The government of Israel has crossed a serious line in the operation against a Turkish flotilla heading toward Gaza. Fifteen people were killed by Israeli troops, including a Turkish member of parliament. Belgium Foreign Minister Steven Vanackere said the Israeli military attack on an aid flotilla headed for Gaza “looks like it was rather disproportionate”. Israel has been forced to advise all its nationals to leave Turkey.
The stupidity of Netanyahu and his cabinet is almost unbelievable if it did not fit a consistent pattern of alienating allies and attempting to provoke an attack on Iran.
One of the more profoundly predictably hawks, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke Israel. Logic would dictate that if that was the case, and it certainly was, the last thing to do would be to take the bait. But, true to form, the Israels fed the view that they are not only unreasonable, but brutal by being exactly that.
If the Israeli government possessed even a modicum of grey matter at this point they would have avoided falling into this particular trap. However, in the black and white apartheid world of this Israeli government, logic did not prevail.
The Turkish NGO flotilla was designed to divide Israel and Western governments and to create a political crisis inside Israel. It has now, courtesy of the Netanyahu government, succeeded spectacularly. It is difficult to underestimate the damage that this has done to perceptions of Israel. Relations with the US and Europe, where relations are already strained, will deteriorate further.
Israel’s relationship with Turkey, a rare and extremely powerful Moslem ally which just happens to be a member of NATO, can now be consigned to the trash bin. The isolation of Israel is now going to get much, much worse and siding with Israel on this issue is not in the interests of any Western country. Israeli sabre rattling about Iran will no longer be viewed as simply an arguable position. Israel is in an extremely precarious position.
The best outcome now would be new elections and the removal of the hardliners from power in Israel.
We live two lives. The one we learn with and the one we live with after that...B. Malamoud
Monday, May 31, 2010
Israel Takes the Low Road
Labels:
Danny Ayalon,
Gaza,
Israel,
Israeli Isolation,
Netanyahu Speach,
NGO Turkish Flotilla,
Turkey
Sunday, May 30, 2010
China Speaks
The ramifications of the sinking of the Chon An by North Korea is entering a new, but likely closing phase as preparations are made for additonal sanctions by the United Nations. Although the bellicose rhetoric from the North and the all but severing of economic and political contacts by the South continue, no sense of military action by either side is evident. It is in everyone's interest that it stays that way.
China has taken position that comports with its traditional desire to maintain the status quo on the peninsula. Even Beijing seems to be having difficulty with the reasons for this escalation by the North. Despite the event, the reason for the sinking is less important than containing the potential damage. The next phase in the UN will begin to define how China's position in the region will be judged, but this remark will be parsed until the sanctions regime is subjected to a vote: "China will defend no one" whatever the outcome may be, Wen (China's Premier) also said, according to Lee (SK President).
Depending on the nature and extent of the sanctions, that remark could mean an abstention. If so, the North is in for a very rough time if sanctions are imposed. China cannot afford an unstable North - particulary one which might lash out militarily confronting China with an even worse foreign policy dilema. The deal may this - China abstains, sanctions are imposed, China feeds the North to keep it from collapse. Face is saved.
China has taken position that comports with its traditional desire to maintain the status quo on the peninsula. Even Beijing seems to be having difficulty with the reasons for this escalation by the North. Despite the event, the reason for the sinking is less important than containing the potential damage. The next phase in the UN will begin to define how China's position in the region will be judged, but this remark will be parsed until the sanctions regime is subjected to a vote: "China will defend no one" whatever the outcome may be, Wen (China's Premier) also said, according to Lee (SK President).
Depending on the nature and extent of the sanctions, that remark could mean an abstention. If so, the North is in for a very rough time if sanctions are imposed. China cannot afford an unstable North - particulary one which might lash out militarily confronting China with an even worse foreign policy dilema. The deal may this - China abstains, sanctions are imposed, China feeds the North to keep it from collapse. Face is saved.
Labels:
Beijing,
China,
Chon An,
North Korea,
South Korea,
United Nations,
Wen Jiabao
Merkel, Barroso, Euro – Oh My
Outside of Germany, I don’t think that many in the Euro-zone or the EU in general would support the German proposals for several reasons. First, re-opening the Treaty, which barely won approval in the first place, for the sole purpose of inserting provisions to penalize member states for not following monetary policy, is far more absurd than Barroso’s opposition to the proposal. As Barroso’s pointedly reminded Merkel, the Euro was the brainchild of France and Germany. Both, incidentally, also breached the monetary policies that were established. For Germany now to push forward some sort of punishment mechanism strikes me as a species of economic and political hegemony that is particularly distasteful to most of the other member states. Furthermore, expelling a member for non-compliance would likely result in a permanent, volutary withdrawal for the targeted country. A similar result would likely occur if voting rights were withdrawn. The European idea would be dead.
