As widely known around the world, unprecedentedly tremendous earthquake of Richter scale 9.0 attacked on the Pacific coast of north eastern Japan. People are panicked and basic commodities like food and flash lights have become scarce as a result of scare buyout. In Tokyo, electricity shortage stresses people, and many events were cancelled.
Though things have improved after St. Patrick’s Day, eastern Japan is still in emergency. People are still concerned with scheduled blackouts. In order to save electric consumption, trains run less frequently and shops close earlier. Those make everything inconvenient. In a north western suburb of Tokyo where I live, air planes and helicopters of the US Air Force and Japanese Self Defense Force, from Yokota and Iruma bases, fly at night. Usually people complain such noises at night, but it is a critical emergency, now. They are saviors for disaster torn Japanese people.
Since Global American Discourse is a depth in analysis and advocacy blog, premature commentaries shall not be posted. Therefore, the earthquake and tsunami were not mentioned on this blog. However, I may talk about lessons of this earthquake in the future, regarding crisis management and the Fukushima nuclear accident. Particularly, the latter is closely related to nuclear nonproliferation, which is one of important agendas on this blog. My views about this earthquake appear on my Twitter, particularly from 3-11 (the earthquake day) to 3-17.
I would like to express my heartfelt condolences to those who experienced plights of unprecedented disaster.
Gambare Nippon!
Pray for Japan!
Monday, March 21, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
How Should America Advance Middle East Democracy?
As I mentioned in the last post, the rise of anti-government protests in the Middle East does not imply an erosion of American grip in this region. Rather, a long quested American Dream of Middle East democracy since the outbreak of the Afghan War and the Iraq War is coming true. In what way should the United States be involved in Middle East political transformation? I would like to talk about three key countries, which are Egypt, Libya, and Iran.
Grassroots uprisings provoked by the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia and the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt are not bolts from the blue. In a joint report by Marina Ottaway and Amr Hamzawy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, authors say that the civil protest started in Tunisia was not a completely new development, but rather a more dramatic example of the unrest common across the Arab world. Civilian protests for political and economic reform in Egypt have been witnessed from the end of the last century, and the quest for democracy has been intensified since 2003, the year of the Iraq War. Things in other Arab nations, including Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, are somewhat similar. Through in depth analysis of socio-political movements in the Arab world, Ottaway and Hamzawy say that youth movements spread rapidly even without well-arranged organizational structures. Although traditional unionists and left wing activists argue that those movements depending on social media are not long-lasting, the Facebook revolution in Tunisia has inspired Arab citizens who hope to overthrow dictators repressing them with mighty security services (“Protest Movements and Political Change in the Arab World”; Carnegie Endowment Policy Outlook; January 28, 2011).
Former Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher argues furthermore to suggest necessary steps toward Arab reform. Since Arab citizens no longer trust the government, any reform must be beyond lip service. Muasher endorses fair election, strong parliament, checks and balances, and educational reform. Without political reform, people will not trust economic liberalization, because economic growth simply widened social inequality. Muasher insists that the above reforms must be pushed forward, and leaders must overcome harsh opposition by the establishment (“How to Achieve Real Reform in the Arab World”; Washington Post; February 2, 2011).
As to Egypt, Amr Hamzawy, Research Director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, argues almost the same points as Marwan Muasher. He insists that the emergency law be eliminated, and civil freedom be protected. Furthermore, Hamzawy recommends that political prisoners be freed (“Egypt's Path Ahead: Agree to the People's Demands”; National; February 2, 2011).
Some Western commentators warn the risk of Islamists, but Former Dutch Member of the Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali say that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt can adapt to reality, though they were violent in the past. Through her experience in election, Ali points out, “The party has to be embedded in as many communities as possible, regardless of social class, religion or even political views” (“Get Ready for the Muslim Brotherhood”; New York Times; February 3, 2011). Therefore, Western policymakers should focus on transparent and accountable governance in Egypt, rather than the rise of Islamists.
Michelle Dunne, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, argue that successful democratization of Egypt will have a considerable impact on the whole Arab world. Egypt is a birthplace of pan-Arabism and the first country to the peace treaty with Israel. Its population is by far the largest among Arab nations. Both experts recommend smart and targeted assistance to Egypt. They argue that Western aid must be focused on the economy rather than military, such as debt forgiveness and free trade agreement. Also, mentioning a report of recent trip to Egypt by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, they insist on increasing private investment which Egyptians need, and send a delegation of high-tech industry there (“Why Egypt Has To Be the U.S. Priority in the Middle East”; Washington Post; March 7, 2011). Since anti-Mubarak youth stood up to demand improvements in the economy and social inequality, their recommendation will be plausible. Quite importantly, both authors advise the US government to respect self rise movements by Egyptians, and not to impose American-styled democracy. Kagan and Dunne argue that Middle East policy needs a high powered leader to act beyond bureaucratic sectionalism, and put a unique proposal that the Obama administration appoint a Middle East Transition Czar.
Things in Libya are completely different as Colonel Muammar Khadafi clings to power. While Western policymakers advocate that a no-fly-zone be imposed on Libya, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is skeptic to American capability for such a mission, and even hopes of leaving it to Britain, France, and Italy (“Robert Gates on Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Defense Budget”; Weekly Standard Blog; February 23, 2011). As the Obama administration is cautious of intervention to Libya, foreign policy and human rights experts, including Robert Kagan, William Kristol, and former officials of the Bush and Clinton administration, urged President Obama to take actions against Colonel Khadafi’s repression, notably establishing no-fly-zone (Open Letter; Foreign Policy Initiative; February 25, 2011). Jamie Fly, Executive Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative points out that enforcing a no-fly-zone by the United States and key allies does not need the approval of the UN Security Council, as in previous cases of Iraq and Kosovo. He also argues that the Obama administration not dismiss America’s moral obligation to defend Libyan citizens attacked by Khadafi (“Opposing view: A moral obligation to intervene”; USA Today; March 3, 2011). Moreover, Fly criticizes the inaction, because even liberal New York Times argues “the Obama administration is throwing out so many conflicting messages on Libya that they are blunting any potential pressure on the Libyan regime and weakening American credibility” (“What Should We Do About Libya?”; National Review Online Symposium; March 10, 2011).
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met a delegation of the Benghazi government in waiting which is called the National Transitional Council in Paris. If the council is recognized by the global community, it can use Libya’s overseas assets and export oil. Though France recognized this post Khadafi regime, the waiting regime does not agree with the United States on Israel-Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan (“Rebel council seeks to transform Libya”; Washington Post; March 15, 2011). But this is also the case with the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. I do not believe it a legitimate reason for the United States to abstain from supporting the anti-Khadafi rebel. Despite that, the United States did not agree to a no-fly-zone initiative by France and Britain at G8 foreign ministers meeting in Paris (“France fails to get G8 accord on Libya no-fly zone”; Reuters; March 15, 2011). The Obama administration may be traumatized by the Bush administration’s experience in the Iraq War, but an obsession with a UN resolution will simply delay necessary action. This is a critical test of current administration’s use of smart power.
