step, to the annoyance of Moscow.

Turkey will also need take a deep breath as it is Russia's only strong regional competitor. Russia has been calling the shots in the Armenia/Azerbaijan talks. Armenia is already a client state of Russia and Azerbaijan is furious with its cultural brother, Turkey, for attempting to normalize relations with Armenia without resolution of the Ngorno Kharabach dispute. Turkey will need to balance its economic interests with its now much more powerful neighbor in the north against US hopes that Turkey would be a powerful buffer. Also, the Armenia normalization issue will be put on the back burner simply because of Russian control of the negotiations will push Turkey to expand its considerable influence in the Middle East. The continuing opposition to EU membership by France and Germany will add to a Turkish foreign policy emphasis away from Europe and a geo-political settlement in the Caucuses with Russia.

Distant from the borders of Russia and Ukraine, expect the acceleration of NATO membership of Montenegro which will leave Russia's sole ally in the region, Serbia, completely surrounded by NATO members. Additionally, as a move to protect the Baltic States, Sweden will likely move closer to NATO and increase its influence in the Baltic region while the US Defence Department has announced a realignment of forces in Europe to account for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s changing role and security issues such as events of the last couple of years in Georgia.

Following Sunday the map changes, which will mean a realignment of foreign policy objectives by Europe and the United States.

Aside from that it is a very sad day for Ukraine as under Yanukovich, a man with a criminal record who was unfortunately allowed to remain free after 2004 by the now disgraced Yushchenko, expect the media to be suppressed to please Moscow and for future elections to model themselves after the political structure of Russia.

Out of Africa

Image via Wikipedia

Done. In a few days I'll be leaving Tanzania, hoping to return to run the project we have proposed and which the Ministry with which I've been working appears to be very eager to implement. If they - and particularly the normally snail paced World Bank decision process - move quickly enough then in six months I could be back for several years. Would be fun.

Foreign Policy and the State of the Union

I've read a number of commentaries regarding the absence of foreign policy remarks in President Obama's State of the Union message. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly all the emphasis on economic growth in the United States is proximate to the foreign policy strategy of the country.

Some time in the distant past, the New York Times conducted a poll (this is from memory, so no link) which posited questions that, simply put, asked about the public interest in national as opposed to international as a way of judging the emphasis that should be put - at the time - on network news programming. The results were surprising inasmuch as when national affairs, and specifically economic matters, were put in the context of international effect - job losses to Mexico, drops in industrial production to China and the like. The responses clearly showed that public interest in international matters increased when put in a national economic context.

Consequently, for political scientists to bemoan the strong emphasis on national economic matters is misplaced. First, the US public is clearly focused on the economic state of the union. They are not interested in and would not take kindly to the President giving more that short shrift to mentioning a US foreign policy agenda. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen academics, to politics.

More than that, however, is the fundamental fact that the US must get its economy in order if its foreign policy goals are to succeed. Economic matters - together with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - make it difficult to deal with Russian expansionism through support for Poland and the Baltics, finding a non-military solution on the Iranian nuclear issue and especially working on a Middle East settlement. The latter has suffered in particular since US policy, which had promised to put pressure on the Israeli government to stop illegal settlement construction (West Bank settlements are a violation of international law), has clearly been dropped from the agenda.

So, economic issues in the US directly affect its foreign policy choices. The linkage is abundantly clear and the State of the Union had the right emphasis.

Development Becomes State

Image via Wikipedia

I have a pretty sanguine view about what is happening to the USAID community when it comes to being swallowed by the Department of State in the US. But that doesn't equate with thinking it is a good idea.

Over at The Cable a couple of reports have indicated the growing absorption of the development aid community into State - like and amoeba devouring it's nearest food source. Steve Radelet over at the Center for Global Development announced his departure to work as Senior Advisor on Development in the Secretary's Office at the State Department. Somehow, it seems to me that working on development affairs in Hillary Clinton's shop puts USAID less in charge of development work than it was a few days ago.

And that was after the appointment (finally) of a new Director over at the Ronny Raygun building, Rajiv Shah. Now, Rajiv Shah came highly praised and he is an accomplished development professional. But, although he previously helped launch the Global Development program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Shah is only 36 and was personally selected by the Secretary of State.

Despite the assurance of the Secretary of State regarding the USAID non-political development mandate, her words may not reflect reality as the combination of these two events does not bode well for the independence of USAID which had been hoped for when Obama was elected. When State finally became fed-up with the not so successful USAID efforts from the 1990s and essentially took it over, the subservience of development aid to US foreign policy goals (or whims as the case may be) become palpable.

There were many reasons for the ineffectiveness of many of USAID programs - too numerous to go into here now and not all the fault of USAID. Most of the blame can be laid at the feet of the incestuous relationship with the same beltway bandits over the past twenty years. However, independent thinking from a development standpoint now runs the real risk of disappearing into foggy bottom.

This eventuality is an issue not only on its merits, but because the Republican Party, currently and for the foreseeable future in the claws of people like Cheney, Bachmann, Palin and the teabagger brigade, could actually be calling the shots at State in the future. A development philosophy tied to them would make the USAID mandate the spearpoint for American right wing policies that would collapse the good will overseas that has been somewhat repaired by the current administration.

So, I hope Secretary Clinton has taken into consideration of who and what may be coming around the turn before creating a structure that can be used by the Darth Cheney types just as easily as by those with good intentions.