New, Old World Order

I am, finally, returning to a thesis not widely supported but which I believe is rapidly taking shape: the world has returned to a pre-1939 political structure where regional powers are making more foreign policy decisions based on national interests rather than within alliances. Blocs like NATO, ASEAN and even Shanghai Cooperation Organization are have become largely clubs without transnational impact, except at times militarily like NATO, and even then are severely constrained by the conflicting international interests of their members.  This is also true of the European Union where the political (and perhaps fiscal) unraveling of the Eurozone is proceeding apace.

Some caveats.  First, this is not about the perceived decline of the United States because it is not a decline except in relative terms.  It is about the reality of multi-polarity and local dominance and not absolute decline and fall – something a vast number of Europeans and Americans simply are too reluctant or obtuse to understand. The United States is still the leading military power on a planet-wide basis in general.  Its navy with accompanying air power can go anywhere, anytime and push anyone out of the way. No one can project military power like the US and no one is going to be able to do so for a very long time. In the wrong hands, as we have seen, that has been a problem.  But, there is simply no competition.

Nevertheless, on land and in foreign affairs, it is a different matter. The ill-conceived war in Iraq and the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan have drained the power of the United States militarily, economically and politically.  The policies of the neo-cons and the far right in the US have destroyed the “city on the hill” image that Ronald Reagan tried to push both domestically and internationally. The eight year Bush administration buried the credibility, economy and good will felt toward the US with its astonishingly arrogant, incompetent (but unsurprising) foreign policy otherwise known as the ‘go-it-alone’, ‘with us or against us’ and ‘international agreements be damned’ posturing. 

Second, the European Union remains a creation with enormous potential; but the failure to push for more political integration is now fraying the edges of its economic foundation.  If it is able to resolve the fiscal issues of its member states fairly, then the opportunity to conduct a unified foreign policy will have a chance.  It is not, in my opinion, likely.  Which is why the EU is not included in my list as an entity – just a few member states.

Third, a seismic event could reverse the trend toward the nation-centric foreign policy of pre-1939. I believe in the improbable and dismiss facile bell curves, models and forecasts based on hindsight. It’s what you have dismissed as improbable that will hurt you – usually badly.  The fiscal crises which began in 2008 could have been such an event and should not have been unforeseen, but that moment has dissipated with the uneven recovery – some countries doing much better than others such as in the case of Germany which unfortunately, also proceeded to vocally relegate some member states –the southern tier and Greece in particular - to second citizen status with some distasteful,  nationalistic  remarks bordering on bigotry.   

So, on a region by region basis I believe we are looking at an old, new world order.  It may last a decade or fifty years.  My bet is that it will last longer than anyone expects.  Its structure is that of the realpolitik world of pre-1939 which largely came crashing to a bloody end in 1945 with the rise of the blocs. Some blocs are still around but in reality began a rapid disintegration with the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

Viewing the political map from this geo-political perspective, there are several clear, locally powerful players – China and India; Russia; Turkey; Germany and France; the Visegrad group; and, of course, the US.  Oh – and BRIC is not a bloc – it is a label of convenience mostly for economists who, like Linus and his blanket, need to pigeon-hole un-related countries into nice chewable morsels. 

I have not included Iran because, compared to the others and despite the hysterics of the galactically stupid right wing in the US, it simply doesn’t count.  Its economy is in shambles and it is politically unstable and cannot risk going to war or cutting off the Strait of Hormuz because that would invite retaliation of the most unpleasant sort by almost everyone.  It’s not near to building a single nuclear bomb and couldn’t afford to toss it in any direction even it did manage that amazingly difficult task because then it would be wiped out.

I did not include any African country because, well, if you can name one that is a regional power with enough influence both economically and militarily to do anything with significant impact except very locally, you win a cookie.  South Africa is the sub-Sahara elephant in the room– but its absurd attempts to play on the world stage as it has in Libya make it more of an annoying busybody than effective player.  The African Union in general is an old boys’ club intent on maintaining the status quo. Just look at the lack of effective condemnation of Mugabe’s reign by the AU. 

I also do not include any South American country despite my strong temptation to present Brazil as a player.  Maybe soon, but not now.

That’s my pre-amble.  Next time, and as a first choice, let’s look at Turkey or, more to the point, how Turkey looks at everyone else and their reaction.

Gaming for Afghan Minerals

The timing behind the report in the Paper of Record (which brought you Judith Miller) concerning the vast potential store of mineral wealth in Afghanistan is very, very suspect. Why now? What’s the purpose of this report at a time when the US is scheduled to exit, stage right? The geological investigation has been going on since at least 2004. Assuming that the initial reports were available to certain inner circles by 2006, what is the big revelation supposed to do? Keep the US in Afghanistan?

All other things being equal, there is not a country in the world that is going to go mining in Afghanistan any time in the foreseeable future for many reasons. The first being the amount of lead and depleted uranium in the air while the second reason…well, there is no second reason.

The World Bank helped draft a mining law? Is this a joke? Of course they did. So what? In what court would any mining developer care to enforce its rights against a local war-lord?

The article, its timing and who wanted it printed is suspicious.

Welcome to BICT and Mult-Polar World

OK. I was wrong. I thought that the Israeli assault on the Turkish flotilla would have sunk the vote on sanctions against Iran. It did not. Whether these sanctions work or not, and I don’t believe that they will achieve the desired result, is not really the question. Israel is now more isolated than ever, as is Iran. The vote against the resolution by Turkey and Brazil was more about regional muscle-flexing and desire to play a larger role in their regions and the world, than their understandable anger over the snub of their nuclear fuel swap agreement with Iran – which is not entirely dead depending on the next move by the US.