While some analysts argue that Iran will fill the Middle East power vacuum in view of the fall of pro-Western Arab governments, Karim Sadjapour, Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace comments the opposite. Potential reemergence of democratized Egypt will undermine relative power of Iran. Also, he says that Iran has the same problems of repression and deteriorating economy as those in Egypt and Tunisia. Furthermore, Arab Shiites in Iraq and Bahrain do not feel themselves familiar to Iran (“Arabs Rise, Tehran Trembles”; New York Times; March 5, 2011). It is quite likely that the Arab transition will stimulate youngsters in Iran who stood up in the Green Movement.
Finally, I would like to explore the big picture of the Arab world and the guidelines to advance democracy in this region. Marwan Muasher insists that the West must give priority to political reform over economic liberalization, as the market economy without checks and balances brought wealth to the ruling class and simply widened socio-economic inequality. Also, he calls an attention to the vital fact that the protests spread nationwide by ordinary citizens who were annoyed with autocrats, not Islamists who cling to outmoded theocracy. That makes a compromise with a repressive regime useless (“Arab Myths and Realities”; Project Syndicate; March 8, 2011).
While some experts compare current Arab democratization with the fall of Berlin Wall, Thomas Carothers, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, comments cautiously. Unlike monolithically communist Central and Eastern Europe in the Cold War era, Arab nations are more diversified, including reformist monarchs, conservative monarchs, autocratic presidents, tribal states, failing states, oil-rich states, and water-poor states. Also, Arab leaders are more independent of the West than those in Central and Eastern Europe. However, that does not mean Arab democracy is difficult to achieve, as Arab activists are keen to learn successful experiences abroad. Islamists may be well organized, but they need support from swing voters to win majority. Quite importantly, Carothers points out that Islamists in the Arab world were willing to work within multiparty systems (“Think Again: Arab Democracy”; Foreign Policy; March 10, 2011).
The path to democracy in the Middle East is not so simplistic. Gulf monarchies are key allies to the West, and slow but steady approaches are necessary. Such approaches differ from one country to another. In some cases, bold interventions are required, and the Obama administration is finally moving toward endorsing France and Britain in Libya (“Specter of Rebel Rout Helps Shift U.S. Policy on Libya”; New York Times; March 16, 2011). On the other hand, things in Bahrain grow difficult to manage. Democracy in the Middle East has become an America’s agenda since 9-11, and critical tests are posed now.
Grassroots uprisings provoked by the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia and the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt are not bolts from the blue. In a joint report by Marina Ottaway and Amr Hamzawy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, authors say that the civil protest started in Tunisia was not a completely new development, but rather a more dramatic example of the unrest common across the Arab world. Civilian protests for political and economic reform in Egypt have been witnessed from the end of the last century, and the quest for democracy has been intensified since 2003, the year of the Iraq War. Things in other Arab nations, including Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, are somewhat similar. Through in depth analysis of socio-political movements in the Arab world, Ottaway and Hamzawy say that youth movements spread rapidly even without well-arranged organizational structures. Although traditional unionists and left wing activists argue that those movements depending on social media are not long-lasting, the Facebook revolution in Tunisia has inspired Arab citizens who hope to overthrow dictators repressing them with mighty security services (“Protest Movements and Political Change in the Arab World”; Carnegie Endowment Policy Outlook; January 28, 2011).
Former Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher argues furthermore to suggest necessary steps toward Arab reform. Since Arab citizens no longer trust the government, any reform must be beyond lip service. Muasher endorses fair election, strong parliament, checks and balances, and educational reform. Without political reform, people will not trust economic liberalization, because economic growth simply widened social inequality. Muasher insists that the above reforms must be pushed forward, and leaders must overcome harsh opposition by the establishment (“How to Achieve Real Reform in the Arab World”; Washington Post; February 2, 2011).
As to Egypt, Amr Hamzawy, Research Director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, argues almost the same points as Marwan Muasher. He insists that the emergency law be eliminated, and civil freedom be protected. Furthermore, Hamzawy recommends that political prisoners be freed (“Egypt's Path Ahead: Agree to the People's Demands”; National; February 2, 2011).
Some Western commentators warn the risk of Islamists, but Former Dutch Member of the Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali say that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt can adapt to reality, though they were violent in the past. Through her experience in election, Ali points out, “The party has to be embedded in as many communities as possible, regardless of social class, religion or even political views” (“Get Ready for the Muslim Brotherhood”; New York Times; February 3, 2011). Therefore, Western policymakers should focus on transparent and accountable governance in Egypt, rather than the rise of Islamists.
Michelle Dunne, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, argue that successful democratization of Egypt will have a considerable impact on the whole Arab world. Egypt is a birthplace of pan-Arabism and the first country to the peace treaty with Israel. Its population is by far the largest among Arab nations. Both experts recommend smart and targeted assistance to Egypt. They argue that Western aid must be focused on the economy rather than military, such as debt forgiveness and free trade agreement. Also, mentioning a report of recent trip to Egypt by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, they insist on increasing private investment which Egyptians need, and send a delegation of high-tech industry there (“Why Egypt Has To Be the U.S. Priority in the Middle East”; Washington Post; March 7, 2011). Since anti-Mubarak youth stood up to demand improvements in the economy and social inequality, their recommendation will be plausible. Quite importantly, both authors advise the US government to respect self rise movements by Egyptians, and not to impose American-styled democracy. Kagan and Dunne argue that Middle East policy needs a high powered leader to act beyond bureaucratic sectionalism, and put a unique proposal that the Obama administration appoint a Middle East Transition Czar.
Things in Libya are completely different as Colonel Muammar Khadafi clings to power. While Western policymakers advocate that a no-fly-zone be imposed on Libya, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is skeptic to American capability for such a mission, and even hopes of leaving it to Britain, France, and Italy (“Robert Gates on Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Defense Budget”; Weekly Standard Blog; February 23, 2011). As the Obama administration is cautious of intervention to Libya, foreign policy and human rights experts, including Robert Kagan, William Kristol, and former officials of the Bush and Clinton administration, urged President Obama to take actions against Colonel Khadafi’s repression, notably establishing no-fly-zone (Open Letter; Foreign Policy Initiative; February 25, 2011). Jamie Fly, Executive Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative points out that enforcing a no-fly-zone by the United States and key allies does not need the approval of the UN Security Council, as in previous cases of Iraq and Kosovo. He also argues that the Obama administration not dismiss America’s moral obligation to defend Libyan citizens attacked by Khadafi (“Opposing view: A moral obligation to intervene”; USA Today; March 3, 2011). Moreover, Fly criticizes the inaction, because even liberal New York Times argues “the Obama administration is throwing out so many conflicting messages on Libya that they are blunting any potential pressure on the Libyan regime and weakening American credibility” (“What Should We Do About Libya?”; National Review Online Symposium; March 10, 2011).
