In actual verifiable conditions of civil war that Ukraine goes through at the moment any foreign financial assistance to the de facto authorities in Kiev translates as support in the fight against their political opponents. Such Western grants and/or loans will be used to purchase military equipment to be used as suppression tools of the opposition. This could lead to an uncontrolled spread of weapons, with a heightened risk that the conflagration infiltrates into the EU via Moldova, Romania and Poland. And will Ukraine be able to give back the credits granted to her at all? If, as a result of the civil war, the entire wealthy South-East of Ukraine is destroyed, where will the economic base be to generate income in order to return the loans? If the supporters of Federalism win in the forthcoming elections will they admit “old debts” to foreign borrowers? Allocating funds to wage a civil war is a sign of inefficient and utterly irresponsible management. In addition, the disbursement of financial assistance to Ukraine by the IMF diverts resources that could have been used for the solution of major socio-political and economic problems of the world.

Taking into account the numerous Russian and Ukrainian communities within EU member states, the civil war in Ukraine is bound to have a negative influence on their internal situation. Therefore, it is more wise for the European Union to promote the idea of seeking a political settlement in Ukraine rather than focusing on the business-project of the USA to support nationalists who came to power in Kiev.

As for sanctions against Russia, the US and the EU are trying to reach a common policy. However, a close analysis of international media shows that opinions on this issue are diverse. Many analysts conclude that new sanctions will not cause significant economic damage to Russia. On the contrary the European Union states will suffer mostly because they have closer economic ties than the US does with Moscow. Europe depends largely on Russia in the energy sphere. With the aggravation of the situation in Ukraine a barrage of calls from corporate managers came down on the high-ranking European officials with a demand not to take any steps that will jeopardize their business interests in Russia. Thus, the German businessmen insist on a diplomatic solution of the conflict and indicate the serious consequences of the sanctions firstly for the German economy. Italy, Greece and the Republic of Cyprus are also against toughening of sanctions, fearing dire consequences for their economies as well.

It is quite clear that of the two Western players involved in the Ukrainian crisis, Europe will suffer more. The US are the most active ally of those, who came to power by force of arms, and they, unlike their Western partners, stake out their main geostrategic goal: to get closer to Russia’s borders and to create a hot spot of instability there. Therefore, does Europe need the path that goes to the detriment of its interests and the welfare of their States? Does the EU need this blind devotion to Washington, which uses the EU to satisfy its own imperialist ambitions? We may remind ourselves of the top US policy-makers mindset with regard to Europe – it is not so long ago (March 2014) US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland referred to Europe in the most derogatory and undiplomatic terms using obscene language …

Besides it is necessary to realize that the Western sponsors of the Ukrainian nationalists will have to share with the local perpetrators responsibility for all committed crimes: violent overthrow of constitutional authorities in a sovereign state, unnecessary loss of human life, promotion of neo-fascist activity, creation of chaos, physical attacks, provocations, threats, spread of propaganda and misinformation. So, does Europe need all this? Does it want to share this responsibility with the US, who are ready to bring anyone to power, even the devil, if only not to lose their influence, as well as to get into the sphere of national interests of Russia? The answer is obvious, it’s time to wake up, follow common sense turning away from the wrong path. And let the US take on their own burden of responsibility and consequences of their gamble.

It is common for candidates in presidential primaries to use bellicose language to prove their toughness. This kind of rhetoric is especially useful in Republican primaries, where audiences have a firm belief in the use of military power to solve problems. But toughness and wisdom are not the same thing.

The difference between the two was on display in the discussion of Iran that opened Saturday night’s Republican foreign policy debate, as it has been throughout the Republican campaign. Asked if he would consider a military option should current efforts fail to deter Iran’s work on developing nuclear weapons, Mitt Romney said, “of course you take military action, it’s unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Newt Gingrich echoed Romney’s call. Previously, Herman Cain called preemptive force against Iran his “option B.” Even Jon Huntsman, who has been the most sober of the candidates on foreign policy, suggested that “if you want an example of when I would consider the use of American force, it would be that.” Rick Perry let us know that he would support Israeli military strikes too.

The problem with these arguments is that they flatly ignore or reject outright the best advice of America’s national security leadership. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, former congressman Admiral Joe Sestak and former CENTCOM Commander General Anthony Zinni are only a few of the many who have warned us to think carefully about the repercussions of attacking Iran. Two months ago, Sestak put it bluntly: “A military strike, whether it’s by land or air, against Iran would make the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion look like a cakewalk with regard to the impact on the United States’ national security.”

While rhetoric about military strikes may work as an applause line in Republican debates, there is little or no chance that military action would be quite so simple. Quite the contrary. Defense leaders agree that the military option would likely result in serious unintended consequences.

Meir Dagan, the recently retired chief of Israel’s Mossad, shares the assessment of the Americans cited above. He noted earlier this year that attacking Iran “would mean regional war” and went on to say that arguments for military strikes were “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

To be clear: everyone can agree that Iran is a serious problem. The development of Iranian missile technology is credible enough that NATO is (smartly) working with Russia to develop a defensive missile shield. And the most recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s nuclear program should rally the international community to apply even more pressure.

But while Iran is a serious issue, it is equally true that they have been effectively isolated and weakened by the one-two punch of smart sanctions and the democratic winds sweeping through the region. The international sanctions have seriously damaged Iran’s economy and exacerbated a growing feud between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. It is important to avoid steps that would unite these political blocs.

Meanwhile, Iran’s most important regional ally, Syria, is struggling to avoid becoming the next regime toppled by a popular uprising. And given its own deep unpopularity with the Iranian public, the government may yet face a winter of domestic discontent. It has already had to face down strong segments of its population that want a less bellicose attitude toward the rest of the world.

We didn’t ask the tough questions in 2003 when America went to war in Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction. The security of America and the stability of a largely redrawn Middle East depend on our ability to continue to isolate and contain a weakened Iran.

Running for President means running for commander in chief of America’s armed forces. If the candidates favor military action, as is their prerogative, they should desist from peddling the false notion of a simple “surgical” strike and answer the hard questions. How would they contain a larger regional war? Would they commit to a ground invasion? How would they pay for it? What is their view on the implications of another major deployment for the U.S. military? And why are they ignoring the advice of some of America’s most experienced military leaders?

America ought not consider another war in the Middle East without a very serious discussion of the consequences. Political candidates should curb their jingoistic, chauvinistic emotions and temper their world view with a little reflective, rational thought.

*John H. Johns is a retired brigadier general. He served as a combat arms officer in the Army for over 26 years and taught national security strategy at the National Defense University for 14 years. The article first appeared in the New York Times, 14 Nov 2011.

Hits: 3079

Comments

…
written by Shota Shvelidze, January 16, 2012 

Thanks for uploading this nice piece. It is very useful topic at the moment for those who actively follow the primaries in US. It seems from the article that the republican candidates who are mentioned in this article are the most probable candidates from the whole party. However, it seems for me that majority of them do not understand the political situation in middle east in the world in general and especially lack understanding about the US foreign policy. The only politician from the republican camp who is wise, smart and honest is Ron Paul. I would suggest you to review his interviews and his vision of the US foreign policy. However, unfortunately he does not have chance to win the primary.

ross.romeo07@gmail.com
written by R2R London, March 04, 2012 

Nice blog, I am very impressed on knowing that this information is being shared here and actively discussed by these commentators here. I do want to know certain updates though.

Student of International Studies
written by Atul Menon, March 05, 2012 

This is in fact a very well written and intriguing piece. Especially with regards to Iran’s advancement in nuclear technology through the beginning of 2012 the tensions in the Middle East are continuously growing. It is of no doubt that Israel would have a ready plan of attack at a time or circumstance it deems fit. What is truly scary is what implications such an act of aggression would accomplish or even lead to. On top of this reports of Iranian nuclear scientist deaths as well as attacks on Israeli diplomatic missions in Thailand and India certainly do not help the nerves of Israel and Iran.
There is also a great deal of uncertainty regarding the depths of Iran’s nuclear program. The fact that Iran isn’t making its intentions any more transparent than it claims is not helping their position in the International arena either. It is certain that with all the violence being spread by the Arab spring already in the Middle East, any scale conflict between Iran and Israel is sure to draw in more security actors and cause a catastrophic amount of damage, deaths and destruction. At this point it is best to first determine the degree of Iran’s nuclear program and try to the best possible extent to bring about some form of agreements relating to curbing Iran’s “true” (it claims to need nuclear technology for energy and not weapons) nuclear intentions. At the end of the day the West would definitely consider nuclear weapons a threat in what would questionably be regarded as a rogue regime and if the West and/or Israel were to do something more militarily assertive a war would ultimately prove disastrous.