Turkey has faced the fact that the opposition by France, Germany and Austria to EU membership has killed the prospect regardless of previous commitments by Brussels to move forward. It has now turned to its old domains in the east and south to increase and solidify Turkish influence and power and it is succeeding.
Ankara may have genuinely believed in the uranium swap deal; but, regardless of the outcome, it has placed itself solidly in the regional power column, independent of the US while still remaining within NATO. Turkey principal competition is Iran. They are not allies and the Iranian brand of Islamic rule is not palatable in Turkey. The attack on the Turkish flotilla has elevated Turkey’s standing in the region as the pre-eminent political power. By voting “no” in the UN against sanctions and joining with Brazil in a nuclear fuel swap deal, its political capital in the Middle East leaped multiple levels. All these events come at Iran’s expense and make Turkey a leader in the region, wielding political and military clout that cannot be safely ignored. Even Russia knows this and has been careful to rapidly build closer economic ties to Turkey. Although Turkey is heavily dependent on Russia for energy, Moscow knows that Turkey can create serious problems for it in the Caucuses and less so in Central Asia.

Brazil, meanwhile, is rapidly asserting its independence and strength in South America and has shown that it can be a player of international scope. Brasilia has increased its trade relationships with China, Russia, West Africa and the Middle East, especially now Turkey. Clearly the leading political and economic power in South America (despite the pretensions of the Chavez regime), it is in a position to require the US to pay attention to its views. Joining with Turkey in the nuclear fuel swap agreement puts Brazil on the map outside of its region.

Russian agreement on the new sanctions also reflects an awareness that it will need to be more sensitive to a multi-polar world. Although it clearly may indulge in more aggressive behaviour in the Caucuses, any such further adventure will come at a steep price as it tries to build ties with Turkey. Turkey is in a position to make life easier for Russia in the Caucuses and may ultimately be instrumental in resolving the long-running confrontation between Yerevan and Baku. By asserting its independence from the US when its interests conflict with those of Washington, Turkey is leveraging its regional strength and becoming a trusted broker.

All the recent events are pointing toward a new balance of power where regional interests can trump traditional alliances. The US can no longer rely on Turkey or Brazil to tow any particular line if their national interests would be adversely affected. For that matter, neither can Russia or the EU. Each must deal with the regional powers in a different way. The now famous BRIC bloc is not really accurate. Drop the R and add a T. Welcome to the new world.

International Law, Israel and Practicality

The debate over whether Israel violated international law by attacking the Turkish flotilla in international waters has begun. Unfortunately for Israel, it is likely to lose the legal argument despite the absurd attempt by FM Lieberman to justify the attack on the basis of international law – which he clearly does not understand nor cares to understand.

Aside from the pure stupidity of the selecting the wrong action from a range, it is part of a larger seige policy regarding Gaza that has failed catastrophically in achieving its goal of destroying Hamas. To hammer home that point, the Egyptian government today opened its border crossing to Gaza without a time limitation. Just to be clear, I believe that Hamas is a terrorist organization that hurts rather than helps the Palestinian people and needs to be consigned to a black hole somewhere.

The legal proposition that, absence a state of war, a state has the right to intercept ships in non-territorial waters is seriously flawed.

First, let’s dispose of one of the more absurd analogies such as the one here which equates this incident with the sinking, boarding or destruction of German ships in international waters by the US (or the UK, for that matter) during World War II. Unless news reports have missed it, Israel is not in a state of war with Turkey (although it might as well be, at this point). Furthermore, both during the First and Second World Wars there was serious condemnation by neutral nations for the blockades that affected their shipping imposed by the warring nations who were accused, correctly, of breaching international law. During the World War I England successfully ignored the complaints and continued to intercept, board and intern neutral ships bound for German ports if the navy determined that the cargo could, in any way, help the German war effort. There was no question that the actions were illegal, and effective; so effective in fact that those in Germany advocating unleashing unlimited submarine warfare overwhelmed those in the Kaiser's inner circle who opposed doing so because it was illegal. Circumstances of a declared war, however, changed the matrix of acceptability.

Second, by logical extension, Israel is now claiming the right to stop, destroy or seize any ship in international waters if it deems it to be a threat to its security. If this sounds absurd, it is. It is also profoundly stupid. Even the US relunctantly demurred  (under President Bush no less) from stopping and boarding a North Korean ship in international waters despite the fact that evidence strongly pointed to the possibility that it was carrying weapons destined for some unsavoury characters in the Middle East.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Israel would only be entitled to stop ships within its territorial waters if they breached any of the restrictions to the right of innocent passage. Israel could make a legitimate argument if the attack occurred within its territorial waters where innocent passage rules apply, but it did not. Innocent passage is the right of all ships to engage in continuous and expeditious surface passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic waters of foreign coastal states in a manner not prejudicial to its peace, good order, or security. Just ask Argentina.

Israel has no legal justification for its actions in international waters regardless of the inane remarks of its Foreign Minister – the same man incidentally who deliberately and publically embarrassed the Turkish ambassador last year and who has continually rejected all attempts by third parties to help in resolving the Palestinian issue.

Israel has engaged on a policy of confrontation and defiance with its ever shrinking circle of friends and handing its enemies the moral high ground. In effectively severing military and economic ties with Turkey with this action (something the current Turkish government was uncomfortable with in the first place) it has put it security at risk. It has also handed the current Turkish government an election victory.

But, ultimately it is not the legal question that matters.  Time and time again, this Israeli government has exhibited a remarkable aptitude for taking the least desirable route.  Assassination in Dubai using stolen, non-Israeli passports; embarrassing the Vice President of the United States and the Turkish ambassador; defying international opinion by continuing construction of illegal settlements and evicting Palestinians; continuing an ineffective blocade of an entire city; and, rattling sabers at Iran in an attempt to draw the United States into another war.  It has attracted the condemnation of Europe - particularly the UK and France while Ireland may go as far as expelling the Israeli ambassador- and irretrievably damaged its relations with a rising, powerful Turkey.  NATO is now involved because a member state's ship was attacked. 