Second, and related to the first, is that Merkel is making a blatant attempt to control and mold the EU in Germany's image. In other words, nationalism is driving the German proposals. Again. Merkel is treading on dangerous ground and she has only herself to blame. It is abundantly clear that her anti-Greek rhetoric not only inflamed German public opinion but also significantly delayed EU action to develop a rescue plan for Greece. German political actions were directed at assigning blame first rather than fixing the problem and designed to increase German control of the EU. This is what the original economic union was designed to avoid - the nationalism that brought Europe to its knees. Eastern and Southern Europe will not swallow that particular pill. The UK would have the perfectly justified reason for never considering closer ties with an EU run from Berlin.
Merkel has now lost her ruling coalition in parliament. She has managed to inflame German public opinion not only against Greece, but Greeks, implying an inferiority of all southern tier member states. They have done it to the Turks. Now the Greeks, and by implication, Spain and Portugal. That is a dangerous road for Germans to follow under any circumstance and German perseverance in that regard will drive the southern tier and the Eastern European members to look elsewhere for political and economic support out of their self-inflicted economic trap.
Labels:
Berlin,
Euro Zone,
European Union,
France and Germany,
Germany,
José Manuel Barroso,
Lisbon Treaty,
Southern Europe
Monday, May 24, 2010
Russian Foreign Policy, Economics and Local Elections
United Russia’s electoral loss to the Communist Party in Bratsk, Siberia for mayor has garnered slight media attention, even in the Russian press, but it is a reflection on the impact of the extent of the financial crises within Russia. United Russia also lost the mayor’s race in Irkutsk, a major city, last March – also to the Communist Party.
Although the latest defeat was likely caused by the ineptitude of local United Russia political leadership – they managed to field two candidates who split the vote for which heads will role – it is a concern for the Kremlin as it tries to recover from the international financial collapse which severely impacted Russia’s economy.
Local political concerns for the ruling party will likely not translate into a threat to United Russia’s control of the Duma, but it cannot absorb too many of these local election losses without eventual damage to its internal network. There is a connection with the economic turmoil resulting in these losses and Russian foreign policy.
The principal concern of the Kremlin now is attracting international investors. Should the control exercised by United Russia weaken internally, particularly in the industrial centers, those same investors will begin to either look elsewhere, or demand a better deal on their investments. The strength and stability of the political structure might become questionable if further internal problems begin to deteriorate.
Russia’s economic problems have resulted in the weak start on the custom’s union among Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The union, which came into existence on January 1 and was to begin official operations on July 1, is one part of Russia’s attempt to restore economic confidence within the investment community, both internally and internationally. It is not off to a positive start. The union’s commencement has been put off for a year.
It does not help that Ukraine – a member of the WTO while Russia’s membership has been languishing for 17 years – has declined to become part of the custom’s union. Despite the largely pro-Russian leanings of the President Yanukovych, Ukraine’s economic interests are grounded in more cooperation with Western Europe and Yanukovych has shown little inclination to increase the trade relationship with Russia beyond its current bi-lateral format.
Further complicating matters is Belarus, which has recently poked its finger in the Kremlin’s eye by sheltering the fugitive former president of the Kyrgyz Republic, refused to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and which will be hosting Prime Minister Berlusconi in Minsk as part of the growing warming of relations with western Europe.
As a result of adverse economic and political events during the past year, Russian foreign policy may be undergoing a change from its recent bellicose nature toward the west. Although largely successful in reasserting Russian control in the near abroad ranging from the annexation of Georgian territory to the recent revolution in the Kyrgyz Republic, the success has come at a diplomatic and economic cost. Eastern Europe and the Baltics were particularly alarmed about the invasion of Georgia which had followed the economic arm-twisting of gas supply cut-offs. The Georgia adventure did not help Russia’s relationship with Western Europe, the United States or Turkey. Using gas supplies as a weapon is probably viewed in hindsight by Moscow as a mistake.
Now Russia desperately needs investment. Russia’s political pendulum has historically swung periodically between an eastern and western world view for sometimes very vague motives, if not outright caprice. There are signs that it is repositioning toward the middle on its current swing to the west for very practical political and economic reasons.
Although the latest defeat was likely caused by the ineptitude of local United Russia political leadership – they managed to field two candidates who split the vote for which heads will role – it is a concern for the Kremlin as it tries to recover from the international financial collapse which severely impacted Russia’s economy.
Local political concerns for the ruling party will likely not translate into a threat to United Russia’s control of the Duma, but it cannot absorb too many of these local election losses without eventual damage to its internal network. There is a connection with the economic turmoil resulting in these losses and Russian foreign policy.
The principal concern of the Kremlin now is attracting international investors. Should the control exercised by United Russia weaken internally, particularly in the industrial centers, those same investors will begin to either look elsewhere, or demand a better deal on their investments. The strength and stability of the political structure might become questionable if further internal problems begin to deteriorate.
Russia’s economic problems have resulted in the weak start on the custom’s union among Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The union, which came into existence on January 1 and was to begin official operations on July 1, is one part of Russia’s attempt to restore economic confidence within the investment community, both internally and internationally. It is not off to a positive start. The union’s commencement has been put off for a year.
It does not help that Ukraine – a member of the WTO while Russia’s membership has been languishing for 17 years – has declined to become part of the custom’s union. Despite the largely pro-Russian leanings of the President Yanukovych, Ukraine’s economic interests are grounded in more cooperation with Western Europe and Yanukovych has shown little inclination to increase the trade relationship with Russia beyond its current bi-lateral format.