Nuclear Weapons in Middle East & Around the World
written by Rob Wheeler, March 05, 2012 

This whole issue and situation is ludicrous. We should not even be having the conversation. Here is the situation, the US and other nuclear armed countries are telling Iran that they should not even think about developing nuclear weapons. Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and there is no complaint and the nuclear countries are most resistant to getting rid of their own weapons. There is way too much hypocrisy going on in the world. If the West wants Iran to stop and eliminate their nuclear program then they need to work for a nuclear free zone in the entire region and endorse and work for the adoption of a global nuclear weapons convention to eliminate them. Now that would be an ethical position and make a lot of sense.

But can we expect the world’s leading powers to do something like this. Well, there has been very little evidence of it so far.

Rob Wheeler
US Citizen
World Alliance to Transform the UN

In an attempt to get a Grand Bargain, President Obama proposed a centrist deficit reduction package. Congressional Republicans rejected that package only because it raised taxes, and were unreasonable for doing so. Like his fiscal commission cochairs Bowles & Simpson, the President proposed a responsible and balanced package of tax increases and long-term spending cuts that would solve USA’s fiscal problems. Because they are unwilling to consider tax increases, Republicans are therefore to blame for the failure of a Grand Bargain and for future fiscal collapse.

The problem with this storyline is that eight months ago three prominent Senate Republicans supported the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, which contained a net tax increase. The House Republicans on the commission did not support those recommendations, but Senators Coburn, Crapo, and Gregg did. No one would call any of these three men moderates – all are clearly conservative.

The President has stressed his willingness to include long-term entitlement reforms, including raising Medicare’s eligibility age to 67 and, reportedly, a correction to the CPI. Both are good policy changes, and both are elements of Bowles-Simpson. The President argues that Republicans should, in exchange, be willing to agree to the tax increases he proposes – both a significant increase in total tax revenues, and specific policies like higher marginal rates for “the rich.”

But the effects on beneficiaries of the Medicare eligibility increase, and the budget savings that would result from such a policy change, are significantly mitigated by the existence of ObamaCare subsidies for near retirees. This is nowhere nearly as big of a “give” as it would have been before the new health laws. A CPI change would both reduce entitlement spending and raise tax revenues, so the political pain is bipartisan.

More broadly, these changes would only temporarily slow spending growth. While they are politically significant, they fall far short of the size and type of changes that you need to make to solve our entitlement spending growth problem. At best they kick the can down the road several years.

Let’s look at a few of the other provisions that conservatives would support in the Bowles-Simpson package that are not in the President’s proposed Grand Bargain. Parenthetical references are to the Bowles-Simpson recommendations.

Health reforms in Bowles-Simpson that are not in the President’s proposal:

Reform or Repeal the CLASS Act; (recommendation 3.2)

Medical malpractice reform; (recommendation 3.3.12)

Pilot a “premium support through the FEHB program” for Medicare; (similar to Ryan’s reform)

Establish a long-term global budget for total health care spending. (rec. 3.3.13)

Social Security reforms in Bowles-Simpson that are not in the President’s proposal:

Make the retirement benefit formula more progressive; (recommendation 5.1)

Gradually increase early and full retirement ages [for both Social Security & Medicare] based on increases in life expectancy; (recommendation 5.4)

Cover newly hired State and local workers after 2020. (recommendation 5.8)

Tax provisions in Bowles-Simpson that are not in the President’s proposal:

Cut rates across the board, and reduce the top rate to between 23 and 29 percent; (rec. 2.1.1)

Example:  Three brackets: 12% | 22% | 28%; (figure 7)

Establish single corporate tax rate between 23 percent and 29 percent; (rec. 2.2.1)

Move to a competitive territorial tax system. (rec. 2.2.3)

This is far from an exhaustive list. Other items from Bowles-Simpson are a part of the ongoing negotiations between the White House and Congress. Bowles-Simpson also included other provisions that most Republicans wouldn’t like, such as a 15¢ increase in the gas tax.

In 1997, to get a deal with Speaker Gingrich and Leader Lott, President Clinton had to cut spending enough to balance the budget and cut taxes. In 2010, Commission Chairman Bowles had to make fundamental changes to entitlement spending growth and to the structure of these programs to get some Republican support for a package that raised taxes.

Chairman Bowles found that, to get three Senate Republicans to support a net tax increase, he needed to repeal an expensive new health program, tick off the trial lawyers with malpractice reform, establish a pilot program for Ryan-Rivlin style Medicare reform, and place a cap on total health spending. He needed to increase the eligibility age not just for Medicare, but also for Social Security, and he needed to slow Social Security spending growth through changes to the benefit formula. He needed to tick off government worker unions by prospectively repealing their special exemption from Social Security. And he needed to agree to tax reform that would raise total revenues while dramatically lowering top individual and corporate rates.

President Obama has been unwilling to make any of these changes, and yet suggests Republicans are being unreasonable for not agreeing to net tax increases. The President refuses to discuss changes to the trillion dollar new health entitlement he and Congress created last year. He refuses to discuss changes to Social Security beyond a CPI correction. He insists that top tax rates go up. He attacked Paul Ryan for his long-term Medicare reform and refuses to consider it.

At least as important, Bowles & Simpson offered a long-term fiscal solution in exchange for this net tax increase, under which spending would never have exceeded 22% of GDP and deficits would have quickly dropped below 2% of GDP and eventually reached balance. That’s too much spending (and too high taxes) for my taste, but it’s qualitatively different from and far superior to the President’s proposal, which is to trade permanent tax increases for only a temporary slowdown in government spending growth and budget deficits.

Congressional Republicans are being castigated for opposing the President’s proposal. Many of those Republicans will reject any tax increase in any package, but some will consider the offer as a whole, and will weigh the spending control and reform they’re being offered in exchange for higher taxes.

And unlike the Bowles-Simpson package, the deal they’re being offered by the President is such a bad one that it’s not really a tough call.

Comments

ph.d. candidate,Department of Economics,University of Cyprus
written by Panagiotis Karavitis, July 25, 2011 

Vasika sxetika me to antikeimeno, tha elega oti ontas anenhmerwtos gia to sugkekrimeno thema, me plhroforhse arketa mias kai den gnwrizw tous logous ths sugkroushs.
auto pou tha ithela na rwthsw einai poia einai i protash twn repoumplicanwn gia thn sugkekrimenh krish xreous dedomenou oti kai aukshsh twn dhmosiwn paroxwn kai meiwsh twn forologikwn suntelestwn den ginetai

student in the postgraduate program of DEOS in AUEB
written by Dionysios Solomos, July 25, 2011 

Actually, the reduction of the public deficit in the USA is an emergency. The debate and the negotiations on the US Budget constitute a game of give n take between President Obama and the republicans. The key point is the tax increases. The package that president Obama offers, does not seem to satisfy the republicans and as a result the implementation of the Grand Bargain is still far. Despite the fact that there are indeed conflicts and differences between the two parties, the package is not being applied due to both parties interests and incentives. It is required an immediate solution in order the USA to confront the public deficit and to avoid a debt crisis. Both parties have to retreat and come into consensus. The Bowles-Simpson recommendations seem to be the reference point and the vehicle for consensus.

…
written by Dr. Dimitrios Nikolaou Koumparoulis, July 25, 2011 

Dear Mr. Karavitis take some critical points of the other side, is somehow like speaking to myself, since I am focused on the therapy of my science and I do not like to leave any space that my opinions reflect to a specific political party.

