Weekend Quick Hits - Korea, Wikileaks, START

China is stepping up to control the dangerous situation on the Korean peninsula - and if you don't think it is dangerous keep in mind that the political atmosphere in Seoul is toxic and another attack by the North Koreans may not be met with great restraint. However, this remark by its Foreign Ministry is an interesting example of how China views a US carrier battle group steaming around its front yard:

We oppose any military act by any party conducted in China's exclusive economic zone without approval.

From an international law standpoint, China is not on shaky ground here. There is no ground. If China somehow claiming that the Yellow Sea is off limits to any naval units then the Foreign Ministry in Beijing needs to go back to school.  I prefer to think this is for domestic consumption which is fine, but inherently dangerous as it sets up the reply: "Or else, what?" resulting in the loss of face from the ultimate climb down.

On another front, Wikileaks is about to publish another release which even the US is warning will contain some embarrassing documents including, it seems, US support for the PKK, Turkish support for al Qaeda supporters in Iraq and some unflattering characterizations of Russian leadership.  Of course, this is as yet speculation and it could very well be that the US was talking to the PKK - which is a terrorist organization but secular and opponents to the Kurdish Hezbollah which works with al Qaeda. This is called realpolitik. The idea that Turkey officially supports al Qaeda is absurd merely because it would involve the military which is not known for supporting non-secular movements.  Nevertheless, this could be fun. Really.

And entering the world of he terminally stupid (the US Republican party), Senator Richard Lugar (R - Indiana) one of the last of the breed with brains, had to warn members of the lizard party that the failure to ratify the treaty could have drastic consequences for other facets of U.S.-Russia nuclear cooperation -- especially the Nunn-Lugar effort to secure loose nuclear materials throughout the former Soviet Union. If START fails, the cooperation between the United States and Russia on securing loose nukes could be imperiled, representing an even bigger risk for national security, Lugar said.

The money quote:

There are still thousands of missiles out there. You better get that through your heads.

START and future Tea Bagger Foreign Policy

Since I am on my soap-box of the dangers to the rest of the planet arising out of future US foreign policy should the militaristic racist wing of the Republican Party seize control because of the lazy apathy of progressives in the US (where fortunately I don't have to live if I don't want to), let's look at Mitt Romney's recent Washington Post Op-Ed from two weeks ago.  Aside from the fact that the START treaty has the support of every thinking Republican and Democrat including Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James Baker, former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, former National Security Advisers Brent Scowcroft and Stephen Hadley, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Senator Richard Lugar, the ludicrously fact-challenged piece by Romney is wrong on every single point his pathetic ghost-writer attempts to make.

Let's create an index to measure Romney's (and every other race-to-the-crazy-right racist teabagger out there) mendacity. The scale is 1 - 10, with 1 indicating a more or less sane, logical and fact supported approach to developing a policy - in this case, foreign - and 10 indicating a severe case of moronous conservetousness best exemplified by the tea baggers spokesperson, Bachmann.

First, the strap-my-dog-to-the-car-roof ex-presidential candidate seems to believe that the preamble of a treaty is legally binding.  It's not.   And the fact that it allows a party to withdraw from the treaty if it felt national security was in danger is not unusual. It is normal and has been for every previous treaty. Of course, I am assuming the Mittster would not want to waive that right of withdrawal.  On the scale, this merely rates a 5 as it simply shows he needs to study more.

Next, in typical Romneyesque style, he absorbs and regurgitates the perennial uniformed view of the wingers that the US would be prevented from pursuing missile defence strategies. It does not. Rinse, repeat. It does not.  Since this is an outright lie, it rates an 8 on the index.

Amusingly, Romney also asserts that the treaty would allow Russia to build up its bomber based nuclear arsenal.  What color is the sky on his planet?  The entire concept of strategic nuclear bomber systems is a joke and has not be seriously pursued by either the US or Russia in 20 or more years.  Sure, Russia could march down that path. So what? The US could withdraw from the treaty or demand that the treaty be amended.  On the index, this rates a 7.

Finally, Romney asserts that the treaty allows Russia an advantage in warheads. The limitations on each side are the same.  This is an outrageous lie and earns a 9 on the index because it leads to his ultimate conclusion that the START Treaty endangers US security.

His conclusion flies in the face of even Bush's policy on nuclear weapons.  How far right is that. 

So, tell us Mitty - are you as stupid as Sarah?  Are you so desperate that you want to portray the US as the militaristic, racist society it is in danger of lapsing back into?  The failure to ratify START would send a signal to the rest of the world, particularly Russia and China, that the US was re-entering the shoot-first foreign policy choices of the right wing lunatics. 

The planet needs to take note that US foreign policy may take a turn for the worse, endangering others for purely ideological grounds and threatening military adventures which the world needs to think about now so that they can be countered if they come to pass with the rise of the right wing in the US.

Stick a Fork in it...

Done deal. There will be a new START treaty that limits nuclear weapons and delivery systems. This should not be downplayed. Both the US and Russia wanted and needed it. It is a big deal in Russia. Russia will resume military contact with the US, including a visit by Russian cadets to West Point and 4500 military flights over Russian territory will be permitted to transit for the Afghan war.

So. What's left. No overt compromise on Eastern Europe or other areas in Russia's "near abroad". Not a lot left. I disagree with Drezner that the US has a market in Russia. It is limited, temporary and does not recognize the geopolitical imperatives of both - which are not subject to many areas of compromise. Drezner believes that Russia is a useful market for the US. This is plain crap. Period. There is nothing in Russia that is other than marginally open to the US producer. Nothing. Russia produces nothing other than energy that anyone else wants. The Russian environment is simply not suitable for US producers. But you need to live there to understand that, frankly.

So, what comes out of Moscow is what was generally expected. And a new nuclear treaty is nothing to sneeze at. Don't expect much more and thankfully, don't expect a US compromise on Eastern Europe. The US should understand that Russia is not a friend. It is not a democracy by any definition and it is not China.