The U.S. should immediately pull out of Chicago!
Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago, 221 killed in Iraq.
Long time no see. I'm back (semi-permanently) to write about poverty for Blog Action Day 2008. The problem is: what to write about?
I'm sure there's thousands of other political blogs out there profiling Obama and McCain's respective positions on poverty. That would be boring.
I could write about the millions of things you could do to help fight poverty. Once again, I'm sure hundreds of other blogs are doing the same thing.
How about this: why does poverty matter? From a humanitarian position, of course it's terrible. But what about from a realist political position? Who gives a sh!t about the poor, homeless, and starving of the Earth?
There are plenty of reasons.
For these reasons conditions of poverty increase the risk of political violence, terrorism, war and genocide, and make those living in poverty vulnerable to human trafficking, internal displacement and exile as refugees. Countries suffering widespread poverty may experience loss of population, particularly in high-skilled professions, which may further undermine their ability to improve their situation.
Poverty is not just worry for "lefty commies"; it's a geopolitical concern for governments everywhere.
You make one fatal assumption, however. You believe that the North Koreans would believe that we would actually attack them. There's no way we would, right now. Maybe 10 years ago they would have believed us capable, when we weren't involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there's no way now.
I am not against diplomacy backed up by force (you do need carrots to go along with those sticks, though). The worry by you conservatives would be, of course, you have to be willing to actually use that force when push comes to shove. I might have said some contradictory things before, but I do believe that force is sometimes necessary. You just have to know when to limit it. I believe that the invasion of Grenada, the invasion of Panama, the first Gulf War, and Clinton's Operation Desert Fox were all necessary and carried out well. We did not occupy for five years and we only took down the government when we knew what we were getting into - we knew our limits.
I hate to sound like that liberal that always goes back to blaming Bush, but: Bush did not know his limits. He unnecessarily invaded Iraq, which took away press, money, supplies, troops, and most importantly public attention away from Afghanistan. Maybe we could have launched airstrikes in Iraq. Maybe that would have been acceptable; however, overthrowing the Hussein regime took it to far. And Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co. didn't even do it well! The occupation of Iraq was a failure.
Anyway, I'm getting a little side tracked. My point is this: negotiations carried out with the threat of force are always great, as long as you know your limits.
So: how about in 10 years, when we're out of Iraq and Afghanistan (I can't wait), we settle down and talk to those Russians. Tell them, hey, you invade Germany from your newly established bases in conquered Poland - we'll kick your ass.
BBC: Livni claims victory in Israeli vote
This is great. Livni, by far, seems like the smartest, most rational of the candidates presented to Kadima voters. However, the fight is not yet over: early parliamentary elections could mean far right leader Benjamin Netanyahu could take power. This would be disastrous. Netanyahu has a record of being a hardliner not willing to make compromises.
I'll try to elaborate more tomorrow.
AP: Officials: N Korea's Kim Possibly Ill
LA Times: North Korea's Kim Jong Il may have had a stroke: U.S. intelligence officials
Kim Jong-Il, the eccentric dictator of North Korea, has suffered a stroke, according to information leaked to the AP from American intelligence officials. Now, let’s keep in mind some context: negotiations on the North’s nuclear weapon program were beginning to get rocky: North Korea had begun to stall on its end of the deal. Could this be a political move? And if not, how will this affect the denuclearization process?
Watching the military
North Korea does not have a succession mechanism in place. Kim was the obvious pick after his father died, but there is no obvious heir for succeeding Kim. His death could lead to the collapse of his regime.
It is more likely, however, that with the death of Kim, the military will take power. That’s bad new for the West: the North Korean military is strongly against giving up its nuclear program.
What can the U.S. do
It is always possible (and maybe likely) Kim is still alive. Our current policy run by Christopher Hill should continue until death is confirmed or denied. With any new leaders, a wait-and-see approach should be adopted: will they be reformers?
All we can do is wait.
Posted by Simmons at 7:11 PM
BBC: Russian recognizes Georgian rebels
Reuters: Russia warns Moldova against Georgian mistake
A list of former Warsaw Pact breakaway regions
It is easy to forget, with the way the mainstream media acts, that Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are not the only regions trying to gain independence in the former Soviet Union (FSU) and its regional allies – the countries of the Warsaw Pact. Almost all of these regions have received backing from Russia. Without further ado, the list:
Movements supported by Russia
• South Ossetia (Georgia)
• Abkhazia (Georgia)
• Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan)
• Nakhchivan (Armenia)
• Crimea (Ukraine)
• Transnistria (Moldova)
Movements not supported by Russia
• Chechnya (Russia)
• Kosovo (formerly in Serbia)
The next war
Where is Russia most likely to provoke war in next? Crimea in the Ukraine has been widely seen as the next target. The Ukraine almost received NATO membership this year, and is becoming a closer ally of the United States. Russia has begun handing out citizenship to those living in Crimea – exactly what it did in Georgia, and Russia’s main excuse for war.
However, Crimea has not been a flashpoint for violence, unlike South Ossetia and Abkhazia. As well, Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko is not as nationalistic or as hotheaded as Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili.
As I’ve argued before, we must include Georgia and the Ukraine in NATO as soon as possible. One, to deter Russian aggression and to ensure any attack by Russia could be properly responded to. Two, to isolate Russia. The policy of containment worked during the Cold War. There’s no reason it shouldn’t work now.
NYT: Draft Accord With Iraq Sets Goal of 2011 Pullout
I cannot fully write about this yet because of the fact that the agreement has not been released, and I don’t know if the full treaty will every fully be released. However: details will continue to come in, and as they do, I will write new articles.
A good plan
United States and Iraqi negotiators have been haggling over a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) for several months now. Up until now, the international military presence in Iraq has been legitimized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions. This new agreement will last three years and its main points are this:
1. U.S. troops must move outside of cities by June 30, 2009
2. Withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces by the end of December 31, 2011
3. No immunity for private contractors
4. Some immunity for American soldiers (immunity if on base or on duty)
5. A failsafe in case Iraq collapses
This plan is much better than either plan submitted by the two presidential contenders: McCain would stay too long (forever), Obama too short (16 months). This plan does not have the drawbacks of either.
Michael Cohen over at Democracy Arsenal and in the WSJ today argues that no immunity for private contractors will impede on their ability to do their duty properly in Iraq. That is not true for at least two reasons:
1. Any private contractors put on trial that didn’t really do anything wrong will not be convicted; U.S. pressure will assure to that.
2. Because the Iraqi government was so strong about putting this resolution in the agreement, the government gains legitimacy among the Iraqi people. Maliki, in particular, looks extra-nationalist and therefore extra popular.
I’ve noticed a lack of discussion about Iran on this. I’m waiting to see Iran’s reaction to this (and consequently the reaction of Muqtada al-Sadr). I'll keep y'all posted.
On the Sunni Awakening
The NYT is also reporting that the Shiite-led Iraqi government is refusing to incorporate the 100,000 strong Sunni Awakening – Sunnis paid by the U.S. to take up arms against Al-Qaeda and other insurgents. It is vital that the al-Maliki government incorporates the Sunnis into the government. It is impossible to state the importance of this enough. If they are not incorporated, I fear a resumption of the civil war and a strengthening of the insurgency.
