Russia & Georgia, Another Reason to Oppose a Nuclear Iran

There are times in our adult lives and relationships when in prudence we skip the opportunity to say, “I told you so.” This is not one of those times. In fact, this is one of those times when it is important to point out the dangerous dysfunction that may emerge when incompetent people wield disproportionate power. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, I argued that pre-emptively attacking another country, especially on a case that really left a lot to be desired would introduce the contagion of instability to the international system. What, I asked then, was to prevent a regional hegemon from acting on long-held ambitions toward weaker nations under the pretext of pre-emption or some trumped up justification? Exhibit A - Russia. The possession of nuclear weapons have heightened this prospect even more.

The World Bank 2007 GDP PPP ranking lists Russia at number six behind the United States, China, Japan, India and Germany. This list is striking because Russia is the only country with a bulk of its revenue from commodities. When was the last time anyone picked up an electronic product or other consumer goods that were marked, “made in Russia”. The spike in the price of oil has lifted Russia’s profile, not a massive industrial base. Absent its nuclear arsenal, Russia cannot even threaten Europe (despite their low defense spending), let alone the United States. The nuclear trump card has always given its possessors a veto over the rest of the world. In unilaterally and unjustifiably invading Iraq, America opened up another way in which they could weild it - bullying smaller and weaker neighbors with impunity.

This is another reason why Iran must not become nuclear. Iran’s support of Hezbollah and Shiite factions in Iraq has demonstrated its hegemonic ambitions. As Cordesman and al-Rodhan note, “It is impossible…to determine how aggressively Iran would exploit such capabilities in terms of threatening or intimidating its neighbors, or putting pressure on the West.” This is exactly what Russia is doing right now, something that, based on Russia’s present economic and military strength, it would be unable to do absent nuclear weapons.

Does Iran have a reasonable case? Well, Iran’s concerns are not exactly unreasonable. America’s engagement of India outside the NPT regime is not helping. 150,000 American soldiers across the border in Iraq with another 27,000 in Afghanistan is reason enough for Iran to seek an insurance policy considering that its history with the United States isn’t exactly free of friction. And America’s invasion of its erstwhile ally, Iraq, is no source of comfort. The United States must find ways to provide Iran the security guarantees it would need. Iran must also seek other means of security. This is not simply an argument about its rights or prestige - Iran does not exist in a vacuum. International security is at stake here. Iran exists in the region with 60% of the world’s proven oil reserves. Until the global economy is no longer powered by fossil fuels, that region will remain relevant. Any changes in the power relations there, will prompt recalibration and repositioning, some of which could have worldwide repercussions. Powerful religious schisms between a Persian (Shiite) Iran and its Arab (Sunni) neighbors dictate a recalibration of security options should Iran go nuclear. I am yet to meet a thinking person who argues the merit of adding nuclear weapons to the mix in a region already rife with volatile tensions. Just as absent nuclear weapons, Russia’s ambitions exceeds its capabilities a nuclear Iran will definitely be able to pursue hegemonic objectives beyond what is not now capable of doing and do so with impunity.

ISI Aided the Taliban in attack on Kabul

I’m a little late coming to this, but here are my thoughts:

According to the NY Times, “American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Russians who fought with the Soviet army in Afghanistan must be chuckling with glee, thanking Karma. In March 1985 President Reagan signed NSDD-166 (National Security Decision Directive 166 or “Expanded Aid to Afghan Guerillas”) which authorized the CIA to use satellite photographs to help the Mujaheddin plan attacks on the Soviet army. NSDD-166 did for the Afghan Mujaheddin what the US intelligence services are now accusing the Pakistanis of doing.

It is no secret that Pakistan’s national security objectives in Afghanistan are not always the same as Washington’s. It is also important to remember that in the early days of the Pakistan’s operation against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the ISI recruited many Pathan Army majors and captains to work in the Afghan bureau. The Pathans are Pashtun people straddling the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. During the “Cold War”, these ISI operatives were able to move easily between the two countries. Many of those majors and captains are now high up in the ranks of the ISI.

