It is widely believed that neoconservative foreign policy will lead to inevitable clashes with key US allies, notably Europe and Japan. But regardless of party politics, American foreign policy will be more or less neoconservative, due to its ideological base of national foundation and the role of hegemonic state to maintain a liberal world order. Does this mean the United States always take go-it alone policy?
Actually, Europe has begun to explore more involvement in global security, since the Iraq rift. NATO and the EU will be upgraded to expand their worldwide influence. Therefore, I would like to talk about neoconservatism in America after the Bush administration, and burden sharing with Europe and Japan to tackle global challenges.
To begin with I will talk of the future of neoconservatism. Joshua Muravchik, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that neither liberals nor realists have not coherent foreign policy approaches for the post 9-11 world, despite some troubles in Iraq. This is why neoconservatism captures the heart of President George W. Bush in the War on Terror. At the end of his essay, Muravchik concludes as the following.
One can always wish that policies were executed better, but for a strategy in the war that has been imposed upon us, neoconservatism remains the only game in town. (“The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism”; Commentary; October 2007)
There are three key points in neoconservative foreign policy. First, it is moralistic and strongly recognizes that America be the foremost leader of liberal values. Second, it is internationalist like many liberals, and assumes that any threat to American security must be curbed at an early stage, even though that is far away from US homeland. Third, it trusts efficacy of military force like most conservatives, and doubts economic sanctions and UN resolutions.
As widely mentioned among opinion leaders, Muravchik attributes some difficulties in Iraq to policy errors by Ex Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He did not send enough troops, but since the surge based on policy recommendations by Frederick Kagan at the AEI and Ex-General Jack Kean, operations in Iraq is turning successful.
Even though some opinion leaders insist that the war in Iraq is in the wrong place against wrong enemy, they are not necessarily dovish. They believe in America’s special role that the United States must be willing to use military power for moralistic leadership. Democrat Senator Barack Obama insists on bombing terrorist camps in Pakistan, instead of Iraq. Also, Michael A. Ledeen, Freedom Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that the United States should focus on the threat of Iran, not Iraq. Regardless of position in the Iraq debate, any administration is likely to take more or less neoconservative approaches.
Does this lead to inevitable clash between the United States and Europe? Actually, some Europeans are advocates of world order led by the American Empire.
British historian Niall Ferguson, Laurence A. Tisch Professor at Harvard University, is too well known. In his books, “Empire” and “Colossus”, Ferguson insists that the United States be more interventionist to maintain a liberal world order as Britain was.
Another European advocate of American hegemony is Josef Joffe, Editor of German weekly “Die Zeit” and Visiting Professor at Stanford University. In his book, “Überpower”, Joffe discusses how to maintain the American world order. Moreover, he defends the special relationship between the United States and Israel in the article “A World without Israel” in Foreign Policy, January 2005.
In France, Jacques Chirac has gone, and Nicholas Sarkozy has taken power.
Not only do some European opinion leaders support American hegemony, but also European nations explore more active involvement. According to Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Europeans are stepping toward expansionist policy, in view of disturbances in Ukraine, the Balkans, Turkey, and North Africa (“Embraceable EU”; Washington Post; December 5, 2004). In the support for democracy in Ukraine, Europeans played no less important role than Americans.
Robert Cooper, Ex-British Diplomat and Member of European Council on Foreign Relations, insists on attracting new members from East Europe and Turkey, in order to pursue a liberal imperialist policy. Through this way, Europeans promote democracy for global and their own security. Also, NATO expansion could strengthen transatlantic endeavor to bolster a liberal world order. Robert Kagan concludes his article, “That could prove a far more important strategic boon to the United States than a few thousand European troops in Iraq.”
This October, the British government has released a new report, entitled “Global Europe”. This report, published by the Cabinet Office and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, recommends joint EU efforts to deepen liberal and democratic societies in Eastern and Southern neighbors; and also, joint sanctions against repressive regimes in Burma, Iran, and North Korea.
While Europe is stepping up towards active global commitment, Japan is wasting too much energy on trivial legal debate regarding further operations in the Indian Ocean. It is utterly stupid to spend much time on such a petty parliamentary talk in the era of global war on terror. This sort of excessive adherence to the notorious pacifist constitution would make Japan an under achiever. Remember, Japan has succeeded in joining top achievers club, through “getting out of backward Asia, and becoming the West.” Japanese leaders should bear this in mind, if seriously exploring NATO membership.
Neoconservative foreign policy does not necessarily lead to unilateralism of the United States. It presents much clearer vision to manage the world than other ideological sects. Neoconservative agendas are vital to European and Japanese interests as well. Ultimately, whoever the President of the United States is, his or her foreign policy is more or less neoconservative
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
On American Endeavor for Global Democracy
Whoever the President of the United States is, democracy promotion is a key agenda in American foreign policy. Successful promotion of this ideology bolsters American soft power. As a commemorative event of publishing a new report “US Democracy Promotion During and After Bush” by Thomas Carothers, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace held a panel discussion on September 12.
This event was moderated by Jenifer Windsor, Executive Director of Freedom House. As the author of this report, Thomas Carothers, Vice President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, gave a presentation.
Two commentators attended this panel discussion. One is skeptic to the Bush initiative, while the other is pro-Bush.
Skeptic commentator is Francis Fukuyama, Berland L. Schwartz Professor at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University. His reputation is very great for his book, “The End of History.” He was one of signatories to launch the Project for a New American Century, a well known neoconservative think tank to endorse the Iraq War. It is widely known that he has converted to a vocal critic against the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.
On the other hand, pro-Bush commentator is Vin Weber, Former Member of the House of Representative and currently, Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is a pro-democracy NPO. He was an election strategist of the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign. Despite his Republican background, he co-chaired an independent task force on “US Policy toward Reform in the Arab World” with Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In addition, he is a member of the US Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board.
Let me review the video of this event to explore American policy on democracy promotion under the current and the next administration (Windows, Pod cast, Quick Time, and PDF).
To begin with, Thomas Carothers presented his analysis on the Bush administration’s policy for democracy promotion. Regarding the role of democracy promotion in the Bush administration’s foreign policy, some people say this is the central pillar, while others argue current administration does not take the issue seriously. Carothers says the truth lies in between and things are more complicated. UＳ foreign policy is a mixture of security-and-economic-oriented policies and real democracy assistance.
Regarding democratization in Iraq, Thomas Carothers points out that while the Bush team appears to be passionate about the issue, it has not presented clear vision for this objective. Rather, he says, current administration has made some achievements for democracy in the rest of the Middle East. While US policy for empowerment of Arab citizens is proceeding gradually, this effort has been constrained by realist necessities to maintain close ties with authoritarian regimes in this region, such as Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, and Pakistan. This is because excessively rapid democratization could lead to the rise of anti-Western Islamist regimes.
In the rest of the world, the Bush administration continues the same patterns as those of previous administrations from 1980s to 1990s, according to Carothers. The United States confronts against dictatorial regimes such as Belarus, Burma, and Zimbabwe. Also, America supports people struggling for democracy in Ukraine, Liberia, Nepal, and Peru.
On the other hand, Carothers says that US relations with two strategic challengers, Russia and China, are realist, and determined primarily with economic-and-security interests. Also, the United States needs close cooperation with non-democratic governments in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere in the War on Terror, despite proclaimed agenda for global freedom.