....for Barack Obama's veep pick. I'm waiting for that text message from CNN Breaking News....
In other news, readers might have noticed a lack of posts on the Russo-Georgian crisis, which might seem strange because (in case you haven't noticed) I love Russian issues. I've got an article coming up on that right now.
IHT: Musharraf quits as Pakistan’s president
I wrote last week about what a resignation by Musharraf would mean for the U.S. and our Afghanistan policy. This week, from a different perspective: the perspective of India.
India has recently seen an upturn in the amount of violence in Jammu and Kashmir. The territory is disputed between Pakistan and India – three wars have been fought over it, as well as both sides gaining nuclear weapons in the 60 year conflict. Some in the India-administered Kashmir would like to secede from India and join Pakistan, and vice versa. Recently, Muslims in Indian administrated Kashmir have increased protests. During some of these protests, a handful of protestors have been killed by Indian police. The protests rage on today.
A power vacuum
India worries that with the resignation of Musharraf, there will be a power vacuum in Pakistan. That is very legitimate concern. It is likely the next elected president will be weak, at least temporarily if not permanently, and the Pakistani parliament is likely to break down into its feuding factions: the PPP (the party of Benazir Bhutto), the PML-N (the party of Nawaz Sharif), the Islamists, and everyone else.
None of these parties is particularly competent; most all are corrupt. Corruption, however, is not India’s worry. India’s worry in the executive and legislative branch is Islamic fundamentalists. They could very much endanger stability and the peace process. As well, India has no one to talk to that would be in complete control.
Yet, there is one larger worry: the powerful army and the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI. The army helped fund militants in Kashmir that sparked the 1998 almost-all-out war between Pakistan and India. The ISI has always trained militants as well, and is believed to have been involved in the recent bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.
The last comment I have is this: the U.S. and India still have ongoing talks about a nuclear power deal for India.
Note: this article was written semi-in a rush, because of the fact that in the middle of writing the article, news of war in South Ossetia broke out
Reuters: Pakistan coalition to move to impeach Musharraf
Pakistan is split between four factions:
1. The ISI (the Pakistani CIA)
2. The army/President Musharraf
3. The PPP (the party of Benazir Bhutto)
4. The PML-N (the party of Nawaz Sharif)
The army, the PPP, and the PML-N have all been in control at one time or another in the past 20 years. All have been relatively ineffective and corrupt. The current alliance is the populist PPP and PML-N in the parliament against the U.S. supported President Musharraf. The parliament made a truce with terrorists who live in the largely unregulated North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). The truce was what the majority of Pakistanis wanted, but neither the U.S. nor Musharraf supported it. The truce has since broken down almost completely.
Now, the PPP and the PML-N in parliament is trying to impeach Musharraf.
The first, most obvious consequence of the impeachment will be further destabilization of the region. With the situation in Afghanistan at the point that it is, the impeachment should be of grave concern to the West, and America especially. Furthermore, the destabilization will not be limited to just Pakistan and Afghanistan: it will affect the Middle East as well.
Other than destabilization, the other (more) serious consequence of the impeachment is the affect on the War on Terror. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban already operate out of the NWFP in Afghanistan at will. If Musharraf is taken out of office, it can be assured that the new president will be softer on terror, which is exactly what we DON’T need right now.
Luckily, it is unlikely the impeachment will be successful. However, Musharraf has said before that he would step down if impeached. Hopefully he will not follow through with that statement.
None of this should have happened. We should never have relied so heavily on an ineffective dictatorship. This is the price we have to pay. Lessoned learned: don’t cozy up with dictatorships.
The good news is that this could be helpful in the long term. It could stop a lot of potential terrorists from becoming terrorists by (a) defusing anti-American sentiment and (b) having the potential terrorists feel like they have a say in their government. Alternatively, it could not. The brief spike in terrorist activity could outlast the long term effects mentioned above.
So, what should U.S. policy be? No matter who is in power, there is one simple effective step that can be taken: reorganizing aid to Pakistan. Islamabad has squandered billions in military aid. Over $7 billion in aid has been ineffectively used in the fight against terrorists and the rest has been spent on buying next-gen fighter planes for use against India.
A better use for aid would be in infrastructure: building roads, schools, hospitals, electrical lines and water lines. Of course, military aid would still most definitely be necessary. However, American aid to Pakistan needs to be more for the people of Pakistan, rather than the Pakistani military.
Reuters: Turkish court rules against closing AK Party
The Justice and Development Party of Turkey, the AKP, was re-elected last year with 47% of the vote. Secularists, mostly in the military, have since repeatedly charged the party and its members of having an Islamist agenda and of trying to introducing Sharia law. The AKP, for obvious reasons, has consistently denied that charge. More recently, a group of secular Turks were arrested for planning a coup to overthrow the AK government.
A good decision
The model of secularism and democracy in the Middle East, Ataturk’s Turkey, was almost dealt a huge blow today. Thankfully, Turkey’s Constitutional Court made the right decision today by not banning the AK Party.
In contrast to what one might expect, the less secular AKP is more democratic and liberal than the most secular parties of Turkey. In fact, the AKP has decreased censorship, expanded women’s rights, and reached out to minorities.
The fight is not over
The fight is not over. The case today was won by only one vote (6 to 5, 7 votes were needed) – 8 of the court’s 11 justices are secularists. As well, the court did agree to impose financial restrictions on the AKP (state funding for the party was cut in half).
And don’t think the secularists have given up. Military intervention is always a possibility, but what are more likely are attempts by secularists to slowly remove the AKP’s influence from public society.
And as Howard Eissenstat points out, “If liberalization and parliamentary democracy cannot deliver on basic issues, Turkey’s devout, like its military, may opt for a harder path.”
IHT: U.S. to remove North Korea from terror list
As part of a denuclearization deal, North Korea today handed over 60 pages of information on its nuclear power and nuclear weapons program. The move was an important step in the process of the dismantlement of the North’s nuclear program. In return, President Bush announced that his administration would remove the country from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and end some sanctions ‘symbolically’.
As said above, this action was only a part of a major denuclearization deal. The agreement came as a result of direct negotiations with North Korea in early 2007 under a new policy from the Bush Administration. The previous policy had limited engagement with North Korea, and stressed isolation and sanctions. However, in 2006, the President defied hawks in his administration and enacted a new policy towards the North, launching full fledged talks with North Korea: 6 party negotiations between North Korea, the host China, the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Russia. North Korea was slow with following through on its promises, but it eventually came through with today’s declaration of plutonium capabilities, which will be verified by the United States in the coming weeks.
Information not yet disclosed
Significantly, the North's declaration is not expected to disclose details on three critical points: the nuclear bombs the North has already produced; its alleged attempts to produce nuclear arms by secretly enriching uranium, which brought on the current crisis in 2002; and accusations that the North had helped Syria build a nuclear plant.