Further complicating matters is Belarus, which has recently poked its finger in the Kremlin’s eye by sheltering the fugitive former president of the Kyrgyz Republic, refused to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and which will be hosting Prime Minister Berlusconi in Minsk as part of the growing warming of relations with western Europe.
As a result of adverse economic and political events during the past year, Russian foreign policy may be undergoing a change from its recent bellicose nature toward the west. Although largely successful in reasserting Russian control in the near abroad ranging from the annexation of Georgian territory to the recent revolution in the Kyrgyz Republic, the success has come at a diplomatic and economic cost. Eastern Europe and the Baltics were particularly alarmed about the invasion of Georgia which had followed the economic arm-twisting of gas supply cut-offs. The Georgia adventure did not help Russia’s relationship with Western Europe, the United States or Turkey. Using gas supplies as a weapon is probably viewed in hindsight by Moscow as a mistake.
Now Russia desperately needs investment. Russia’s political pendulum has historically swung periodically between an eastern and western world view for sometimes very vague motives, if not outright caprice. There are signs that it is repositioning toward the middle on its current swing to the west for very practical political and economic reasons.
Labels:
Economics,
Foreign policy,
Local Elections,
russia,
United Russia
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Final: Chon An Sunk by North Korean Torpedo
The blame from the sinking of the South Korean frigate Chon An has now been formally laid at the feet of North Korea. The consequences are coming, but it is unlikely that the South Korean government will resort to any sort of violent response. The fact that the findings were announced with the concurrence of all the investigators, which included representatives from Sweden, Australia, Britain and the US, will put North Korea in the position of denying the obvious.
Back in April, I questioned the “why” not the “how”. That question is still unanswered although it may simply be one of retaliation for successful defensive measures taken by South Korea in previous naval incidents. However, a pre-meditated attack is of a different order.
Various scenarios will begin to play out, including a call for additional sanctions in the United Nations. Korea is already an unpleasant place to live – more sanctions could make it all the more so. Which brings up China.
This might be the least welcome event for China during its period of negotiations with Japan over fishing rights and its position on financial matters with the United States. North Korea is supported economically by China and a surge of refugees that could result as North Korea is further penalized with sanctions is not tolerable prospect for Beijing. The US is likely now to bring additional, unwelcome, pressure on China to do something with North Korea. Japan may join the push as well. Certainly the South Korean will not look favourably on China if it fails to take any action or opposes additional sanctions.
The reality is that North Korea is a drain on China, both economically and politically. At the same time, an unstable North Korea is a threat to all her neighbours’ and, by treaty, to the US. The reaction of China to the findings will be important in maintaining stability while simultaneously dealing with a dangerous state prone to tantrums resulting in damage and deaths.
I suspect that a new set of sanctions will be discussed, but not imposed. China would not want the UN to further exacerbate North Korea's economic problems which could escalate uncontrollably. It certainly does not want another tantrum from North Korea that could actually provoke a military response. But, China will need to give up something for their neighbor's latest provocation.
Back in April, I questioned the “why” not the “how”. That question is still unanswered although it may simply be one of retaliation for successful defensive measures taken by South Korea in previous naval incidents. However, a pre-meditated attack is of a different order.
Various scenarios will begin to play out, including a call for additional sanctions in the United Nations. Korea is already an unpleasant place to live – more sanctions could make it all the more so. Which brings up China.
This might be the least welcome event for China during its period of negotiations with Japan over fishing rights and its position on financial matters with the United States. North Korea is supported economically by China and a surge of refugees that could result as North Korea is further penalized with sanctions is not tolerable prospect for Beijing. The US is likely now to bring additional, unwelcome, pressure on China to do something with North Korea. Japan may join the push as well. Certainly the South Korean will not look favourably on China if it fails to take any action or opposes additional sanctions.
The reality is that North Korea is a drain on China, both economically and politically. At the same time, an unstable North Korea is a threat to all her neighbours’ and, by treaty, to the US. The reaction of China to the findings will be important in maintaining stability while simultaneously dealing with a dangerous state prone to tantrums resulting in damage and deaths.
I suspect that a new set of sanctions will be discussed, but not imposed. China would not want the UN to further exacerbate North Korea's economic problems which could escalate uncontrollably. It certainly does not want another tantrum from North Korea that could actually provoke a military response. But, China will need to give up something for their neighbor's latest provocation.
Labels:
China,
Chon An,
North Korea,
South Korea,
United Nations
Monday, May 17, 2010
Moscow's Abkhazia and South Ossetia Problem
How long Belarus will keep up its in-your-face attitude with Russia is an open question. They have welcomed former president Bakiyev of the Kyrgyz Republic, a less than popular decision in the Kremlin, and have also refused recognition of Georgia’s lost regions. The same is true for Kyiv, which may be realizing that its balancing act with Europe would be damaged by recognition. Moscow has a problem, which may account for its less aggressive tone lately as it tries to attract Western investment.
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.
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.
Labels:
Enriched uranium,
Iran,
Middle East,
russia,
Turkey and Brazil,
United States
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)