The US Congress Gets Broken

To honor my commitment by its breach to avoid discussing American politics, I could not avoid watching the tube of Steve Colbert testifying on immigration before Congress.  It's easy to find - go do a search. 

However, it is interesting to note the outrage it generated from, mostly, those intellectually challenged tea baggers the Americans are going to put in power in November (or in the case of one particularly galactically stupid Republican (sorry for the redundancy) Congressman - Representative Steve King.  Anyway, I particularly enjoyed this from Colbert:

I don't want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, sliced by a Guatemalan . . . and served by a Venezuelan in a spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian.

And the only ones who took his character seriously were - well, you guessed it.

Who Lost India? Courtesy of Robert Kaplan

Image by amanky via Flickr

Robert Kaplan has been around for some time now and could be characterized as a "reasonable" neo-con. He supported, indeed promoted, the invasion of Iraq before he opposed the war.  He is all for intervention by the US against leaders like Saddam Hussein. Still.  Because he travelled to these oppressed countries and saw for himself the suffering of the population.  Now, in this paper he explains why, if the US deserts Afghanistan it is deserting India and because of the geography of the sub-continent and its history, India will be driven into the arms of China.

Although Kaplan does not explicitly state that the US should remain in Afghanistan, its pretty much there in the background.  He says that the US should not spend enormous amounts of money in Afghanistan specifically to impress India, but it must be part of the considerations regarding the Afghan strategy.

I find this whole line of reasoning to be somewhat STRATFOR-ESQ (one of the leading foreign policy analyst publications with a geo-political bent).  This is not a zero sum game among China the US and India. India is concerned about a Taliban takeover after the US leaves next summer. But so does Russia and China.  Pakistan might benefit as their security apparatus uses the Taliban to its own ends - but that particular relationship is pretty much soured - and provide them with a secure rear when facing India.  But that's not the point. India was not leaning toward China before the Afghan war despite Taliban control. It is unlikely to jump into the arms of the Chinese - a major competitor both economically and politically - after the US withdraws.

Therefore, Kaplan is just throwing up his straw-man of the "who lost India" genre in order to forestall the end day of US involvement with Kabul on a military basis.

About Time

It's good to see an article like this.   At a time when US foreign policy is about to be hijacked by those who accept the support of the worst and highly ignorant elements of US society, more of this type of journalism will be needed.

Iran Losing Key Support?

In a surprising move, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has signed a decree banning the delivery of the S-300 air defense system and a host of other major arms to Iran, apparently in response to the new UN sanctions.  Since the S-300 system doesn't even make it to the UN list of conventional arms and would be entirely justified, the move is clearly a sign that the deal made between Washington and Moscow for more investment into Russia had a catch.  More investment, fewer supplies to Iran. 

Also included in the ban was entry to and transit through  Russia for a Iranians connected with Iran's nuclear program while simultaneously banning Russians or Russian firms from rendering financial services if the services relate to Iran's nuclear activity.

The move by Moscow is a big deal.  It signals that Russia's foreign policy may be returning to a more pragmatic view of the world based on self-interest.  Ultimately, it is not in Russian's interest to have a strong Islamic state to the south that is very capable of causing trouble in Russian dominated regions of its neighbors or even its internal trouble spots of Chechnya and Ingusetia.  It is in its national interest to attract Western investment of every type.  In that scenario, Iran is dispensable.

The UN sanction regime still won't work in and of themselves - but losing allies like Russia at a time when Iran cannot be certain that the US may be changing its tactics regarding military intervention, may be the beginning of a change in Iran's tactics overall.

The Fighting Mayor of Moscow

Image via Wikipedia

On a light note, your blogger has been reading the gossip pages of the Russian print media (no access to state controlled TV) and following the Luzhkov Chronicles.

This guy has been around for as long as I can remember. I actually was there when his predecessor – a very forgettable fellow and why his name escapes me – was in power. Luzhkov has been the powerful, contentious, outspoken mayor of Moscow for almost two decades. Now he seems to be on the way out.

The Kremlin wants him to go. He says he intends to stay until his term expires in mid-2011. The Kremlin reminded him that he is appointed and can be removed by the Kremlin. Others have noted that, indeed, the Kremlin can fire him. But, unfortunately they need a reason. Fire him without a reason and the political campaign could be adversely affected as he is not short on popularity.

Putin is his friend. Medvedev is not. Putin and Medvedev are partners and Luzhkov has been doing his very verbal best to divide the two. After taking a not-so-subtle shot at the Kremlin after he was told to resign and refused, Luzhkov announced last week that he was heading on vacation to Austria.

Except his wife took over. Yelena Baturina is anything but subtle. She tends to name names. She is Russia's richest woman, making her fortune as the head of a construction equipment manufacturer. She has always stayed out of the public eye. Until now.

Her husband's fight with the Kremlin and the media onslaught unleashed on him by every major national broadcaster has brought her out of the closet. Using slightly less vague and diplomatic language and naming names, Baturina accused the Kremlin of orchestrating the media's smear campaign against her husband. This is a blinding grasp of the obvious, but nevertheless something that is usually uttered in subdued locations over tea. She said that there are people "who fear that in the 2012 presidential campaign, Luzhkov will back Prime Minister Vladimir Putin over President Dmitry Medvedev."

And who said politics in Russia was predictable?

Globalization and Foreign Policy Choices

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Francis Fukuyama famously erred when he declared the end of history and subsequently admitted he was wrong. Many – if not most – people wished he was right because economic globalization coupled with the perceived triumph of democratic regimes over totalitarian would herald in a new age of peace and prosperity. How’s that working out?