As a result, there will be no new sanctions imposed on Iran and the fact that the United States agreed to the resolution in the UN condemning Israel's actions and calling for a raising of the Gaza siege is unprecedented. Turkey is lost as an even reluctant ally. Egypt has elected to break the circle. Nation's are now weighing their strategic interests and not to the benifit of Israel. This is a game changer.
Legal or not, this latest event puts Israel more at risk than ever. Time for Netanyahu and his conservative friends to go before Israel does.

Brazil and Turkey Convince Iran - Maybe

Brazil and Turkey appear to have brokered a deal with Iran to accept low-enriched uranium to Turkey for further enrichment. By appear, I mean that although the agreement has been signed by Iran, the Never-Ending-Negotiation Process of the Iranians may yet unravel this first step. And, lest anyone think the current Iranian regime has a corner on this particularly back to the bazaar tactic, the former Shah and his government also used this favourite of Persian tactics.

Nevertheless, despite the protestations of Israel that Turkey and Brazil have been “tricked”, this is a positive development. Israel has said that Erdogan and Lula are naïve. They may be a lot of things but naïve is not one of them - particularly in the case of Erdogan and Turkey for which this is a significant diplomatic and geo-political coup if it works.

Assuming acceptance of the deal by Russia, the United States and France and compliance by Iran, Turkey has established itself as a trusted broker in the region. If Iran follows through, then it has suffered a geo-political set-back as Turkey will use this to enhance its presence throughout the Middle East both economically and politically. By helping Iran to avoid an additional set of sanctions, Turkey has shown that it can accomplish what Iran cannot on its own. Big brother, little brother. Syria and Iraq need to pay attention now as Turkey puts its interests first to further enhance its position.

Israel needs to pay attention too. The remarks that Turkey is naïve show a strong tendency to ignore its ever shrinking circle of support. It is the present government that is naïve. If this deal is implemented, Netanyahu and his supporters lose their last chance for an attack on Iran. Good.

European Dis-Union

Image by Henrique Oscar Loeffler via Flickr

What is happening with the European Union? For some time, it has been abundantly clear that the core countries of the EU, Germany and France, were intent on controlling the organization both politically and economically. Germany, the economic power in Europe, has clearly tried, more or less successfully, in bending the union to its needs and desires. France is a distant second on the team but still retains a certain amount of leverage over the direction of EU policy. The Greek financial crises revealed the key fissure affecting both concept and practice – self-interest. Germany became the indispensable player. In doing so, Brussels has been sidelined for major issues. Perhaps permanently.

The EU, founded in part to undermine the foundations of nationalism that had inflicted two major wars in the 20th century, is now closing the circle. As a unified economic union it has worked rather well – until now. The protection of NATO, led by the United States, provided the necessary cover to allow economic reforms resulting in unprecedented prosperity and wealth within the union which did not need to fund military expenditures. Once the Soviet Union crashed and burned, the EU could rapidly expand to bring former satellites of the Kremlin inside the club. Again, the existential threat to Europe having vanished overnight, allowed it to concentrate on rapid economic growth, presumably as a bloc, without concerning itself with military expenditures. Expansion was rapid, but then hints of political issues, based on national interests, began to rise to the surface.

The first clear sign of cracks in the unified system were political. The proposed constitution, a mammoth, 400 page tome, was seen by Eastern Europe – particularly Poland, as changing the rules of the game mid-stream. Ireland was the first to vote it down. Although eventually enacted, this document was not a constitution. It was another treaty. In other words, the constitution was a contractual relationship among individual nations. Contracts can be broken, but more importantly was the underlying glossed-over issue of nationalism that the European Union was established to abolish.

Then came Iraq. The key players in the EU, Germany and France, are also key members of NATO. They split, sharply, with the Bush administration over Iraq and the imperial attitude of that administration which flaunted a “with us or against us” childishness in foreign policy that made opposition to the war very, very easy. In no small part, Eastern Europe, and particularly Poland, supported US foreign policy because they needed a balance to the Franco-German alliance within the EU which was threatening to develop a robust relationship with the Russian Federation. European Union cohesion began to unravel at a faster pace.

Nationalism has now risen from the dead. France and Germany, both vying for a leadership position in Europe, appear to have subordinated the goal of the union to purely national interests. Germany under Merkel has increased its dependence on Russian energy supplies to an extent that makes it difficult to criticize, much less resist the more aggressive tendencies of Moscow. This is of particular concern to Poland and the Baltic States – EU members - given their prior experience of deal-making between Russia and Germany.
France has not mirrored the nationalism of Germany, but it also is clearly acting in its own interests when it announced the sale of one or more Mistral class ships to Russia – the first such sale of reasonably advanced military hardware by a NATO member to the Russian Federation. The sale – which has yet to be finalized – did not go down well in the Baltics, or in Georgia.

The Russo-German love affair has alarmed the Eastern European member states enough to send their governments into the bomb shelters of national interest as opposed to those of the EU. If the precedence of national over European goals is good enough for Germany and France, it is just as appropriate for Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania.

Greece tripped the nationalism wire completely. Andrea Merkel fomented an anti-Greek atmosphere in Germany for purely political, national reasons that made any sort of unified assistance by the other member states much more difficult. Germany, she clearly implied, would call the shots on any rescue plan. The Greeks were lazy, as compared to good, hardworking Germans, and could not be trusted. Her fulminations resulted in an electorate that not only does not care about Greece, but dislikes it. Now, when forced to lead the bailout, Merkel must backtrack – which resulted in the loss of an important bi-election and damaging her party’s ability to run the country alone. Hoisted on her own petard. And she is not alone in Europe.

Leaving aside the fact that the financial collapse of Greece was entirely self-inflicted, Merkel casually ignored the detail that German representatives occupy some lofty posts in the financial regulatory councils of Brussels who somehow missed the evidence of the approaching melt-down. Germany was going to run the show now for the good of Germany. The attitude was noted in Warsaw, Madrid, Rome and Ankara. The latter, though not a member largely because of the prejudices of the French, Germans and, as always the Austrians, has been given a taste of how it will be treated if the opposition to Turkish membership is ever overcome.