Clinton’s 1993 deficit reduction package raised taxes substantially. By 1997, taxes were above 19 percent of GDP — and rising. Though the 1997 deal included some very modest tax cuts, taxes passed 20 percent of GDP in 2000. Meanwhile, the economy was booming and middle-class wages were rising. That meant there was less need for further increases in spending. So Clinton cut spending and ratcheted back some of his earlier tax increases.
This moment is not that moment. Twelve years of tax cuts and a devastating financial crisis have driven taxes below 15 percent of GDP — a 50-year low. Wages have been stagnant or dropping for more than a decade and unemployment is above 9 percent, so there’s a significant need for social spending.
The addition of that contextual data gives you a clearer picture of the situation: Tax cuts tend to follow tax increases, and vice versa. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan followed his large tax cuts with a series of smaller, but still significant, tax increases. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton followed his large tax increases with a set of modest tax cuts. And today, Republicans want to follow large tax cuts with … more tax cuts.
That’s what has changed. And, notably, there were Democratic votes for the Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax cuts, because Democrats believe that sometimes taxes should go down and sometimes they should go up, even if they often disagree about when those times are or by how much. At the moment, it appears that the Republican Party’s position is that taxes should only go down. That puts Republicans far to the right of our economic history, and most economists. It doesn’t put Obama to the right of Clinton on the tax issue, as the tax increases Obama has proposed would hold revenues far below where Clinton put them. So if total taxes are your measure, Clinton is well to the left of Obama. And remember that that’s an active choice: Obama is proposing to make most of the Bush tax cuts permanent, which is, compared with current law, a far greater tax cut than anything Clinton ever proposed or enacted.
Perhaps Republicans can argue that they are right to be so inflexible. But that does not change the fact that they have been inflexible, and compared with the baselines set by Democrats in the 1990s or the Simpson-Bowles commission last year, Democrats have not been.
That’s for an answer to your question which is somehow political
Let’s come to the real problem now…
my comment is to read some interesting books, mainly to start with Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins, and secondly The Web of Debt by Ellen Hodgson-Brown to name but a few … it is a global net of debt and betting on the debt – it is a scheme well described by various as bounty making by indebting and re-indebting countries and hence preventing their economies to flourish and become competitors globally…
I borrow you 100 billion
I tell you to re-invest most of it in a fund and only use the difference right now for infrastructure payments to companies in the country giving you the lease and to use the dividends made and the value of the funds increase at the end of the running-time to repay the debt
in the meantime the borrower controls the funds and is in the USA
the US needs 2-3 bil USD every day to cover its foreign trade deficit
so to balance, money is moved to the US and invested on the stock and commodities exchanges and in international financial day-to-day betting
the issuer of the fund knows that the stock exchange is a periodic boom-and-bust cycle, since it makes no sense to see the stock values grow at rates so much higher than the real-economy
the implosion or bust is the destruction of a lot of debt, because this money needs not flow back from the US to the borrowers or investors abroad, it has simply disappeared
Now the same who issue and run the loans are those who issue and run the funds
and they are those who also start betting against those funds in the background – as Goldman Sachs did against the real-estate-funds before the crash in 2008 – and as the borrowers did in SE Asia in the late 1990 and in Russia
So, the funds crash and so the securities of the debtor
and the creditor – who is already betting against the debtor is in outrage ! What about my money !?!
Well, the rating agencies step in and say, in case of default, you will be downgraded to trash and the interest you need to pay is 25% annually
well, they find an arrangement somewhere inbetween, and the previous creditor, who bet against his own security on a grander scale, because they already made their share with the original set-up and investment-commission, and they make a debt-restructuring plan
The debtor has no more securities and back-ups, so, a new loan will be issued to repay the original loan plus new higher interest.
That means to borrow another 100% of previous loan plus interest accumulated, pls 100 % more to repay this old and the new loan, plus the interest on the other 100 %
So by destroying the whole cash in the funds the US economy is saved from repaying the equivalent amount of foreign investment or debt (you know balance of trade is negative, so payment must be positive in order to be in balance) – money in effect flows into the US economy and does not leave it backwards.
Some call it the customer of last resort – Todd – in reference to Keynes – calls it: the world of today is building the American pyramide (as a Keynesian means of keeping the global economy going)
Well, in the end – the only who profits is the creditor, and his friends with rating agencies and the US economy on the expense of the rest of the world or the target economy destroyed or hampered
but, how is it possible that so much money goes to the funds abroad every month – its all of our savings and insurance schemes in the industrialised capitalist world providing fresh money to the FIRE economy blowing up bubbles every month from our paychecks and payment orders. FIRE is Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate economy

I wish you all the best to your studies

Doctor of Philosophy in Finance Candidate, UGSM Monarch University
written by Payal Chadha, July 26, 2011 

I feel after reading the above article that increasing taxes overall will only be a burden on the people as a whole and it wont help their situation with respect to their earnings, inflation, etc. As it is, there is no savings as such in USA with the amount of debt i.e. credit cards, education loans, mortgages,high medical expenses, etc. The overall expenses of an average American citizen leaves them barely with just enough to take care of their necessary bills after all the taxes are deducted. The democrats and republicans should keep their differences aside and should device a middle path which benefits USA as a whole instead of making one part of the community happy while others on the suffering end. With the high unemployment rate existing, they should increase taxes for corporates and highest paid individuals who are getting richer every day and use these taxes for the benefits of the society where people require it the most. Medical expenses should be designed to accommodate the people who cant afford, social security benefits should be improved to help the old and needy after their retirement. They call USA the land of opportunity where it makes the lives of all the people. Let USA improve the lives of its own people first.

…
written by Dr. Dimitrios Nikolaou Koumparoulis, July 26, 2011 

Dear Mr. Chadha,
when you are a policy maker there are several times that you take decisions and measures that are possible in practise, even you should know that they do not reflect the majority of people in short-term. In economics we learn to think in terms of long-run economic sustainability.We learn two terms in public economics:pareto equilibrium and ricardian equivalence. is everything neutral or absolutely democratic in practise?….

…
written by Dr. Dimitrios Nikolaou Koumparoulis, August 01, 2011 

U.S. deal brings relief, but downgrade looms (Source:Reuters)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/…W20110801
just an extra comment
now the economic hit man trying to destroy the EURO zone are aiming at Cyprus, Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Spain
its an economic war going on
more global problem is the dollar, seeming to repay most of its debt by devaluation and bankruptcy, they either do it by busting the bubble on the overvalued stock markets, or they do by devaluation
They will never ever be able to repay their debt
the number of 14,3 trillion reflects only the federal budget deficit spending ceiling
the total US debt, federal, state, communities, and private is around 60 trillion currently, and still the volume of volatile high risk financial derivates operated by US financial brokers exceeds the global domestic product by 10 times
its bound to implode

Dphil Student Monarch University Switzerland
written by Liane Moosho Imakando, August 04, 2011 

The Fiscal outlook of the American Economy is not in good shape and calls for urgent measures in order to avoid a looming economic crisis. The issue is to navigate the balance between amount of revenue raised from taxes and spending in the national budget in the right direction and so keeping the dollar ih good health. The bottom line is how can the USA get to live within its means. I find the proposal by president Obama a necessary response to respond to the crisis. The question is is it good enough to get congressional support when put to the vote? To get there, there is a need to win over some republicans. The republican rejection of the President’s proposal only on tax increase leaves a sour taste in my mouth. There is a tone of inflexibility that is focused on politically weakening the democrats. Cutting on spending without increasing taxes is a formula for fiscal disaster as it squeezes the budgets and spending cuts particularly on social services. The majority of the relatively lesser to do often bear the brunt. The lesser to do have the power to influence the vote. Democrats would risk their popularity if this was the case.

The opportunity to include some issues that republicans would be sympathetic too and yet not included in the president’s proposal would have given a better bargaining power to the democrats in congress. Are there some missed opportunities here? Republicans are only focusing on one side of the fiscal scale. Clearly there was the opportunity for the democrats to leverage the possible support of the three prominent republican senators who supported the Bowles Simpson recommendation containing a net tax increase. Other republicans were also willing to consider the offer as a whole i.e weiging spending control and reform in exchange for higher taxes. There was opportunity to include some of the Bowles Simpson package provisions that conservatives would have been sympathetic to.

On the issue of kicking the can several years down the road, one tends to agree with this. There is need to clearly project the fiscal manoevers necessary to keep fiscal health in check in the future. So I agree with the need for a long term fiscal solution. However, I am not convinced that the proposed strategic solution of dropping the deficits to 2% of GDP is as easy as it sounds. Trade offs both on the tax side and the expenditure side are inevitable. It is getting the correct balance both economically and politically. The challenge is politically how democrats can maintain, increase or lose the general public votes in the coming USA elections based on the ulitimate decision that congress will make. The Democrats do need the republicans in congress to win the vote on the issue.

We all know by now that the president’s proposal got majority vote in congress. The Republicans need not be blamed after all. For now a solution has been found. The question is how long this solution will last into the future? We see how this unfolds in reality on the American fiscal performance.

Most Americans are not asking many questions about the circumstances under which our Navy Seals killed bin Laden, but the citizens of Pakistan are, and so are students of international law. (Obama, have you forgotten what you used to teach?) It is now fairly clear that this was an assassination.outlawed by American as well as international law. How would we react if some other country, Russia for example, flew helicopters into an American city to assassinate one of their enemies? Anti-American fervor had already reached a very high peak in Pakistan and this along with our almost daily drone attacks is likely to exacerbate it. Can we afford to have this nuclear-armed, Moslem country hating us?
We must not celebrate the death of one mass murderer while justifying or ignoring the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to our own violence. Probably over 100,000 Iraq citizens have been killed and a couple of million displaced from their homes, because our neo-cons decided that we should attack that country under trumped up excuses. The search for non-existent weapons of mass destruction has also cost us upwards of a trillion dollars so far, along with over 4,000 G.I. Deaths and thousands of veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injuries and amputated limbs.

It is easy to say that we made a bad mistake, or that we over-reacted to the tragedy of 9/11, but the sad fact is that we are a country addicted to war and violence, being egged-on by the corporate interests which directly benefit from war. Fear is a powerful motivator which makes us easy prey for those who promote “an eye for an eye” and “get them before they get you” as national policy.

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Martin Luther King said: “Sooner or later, all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation.”

In November of 2001, a group of people walked from Washington D.C. to New York City carrying a banner that said, “Our grief is not a cry for war.” Several of the walkers were people who had lost loved ones in the attacks on 9/11. When the walk ended, they formed a group called “Families For Peaceful Tomorrows” to continually represent the belief that our security is not founded on violence and revenge.

Many of the newly elected, right-wing, tea party Republicans are for cutting human services, education and job programs, while increasing our expenditures on the military and nuclear weapons. What do you think? What are you doing about it?

