Facebook Movements for Secular Democracy of Iran

We remember the Facebook revolution that began from Tunisia, and then, spread to Egypt and Libya in December 2010. Currently, some of the global public is disappointed with the Arab Spring, in view of the rise of Islamists. From this point, Facebook movements for Iranian freedom is worthy of attention as it pursues secular democracy. Various associations create pages and groups on Facebook to promote freedom movements of Iran.

Let me explain pages and groups. On Facebook, there are two types of communications. "Page" is a one way communication in which a handful of administrators send messages to those who expressed support for them by clicking “like”. On the other hand, “group” is a mutual communication between administrators and members. Once the membership is approved, anyone can write a wall post of the group. Through both ways, Iran’s democracy rallies are launched one after another. There is no way of knowing whether their rallies will succeed like those in Tunisia, but it is apparent that the theocratic government in Tehran cannot control Internet movements.

Unlike those in Tunisia and Egypt, Iranian Facebook movements are strongly secular, because they fight against theocracy instead of military rule. While the Arab Spring was driven by a loose network of students, Iranian movements are more cohesive. This is a vital point, because student activities were hijacked by Islamists, particularly in Egypt. In case of Iranian movements, Former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi plays a pivotal role. He may not return to the throne, but as often witnessed in Europe, monarchy is a built in stabilizer against religious fanaticism and military dictatorship.

Currently, Pahlavi lives in Bethesda, Maryland, and urges Western civil societies to support Iranian freedom through the media on both sides of the Atlantic. His official page on Facebook draws nearly 158 thousand “like” clicks from all over the world, the most of them are from Tehran despite severe Internet censorship. In addition to his own official page, his supporters created “Prince Reza Pahlavi Fan Page”. Through pages and groups on Facebook, Iranian democracy proponents exchange information and opinions, promote values, and create a sense of unity around the globe. Quite a few individuals use photos of the Pahlavi family members for their profile picture.

 Shir o Khorshid or the Lion and the Sun, is another symbol among Iranian freedom fighters. It has been a traditional mark of Iran since the Sassanid era, and various dynasties used this emblem until the fall of the Pahlavi regime. After the Iranian revolution, Shiite theocrats adopted more Islamic symbol of four crescents and a line to represent Tawhid or monotheism. As a result, Iranian protesters use their traditional national emblem to show patriotism and resistance to the theocracy. Some pages and groups like “Official Page of Reza Pahlavi” and “Iranian and their Friends” use Shir o Khorshid cover photos. Compare Iranian national flags before and after the revolution.

                                                                             Before

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　                  After 

Politically, those pages and groups show strong solidarities with the United States and Israel. Some of them are closely tied to conservative American civil networks for their detestation of Islamism and Sharia rule. While most of the participants seem to be Americans and Iranians in exile in the West, a substantial number of Iranians living in Iran join freedom networks despite strict censorship under a repressive regime at home. As witnessed in the Green Movement in 2009, Iranian freedom activists and general public are craving for American help. But why Israel? Historically, Iran was in good relations with Jewish people. It is Cyrus the Great who relieved ancient Hebrews from Babylonian oppression. Today, Iran has the largest Jewishpopulation in the Middle East. Moreover, Former Israeli President Moshe Katsavwas born in Iran, and Iranians are proud of it. Current theocracy ruins such ancient and deep friendship with Israel.

The Internet is not the only way for Iranian freedom activists. Iranian Americans a held an event called the PersianParade on April 14 this year in New York. Originally, the parade started to celebrate Nowruz in 2004. Though primary objective of this event is to enhance unity among Iranians living in the United States and promote understandings in traditional Persian culture, Iranian freedom activists advertise the event to raise awareness to their advocacy for regime change at home. The Persian Parade is entirely run by grassroots, without depending on opposition celebrities like Reza Pahlavi, Mariam Rajavi, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi. In the parade, American mounted policemen march, raising the Shir o Khorshid and the Stars and Stripes side by side. This is a visual appeal of close ties between Iranian freedom movements and American civil societies. See the photo below.

Shir o Khorshid and the Stars and Stripes march side by side.