What has happened with the financial crises in the euro-zone is that Germany has essentially changed the deal - one member’s problems are not those of the EU. The union was established as an economic zone, and not a United States of Europe. Gradually, the idea of being a citizen of Europe took over. Without a deep crises, this political concept worked well despite the fact that it was never intended to politically integrate each member nation. With the financial crises in general and the Greek collapse and bailout in particular, the unity of the EU has been shattered despite the rescue plan. The entire episode firmly establishes the lack of a unified foreign policy within the EU. This inability to formulate a consensus approach in foreign affairs is not new. It has merely been below the event horizon for most of the last 50 years. Not any more. The interests of Germany, France, Poland and the southern tier of states are not congruent and in many cases are in direct opposition to each other.

From a foreign policy standpoint, the charade of a unified European approach as a balance to the US, however admirable, has vaporized. The election in the UK resulted in a coalition government, however long it lasts, that is led by a strong Euroskeptic crowd which the LibDems will not be able to overcome. Brussels will find it hard to maintain the appearance of unity, much less a unified foreign policy approach, in a firmly nationalistic Europe.

Confusion in the Kyrgyz Republic

Following up on the events in the Kyrgyz Republic, the cause of the successful revolt does appear to be grounded solidly on the intensity of anger, building up over the past three years, over the dashed hopes for reform ushered in by the Tulip Revolution. The latter revolt elevated the now ousted President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to a leadership role that quickly degenerated into a kleptocracy of extraordinary magnitude spearheaded by his son, Maxim.


Maxim sold off the resources of the country and pocketed the funds for himself and his family. He sold water to Uzbekistan far beyond the Kyrgyz Republic's resources and electricity to, of all places, the Republic of Kazakhstan. The water sold could have been used to generate electricity rather than endure the twice daily power shedding that occurred in 2006 leaving even the capital, Bishkek, in the dark. He then raised electric rates by 170% as well as cell phone rates and pocketed that as well. In 2006 I witnessed his thugs cut down the surrounding two meter metal fence from the grounds on the Hyatt in retaliation for the hotel's refusal to increase his percentage ownership of the casino. The purported reason? So the public could visit the monument in the park without the need to pass security. The man needed to be removed - one way or another.

Bakiyev did nothing to stop the deterioration of the economy while indulging in conspicuous consumption and, on days he was bored, murdering journalists. Little has been done to find and punish the murderers of Alisher Saipov (killed in 2007), Almazbek Tashiev (2009) and Gennady Pavlyuk (also 2009). More than 60 cases of assaults on journalists have been reported since Bakiyev took control in 2005.

I am also sure that Moscow was not pleased after bribing him with a $2 billion loan channeled through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to close Manas airbase to NATO and then watching as the US outbid the bribe and he broke his promise to close the base and then suggested that he would give the US a second base.

This brings up the issue as to whether the revolt that toppled the government was aided by Russia. President Putin immediately called interim the president and promising support and aid. Meanwhile, in the US, the State Department in another example of saying too much when asked to comment implied that it was working with Bakiyev. Philip Crowley said,

We work with that sitting government. We have — as we’ve outlined in various reports, including the Human Rights Report — we have concerns about issues, intimidation by the government, corruption within the government…but that said, there is a sitting government. We work closely with that government. We are allied with that government in terms of its support for international operations in Afghanistan.

How about, "We urge calm and restraint on all sides to avoid further bloodshed". Period. Rumours are flying about in Bishkek, according to my former colleagues that Maxim has fled to the US. Not.Very.Helpful. Russia is viewed as helpful. The United States as a supporter of a corrupt regime.

Finally, domestic politics has played a key role. The country is divided between northern and southern clans. In 2005 as a result of the Tulip revolution, Bakiyev, a representative of the southern clans, came to power as president. That did not entirely please the northern clans, a feeling that was made worse as he failed to keep his promises including to avoid assigning his own clan to governmental positions and avoid press censorship . He did the opposite.

Apparently, the northern clans gave him an ultimatum about three weeks ago to remove his brothers and son from their positions. In response, he had opposition leaders arrested which lit the fuse of the revolution in Talas which then spread across the country to Bishkek. It was in Talas that the head of the interior ministry was found shot as well.

So, now Bakiyev has escaped south and has no support in the more powerful north. Buh bye Bishkek.

Now both the US and China are assessing the change. The US from a military standpoint and China from security and balance of power issues. Russia is the clear winner whether or not it supported or had any hand whatsoever in the revolution and continues its progress to rein in the former Soviet republics. Orange, Rose and Tulip revolutions have all been rolled back and perception always trumps the truth.

What will the new regime bring? Probably little change, although one can hope. Omurbek Tekebaev and Temir Sariev, the two most visible opposition figures, are the same people who were in power under both Akayev and Bakiyev. Both were reelected to parliament in 2005 in a fraudulent election that sparked the Tulip Revolution. Both retained their seats under Bakiyev, and Tekebaev served briefly as speaker in Parliament. In the 10 years they have been in politics, nothing changed and indeed became worse. It is unlikely they can or will change anything now.

The Kyrgyz Republic - What Color Revolution

Image via Wikipedia

The events in the Kyrgyz Republic this week have toppled the corrupt regime which toppled the former corrupt regime during the Tulip Revolution. Note to CNN – it is not alleged corruption. The corruption was real, systemic and widespread in all levels of the government. Calling it alleged merely gives cover to those who spawned the corruption.


I was completely surprised by the intensity of the demonstrations which turned very ugly, very quickly and haven’t collected all the information about it from some of my Kyrgyz friends who I know from my work there between 2006 and the end of 2008. When I get it, I’ll write about their impressions as to what finally triggered the overthrow of the regime, hopefully tomorrow.