Regarding difference between Bush policy for democracy promotion and those of his predecessors, Carothers suggests three points: attachment to the War on Terror, hard lines in the Middle East, and use of military intervention. He points out that US endeavor for democracy in the Middle East has made little progress, but some achievements have been witnessed in the rest of the world, such as in Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia. Carothers argues that Bush policy is undermining the legitimacy of democracy promotion, because of excessive focus on Iraq and counter-terrorism. Also, he warns that success of “authoritarian capitalism” in Russia and China could be an alternative model for some countries.
Thomas Carothers outlines US endeavor for democracy promotion very well, though I have some disagreements regarding the war on terror and Iraq. Also, it is understandable that progress in the Middle East is slow, because of political complexity as Reuel Marc Gerecht of the AEI mentioned. I am concerned that he did not mention North Korea whose autocrat regime is posing substantial threat to our free world, regardless of progress in nuclear bomb and Japanese abductee issues. It is desirable to wipe out a state like this in the end. Is US policy to North Korea a realist like those to Russia and China?
Despite some distinctive points in current administration’s policies for global democracy, most of them are consistent with its predecessors. Therefore, I have to reiterate that agendas set by quite a few anti-Bush activists are dubious.
After the presentation by Thomas Carothers, Vin Weber and Francis Fukuyama left comments.
First, Vin Weber argued from pro-Bush position. He comments that President Bush tries to inspire more involvement in democracy promotion through his rhetoric, while Carothers criticizes it empty and unpractical. Basically, Weber agrees with Carothers that democracy promotion is not unique to the Bush administration, and this is a vital agenda for the next president as well.
Weber points out some progress under the Bush administration such as the Middle East Partnership Initiative. Also, he insists that more NGOs launch pro-democracy activities throughout the world, indirectly influenced by Bush policy.
Weber’s comment sounds right. Never have I heard so much of democracy promotion before. This is partly because of the War on Terror. We are in a critical era, and any US president could have taken approaches like current president has been doing.
Francis Fukuyama argued from another perspective. He insists that Iraq has distorted US policy for democracy promotion. Fukuyama points out that democracy was the third reason for intervention to overthrow Saddam Hussein, after WMD non-proliferation and the War on Terror. Also, he criticizes the Bush administration’s approach to use democracy promotion as a national security policy instrument, because it appears foreigners that the United States is hypocritical to use democratic ideals for its strategic interests. Fukuyama argues against Weber, saying that lofty rhetoric for democracy by the Bush administration will inspire people aspiring liberal society, but also inspire people having negative image about America.
It is right that democracy promotion should not be linked to strategic objectives excessively. Though I agree with Francis Fukuyama on this point, I think it necessary to remember that liberal ideals and security interests are coincided in US foreign policy.
This event presents well balanced views and comments on Bush policy on democracy promotion. Apparently, anti-American radicals are wrong to argue that democracy promotion is a neoconservative plot. Understanding this discussion is a key to foresee pro-democracy policy of the next administration.
This event was moderated by Jenifer Windsor, Executive Director of Freedom House. As the author of this report, Thomas Carothers, Vice President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, gave a presentation.
Two commentators attended this panel discussion. One is skeptic to the Bush initiative, while the other is pro-Bush.
Skeptic commentator is Francis Fukuyama, Berland L. Schwartz Professor at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University. His reputation is very great for his book, “The End of History.” He was one of signatories to launch the Project for a New American Century, a well known neoconservative think tank to endorse the Iraq War. It is widely known that he has converted to a vocal critic against the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.
On the other hand, pro-Bush commentator is Vin Weber, Former Member of the House of Representative and currently, Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is a pro-democracy NPO. He was an election strategist of the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign. Despite his Republican background, he co-chaired an independent task force on “US Policy toward Reform in the Arab World” with Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In addition, he is a member of the US Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board.
Let me review the video of this event to explore American policy on democracy promotion under the current and the next administration (Windows, Pod cast, Quick Time, and PDF).
To begin with, Thomas Carothers presented his analysis on the Bush administration’s policy for democracy promotion. Regarding the role of democracy promotion in the Bush administration’s foreign policy, some people say this is the central pillar, while others argue current administration does not take the issue seriously. Carothers says the truth lies in between and things are more complicated. UＳ foreign policy is a mixture of security-and-economic-oriented policies and real democracy assistance.
Regarding democratization in Iraq, Thomas Carothers points out that while the Bush team appears to be passionate about the issue, it has not presented clear vision for this objective. Rather, he says, current administration has made some achievements for democracy in the rest of the Middle East. While US policy for empowerment of Arab citizens is proceeding gradually, this effort has been constrained by realist necessities to maintain close ties with authoritarian regimes in this region, such as Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, and Pakistan. This is because excessively rapid democratization could lead to the rise of anti-Western Islamist regimes.
In the rest of the world, the Bush administration continues the same patterns as those of previous administrations from 1980s to 1990s, according to Carothers. The United States confronts against dictatorial regimes such as Belarus, Burma, and Zimbabwe. Also, America supports people struggling for democracy in Ukraine, Liberia, Nepal, and Peru.
On the other hand, Carothers says that US relations with two strategic challengers, Russia and China, are realist, and determined primarily with economic-and-security interests. Also, the United States needs close cooperation with non-democratic governments in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere in the War on Terror, despite proclaimed agenda for global freedom.
Regarding difference between Bush policy for democracy promotion and those of his predecessors, Carothers suggests three points: attachment to the War on Terror, hard lines in the Middle East, and use of military intervention. He points out that US endeavor for democracy in the Middle East has made little progress, but some achievements have been witnessed in the rest of the world, such as in Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia. Carothers argues that Bush policy is undermining the legitimacy of democracy promotion, because of excessive focus on Iraq and counter-terrorism. Also, he warns that success of “authoritarian capitalism” in Russia and China could be an alternative model for some countries.
Thomas Carothers outlines US endeavor for democracy promotion very well, though I have some disagreements regarding the war on terror and Iraq. Also, it is understandable that progress in the Middle East is slow, because of political complexity as Reuel Marc Gerecht of the AEI mentioned. I am concerned that he did not mention North Korea whose autocrat regime is posing substantial threat to our free world, regardless of progress in nuclear bomb and Japanese abductee issues. It is desirable to wipe out a state like this in the end. Is US policy to North Korea a realist like those to Russia and China?
Despite some distinctive points in current administration’s policies for global democracy, most of them are consistent with its predecessors. Therefore, I have to reiterate that agendas set by quite a few anti-Bush activists are dubious.
After the presentation by Thomas Carothers, Vin Weber and Francis Fukuyama left comments.
First, Vin Weber argued from pro-Bush position. He comments that President Bush tries to inspire more involvement in democracy promotion through his rhetoric, while Carothers criticizes it empty and unpractical. Basically, Weber agrees with Carothers that democracy promotion is not unique to the Bush administration, and this is a vital agenda for the next president as well.
Weber points out some progress under the Bush administration such as the Middle East Partnership Initiative. Also, he insists that more NGOs launch pro-democracy activities throughout the world, indirectly influenced by Bush policy.
Weber’s comment sounds right. Never have I heard so much of democracy promotion before. This is partly because of the War on Terror. We are in a critical era, and any US president could have taken approaches like current president has been doing.
Francis Fukuyama argued from another perspective. He insists that Iraq has distorted US policy for democracy promotion. Fukuyama points out that democracy was the third reason for intervention to overthrow Saddam Hussein, after WMD non-proliferation and the War on Terror. Also, he criticizes the Bush administration’s approach to use democracy promotion as a national security policy instrument, because it appears foreigners that the United States is hypocritical to use democratic ideals for its strategic interests. Fukuyama argues against Weber, saying that lofty rhetoric for democracy by the Bush administration will inspire people aspiring liberal society, but also inspire people having negative image about America.