Secular democracy in Iran will have significant implication from Africa to China. Currently, Islamists rise in Egypt and Turkey, and Al Qaeda found their safe havens in the Sahel area, the Caucasus, and throughout the Middle East. However, Al Qaeda’s sphere of influence has not expanded in both East and West Turkestan (“The al QaedaFranchise Threat”; Wall Street Journal; April 30, 2013). Sponsoring secular democracy movements for Iran will help promote democracy free of religious biases from North Africa to Xinjiang, beyond the Arab regions. Particularly, Persian cultural traditions are strong in Iranian and Turkic peoples in Central Asia. Therefore, once positive dominos of democracy without religious fanaticism spread, things across Eurasia will be strategically advantageous for free nations, including East Asia. Once secular democracy takes root in Turkestan, the West need not compromise with China in the War on Terror, which enables free nations to stand steadfast against  China’s maritime expansionism and human rights abuse. Therefore , I hope this post will be of some help to draw worldwide attention to Iranian freedom movements.

Japan as the Bulwark against Red China to Defend US and Asia Pacific Nations

China’s expansionist ambition and North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship diplomacy intensify tension in East Asia. Particularly, tightrope foreign policy is required to manage China. While exploring some security cooperation and economic ties, the United States and Asia Pacific nations must be well aware of the danger of this country. A strong Japan will serve as a bulwark against Red China, which will serve the interests of nations in this region, whether engaging or confronting the Beijing regime.

The problem is, the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia often appears just rhetorical, and throwing away America’s special role in the Middle East. That can lead to a super power suicide. Current US policy in East Asia must be understood in a global context, beyond Sino-Japanese geopolitical rivalries. Those who endorse America’s role in the Middle East are steadfast against Chinese expansionism. In an era of rising isolationism in the United States, as witnessed in the sequestration, we must keep it in mind.

Why America and Asia Pacific nations need a strong Japan? Vance Serchuk, Former staff of Ex-Senator Joseph Lieberman tells why in his recent article (“An ascendant Japan would boost U.S. interests”; WashingtonPost; April 19, 2013). Lieberman and former Senator Jon Kyl contributed an article with to make the case against isolationism (“Thedanger of repeating the cycle of American isolationism”; Washington Post; April25, 2013), and launched the “American Internationalism Project” in the American Enterprise Institute. Therefore, Serchuck’s policy analysis presents insights to see the Obama administration’s Asia policy critically, and assess the strategic importance of Japan to the United States and Asia Pacific allies.

Let me see Serchuck’s view on East Asia and Sino-Japanese rivalries. Regarding regional security, the United States may have to ask China’s cooperation on North Korea to curb its nuclear threats. However, China does not necessarily share vital interests of nonproliferation with the global community, and more concerned with the collapse of the regime in North Korea. Also, China’s cyber threat and maritime expansionism are critical concerns. Japan has a great potential to become a reliable security partner to those who face such threats. Despite a mere 1% of GDP in defense spending, Japan’s military capability is the most advanced in Asia. In addition, he points out that the Abe administration is willing to assume more security responsibility as tensions grow in Asia.

Does the Obama administration understand those arguments? Let me see a commentary regarding Secretary of State John Kerry’ visit to East Asia last April by Christopher Griffin, Executive Director, and Robert Zarate, Policy Director, both at the Foreign Policy Initiative (“What John Kerry is Doing Rightand Wrong in East Asia”; Diplomat Magazine; April 18, 2013). Secretary Kerry articulated to defend Japan and the Asian sea lane, in case of aggressive intrusion by China. But we have to remember that eight Republican senators wrote to Kerry on April 12 to call an attention to the dangerous adventurism of China and strategic importance of Japan. Signatories of this letter were Marco Rubio, John Cornyn, James M. Inhofe, James E. Risch, Kelly Ayotte, Robert Corker, John Barrasso, Saxby Chambliss, and John McCain. 

Actually, the eight senators who sent the reminder to Secretary Kerry are seriously critical of Obama’s Middle East policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran. From this fact, you will understand that Obama’s disengagement in the Middle East does not necessarily mean strong commitment to Asia. An appeasing America in the Middle East is also an appeasing America in Asia. Policymakers in Japan and the rest of the Asia Pacific should keep it in mind, rather than welcoming the pivot to Asia naïvely. 