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met a delegation of the Benghazi government in waiting which is called the National Transitional Council in Paris. If the council is recognized by the global community, it can use Libya’s overseas assets and export oil. Though France recognized this post Khadafi regime, the waiting regime does not agree with the United States on Israel-Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan (“Rebel council seeks to transform Libya”; Washington Post; March 15, 2011). But this is also the case with the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. I do not believe it a legitimate reason for the United States to abstain from supporting the anti-Khadafi rebel. Despite that, the United States did not agree to a no-fly-zone initiative by France and Britain at G8 foreign ministers meeting in Paris (“France fails to get G8 accord on Libya no-fly zone”; Reuters; March 15, 2011). The Obama administration may be traumatized by the Bush administration’s experience in the Iraq War, but an obsession with a UN resolution will simply delay necessary action. This is a critical test of current administration’s use of smart power.
While some analysts argue that Iran will fill the Middle East power vacuum in view of the fall of pro-Western Arab governments, Karim Sadjapour, Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace comments the opposite. Potential reemergence of democratized Egypt will undermine relative power of Iran. Also, he says that Iran has the same problems of repression and deteriorating economy as those in Egypt and Tunisia. Furthermore, Arab Shiites in Iraq and Bahrain do not feel themselves familiar to Iran (“Arabs Rise, Tehran Trembles”; New York Times; March 5, 2011). It is quite likely that the Arab transition will stimulate youngsters in Iran who stood up in the Green Movement.
Finally, I would like to explore the big picture of the Arab world and the guidelines to advance democracy in this region. Marwan Muasher insists that the West must give priority to political reform over economic liberalization, as the market economy without checks and balances brought wealth to the ruling class and simply widened socio-economic inequality. Also, he calls an attention to the vital fact that the protests spread nationwide by ordinary citizens who were annoyed with autocrats, not Islamists who cling to outmoded theocracy. That makes a compromise with a repressive regime useless (“Arab Myths and Realities”; Project Syndicate; March 8, 2011).
While some experts compare current Arab democratization with the fall of Berlin Wall, Thomas Carothers, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, comments cautiously. Unlike monolithically communist Central and Eastern Europe in the Cold War era, Arab nations are more diversified, including reformist monarchs, conservative monarchs, autocratic presidents, tribal states, failing states, oil-rich states, and water-poor states. Also, Arab leaders are more independent of the West than those in Central and Eastern Europe. However, that does not mean Arab democracy is difficult to achieve, as Arab activists are keen to learn successful experiences abroad. Islamists may be well organized, but they need support from swing voters to win majority. Quite importantly, Carothers points out that Islamists in the Arab world were willing to work within multiparty systems (“Think Again: Arab Democracy”; Foreign Policy; March 10, 2011).
The path to democracy in the Middle East is not so simplistic. Gulf monarchies are key allies to the West, and slow but steady approaches are necessary. Such approaches differ from one country to another. In some cases, bold interventions are required, and the Obama administration is finally moving toward endorsing France and Britain in Libya (“Specter of Rebel Rout Helps Shift U.S. Policy on Libya”; New York Times; March 16, 2011). On the other hand, things in Bahrain grow difficult to manage. Democracy in the Middle East has become an America’s agenda since 9-11, and critical tests are posed now.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Middle East Democracy: American Dream Will Come True?
The United States has been exploring political reform in the Middle East for a long time. Leading think tanks and NGOs have been helping empowerment of rural communities, women, ethnic minorities and so forth in the Middle East. Particularly, since 9-11 terrorist attack, and subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, American policymakers have begun to give high priority on democracy promotion throughout the world. European foreign policy experts follow this. Moreover, have any Japanese leaders talked about Middle East political reform so seriously without US-led initiatives associated with the Afghan and the Iraq wars? Only through joint endeavor of the Western alliance, has Middle East democracy become a key agenda of global security to defeat terrorists, like Al Qaeda.
Some people say that the unrest in the Middle East implies the decline of American influence. As Facebook revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are posing impacts to Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, they argue that grassroots quest for democracy will shake pro-American but corrupt regimes, which will tempt Iran to expand its influences (“As Arab world shakes, Iran's influence grows”; San Jose Mercury News; February 23, 2011). Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was critically alarmed by Iranian warship passage through the Suez Canal (“Passage of Iran ships through Suez delayed by 48 hours”; Haaretz; February 20, 2011).
It is partly true that the unrest in the Middle East provides a good chance for emerging powers to fill the power vacuum. As the fall of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt suggests, new democratic regime may not necessarily be a staunch ally to the West and Israel. However, we must remember that distrust to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan has grown among the American public since 9-11 attacks, although they are long term allies to the United States. Suicide bombers in the attacks were mostly Saudi Arabians and Pakistanis. Innumerable conservative bloggers among grassroots Americans detest corruption and poor governance in both countries that nurtured terrorism.
Western intellectuals are also bitter to Middle East dictatorship and monarchy. Christopher Davidson, Reader at Durham University in the United Kingdom, argues that wealthy and unaccountable Persian Gulf monarchs are no longer. exempt from Middle East turmoil. Davidson says Gulf monarchy is akin to single party dictatorship as political parties are mostly forbidden. Social inequality and human rights abuse are not the only problems. Due to nepotism and long rule by current monarchs, Saudi Arabia and Oman have problems to select competent successors. Therefore, governability of Gulf sultanates is deadlocked (“Lords of the Realm”; Foreign Policy; February 21, 2011). Former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband compares current Middle East to Berlin 1989 rather than Iran 1979 on Twitter.
Among Arab nations, Egypt is the key to foresee the transformation for democracy. Michael Barone, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that reform in the Middle East will give an unprecedented opportunity for American leaders to ally with only pristine partners. In history, the United States had to take an option to be allied with autocratic regimes such as Stalin’s Soviet Union, in order to defeat more critical threats (“As with Other Fallen Allies, Egypt Will Vex the US”; Washington Examiner; February 5, 2011). Senator John McCain expresses unabashed support for civil movements, and says it is a great opportunity to advance toward Ronald Reagan’s dream of the world free of tyranny (“John McCain on Egypt”; Weekly Standard Blog; February 8, 2011).
Middle East unrest is not a great opportunity for contenders to the West. The rise of Islamic democracy will inflict impacts on China. Minxin Pei, Adjunct senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points out that Chinese leaders are beginning to understand that economic growth-based legitimacy is unreliable, since social inequality and corruption are becoming increasingly serious as seen in Egypt. Pei argues that the Chinese Communist Party must take a difficult step toward gradual democratization like Taiwan, Mexico, and Brazil (”The Message for China from Tahrir Square”; Financial times; 12 February, 2011).
Russia is also just a reactionary actor. NATO Under Secretary Lord George Hakobyan mentions that Russia sent weapons to dictator regimes such as Libya and Yemen, in order to manage the unrest. Like China, turmoil in the Middle East is no chance for Russia to replace America in this region.