These details need to be disclosed as the next step in the denuclearization process. The information, especially on Syria, is vital
The role of China
From everything I’ve read, China has played a big role in getting Kim Jong-Il to agree to the denuclearization process. Some analysts have gone as far as to say that North Korea would not even have agreed to disarm if weren’t for Beijing. Let’s take a look at China’s motives for a second. Why would they be interested in getting rid of a key piece of leverage they could use against the United States? It comes down to regional stability. China is experiencing rapid economic growth, and it doesn’t want anything to slow it down. As well, Beijing doesn’t want anything to ruin its ‘coming out party’ at the Olympics in August. This has been seen even this week when China allowed a Japanese naval vessel to dock at its ports for the first time since WWII.
Moral of the story: one major reason denuclearization in North Korea has been possible is because of China.
The problem with denuclearization in Iran
North Korea shows us two problems with American policy towards Iran. One, we are not negotiating with the Iranian regime. Two, we have no partner in the region that has significant leverage over Tehran. Some might say, hey, Saudi Arabia could pressure Iran. But why would Riyadh want to? Sure, the country wants to prevent any new wars in the region that might disrupt their oil shipments. But besides that, tensions in the region are only good for Saudi Arabia. U.S.-Iranian tensions have only helped send oil prices to new highs.
So, why does it matter?
Well, it doesn’t really. I just wanted to point that out. But there is one significant lesson we can take from the North Korean denuclearization: negotiations work.
CNN: Israeli Cabinet to consider swap with Hezbollah
BBC: Rockets ‘violated Gaza ceasefire’
Reuters: More indirect Israel, Syria talks in July
Israel has been negotiating on two and a half fronts recently. The first front is in the Palestinian territories, but specifically with Hamas in Gaza. The second and a half negotiations were with Hezbollah/Lebanon along with Syria.
Negotiations with Hamas have been ongoing since the 2006 abduction of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and after the 2007 coup in which Hamas ousted its rival Fatah and took over the Gaza Strip. The eventual result was a ceasefire for Gaza which began Thursday. No one expected the truce to last long, however. That assertion was only confirmed today when Islamic Jihad militants launched rockets into southern Israel in retaliation for an Israeli air strike in the West Bank, which, if you don’t remember, is not part of the truce.
The second front has been much more interesting, not to mention more peaceful (albeit just for now, but we’ll get into that later). Israel and Syria have finally gotten around to having negotiations over the disputed Golan Heights that Israel captured in the 6 Day War. The talks, which are being mediated by the Turks, have not been completely endorsed by the U.S., which has complicated things, and even led one Israeli general to declare that there will be no deal with Syria until George Bush is out of office.
On the other half of that negotiating front is Lebanon and Hezbollah – Israel has opened up negotiations with both. Why include Lebanon/Hezbollah and Syria together? There can be no peace between Israel and Syria without involving Lebanon and Hezbollah, and there can be no peace between Israel and Hezbollah without involving Syria. Besides, Syria still has de facto control over many parts of the country. This is for many political, religious, and economic reasons, but it is also because Syria has a big hand in the actions of Hezbollah. Well, it appears Syria has given the go ahead for some peace between Israel and Hezbollah: a prisoner swap. Two soldiers captured in 2006 by Hezbollah would be traded for a rumored five Hezbollah guerrillas.
So, to sum up an unnecessarily long background:
- Israel is negotiating with Hamas for peace in Gaza and the return of a captured soldier
- Israel is negotiating with Syria over a peace agreement on the Golan Heights
- Israel is negotiating with Hezbollah, which is supported by Syria, for the return of two captured Israeli soldiers
Peace in Gaza
One thing not mentioned above was the almost imminent incursion that would have surely taken place if it hadn’t been for the ceasefire. Rocket fire had gone on for far too long without the Israeli government truly responding for most Israelis tastes. Therefore, Israel should take this truce as an opportunity to do three things: (a) prepare its military, if necessary, for an incursion; (b) bolster Fatah in the West Bank; (c) open up final peace negotiations with Hamas. If those negotiations failed, and rocket attacks resumed, options a and b would be ready for retaliation against Hamas
Peace in Lebanon
The prisoner swap should go through, and the United States needs to endorse a peace deal between Syria and Israel. Peace is in the interests of all the above countries – Israel would like peace and its ruling politicians any victories; a deal on the Golan Heights has been said to be the ‘number one foreign policy issue’ for Syria; and a peace deal between Israel and Syria would undermine American archenemy Iran.
Political turmoil in Israel
The ruling coalition in Israel has been hit by a number of corruption scandals. Early elections seem likely. However, early elections could put more extreme parties, including the Likud party of right wing hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu. Any successes in Lebanon, Syria, or the Palestinian territories would greatly bolster the current, moderate administration. That would be in our best interests.
Reuters: U.S. blames Shi'ite group ... for bombing and killing of 63 Shiites
Sure, it's easy to see they're trying to stir up sectarian violence. But if your sect is that important, why not blow up some Sunnis instead of your own Shiites? 3 possibilities:
1. It was accident.
2. Religion isn't as important in Iraq as it's made out to be. Or maybe the situation has evolved to that state.
3. The special Shiite cell was from Iran and didn't care so much for Iraqi Shiites.
Option 3 seems the most likely, for several reasons. See: Europe announces new Iranian sanctions during Bush visit
Reuters: Obama backs oil profits tax
After gas prices skyrocketed pass $4 last week, and as they continue to head up this week, some may have been hoping for a quick fix in the style of the (completely useless) economic stimulus some weeks ago. In response to those concerns today, Obama pledged to raise taxes on windfall oil profits if elected. This position would be politically unsustainable for the simple reason that nobody wants new taxes in a time of an economic downturn, so Obama appended to his position that he would "use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."
Several weeks ago, a bill was blocked by Republican opposition that would have repealed tax cuts for oil companies and instead used the 10-billion-something-dollars to pay for tax rebates for renewable energy.
A good idea
If the plan Obama has proposed was enacted in coordination with the repeal of tax cuts, it would be a good move for the economy of the U.S., our long term safety, and our long term economic outlook. The windfall tax profit would have help boost the economy through its profits, but, as well, would raise gas prices, as would the repeal of tax cuts. Though that may damage the economy in the short run, in the long run, it would save much time in effort. First, if gas prices were higher, hybrids, all electric cars, and renewable energy would look much more attractive to the average consumer. Second, if some of the pain of fighting global warming is felt now, it won’t be felt later, when it could come in a large burst after the approval of a cap and trade program.
BBC: Court annuls Turkish scarf reform
1918: The Ottoman Empire had crumbled. In its place was a much smaller, much weaker, much poorer state called ‘Turkey’. The nation was in chaos. Soon, a strong leader emerged: Ataturk. Cut through the crap and you will find Ataturk pushed through many reforms that westernized Turkey and made the country probably the most successful in the region, but most importantly for us, took Islam out of public life. The caliphate was ended, women were given more rights, and Ataturk even moved the Muslim holy day from Friday to Sunday.
In recent years, there has been a burst of political Islam in Turkey. The ruling AK Party is relatively conservative and religious, but no where near the extent as seen in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq. One of the more controversial laws passed under the AK Party was a law that eased the ban on headscarves being worn by women at universities. The government argued that a headscarf ban stops many girls being educated; it is apparent, however, the Constitutional Court disagreed.
In a separate court case, a special prosecutor has challenged the secularism and therefore the legality of the existence of the AK Party. If the AK Party is banned, Turkey could be sent in to turmoil, as the party controls over 340 of the 550 Turkish parliamentary seats and controls the prime ministership and the presidency.