Meanwhile, Kerry even thinks of soliciting Chinese cooperation to manage North Korea in exchange for removal of US missile defense system. Though China is an indispensable partner on North Korea, it is a nuclear power challenging the world order of Western democracies. Removing deterrence will not be in favor of America’s interest in the Asia Pacific. At the meeting between the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, and the Head of PLA General Staff department Fang Fenghui, the Chinese side mentioned three obstacles in US-Chinese military cooperations: US arms deals with Taiwan, reconnaissance against Chinese targets, and arms embargo against China. Furthermore, in the recent PLA white paper, China denounces implicitly that the United States augments regional tensions (“US,China military top brass take aim”; Asia Times; April 26, 2013).

But it is China that intensifies tensions across the globe and the region, notably by aggressive maritime intimidation in the East and the South China Seas, and cyber attacks. As Senator John McCain argues, Asians still want to "live in a world shaped by American power, American values, and American leadership” (“Why Asia Wants America”; Diplomat Magazine; May 22, 2012), but China defies American supremacy. Though politicians are cautious to avoid provocative words to China, Joseph Bosco, former staff at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, clearly states China is a threat. He warns that China has grown wealthy, strong, overconfident, and defiant under the benefits of the international system and generous Western engagement. This is typically witnessed in China’s aggression to the freedom of navigation in international waters in the Asia Pacific region (“Red China Remains a Threat”; WeeklyStandard; November 26, 2011). Japan is the most ideally located to stop China in terms of geography.

Humanitarian aspect is another issue to manage Chinese expansionism in Asia. Kılıç Kanat, Assistant Professor at Pennsylvania State University, comments that the United States and Western allies should not dismiss China’s repression against Uyghur people as typically seen in the clash in Kashgar this April. Kanat says that the pivot to Asia putting heavy emphasis on commercial interests without giving consideration to human rights and liberty “will create not only a humanitarian disaster in the region but will also pave the way for a crisis of legitimacy for the policies of Western democracies” (“The Kashgar incident andChina’s Uyghur question”; The New Turkey; May 9, 2013). This message is primarily addressed to Americans and Europeans, but Japanese and Asian policymakers should also keep it in mind. In the Security Diamond Strategy launched by the Abe administration, humanitarian values are the key (“Shinzo Abe’s Strategic Diamond”; DiplomatMagazine; January 15, 2013).

Above all, we should not welcome the pivot to Asia so naïvely for simplistic fear of China. As shown in the case of the letter by the eight senators, America's disengagement in the Middle East leads to appeasement in Asia. In parallel with contacting incumbent Obama administration, Japanese policymakers need to found strong ties with defense hawks and global interventionists in the United States who are critically concerned with the superpower suicide. That serves the key interest of the United States, Japan, and Asia Pacific democracies.

A Map of Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

While the world pays close attention to North Korean missiles, Iran test fired missiles to threaten Israel ("Iran test-fires three new missile types"; Times of Israel; April 13, 2013). Now, see the map below to know where Iran’s nuclear facilities are.

Source: Al Arabiya

Bushehr plant managed to survive the earthquake of magnitude 6.3 few days ago (Quake Hits Southwest Iran, Killing 37; Radio Free Europe; 9 April, 2013)

Japan Needs US Ambassador of Military Veteran, not Caroline Kennedy

It seems that the Obama administration’s appointment of Caroline Kennedy is taken favorably among the public on both sides of the Pacific. As shown in the following video, of CBS News on April 2, the family name of Kennedy nurtures charismatic romanticism which is associated with the tragic legend of an idealist president John F. Kennedy. On this program, historian Robert Dallek commented that the Ambassador Kennedy would represent the best of American culture.

 

 

 

Jun Okumura, Senior Analyst at the Eurasia Group, mentions furthermore, “In this age of rapid communications, the real decisions are made at home anyway,” and “The ambassadors are largely symbols these days. What it does say is that there are no major problems in the Japan-US relationship; it’s still a safe appointment, like to Britain or France” (“Why CarolineKennedy is likely to get a warm welcome in Japan”; Christian Science Monitor;April 2, 2013). Certainly, American presidents appointed political fundraisers to the ambassadors to Britain in reward of contribution to their election victory, as typically seen in the case of Joseph Kennedy.