A few questions need to be answered as well. What will be the effect on both Russia and the United States foreign policies in Kyrgyzstan and the region in general? How will the overthrow of the Kyrgyz government affect the unstable situation in its neighbour, Tajikistan? Will the new government actually be revolutionary and toss out the equally corrupt Parliament? What will be the colour or flower for this revolution?

More to come.

International Relations Stupidity

Some examples today of total stupidity in international affairs:

1. The Armenia Genocide Resolution passes by one vote in the US. A grand victory for those comfortable Armenians in California who want to alienate the most powerful, democratic ally of the US in the region and destroy the reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia in order to recognize an atrocity that happened under a completely different political structure almost a century ago and has nothing to do with Turkey. Maybe the US should now demand that Armenia break its alliance with the Russian Federation and expel its army.

The next resolution should be one that condemns Syria for the genocidal atrocities committed by Ashurbanipal, king of the Assyrian Empire against anyone he cared to roast alive including, in no particular order, Egypt, Iraq (then known as the Babylonian Empire) and Jordan(then part of the Elam Empire right next door that was essentially wiped out).

While we are at it, it was not so long ago that Italy burned Jerusalem and beseiged Masada. Apologies and reperations to Israel are required.

Last, but certainly not least, the US Congress should admit to its genocide of Native Americans. Oh, wait - they don't have a massive lobby or donate hugely to campaigns. Sorry.

2. Germany, that past paragon of virtue and peace, has suggested that Greece sell off its assets - particularly its uninhabited islands - to settle its debts. Let's see - this from a country that killed 400,000 Greeks between 1940 and 1944 and stole most of the money from the Greek banks. I guess Merkel needs a warm place to retire and will buy low, sell high.

3. Hillary Clinton, whom I otherwise support, delivered a remarkable statement in a news conference with Argentine President De Kirchner. The remarks from both to questions are as follows:

QUESTION: (In Spanish.)

And for the Secretary, it’s about the Falklands. The – President Fernandez talked about possible friendly mediation. Would the U.S. be considered – would the U.S. (inaudible) consider some kind of mediation role between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands? Thank you.


SECRETARY CLINTON: ...we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.

Um. Well, no. The UK has said very clearly that they do not intend to discuss the status of the Falklands so there is no possibility of sitting around a table to discuss that. Furthermore, no one living on the islands is interested in becoming Argentinian. There is no reason for the US to become involved and this statement is not helpful in the least and makes it look like a) the US can negotiate a settlement of territorial dispute that one side - a strong ally - has no intention of discussing and b) the US supports the Argentine position. Next time just say the US has no position.

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.

Failed Plane Bombing - War in Yemen

The growing clamour from the usual suspects in the US to insert itself somehow into the Yemen as a result of the failed attack on the Delta plane over Detroit is very reminiscent of previous cries by the same cast of characters to invade Iraq and bomb Iran. Before succumbing to the mendacious arguments put forward by some of the dumbest members of the legislative community (I'm talking about you Hoekstra), a little bit of fact checking is in order.

First - Republicans (again I'm talking to you Hoekstra, and you Bachmann, and you Boehner)voted against appropriating the necessary funds for airport security which included explosive detection devises. And shame on you BBC, CNN et al for not reporting that and on the Obama administration for not shoving it in their collective faces. Oh. It was the Bush administration that released (presumably for lack of evidence) two Yemenis who were the alleged plotters behind this attempted bombing. So Cheney - STFU.

Second - The BBC revealed today that the CIA knew about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old (wealthy brat) Nigerian and failed to talk to anyone about it - thereby allowing his visa for the US to continue. No comment.
Third - Joe Lieberman (R-CT) said on Fox News Sunday that the US should launch a pre-emtive war against Yemen - quoting an anonymous administration source. Does this sound familiar? Yemen, Senator, has not attacked the US and, in fact, is cooperating with a key US ally in the region - Saudi Arabia - to disrupt and destroy what is known as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Who does he want the US to pre-emtively attack?

The call for the US to significantly increase its presence in the conflict, which is partly a civil war, all as a result of a failed attack by a lone, pathetic rich kid from Nigeria, of whom the US was warned by his father, is bordering on the insane. However, it may be too late as CNN reported today that although there has been no deal on a US Special Forces helicopter-borne assault that puts boots on the ground, that the US would like the Yeminis to develop that capacity.

That Yemen is a mess, politically and economically is clear. It has been fighting an indigenous al Houthi insurgency in the north for years and a growing secessionist movement in the south. The al Houthi are the proxy now for Iran in its regional competition with Saudi Arabia and are not connected with al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) whose stated goal has been the overthrow of the Saudi government. The Saudi's can and have crushed al Houthi incursions on Saudi territory and have even launched effective airstrikes against their mountain strongholds in Yemen.

AQAP is the combination of the now destroyed Saudi al Qaeda group and its Yemeni counterpart. The group has been singularly ineffective in doing anything and has now lost its leadership as a result of a succession of air/ground attacks. AQAP is hardly the type of threat requiring any more attention from the US than is already being given. Politically, however, the US administration may not have a choice as the media and Republicans press for "action" and pre-emptive war.

The Lieberman crowd need to dial down the hysterics. Yemen is a fragile state posing absolutely no threat to the US or anyone else. The government can only push the jihadists so far without running into trouble with the various tribes in the area and it's own security units (sound familiar?) The government has to fight an al-Houthi insurgency and a secessionist movement in the south. Disintegration is a word that comes to mind. But, the prospect of another failed state in the region (Somalia is the other) does not appear to concern the neo-con element that is palpably tingling with anticipation for another war. Yemen is on the edge of the failed state slope and insertion of more US forces would push it over that edge.

The reality, Senator Lieberman, is that this matter is much more complex than you are leading people who watch Fox to believe. Furthermore, the US does not need to escalate any more than it already has, to wit:

December 17: Mohammed Saleh Mohammed Ali al-Kazemi, a senior leader of AQAP, and dozens of other AQAP militants, were killed in an air strike in the southern province of Abyan. The U.S. Navy carried out the strike. The strike was accompanied by coordinated ground raids by Yemeni forces to prevent escape. The use of US naval assets is already a dramatic escalation by the US.