Secularism and the AKP
The overturn of the law is a victory for secularism in Turkey; however, the case against the AK Party is ludicrous. The disbandment of the AKP would empower the army, which is not the institution of freedom, especially in Turkey, to say the least. The AKP has pursued liberal policies, often times more liberal than those of the more secular parties. In fact, between 1996 and 2007, the Turkish public's desire for Sharia law went from 19% to 8%. As well, the end of the AK Party would mean chaos for Ankara. With a loss of such a huge number of in-office experienced officials could be permanently devastating.
It will suffice to say that the Constitutional Court of Turkey would be making a grave mistake if they were to ban the AK Party.
BBC: Armies ‘head for central Sudan’
Sudan has been a nation of conflict ever since it gained independence from Great Britain. First, it was the north versus the south. The south, which is mostly Christian and animistic, fought two incredibly bloody civil wars to gain autonomy from the government-controlling, Sharia law-imposing, Muslim and ‘more Arab’ north. The conflict finally ended in 2005 after the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed, giving the South more autonomy and the possibility of secession after a referendum in 2011. However, more recently, genocide backed by Khartoum in the western region of Sudan, Darfur, has received much more media attention. That does not mean the conflict between the North and South did not continue – far from it.
Recent escalations have occurred after new fighting in Abyei, an oil rich region. Control over the region has been a major point of conflict between the North and the South since the peace agreement was signed.
What can be done?
Well, not a lot, sadly. Buy a hybrid!
Reuters: Jimmy Carter set to endorse Obama
CNN: Clinton says she’s open to VP
AP: Clinton to concede delegate race
Reuters: Obama poised to claim victory
It appears that the final Democratic nomination endgame may be seen after tonight. The fate of one Obama is certain, while the future of the other Democratic candidate is much less clear.
The future of Hillary
It is unlikely Clinton will withdraw either today or tomorrow without having Obama and the Democratic National Committee answer some questions, some of which include:
- Her place in the Obama administration
- Her political future
- Her campaign debt
Let’s start with that last one. Clinton has about $20 million dollars in debt, some $11 million of which is her own money that she lent to her own campaign. What are her options for raising $20 million after her campaign has effectively ended? The easiest practice might be to pay back her creditors slowly in small payments. However, this would likely lose Clinton some credibility. One strategy that also has appeal would be to ask Obama’s 1.5 million donors to chip in, a gesture that would also promote Democratic Party unity. However, this isn’t how Obama wants to spending his money and using is donors. A third, possibly less legal option, would be to take the $22 million Clinton raised for the general election and to use to pay off her debts. Whatever the strategy, Clinton’s financial problems will be a difficult problem to solve.
Back to the first and second issues: will Clinton play a role in the Obama administration, and what will be her political future past that? Many of her supporters would like to see Hillary as veep, as, it appears, would Hillary. Nevertheless, there are a good number of Obama supporters that hate the idea. The conundrum for Senator Obama is that, as of now, it is likely many Clinton supporters won’t be voting for him in November. Clinton as veep would change that. Other ideas have included Hillary as Health Secretary, as to allow her to take the reigns of health care reform.
And then of course, there is the possibility that Clinton will stay in the race all the way to August and the convention, for primarily two very appealing reasons: Superdelegates could always change their minds in case of new skeletons out of Obama’s closet, and more time to pay off campaign debt.
Whatever Clinton decides to do, it is likely we will know in the next week. The hype from media will end, the political blogosphere can take a brake…Until the general election starts.
Reuters: Syria to let in U.N. nuclear investigators: ElBaradei
This comes, in case one doesn’t remember, after last year’s mysterious bombing by Israel of an even more mysterious Syrian facility, which some in the West, including the United States, believe was a nuclear facility. Of course, Syria denies this charge. Another interesting point that should be known is that this comes in the middle of Israeli-Syrian negotiations.
The Reuters article reports that officials from the IAEA (the U.N. nuclear watchdog) will be visiting not only the site that was bombed, but also 2 or three other sites. Interesting…
Anyway, this can only be a good thing, as long as the IAEA does its job thoroughly.
I asked a couple of weeks ago what the effect of the Sichuan earthquake would be. The main focus of the article was a possible rise in nationalism. As TIME Magazine points out in an article linked below, that forecast definitely was realized. But there was another geopolitical consequence: sympathy for China from the rest of the world after weeks of China-bashing. The earthquake, in the long run, probably came at the best of times for the government in Beijing.
Time: China: Roused by Disaster
"We Chinese people are growing closer and closer together," says Wu Xiangping, 28, who took a leave from his job at a Beijing advertising firm to join the relief effort. "And because of that, the country's morality is rising too.
But from a monstrous humanitarian crisis has come a new self-awareness, a recognition of the Chinese people's sympathy and generosity of spirit.
In turn, some of China's most xenophobic bloggers have expressed astonishment at the sympathy shown for China by the rest of the world, the donations of cash and goods and the dispatch of foreign search-and-rescue teams, doctors and other personnel. The outpouring of international goodwill "has changed everything," says a senior Western diplomat based in Beijing. "Now many people will be cheering for the Chinese and hoping they pull off a good show at the Olympics. That will be pivotal for China's self-confidence and its perception of its place in the world."
Reuters: U.S., Iran and Arab neighbors to meet on Iraq
This will be the first time Iranian and American negotiators will (publicly) be in the same room since talks over Iraqi security have been suspended. The U.S. should take this chance to publicly say:
1. That a peaceful Iraq will not be possible without Iran
2. Iran should stop arming Shiite militias
3. A stable Iraq is in the interests of Iran and the Sunni countries of the region
BBC: Israel ready to return Golan Heights to Syria
The Golan Heights is an a mountainous region in north east Israel that the Jewish state captured in the 1967 Six Day War from Syria and successfully defended in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. A portion of the land was returned to Syria in later years.
There has long been talk of eventual Israeli return of the land to Syrian control in exchange for peace. Indirect talks mediated by Turkey have picked up pace recently.
There have been several recent events that are very interesting.
1. The bombing of Syria’s supposed nuclear reactor
2. North Korean nuclear progress
3. Congressional briefing on possible Syrian-North Korean nuclear ties
4. Syrian military on alert
5. Israeli military on alert
6. The assassination of Imad Mughniyeh
Last September, Israeli jets bombed a building in Syria. The event was completely surrounded in mystery, with many leaks and sources pointing to the conclusion that the building was a nuclear facility. Other facts indicated Syria got this technology from North Korea. A select group of Congressional officials is being briefed on that possibility today, with all leaks saying the answer was yes.
Months later, Imad Mughniyeh, a top ranking Hezbollah official, was assassinated. The likely culprit: Israel. Then, even more recently, both the Israeli and Syrian militaries were put on alert. Some analysts believed Israel was watching for a Hezbollah assassination, and Syria was just being careful. More interestingly, rumors swirled about another Israel-Syria war.
Was this Israel’s attempt at preventing a conflict? Prime Minister Olmert already suffered through one unpopular war in Lebanon in 2006; it’s unlikely he’d survive another war.