It is right that democracy promotion should not be linked to strategic objectives excessively. Though I agree with Francis Fukuyama on this point, I think it necessary to remember that liberal ideals and security interests are coincided in US foreign policy.
This event presents well balanced views and comments on Bush policy on democracy promotion. Apparently, anti-American radicals are wrong to argue that democracy promotion is a neoconservative plot. Understanding this discussion is a key to foresee pro-democracy policy of the next administration.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
“Operation Iranian Freedom” by Cyberspace Citizens
Tension between Iran and the United States is growing as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson announced economic sanctions to stop nuclear projects by the Ahmadinejad administration. Someone even talk of possible US-Iranian war over nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and Iraq. How do Iranian citizens see current their country under theocratic rule? Previously, I have mentioned an online magazine, called “Persian Journal” in the post, “Is Middle East Democratization a Neocon Plot?” on this blog. Let me review this online journal so that we could understand political logic and sentiments among Iranians.
The website of Persian Journal self introduces this online community as the following.
Persian Journal is the news division of the more comprehensive Iranian.ws sites, a progressive Iranian online community and resource. Persian Journal is an online magazine of Iran's current events and Iranian culture featuring news, in-depth analysis and investigative reporting as well as opinions and commentary from a network of exclusive Iranian columnists and bloggers. It also features a very robust forum for discussion of news and current events. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments and submissions are property of their posters and their source. The Iranian.ws is not affiliated with political, religious or any other organization.
Quite interestingly, Persian Journal is published in English, although articles are contributed by Iranian columnists and bloggers. Apparently, they are keen on prevailing their opinions and information on Iran to Americans, Europeans, and people throughout the world, rather than to their Farsi speaking fellows. Persian Journal is outward oriented.
On the other hand, it is closely tied with Iranian communities both inside and outside Iran. Advertisements on this site are related to daily life of Iranians. For example, “Iranian Dots” provides Iranian singles with information for match making. Also, Iran Online is linked to Iranian communities of various agendas and interests.
Prior to reviewing commentaries and analyses on Iran, I would like to narrate recent news. In view of invigorated Kurdish separatist activities in Turkey, Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki accuses the United States of assisting PKK in order to pressure Iran to slow down its nuclear research program and stop sponsoring Islamic groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Palestine. Such a hardliner policy of the Ahmadinejad administration cause bitter criticism among moderate leaders such as Former Presidents Mohammad Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
Meanwhile, White House Spokes Woman Dana Perino explained that the United States was pursuing sanctions because it was exploring diplomatic resolutions rather than fighting against Iran. On November 1, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns met with delegates from EU3 of Britain, France, and Germany. Also, Russia and China sent their representatives for this negotiation in London as well. Russia and China are still reluctant for further sanctions after the London talk.
How do Iranians see political interactions with international communities? Kashayar Hooshiyar, Managing Editor of Iran Review, criticizes the Bush administration’s adherence to “fairy tale idea” of promoting pro-Western democracy and borderless economy in the Middle East despite hardships in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hooshiyar argues “In fact, Iran's hardliner and despotic president, Mahmoud Ahamdinejad, has successfully been using such attacks to portray himself as anti-imperialist and the "Messiah" of the poor and oppressed people not only among the people of the region, but also, surprisingly, among a large segment of the Left in the West.” Furthermore, he says that the emergence of progressive mass democracy will be nationalist, and challenge Western imperialism of Coca-colonization, local autocrats, and capitalists. This is more serious threat to the United States than current theocracy in Iran, says Hooshiyar (“Iran, Iraq, and US Interests in the Middle East: Washington’s Dilemma”; Iran Review; October 30, 2007).
In my view, Hooshiyar does not understand strategic objectives of the American side. Just as Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, argued at the policy forum at the University of Virginia, Americans are not interested in Coca-colonization or McDonald-ization. He says both Americans and Iraqis share vital interests in defeating uprisings by terrorists and radical Moslems. Hooshiyar dismisses that Iranian mullahs sponsor their activities.
Also, Hooshiyar confuses democracy with populism. Dmitri Trenin, currently the Vice President of the Carnegie Moscow Center, points out the real democracy is not simple rule of majority but politics by well educated and self conscious public. Radical nationalism of anti-Western, anti-Zionism, and anti-capitalism is not democracy. Remember that Egypt under the Nasser administration was far from democracy.
Persian Journal picks up opinions from the West as well. I would like to mention two of them, which describe dangerous nature of current regime in Iran. According to “Iran’s Leaders Need Enemies like Bush, and at Every Turn He Obliges Them” in The Guardian on October 29, “Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guard need US enemies to justify their idiocies at home and mischief-making in Iraq.” Although the United States pushes for harder sanctions, it can impose limited effect on already isolated Iran, says the writer. In addition, he comments that EU is eager to do business with oil rich Iran, and Russia and China are reluctant to help the Bush administration. Therefore, the Guardian talks of possible war between the United States and Iran.
In “Pressing Iran to Disarm” on October 29, “The Star” of Canada recommends that the Canadian government endorse UN efforts including harsher sanctions, and also urge the United States to negotiate with Iran, instead of threatening it.
Persian Journal takes up news and ideas of various sources and ideological backgrounds, in order to promote understandings for democratization of Iran. Non-political news and commentaries such as those on culture, entertainment, and sports are published as well in this journal. Persian Journal is useful to understand politics and daily life of Iranians, including those who are in exile.
The website of Persian Journal self introduces this online community as the following.
Persian Journal is the news division of the more comprehensive Iranian.ws sites, a progressive Iranian online community and resource. Persian Journal is an online magazine of Iran's current events and Iranian culture featuring news, in-depth analysis and investigative reporting as well as opinions and commentary from a network of exclusive Iranian columnists and bloggers. It also features a very robust forum for discussion of news and current events. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments and submissions are property of their posters and their source. The Iranian.ws is not affiliated with political, religious or any other organization.
Quite interestingly, Persian Journal is published in English, although articles are contributed by Iranian columnists and bloggers. Apparently, they are keen on prevailing their opinions and information on Iran to Americans, Europeans, and people throughout the world, rather than to their Farsi speaking fellows. Persian Journal is outward oriented.
On the other hand, it is closely tied with Iranian communities both inside and outside Iran. Advertisements on this site are related to daily life of Iranians. For example, “Iranian Dots” provides Iranian singles with information for match making. Also, Iran Online is linked to Iranian communities of various agendas and interests.
Prior to reviewing commentaries and analyses on Iran, I would like to narrate recent news. In view of invigorated Kurdish separatist activities in Turkey, Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki accuses the United States of assisting PKK in order to pressure Iran to slow down its nuclear research program and stop sponsoring Islamic groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Palestine. Such a hardliner policy of the Ahmadinejad administration cause bitter criticism among moderate leaders such as Former Presidents Mohammad Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
Meanwhile, White House Spokes Woman Dana Perino explained that the United States was pursuing sanctions because it was exploring diplomatic resolutions rather than fighting against Iran. On November 1, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns met with delegates from EU3 of Britain, France, and Germany. Also, Russia and China sent their representatives for this negotiation in London as well. Russia and China are still reluctant for further sanctions after the London talk.