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!

*Mr. Bob Hanson is the Treasurer of Democratic World Federalists. This article first appeared in DWF newsletter. 

In November 2010, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization met at Lisbon to agree a new Strategic Concept, the first revision since 1999.^[1] It was also the first Summit where NATO Allies met in the Organization’s probably final form, fully enlarged. Although it might be an unreliable indicator, all the flag poles at the entrance of the NATO Defense College in Rome are filled, and there are no additional spaces for new flags, and just recently, the ground has been broken in Brussels for the construction of the new Alliance headquarters. These observations suggest that enlargement has been completed.

As many experts (and nay-sayers) predicted, enlargement to regions not directly or geographically related to the North Atlantic region brings special challenges. One of the challenges is that of strategic coherence not only for the Organization itself, but for each Ally taken separately. With enlargement, the Alliance comes into contact with new neighbours, with new geo-political considerations, but always with the same overall responsibility of covering all the Allies’ strategic requirements equally. This inelegant formulation reflects the fact that the Alliance has undergone tremendous change over the last 15 years, when the possibility of enlargement (and its implications) were first put on the table through the “Study on Enlargement.” In particular, the Alliance has sought to move from a common defence to collective security posture, a difference which is, admittedly only academic, as collective security may mean common defence to some Allies. As always, reconciling the strategic needs of each member has proven difficult.

Enlargement means a larger geographic area to secure, and also a larger administration to carry out the work, which means more costs to each members, in a context of re-allocation of administrative postings for each member. Since the arrival of the new Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Organization has been in the throes of re-structuring itself for greater efficiency.

Although Canada supports the general direction depicted above, the parallel processes of enlargement and of administrative and strategic renewal of the Alliance have nevertheless generated some discomfort for Canadian policy-makers. Canada’s fundamental interests in the Alliance remain, but as the strategic scope enlarges with new members, political and strategic inconsistencies arise. The acuteness of these inconsistencies is accentuated by Canada’s financial and military contribution to the Alliance, and the return on “investment” (or lack thereof).

“Active Engagement, Modern Defence”, the title of the new Strategic Concept, can rightfully be called the “partnership” concept. By mentioning NATO’s “open door” only once (para. 27), and emphasising the need for cooperation and partnership especially in crisis management, it equates the Alliance’s traditional role of collective defence with that of general security. Crisis management and partnership cooperation are a euphemism for resetting relations with Russia. While most of the Strategic Concept’s premises mesh well with Canadian preferences, such as a “serious rethink on eastward enlargement”, a greater focus on security rather than merely NATO-area traditional defence, enhanced partner collaboration and of course administrative restructuring at NATO to avoid a “UN syndrome”, certain factors pose special problems to Canada.^[2]

For example, cyber and energy security are factors that are clearly much more important to some NATO Allies than others. This author has heard it said that cyber-attacks should be responded to in kind, and feature as worthy of an Article 5 response. This is clearly unworkable because in Canadian parlance, cyber security (which is called cyber-alertness) is part of critical infrastructure, which is not the remit of defence or diplomacy. Canada’s perception is that cyber security policy should address predominantly the security of Alliance communications (that is, for example, cyber defence against threats to NATO HQ communications, or operational communications in the field between Allies and Partners). The limitations imposed by this formulation clearly will not satisfy countries like Estonia who were victims of cyber-attacks in 2007. On the other hand, the problem of attribution of blame makes the kind of response that Estonia is likely to prefer completely unworkable. This common-sense conclusion is also part of Canada’s assessment of the Alliance’s vulnerability to cyber threats.

In terms of energy security, Canada is one of the world’s leading natural resource exporters, so resource scarcity does not impact it the same way as some European countries. There is therefore an interest in not developing a NATO “pipeline police” although the anti-piracy efforts supported by NATO and Canada off the Somali coast and in the Gulf of Aden clearly match policing activities for the securitisation of energy flows.^[3] The relative inattention paid to this area of NATO policy is clearly related to Canada’s own economic and energy interests, which are better fulfilled than for other NATO Allies. Although some influential policy advisers in Canada firmly believe that security writ large should have a wider geographic scope than just the traditional NATO area, Canada would be reluctant to prioritise security along the lines of energy transfer flows. The other reason not to focus on energy security is not to attract unwanted attention to the resource-rich far North of Canada, some parts of which the sovereignty is disputed among NATO and non-NATO countries.

Missile Defence: Another Factor of Contention

For the same reason, missile defence is another factor of contention. It is likely that Canada’s position on missile defence is informed by the spectre of loss of sovereignty, especially in the Arctic, as Cold War anti-missile preparedness was based along the Distant-Early-Warning line of US radars deployed in the far North. At a moment when most Canadians define themselves by the Arctic^[4], a NATO-wide missile defence system would normally include Alliance-wide involvement in geographical areas where Canada insists it is sovereign. Missile defence is likely to remain destined to defend European allies for other reasons as well, not least because Canada would be forced to contribute to its common funding if the concept was applied NATO-wide, but also because one of the primary considerations for Canada is good NATO-Russia relations.

Stresses of Enlargement & Ottawa’s Unease over Rewards

At the heart of Canada’s Alliance policy is the core belief that security is indivisible, that Canada is committed to Alliance solidarity (in other words, that the Alliance not be split along issue-based considerations, which is now threatened with) and substantive re-engagement with Russia. Because Russia is a variable in energy security for Europe, as well as in missile defence (because of its reluctance to see missile defence systems deployed close to its borders), other Allies’ preferences may sometime clash with Canada’s. This is directly due to the stresses of enlargement, which diversifies values (although this would be the subject of another, lengthier debate) and interests.

The stresses of enlargement are also reflected in the resulting security allocations within the Alliance and among Allies. Canada is one of the leading contributors to the Alliance. Allusions to “burden-sharing” have re-emerged as Canada, the 6th largest contributor to NATO common funding, contributing some 7% of the Alliance’s budget, the 3rd largest contribution to the NATO airborne early warning scheme, and currently the 6th largest contributor of troops, with the highest per capita sacrifice in ISAF, nevertheless is awarded less than 1% of NATO defence contracts, and sees some of its policy and strategic preferences for NATO skewed in favour of new NATO Allies. Canada’s influence in regional security can be measured by the relief with which the NATO Secretary General received the news that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan would not completely evaporate passed its July 2011 drawdown, and that Canadian troops would contribute to the training of Afghan national security forces – after all Canadian training and education has always been a focus of excellence within the Alliance, indeed a niche. Another indicator of Canada’s value in Afghanistan and for the Alliance as a whole is The Economist’s vignette in its new year special issue. The vignette reads “2011 in brief: After a decade with NATO forces in Afghanistan, Canada withdraws its troops.”^[5] For The Economist to even mention it, the saliency of that decision must be significant. Without suggesting that Canada’s membership in NATO is in question, there is growing unease in Ottawa government departments dealing with NATO issues as to how the country is rewarded for its efforts in the Alliance.

^[1] NATO Official website, www.nato.int

^[2] Michel Maisonneuve, Paul Chapin, et al, Security in an Uncertain World: A Canadian Perspective on NATO’s New Strategic Concept, (Ottawa: Conference of Defence Associations Institute and Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, 2010), 31-35.

^[3] Pierre Jolicoeur and Frederic Labarre, “NATO’s Engagement in the South Caucasus”, in Annie Jafalian, ed., Reassessing Security in the South Caucasus: Regional Conflicts and Transformation, (London: Ashgate, exp. 2011).

^[4] Ekos Research Associates, Rethinking the Top of the World: Arctic Security Opinion Survey Final Report, January 2011.

^[5] The Economist, The World in 2011, 72.

Hits: 2607

Comments 

A very good article
written by Christos, March 04, 2011 

The above article is realy interesting because shows the main thougts of NATO about it’s future. Always indicates clearly the special role of Canada in the Alliance. The same question it self E.E.

Lecturer, British History, Literature and Culture, Ionian University
written by Dr. William Mallinson, April 15, 2011 

This article is well written,and smooth. But it is simply public relations writing, for an organisation,NATO,that was designed to last until April 1999, and was then resuscitated for hegmonic and business reasons, to expand and bomb Serbia illegally, creating a far worse ‘humanitarian’ problem thab would otherwise have been the case. It is now the biggest threat to world peace, having been unilaterally bombing its way to its own oblivion,without any of its members having been directly threatened by a particular country.And at this very moment, we are witnessing its limitations, with, according tothe BBC, only six out of its twenty eight members agreeing to actually bomb Libya,and fuel a civil war, in one of the more liberal Moslem countries. The latest developments say it all: twenty two members refusing to help France and Britain in their illegal attempt at regime change. Shame on militarily insignificant countries like Belgium, Canada, Norway and Denmark for joining in the unilateral attack on a country that has threatened no other country. After NATO’s failure to establish a viable, internationally recognised Kosovo, and its failure in Afghanistan, perhaps the only bthing that will emerge from this latest business/oil war will be the final death of a vain organisation that is beyond its shelf life, whose original purpose is irrelevant.