Anyway, where does Syria’s nuclear reactor fit in? Well, the timing of the briefing and of Israel’s extension of the olive branch cannot be any coincidence. Syria could be forgiven for its nuclear crime as part of the deal.
What should we do now?
Israeli return of the Golan Heights for peace does not sound like a bad idea for either side. If Israel can juice the thing for everything its worth, I’m sure we could convince Syria to disassociate itself with Iran, or to some degree.
President Bush, several months after the Bali climate conference, has announced the United States of America’s new climate policy: he wants our emissions to stop growing by the year 2025. That’s right, he wants them to stop growing. Not to go down, but to stop growing. Make sure you understand that part.
Also note, the president announced little (if any) plans that would actually stop emissions from growing.
Now, there are principally three reasons for this:
1. To pressure China, India and other developing countries to start thinking about climate change
2. To speed up talks on a new international emissions treaty
Also, the initiative builds on the Administration’s new willingness to take a chance with an international treaty.
More needs to be done
This proposal obviously lacks any substance. First of all, only stopping emissions from growing by 2025 is too little, too late. The other problem, of course, is that Bush didn’t actually give any ideas on how to actually reduce emissions.
Fox: Obama won’t demand Joint Chiefs reject ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
CNN: Poll: McCain even with Obama, Clinton
Bad news for Obama supporters. The poll I personally find particularly ominous. The Democratic nomination must end soon: superdelegates must endorse by June 4.
Obama’s new “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy also disgusts me. Homophobia is modern day racism, sexism and anti-Semitism. And also, in an exclusive email conversation with the Obama campaign 9 months ago, I thought he made it pretty clear he would end the practice:
“Senator Obama supports economic, social, and legal rights for gays and lesbians. He supports full civil unions, expanding hate crimes statutes, fighting discrimination at work and in housing and other places of public accommodation, and wants to increase adoption rights. He opposes any Constitutional ban on gay marriage, opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, and opposes the current “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, which weakens us in a time of global challenges.”
Eftychis has an interesting post over at New School Politics on Putin's inability to alter the international system. He has many great points, but there's one in particular I thought was very interesting:
Russia under Putin has in fact moved backwards from the proactive involvement of Yeltsin in the 1990’s. Yeltsin gained Russia G8 membership and even tried to move it closer to NATO, whereas Putin has attempted to juxtapose Russia as a competitor to NATO. Putin’s practices have only increased the isolation of Russia, had he not embarked in seven years of extreme nationalistic policies, it is likely that rising oil prices and globalization would have carried Russia much further than where it is today.
There are essentially four options left for the Democratic nomination. They depend upon three factors: who wins Pennsylvania, who wins Indiana, and whether Florida or Michigan get revotes.
1.Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and Florida and Michigan get revotes.
Outcome: Clinton wins
2. Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and Florida and Michigan do NOT get revotes.
Outcome: Clinton will win after a fight
3. Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Obama wins Indiana.
Outcome: Obama will win after a fight
4. Obama wins Pennsylvania, Indiana.
Outcome: The race is over. Obama wins nomination
The best plan moving forward
There is one plan, which DNC chairman Dean has already proposed, which makes perfect sense no matter which way any vote goes: superdelegates must endorse by June 4. This will save time, money, and energy, and could save Democrats the election. The one thing I would add is this: new elections in Florida and Michigan are not necessary. They understood the rules when they voted to move their primaries forward. A revote there would only be costly and would hurt the party.
ABC News: North Korea Tests Short Range Missiles
Summary and analysis
North Korea test launched several short range missiles yesterday, in a not-so-veiled response to South Korean Unification Minister Kim Ha-joong’s comments. The North Koreans also kicked out South Korean diplomats. The South Korean government downplayed the missile launch, in their own not-so-veiled attempt at not provoking the North Koreans any further.
North Korea’s attempt at attention
Kim Jong-Il controls NK almost like a child would. Ever since the Soviet Union fell, he has resorted to provoking the U.S., South Korea, Japan, and China, in order to create divisions among the four so it can achieve its primary goal: regime survival. The promising nuclear deal appeared last year to signal the end to one of Kim’s regime’s strongest cards: the nuclear one. Now, it seems not so much (for several reasons; one of which is the fact that some in Washington believe North Korea sent nuclear technology to Syria).
South Korea and the U.S. must proceed carefully
South Korea and the U.S. must proceed carefully in order not to provoke North Korea. Seoul and Washington cannot afford to miss the chance of Kim giving up his nuclear program.
More at the International Relations Blog
Reuters: Sarkozy pledges more troops for Afghanistan
Afghanistan, “The Forgotten War”, has been in dire need of more, unhindered NATO troops. The remaining troops in Afghanistan from most European countries have been under strict restrictions from their government to prevent casualties. Unfortunately, this has hampered progress in Afghanistan. The U.S. has been calling for more, new troops for months.
In a speech to the British parliament, French president Nicolas Sarkozy pledged more French troops for the war, and called on Britain to send more as well.
Setting a precedent
Hopefully, these new troops will encourage other NATO countries, such as the U.K. and Germany to send more soldiers.
More troops are still needed
Other NATO allies, including Britain and Germany (mentioned above), Canada, Turkey and Spain still need to send more troops. A stable, safe Afghanistan will benefit all of them.
Reuters: Hezbollah commander hailed as a martyr
Imad Mughniyah was Hezbollah’s military commander that was the mastermind of several of Hezbollah’s most successful operations starting in the 1980s. He was on the most wanted list in both the U.S. and Israel. February 12 he was assassinated via car bomb. No one has claimed responsibility, though Hezbollah blames Israel’s Mossad, the equivalent of the Israeli CIA. A 40 day mourning period then began, and is set to end tomorrow, when Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is expected to address thousands of followers at the event in Beirut's southern suburbs.
Will Hezbollah retaliate for the killing?
It is quite possible Hezbollah will retaliate. In 1992, after the Israeli assassination of Hezbollah leader Sayed Abbas al-Musawi, Hezbollah attacked the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Now that the 40 day mourning period is over, and Hezbollah cells have had time to collect information and to prepare for an attack, an incident is very likely.
Another all out Lebanon war?
Unlikely. The war conducted in the summer of 2006 was a huge failure for Israel. They are not likely to make the same mistake twice. Consider, as well, that they are bogged down fighting Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Anything the U.S. or Israel can do?
Stay alert, number one. Number two, don’t overreact. We don’t need another war in Lebanon.
BBC: Opposition’s Ma wins Taiwan poll
Ma Ying-jeou of the Kuomintag party won Taiwan presidential elections, 16% higher than his nearest rival, Frank Hsieh of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party. A referendum on whether Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, should join the United Nations under the name of Taiwan was conducted along with the presidential vote. The referendum failed because enough voters did participate, although a clear majority of those who voted were in favor. The opposition boycotted the referendum, and the United States did not support the referendum.
The Kuomintag party (KMT, translated as Chinese Nationalist Party), is part of the Pan-Blue coalition of Taiwanese political parties that supports eventual reunification with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). KMT has been forced to tone down their rhetoric, and has been advocating the status quo: the People’s Republic of China being the official internationally recognized China, while Taiwan still maintains de facto relations.
What will China-Taiwan-U.S. relations be like?