How do Iranians see political interactions with international communities? Kashayar Hooshiyar, Managing Editor of Iran Review, criticizes the Bush administration’s adherence to “fairy tale idea” of promoting pro-Western democracy and borderless economy in the Middle East despite hardships in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hooshiyar argues “In fact, Iran's hardliner and despotic president, Mahmoud Ahamdinejad, has successfully been using such attacks to portray himself as anti-imperialist and the "Messiah" of the poor and oppressed people not only among the people of the region, but also, surprisingly, among a large segment of the Left in the West.” Furthermore, he says that the emergence of progressive mass democracy will be nationalist, and challenge Western imperialism of Coca-colonization, local autocrats, and capitalists. This is more serious threat to the United States than current theocracy in Iran, says Hooshiyar (“Iran, Iraq, and US Interests in the Middle East: Washington’s Dilemma”; Iran Review; October 30, 2007).
In my view, Hooshiyar does not understand strategic objectives of the American side. Just as Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, argued at the policy forum at the University of Virginia, Americans are not interested in Coca-colonization or McDonald-ization. He says both Americans and Iraqis share vital interests in defeating uprisings by terrorists and radical Moslems. Hooshiyar dismisses that Iranian mullahs sponsor their activities.
Also, Hooshiyar confuses democracy with populism. Dmitri Trenin, currently the Vice President of the Carnegie Moscow Center, points out the real democracy is not simple rule of majority but politics by well educated and self conscious public. Radical nationalism of anti-Western, anti-Zionism, and anti-capitalism is not democracy. Remember that Egypt under the Nasser administration was far from democracy.
Persian Journal picks up opinions from the West as well. I would like to mention two of them, which describe dangerous nature of current regime in Iran. According to “Iran’s Leaders Need Enemies like Bush, and at Every Turn He Obliges Them” in The Guardian on October 29, “Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guard need US enemies to justify their idiocies at home and mischief-making in Iraq.” Although the United States pushes for harder sanctions, it can impose limited effect on already isolated Iran, says the writer. In addition, he comments that EU is eager to do business with oil rich Iran, and Russia and China are reluctant to help the Bush administration. Therefore, the Guardian talks of possible war between the United States and Iran.
In “Pressing Iran to Disarm” on October 29, “The Star” of Canada recommends that the Canadian government endorse UN efforts including harsher sanctions, and also urge the United States to negotiate with Iran, instead of threatening it.
Persian Journal takes up news and ideas of various sources and ideological backgrounds, in order to promote understandings for democratization of Iran. Non-political news and commentaries such as those on culture, entertainment, and sports are published as well in this journal. Persian Journal is useful to understand politics and daily life of Iranians, including those who are in exile.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband Has Launched FCO Blogs
Britain’s FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) has launched official blogs this September. There are six FCO bloggers with diversified backgrounds in degree subjects, Foreign Service experiences, current jobs, and personalities. FCO blogs will be of much help to understand endeavors of British diplomats.
Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary David Miliband tells why he is keen on blogging and conversations with people across the world and throughout Britain.
Politics should be about dialogue and debate, and new technology makes this more possible than ever. But the gap between politicians and the public seems to be growing.
This is why in my last ministerial job I began writing a blog. I found it a great way to engage with people: to explain my work and my thinking in a more personal and less formal way than the usual Ministerial speeches; and to hear directly what people thought of what I was doing.
His enthusiasm for cyberspace democracy reminds me of Albert Gore. Prior to assuming current position, Miliband was the Secretary of Environment in the Blair cabinet. Is it a coincidence, or not?
Among numerous issues in British foreign policy, I would like to focus on relations with the United States, Europe, and the Middle East.
As I mentioned in a previous post, entitled “David and Gordon: New British Prime Minister and Atlantic Alliance”, David Miliband was critical to the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. In addition, Britain had withdrawn half of its troops from Southern Iraq, which is in sharp contrast with American surge in the Sunni area. How has the Anglo-American relationship changed under the Brown administration? Recent posts by Secretary Miliband suggest Britain is still a key partner in US policy in the Middle East.
In the posts, entitled “Deeds Not Just Words in Northern Iraq” on 23 October and “The Search for Peace in the Middle East” on 25 October, Miliband comments briefly about the meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. On Northern Iraq, both Miliband and Rice sent a message to the Iraqi and the Turkish government that Britain and America were determined to work with them against PKK terrorism in the Kurdistan area. With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miliband explores to create the Palestine state coexisting peacefully with Israel, in order to endorse political process to resolve hardship of Palestinian people. While he emphasizes importance of US leadership, he is actively engaged in coordinating the transatlantic partnership, through talks with European leaders. From these posts, we understand that post-Blair Britain continues to be a key partner to the United States, despite some ideological differences. For detail, you can also see US-UK joint press conferences on Northern Iraq and Palestine in FCO News Release.
Actually, David Miliband is keen on close contacts with America. He had the “longest meeting” with Mayor Bloomberg of New York City. Also, Foreign Secretary Miliband visited Howard University in Washington DC to discuss grassroots democracy and minority education with American citizens.
Europe is another key issue. Let me introduce two blogs by Jim Murphy and Lindsay Appleby focusing on Europe. Jim Murphy is the Minister for Europe and a Member of Parliament. In his current posts, he comments about the Lisbon European Council and the Luxemburg Foreign Ministers meeting, for further integration of Europe. External relation of the EU is also important. At the EU-Russia Summit in Mafra, Portugal, both sides discussed climate change, energy, and security. Murphy shows lots of useful links to understand internal and external policies of the European Union.
Focuses of Lindsay Appleby’s blog is more or less the same as those of Jim Murphy. But unlike Murphy, she is a career diplomat, not a politician. Therefore, her blog talks more about EU bureaucratic organizations, rather than policy issues.
From the Middle East, Ambassador to Afghanistan Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles publishes a blog to report allies endeavor with local citizens for democracy and nation building. Ambassador Cowper-Coles has a long career in the Middle East. Besides political progress in Afghanistan, he narrates personalities of national and local leaders, which is beyond media attention.
Unfortunately, no FCO staff publishes an official blog from Iraq. I hope some diplomat will start blogging to wipe out negative impression among some leftists, regarding coalition efforts in Iraq.
Finally, I would like to mention two bloggers. Maria Pia Gazella is a Trade Officer at Santiago in Chile. As a local staff at the embassy, she would present something insightful from non-British viewpoints. Sarah Russell has just joined the Diplomatic Service this October, immediately after graduating from King’s College, the University of London with First Class degree in war studies. You may be impressed with her lovely smile. She is also brilliant, and will assume important role in British diplomacy in the future.
Through FCO blogs, you can learn a lot about UK foreign policy perspectives and the life of British diplomats. You can talk with policymakers without interference of gigantic media. Wonderful, isn’t it?
Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary David Miliband tells why he is keen on blogging and conversations with people across the world and throughout Britain.
Politics should be about dialogue and debate, and new technology makes this more possible than ever. But the gap between politicians and the public seems to be growing.
This is why in my last ministerial job I began writing a blog. I found it a great way to engage with people: to explain my work and my thinking in a more personal and less formal way than the usual Ministerial speeches; and to hear directly what people thought of what I was doing.
His enthusiasm for cyberspace democracy reminds me of Albert Gore. Prior to assuming current position, Miliband was the Secretary of Environment in the Blair cabinet. Is it a coincidence, or not?
Among numerous issues in British foreign policy, I would like to focus on relations with the United States, Europe, and the Middle East.