On current developments with regards to the Iranian nuclear program, including the impact of new sanctions on Iran, few experts express optimism that the fourth round of UN sanctions has the potential to put real economic pressure on Iran, suggesting the effects are still nebulous and that Iran will readily adapt to the new circumstances. There are also additional concerns that insistence on enrichment suspension is a non-starter because it is politically untenable for any Iranian politician to accept foreign-imposed conditionality on its decision-making.

Thus, the main conclusion produced by the recent talks with regards to Iran’s nuclear program is that dialogue and mediation have to be given an additional chance. Of the various countries that have often mediated, Greece can be a sobering alternative. Greece is well-located at the crossroads of Europe, the Islamic world, the Balkans and the Mediterranean, hospitable, and acceptable to all sides.

But for any mediation to be successful, it is essential to understand Iran’s current Foreign and Security Policy choices. Tehran continues to design its foreign policy initiatives on the following central strategies: improve ties with Europe, China, and India to counter US threats, criticize US regional policies and initiatives but align with the US agenda in Iraq, and consolidate Iran’s central role in the region through enhanced economic cooperation and technical superiority. Iranians see American refusal to recognize their natural leadership role in the Persian Gulf as a key point of tension. This desire for international legitimacy and respect from the international community drives Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear options. To better understand Iran’s motives, it is essential to provide answers to a set of critical questions.

First, why does Iran need nuclear technology if it has so much oil and gas? The pursuit of technology does not always have to make economic sense, and the economics of producing oil for domestic consumption versus export and use of nuclear power for domestic energy is more complicated than the public debate suggests. The real issue is to find the common ground between Iranian needs and Western demands: there is agreement that Iran can have a nuclear power plant, there is overwhelming logic to avoid confrontation, however, there is estrangement of views over Iranian uranium enrichment activities.

Second, why does Iran want to have nukes? The Iranian argument is that nuclear capability would bring Iran domestic legitimacy, international acceptance, and regional influence.

Third, who can Iran trust to help it acquire nuclear technology? The right to acquire nuclear technology is one issue that unites the whole Iranian political spectrum. Some Iranians, however, criticize the Islamic regime for relying too much on Russia. It is estimated that at the end of the day, Moscow will drop Iran to preserve its relationship with the United States, but Iran seems not to see another attractive alternative to Russian assistance in acquiring nuclear technology.

There is widespread belief of the Iranian public that a nuclear weapon would reflect Iran’s power, prestige, and regional prominence, but it would not resolve issues with the US, could encourage a regional arms race, and could increase the dependence of smaller regional powers on Washington. There are even fears that a group like al-Qaeda could have access to weapons resulting in nuclear terrorism.

Iran has a very young society; the majority of its population is under the age of 30, with an unemployment rate of nearly 20 percent. According to recent polls, the Iranian public shares a very open desire for the re-establishment of relations with the US, but on an equal footing. Despite the fact Iran continues to remain high on the US list of states sponsoring terrorism, the Obama presidency has made some open gestures for dialogue with Tehran over its arms build-up, financial support for Islamic militant groups such as Hamas and Hizbolah, and implacable opposition to Israel and the Middle East peace process.

The US seems to view Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a major challenge, not because a nuclear-armed Iran would necessarily ever use a nuclear weapon, but because it sees Iran as a major challenge in the Middle East and it is worried about what countries around Iran might do, in terms of also deciding to pursue nuclear weapons, or at least a nuclear weapons capability. As it is evident, nuclear arms race in the Middle East is an unwelcome development not only for Washington but also for the EU.

In this political framework, Athens can offer milestone mediation. Greece may be a small country, but diplomacy is about understanding codes and the symbols of the language. And in this sense, Athens is better trained as it was through war or peace she had a lot more contact with the Iranians.

The critical role of Greece was explicitly stressed by former Iranian foreign minister Mottaki during his December 6th, 2010, official visit to Athens during which he stated: “Greece is a very important country in the European family and can play a very important role in developing and strengthening EU foreign policy. In the past, Greece has supported the Tehran declaration with regard to exchange of nuclear fuel and this is of particular value to us”. He added: “The mutual trust shared by our two countries and peoples is the best capital for developing relations. Over the past thirty years, our two countries have always had constructive cooperation, whether bilaterally or trilaterally, on various regional issues”.

In fact, Greece has an excellent record of mediation between Iran and the West. It was the only country in then 15-member European Union not to recall its ambassador from Tehran due to a German court verdict related with the Mykonos case in 1997, which revealed a connection between the Iranian government and the assassination of political opponents to the Iranian regime in Germany. The verdict ended the EU-Iran “Critical Dialogue” aimed to moderate Iran through negotiations on issues such as its nuclear programme, human rights record and terrorism. Greece was the only EU country at the time that disagreed with the policy of isolating Iran and maintained its embassy in the Iranian capital representing EU interests.

Undoubtedly, Greece repeatedly brought Iran in from the cold. The first European Union Defence Minister to visit Iran since the Islamic revolution in 1979 was then Greek Defence Minister Akis Tsohatzopoulos. The purpose of the four-day official visit of June 1999 was to exchange views on issues of mutual interest and to exploit opportunities to develop bilateral cooperation in the defence sector. At that time, Iran perceived Greece as a trustworthy intermediary helping it to strengthen its ties with other NATO countries.

Also, the importance given by Iran to the role of Greece, as an EU member-state, to mediate with the EU towards attracting investors was evident and credible. During the 1999 official visit of then Greek President Constantinos Stephanopoulos who inaugurated the Greek-Iranian economic forum, the Iranian leadership asked the help of Greece to deliver to the EU Tehran’s credibility concerning its international accords, and stressed the need to promote private initiative. In addition, the Greek government successfully mediated and contributed to the release of thirteen Iranians of Jewish origin accused of conspiracy against Iran in 2000. The trial was held in a Revolutionary Court, the branch of Iran’s legal system that deals with political and moral crimes, and crimes involving national security.

More than any other country in the West, EU-member Greece was also the conduit for Iran to voice its views on Afghanistan, where it exerts significant influence through the country’s Shiite Muslim minority. In fact, the Greek leadership delivered messages during the US-led military campaign against Afghanistan in 2001. The visit by George Papandreou, then foreign minister, to Tehran at the behest of then US Secretary of State Colin Powell was important. What came out of the visit was not only that Iran was intent on playing a full role in a post-Taliban Afghanistan, but also, Tehran agreed to allow Afghanistan-bound US food and aid to be distributed through its ports.

By being a bridge between Iran and the European Union, Greece can help smooth the way for closer relations between Washington and Tehran. Greece can urge dialogue between Iran and the West; a consensus, however, on modalities of timing, level (special representative, ambassadorial, or Track-II diplomacy), or approach (grand bargain with all issues on the table or limited topics with the emphasis on first dealing with simpler issues to build confidence) is a major prerequisite.

The benefits of mediation for Athens can be multi-fold. Mediation can establish Greece as the critical player in this process. The contacts emerging from official diplomatic and political on the upper echelons or unofficial Track-II meetings can be translated into practical measures when necessities of state demand.

Not least, the attitude of several governments toward Greece can be deeply affected by a successful mediation and the relationships developed from them. The way that such the US, Israel, Iran, Iraq, the EU and other governments can deal with Athens as if it were the hub of the Middle East, is critical so that Greece can re-emerge as a major geopolitical player in the entire region.

* Antonia Dimou is Head of the Middle East and Persian Gulf Unit at the Institute for Security and Defence Analyses, Athens, Greece and an Associate at the Centre for Strategic Studies of the University of Jordan, Amman.

Hits: 3315

Comments

Lecturer in history and literature of Britain
written by Dr. William Mallinson, January 22, 2011 

Quite a good article, presumably a disguised attempt to have the next round of talks transferred from Istanbul to Athens. It’s all rather obvious: Cyprus, and therefore Greece, are now dancing with Israel,on US instructions, and Greece could therefore be the next venue for talks.At ant event, anything to divert attention from the greatest threat to the world: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal!

LLM, International Law, and Vice President, Democratic World Federalist
written by Shahriar Sharei, February 02, 2011 

Good article as far as why Greece can be a good mediator rather than Turkey or some other countries. However, the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation, is more fundamental than that. The problem lies with the NPT Treaty which is essentially a non- proliferation regime, rather than a nuclear disarmament regime, as its Article VI promises its Member States. As long as the “nuclear haves” do not take disarmament seriously, the nuclear weapons proliferation at the average rate of one country per decade will continue. As the NPT regime has witnessed in its 40 year history (Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea), being the additional members to the original veto privileged Permanent Five members of the Club.