However, in view of growing security challenges of China and North Korea, and complexity of Okinawa US base issues, some opinion leaders prefer much more professional ambassador to Tokyo. Remember that the Ambassador to Japan represents America’s strategic interests beyond Japan. No other places in the world are so ideally located than the Japanese archipelago to watch security challenges from Hawaii to the Indian Ocean. Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is right to emphasize such strategic value repeatedly. Newly appointed ambassador must be well aware of this.

Despite Kennedy’s popularity, some concerns are raised as she has no experience in diplomacy and public administration. Republican member of the House Foregin relations Committee Dana Rohrabackher says, “It thought it was an April Fool’s joke when I first heard about it, Our economic and national security are based on good will toward Japan. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy becoming ambassador to, say, Barbados. But Japan is too important for somebody with no experience” (“Kennedy asJapan ambassador raises concerns amid N. Korea tensions”; FOX News;April 3, 2013). Even Clyde Prestowitz, President of the Economic Strategy Institute, who supported Obama in presidential elections, comments this critically. Compared with past ambassadors, Caroline Kennedy is no political heavy weight, and has little knowledge and experience in diplomacy and foreign affairs. Also, he says that she knows too little about Japanese culture and language (“Caroline Kennedy's appointment is not very Kennedyesque”; Foreign Policy--Clyde Prestowitz; April 2, 2013).

I agree to most of the above criticism, in view of Japan’s mistake to appoint Uichiro Niwa, former chairman of a Japanese general trading company Itochu Corporation, to the ambassador to China. But I do not think familiarity with Japanese language and culture so important as Prestowitz says, because current Japanese speak English more fluently and know American culture much more than those in the Edwin Reischauer days. Rather, we have focus on knowledge in security and skills in diplomacy and administration, particularly crisis management. From this point of view, I would argue that the next ambassador to Tokyo be selected from military veterans. Among military veterans, there are so many good candidates who inspire awe and respect to America, from Hawaii to the Indian Ocean.

The armed forces are landmines of good candidates, such as Admiral Michael Mullen, General David Petraeus, General Raymond Odierno, and so forth. If knowledge in Japanese affairs matters, then, Richard Armitage will be on the top list. Even among those who are unknown to the public, many generals and admirals are well qualified to outstare any security challenges rising in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans from Tokyo. Unknown man can become famous instantly, when he accomplishes great achievement. There is no reason to give special preferences for a celebrity. Since current US defense capabilities are shrinking due to budget cut and sequestration, such loss needs to be compensated with knowledge, skills, and personality of politicians and diplomats. Let me show a good example. People see current Russia much greater power than it actually is, and that owes to strenuous image of a KGB veteran Vladimir Putin. A US ambassador to Japan must be a John Wayne to demonstrate American prestige and strength, in order to overcome global and domestic difficulties. This is why I believe military veterans are more preferable to Caroline Kennedy for the ambassador to Japan.

                                             The next ambassador must speak softly, and carry a big stick

Whoever comes to Tokyo, the Japanese side is not in a position to call new ambassador persona non grata, unless he or she is seriously problematic to assume the mission. However, I believe it necessary to reconsider Kennedy’s job credentials on both sides of the Pacific. Some opinion leaders say being a woman is an advantage to deepen bilateral friendship, but gender equality is no priority issue between Japan and the United States today. Nor, do I believe that a princess of hereditary power represents the best of American culture. It is globally understood that a person who really represent the best of American culture and image is a man of man as typically portrayed by John Wayne. In other words, Tokyo needs a US ambassador who speaks softly while carrying a big stick. Remember that South Korea sends Lee Byung Kee, foreign policy advisor to President Park Guen Hye. Whose interest is it, if US ambassador is eclipsed by such brilliant diplomats from all over the world? For vital interests of Japan and the United States, the selection of the ambassador must be reconsidered.