As I mentioned in a previous post, entitled “David and Gordon: New British Prime Minister and Atlantic Alliance”, David Miliband was critical to the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. In addition, Britain had withdrawn half of its troops from Southern Iraq, which is in sharp contrast with American surge in the Sunni area. How has the Anglo-American relationship changed under the Brown administration? Recent posts by Secretary Miliband suggest Britain is still a key partner in US policy in the Middle East.
In the posts, entitled “Deeds Not Just Words in Northern Iraq” on 23 October and “The Search for Peace in the Middle East” on 25 October, Miliband comments briefly about the meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. On Northern Iraq, both Miliband and Rice sent a message to the Iraqi and the Turkish government that Britain and America were determined to work with them against PKK terrorism in the Kurdistan area. With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miliband explores to create the Palestine state coexisting peacefully with Israel, in order to endorse political process to resolve hardship of Palestinian people. While he emphasizes importance of US leadership, he is actively engaged in coordinating the transatlantic partnership, through talks with European leaders. From these posts, we understand that post-Blair Britain continues to be a key partner to the United States, despite some ideological differences. For detail, you can also see US-UK joint press conferences on Northern Iraq and Palestine in FCO News Release.
Actually, David Miliband is keen on close contacts with America. He had the “longest meeting” with Mayor Bloomberg of New York City. Also, Foreign Secretary Miliband visited Howard University in Washington DC to discuss grassroots democracy and minority education with American citizens.
Europe is another key issue. Let me introduce two blogs by Jim Murphy and Lindsay Appleby focusing on Europe. Jim Murphy is the Minister for Europe and a Member of Parliament. In his current posts, he comments about the Lisbon European Council and the Luxemburg Foreign Ministers meeting, for further integration of Europe. External relation of the EU is also important. At the EU-Russia Summit in Mafra, Portugal, both sides discussed climate change, energy, and security. Murphy shows lots of useful links to understand internal and external policies of the European Union.
Focuses of Lindsay Appleby’s blog is more or less the same as those of Jim Murphy. But unlike Murphy, she is a career diplomat, not a politician. Therefore, her blog talks more about EU bureaucratic organizations, rather than policy issues.
From the Middle East, Ambassador to Afghanistan Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles publishes a blog to report allies endeavor with local citizens for democracy and nation building. Ambassador Cowper-Coles has a long career in the Middle East. Besides political progress in Afghanistan, he narrates personalities of national and local leaders, which is beyond media attention.
Unfortunately, no FCO staff publishes an official blog from Iraq. I hope some diplomat will start blogging to wipe out negative impression among some leftists, regarding coalition efforts in Iraq.
Finally, I would like to mention two bloggers. Maria Pia Gazella is a Trade Officer at Santiago in Chile. As a local staff at the embassy, she would present something insightful from non-British viewpoints. Sarah Russell has just joined the Diplomatic Service this October, immediately after graduating from King’s College, the University of London with First Class degree in war studies. You may be impressed with her lovely smile. She is also brilliant, and will assume important role in British diplomacy in the future.
Through FCO blogs, you can learn a lot about UK foreign policy perspectives and the life of British diplomats. You can talk with policymakers without interference of gigantic media. Wonderful, isn’t it?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
US Policy in the Middle East: Managing Iraq and Thereafter
US intervention to Iraq is just the first step toward new order in the Middle East, and this is not the end. Therefore, it is essential to discuss how to manage current Iraq, and think of post-Iraq policy in the Middle East. I hereby would like to talk about two events as shown below.
(1) “Is Keeping Troops in Iraq America’s Best Interests?” (video, PDF)
Date: September 18, 2007
Host: Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia
Moderated by
Gerald Baliles; Director, Miller Center of Public Affairs
Margaret Warner; Senior Correspondent, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, PBS
Speakers
Pro
Frederick W. Kagan; Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Reuel Marc Gerecht; Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Con
Jessica Tuchman Mathews; President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Chas Freeman; Former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
First, I mention the debate on current Iraq policy at the University of Virginia. Key issues at the panel were negative influences posed to Iraq by Al Qaeda and Iran. While proponents insist that continual US presence in Iraq is vial to defeat Al Qaeda and to curb Iranian threat, opponents say that further US involvement will provoke Al Qaeda activities and Iranian penetration in Iraq.
Frederick Kagan points out that Al Qaeda in Iraq is closely connected with Al Qaeda worldwide. He says “If we simply were to withdraw and allow the sectarian strife to continue in Iraq unabated, we would be furthering the objectives of the Al Qaida leaders who sue that terrorism both to pose as protectors of the Sunni population against Shia death squads, and also as a cover for their own violence against the Sunni. And this has been one of the things that we’ve seen most dramatically in the process of beginning a defeat of Al Qaida.”
Another proponent Reuel Gerecht says Al Qaeda and Iran will radicalize Sunnis and Shia groups in Iraq, if the United States loses this war. This will undermine US engagement elsewhere such as the Taiwan Strait.
On the other hand, Jessica Mathews insists that there is no military solution for ethnic and religious conflicts in Iraq, as witnessed in Algeria against France, in Chechnya against Russia, and in Palestine against Israel. There are only political solutions, she says.
Also, Chas Freeman argues that US intervention and the destruction of the Iraqi state have created opportunities for Iran and Al Qaeda to move in. He quotes poll results to tell that the majority of Iraqi people feel US presence there ruins their sovereignty. Freeman insists that once US forces withdraw from Iraq, then, people in Iraq will focus on curbing threats posed by Al Qaeda and Iran. This will be a substantial gain for the United States, he says.
Former Ambassador Freeman’s comment sounds rather pessimistic to US mission in Iraq, and too pacifist about the consequence of US withdrawal. I would agree with Frederick Kagan. He is well-known for a report to endorse surge, entitled “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq” with the help of General Jack Kean. This report provided basic strategic ideas for the Bush administration to improve things in Iraq.
Frederick Kagan articulates the meaning of the strategic goal of promoting pro-American democracy. The key point is not whether they like George W. Bush, but whether Iraqis are allies to the United States in the war on terror. He says that the United States is the best ally for the Iraq Security Forces the Iraqi government, and local Sunni leaders in their struggle against Al Qaeda. Kagan is right to insist that early withdrawal will simply undermine American reputation in the Middle East. Remember, Professor Niall Ferguson of Harvard University mentions that terrorists had been acting in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait before the Iraq War, and they moved to Iraq in the post Saddam confusion.
Regarding dialogues with Iran, Frederick Kagan has no objection to it. But as he points out, it is no use just for US withdrawal from Iraq. He mentions Iranian connection with Al Qaeda in Iraq. Moreover, I would argue that current Shiite regime in Iran has a vital interest in prevailing their theocracy throughout the Middle East. A Chamberlainian approach to such a regime is fatally dangerous.
(2) “After Iraq: US Strategy in the Middle East after Troops Come Home” (video, PDF)
Date: September 17, 2007
Host: Democracy: A Journal of Ideas
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Moderated by
Kenneth Baer; Co-Editor, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas
Speakers
Jessica Tuchman Mathews; President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
William Marshall; President, Progressive Policy Institute
Ray Takeyh; Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Then, Let me talk about the event on post-Iraq US strategy in the Middle East. Iraq is not the end. It is just the beginning of Middle East reform to defeat terrorists and dangerous regimes, which pose grave threat to America and its allies. On September 17, “Democracy: A Journal of Ideas” and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a discussion after Iraq. “Democracy” is a progressive journal analogous to conservative counterparties such as “Commentary”, the “National Interest”, and the “Public Interest”. This event was a panel on US policy after retreating troops from Iraq, primarily through progressive (i.e., liberal. This word is used quite often these days.) viewpoints. Three key issues were discussed: nuclear non-proliferation, democracy promotion, and Iran.