While Iran explores to seize the opportunity to expand influences in the Middle East, it faces domestic uprisings. For fear of another Green Movement, the Shiite theocracy arrested opposition leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi. Now, the United States and the EU discusses tougher sanctions on Iran, as taken against Libya (“What about Iran?”; Wall Street Journal; March 3, 2011). Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton argues that the United States is legitimately interested in preventing Iranian expansionist ambition to help democracy throughout the Middle East (“How Freedom's Foes Exploit Arab Unrest”; New York Post; February 21, 2011). Things do not necessarily develop in favor of Iran.
Recent turmoil in Libya shows us that only US and NATO troops can act as the Global Police Force. Regarding Western intervention, Ibrahim Sharqieh, deputy director of Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, said, "I don't think they would have any problem with this. I would suspect that the Arab world would support this" (“Analysts: More Libyan bloodshed could prompt U.S., NATO intervention”; CNN; February 25, 2011). According to Sir Richard Dalton, Former British Ambassador to Libya, the threat of bloodshed in this country is serious enough to consider international humanitarian armed intervention. Though Russia and China oppose Western military intervention, Libya has been isolated in the Arab world. Also, Libyan oil production can be replaced in the short term by others like Saudi Arabia. Dalton says both points are the key to make Western humanitarian intervention more acceptable (“We must stand ready to intervene in Libya”; Daily Telegraph; 27 February, 2011).
Since Middle East reform is a long time policy pursuit of the United States, Michelle Dunne, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote a letter to President Barack Obama and secretary of State Hillary Clinton to urge US involvement in democratic transition of Egypt (Open Letter; Working Group on Egypt; February 7, 2011). Furthermore, William Kristol says if Obama helps Arab democracy, “we critics of his administration here at home will be glad to salute him” (“Obama's moment in the Middle East - and at home”; Washington Post; February 23, 2011). Regarding widespread concerns to Islamists, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Former Member of the Parliament of the Netherland, denies the rise of fundamentalism. In case of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is an ideologically diversified group, consisted of tribal leaders, free-market liberals, socialists, hard-core Marxists and human rights activists. Ali points out that it is vital to found effective organizations to make democracy sustainable (“Get Ready for the Muslim Brotherhood”; New York Times; February 3, 2011).
The media dramatize the Facebook revolution, but internet software is just a tool. People who use the software are far more important than Facebook or Twitter. Don’t forget that American and European development aid organizations, think tanks and NGOs have been involved in empowerment of Middle East citizens. That has given tremendous help to awaken educated people in this region. The Obama administration needs to bear it in mind.
Some people say that the unrest in the Middle East implies the decline of American influence. As Facebook revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are posing impacts to Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, they argue that grassroots quest for democracy will shake pro-American but corrupt regimes, which will tempt Iran to expand its influences (“As Arab world shakes, Iran's influence grows”; San Jose Mercury News; February 23, 2011). Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was critically alarmed by Iranian warship passage through the Suez Canal (“Passage of Iran ships through Suez delayed by 48 hours”; Haaretz; February 20, 2011).
It is partly true that the unrest in the Middle East provides a good chance for emerging powers to fill the power vacuum. As the fall of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt suggests, new democratic regime may not necessarily be a staunch ally to the West and Israel. However, we must remember that distrust to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan has grown among the American public since 9-11 attacks, although they are long term allies to the United States. Suicide bombers in the attacks were mostly Saudi Arabians and Pakistanis. Innumerable conservative bloggers among grassroots Americans detest corruption and poor governance in both countries that nurtured terrorism.
Western intellectuals are also bitter to Middle East dictatorship and monarchy. Christopher Davidson, Reader at Durham University in the United Kingdom, argues that wealthy and unaccountable Persian Gulf monarchs are no longer. exempt from Middle East turmoil. Davidson says Gulf monarchy is akin to single party dictatorship as political parties are mostly forbidden. Social inequality and human rights abuse are not the only problems. Due to nepotism and long rule by current monarchs, Saudi Arabia and Oman have problems to select competent successors. Therefore, governability of Gulf sultanates is deadlocked (“Lords of the Realm”; Foreign Policy; February 21, 2011). Former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband compares current Middle East to Berlin 1989 rather than Iran 1979 on Twitter.
Among Arab nations, Egypt is the key to foresee the transformation for democracy. Michael Barone, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that reform in the Middle East will give an unprecedented opportunity for American leaders to ally with only pristine partners. In history, the United States had to take an option to be allied with autocratic regimes such as Stalin’s Soviet Union, in order to defeat more critical threats (“As with Other Fallen Allies, Egypt Will Vex the US”; Washington Examiner; February 5, 2011). Senator John McCain expresses unabashed support for civil movements, and says it is a great opportunity to advance toward Ronald Reagan’s dream of the world free of tyranny (“John McCain on Egypt”; Weekly Standard Blog; February 8, 2011).
Middle East unrest is not a great opportunity for contenders to the West. The rise of Islamic democracy will inflict impacts on China. Minxin Pei, Adjunct senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points out that Chinese leaders are beginning to understand that economic growth-based legitimacy is unreliable, since social inequality and corruption are becoming increasingly serious as seen in Egypt. Pei argues that the Chinese Communist Party must take a difficult step toward gradual democratization like Taiwan, Mexico, and Brazil (”The Message for China from Tahrir Square”; Financial times; 12 February, 2011).
Russia is also just a reactionary actor. NATO Under Secretary Lord George Hakobyan mentions that Russia sent weapons to dictator regimes such as Libya and Yemen, in order to manage the unrest. Like China, turmoil in the Middle East is no chance for Russia to replace America in this region.
While Iran explores to seize the opportunity to expand influences in the Middle East, it faces domestic uprisings. For fear of another Green Movement, the Shiite theocracy arrested opposition leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi. Now, the United States and the EU discusses tougher sanctions on Iran, as taken against Libya (“What about Iran?”; Wall Street Journal; March 3, 2011). Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton argues that the United States is legitimately interested in preventing Iranian expansionist ambition to help democracy throughout the Middle East (“How Freedom's Foes Exploit Arab Unrest”; New York Post; February 21, 2011). Things do not necessarily develop in favor of Iran.
Recent turmoil in Libya shows us that only US and NATO troops can act as the Global Police Force. Regarding Western intervention, Ibrahim Sharqieh, deputy director of Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, said, "I don't think they would have any problem with this. I would suspect that the Arab world would support this" (“Analysts: More Libyan bloodshed could prompt U.S., NATO intervention”; CNN; February 25, 2011). According to Sir Richard Dalton, Former British Ambassador to Libya, the threat of bloodshed in this country is serious enough to consider international humanitarian armed intervention. Though Russia and China oppose Western military intervention, Libya has been isolated in the Arab world. Also, Libyan oil production can be replaced in the short term by others like Saudi Arabia. Dalton says both points are the key to make Western humanitarian intervention more acceptable (“We must stand ready to intervene in Libya”; Daily Telegraph; 27 February, 2011).