The Iraq War and Its Implication to US Foreign Policy after 10 Years

This is the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War, and I would like to evaluate its cause and impacts on Middle East and global security, and discuss policy lessons for the future. The cause and impacts are closely related. Let me mention commentaries from policymaking insiders. The focal debate to start the war against Saddam Hussein was the threat of nuclear proliferation and its terrorist connections. David Frum, the speech writer of “The Axis of Evil Speech” by President then George W. Bush, narrates deep connections among anti-Western state and nonstate actors. Some people were skeptic to ties between Shiite Iran and Sunni Hamas, and Islamist Iran and communist North Korea. However, they have already turned out to be true. Moreover, the Khan network sold nuclear technology to Al Qaeda, and North Korea helped Syria build a nuclear facility in 2007 (The Speechwriter: David Frum on the Rhetoric of Iraq”; News Week; March 19, 2013).

Saddam Hussein may not have had nuclear weapons when he was defeated by the US-UK coalition. However, IAEA revealed a document that the Khan network offered extensive help for Iraq to build nuclear bomb within three years in 1990 (“Khan’s Bomb Offer to Saddam’s Iraq: Document Showing Iraq’s Interest in Nuclear Weapon Design”; ISIS Online News; April 1, 2010). The Axis of Evil including Iraq was real. Sectarian difference between Iran and Hamas means nothing. The United with Israel, a pro-Israeli civic organization in New York, releases a promotion video to compare Ahmadenejad’s Iran with Hitler’s Germany. Adolf Hitler committed the holocaust as he declared to annihilate Jewish people from Europe. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared to wipe out Israel from the map, and his Iran pursues the nuclear project despite worldwide pressure and criticism. Both Iran and Hamas have common enemies beyond sectarianism. Also, the Fordow accident has revealed deep ties between Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

In addition to nuclear threats, democracy and geopolitics are also important. Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton presents an overview of the Iraq War, and he argues that Saddam Hussein should have been removed after the Gulf War for Iraqi and regional stability. Therefore, he argues that it was a necessary mission. Furthermore, the United States faces challenges in Iran and Syria now, because it failed to turn attention to regime changes in both of them after toppling Saddam. Quite importantly, he stresses that Bush never manipulated information about Iraq’s nuclear weapon. It was common understanding among observers that Iraq hid nuclear weapons in those days, and even without WMDs, Iraq could have resumed the project to develop them to become a security threat to the region and the global community (“Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right move for the US and its allies”; Guardian; 26 February, 2013). Conspiracy theory is still wide spread, but we have to understand that it does not make sense from well outlined analysis presented by Bolton.

For right evaluation of the Iraq War, it is necessary to examine US Middle East policy after liberating Kuwait from Saddam’s invasion in the Gulf War. Like John Bolton, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz comments that the Bush Sr. administration did not help anti-Saddam uprisings, which prolonged continual oppression by Saddam Hussein in Iraq and undermined America’s moral standings. In other words, hyper sensitivity to casualties left confusions in the region untouched, which exacerbated things happening there. Therefore, he criticizes the Obama administration for leaving Iraq too early. See the video of AEI interview on March 19 below.


 


Non-interventionists may argue that Saddam Hussein could have been toppled by his own people, but Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair comments that popular uprisings could have led to conflicts in Iraq much more bloodier than those in Syria (“Blair: Iraq uprising would have been 'worse than Syria'”; BBC News; 19 March, 2013). Blair’s case for intervention gives insightful lessons to Obama’s disengagement policy. For US allies, the Iraq War was a critical occasion to think of relations with the United States. But that is not enough. In acting with America, Blair had a vision of the Middle East after Saddam. However, it seems that the Japanese government did not have such a vision, and simply responded receptively to American and British requests, judging from an interview with Chief Cabinet Secretary-then Yasuo Fukuda. Furthermore, Fukuda even remarked the possibility of information manipulation about nuclear weapons by the Bush administration to start the war with Iraq (“10 Years from Iraq War: Interview with Yasuo Fukuda”; Asahi Shimbun; March 20, 2013). This is what Bolton denies flatly in his article to the Guardian.