Regarding nuclear non-proliferation, Jessica Mathews criticizes current double standard policy of standing tough against authoritarian regimes while dealing tolerantly with democratic nuclear powers like India. Also, she insists on close cooperation with Russia to denuclearize Iran and North Korea. There is no doubt that Iran is a key to US Middle East policy on Iraq and thereafter. However, I suspect that Vladimir Putin consider using Iran a strategic card against the West.
As to democracy promotion, William Marshall points out that it is necessary to tackle the problem of marginalized people in the Middle East under the global economy. Actually, a conservative policy analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht mentions similar points in “Selling out Moderate Islam”. This issue becomes increasingly important in the post Cold War era.
Finally, Ray Takeyh commented on Iran. He says that Iran and the United States common interests to reconstruct a stable and unified Iraq. Therefore, he argues that both countries talk on the future of Iraq. Certainly, this should not be ruled out. The problem is, Iran assists Shiite radicals, in order to have strong influence on Iraq, which is at odds with US led initiatives for Middle East reform.
Though three panelists are critical to the Bush administration’s Middle East policy, people should keep it in mind that progressives pursue common agenda of Middle East democratization. Moderate reform in key Western allies, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, is no less important than progress of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq is aｔ a critical stage now. Success here is a vital step for the future in the Middle East. Also, it is time that US and European policymakers began to think of post Iraq strategy in the Greater Middle East. Regardless of ideological backgrounds, two events present invaluable insights for those having keen interests in US foreign policy and Middle East affairs.
(1) “Is Keeping Troops in Iraq America’s Best Interests?” (video, PDF)
Date: September 18, 2007
Host: Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia
Moderated by
Gerald Baliles; Director, Miller Center of Public Affairs
Margaret Warner; Senior Correspondent, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, PBS
Speakers
Pro
Frederick W. Kagan; Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Reuel Marc Gerecht; Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Con
Jessica Tuchman Mathews; President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Chas Freeman; Former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
First, I mention the debate on current Iraq policy at the University of Virginia. Key issues at the panel were negative influences posed to Iraq by Al Qaeda and Iran. While proponents insist that continual US presence in Iraq is vial to defeat Al Qaeda and to curb Iranian threat, opponents say that further US involvement will provoke Al Qaeda activities and Iranian penetration in Iraq.
Frederick Kagan points out that Al Qaeda in Iraq is closely connected with Al Qaeda worldwide. He says “If we simply were to withdraw and allow the sectarian strife to continue in Iraq unabated, we would be furthering the objectives of the Al Qaida leaders who sue that terrorism both to pose as protectors of the Sunni population against Shia death squads, and also as a cover for their own violence against the Sunni. And this has been one of the things that we’ve seen most dramatically in the process of beginning a defeat of Al Qaida.”
Another proponent Reuel Gerecht says Al Qaeda and Iran will radicalize Sunnis and Shia groups in Iraq, if the United States loses this war. This will undermine US engagement elsewhere such as the Taiwan Strait.
On the other hand, Jessica Mathews insists that there is no military solution for ethnic and religious conflicts in Iraq, as witnessed in Algeria against France, in Chechnya against Russia, and in Palestine against Israel. There are only political solutions, she says.
Also, Chas Freeman argues that US intervention and the destruction of the Iraqi state have created opportunities for Iran and Al Qaeda to move in. He quotes poll results to tell that the majority of Iraqi people feel US presence there ruins their sovereignty. Freeman insists that once US forces withdraw from Iraq, then, people in Iraq will focus on curbing threats posed by Al Qaeda and Iran. This will be a substantial gain for the United States, he says.
Former Ambassador Freeman’s comment sounds rather pessimistic to US mission in Iraq, and too pacifist about the consequence of US withdrawal. I would agree with Frederick Kagan. He is well-known for a report to endorse surge, entitled “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq” with the help of General Jack Kean. This report provided basic strategic ideas for the Bush administration to improve things in Iraq.
Frederick Kagan articulates the meaning of the strategic goal of promoting pro-American democracy. The key point is not whether they like George W. Bush, but whether Iraqis are allies to the United States in the war on terror. He says that the United States is the best ally for the Iraq Security Forces the Iraqi government, and local Sunni leaders in their struggle against Al Qaeda. Kagan is right to insist that early withdrawal will simply undermine American reputation in the Middle East. Remember, Professor Niall Ferguson of Harvard University mentions that terrorists had been acting in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait before the Iraq War, and they moved to Iraq in the post Saddam confusion.
Regarding dialogues with Iran, Frederick Kagan has no objection to it. But as he points out, it is no use just for US withdrawal from Iraq. He mentions Iranian connection with Al Qaeda in Iraq. Moreover, I would argue that current Shiite regime in Iran has a vital interest in prevailing their theocracy throughout the Middle East. A Chamberlainian approach to such a regime is fatally dangerous.
(2) “After Iraq: US Strategy in the Middle East after Troops Come Home” (video, PDF)
Date: September 17, 2007
Host: Democracy: A Journal of Ideas
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Moderated by
Kenneth Baer; Co-Editor, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas
Speakers
Jessica Tuchman Mathews; President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
William Marshall; President, Progressive Policy Institute
Ray Takeyh; Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Then, Let me talk about the event on post-Iraq US strategy in the Middle East. Iraq is not the end. It is just the beginning of Middle East reform to defeat terrorists and dangerous regimes, which pose grave threat to America and its allies. On September 17, “Democracy: A Journal of Ideas” and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a discussion after Iraq. “Democracy” is a progressive journal analogous to conservative counterparties such as “Commentary”, the “National Interest”, and the “Public Interest”. This event was a panel on US policy after retreating troops from Iraq, primarily through progressive (i.e., liberal. This word is used quite often these days.) viewpoints. Three key issues were discussed: nuclear non-proliferation, democracy promotion, and Iran.
Regarding nuclear non-proliferation, Jessica Mathews criticizes current double standard policy of standing tough against authoritarian regimes while dealing tolerantly with democratic nuclear powers like India. Also, she insists on close cooperation with Russia to denuclearize Iran and North Korea. There is no doubt that Iran is a key to US Middle East policy on Iraq and thereafter. However, I suspect that Vladimir Putin consider using Iran a strategic card against the West.
As to democracy promotion, William Marshall points out that it is necessary to tackle the problem of marginalized people in the Middle East under the global economy. Actually, a conservative policy analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht mentions similar points in “Selling out Moderate Islam”. This issue becomes increasingly important in the post Cold War era.
Finally, Ray Takeyh commented on Iran. He says that Iran and the United States common interests to reconstruct a stable and unified Iraq. Therefore, he argues that both countries talk on the future of Iraq. Certainly, this should not be ruled out. The problem is, Iran assists Shiite radicals, in order to have strong influence on Iraq, which is at odds with US led initiatives for Middle East reform.