The military and economic hegemony – characterized best, I think, by The Economist cover of the US soldier in Roman garb standing guard on the walls, lasted a whole ten years. Now we are well into the era of renewed nationalism and economic competition that leans toward protectionism. The hubris accompanying the US and UK invasion of Iraq for no legitimate reason slammed the door on two trends. One was of less conflict and the other of economic liberalization.

By bankrupting the US economy, alienating just about everyone and fulfilling the dreams of transnational jihadists, the Iraq adventure significantly changed how the major economic and military powers viewed their positions and actions for the future. US foreign policy has barely adjusted to the multi-polar world that has emerged, much to its diminishment except for its military.

Europe, despite numerous opportunities to develop a unified foreign and economic policy, has fallen back to a barely concealed competition among EU member states with France and Germany leading the way while losing control over some of its poorly managed members.

China, not a poster child for a model democracy, is now the second most economic power on the planet and surging. And make no mistake – military power follows economic power. Its neighbour, India, is also growing rapidly and, fortunately does not harbour the same command economy and totalitarian regime.

Economic competition for energy resources has increased dramatically, putting the old war zones of Central Asia, the Caucuses and the Gulf back into play.

The new world order is beginning to look a lot like the old world order. It’s going to last a good bit longer than a decade.

Foreign policy in the US has focused on terrorism and the threat of Islamic extremism and in particular, the transnational jihadist threat. It is a threat of course, but to place it first on the list of concerns requiring action is a mistake. Globalization has been remarkably successful, of course, in shifting economic power to non-Western countries. US foreign policy, which now appears to be driven by fear, has yet to come to terms with this phenomenon which could be looked at as simply a return to normal.

During the 19th century, China accounted for around 30 percent of the world economy. During the same period India could claim 15 percent while Europe was over 20 percent. It should surprise no one that even toward the end of that century the US held its own at 2 percent. In the mid-twentieth century the situation was reversed for China and India while the US and Europe controlled over 25% percent each. At present, although the US still remains at the top at over 25%, China and India have rapidly regained their old seats. Pay-back can be painful.

This economic shift informs foreign policy in general. The strong growth we are witnessing in China and India needs to be fed and Europe and the US, not to mention Japan and Brazil, are all in competition to secure energy resources. The problem is that energy sources are largely located in regions not known for stability, creating flashpoints. US policy after 9/11 was dictated by energy – a point that did not go unobserved by critics of the Iraq invasion. That has not worked out as planned and the use-force-first policy of the Bush administration has, at least in the Middle East where it was exercised with a vengeance, resulted in elevating the power status of Iran. Not exactly the desired result.

US foreign policy is changing under the new administration from one of obnoxious unilateralism to its traditional multilateralism. It recognizes the need for cooperation with Europe; compromise with other powers and to engage. US foreign policy has also begun to revert to a working relationship with China based on mutual dependence. A partnership with China will be essential to maintain peace and economic growth. If the relationship goes south and the status quo is changed then conflict is likely sometime in the future.

A new US policy of engagement in the Middle East is also critical. Except for the war in Iraq, the previous US administration studiously ignored the rest and refused to challenge Israeli policies or engage with other players, such as Syria. There are clear signs of improvement, but all this can and will unravel with a return to the policies of the Bush administration which seems likely due to the rise of the religious right in the US; so progress needs to be made and solidified before that happens.

Europe has a huge challenge. A visitor from the planet Zog who analysed the potential of Europe as a whole, would likely be astonished at its low economic and military standing on the planet relative to the US, China and Japan. It simply does not make sense.

Germany and France need to first help put the EU house in order by leading and not dominating. This may be a difficult process given Germany’s recent proclivity toward bullying Eastern European and other economically challenged members. Nevertheless, there have been signs of an easing of German attempts to shape the EU to its purposes at the expense of everyone else. Simultaneously, Europe needs to begin to engage the world as a unit. This will be a much harder, but necessary task but commonalities with other countries exist in Africa and the sub-continent.

Finally, for now, the Western world needs to actually complete the Doha round which has been languishing for a decade in an unfinished state. Clearly, the process of Doha is not working. It is time to come up with another.

Engagement for the West with the rising powers must take priority but without illusions. China is not a democracy and not a free market so dealing with non-democratic countries will take time and CNN, BBC and Sky News will need to do without their requisite sound bites.

Afghanistan Nation Building

The title of this post is wrong.  Afghanistan has never been and will never be a nation except in the short-lived case of control by a ruthless local chief who happens to have, for an instant in time, overwhelming force backed by financial deals and power sharing.  He too shall pass.

It is still a strange turn of events that led the US from its principal, strategic reason for striking in the first place - severely damaging Al Qaida  and denying it and other jihadist groups from establishing a base in the future. In that, the US policy has succeeded. Nation building has nothing to do with it and still does not - or at least should not.

Once US military forces are withdrawn, the infighting will begin again with local forces manipulated by Russia, Pakistan, India and Iran.  In January I suggested that the best policy for the US was withdrawal of most combat troops and a reversion to tactics that reflected the only legitimate and achievable US strategic objective - preventing the use of Afghanistan as a base for terror operations and so degrading and destroying the central command of Al Qaida that it would be unable to mount any trans-national operations. The latter has been achieved and can be maintained through the use of much smaller, quickly deployed ground units and air strikes. Instead, a surge was initiated to defeat the Taliban and create a nation around President Karzai. This is simply not going to succeed.

The US will need to find a political solution and leave with grace - unlike the English and Russians before them. Afghanistan is simply not worth the candle.