Since Middle East reform is a long time policy pursuit of the United States, Michelle Dunne, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote a letter to President Barack Obama and secretary of State Hillary Clinton to urge US involvement in democratic transition of Egypt (Open Letter; Working Group on Egypt; February 7, 2011). Furthermore, William Kristol says if Obama helps Arab democracy, “we critics of his administration here at home will be glad to salute him” (“Obama's moment in the Middle East - and at home”; Washington Post; February 23, 2011). Regarding widespread concerns to Islamists, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Former Member of the Parliament of the Netherland, denies the rise of fundamentalism. In case of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is an ideologically diversified group, consisted of tribal leaders, free-market liberals, socialists, hard-core Marxists and human rights activists. Ali points out that it is vital to found effective organizations to make democracy sustainable (“Get Ready for the Muslim Brotherhood”; New York Times; February 3, 2011).
The media dramatize the Facebook revolution, but internet software is just a tool. People who use the software are far more important than Facebook or Twitter. Don’t forget that American and European development aid organizations, think tanks and NGOs have been involved in empowerment of Middle East citizens. That has given tremendous help to awaken educated people in this region. The Obama administration needs to bear it in mind.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Joining Paperblog
A blogger association called Paperblog invited Global American Discourse to join them. Click the following banner.
It is good news that Global American Discourse wins recognition. You will find some stimulating blogs in the United States and around the world on this site.
It is good news that Global American Discourse wins recognition. You will find some stimulating blogs in the United States and around the world on this site.
Friday, February 18, 2011
A Smart Use of American Smart Power: Don’t Be Apologetic to the Iraq War
I attended a US-Japanese policy dialogue, entitled “US-Japanese Relations in the Era of Smart Power” on February 14. This event was co-hosted by the Global Forum of Japan and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. As global issues are increasingly intertwined, consummate combination of hard power and soft power is more and more important. However, current East Asia is a Hobbesian world where China and North Korea challenge Western-led liberal order. Also, Russia joins the regional power game again. In a world like this, hard power is a key component. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the basic concept of smart power, and explore how to use it smartly.
At the beginning of the event, Michael Green, Japan Chair at the CSIS, told the basic notion of smart power that it was a reaction against the Iraq War. When I heard this, it sounded very apologetic to US foreign policy. In the early days, President Barack Obama sent messages of repent and regret in his speeches in Prague and Cairo. He even welcomed the “peaceful rise” of China at APEC Singapore summit. If the concept of smart power has come out as an apologetic reaction, this is a serious concern.
The Iraq War may have spurred anti-American sentiments, but we have to pay attention to a vital fact that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has triggered self rise democracy across the Middle East, the Green Movement in Iran, Facebook revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and moreover. Further impacts could spread eastward like Central Asia, including Uighur. The winds of change could penetrate into the area beyond the Islamic sphere such as Tibet and the Chinese mainland.
Therefore, I asked a question to Michael Green that if the concept of “smart power” is an apologetic reaction to the Iraq War. Particularly, in the early days, Obama was so preoccupied with the “Change” that his foreign policy appeared to be a Gladstonian Little Americanism. Bob Woodward says, “Obama is psychologically out of Afghanistan.” If “smart power” is a finesse word to express dis-involvement and unwillingness to maintain the public goods of our liberal world order, it is a critical concern. Also, as I mention above, despite bitter criticism, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein inactivated discussions on Middle East democracy among policymakers around the globe.
In reply to my question, Green said that the concept itself emerged in 2007 when US-led coalition faced terrorist attacks before the surge. But he said that apologetic aspects had been shed away since the Bush administration succeeded in defeating insurgents. As long as smart power is just a consummate combination of hard power and soft power to deal with new security challenges, I regard it as an innovative concept.
Talking of Iraq, nuclear nonproliferation is another cornerstone issue. A substantial number of critics point out that the Iraq War was illegitimate, as the allied forces could not find nuclear weapons when the Baathist regime was defeated. Some even say Iraq was not a threat. This is unfair. Iraq may not have developed nuclear bombs, but Saddam showed “never give up” attitudes against pressures and sanctions by the global community. It is such a long-lasting will of mass destruction that posed a grave threat to the global community. Saddam used chemical weapons against Kurdish minorities and the Iranian army. It is highly likely that he would have used nuclear weapons once he acquired.
Just a will of developing fatal arsenals poses a dreadful threat to us. Recent military build up of China is a good example. It is suspected that China made J20 stealth fighter through pirating American technology (“China's New Stealth Fighter May Use US Technology”; FOX News; January 23, 2011). Even though Chinese stealth fighter is less technologically advanced than American ones, China articulates its position to challenge the US air force. Furthermore, China is developing anti-aircraft carrier ballistic missile to strengthen access denial capability against US naval power as the Soviet Union did during the Cold War ("Chinese 'Carrier Killer' Missile Challenges US Regional Power"; AOL News; December 29, 2010). Though technological problems must be resolved, China’s ambition to establish military dominance in East Asian sea lanes has become open to the public. Considering those threats, I do not think the war to topple Saddam Hussein was an overreaction.
Remember those who opposed the Iraq War were not altruistic peace lovers. China and Russia confront Islamic separatist in their territories. Apparently, the rise of Islamic democracy, which will embolden Uyghur and Chechnya uprising, is intolerable for them. Also, France had business relations with Saddam’s regime. During the Iran-Iraq War, Israel bombed French-built nuclear plant in Iraq. Considering Saddam’s nuclear ambition, Gaullist foreign policy is not an acceptable excuse.
Both in terms of democracy promotion and nuclear nonproliferation, the United States do not have to be apologetic to Iraq. This is very important use smart power smartly to maintain and advance our liberal world order. Japan should have said this to Obama in the early days. To the contrary, Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama worsened the relationship with the United States over Futenma, which led to Chinese attack to Japanese patrol ship off Senkaku Islands. There is no doubt that Japanese Democrat administration is responsible for allowing Chinese expansionism through straining US-Japanese relations. But Obama is also to be blamed for showing apologetic attitude just to impress the “Change” from Republican foreign policy. Quite ironically, Hatoyama acted against his aspiration for “equal relations” with the United States. If he really hoped it, he should have told Obama not to repent the Iraq War as dialogues toward Middle East democratization has begun to inactivate since then. This is the real smart use of smart power.
Remember! When Yukio Hatoyama talked about equal relations with the United States, he was scorned and hated among America policymakers, from liberals to conservatives. That is not the case with British Foreign Secretary William Hague. His inauguration speech for equal Anglo-American relations was respected by Americans. What makes the Double H so different? There are many lessons to be learnt for a smart use of smart power in Middle East reform and US-Japanese relations.
At the beginning of the event, Michael Green, Japan Chair at the CSIS, told the basic notion of smart power that it was a reaction against the Iraq War. When I heard this, it sounded very apologetic to US foreign policy. In the early days, President Barack Obama sent messages of repent and regret in his speeches in Prague and Cairo. He even welcomed the “peaceful rise” of China at APEC Singapore summit. If the concept of smart power has come out as an apologetic reaction, this is a serious concern.