Though three panelists are critical to the Bush administration’s Middle East policy, people should keep it in mind that progressives pursue common agenda of Middle East democratization. Moderate reform in key Western allies, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, is no less important than progress of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq is aｔ a critical stage now. Success here is a vital step for the future in the Middle East. Also, it is time that US and European policymakers began to think of post Iraq strategy in the Greater Middle East. Regardless of ideological backgrounds, two events present invaluable insights for those having keen interests in US foreign policy and Middle East affairs.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Ambassadors Address 200 years of US-Russian Relations
It is 200 years since Russia and the United States established formal diplomatic relationship. Currently, relations between Russia and the West are not necessarily good under the Putin administration. In an atmosphere of growing self-assertive nationalism and czarlistic authoritarianism, presidential election will be held in Russia next March.
In view of present Russian politics and diplomacy, ambassadors of Russia and the United States contributed a memorial article on the 200 year anniversary of US-Russian relations to the International Herald Tribune (“Relations for a New Century”; September 24, 2007). They present five recommendations for the US-Russian relationship in this century.
(1) Despite natural differences and disagreements between America and Russia on global political and economic affairs, both nations must identify and advance common interests.
(2) In view of rapid changes in the post Cold War era, the United States and Russia need to reshape their global strategies. Violent anti-Americanism poses graver threat to the world.
(3) The US-Russian relationship improves when both sides pursue common interests to develop shared solutions. Issues like terrorism and WMD proliferation have not been resolved, and there is much to be done.
(4) In addition to regular diplomatic channels between leaders, further institutionalization of dialogues between cabinet and sub-cabinet levels must be explored.
(5) Encourage broader contacts among scientific, social, and religious organizations. It is necessary to change visa systems for this purpose. Also, expand economic ties beyond WTO entry of Russia.
Certainly, it is important to develop further cooperation between the two giants. However, this message is excessively “diplomatic”, and more straight talks are essential to understand US-Russian interactions.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted an event, “200 years of US-Russian Diplomatic Relations: Ambassadorial Conference” on September 24 and 25. A panel discussion was held on 25th, moderated by Mark Medish, Vice President for Studies of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Jill Dougherty, US Affairs Editor of CNN International. Let me review the event (PDF, Windows Media Player, Quick Time, and Pod Cast).
This luncheon panel discussion was more straightforward than the article in the International Herald Tribune to commemorate 200 year anniversary of US-Russian diplomacy. The moderator Jill Dougherty has much experience in Russian affairs, as she received BA degree in Russian studies from the University of Michigan and has been a Moscow correspondent of CNN in 1990s. She is in a good position to chair the debate on Russia in post Cold War transition.
To begin with, Dougherty asked immediate question regarding rocky relations between the United States and Russia in face of presidential election in both countries. Former US Ambassador to Russia James Collins who is currently the Director of Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, mentioned that the election should not disturb relations between Russia and the United States. On the Russian side, Former Ambassador to the United States Vladimir Lukin points out common interests and disagreements between two countries. Both the United States and Russia share vital agendas such as counter-terrorism and WMD non-proliferation. On the other hand, there are many issues of discord in regional problems like Kosovo and the Middle East, said Vladimir Lukin. As Jill Dougherty explained it, the United Sates was ready to accept Kosovo independence, while Russia adamantly opposed to it. Lukin raised the same concern as Collins that Russian presidential candidates might be tempted to impress a strong Russia in their election campaigns.
Yuri Dubinin who was Russian ambassador to the United States in the “Yalta to Malta” period, says that both Russia and the United States are in democracy now, and insists “we need to know the opinion of our peoples, what is it that they want, and to solve the objectives, the problems the way the people want and not the way this or that country wants us to do”, to fill the gap between America and Russia on Kosovo.
Despite stark differences, Former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union Arthur Hartman tells Americans to be patient with progress of transition in Russia, and not to see the world solely through American perspectives.
Another critical issue was energy, whether Russia considered using it as political and economic weapon against the West. Regarding this question, both Vladimir Lukin and James Collins agrees that market determines the price of oil and gas, and the unique relationship between Russia and former Soviet republics changes inevitably.
Although this luncheon discussion was in a friendly atmosphere, both US and Russian ambassadors talk about the rise of nationalist sentiments in Russia associated with election. In a policy brief, entitled “Russia’s Strategic Choice”, Dmitri Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, says that Russia’s ultimate interest is a major power status in the world, vis-à-vis the United States and China. He points out current Russia is frustrated with NATO expansion to the Baltic area, and increasing US military influence in Central Asia and Georgia. More and more former Soviet republics are out of Russian hands. Trenin says the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty raises further concern on the Russian side.
Despite friendly atmosphere at the commemorative event of the 200 year anniversary of Russo-American diplomatic relations, turbulences are expected between the two giant nuclear powers. Russian presidential election this March will be one of turning points for US foreign policy after the Bush administration.
In view of present Russian politics and diplomacy, ambassadors of Russia and the United States contributed a memorial article on the 200 year anniversary of US-Russian relations to the International Herald Tribune (“Relations for a New Century”; September 24, 2007). They present five recommendations for the US-Russian relationship in this century.
(1) Despite natural differences and disagreements between America and Russia on global political and economic affairs, both nations must identify and advance common interests.
(2) In view of rapid changes in the post Cold War era, the United States and Russia need to reshape their global strategies. Violent anti-Americanism poses graver threat to the world.
(3) The US-Russian relationship improves when both sides pursue common interests to develop shared solutions. Issues like terrorism and WMD proliferation have not been resolved, and there is much to be done.
(4) In addition to regular diplomatic channels between leaders, further institutionalization of dialogues between cabinet and sub-cabinet levels must be explored.
(5) Encourage broader contacts among scientific, social, and religious organizations. It is necessary to change visa systems for this purpose. Also, expand economic ties beyond WTO entry of Russia.
Certainly, it is important to develop further cooperation between the two giants. However, this message is excessively “diplomatic”, and more straight talks are essential to understand US-Russian interactions.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted an event, “200 years of US-Russian Diplomatic Relations: Ambassadorial Conference” on September 24 and 25. A panel discussion was held on 25th, moderated by Mark Medish, Vice President for Studies of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Jill Dougherty, US Affairs Editor of CNN International. Let me review the event (PDF, Windows Media Player, Quick Time, and Pod Cast).
This luncheon panel discussion was more straightforward than the article in the International Herald Tribune to commemorate 200 year anniversary of US-Russian diplomacy. The moderator Jill Dougherty has much experience in Russian affairs, as she received BA degree in Russian studies from the University of Michigan and has been a Moscow correspondent of CNN in 1990s. She is in a good position to chair the debate on Russia in post Cold War transition.
To begin with, Dougherty asked immediate question regarding rocky relations between the United States and Russia in face of presidential election in both countries. Former US Ambassador to Russia James Collins who is currently the Director of Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, mentioned that the election should not disturb relations between Russia and the United States. On the Russian side, Former Ambassador to the United States Vladimir Lukin points out common interests and disagreements between two countries. Both the United States and Russia share vital agendas such as counter-terrorism and WMD non-proliferation. On the other hand, there are many issues of discord in regional problems like Kosovo and the Middle East, said Vladimir Lukin. As Jill Dougherty explained it, the United Sates was ready to accept Kosovo independence, while Russia adamantly opposed to it. Lukin raised the same concern as Collins that Russian presidential candidates might be tempted to impress a strong Russia in their election campaigns.
Yuri Dubinin who was Russian ambassador to the United States in the “Yalta to Malta” period, says that both Russia and the United States are in democracy now, and insists “we need to know the opinion of our peoples, what is it that they want, and to solve the objectives, the problems the way the people want and not the way this or that country wants us to do”, to fill the gap between America and Russia on Kosovo.