Beyond the shared ethnicity is the cold fact that Kabul under Karzai has embraced New Delhi, while relations with Islamabad has been fraught amid accusations from Kabul of Islamabad’s involvement in supporting the Taliban. Afghanistan under the Taliban was more friendly to Pakistan and Kashmiri rebels trained in Taliban controlled Khost training camps. It is not difficult to see why the ISI would continue to support the Taliban and even undermine the American campaign against them the same way the Americans did against the Soviets. Pakistan is bordered by an ‘unfriendly’ and seven times larger India on the east, an unfriendly Iran the southwest, and Afghanistan on the west and north. In the northeast is the disputed Kashmiri region. To have a stable Afghanistan that is hostile to Islamabad is to put Pakistan in an “awkward” (and I’m being modest here) position. The Pakistani controlled side of Kashmir borders China. India and China are both nuclear powers and Iran is now seeking nuclear weapons. The best case scenario for Islamabad is a friendly government in Kabul, the next best option is an unstable Afghanistan where Pakistan’s allies, the Taliban, controls large parts of the country and a central government incapable of projecting force beyond Kabul. However, this goal runs counter to the American objectives in Afghanistan. An unstable government in Kabul, a robust Taliban insurgency and the ungovernability of porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan undermine US efforts. Taliban fighters can seek respite in Pakistan, they can rest during the Winter and return in the Spring without the pressure of a timetable - time is on their side. American and European politicians do not have that luxury, the patience of their respective electorates for the length of the war and casualty has a sunset clause. The insurgents are counting on that.

Unless the ISI reduces in its influence, counterterrorism and the counter-insurgency in Afghanistan will remain frustrating. Pakistan’s coddling of the Taliban has its own drawbacks for Pakistani economic and physical security and Pakistan is going down the same path the Soviet Union went in so far that foreign policy is concerned. Foreign policy is overshadowed and dictated by a cavernous, overbearing intelligence agency at the expense of civil repositories of national influence. The ISI has become to Pakistan what the KGB was to Russia, but that’s for another day.

Leadership

“Say what you will about Barack Obama, people gravitate when you have something positive to say.”

(Possible Republican VP, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty)

Rabbi Hillel is credited with noting that we pay the greatest respect to history by avoiding its mistakes. However, the saying “history repeats itself” did not come out of nothing. With troubling regularity religious cults follow charismatic leaders to their death in collective suicides. Each successive group is somehow convinced that they were right and their forebears somehow ‘got it wrong’.

But even doomsday groups follow a promise. The promise may entail a sacrifice in the short run, in their case -death, but pay huge dividends - immortality - in the world to come. The leaders are usually charismatic and persuasive. We follow because we believe, we believe because we are secure and our security flows from our confidence in the ability of a leader to chart the path into the unknown. Every leader must be in touch with the times, she/he must understand the challenges facing the people, but must be able to rise above it and provide a path for those who would follow. The speeches of leaders have always followed a standard template: the sandwich, good - bad - good. They acknowledge and praise the strength and courage of those who have ventured forth on this difficult journey. The speak of the courage it took to make such a decision and in that decision lie the promise. Then there’s an insightful, painful, Stygian description of the ills that have brought them to that place in history and the possible future such a trajectory will deliver. Then comes the big “BUT”. The “BUT” ushers in the crescendo we heard in “I have a dream and I’ve been to the mountaintop” and “be the change you hope to see in the world”. It describes an alternate future. It lures subterranean hopes from beyond the recesses of cynicism and discouragement, it gives hope reason to believe. The message must give meaning and purpose to the course ahead. The message is usually transformative and defiant in the face of doubt.

Those who’ve changed history have shared one characteristic - they were hopemongers. In the highly unlikely scenario of a world with two and only two choices, I’ll take my chances with Pollyanna and never so much glance in Cassandra’s direction - at least, I’ll die happy.

Has Anyone Seen that Pernicious ‘Foreign Oil’

‘Foreign oil’ has become the latest devil and enemy of the American people. All one needs to do is listen to the two presidential candidates, T. Boone Pickens and the horde of pundits and talk show hosts. ‘Foreign oil’ has become their favorite punching bag. The greatest challenge facing America appears to be eluding this pervasive and ubiquitous threat known as ‘foreign oil’.

Now, don’t get me wrong. My graduate degree will read “Foreign Policy/International Security”. If I had to be forced into an international relations camp, I’ll side with the Realists, except I believe that people are not only and always driven by their interests. I mention this to assert my recognition that energy security which ensures the viability of a growing economy is a core pillar of any country’s national security strategy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Americans wanting control over the source of a resource that drives their economy. With a fifth of the world’s people, America consumes about a quarter of the earth’s energy resources, so I’m all for reduction in energy use.