The Iraq War may have spurred anti-American sentiments, but we have to pay attention to a vital fact that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has triggered self rise democracy across the Middle East, the Green Movement in Iran, Facebook revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and moreover. Further impacts could spread eastward like Central Asia, including Uighur. The winds of change could penetrate into the area beyond the Islamic sphere such as Tibet and the Chinese mainland.
Therefore, I asked a question to Michael Green that if the concept of “smart power” is an apologetic reaction to the Iraq War. Particularly, in the early days, Obama was so preoccupied with the “Change” that his foreign policy appeared to be a Gladstonian Little Americanism. Bob Woodward says, “Obama is psychologically out of Afghanistan.” If “smart power” is a finesse word to express dis-involvement and unwillingness to maintain the public goods of our liberal world order, it is a critical concern. Also, as I mention above, despite bitter criticism, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein inactivated discussions on Middle East democracy among policymakers around the globe.
In reply to my question, Green said that the concept itself emerged in 2007 when US-led coalition faced terrorist attacks before the surge. But he said that apologetic aspects had been shed away since the Bush administration succeeded in defeating insurgents. As long as smart power is just a consummate combination of hard power and soft power to deal with new security challenges, I regard it as an innovative concept.
Talking of Iraq, nuclear nonproliferation is another cornerstone issue. A substantial number of critics point out that the Iraq War was illegitimate, as the allied forces could not find nuclear weapons when the Baathist regime was defeated. Some even say Iraq was not a threat. This is unfair. Iraq may not have developed nuclear bombs, but Saddam showed “never give up” attitudes against pressures and sanctions by the global community. It is such a long-lasting will of mass destruction that posed a grave threat to the global community. Saddam used chemical weapons against Kurdish minorities and the Iranian army. It is highly likely that he would have used nuclear weapons once he acquired.
Just a will of developing fatal arsenals poses a dreadful threat to us. Recent military build up of China is a good example. It is suspected that China made J20 stealth fighter through pirating American technology (“China's New Stealth Fighter May Use US Technology”; FOX News; January 23, 2011). Even though Chinese stealth fighter is less technologically advanced than American ones, China articulates its position to challenge the US air force. Furthermore, China is developing anti-aircraft carrier ballistic missile to strengthen access denial capability against US naval power as the Soviet Union did during the Cold War ("Chinese 'Carrier Killer' Missile Challenges US Regional Power"; AOL News; December 29, 2010). Though technological problems must be resolved, China’s ambition to establish military dominance in East Asian sea lanes has become open to the public. Considering those threats, I do not think the war to topple Saddam Hussein was an overreaction.
Remember those who opposed the Iraq War were not altruistic peace lovers. China and Russia confront Islamic separatist in their territories. Apparently, the rise of Islamic democracy, which will embolden Uyghur and Chechnya uprising, is intolerable for them. Also, France had business relations with Saddam’s regime. During the Iran-Iraq War, Israel bombed French-built nuclear plant in Iraq. Considering Saddam’s nuclear ambition, Gaullist foreign policy is not an acceptable excuse.
Both in terms of democracy promotion and nuclear nonproliferation, the United States do not have to be apologetic to Iraq. This is very important use smart power smartly to maintain and advance our liberal world order. Japan should have said this to Obama in the early days. To the contrary, Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama worsened the relationship with the United States over Futenma, which led to Chinese attack to Japanese patrol ship off Senkaku Islands. There is no doubt that Japanese Democrat administration is responsible for allowing Chinese expansionism through straining US-Japanese relations. But Obama is also to be blamed for showing apologetic attitude just to impress the “Change” from Republican foreign policy. Quite ironically, Hatoyama acted against his aspiration for “equal relations” with the United States. If he really hoped it, he should have told Obama not to repent the Iraq War as dialogues toward Middle East democratization has begun to inactivate since then. This is the real smart use of smart power.
Remember! When Yukio Hatoyama talked about equal relations with the United States, he was scorned and hated among America policymakers, from liberals to conservatives. That is not the case with British Foreign Secretary William Hague. His inauguration speech for equal Anglo-American relations was respected by Americans. What makes the Double H so different? There are many lessons to be learnt for a smart use of smart power in Middle East reform and US-Japanese relations.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Professor Nye’s New Book on the American World Order
Joseph Nye, University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University, has released a new book “The Future of Power”. See the interview video below by the Harvard Center for Public Leadership.
According to conventional wisdom, power of the state consists of hard power and soft power. A new concept, called smart power, is a combination of both powers. Today, the nature of power has become increasingly complicated, which is beyond military and economic dimensions. Nye points out that democracy is inefficient in converting power resources into desired results, but a competition of ideas endows legitimate soft power. Autocracy may be efficient in converting power resources into desired results, but in the long term, Nye says that it will lead to corruption and poor governance.
Professor Nye denies what is called “American decline”, because the share of US GDP in the world economy has not changed so much since 1970s. Nye argues this is just a psychology, because Americans around 2001 were “overconfident” in their power. Nye points out two important power shifts. One is from Western industrialized economies to Asian emerging economies. The rise of China should be understood in this context, as Asian nations develop their industrial basis. The other is from state actors to non-state actors. Information technology has led to information diffusion, which provides unprecedented power with individuals and private groups to exert influences on global policymaking. There are some typical cases such as humanitarian NGOs, terrorist groups, and Facebook revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.
Professor Joseph Nye talks of key points of US foreign policy and its global leadership in this century. Particularly, changing nature of power is the vital issue in this book.
According to conventional wisdom, power of the state consists of hard power and soft power. A new concept, called smart power, is a combination of both powers. Today, the nature of power has become increasingly complicated, which is beyond military and economic dimensions. Nye points out that democracy is inefficient in converting power resources into desired results, but a competition of ideas endows legitimate soft power. Autocracy may be efficient in converting power resources into desired results, but in the long term, Nye says that it will lead to corruption and poor governance.
Professor Nye denies what is called “American decline”, because the share of US GDP in the world economy has not changed so much since 1970s. Nye argues this is just a psychology, because Americans around 2001 were “overconfident” in their power. Nye points out two important power shifts. One is from Western industrialized economies to Asian emerging economies. The rise of China should be understood in this context, as Asian nations develop their industrial basis. The other is from state actors to non-state actors. Information technology has led to information diffusion, which provides unprecedented power with individuals and private groups to exert influences on global policymaking. There are some typical cases such as humanitarian NGOs, terrorist groups, and Facebook revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.
Professor Joseph Nye talks of key points of US foreign policy and its global leadership in this century. Particularly, changing nature of power is the vital issue in this book.
Monday, January 24, 2011
America’s Role and the Risk of Defense Cut
American foreign policy faces multiple challenges, and policymakers are exploring post 9-11 security road maps. In addition to terrorism, new issues such as reemergence of Russia and China, non-proliferation and so forth, are growing more and more critical under the Obama administration. Shortly after the midterm elections, President Barack Obama attended NATO summit in Lisbon in order to discuss new security concepts with European allies to manage global security problems. Meanwhile, recent North Korean attack to Yeongpyeong Island of South Korea has brought a vital fact home to us that how indispensable American military preeminence is to global security. Should US defense power be cut prematurely in the name of new security vision, and should we even be willing to accept a multipolar world and American decline as liberals and doves say?
