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.

Development Becomes State

Image via Wikipedia

I have a pretty sanguine view about what is happening to the USAID community when it comes to being swallowed by the Department of State in the US. But that doesn't equate with thinking it is a good idea.

Over at The Cable a couple of reports have indicated the growing absorption of the development aid community into State - like and amoeba devouring it's nearest food source. Steve Radelet over at the Center for Global Development announced his departure to work as Senior Advisor on Development in the Secretary's Office at the State Department. Somehow, it seems to me that working on development affairs in Hillary Clinton's shop puts USAID less in charge of development work than it was a few days ago.

And that was after the appointment (finally) of a new Director over at the Ronny Raygun building, Rajiv Shah. Now, Rajiv Shah came highly praised and he is an accomplished development professional. But, although he previously helped launch the Global Development program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Shah is only 36 and was personally selected by the Secretary of State.

Despite the assurance of the Secretary of State regarding the USAID non-political development mandate, her words may not reflect reality as the combination of these two events does not bode well for the independence of USAID which had been hoped for when Obama was elected. When State finally became fed-up with the not so successful USAID efforts from the 1990s and essentially took it over, the subservience of development aid to US foreign policy goals (or whims as the case may be) become palpable.

There were many reasons for the ineffectiveness of many of USAID programs - too numerous to go into here now and not all the fault of USAID. Most of the blame can be laid at the feet of the incestuous relationship with the same beltway bandits over the past twenty years. However, independent thinking from a development standpoint now runs the real risk of disappearing into foggy bottom.

This eventuality is an issue not only on its merits, but because the Republican Party, currently and for the foreseeable future in the claws of people like Cheney, Bachmann, Palin and the teabagger brigade, could actually be calling the shots at State in the future. A development philosophy tied to them would make the USAID mandate the spearpoint for American right wing policies that would collapse the good will overseas that has been somewhat repaired by the current administration.

So, I hope Secretary Clinton has taken into consideration of who and what may be coming around the turn before creating a structure that can be used by the Darth Cheney types just as easily as by those with good intentions.

A Few More Photo's of Ruaha Tanzania

The baobab tree in front of which I am standing starting growing before the founding of Rome...

Good News Bad News - Afghanistan and the West Bank

Some time ago I offered my opinion of the,then, proposed surge in Afghanistan - the request by General McChrystal for a significant increase in troop deployment. He got 30,000 (the media seems to continue to ignore the previous deployment of 12,000 earlier in 2009 making the total over 40,000 so I will too for now).

The Republicans, of course, stamped their collective hooves saying the General should get whatever he feels is necessary for prosecution of the war. Fortunately, the grown-ups decided to actually think about future strategy rather than allowing the military to dictate to the civilians in control (a source of frequent confusion to those in perpetual opposition to anything). Well, what will all those Republicans say now to this (registration required).

For those who can't access the article in the Financial Times here is a key part:

“As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there’s been enough fighting,” he said. “What I think we do is try to shape conditions which allow people to come to a truly equitable solution to how the Afghan people are governed.”

Asked if he would be content to see Taliban leaders in a future government in Kabul, he said: “I think any Afghans can play a role if they focus on the future, and not the past.”

The remarks reveal the growing faith the US military is placing in the hope that a power-sharing arrangement can end the war, a possibility floated in Islamabad last week by Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, when he described the Taliban as part of Afghanistan’s “political fabric”.

The coming conference in London to discuss strategy will be a crucial meeting for NATO. Europe wants a definite exit strategy and the US has already issued a deadline to President Karzai. Although I did not agree with the surge, now that it is in place arguing about its usefulness is moot. General McChrystal has also tied his credibility to the request to support his plan, so he has much at stake. But, it is his sentiments expressed that I find most telling. It should really upset the Republicans. Good.

Now, juxtapose his statements with those of The Worst Israeli President Ever while planting a tree in the West Bank:

"Our message is clear: We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. This place will be an inseparable part of Israel for eternity".

Eternity, Mr. Netanyahu, is a lot longer than you will be in charge. Not helpful at all and is only a further example of the extremist positions taken by the current regime in Israel that really began manifesting itself with the childish incident of the low chair for the Turkish ambassador. Well, people usual get the government they deserve.

Africa View

As I wind up my work here in Tanzania to head for the Middle East I thought a few photo's would be in order. The animals rule Ruaha National Park - at over 15,000 square miles the largest - and people are just tolerated guests. A walking safari should be on everyone's list. It's a prey's eye view and it is not a little humbling.

Massachusetts and Foreign Policy - Short Answers to Ridiculous Questions

Dan Drezner asks this.

Answer: No.

(For the record, I really enjoy and respect Dan Drezner - but this is really over analysis)

China Syndrome

Image via Wikipedia

Japan has ended its refueling mission in the Indian Ocean which was part of its support for the Afghan war. On the other side of the coin, this will be interesting from a foreign policy perspective if it comes to pass.

The Chinese navy is slowly extending its permanent blue water reach into new zones. Although ostensibly a mission merely to support the continuing war in Afghanistan (and therefore in support of the US military), this step really goes far beyond the naval mission against piracy that China has heretofore engaged. It creates a permanent presence. How this will play out with India, its regional rival, and Pakistan, its regional ally, if it actually happens?

On the other hand, will the US really, really agree to having its warships refueled by the Chinese? Somehow, it seems to me that this might be a sea lane too far.