Slow Burn in Tehran

Previously, I said that I would not turn back to this subject until the "revolution" was over. I think it is, but now a new dynamic - one that will be played out over the long-term - seems to have taken hold.

Last week, the opposition called for more demonstrations. They were small, apparently in 1000s, but nevertheless were beaten back with teargas and clubs. Text messaging was cut off on last Thursday (the anniversary of the 1999 student protests that were crushed violently) to prevent communication. The government appears to be creating a permanent underground movement.

The continuing low-grade fever of opposition to the current government will gradually drain Iran of regional legitimacy to the extent of its ability to effectively interfere in regional issues. Everyone should simply let this happen rather than indulging in ill-advised bellicosity or, worse a military strike against nuclear facilities.

Russia's Problem

It did not take long for President Medvedev and PM Putin to reveal that the veneer of success portrayed in the press on the meetings in Moscow with President Obama is just that - a veneer. That veneer was scraped off as President Medvedev announced on July 10 that Russia will deploy short range missiles in Kaliningrad aimed at Warsaw if the BMD deployment in Poland by the US goes forward.

Clearly, the refusal by the United States to discuss either the deployment of the BMD system or Russia's claim of a sphere of influence over its neighbors is a deep annoyance to Putin, who cancelled his attendance at a gala in the Kremlin, resulting in a similar cancellation by President Obama.

As I have posted earlier, the interests of Russia and the United States are not at all similar. Russia wants US and European influence restricted, if not eliminated, in bordering regions. It would be a mistake for the US to accede to Russian desires. Although the BMD system deployment could, and likely should be cancelled, more positioning of US assets in Poland and the Baltic States would be more effective in focusing Russia's attention on the distrust it has cultivated in its near-abroad, Europe and the US.

The problem with Russia is that it does nothing but "oppose" by throwing up roadblocks to any movement toward settlement of issues in key areas of the world - Palestine, Iran, Georgia and Central Asia. This proclivity to create, rather than solve problems, represents the actions of a weak and paranoid state. For it to keep thrusting itself on the political stage as a world power equal to China, the EU or the US is absurd for a variety of economic and social reasons.

Although it deserves respect, Russia's inability to propose solutions other than those masquerading as such but which are always solely targeted at expanding its political sphere of influence, preclude reasonable dialogue at this time.

Obama in Ghana

Since I am on my way to Ghana again I've been following the progress of President Obama to that West African country.

At the G-8, agricultural growth in Africa was one of the primary targets of the participants and resulted in a commitment to allocate $20 billion to Africa. Leaving aside whether these funds will ever make it through the bureaucratic systems in individual countries of the G-8, this type of aid needs to be re-directed. The G-8 appear to have recognized that the policies of aid supply to African agriculture have not produced the expected results over the past 20 years, and have actually harmed local farmers. It is about time that agricultural aid is recognizing that the focus should be on helping farmers help themselves rather than attempting to impose non-indigenous concepts. So far, so good.

Yet, as President Obama correctly emphasised that each country must, in effect, help themselves, nothing in agricultural aid will produce the results necessary without a significant reduction in farm subsidies in the US and, more importantly, Europe. Given European agricultural policy, such a reduction is politically impossible.

The other aspect of agricultural reform in Africa is the slow rate of land tenure security. Agricultural reform will not be successful unless farmers have clear tenure over their land. This is a major problem in Ghana, for example, as the growth of cities is exponential - and is not due to population increases but rather an exodus from the rural areas into cities. Local chiefs, the true power in Ghana, are in some areas literally giving away land to get people to stay. But the legal system established to secure tenure is inefficient, expensive and corrupt. Although huge sums have been and will be spent in Ghana by the World Bank and USAID to improve tenure security and improve agricultural policies and practices, they have so far been unsuccessful.

There are many reasons for the slow rate of success in land tenure security, including a highly bureaucratic system and central government/chief rivalry, but until significant movement toward secure tenure is achieved, agricultural growth will remain slow and intermittent.

Turkey and China

It is difficult to understand the rhetoric, now highly charged, coming from Prime Minister Erdogan, who referred to the crack-down on Uighurs in the northwestern Chinese province of Xinjiang a “genocide.” That is not a term that Turkey tosses around easily, given the issue with the Armenian claims of genocide by the Ottoman Empire.

Clearly, there is domestic pressure on the ruling AKP to take a strong stand, but aside from that it is difficult to understand why Turkey would deliberately poke China, a major trading partner, in the eye with an inflammatory condemnation and statement that it would raise it in the UN Security Council. The latter is unlikely since China would need to give permission to raise the issue, which is clearly considers internal.

So, what's up with Turkey? I understand that the Uighurs are Turkic and Muslim. But Turkey has even less connection with them than the other Central Asia Turkic peoples. I suspect that the escalation is due to local politics as the AKP wants to establish its leadership in the Muslim world closer to home.

China's response has, so far, been dismissive. Whether this escalates to involve the trade and political relationship between Turkey and China is the next stage.

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.

Meeting in Moscow

Image by eesti via Flickr

The meetings being held as I write in Moscow will decide how the US and Russia will deal with each other for rest of 2009 and perhaps beyond. The US wants Russia's help with Afghanistan, Iran and Palestine. Russia wants the US to draw back from Eastern Europe, Georgia and Central Asia. Both Russia and the US want to sign a successor treaty to START.

Russia has stated that the US can transport non-lethal and lethal materials over and perhaps on its territory for the Afghan effort. This will not come without a quid pro quo. The question is - what will the US give up? The BMD's in Poland will likely be postponed. The US will also likely agree to draw back a little on efforts to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. In the former, there is simply no strong desire and in the latter, the current government behaves too eratically to be considered an ally.

The BMD placement is really not a big deal since they are of questionable utility and Poland has just received significant military hardware from the US (50 F16) and will soon deploy Patriot missles as well. This will allow Poland to feel a little more secure and will satisfy Poland to the extent that it needs to at the moment. What else can the US give up? Very little, I would imagine, without damaging its credibility in Eastern Europe.

Ultimately, aside from a reduction in nuclear arsenals which both countries want, the geopolitical differences are not that flexible. I don't expect much to come out of the meeting other than a new START treaty, postponement of the BMDs and a temporary lull in the expansion of NATO.

A Week Hiaitus

I'm back after a quiet week and celebrating the 4th at Spartak Stadium in Kyiv. Today President Obama is in Moscow. This is going to be interesting.