MA, International Relations
written by Roberta Mulas, February 06, 2011 

Thank you for this good article and hopefully we will see a Greek mediation improving the confidence between Iran and the West. Unfortunately, I think a good ambassador will not be enough, as the issue is quite entangled as you described. If what Iran wants is a recognition of its status, only the US and to a lesser extent the EU as a whole are the right partners. If, as you say, “Iran wants nukes” I’m afraid that this decision cannot be affected by anyone but Washington given that the strategic preoccupations of Tehran have much to do with the US.
But certainly Greece should have its voice heard in the EU, raising the attention on the symbols and language used by Iran, which sometimes seems hard to understand for most of its fello EU-members.

Why are we spending over $700 billion this year, not including our war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan?  The short answer is the military-industrial complex, which President Dwight Eisenhower warned us when he left office in 1961.

Any time a weapon system is looked at for possible elimination there is a huge outcry from wherever the system is manufactured.  Shrewd weapons corporations spread their work out over many states, so that if and when the need for whatever it is they are producing is questioned, they have dozens of congressmen willing to fight the elimination on the basis of putting people out of work in their district.  What everyone fails to understand is that for every billion dollars spent on arms manufacturing, 11,600 jobs are created; for the same amount of spending in clean energy, 16,100 jobs are created; and in education, the number of jobs is 29,100.

The Pentagon is proposing an additional $500 billion a year spending over the next 10 years.  If that money were spent on education instead, it could create an additional 9.1 million jobs.

Many of us are trying to turn the situation around.  A coalition is being built of agencies, groups and cities negatively impacted by public budget cuts.  Awareness is being raised of the relationship between wasteful military spending and public needs.  The most difficult task is to get men and women in Congress to vote against money for war.  But, even here, we are making progress.  Over 100 Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted against the additional $34 billion that President Barack Obama requested for Afghanistan.  Ron Paul of Texas and Walter Jones of North Carolina are two GOP congressmen who realize military spending must be cut.

Congressman Barney Frank has put together an alternative Department of Defense budget that reduces military spending by $1 trillion over 10 years.  He has logic on his side.  Since 2000, the Pentagon budget has gone up by that much, in addition to the trillion spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today, the Pentagon’s comprehension of its own material resources is a deep, dark void.  It can’t track its own money; it cooks its own books and makes spending decisions on phony data.  [On 8 September 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld reported $2.3 trillion dollars of Pentagon funds missing.]  It has been three decades since the Pentagon’s books have been audited.  Billions have been handed over to contractors without any accounting.

A task force created by Obama in January 2010 has come up with recommendations for cuts amounting to $960 billion in 10 years without weakening America’s defenses.  This did not include monies spent on our current wars.

The task force suggested such commonsense ideas as not modernizing our nuclear weapons, reducing the number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,000 (how many would it take to destroy the world?), reducing our overseas troops in Europe and Asia by 50,000, reducing recruitment costs as wars wind down, reduce the Navy fleet to 230 ships, cancel the F-35 fighter that will cost about $200,0000,000 per plane, etc.  The ways are there if Congress and the President can muster up the courage to enact them.

While paying down the huge debt this country has built up needs to be a priority, an even greater need is to provide civilian jobs for folks who want to work at rebuilding our roads, making seismic improvements to our buildings and bridges, improving our parks, educating our grandchildren, etc.

Terrorism needs to be fought by police agencies, not a million-man Army.  If a terrorist does manage to set off a bomb in one of our major cities, who do we retaliate against?  Of what use is a billion dollar aircraft carrier or a nuclear-armed intercontinental missile against a terrorist training camp in Yemen or Somalia?

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a consequence of a misguided foreign policy, using borrowed money and force of arms as a substitute for diplomatic engagement, resulting in thousands of lives lost, terrible physical destruction to the invaded countries, a deteriorated American economy, and increased security threats to the United States. —

*Dr. Robert Hansen is Treasurer of Democratic World Federalists – DWF.

 
First, the latest evidence suggests that the source of the leaks is a 22 year-old US Army private first class, Bradley Manning. The motivation for the leaks appears to be high emotional stress unrelated to Manning’s activities, and judging by the reports in the media, only partially related to the moral outrage of having the US Army commit what has been dubbed “collateral murder.”  As a result of the leaks, Manning has been imprisoned for some six months at time of writing, according to the website of the organization set up in his defence.  Evidently, his confinement is connected with the transmission of some 250 to 260,000 classified documents, the first batch of which came during the summer of 2010 while the latest were made public by Wiki Leaks in the last few weeks.

At this point an interesting discussion about military ethics can be conducted, and of the appropriateness of US (and in fact, any nation’s) military judiciary system to deal with those breach of ethics, such as deliberate non-combatant targeting. But an even more important discussion as to whether Manning used all the channels available to him before releasing the files to the media and Wiki Leaks. What his trial will no doubt have to delve into is whether he has exhausted all avenues of grievance before betraying the trust that had been put in him as an intelligence analyst. In the end, however, the trial will no doubt have to consider that not all of the information he leaked was of a criminal nature. That becomes leaking for the sake of leaking. This is not whistle blowing anymore, this is treason.
The impact of this treason is far-reaching, and the scope includes the obvious; physical danger to informants, and also the collapse of months if not years of diplomatic effort for the resolution of pressing problems. The consequences are far-reaching and illustrated in the passage below, taken from the Associated Press’ Christopher Boleen. According to his article

“China would appear to have little ability to stop a collapse and less influence over the authorities in Pyongyang than is widely believed, South Korea’s then-vice foreign minister, Chun Yung-woo, is quoted telling American Ambassador Kathleen Stephens in February.

China lacks the will to push Pyongyang to change its behaviour, according to Chun, but Beijing will not necessarily oppose the U.S. and South Korea in the case of a North Korean collapse.

China “would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the US in a ‘benign alliance’ as long as Korea was not hostile towards China,” Chun said. Economic opportunities in a reunified Korea could further induce Chinese acquiescence, he added.

The South Korean warns, however, that China would be unlikely to accept the presence of U.S. troops north of the demilitarized zone that currently forms the North-South border.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China would not comment specifically on the cables.

“China consistently supports dialogue between the North and South sides of the Korean peninsula to improve their relations,” Hong said at a regularly scheduled news conference.

In the leaked cable of his conversation with American officials, Chun predicts the government in Pyongyang would last no more than three years following the death of ailing leader Kim Jong Il, who is seeking to transfer power to his youngest son Kim Jong Un, a political ingenue in his 20s.

Chun also dismisses the possibility of Chinese military intervention if North Korea descended into chaos.”

And there you have it; the journalist’s interpretation of a discussion between a South Korean official’s impressions of what China knows (or doesn’t know), would do (or not) to an American official. The result is the journalist telling the public that China does NOT know, and would NOT do, such and such a thing.

First, there was Wikipedia, designed for know-nothing wanna-bes with too much time on their hands to feed lazy academics, and now, Wiki Leaks, filled by despondent informants with an axe to grind, for the benefit of journalists too lazy to get their facts from the horses’ mouths.

The question is whether the quality of secrecy (for the military) or discretion (for the diplomats) automatically corresponds to wrong-doing. Not everything MUST be known. This too is a matter of ethics. Take for example, our own academic standard of Chatham House rules. Without those, no honest debate can take place at the juncture of the academic and the official/political. Not all of us are academics, so let me take another set of examples; attorney-client privilege, or better, doctor-patient confidentiality.

These principles exist because of human nature. If we see someone coming out of the doctor’s office, we presume s/he receives some care. Human nature being what it is, our perception changes from complete neglect to intense interest the minute we start imagining what kind of care. Because some ailments have a social content to them. Take AIDS or Herpes. Some ethics philosophers would have you divulge the names and addresses of people who have contagious or sexually-transmissible diseases for fear of pandemics. I will leave that debate for now, but not before saying that doctor-patient confidentiality protects the patient from prejudice. Indeed, our attitude towards AIDS patient was not always so benign or understanding.

The same can be said for someone calling his lawyer. Why would someone call a lawyer? Obviously, for legal reasons, of a criminal, business or personal kind. But here also, the interests of the clients are protected from human prejudice; no one is guilty before being sentenced in a court of law. If for a business reason, the individual’s interest must be protected from predatory pretensions, if for personal reasons (say, a divorce), well, that is truly private, and everyone can agree on that.

The way government operates cannot always be in the open, whether it conducts military or diplomatic operations. Often times, it must be shrouded in secrecy, and it must be hidden from public view, and it must be shaped for public consumption. I would wager this is because there is a difference between the process and the results of a process. The first “leaker”, I would wager, was Niccolo Machiavelli, and his leak was The Prince, simultaneously a treatise of political psychology, ethics, and leadership. Today, we call this combination “government”. Five hundred years ago, Machiavelli caused as much furor and unease by calling things by their names. But he also gave an ulterior, grander, and to him more noble, motive; the unification of Italy and the resumption of her former (Roman) greatness. What he wanted was the liberty of his country, and its independence from outside pressure.

Nearly four-hundred years later, Otto von Bismarck was attributed the aphorism that “laws are like sausage” insofar as the process of making them is unappealing and inelegant, and that if someone likes laws as much as sausage, it is best not to delve too much into how they are made. Clearly, he too was concerned with the proper result.