Security issues are increasingly intertwined with socio-economic aspects today, unlike straightforward Communism containment during the Cold War era. Therefore, the Quadrennial Defense Review, published by the United States Institute for Peace last December, recommends “the U.S. government must adopt a comprehensive approach to its national security mission, creating partnerships among multiple federal agencies as well as state and local governments, private industry, allies, international organizations, indigenous elements, and the American people.” The QDR also advised to remove sectional barriers among the federal government (“Security Can’t Stop with DoD”; Defense News; December 20, 2010).
Despite such compelling challenges, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen announced military budget cut on January 6. In view of fiscal duress, Gates says that defense spending is no exception. Massive spending reduction is expected in the Army and Marine Corps after 2015 when the US forces withdraw from Afghanistan (”Defense budget: to cut $100 billion, Army and Marines will shrink”; Christian Science Monitor; January 6, 2011). Amphibious landing-crafts for Marine Corps will be canceled (“Gates wants to drop $14 billion Marine landing-craft program”; Washington Post; January 5, 2011). Also, the purchase order of F-35B V/STOL fighters for Marine Corps will be suspended (“JSF Tests Slips Again, Purchase to Be Slashed”; Aviation Week; January 11, 2011), because British Prime Minister David Cameron decided to introduce less-expensive and longer-range F-35C carrier variants for forthcoming Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (“Cameron: UK to swap JSFs to carrier variant, axe Harrier and Nimrod”; Flightglobal; 19 October, 2010). While cutting expenditures for costly equipments, Secretary Gates pledged more spending on unmanned aircrafts and sea crafts, and long range bombers.
Regarding the defense spending cut, Thomas Mahnken, Visiting Scholar at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University, insists that US defense spending must not be reduced for the sake of efficiency. Mahnken agrees to Gates’s plan to postpone F-35B, and cancel costly arsenals like Army’s new surface to air missiles and Marine Corps fighting vehicles. On the other hand, he argues that further modernization such as next generation bombers and Virginia class attack submarines are necessary to deter China’s military ambition in the Western Pacific (“Gates's defense cuts: A glass half full -- but also half empty”; Shadow Government—Foreign Policy Blog; January 7, 2010).
The defense spending plan is not just an issue of fiscal austerity and military demand. Also, US defense policy needs to go along with those of key democratic allies. At NATO summit in Lisbon on November 19 and 20, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced the New Security Concept toward more global, inclusive, and efficient organization to tackle post 9-11 world security. New problems such as missile proliferation and cyber attacks are key issues. Regarding counter-insurgency strategy, NATO will establish civilian sectors to help reconstruction of local societies and improvement of local security force, in view of experience in Afghanistan. For the first step, NATO trains the Afghan government, armed forces, and police, before transferring security responsibility in 2014. Also, Secretary General Rasmussen and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev declared to renew to mutual relations to develop cooperation on terrorism, piracy, and Afghan security. Moreover, Rasmussen even said that NATO would discuss territorial missile defense with Russia, which was a hurdle to reset US-Russian relations before the Obama-Medvedev meeting in Moscow (”Summit meetings of Heads of State and Government”; NATO Newsroom; 19 November ~ 20 November, 2010). Full text of the New Security Concept is shown here.
The Obama administration moves toward cooperation with challenging great powers, but should America accept multi-polarity so recklessly? Let me mention a presentation of an overview of US foreign policy by Senator John McCain at the Foreign Policy Initiative on November 15. Regarding the Pearl Necklace strategy of China, McCain said security partnership with Pacific and Indian Ocean nations was necessary to prevent deadly conflicts with China. Also, McCain said that free trade agreements with Asia would bolster American political presence in the region. Russia may not be able to reignite the Cold War, but Kremlin autocracy will make clashes with the West inevitable. As to Iran, McCain criticized Obama for lukewarm approaches to support democracy movements during the last Iranian presidential election. Senator McCain shows understandings of the Gates plan to cut costs, but he firmly insists that America’s role for global security not be diminished.
Currently, the most critical challenge to a liberal world order of Pax Americana is the “peaceful rise” of China. While the American side is alarmed with rapid military build up of China, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie gave little consideration to this when US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talked with him. China’s impatience to take over Taiwan threatens America’s Pacific allies such as Japan and Australia (“Can Obama cut the military in the face of a rising China?”; Christian Science Monitor; January 11, 2011). Despite rapid technological development like stealth fighter, U.S. intelligence lacks concrete information about China's military changes (“Defense Secretary Gates: U.S. underestimated parts of China's military modernization”; Washington Post; January 9, 2011). Experts say that the new stealth fighter called J-20 does not seem to match US counterpart F-22, because its engine systems are less compatible with stealth technology than those of American ones (“Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter In Taxi Tests”; Aviation Week; January 3, 2011). Even though, China reveals its own ambition to defy American hegemony.
In view of resurgent challenges including China, conservatives and neoconservatives raise critical concerns to defense cut by the Obama administration. Arthur Herman, a historian, warns that unilateral defense drawback under President Obama and Secretary Gates is inappropriate when America is fighting wars and new threats are growing. Herman says it is not a peace time now, unlike shortly after World War Ⅱ and the Cold War. Though he agrees that US armed forces be modernized and cost-effective, he insists that they must be big enough to deter expansionism of Russia and China. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is no reason for premature defense cut (The Re-Hollowing of the Military”; Commentary; September 2010). Furthermore, Herman argues that military spending is the best economic stimulus (“Don't Let O Disarm Our Military”; New York Post; January 10, 2011). Considering technological spin-off effects, I agree with him. Knowledge is our advantage over cheap labor emerging economies.
Today, US defense expenditure accounts for merely 3.8% of GDP, if purely operational war costs are subtracted. This is just 2/3 of traditional peace time outlays of 5.7%. Even if war costs are included, the total defense spending is only 4.6% of GDP (“America's Dangerous Rush to Shrink Its Military Power”; Wall Street Journal; December 27, 2010). Thomas Donnelly, Resident Fellow, and Gary Schmitt, Resident Scholar, both at the American Enterprise Institute, criticizes the Obama administration’s attitude to talk of defense spending in the same way as cutting inefficient expenditure in education. They insist that America’s role in the world must not be diminished in the name of budget efficiency (“Slashing Pentagon Spending Isn't the Same as Cutting Education Funding”; Washington Examiner; December 7, 2010).
At the panel discussion at the Brookings Institution on December 28, Senior Fellow Robert Kagan mentioned the fundamental point why defense cut for the deficit reduction would damage America’s national interest. American economic prosperity is guaranteed under a liberal world order protected by its own military strength. Kagan says that premature defense cut will lead to the same isolationist mistake as committed during the interwar period. See the video below.