I have no idea whether the above argument is Fukuda’s personal view, or the Koizumi administration’s view. Whatever the reason is, there is a sharp contrast between Fukuda and Blair. Apparently, Fukuda speaks as a bystander lacking confidence in the war, while Blair does as a stakeholder. This reflects the positions of both countries. Britain acts as a normal country having the special relationship with the United States, while Japan acts as a non-interventionist country upholding the pacifist constitution. Therefore, Britain joins the American world order, but Japan acts receptively just to solicit security umbrella to the United States. Blair talked about democracy promotion and conflict prevention in the Middle East upon acting with the United States, while Fukuda just talked about strengthening the US-Japanese alliance. Such a stark contrast should be born in mind when we discuss the series of the Armitage-Nye Report.

Above all, Saddam Hussein was overthrown, and nuclear threats of Iraq were removed. In view of the Arab Spring, let me talk about democracy promotion in the Middle East. Despite bitter criticism to Bush’s imperialistic policy, particularly among liberal civil societies, the Iraq War was a real start for the global community to discuss Middle East democratization. Nadim Shehadi, Associate Fellow at the Chatham House, points out that the media are biased with Obama’s policy directions to defy Bush legacies, but he argues that America’s soft power has risen in the Middle East from the time when it was allied with conservative monarchies and police states. An increasing number of Arab youth share American value of democracy, and enjoy American pop culture since the fall of Saddam. The critical point is, Democrats opposed the surge in 2007 to rescue Iraq from sectarian conflicts and terrorism. Today, we know that the surge worked. As Shehadi argues, Bush’s intervention will be reevaluated (“One day the world will thank Bush for shaking up the Arab region”; World Today; February 2013).

Remember the Green Movement in Iran in 2009, which is one year before the Arab Spring. Iranian people chanted for American help to support their quest for democracy, but Obama refused to do so. Senator John McCain criticized such a disengagement policy that disappointed freedom fighters in Iran. However, the quest for democracy is advancing. Even in Saudi Arabia, people are beginning to become aware of socio-economic inequality, and demanding political reforms. Accumulated wealth and religiously conservative mindsets in this country does not divert the passion for freedom away （“A growing divide in Saudi Arabia between rulers, ruled”; Washington Post; March 15, 2013).

Despite such invaluable gains through long and enduring involvement in Iraq, the Obama administration decided to pull out US forces while sectarian divisions make political progress stagnant and Iran’s influence grows in the Shiite region. Charles Krauthammer, Columnist at the Washington Post, comments that the United States lost a key ally that should have been a show case for democracy and a partner to curb terrorist and Iranian threats in the region, because Obama is reluctant to fulfill the role of the superpower. That ruins great sacrifices made during the Bush era. See the video of an interview by National Review Online on March 19.




The implication of Iraq is not just regional but global. Let me quote a final part of John Bolton’s article to the Guardian to conclude this post.

If Obama has his way in Washington's ongoing policy and budgetary debates, America will be withdrawing around the world and reducing its military capacity. This is what opponents of the 2003 Iraq war have long professed to want. If they actually get their wishes, it won't be long before they start complaining about it. You heard it here first.

The Range of North Korea’s Nuclear Missile

In view of the missile test by Kim Jong-un last December (“Onesmall step for Kim Jong Un”; CNN News; December 13, 2012), newly appointed secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced to boost missile defense system that the Obama administration cut in the first term (US to boost nuclear missile defence tocounter N Korea; BBC News; 16 March, 2013).  See the map below. Now, US territory Alaska is within the range of North Korean missile.

The threat of North Korea has grown to the level of the Pearl Harbor attack. The Fordow incident (“North Koreans among 40 dead atIran nuke plant”;WND; February 3, 2013) indicates the fear posed by the Axis of Evil primarily constituted of North Korea and Iran. How do we manage dangerous ambitions of both nuclear rogues?

America’s Strategic Re-Pivot to Europe and the Middle East

It seems that the second Obama administration is making a strategic re-pivot to Europe. During the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Joseph Biden launched a new initiative to boost trans-Atlantic ties. Since the Obama administration articulated strategic rebalance to Asia, in view of withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, Biden’s speech surprised the media. Biden called for close trans-Atlantic partnership in Middle East security from Mali to Syria and Iran, and mentioned Europe the cornerstone of US foreign policy (“Biden calls Europe 'thecornerstone' of USforeign policy”; Stars and Stripes; February 2, 2012). In addition to security, Biden proposed a free trade deal with Europe. Since Europe is the largest economic zone in the world, the rise of Asian economies does not necessarily overshadow the Atlantic ties. Europeans welcome Biden’s Munich speech (“Opinion: US rediscovers Europe”;Deutsche Welle; 3 February, 2013).