Despite stark differences, Former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union Arthur Hartman tells Americans to be patient with progress of transition in Russia, and not to see the world solely through American perspectives.
Another critical issue was energy, whether Russia considered using it as political and economic weapon against the West. Regarding this question, both Vladimir Lukin and James Collins agrees that market determines the price of oil and gas, and the unique relationship between Russia and former Soviet republics changes inevitably.
Although this luncheon discussion was in a friendly atmosphere, both US and Russian ambassadors talk about the rise of nationalist sentiments in Russia associated with election. In a policy brief, entitled “Russia’s Strategic Choice”, Dmitri Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, says that Russia’s ultimate interest is a major power status in the world, vis-à-vis the United States and China. He points out current Russia is frustrated with NATO expansion to the Baltic area, and increasing US military influence in Central Asia and Georgia. More and more former Soviet republics are out of Russian hands. Trenin says the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty raises further concern on the Russian side.
Despite friendly atmosphere at the commemorative event of the 200 year anniversary of Russo-American diplomatic relations, turbulences are expected between the two giant nuclear powers. Russian presidential election this March will be one of turning points for US foreign policy after the Bush administration.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Hamlet: Japan’s Dilemma between the US-India Deal and Non-proliferation Regime
This is the first post on India in Global American Discourse. Considering its importance in security of the Middle East and the Asia Pacific region, it is quite late to post the first article on this country in October. I have written some posts on the US-India nuclear deal in the past. This is controversial but a key to the Bush administration’s strategy in the Middle East and Asia.
Regarding this deal, Japan faces a serious dilemma whether to support it or not, because India is out of the NPT (Non-proliferation Treaty) and CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). In an article, entitled “Japan’s New Prime Minister Faces India Dilemma” in the Asia Times on September 28, Masako Toki, Research Associate of the James Martin Center for Non-proliferation Studies at Monterey, California, raises a serious concern that approval to the US-India deal could ruin Japan’s accumulated credentials in non-proliferation and disarmament. Toki points out that the US-India agreement has no countermeasure against possible nuclear test by India, and this is the most worrisome point for Japan.
Also, it is necessary to mention that the Japanese public is extremely sensitive to nuclear issues. This summer, the then Defense Minister Akio Kyuma was harshly criticized for his careless comment, “The United States had no choice but nuclear attack against Japan in order to end the war quickly.” Both the media and the public condemned this remark an insult to atomic bomb victims.
Despite such widespread anti-nuclear emotion, the Japanese government has been extremely cautious to articulate its stance on this deal. Toki says “Tokyo has been wise enough to avoid further controversy but not strong enough to maintain its stance as a champion of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.” While Masako Toki insists that Japan not accept exception of NPT regulation like the US-India deal, new Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is likely to strengthen strategic partnership with India as his predecessor Shinzo Abe was, following recommendations in the Armitage Report 2007.
Toki argues that Japan needs to articulate its commitment to disarmament and nonproliferation, even if this leads to short term conflict with India and the United States. She says “In the long run, a commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament remains the most important element of Japan's national identity and interest.”
For me, her recommendation sounds too idealistic. It is necessary to understand India’s strategic partnership with the United States and NATO. India is a key ally in the War on Terror. Regarding the US-Indian strategic partnership, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said “The new challenges that are emerging, including protecting the electronically connected and interdependent world from terror and organized crime, are immensely complex,” and “It is also naive to expect the international system to deal with such complex and significant issues without democratizing international decision-making,” in his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on October 1 (“India Sees Nuclear Deal as Key to Global Cooperation”; Global Security Newswire; October 3, 2007).
Former Indian diplomat M K Bhadrakumar says that India will be a cornerstone in NATO’s global operation from the Indian Ocean to the Asia Pacific region. The United States endorses NATO-India partnership, in order to fill power vacuum in these areas. (“India Holds Key in NATO’s World View”; Asia Times; October 6, 2007)
However, the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and leftist members of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regard the deal sacrifices Indian sovereignty, because civilian nuclear plants are subject to US inspection. They are not pro-Western as current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. I believe that the deal must be sustainable regardless of party politics in India. (“Feature”, South Asian Perspectives by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2007)
If India were to be a real strategic partner with free nations, the US-India bilateral deal should include NATO, Japan, and Australia in the future. It is understandable that India does not trust current non-proliferation regime under IAEA inspection. However, a multilateral deal with common creed and interests will be helpful to make it more stable and sustainable. This could placate opposition by nationalists and leftists. Japan’s dilemma would be resolved through this way.
Regarding this deal, Japan faces a serious dilemma whether to support it or not, because India is out of the NPT (Non-proliferation Treaty) and CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). In an article, entitled “Japan’s New Prime Minister Faces India Dilemma” in the Asia Times on September 28, Masako Toki, Research Associate of the James Martin Center for Non-proliferation Studies at Monterey, California, raises a serious concern that approval to the US-India deal could ruin Japan’s accumulated credentials in non-proliferation and disarmament. Toki points out that the US-India agreement has no countermeasure against possible nuclear test by India, and this is the most worrisome point for Japan.
Also, it is necessary to mention that the Japanese public is extremely sensitive to nuclear issues. This summer, the then Defense Minister Akio Kyuma was harshly criticized for his careless comment, “The United States had no choice but nuclear attack against Japan in order to end the war quickly.” Both the media and the public condemned this remark an insult to atomic bomb victims.
Despite such widespread anti-nuclear emotion, the Japanese government has been extremely cautious to articulate its stance on this deal. Toki says “Tokyo has been wise enough to avoid further controversy but not strong enough to maintain its stance as a champion of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.” While Masako Toki insists that Japan not accept exception of NPT regulation like the US-India deal, new Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is likely to strengthen strategic partnership with India as his predecessor Shinzo Abe was, following recommendations in the Armitage Report 2007.
Toki argues that Japan needs to articulate its commitment to disarmament and nonproliferation, even if this leads to short term conflict with India and the United States. She says “In the long run, a commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament remains the most important element of Japan's national identity and interest.”
For me, her recommendation sounds too idealistic. It is necessary to understand India’s strategic partnership with the United States and NATO. India is a key ally in the War on Terror. Regarding the US-Indian strategic partnership, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said “The new challenges that are emerging, including protecting the electronically connected and interdependent world from terror and organized crime, are immensely complex,” and “It is also naive to expect the international system to deal with such complex and significant issues without democratizing international decision-making,” in his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on October 1 (“India Sees Nuclear Deal as Key to Global Cooperation”; Global Security Newswire; October 3, 2007).
Former Indian diplomat M K Bhadrakumar says that India will be a cornerstone in NATO’s global operation from the Indian Ocean to the Asia Pacific region. The United States endorses NATO-India partnership, in order to fill power vacuum in these areas. (“India Holds Key in NATO’s World View”; Asia Times; October 6, 2007)
However, the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and leftist members of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regard the deal sacrifices Indian sovereignty, because civilian nuclear plants are subject to US inspection. They are not pro-Western as current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. I believe that the deal must be sustainable regardless of party politics in India. (“Feature”, South Asian Perspectives by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2007)
If India were to be a real strategic partner with free nations, the US-India bilateral deal should include NATO, Japan, and Australia in the future. It is understandable that India does not trust current non-proliferation regime under IAEA inspection. However, a multilateral deal with common creed and interests will be helpful to make it more stable and sustainable. This could placate opposition by nationalists and leftists. Japan’s dilemma would be resolved through this way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)