With Wiki Leaks, it is different. It plays on the current public perception that because something is shielded from the public, whatever is happening is wrong. Yes, some of it is wrong, legally and ethically. Most of what is wrong is irrecoverably so, and the perpetrators should be condemned. And as most of our countries are democratic, we have to be satisfied that due process will take place. But not all of it is wrong. Because of that, the majority of the leaks is purely and simply a matter of treason.

Another aspect of human nature and public punditry is the current mistrust of officialdom and politicians. True, politicians have not shun by their ethics lately, and no country is immune to this phenomenon. But if politicians have become cynical, it is in great part due to the fact that the general public has entered the fray of political discourse (especially thanks to the internet and the end of the Cold War) in a way that is not totally informed by facts. Before someone answers that Wiki Leaks is the answer to those facts, I would say no, because Wiki Leaks has a policy of shielding their sources from the public and the authorities. It is the government that has to be transparent, and the happier governments are not the ones that are most transparent. Yet, since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of non-state actors such as human rights NGOs, governments have become more transparent. Proof of this is that most of them allow themselves to be measured by Transparency International, the watchdog agency par excellence.

Like any power, the public just wants more. Just like any actor of politics. The problem is that the public doesn’t have a bureaucracy at its disposal. As a result, it does not have knowledge, but merely information, and here too, human nature takes precedence, and prejudice takes over reasoned debate. A government has a bureaucracy at its disposal to help it do the work that it has been mandated to do (or mandated itself to do, in the case of dictatorships). The mandate is about an end-state, not about a process. Certainly, the process and/or the ultimate objective is sometimes implemented in less-than-ethical fashion. But we should worry less about ethical degrees of means and ends, than the fact that some societies do not have the means to question the ethics of manners or goals.

Let me give an example. In Canada in 1992, the administration of Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa was negotiating with the Federal Government and other Canadian provinces about a new Constitution which would satisfy a number of Quebec’s demands. After a successful meeting, the results of which Mr. Bourassa was confident could sell to the Quebec electorate, the media published the details of a cell-phone conversation by one of his aides. In this electronically tapped phone conversation Bourassa’s aid lambasted the deal as detrimental to Quebec’s interests. The lady in question who held this opinion had probably no idea that cell phones could be tapped so easily. But her disloyalty quickly transformed into treason when the story broke on the front page of Quebec’s dailies. Quickly, the electorate made its mind up. In the ensuing national (coast-to-coast) referendum on a new Canadian constitution, Quebec voted against the deal, pushing the province towards a provincial referendum that nearly split the country in October 1995.

Let’s take a highly plausible example. Wiki Leaks have put on their page a decrypted classified document where President Dmitri Medvedev is cartooned as “playing Robin to Putin’s Batman.” For those who are skeptical of my argument so far: How do you think this will help the Obama Administration pass the New START Treaty for ratification in Congress, and how is that characterization likely to lead Russia to accept NATO’s missile defence initiative and further nuclear weapons cuts, CFE Treaty resumption etc.? As a Russia enthusiast and expert, I can say with assurance that image is very important in that part of the world, and reputation is vital. Anything to damage either is likely to engage in a loss of face that makes further trustworthy negotiations difficult at best. Fortunately, objective conditions oblige; the Russian authorities are playing down the incident.

Let’s take now a fictional case, but a plausible one. Let’s say that Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, finally decide to get together under the mediation of a larger power to settle the Karabakh dispute. The negotiators of all sides have to make painful, “courageous” concessions to one another. What matters to the public is that the end result is seen as advantageous to it, that the issue is settled permanently, and that stability ensues. To that end, the resources deployed involve certain guarantees and advantages. What if the details of those guarantees and advantages get leaked as negotiations are taking place? What if the public learns that the Karabakh leadership has accepted to leave and go into exile for money, and that most of the territory goes to Armenia or Azerbaijan? What if it is learned that in exchange for its acceptance, the Armenian leadership is promised a Nobel Prize? What if in exchange for its acceptance the Azerbaijani leadership is promised no attempts at regime change, or to ensure that the Armenians will play ball, it has to accept a significant Armenian participation in domestic oil and gas ventures?

What happens is that civil society – decidedly less civil these days – becomes interested in the debate, goes in the street and starts short-circuiting the negotiations. The negotiations are supposed to be handled by legitimate (to a certain extent) representatives, put in place for precisely the purpose of getting to a form of agreement that is acceptable to the public that ensures permanent regional stability. Negotiations are not designed to be handled directly by the public qua Wiki Leaks. I don’t think I am going far on a limb by suggesting that in the fictitious case I have outlined above, the result would be a resumption of hostilities in the region, and two civil wars in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Thus in the example above, discretion and secrecy would avoid bloodshed even if the negotiations do not achieve permanent peace. Insofar as the leaks enable undue participation from the public in mid-process, they also accelerate the emission of grievances in advance of elections. The resulting reaction from a government in that region could be further curtailment of individual rights as the regime tries to protect itself.

There are some who say that the Wiki Leaks have prevented bloodshed already. That is no more possible to test than is the assertion that Julian Assange is acting on behalf of large powers. What is clear is that someone who leaks classified information is guilty of a crime of equal magnitude as the deliberate targeting and killing of civilians in war. Bradley Manning worked as part of a large military system responsible to the President and the Constitution, and within a political system that has the capacity to justly decide what is wrongdoing and what is not. He does not have the power, mandate, capacity or authority to decide what is right and what is wrong. Julian Assange is not the universal ombudsman of what is to be divulged. At the very least, the public should view with suspicion the fact that he appointed himself in that role, and should be weary of the fact that the manipulation of information may rest with just one man.

Hits: 5656

Comments 

Dr.
written by Dr. William Mallinson, December 02, 2010 

The Wikileaks story does not need to be put into any particular context or mind-freezing politically correct ‘conceptual framework. As a former diplomat, several things have struck me. First, what a shame that Wikileaks was not sufficiently developed in 2002 to expose the web of deceit and lies that led to the illegal attack on Iraq.The evil war might then have been prevented. Second, we should renember that state confidentiality is often a cover for illegality, and therefore needs to be exposed in the public interest (no snide slurs about my being left-wing, please: I am a true blue British conservative, albeit a critical one.Third,much of the subject matter in the leaked material merely shows the tendency of some Anglo-Saxon diplomacy to be supercilious in its sometimes cosily arrogant pseudo-ivory tower.I remember that when I was writing confidential amd secret letters on various political topics in the country to which I was accredited, I took care not to write slanderous things. It seems that the lowering of educational standards is reflected in the low quality of many of the current batch of diplomats’reporting.Fourth, and perhaps crucially, the massive spread of use of the internet in sensitive government work has not only taken away the space to actually think about what one writes, but weakened security almost beyond repair. The asinine obsession with deadlines (usually false) and the sheer massive amount of extra paperwork and information overload created by the abuse of computers by lazy government departments has created confusion.Fifth (and I write as a historian as a historian who deals almost exclusively with original documents,rather than silly and conflicting theories),virtually everything that has been exposed is remarkably similar in nature to what I have been recently reading in thirty-year old documents. In a large number of cases, even as a former diplomat, I am surprised about what the fuss was all about. I must express my admiration for the sheer guts of Assange in letting the world know the good, the bad and the ugly. Finally, there is an enormous level of hypocrisy in the whole orchestrated slur campaign against Assange, since governments,particularly the British and American ones,themselves regularly leak documents illegally to further their own sometimes dubious objectives.I suppose that I now run the danger of being murdered by the paranoid brigade of manichean neo-con slave-‘thinkers’,promoting their childish political realism theories, and lying themselves to hell. Well done, Julian, for exposing the hypocrisy!And I hope that the cowards don’y get you!

Strategic Analyst
written by Frederic Labarre, December 03, 2010 

The Good the Bad and the Ugly. Two out of three certainly deserve to be revealed. If – and only if – there are no other channels to air grievances.

When Cornwell, that other diplomat, decided he couldn’t stand the double-dealing and hypocrisy, he chose to expose it as John LeCarré. Indeed, nothing new from the cables. Smiley could have told you.

But if only 30% of what is leaked deals with the Good, then the leak amounts to sabotage.

The Good, to eventually come out, requires confidentiality and secrecy.

Dr.
written by Bill Mallinson, December 03, 2010 

Some points:a) Without the manic abuse of the internet,and the concomitant electronification of relations between(and within) states, which are essentially hypocritical, this alleged ‘scandal’ could never have occurred.b)Most intelligence relies on the media to a large extent(it’s a lazy business!), and is also polluted by chickenfeeding, disinformation, and officially sanctioned illegal selective leaking.c)Most of the ‘scandalous’ information is obvious stuff.Its like that bit in Bunuel’s ‘The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie’, when the curtain is suddenly raised, and no-one knows what to do.d)Thank goodness that the paranoid state surveillance with which we have to put up these days (so well depicted by George Orwell in ‘1984’) is now rebounding on the state paranoids, and that we can put these unaccountable control freaks under surveillance.As Ellsberg said, they are the danger to security,by encouraging terrorism and feeding the springing up of primitive-minded ‘security companies’.