December 24: A Yemeni assault on AQAP was backed by US air assets resulting in 30 killed, including the cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, Nasser al-Wuhayshi (al-Qaeda's regional leader) and his deputy, Said Ali al-Shihri. The cleric, by the way, had contact with three of the 9/11 hijackers and also exchanged e-mails with Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, killed 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

The bomber was trained and supplied in Yemen by AQAP. That much he has admitted. So what? His mentor in Yemen is probably dead. What is it about AQAP that has the media blasting headlines and demands for a pre-emptive war against the country that is, after all, fighting AQAP? For the US to go after AQAP any more than it currently is doing risks a full scale meltdown of the current government. That is an unpleasant prospect. US policy should be to coordinate and support, as it is doing, the Saudi and Yemeni government efforts, not make this a US war.

AQAP began in Saudi Arabia with the express purpose of destabilizing the regime. It was destroyed and kicked south. Now it is isolated, surrounded, under assault and incapable of producing any serious threat to anyone as it is gradually worn down and its leadership killed. The desire for a grand fireworks display to assuage Lieberman's and Hoekstra's delusions of manhood is both foolish and counterproductive.

Peace Prize, US and Iran

In reading President Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech, I was struck by certain sections which are indicators of what may come. Here are the 'graphs:

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.

...I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms....

If I were making a bet, then this part of the speech means that if Iran keeps thumbing its nose at the international community, refuses the proposals of Russia, Turkey and others, then the US is going to act militarily. I make no judgement of whether this is smart or not, but even Moscow seems to be frustrated. Iran's leadership need to pay attention.

Short Answers to Dumb Questions

Speaking to President Obama's speech in Oslo accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Rude Pundit had these questions:

"To put it simply, Barack Obama wasn't talking to you. He wasn't even talking to Europe, really. No, he was speaking to history, offering a philosophical and not dispassionate assertion of American leadership in the world, a reasoning behind his war policies, a defense of the "just war" doctrine, and a plan for future peace. It wasn't a stemwinder, a breathtaking oratory cum sermon. It was a speech, from an intellectual president to intellectuals, and it was so fucking smart. Have we gone so far down the dumbing-down highway that we can no longer see the importance of hearing a rational man grapple with the conflict between realism and idealism? Have we been so numbed by the cowboy presidency of George W. Bush, along with a steady diet of reality-TV hysterics and high-fructose corn syrup-infused food products, that we're no longer capable of understanding anything except in relation to how it makes us feel?"

Answer to all the above regarding the American Publicus Idiotus: Yes.

Off Topic - Wingnuts in the US

It is only by exercising enormous restraint that I refrain from posting on the loathsome, lowlife, uneducated morons in the US who oppose science and choice: in health (insurance) reform, for women, for lifestyle, for climate change and of religious (or no religious) beliefs. What I think should happen to them is largely unprintable. Oh - and screw Stupak and his allies.
MUST.STOP.READING.ABOUT.US.POLITICS.

Afghanistan Surge

The rumours of President Obama's decision on the next steps in Afghanistan for the United States all seem to indicate the insertion of about 34,000 more troops as part of a "surge" advocated by the Pentagon. This is less than demanded by General McChrystal. The number itself is meaningless without context and the parsing of the rumours serves no useful purpose until President Obama explains, as he has promised, the plan.

Any explanation will have to address what the Afghan government must do in the short and medium term and an exit strategy (though not necessarily characterized as such). Perhaps, too, President Obama will explain the objective and, hopefully unlike the military and their allies, it won't be to "win". Until then, I'm reserving comment.

Afghanistan II - What's the Plan?

Image by Carl Montgomery via Flickr

The decision to invade Afghanistan was aimed at the destruction of Al Qaida as an effective force able to stage complex and large scale terrorist activities, deny it a secure base and simultaneously to drive the Taliban from power. Al Qaida has since been marginalized and since the invasion has been unable to mount any form of coordinated, serious attack against the US. They are no longer a threat to the US and no longer have a base of operations in Afghanistan such as existed under the protection of the Taliban.

The Taliban were driven from power by US and allied forces. There was no effective follow-thru and soon, the Repblican administration abandoned the hunt for Osama bin Laden and allowed the rural areas to become havens for the Taliban. The US is now paying the price for the misjudgements of the Bush administration in Afghanistan and the choice to turn its eye, efforts and money on Iraq.

The Taliban are resurgent and effective. The country is dangerously corrupt. Karzai is more the mayor of Kabul than president. The recent election was shot thru with fraud and after a recount, a new election is likely. General McChrystal's solution is a major troop surge of at least 40,000 while NATO allies have had enough and will send no more. They want an exit strategy. What alternatives does the new Obama administration have after inheriting a shattered foreign policy, shattered economic policy at home and questionable support from NATO allies?

First, there is the McChrystal alternative. It is not surprising for the general in charge to see the effects of more than six years of indifference to the mission and ask for more troops. But will more boots on the ground really make a difference? That is highly unlikely. The Taliban know that the US will not be in place forever and they can afford to wait. The US treasury cannot continue to absorb endless wars, whether justified or not. And the US cannot continue to sacrifice its military on what very well may be an unwinable war in the conventional sense. Historically there would be no precedent for military victory.

However, putting an additional 40,000 troops into Afghanistan will smack of an occupation. More troops is not better. In fact, it will antagonize the Afghans and serve as a rallying cry for the Taliban. Far more effective would be highly trained special forces that are used to pinpoint targets and terrorist bases to disrupt and destroy Taliban operations. Coupled with an effort to make sure that aid is meaningful - rebuilding infrastructure for example - would go a long way to removing the attraction of the Taliban and deflate any propaganda characterizing the war as an occupation.