In conclusion, let me quote a tweet by Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. At time of war and growing security threats abroad, Secretary Gates's proposed defense cuts would make the US less secure and able to defend itself.
Security issues are increasingly intertwined with socio-economic aspects today, unlike straightforward Communism containment during the Cold War era. Therefore, the Quadrennial Defense Review, published by the United States Institute for Peace last December, recommends “the U.S. government must adopt a comprehensive approach to its national security mission, creating partnerships among multiple federal agencies as well as state and local governments, private industry, allies, international organizations, indigenous elements, and the American people.” The QDR also advised to remove sectional barriers among the federal government (“Security Can’t Stop with DoD”; Defense News; December 20, 2010).
Despite such compelling challenges, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen announced military budget cut on January 6. In view of fiscal duress, Gates says that defense spending is no exception. Massive spending reduction is expected in the Army and Marine Corps after 2015 when the US forces withdraw from Afghanistan (”Defense budget: to cut $100 billion, Army and Marines will shrink”; Christian Science Monitor; January 6, 2011). Amphibious landing-crafts for Marine Corps will be canceled (“Gates wants to drop $14 billion Marine landing-craft program”; Washington Post; January 5, 2011). Also, the purchase order of F-35B V/STOL fighters for Marine Corps will be suspended (“JSF Tests Slips Again, Purchase to Be Slashed”; Aviation Week; January 11, 2011), because British Prime Minister David Cameron decided to introduce less-expensive and longer-range F-35C carrier variants for forthcoming Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (“Cameron: UK to swap JSFs to carrier variant, axe Harrier and Nimrod”; Flightglobal; 19 October, 2010). While cutting expenditures for costly equipments, Secretary Gates pledged more spending on unmanned aircrafts and sea crafts, and long range bombers.
Regarding the defense spending cut, Thomas Mahnken, Visiting Scholar at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University, insists that US defense spending must not be reduced for the sake of efficiency. Mahnken agrees to Gates’s plan to postpone F-35B, and cancel costly arsenals like Army’s new surface to air missiles and Marine Corps fighting vehicles. On the other hand, he argues that further modernization such as next generation bombers and Virginia class attack submarines are necessary to deter China’s military ambition in the Western Pacific (“Gates's defense cuts: A glass half full -- but also half empty”; Shadow Government—Foreign Policy Blog; January 7, 2010).
The defense spending plan is not just an issue of fiscal austerity and military demand. Also, US defense policy needs to go along with those of key democratic allies. At NATO summit in Lisbon on November 19 and 20, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced the New Security Concept toward more global, inclusive, and efficient organization to tackle post 9-11 world security. New problems such as missile proliferation and cyber attacks are key issues. Regarding counter-insurgency strategy, NATO will establish civilian sectors to help reconstruction of local societies and improvement of local security force, in view of experience in Afghanistan. For the first step, NATO trains the Afghan government, armed forces, and police, before transferring security responsibility in 2014. Also, Secretary General Rasmussen and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev declared to renew to mutual relations to develop cooperation on terrorism, piracy, and Afghan security. Moreover, Rasmussen even said that NATO would discuss territorial missile defense with Russia, which was a hurdle to reset US-Russian relations before the Obama-Medvedev meeting in Moscow (”Summit meetings of Heads of State and Government”; NATO Newsroom; 19 November ~ 20 November, 2010). Full text of the New Security Concept is shown here.
The Obama administration moves toward cooperation with challenging great powers, but should America accept multi-polarity so recklessly? Let me mention a presentation of an overview of US foreign policy by Senator John McCain at the Foreign Policy Initiative on November 15. Regarding the Pearl Necklace strategy of China, McCain said security partnership with Pacific and Indian Ocean nations was necessary to prevent deadly conflicts with China. Also, McCain said that free trade agreements with Asia would bolster American political presence in the region. Russia may not be able to reignite the Cold War, but Kremlin autocracy will make clashes with the West inevitable. As to Iran, McCain criticized Obama for lukewarm approaches to support democracy movements during the last Iranian presidential election. Senator McCain shows understandings of the Gates plan to cut costs, but he firmly insists that America’s role for global security not be diminished.
Currently, the most critical challenge to a liberal world order of Pax Americana is the “peaceful rise” of China. While the American side is alarmed with rapid military build up of China, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie gave little consideration to this when US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talked with him. China’s impatience to take over Taiwan threatens America’s Pacific allies such as Japan and Australia (“Can Obama cut the military in the face of a rising China?”; Christian Science Monitor; January 11, 2011). Despite rapid technological development like stealth fighter, U.S. intelligence lacks concrete information about China's military changes (“Defense Secretary Gates: U.S. underestimated parts of China's military modernization”; Washington Post; January 9, 2011). Experts say that the new stealth fighter called J-20 does not seem to match US counterpart F-22, because its engine systems are less compatible with stealth technology than those of American ones (“Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter In Taxi Tests”; Aviation Week; January 3, 2011). Even though, China reveals its own ambition to defy American hegemony.
In view of resurgent challenges including China, conservatives and neoconservatives raise critical concerns to defense cut by the Obama administration. Arthur Herman, a historian, warns that unilateral defense drawback under President Obama and Secretary Gates is inappropriate when America is fighting wars and new threats are growing. Herman says it is not a peace time now, unlike shortly after World War Ⅱ and the Cold War. Though he agrees that US armed forces be modernized and cost-effective, he insists that they must be big enough to deter expansionism of Russia and China. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is no reason for premature defense cut (The Re-Hollowing of the Military”; Commentary; September 2010). Furthermore, Herman argues that military spending is the best economic stimulus (“Don't Let O Disarm Our Military”; New York Post; January 10, 2011). Considering technological spin-off effects, I agree with him. Knowledge is our advantage over cheap labor emerging economies.
Today, US defense expenditure accounts for merely 3.8% of GDP, if purely operational war costs are subtracted. This is just 2/3 of traditional peace time outlays of 5.7%. Even if war costs are included, the total defense spending is only 4.6% of GDP (“America's Dangerous Rush to Shrink Its Military Power”; Wall Street Journal; December 27, 2010). Thomas Donnelly, Resident Fellow, and Gary Schmitt, Resident Scholar, both at the American Enterprise Institute, criticizes the Obama administration’s attitude to talk of defense spending in the same way as cutting inefficient expenditure in education. They insist that America’s role in the world must not be diminished in the name of budget efficiency (“Slashing Pentagon Spending Isn't the Same as Cutting Education Funding”; Washington Examiner; December 7, 2010).
At the panel discussion at the Brookings Institution on December 28, Senior Fellow Robert Kagan mentioned the fundamental point why defense cut for the deficit reduction would damage America’s national interest. American economic prosperity is guaranteed under a liberal world order protected by its own military strength. Kagan says that premature defense cut will lead to the same isolationist mistake as committed during the interwar period. See the video below.
In conclusion, let me quote a tweet by Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. At time of war and growing security threats abroad, Secretary Gates's proposed defense cuts would make the US less secure and able to defend itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)