But this ‘bogeymanization’ of ‘foreign oil’ is getting ridiculous. T. Boone Pickens is running an ad claiming that the money America spends on oil imports would end up being the ‘biggest transfer of wealth in human history.’ Bullocks! This is the country that is a founding member of the WTO and the Bretton Woods organizations. Wasn’t the Washington Consensus all about ‘free and more free trade’? At the end of WWII, about 50% of the world’s economic output was produced by the United States. America has made her wealth selling stuff to other people.

Many countries that make up the WTO have only one product to export - oil. The United States, on the other hand has many products and services and consequently keeps pushing for a further liberalization of markets so it can sell more ’stuff’ to other countries. Well, since the United States is now demonizing the one product many of its trading partners have, would it make sense for every oil producing country that trades with the United States to start ‘weaning their people of US goods’? Should every country somehow begin demonizing American products and ceasing to trade with America? The collective transfer of wealth by the rest of the world to the United States through the purchase of American products and services is actually the largest transfer of wealth in human history.

I understand that this is election year and this is retail politics. Stupid reigns and nuance is out. It’s ridiculous and unjustifiable, but understandable in the case of the candidates - but what about the so called pundits and commentators. They can at least pretend to think or would that be asking too much?

via TNR “It’s Like…It’s like These Guys Take Pride in Being Ignorant”

I’ve been waiting for somebody to call ignorance what it is. :)

Sometimes it takes 3 camera angles to get the point across… Enjoy

Election ‘08: A Referendum on America not Obama

About a month or two before the latest round of questionable ads from the McCain Campaign, pundits and columnists across the country attempted to hazard a campaign path whereby the Republican party could win the Presidency this year. Their unusually collective conclusion was that the campaign had to become a referendum on Obama. They argued that the Republicans had to move the conversation away from their dismal governing history and raise questions about Obama’s fitness to lead, by attacking his character. By moving the conversation away from the issues and focusing on Obama’s character, they would be able to tap into the latent prejudice, uncertainty and resentment of Obama’s otherness. Left with a choice between “the other” (Obama) and a failed but “known quantity” (John McCain), people would not so much vote for McCain as they would vote against Obama. It seems to be working. The polls have tightened as the McCain camp has launched what have been universally condemned as ’scurrilous’, ‘childish’ ‘baseless’ and ‘false’ ads.

But this election is not, and has never been a referendum on Obama. It is a referendum on America. Over the last eight years Americans have relieved themselves of any responsibility in their vastly diminished respect and virulent anti-Americanism in certain parts of the world. They have chalked all that up to President Bush. Pundit after pundit repeat the tired line that “when I travel around the world, people say to me ‘we don’t hate you, it is your government and its policies that we hate’.” That is a specious argument that does not and should not withstand criticism. Politics is about deciding “who gets what”. It is about acquiring the authority to decide how much, where and how resources will be spent in meeting the needs of a society. Democracies organize their politics around political parties and campaigns where opposing parties outline and present arguments (platforms and positions) on why people should give the authority to each one. Understandably, many Americans thought the Palestinians in Gaza were ’stupid’ for electing Hamas. It signaled to them that those Palestinians agreed with Hamas’ policies and modus operandi. It is not such a leap then to blame Americans for the policies of the Bush administration. Even though 84% of the country agree that the country is headed in the wrong direction, the American people are complicit in putting the country on that path.