Following the Munich speech, President Barack Obama expressed his support for formal talks for a free trade agreement with the European Union in the State of the Union speech (“Obama injects optimism into trade deal”;Financial Times; February 13, 2013). A US-EU FTA would represent more than 40% of world GDP and nearly 50% of world foreign direct investment, while a Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) represents “only” 26% of world GDP. The proposed trans-Atlantic FTA is beyond job creation for the United States. On the other side of the Atlantic, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron push for a trade pact with America. Also, both trade deals across the Atlantic and the Pacific are intended to promote liberal political values through economic activities (“EU-US Free TradeAgreement: End of the Asian Century?”; Diplomat; February 20, 2013).

As if showing America’s re-pivot, Secretary of State John Kerry is visiting Europe and the Middle East as the first trip abroad since his inauguration. Remember that his predecessor Hillary Clinton selected Asia for her first official visit (“Travel to Europe and the Middle East February 24, 2013 to March 6, 2013”; Department of State). In an interview of Andrea Mitchell Reports in NBC News on February 22, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen said that Kerry was expected to listen to requests by European and Middle Eastern allies on this trip. Currently, the United States faces common security challenges with them, notably, Syria and Iran. See the video below.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Last June, NATO summit in Chicagoimpressed disunity of the alliance and the lack of US leadership. It remains to be seen whether the trans-Atlantic alliance will be re-invigorated by the Munich speech and Kerry’s first trip.

The most important thing for US strategy is not a pivot to a specific region but fulfillment of global security responsibility, that is, maintaining the two MRC (major regional conflict) standard. Daniel Goure, Vice President at the Lexington Institute, raises a concern, “The continuing decline in real defense spending posed a larger problem for defense planners seeking to maintain a credible two-MTW capability.” 　Quite ironically, investment decline in military modernization pushes up the cost of equipment maintenance, and lowers the capability of conducting simultaneous global operations. Goure points out that the Bush administration tried to overturn such a trend even before 9-11 terrorist attacks (“The Measure of a Superpower:A Two Major Regional Contingency Military for the 21st Century”; Special Reporton National Security and Defense, Heritage Foundation; January 25, 2013). The Obama administration’s defense cut and withdrawal from the Middle East, notably Iraq and Afghanistan, raises critical concerns whether the United States is willing to fulfill the role of the superpower. More importantly, American defense against China has not been build up sufficiently under the pivot to Asia, as McKenzie Eaglen, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argues (“Nearing coffincorner: US air power on the edge”; AEI National Security Outlook;March 2012).

The re-pivot to Europe and the Middle East can be interpreted as reconsideration of the above mentioned polices. Obama’s proposed cut of US troops in Afghanistan after complete transition of security responsibility in 2014 was bitterly criticized. Before the meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Washington, DC, the Obama administration even thought of stationing fewer troops in Afghanistan than Britain does (“Some in administration push for only a few thousand U.S. troops inAfghanistan after 2014”; Washington Post; January 8, 2013). Senator John McCain commented that drastic reduction of US troops in Afghanistan would be interpreted as American weakness in the War on Terror, in an interview with CBS News onJanuary 13. Vali Nasr, Dean of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, mentions more critically, “If you’re Karzai, you’re basically now facing the same calculation that Maliki did in Iraq. If you’re not willing to stay in large numbers, why do I need you? ” (“PrioritiesAre Far Apart as Karzai and Obama Meet”; New York Times; January 10, 2013). The Obama administration announced to maintain 32,000 troops until Afghan presidential election in April 2014, but Pentagon press secretary George Little announced, "The administration is still reviewing options and has not made a decision about the size of a possible U.S. presence after 2014", and said "We will continue to discuss with Allies and the Afghans how we can best carry out two basic missions: Targeting the remnants of [al Qaeda] and its affiliates, and training and equipping Afghan forces"  (“Panetta:Final 32,000 American troops out of Afghanistan after 2014 elections”; DEFCONHill; February 22, 2013). Considering strategic sensitivity, Afghanistan will be a litmus test for the Obama administration’s engagement in the Middle East and vision of superpower role.