Second, the Obama administration has already dialed down the effort to eradicate opium poppy production. This was a misguided effort as all it did was drive poor farmers into the hands of the Taliban. Opium growing accounts for a third of the Afghan economy. No substitute was offered and destruction of the fields meant destruction of the family. It was a foolish policy and the Obama administraton should continue its targeted opium field destruction policy while significantly raising the level of effort to give farmers alternatives so they and their families don't have to choose between starvation and the Taliban.

Third, and most importantly, it is clear that somewhere in 2005 - 2006 the US slowly slipped into a nation-building mission. This was a huge error and needs to be rapidly reversed.

Afghanistan has never been a nation - so there is nothing to rebuild - and the US should not be in that business. Nation building requires the assent of the population and they must do it themselves. The Bush administration indulged in an alarming tendency to lecture other nations and peoples. How has that worked out? It is absurd to believe that anything the US does can result in a viable, cohesive Afghanistan when its entire history is one of tribal rivalry which only seems to come together when a foreign presence descends on Herat or Kabul be it Persia, the Mongols, England, Russia or the US. It is truly the 'graveyard of empires'. None have succeeded. None.

The choices facing the Obama administration are stark and not of its making. Eight years of mismanagement and myth building will not be fixed quickly. President Obama must ignore the conventional wisdom that permeates the Washington village. It has been consistently and deadly wrong for eight years - and not just in Afghanistan.

Everyone wants success but is unable to define it. Richard Holbrook defined success as "knowing it when we see it". Really? What are the goals? Who exactly, is the enemy? I respect Ambassador Holbrook enormously, but I certainly hope that "we'll know it when we see it" is not the definition of success being adopted by this administration. The US needs an exit strategy - an end game - and not one for a long-term engagement with significant military forces.

The internal political problems that the Obama administration faces regarding Afghanistan are one of "damned if you do and damned if you don't". It is abundantly clear that the Republican opposition is not interested in engagement and debate and is simply going to try and tear down, obstruct and damage this administration in any way possible, including fear, obfuscation and outright lies. They will need to be steamrolled. Period.

Granting General McChrystal the troops he claims is necessary for victory - or at least to stabilize the situation - is not necessarilly what is needed. Again, a significantly larger military footpring will achieve the opposite effect with the population. Additional troops of this magnitude will make it impossible to disangage and will be used to justify more troops and money. It has happened before and is a disease that seems to infect American foreign policy.

Fewer troops with a narrow mission of containing and destroying Al Qaida is much more practical than a massive ground war against the Taliban. At the same time,the United States should increase international assistance to Afghanistan under UN supervision. The aid should target the creation of sustainable development, particularly in rural areas. Furthermore, continuing to target opium producers directly tied to the Taliban is a viable policy while providing income-producing alternatives to all the rest would reduce the growing antipathy toward the US.

The Obama administration needs to brush aside the wise old men who pontificate every Sunday on television and in the rapidly shrinking print media who suggest that if only the US had enough troops and enough time, we could build a nation. The US could stay in Afghanistan for a thousand years and it would not achieve its definition of success if the definition is the creation of some sort of Jeffersonian democracy.

Next, I want to discuss the larger picture. Iran, Russia, Europe and Israel.

US, Ukraine, Georgia, Iran and Russia

A few days ago Alexander Vershbow, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, reportedly suggested that Ukraine would be an appropriate location for radar sites such as had recently been scraped for the Czech Republic as part of the ill-conceived BMD system of Bush that involved placing BMD missiles in Poland. Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs was taken by surprise, to say the least, as was Ukraine.

What appears to have happened is that Vershbow was referring to existing radar systems in Ukraine and not the prospect of placing US BMD systems in their place or even in addition.

The Assistant Secretary of Defense is also visiting Moscow and will be in Georgia starting on October 19 where defence discussions will be on the agenda. These discussions will likely review and revise the military training support provided by the US to the Georgian army. What is unclear is whether the training will now be ratcheted up and include offensive capabilities.

Both the comment regarding Ukraine's inclusion in the future BMD shield (and after all, the land based system will not be implemented until 2015)and the meetings in Georgia are likely to raise hackles in Moscow, more regarding Georgia than Ukraine. Ukraine will have a new, more Russia centric president in January, so any US or NATO hopes for retaining Ukraine as a potential balance to Russia is circling the drain. Implementing a policy such as suggested by Vershbow - even using existing Ukrainian radar bases - would be rapidly unwound by the new government. It's a waste of energy and an empty threat.

Georgia, on the other hand, is a completely different matter to Russia. They have made it clear that Sakaashvili is not high on their list of favorite leaders. They have effectively seized portions of Georgia and declared their independence. As far as Russia was concerned, they virtually had the Caucuses wrapped up. So an increase in the US presence in Georgia would be a set-back for Russia's planning.

The international dance playing out by the US and Russia largely has to do with Iran. Russia wants to continue to reassert itself in the near-abroad and to do so, it holds out its leverage with Iran. The US is refusing to back away from maintaining and increasing its influence in Russia's backyard. The statements regarding Ukraine are meaningless. Georgia, however, is a different matter. US boots on the ground in Georgia become a trip-wire just as Russian troops are on the territories it seized. It would close out full control of the Caucuses for Russia.

As time goes on, however, it is becoming increasing clear that Iran is not going to walk back its uranium enrichment program, a key issue for Israel. If that is the case, then Russia will gradually lose its influence in Iran as well.

Once Russia is perceived as not being able or willing to deliver anything regarding Iran, its leverage will dissipate. Georgia can likely expect increasing support from the US while the US will encourage Turkey to reach diplomatic deals with Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia's game plan for the entire Caucuses could unravel.

I think by the end of the year the geo-political landscape will be significantly changed in the region while at the same time making it more dangerous. Everyone should re-read "The Guns of August".

The Alternate Economic Summit

The two-day meeting on Venezuela's Margarita Island this past weekend which mirrored the G-20 summit, addressed a wide range of concerns, from hunger in Africa to the economic crisis and demands for reming the United Nations. That's all well and good. However, having Hugo Chavez and Muammar el-Qaddafi take the leading roles is not.