Eight years after what is perhaps the most glaringly incompetent administration in decades, Americans are back to that tired ‘cop out’. They are attempting to replace this grossly incompetent administration with another one, but then claim that the country is ‘going in the wrong direction.’ This is not a referendum on Obama, it is a referendum on America. This election could not provide a more stark contrast between the parties and the direction in which they intend to carry the country. In a CNN poll, 51% of the country is paying more attention to what an Obama presidency would be while 31% say the same about McCain. One campaign is highly organized with clear policy outlines on almost every major issue. One party has provided a disciplined grand strategic vision and laid out the core issues it seeks to address should it come to power. Both candidates are Senators with no executive experience with the respective campaigns being the largest operation they have run. One campaign has run like a brand new jet engine while the other has been improvisational at best and completely incoherent at worst. Asked if he was concerned about his campaign lack of coherence, frequent staff change and other dysfunction, McCain laughed it off. He responded that he liked pitting his aides against each other and benefitting from the creative tension. This man wants to be the President of the world’s largest economy and most powerful country and he lauds the virtue of incoherence. McCain has aligned himself with the most disastrous tendencies and policy positions of the Bush administration and even the Bush administration has begun moving away from McCain toward Obama on the major issues. McCain may even be worse than Bush. McCain has suggested a League of Democracies that would, by the very function of its title, exclude China. However, this is the campaign that supposedly wants to tackle global warming How does anyone tackle global warming by antagonizing China? McCain has even suggested kicking Russia out of the G-8, but also claims to be interested in securing loose nukes and advancing non-proliferation. How does one do anything on non-proliferation by antagonizing Russia? This inability to think strategically and this pattern of policy incoherence is the rule and not the exception of the campaign McCain has run.

He wants to ‘win’ the war in Iraq although he is loath to explain in specific terms what ‘victory’ looks like. Five years after he voted to overthrow a Sunni administration in Iraq he still confuses Sunnis and Shias. Almost thirteen years after Czechoslovakia ceased to exist, he referred to it as an existing country over three times. I can not think of anything else Senator McCain could do to prove that he is unfit for the office he seeks. Here is a candidate who argued that the Bush tax-cuts violated his conscience, but today he wants to make them permanent. Here is a candidate who always adorns his language with words like ‘courage and honor’, but is increasingly running a scurrilous and dishonorable campaign. Having demonstrated more incompetence than his Democratic rival, it is still his rival who is expected to jump through hurdles and continue to ‘prove’ that he is ready to lead. Obama presciently noted that an unnecessary war with Iraq would lead to ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” McCain promised that Americans ‘would be greeted as liberators.’ History affirmed Obama’s judgment. The war now costs $10 billion dollars a month. McCain is promoting a South Korea/Japan model of permanent American presence in a country where the people DO NOT want such an arrangement. McCain argued that discussing a timeline for withdrawal was a treacherous betrayal and dishonorable surrender. No president with a military strained to breaking point, soldiers performing up to four tours, a sinking economy and a burgeoning threat of a resurgent Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan should agree to an open-ended committment to a country that is at best, peripheral to the country’s most pressing national security threat - global terrorism.

The quintessential expression of the ludicrous counterintuitive themes of this campaign is Obama’s popularity. Somehow it is a bad thing to have an American president the world respects. Apparently it is more appropriate to have foreigners burning American flags than waving them. It is terrible for Obama to be accepted and not reviled like President Bush. After launching a disastrous and unnecessary war against a country that posed no threat, you have one candidate joking about ‘bombing Iran’. That joke was in bad taste and in a manner that has become a pattern of the McCain campaign, beneath the stature of the office he seeks. So no, this is not a referendum on Obama who has been an exemplary candidate - it is a referendum on America and how far the country has come. This is a choice between voting prejudices and setting the country on a path to recovery. The jury is still out and in November we will see how America votes.

China sends Mugabe home

As China rises in power, the question foreign policy analysts and international relations professionals are pondering is, “what kind of power would china be?”. Historically, China has no revisionist inclinations a la Russia and there is no reason to think that they would develop one now. However, China has been content to behave like a status quo power only in so much as it benefits them. They have had no qualms about operating outside the system if they see it as necessary. Their operation in Sudan and their attempt to ship arms to Zimbabwe in the midst of the government’s crackdown on opposition political party activists display China’s “two face”.

However, it appears that China can be influenced. They are so consumed with a successful Olympics that ” Zimbabwe’s President, Robert Mugabe, has been forced to return home following intense political pressure from the Chinese Communist Party. It appears that Bob will not be attending the opening ceremony after all. Everybody, after all, has a price ceiling. And this was one China could not exceed.

Zimbabwe

” The responsibility of government for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is, in fact, the prime objective for which government comes into effect.” - Winston Churchill

People tend to measure themselves and be challenged by the highest thing in sight. In our social, economic and political arrangements, the highest ‘things’ in sight are the women and men who through fortitude, staying power, creativity or a combination of those virtues, overcome difficulty to succeed. They inspire us. They become our heroes. The problem with Africa is that we have too few heroes and of those few, only a minority retain their status. Our heroes empty the store of goodwill in the public repository by relentlessly making unreasonable demands of our patience. Such is the case with President Robert Mugabe.