The KMT and Ma have called for closer political and economic relations with the PRC, hoping to take advantage of China’s economic (super)boom. It is unlikely, however, the two nations will unify or Taiwan will declare independence.
The failure of the referendum and the KMT’s election will provide a much needed respite for the U.S. If the referendum had passed, and Taiwan had attempted entered the United Nations under the name Taiwan, there would be serious China-U.S. relations repercussions. Namely, Washington has promised to protect Taiwan from any Chinese military actions.
How the U.S. should proceed
The United States needs to proceed with caution and cannot afford to provoke either country. Washington should not advocate neither the reunification nor official separation. Any sudden move could upset the whole region. The economy is in a bad enough shape already, and an upset China could prove to devastate us only more. The status quo is fine.
Reuters: Russia MPs urge recognition of Georgia separatists
Georgia, a former Soviet colony, has two de facto independent states within it: South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Neither region is recognized by any country internationally. Both regions have strong economic and political connections with Russia, and Russia has peacekeeping troops in both regions. In other words, Russia has a lot of leverage in these two areas.
Russian MPs voted unanimously yesterday to urge the Kremlin to recognize the two regions as independent if Georgia succeeds in its goal to join NATO. Russia has already decided to send more peacekeepers to both breakaway states.
Why is Russia being provocative?
There are four main reasons Russia flaunting its influence and being confrontational:
• Possible NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine
• Kosovar independence
• American approval of new shipments of arms to Kosovo
• The European missile shield
The first impetus for Russia’s actions is the same impetus for the measure passed by Russia’s parliament. The NATO head of state summit in Bucharest, Romania, is going to take place on April 2. There, several former Soviet states will apply for NATO membership. Three of them – Macedonia, Albania, and Croatia – will be ignored by Russia. Two of applications – Georgia and Ukraine’s – Russia seriously opposes. And on Wednesday, President Bush endorsed one of the country’s applications: Georgia’s.
The second force driving Russia to possibly recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia is Kosovar independence from Serbia and the international recognition that followed. Russia was one of a handful of countries that did not recognize the new Balkan country. Russia supported Serbia in its goal of holding onto Kosovo; they failed miserably. Russia was trying to assert itself in its former sphere of influence. Consequently, when it failed, the Kremlin looked very weak. Russia didn’t respond immediately, other than cutting off some energy from Eastern Europe. I warned at that time that we could expect Russia to either (a) cut off energy from Europe, (b) cause the U.S. problems at the United Nations Security Council or (b) recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It looks like options (a) and (c) could be realized.
Thirdly, President Bush yesterday announced the authorization of supplying Kosovo weapons. This was just another action that is brazenly against the Kremlin’s wishes.
Finally, the U.S. and Russia had conducted high level negotiations last week over the planned missile shield to be built by America in Poland and the Czech Republic, and, well, they were a total disappointment. There was nothing the Russian government was prepared to do to convince Washington to change their mind; there were no concessions Washington was willing to make to please Russia. The negotiations ended in a stalemate.
How Washington should proceed
There are two arguments that can be made here. One, that Georgia is a vital American and European ally and needs to be protected and included in NATO. Alternatively, one could argue, tensions with Russia are strained enough already and either concessions need to be made so Georgia can be included in NATO or Georgia shouldn’t be allowed to join NATO at all.
What would be best for humanity as a whole? The second option: Concessions from both sides. Russia agrees to tolerate Georgia’s NATO membership bid, and the United States consents to make compromises over the Europe missile shield program. Either the program would be given up completely or toned down.
Really, in this scenario, it would be the United States that wins. America and her interests are not protected nearly as much as one might believe because of the planned shield (although, it is important to note, Russia is not hampered in the slightest by this missile shield as well). Therefore, it is not vital for Washington to continue the shield. In return, Moscow would allow Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO.
In fact, it is unlikely the next president (of the United States) would continue the shield anyway. Meaning, America would lose next to nothing, keep Russia happy, and gain Georgia’s acceptance into NATO.
But as the Sons of Iraq increasingly shed blood for the country, they are growing increasingly disenfranchised with the political rewards. Iraqis, including the Awakening Councils, want peace and stability, but as in any form of participatory government, they also want power. In Diyala province recently, members of the Sons of Iraq abandoned their checkpoints in protest of the Iraqi central government’s choice for police chief, who happened to be Shiite. That’s just one minor example of the swelling tide of political discontent emerging from the Awakening Councils, as many simply see no purpose in continuing the fight as the Awakening came with few rewards. Adding to the complexity is the tenuous cease-fire by the fighters loyal to the Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who many of the Sawha forces fear.
Cross posted with PoliticalGrind.com
Obama: 1402 pledged (non-super) delegates
Clinton: 1240 pledged (non-super) delegates
Ouch. That’s painful. So how many superdelegates are there? 795. That’s really not a lot. Every vote, quite literally, will count.
It's been a while since I posted this, and with the President's recent veto of the torture, bill I figured it needed a repost.
A controversial Republican president during a time of war, utilizing controversial new powers. Many, even in his own political party, were outraged when he suspended the right of habeas corpus and imprisoned many without trial. Military tribunals were authorized to try suspects quickly; money was spent without congressional authorization. Who was this president? None other than the great Abraham Lincoln.
• Suspended the writ of habeas corpus. 
• Spent money without congressional authorization. 
• Imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. 
• Conducted at least 4,271 trials by military commission. 
George W. Bush:
• Defined captured enemies as "enemy combatants". 
• Denied "enemy combatants" habeas corpus. 
• Tried "enemy combatants" through military tribunals. 
No similarities there, right? Of course there could be more added to both presidents, but this list gets the idea across. So what can we learn from this?
• Abraham Lincoln was one of the most popular presidents of all time, if not the most popular.
• President Bush isn't popular.
Does this mean that history will look back at Bush as one of the greats? Maybe, maybe not. The half year will decide that. But looking at the last 6 or so years and comparing it to the President Lincoln's, one could say that it appears Bush will have a nice legacy. But take another look.
In Article I, Section 9, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
During Lincoln's time, there was a rebellion going on. One could argue whether "public safety may require it." But if you want to argue about that, adventure into the comments section.
It has just been announced that the commander of CENTCOM, the command that overseas the Middle East, Admiral Fallon, has resigned. This comes a week after a story was published in Esquire that portrayed Fallon as the only person stopping the President from going to war with Iran. In a press conference today, Robert Gates denied that those perceptions are true, but of course, you can't believe that for certain.
Choosing a new chief
Congress needs to quickly approve or deny any nomination President Bush puts forward based on a couple of their key beliefs: their position on Iraq policy, Iran policy and how diplomatic they would be. Congress must nominate a moderate who can, on occasion, stand up to the Bush Administration and their sometimes radical policy.
So, in case you’ve been living in cave for a couple of days, the Clintons have been strongly pushing a Hillary-Obama ticket. Barack has denied he is running for the veep slot, and rightfully so.
This is a clever move by Clinton: she demeans Obama and looks good for the superdelegates at the same time. And of course, if the deal is successful, she gets the presidency. It’s actually pretty ingenious
Obama shouldn’t do it
There are no good incentives for Obama taking the deal. He has more superdelegates, more momentum, and is the favorite (for now). And even if he accepted the deal, he would be slighted by Bill Clinton; Obama would be the junior vice president.
