Maneuvering in Lebanon

Image via Wikipedia

Apparently there is consternation in the west concerning the selection of the Hezbollah backed candidate, Najib Mikati, as Prime Minister of Lebanon. The Shiites basically selected a moderate millionaire with strong ties to Syria - something the Sunni's don't like.  But before the western press ties itself into knots of hysteria, it should be pointed out that the selection and appointment followed clear, democratic parliamentary procedures.  In other words, the system - supported by the US and Europe - worked.

More on the geo-politics later, but suffice it to say that the Saudi and Western plan for Lebanon is in shambles. That does not mean, however, that Iran and Syria have won and that particular marriage is not as strong as it seems.

Kansas Controls US Foreign Policy

Among the problems with implementing US foreign policy is the ability of a small group of people - or in this case one Republikan - to bring an important posting to a key country to a screaming, tire burning halt. And for no reason or some double super-secret reason or,more likely to pander to whatever group is paying him or her off.

There has been no ambassador to Turkey since last July.  Turkey is a member of NATO.  Even the EU is now warming to it. Now, due to a deal by the "why can't we all get along" Democrats that will never be repeated once the lunatics gain political control in the US, preventing recess appointments , it will not happen for another seven weeks or so. Senator Brownbeck (R - KS) originally put this appointment on hold for no apparent reason other than to please his Bible thumping friends and "punish" Turkey for following a foreign policy that Turkey considers suitable for Turkey and not necessarily for the bought-and-paid-for US Congress.

There are major policy decisions that need to be discussed in the region, including dealing with Russian expansionism, energy, stability in Iraq and dealing with Iran. The petty, childish foot stomping by one senator from Dorothyland puts US foreign policy at risk.

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.

Turkey Rising?

Image via Wikipedia

The Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, has been quite busy of in the past month, meeting with the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan, the EU, Brazil, Serbia, Bosnia and NATO ministers, and has met with some success in getting what Turkey feels is in its interests. 

For example, after what by all accounts was a difficult dinner in Tallinn, Davutoğlu managed to win over enough NATO members, to get NATO MAP (Membership Action Plan) status for Bosnia.  Although this is part of Turkey's well know efforts to achieve reconciliation in the Balkans, an old stomping ground, it also shows that despite the brush-off and broken promises from certain EU members regarding accession, Turkey is in Europe.

As part of Turkey's Balkan reconciliation effort, Davutoğlu also met with the foreign ministers of Serbia and Spain.  Serbia, of course, is not happy about Bosnia's proposed NATO membership.  However,  Davutoğlu's meetings with Spain and Serbia are also meant to advance Serbia's integration efforts into the EU and NATO. As if that was not enough, a future meeting in Istanbul will involve a presidential summit among Turkey, Serbia and Bosnia.


Perhaps the EU needs to take another look at its tactics regarding Turkish membership and Turkey in general - because Turkey is a European power now whether they like it or not.

The riskiest venture though is Turkey's attempts, with Brazil, to negotiate some sort of fuel swap deal with Tehran.

Last week Davutoğlu met with Catherine Ashton, the EU Foreign Minister, to review his earlier talks in Tehran regarding the fuel swap negotiations. Brazil's Foreign Minister is flying to Tehran soon to continue the pursuit of a deal.  So, what happens if Turkey and Brazil do come up with a deal?  I'm very skeptical that the deal can be brokered given the current rhetoric flowing out ofTehran.  However, assuming that the talks succeed, then then sanctions would be off the table at the UN where they are scheduled to be raised in June when France chairs the Security Council. A deal would be embarrassing for the US and Tehran.  The US has been pushing hard for sanctions and Tehran has been its usual strutting self.  At the end of the day, the US can get over the embarrassment because a solution would be a vindication of its Iran policy.  Tehran not so much. Which is why I am not convinced the negotiations have any chance of success.

The fact is, Turkey and Iran are not strategic partners and both have geo-political aims for dominance in the Middle East.  Iran has a military budget the size of Finland's and is an economic mess. Turkey is a major military and economic power that just happens to anchor NATO in the east. For Tehran to agree to a fuel swap would deliver a huge diplomatic plum to Turkey, enhance its prestige and allow it to reach deep into a region in which Iran would like to compete and control.  The deal won't happen without some intense bargaining.

There is a downside risk for Turkey in its attempt to work with Iran.  Failure to broker this deal will tarnish Turkey's image as a regional leader.  It has been unable to arrive at a successful solution among Israel, Syria and the Palestinians and is already seen in the West as being just a little too supportive of Iranian ambitions. Failure to move Iran to accept a fuel swap deal acceptable to the West will put Ankara in an awkward position when sanctions come to a vote in the UN in two months time where it will likely abstain.

Drezner, Realpolitik and Russia's Near Abroad

Needless to say, I don't agree with this.

In a post yesterday, I pointed out that press freedom in Ukraine is already suffering under the presidency of Victor Yanukovych.  The fact that he had said during his campaign that he would dismantle democracy in Ukraine and move closer to Russia was, apparently, ignored.  He is keeping his promise.

The point is not whether US relations with Ukraine and the Kyrgyz Republic has been adversely affected by their move for closer ties to the Russian Federation. It is what Moscow will demand in return.  One of those demands will be a less free society along the model developed by Russia.  Realpolitik is all well and good, but when it hangs out to dry those who support a more open and free society, there is a serious problem. 

There is a reason why Eastern Europe and the Baltics are concerned about US foreign policy regarding Russia. So implying that the effect is not important reveals a little too much of the cynic.