Robert Mugabe is was an African hero. Robert Mugabe once attained and held the same status as Nelson Mandela, not simply because of his (Mugabe’s) resistance to Ian Smith’s White majority minority rule in the former Southern Rhodesia. Robert Mugabe kept the ANC viable in its resistance to apartheid in South Africa. For a good while on the continent, President Mugabe was one of the ‘highest things in sight.’

Then in the mid-1980’s Mugabe began to sap his social capital when he sanctioned the butchering of thousands in Matabeleland because it was a bastion of opposition to him. Emerson Mnangagwa, Mugabe’s former security chief, earned himself the unenviable title of “the Butcher of Matabeleland” for his leadership in the slaughter of thousands of his compatriots. Robert Mugabe will not, in the words of Harvey Dent (Dark Knight) die a hero, he has stayed around long enough to see himself become the villain.

We can blame Europe and the West for the sanctions that have Zimbabwe’s economy in the tank. And there is enough blame to go around, but by God the West didn’t do this:

“Women were stripped and beaten so viciously that whole sections of flesh fell away from their buttocks. Many had to lie facedown in hospital beds during weeks of recovery. Men’s genitals became targets. The official postmortem report on Chaona opposition activist Aleck Chiriseri listed crushed genitals among the causes of death. Other men died the same way.” - Washington Post

Over the last few years, President Mugabe has emptied his store of goodwill and is now drawing blood - literally. There is no question that the land distribution in Zimbabwe was a travesty - White farmers (approximately 1% of the population) owned 70% of the arable land. This was an injustice that had to be corrected. But how is Zimbabwe (as it is today) in any way a ‘correction’? Inflation is now 2.2 million percent! Private estimates put inflation at 12.6 million percent. This is impossible to wrap one’s mind around. Twenty billion Zimbabwean dollars now trade for $1US. It just boggles the mind. Unemployment is at 80% and a 4lb bag of sugar costs up $90 billion (Zimbabwean). At independence in 1980 the Zimbabwe dollar was worth more than US$1. The worthless Zimbabwean banknotes appear to be the least of the problems right now as the Zimbabwe Times reports that the country is about to run out of paper to print the useless money. The German company that supplies paper stopped over concerns of the recent election rigging.

So let’s do what we do best in Africa - make excuses. Let’s blame other people for causing ALL of our problems while life expectancy hovers around 40 years for the lucky among us. Let’s make excuses while African countries consistently crowd the bottom of the annual Human Development Index. Let’s make excuses and allow the rest of the world to infantilize and patronize us. Let us crystallize our place as the world’s basket case in perennial need of handouts and regular salvation from its own murderous and self-destructive inclinations. Until we own up to our complicity in and responsibility for the condition of Africa - thousands will continue to starve in Zimbabwe, be raped and pillaged in Darfur and live in the lawlessness that ravages Somalia and eastern DRC. Only Africans can solve Africa’s problems. The government in Harare is an illegitimate one, it has breached the social contract with its people by consistently defaulting on its end of the bargain. African leaders can grandstand in mock indignation at what they perceive as “interference” with the domestic affairs of Zimbabwe, but Mugabe’s administration lost claim to that principle when it unilateral abrogated the social contract with Zimbabweans for no rationally accessible reason.

Update: Hat tip to ‘justrecently’ for pointing out that it was ‘minority’ and not ‘majority’ rule.

Genetic Variation Increases HIV Risk in Us (Black People)

“HIV affects 25 million people in sub-Saharan Africa today, an HIV burden greater than any other region of the world. Around 90 per cent of people in Africa carry the genetic variation, meaning that it may be responsible for an estimated 11 per cent of the HIV burden there. The authors observe that sexual behaviour and other social factors do not fully explain the large discrepancy in HIV prevalence in populations around the world, which is why genetic factors are a vital field of study.” - Science Daily

Apparently genetic variation to protect people of African descent from a particular kind of malaria makes us susceptible to HIV infection. It’s really tragic that nature in an effort to protect us from one scourge made us vulnerable to an even greater one. Whoooo! I’m beginning to miss malaria…