A better deal
A better deal might be this: Obama for president, Bill Richardson (or anyone experienced) for veep, and Clinton for Secretary of State. One of the biggest positives in this deal is that it eliminates Bill Clinton. Everyone wins!
Gallup poll: 93% of Muslims are moderates
The study was conducted from 2001 to 2007, and was very extensive.
About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews. In majority Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities said religion was a very important part of their lives -- 99 percent in Indonesia, 98 percent in Egypt, 95 percent in Pakistan.
But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed. Moderate Muslims interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed. (AFP)
(Special Report) – Here in the U.S., we often take it for granted how cheap our gas is. Sure, the average price is around $3.04, which is much higher than what most folks are used to. But we really don’t realize how lucky we are; Europe and Asia have it off much worse.
• Turkey: $10.03 per gallon
• Norway: $9.6 per gallon
• United Kingdom: $7.72 per gallon
• Germany: $7.63 per gallon
• Italy: $7.30 per gallon
• Switzerland: $6.24 per gallon
The list goes on. The U.S. meanwhile, as mentioned, gets gas for around $3.04 a gallon. In China it’s twice as cheap: $1.51 (source).
There’s a pattern of sorts here: where the gas prices are higher, more is being done to combat global warming; where the gas prices are lower, little is being done to fight global warming.
And it makes sense too; it’s basic economics.
I even have a fancy name for this affect: the ‘Simmons effect’. As gas prices go up, environmentalism goes up. As gas prices goes down, environmental activism goes down.
What does this mean? Well, high gas prices are good for environmentalists. But more importantly, we as environmentalists need to recognize that until the public sees global warming and the energy crisis as an immediate problem, they will never put pressure on their governments to solve these problems.
So, the real question becomes this: how do we convince the public global warming and the energy crisis is an immediate threat?
Education, my friends. Education.
Although I endorsed Senator Clinton for the presidency several weeks ago, my position has since changed. Although I still believe Hillary Clinton would make a better president, I really have no choice. It would be better for the Democratic Party if Obama gets the nomination. It all comes down to the general election.
1. If Clinton is nominated, she will have won through a fight, splitting the Democratic Party.
2. John McCain could win against Clinton (he will have more of a challenge fighting Obama).
3. The media hates her and loves McCain.
Reuters: Russia warns Iran over nuclear program
This is a strange move of sorts from Russia. The Kremlin has always been reluctant to impose sanctions on Iran, and have been only more reluctant since the infamous National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear capabilities came out at the end of last year. Why the change in the position?
Did any recent events provoke Russi into making this move?
• Kosovo independence (and Russia’s inability to prevent it)?
• Upcoming Russian elections?
• The recently released IAEA Iran report (which eased some pressure on Iran)?
None of these events seem a likely impetus for Russia’s actions, for mostly obvious reasons:
• Why would Russia want another geopolitical loss after Kosovo?
• Putin is expected to stay in power in elections anyway.
• The IAEA report made Iran look like the good guy.
It is quite possible the White House made a deal with Russia and Putin to move forward with sanctions. The details such a compromise would entail can only be guessed at.
Russia looking to provoke Iran?
Though this is more of a conspiracy theory like idea, it cannot be ruled out. The U.S. and Iran have been engaged in talks for a while now, and could be nearing a deal. By threatening to agree to new sanctions, the former superpower could turn up the heat on Iran, which could aggravate Iran, causing Tehran to cancel any deal it might have worked out with the U.S.
What should the U.S. do?
The U.S. has a fairly easy decision to make, from my point of view. If talks with Iran are producing results, sanctions should be delayed. If talks are going no where, hat tip Moscow and pursue further sanctions.
And once again, he announced on Meet the Press. What will this mean for the current candidates? How much will the media overblow the whole thing?
It's widely believed Nader doesn't have as wide of a following as he used to. He could gain some momentum if Hillary Clinton is nominated, but otherwise, it is likely he will have a minimal effect on the election.
More detailed analysis later.
One possible Russian response to Kosovo independence that I completely left out of my analysis yesterday was the possibility that Russia could cut off energy to Europe. This strategy has been employed before and is shown to be effective.
Putin might decide against this response because of the possible repercussions.
Kosovo declared independence from Serbia on Sunday, ending months of waiting. The U.S. and most other NATO nations already have or will to recognize the nation as a sovereign state. This has all been expected for months, but there are multiple variables that could change, all depending on the reaction of one country: Russia.
Background – Putin’s interest in the region
The Russian government has let the world know that it does not approve of an independent Kosovo. But why does Russia even have an interest in the region? To understand we need to travel back to rough times in Russia.
Vladimir Putin took over the Russian Federation just before the turn of the twentieth century, after the economically devastating rule of President Gorbachev. Russia was weak, and the citizens of Russia didn’t like it. They had been the strongest nation on Earth, in power with the United States, for 50 years. And they wanted that prestige and influence back. Russia was sliding down a nasty slope.
So along comes Putin. The former KGB agent is ‘elected’, and takes hold of the Russian Bear, stops it, and swings it around in the opposite direction. Well, that is what he would have you think. It will suffice to say that during Putin’s reign, life for the average Russian improved. With the improvement of the everyday Russian’s life, so came improvements for Russia’s power abroad. The country is once again strong, and still getting stronger.
The Russian bear has once again gained enormous influence over its satellites. It has gained much of this power by promising to protect its satellites and their interests better than the West can. This strategy has been the central doctrine of Moscow’s regional policy since Putin took power.
Along comes Serbia. Although never part of the U.S.S.R., Serbia, deep in Eastern Europe, has always fallen under Russian influence. Essentially, Russia wants Serbia to look to Russia for help rather than the West. This is why Russia has been against Kosovoan independence. If the Russians can successfully stop the West from allowing Kosovo to secede from Serbia, Russia looks stronger than the West.
In other words, Vladimir is proving himself (and Russia) to Serbia. But Russia is not only demonstrating its recently regained influence to Serbia; Putin has staked a great deal of his political reputation on stopping Kosovo from gaining independence. He is proving Russia’s power to the rest of the world.
100 hours have passed since Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. So far, we have seen a limited reaction from Russia; nothing more than more diplomatic protests than usual. Russia doesn’t have a wide range of choices. Military action is an unlikely possibility because of geographic problems and for geopolitical reasons. A trade embargo would seem to be likely, but would be totally ineffective. Of course, Moscow could declare a trade embargo anyways, in a largely symbolic move. But other than that, Putin has three moves.
Two breakaway regions in Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, could be recognized as independent or even absorbed by Russia. The two nation’s desire for independence has long been backed by Moscow, and Georgia has always been a thorn right on the border of Russia. Half of the country swallowed up by another would surely cause disruption. Russia would point to this action and say, hey, if you can change borders, so can you.
A second strategy might involve disrupting the West’s interests. In retaliation for the recognition of Kosovo, Russia could create problems at the United Nations Security Council. A potential target could be the third round of sanctions for Iran. This is the most likely Russian response.
This third approach is the most bizarre: do nothing. Putin has known the independence would come, and there’s not a lot he can do about it. If he were to stand back and watch the United States and the European Union control the situation, it would be very, very bad geopolitically for Moscow. They would look horrendously weak in front of the former Soviet Union, the West, and the rest of the world.