One of them sees everything exclusively through the lens of anti-Americanism and self-promotion, while the other has frequently professed a desire to form a United States of Africa led by him - which is not about to happen for a variety of geo-political reasons. These are not the leaders of the South. Chavez has a proclivity for childish behavior coupled with clear tyrannical tendencies while Qadaffi is, well, himself.

Chavez has been struggling to grasp a leadership role outside of his small circle of supporters in South and Central America. However, his policy of nationalizing every major industry in sight is not widespread in the region, much less the world. Although he may be largely correct by blasting "...the empires of the North ...the empires of Europe, ...the U.S. empire..." for past economic and military colonialism, he is not the leader of any South/South reform movement.

The meeting also offered Qadaffi the chance to grandstand and rant - some of which was truly bizarre. Again. He exhibited his penchant for theater claiming (correctly) that "colonialism has stolen our riches." Unfortunately, colonialism of the type he refers ended some time ago and, in any event, I don't see him waxing sadly about Libyan oil and gas sales helped mostly through investment by those same former colonialists. He also wanted to reopen investigations regarding assassinations within the UN structure - JFK was mentioned.

His denunciation of the "politics of the club" used by some nations against others was not clearly translated though. Did he mean "club" as in weapon or "club" as in something he will never be allowed to join. If the first, then I suppose that the war in Iraq and the Russo/Georgian war fit the definition. So what?

Quadaffi then, clearly miffed, personalized the issue claiming to be humiliated by the fact that his delegation had to travel 20 hours to reach New York. Well, living in a tent is his privilege. Dropping it in places where he is not wanted, is not. I'm sure the Russians were amused when he pitched it in Red Square - but not for long. After complaining about the 20 hour commute, he called for more air routes between Southern Hemisphere nations - a policy which the beleaguered airline industry would likely not jump at immediately.

Both leaders demanded reform to the UN. OK, fair enough. But, Quadaffi went so far as to claim that the Security Council format is unsustainable because of the right of veto. Well, unfortunately the countries on the Security Council, which includes rotating membership from the General Assembly like Libya, prefer it that way. In any event, the entire concept of the Security Council was based on the major powers taking the permanent seats and not Zimbabwe or Burma. If anything, I can certainly agree the SC should be expanded to include as permanent members India, Brazil and Japan, for example. Beyond that, giving the Mugabe's of the world a chance to set international policy for the planet is laughable.

Others at this meeting, such as Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, were less flamboyant and far more pragmatic. She simply expressed hope that Africa will expand its potential to produce and export food and - more to the point - said her government was willing to provide technology and expertise to help.

Chavez, for his part, also promised investment in Africa. But, much like his promise to supply Iran with gasoline, this is more poor rhetoric than reality since his budget is in shambles due to his economic policies and low oil prices.

Given the recurrent attempts to hijack the under-privileged, under-served and under-represented southern part of the planet, perhaps it is time for the Non-Aligned Movement to reinvigorate itself. Formed during the Cold War, it seems to have lost its way after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, all of Africa, except Morocco, are members and so is Venezuela. The problem for Chavez and Quadaffi, but no one else, is that they do not lead the organization and will not likely have a say in its leadership for some time. But, it includes economic powerhouses - India and South East Asia - which could constructively lead an alternative non-political, economic program to the IMF (albeit on a smaller scale) if they really wanted to do so. But then it is politics, not economic development that motivates Chavez, so the Non-Aligned Movement would need to somehow work with or around his type.

No BMD for Poland/Czech Republic

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the BMD system proposed by Bush (and which never worked very well, to be generous) for deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic is about to be dropped. Meanwhile, Russia is deploying more troops in Belarus.

The purpose of deploying the BMD was not because of the unrealistic policy of protecting Europe from Iranian missles. The Bush administration had a amazing capacity for mendacity and apparent self-deception in this regard. Deployment created a footprint in Eastern Europe and backing for those countries on Russia's borders who felt most threatened by Russian expansionism.

It is doubtful that Russia will see this as a concession. They are not stupid. If it is meant to pull Russia away from its support of Iran, the move won't work except perhaps on the margins of cooperation. Under Putin/Medvedev, Russia still operates within a zero-sum approach, so the NATO partners need to consider what will replace the BMD footprint.

Poland in particular is looking for US support to replace what it considers is soft backing from NATO largely due to the increasingly close relationship between Germany and Russia. What will Obama offer in return?

Blogging from Paris

Image via Wikipedia

Actually, I'm not. I'm on a blogging break. But, some news items caught my attention.

The first is the Russian Akula class subs patrolling in international waters off the coast of the United States. This, it appears, have the right wingers in the US all atwitter (pun intended). They need to take a pill and go home for a mental health break. First - these boats are old tech. Second - these boats are manned by crews who have not had this type of long distance experience in a decade. Third - these boats are loud (therefore easily tracked). Fourth - the Pentagon doesn't care. This all is news? Guess it's August.

Another bit of news is the Clinton effort that successfully freed two American journalists from North Korean clutches. Good. And, right wingers, it was a success. Not a failure. Not a concession to North Korea. End of story. Go back to your holes under the rocks.

Third. Putin and Erdogan are meeting in Moscow. Putin will have been in power for a decade. He also invited Berlisconi. How important is this meeting, exactly?

On a sad note, Sam the Koala, a survivor of a bush fire (not the ex president) in Australia, died in surgery. RIP

Also, former Senator Edward's mistress is in Federal Court for some reason. Could not open the web site because my connection is not so great and it, truthfully, bores me (but not prudish Americans).

Finally, Paris is hot. It is over 35 (for the centigrade challenged, that's hot). But, the wine and cheese is still great. The city is still beautiful. And their health care system is so superior to the one in the US, it is not measurable.

Back from Versailles today and off shopping tomorrow.

A bientot.