If the United States is to take well balanced strategic emphasis as the global superpower, rather than a Pacific regional power, that will be beneficial for Asian allies like Japan, Australia, South Korea, and so forth. Let me talk about this further in detail. Excessive pivot to Asia can marginalize Europe, and make it inward looking. But Asia needs major European powers along with the United States to manage geopolitical ambitions of China and nuclear North Korea. In addition, Middle East security is an issue of common interests for both Asia and Europe. Among them, Islamic radicalism is the most imminent threat. In the Algeria hostage crisis this year, terrorists attacked non-Muslim foreigners, both Asians and Westerners. Historically, Islamic radicals raided not Christians and Judaists, but also Hindus and Buddhists. Their terrorism is not resistance against “Western crusaders”, but defiance to secular and liberal world order. Energy security is another reason why Asia needs America’s balanced strategic emphasis. Emerging economies in Asia depend on oil and gas import from the Middle East, and US pullout from the region does not work for their interests. Also, we have to note that the Noda administration of Japan made a deal with Central Asian countries on gas supply. In this case, Afghan is a potential route for pipelines in the future. Moreover, Iran’s connection with North Korea has become apparent in the Fordow accident as two North Koreans were killed (“North Koreans among 40 dead at Iran nuke plant”;WND; February 3, 2013).

In view of global Great Games in this century, premature US withdrawal from the Middle East and downturn of the trans-Atlantic alliance can provoke geopolitical challengers like China, Russia, and other emerging powers to defy American supremacy. Let me mention a historical analogy. In World War II, the fall of Singapore eroded British prestige, not just in Asia, but in Europe and the Middle East as well. But unlike Britain in early Pacific War, current America is not defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, some Pacific nations like Japan share more common political interests with Europe than its neighbors. As an old ally to the United States and a major industrialized democracy, Obama’s shift to emerging economies in the name of the pivot to Asia can lead to relative decline of Japan’s importance to America.

Military strength itself is not necessarily almighty to boost America’s global position, but that is the key to maintain US preeminence over geopolitical challengers. The most critical problem is not strategic balance but defense cut. Particularly, the sequestration will impose critical restrictions on US foreign policy options. David Frum, Contributing Editor at News Week, denounces some fiscal conservatives among the Republican Party such as Representative Paul Ryan, as they remarked that they were eager to force a budget sequester in March. In view of fatal consequence of the additional spending cut on defense, Frum urged defense hawks to act to stop the sequestration (“Defense Hawks, America Needs You Now”; Daily Beast; January 31,2013). Military operations and equipments are not the only victims of this defense cut. Administrative and logistical tasks, and civilian employment are also sacrificed (“Budget Crisis Impact Laid Out By U.S. Navy”; Defense News; January25, 2013). In addition, training will be curtailed drastically (“Army: 78% OfCombat Brigades Will Skip Training Due To Sequester, CR”; AOL Defense; February5, 2013). Those negative impacts will pose considerable constraints on US foreign policy to manage crises on two fronts simultaneously. In order to avoid this, the Foreign Policy Initiatives sent an open letter to leaders of the Democrat andthe Republican parties at the Senate and the House on February 19. However, the White House and the Hill failed to reach an agreement.The sequester starts from a 20 percent pay cut for military technicians  (“Sequester causes military spending cuts”; WTHI-TV News; 2 March 2013).

The world needs America capable of managing crises on two fronts. From this perspective, we should welcome Washington’s policy turn suggested by Biden’s speech at Munich. There are no reasons for the United States to act like Britain at the time of the fall of Singapore. Obama’s failure to manage partisan split has undermined America’s leadership on the global stage. The Munich speech and Secretary Kerry’s first official trip may be the start of restoring the trans-Atlantic alliance and Middle East involvement. The combined effect of sequester and strategic re-pivot needs further observation.