What should the U.S. do?
Now that Kosovo has been recognized, the United States no problems besides Russia. If Russia’s actions can be successfully contained, this whole Kosovo incident can be a good memory for everyone. Well, except for the Russians of course.
The United States has the most worry at the U.N.; that is where the most damage would be taken, and Russia’s most likely reaction. How can the U.S. prevent this damage from being taken? The Bush Administration will have to make concessions in other areas if they wish for the Iranian sanctions to pass.
A smarter strategy might have been adopted before Kosovo declared independence: pass sanctions before Kosovo declared independence.
It doesn’t matter now. It is time to look forward, and to develop a new strategy for dealing with the Russians in Eastern Europe.
Sources tell Reuters that "powerful Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is expected to extend a six-month ceasefire by his Mehdi Army militia."
This is great news. Moqtada al-Sadr's peacefire has been one of the reasons the surge has had such military success.
If he doesn't extend the ceasefire
If Sadr decides to end the ceasefire, contrary to Reuter's anonymous source's beliefs, the effect could be devastating.
Shiite on Shiite violence would flare up, as would Shiite on Sunni. New chaos would only slow the already snail-paced political action.
But why would Sadr want to reextend the truce?
A couple of reasons:
1. The U.S.
The United States has kept up pressure militarily and politically to hold Sadr down. The surge was one of the key reasons the Shiite cleric called for the ceasefire; once it began winding down, Sadr could have expected to be able to end his truce and not have to worry about too many Americans. There was a change: Defense secretary Robert Gates came out last month and said troop withdrawals could stop in the spring. This has probably given Sadr a lot to think about.
2. The Iraqi government
The Iraqi government has also kept up the pressure on al Sadr.
3. The Iraqi people
Let’s give the guy the benefit of the doubt: he’s looking for a peaceful solution without having too many casualties.
This, in my opinion, is the most interesting force possibly pushing al-Sadr to continue the cessation of hostilities. The U.S. and Iran have been having talks over Iraq for quite a while now, but no news has made it out of the talks. Have the two countries struck some sort of a deal? Even if they haven’t, is Iran looking to make a deal and holding al-Sadr back so one can be made?
I'm sure most everybody reading this has heard that Clinton has accused Obama of plagiarizing MA governor Deval Patrick's speeches.
Even as a Clinton supporter, I am disgusted, and there are a few things I must point out:
A quick list of possibilities:
1. The Mossad
Motive: Revenge; to stop him from carrying out any more attacks.
2. The CIA
Motive: Revenge; to stop him from carrying out any more attacks.
3. A rival Hizbollah member
Motive: To move up on the Hizbollah political ladder.
Stay tuned for more.
Joe Klein, a writer for Time Magazine that I like very much, published this critique of Barack Obama last week. The whole article is worth a read: Inspiration vs. Substance
Obama's strength is inspiration, and it's also his weakness. In the recent past, Democrats have favored candidates who offer meaty, detailed policy prescriptions — usually to the party's detriment — and that is not Obama's game. After his Iowa victory, his stump speech had become a soufflé untroubled by much substance of any sort. He has rectified that, to some extent. He now spends some time talking about the laments of average Americans he has met along the way; then he dives into a litany of solutions he has proposed to address the laments. But those are not nearly so convincing as Clinton's versions of the same; of course, Clinton has a tragic deficit when it comes to inspiration.
There is an odd, anachronistic formality to Obama's stump speech: it is always the same. It sets his audiences afire, but it does not reach very far beyond them. It is no accident that Obama is nearly invincible in caucus states, where the ability to mobilize a hard core of activists is key — but not so strong in primaries, where more diverse masses of people are involved. He should be very worried that this nomination is likely to be decided in the big working-class primary states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
After my endorsement last week of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I was criticized (rightfully) for not going into the issues enough about why I support Clinton.
Clinton and Obama’s policies have very little differences. It some of the finer details on foreign policy I have concerns with.
Anyway, here are my doubts about Obama in full:
• His position on Iraq (would he pull out too many troops too soon?)
• His foreign policy (would he really sit down with foreign leaders his first year in office face to face?)
• Will he be able to stand up to Republican attacks?
• Will he be able to stand up to rising world powers: Russia, China, and Iran who will take advantage of him if he shows the slightest sign of weakness?
• Will he bring in too many new people? (New people are not necessarily what we need; we need to keep some of the same people who learned first hand our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
Of course, I have plenty of doubts about Clinton as well:
• Her electability
• Her decisiveness
• Fine details of her policy positions
Clinton's negatives have to do less with the issues, and more with her electability (which, on a separate note, is giving me doubts about her).
NOTE: I would be happy with Obama as a nominee. I just would prefer Clinton, overall. And of course, as I said in my last post, I would much rather have Bloomberg than Clinton or Obama.
Considering tomorrow I vote, it’s time to make an endorsement. It’s going to Hillary Clinton.
Reason 1 – The (foreign policy) issues
I prefer Hillary Clinton’s positions to those of Barack Obama’s. I disagree with Mike Gravel’s positions so much that I won’t even mention his name in the rest of this article.
Clinton has superior reasoning on nearly every major issue. Her positions on social issues may be slightly different than mine, but the president does not control domestic issues: Congress does.
Instead, the president controls foreign policy and the military. Therefore, those are the most important issues in the presidential contest. Barack Obama doesn’t understand international issues as well as Clinton does. He would rather see the U.S. as a weaker state abroad; Clinton knows that the U.S. must sometimes project its power.
Reason 2 – Hope is not as important as the issues
As Massachusetts legislator Salvatore F. DiMasi put it, "To be perfectly honest, I really don't want my president to be in there in a learning process for the first six months to a year. It's too important."
DiMasi understands what he is saying too well. Both he and I live in Massachusetts, and in 2006 elected black Democrat Deval Patrick to be governor. He ran mostly on the issue of hope, much like Barack Obama. Once in office Patrick quickly came under fire for several personal scandals, and is now facing opposition to his political plans.
Hope and promise of change is not enough of a reason to be elected. You need smart positions on the issues.
Reason 3 – Clinton will get things done
Hillary Clinton has experienced professionals who will get things done and will be able to whether Republican attacks. Obama, on the other hand, will bring in new people. New people are not what we need. We need to build off of the experiences that we’ve had in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East. Obama will also not be able to stand up to Republican attacks.
The candidate I’d prefer – Michael Bloomberg
I’d so much prefer Bloomberg over Clinton any day. Why? Two primary reasons. First of all, Bloomberg doesn’t come with as much partisan baggage as Clinton would come with. Second, Bloomberg might as well be me; nearly all of his positions are the exact same as mine. He wants a carbon tax, is relatively liberal but recognizes we can’t abandon Iraq, and more. Draft Bloomberg!
Thanks for the comments everybody. I was more than a little lazy than explaining the issues - tiring week.
Iraq specifically is the issue I think of. There are of course other issues (Obama's weakness on dealing with Iran, for example), but Iraq represents the rest of their foreign policy positions.
Clinton recognizes somewhat that we cannot abandon Iraq to chaos, while Obama would be more likely to cave to the far left and pull out ASAP.