In my day, we had none of these problems, since our secretaries did not use even electronic typewriters,let alone computers.So perhaps we’ll have a return to tradition, and scrap all the technological trash.

By the way, I would be very surprised if any agents’lives have been put in danger, unless the level of US diplomacy is so low,that actual names of informants etc. have been recorded. Well done, Julian Assange, you are a real hombre, rather vthan a sycophantic politically correct twerp.

The first congress Parlamento Latinoamericano held at the Congreso Nacional, discussed the South American continent’s integration process. Dr Leventis though participating with an observer status was given the floor for an intervention. In his remarks, Dr Leventis briefed the Latin American parliamentarians about the case of the Republic of Cyprus’s integration into the European Union. He pointed out that the noble idea underpinning the European integration project is respect for the diversity and identity of even the smallest of nations, which are given an equal say in the Union.

However, Dr Leventis stressed the paradox of Turkey on the one hand and of the UK on the other in raising obstacles for the integration of the whole of the territory of the Eastern Mediterranean island republic in the European Union. Turkey on the one hand aspires to become an EU-member, yet it is militarily occupying the northern third of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus (RoC), thereby violating its territorial integrity. At the same time the implementation of the acquis – the body of EU law – is suspended for exactly the reason of continuing Turkish occupation.

On the other hand, the UK, ironically an EU partner bound by the European Treaty to act in a manner of solidarity, secured at the time of the RoC’s accession (1 May 2004), the exclusion of its so-called Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) on the southern coast of the island – constituting three per cent of its total territory – from integrating with the EU.

In conclusion, Dr Leventis hailed the point made by the lady fellow-participant MP from Willemstad, Curacao (‘Netherlands Antilles’, off the NW coast of Venezuela) that neo-colonialism forms a major obstacle in efforts for true and genuine integration both in the Latin American and European continents as well as elsewhere in the rest of the world. As such, neo-colonialist and expansionist designs against weaker states (and) former colonies should be condemned and terminated.

Secondly, Dr Leventis participated upon invitation extended personally by Mr. Andreas Bummel, Co-ordinator of CEUNPA at the Buenos Aires 2010 Meeting of the Campaign for the Establishment of UN Parliamentary Assembly held also at the Congreso Nacional.

Third and last, Dr Yiorghos Leventis participated in the Annual Meeting of the Council of the World Federalist Movement (WFM) held at the premises of the Consejo Argentino Para Las Relaciones Internacionales (CARI) also in Buenos Aires. Initially, invited as an observer, Dr Leventis was elected by an overwhelming majority Member of the WFM’s Council. His election is a clear reflection of ISF’s growing international role in the realm of global NGOs striving for the democratization of global governance.

Hits: 660

The United States, during the Bush Administration, consolidated the trend  to favour the use of the Organization as an instrument for democratic transition  in the Euro-Asian region and for the U.S. policy of democratization in connection  with the events of September 200l. Despite providing 70% of the Organization’s budget, and accounting for the vast majority of its participating states, the EU has had little influence in the dynamics of the OSCE, decided mainly by bilateral agreements between the USA and Russia. The latter in particular, sees the Vienna-based Organization as an instrument of Western interests and has moved from an appreciation of its role in the nineties, to its current skepticism.

Yet it might be in the interests of Russia as well as the West to avoid an OCSEdescent into irrelevance. The new element introduced by the President of Russia in 2008 with its proposal for a new European security architecture brings to the foreground the question of the future of the Organization in Vienna. It has been already two years since President Medvedev in stressing the need for a new European security pact, has considered the role of the OSCE exhausted (Berlin, 5 June 2008).

However, in providing some elements of the proposed new European security pact, yet to be defined in its broad outlines, the Russian President made reference to nothing but the principles incorporated in the Helsinki Act – such as the rejection of unilateralism and spheres of influence, the community of democratic values and respect for human rights throughout the Euro-Atlantic area – of which Russia is historically part of.

By contrast, French President Sarkozy, in his speech in Evian, France, 8 October 2008, in positively considering any contribution aimed at strengthening European security, reiterated that the selected forum for reflection in this regard remains the OSCE. He has in fact launched the proposal to convene a summit of the Organization, which after that of Istanbul in l999, for a decade did not take place, confirming the progressive paralysis of the Vienna headquartered security forum.

President Medvedev’s proposal and President Sarkozy’s response have initiated a debate on European security architecture that has taken place mainly within the OSCE. It is possible to establish a new agenda of the OSCE. From this perspective, the awaited summit could be the beginning of a process aimed at providing a more organic structure to European security, creating greater synergy among NATO, EU, OSCE, UN, CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation), and restoring the role of the Vienna-based Organization to which its objectives and still unexplored potentials would naturally lead.

Need for Governance of Multipolar Diarchic World

If there has been a constant element in recent years, it is the increasing speed with which changes are taking place in the international arena. Since the Fall of the Berlin wall (if we really want to set a conventional date for what is in fact an historical process propelled by undercurrents, powered by several factors and difficult to categorize by specific events), balances have been rapidly changing. The financial crisis which erupted in recent months is clear evidence that the chimera of a world order based on the exclusive hegemony of the USA has been downsized over the last decade.

The fragility of the financial system was just the tip of the iceberg of the progressive wearing out of the system which started long ago and depends on many factors. The anomaly in the debt load of the largest economy of the world, which has lived for years above its means, is also associated with a gradual loss of cultural hegemony.

In fact, according to some international observers, these years would mark the end of an era, which since 1815, has seen a minority monopolizing the stocks and flows of wealth and effectively ruling over the majority of the world. The shift in the flow of wealth – today produced by the periphery rather than by the group of countries that rule the world and still holds the stock of wealth – has changed the balance. The periphery is no longer prepared to accept the rules imposed by the minority that rules.

The possibility of a Sino-American condominium, which will finally shift the balance of the world to the Pacific, as China will join Japan and Southeast Asia, is regarded likely by many international observers. Still we cannot disregard the possibility that next to China and the United States, a third European pole, could emerge with Russia. It is in this context that we should consider the issue of security in Europe and the need for “Helsinki-plus” arrangements that would enable us to identify shared rules, to promote communication among key players in this new framework. Russia, Europe, the United States but also regional organizations like NATO, EU, CSTO, CIS might better collaborate in an inclusive security platform in Europe, which, enhancing the achievements of the NATO-Russia Council and of the CFSP / ESDP in the EU-Russia summits, could still maintain the goal to go further and fulfil the untapped potential of the OSCE, restoring the role it deserves in the structure of European security.

Today, as then, we feel the need for a new pact on security in Europe based on a strengthened and explicit consensus on shared rules. The objective of not creating new divisions between countries, East and West of Vienna, must be further strengthened. Reshaping the Western strategy, sometimes anachronistically conditioned by its past legacy, towards new objectives, better fits today’s bill. Aspiring to become a major player next to the others, Russia, responds to this unipolar world, with a multi-vector proposal encompassing not only political and financial interests, but also cultural dynamics.

A considerable number of Western countries essentially see the OSCE as an organization active in the human dimension and committed to the democratization of countries East of Vienna. Russia and the CIS countries have for years demanded that the organization shift its focus on political cooperation, disarmament, and frozen conflicts. The identification of a mediation of conflicting interests between participating states would encourage more cooperation from countries East of Vienna on human rights matters, as in return they would expect to be active partners on key issues of political cooperation, from disarmament to frozen conflicts.

The question is whether the United States and those European countries that look  toward Washington rather than Brussels, would be prepared to relinquish multilateral control over armaments and the stability provided by the dialogue between East and West, to pursue, within the OSCE framework, the objective of democratization in the region.

According to many observers of international politics, the agenda advocating democratization was fitting to a unipolar world which would have gradually integrated Russia and its neighbouring countries. This does not mean that we should abandon the principles of Helsinki, which in the way they were formulated involve Russia and the nearby countries, if nothing else because they were among the signatories. President Medvedev has stressed in his speech of 5 June 2008 the importance of the common values uniting Euro-Atlantic Europe and Euro-Asiatic Europe. However, in a world that is restructuring itself around multiple centers (which we hope will be included in a system as rational and orderly as possible) the moderate approach based on a national road towards democratization, which tends to avoid foreign didactic tone and impositions from the outside seems more realistic.

Such a course is recommended, in full knowledge of the fact that a relative degree of flexibility can allow coexistence between forms of democracy even not particularly homogeneous (see, for example, the case of the European Union).

To reopen a discussion on the future ofthe OSCE is to recognize the need for a renewed multilateralism, but also to guarantee a link between Russia and Europe and the Euro-Atlantic area as well. It is difficult to pursue the objective of democratization of an area that stretches from Vancouver to Vladivostok if it is not linked to greater political cooperation, which is the basis for building stability in Europe. The recognition of a role to Russia as a strategic partner will lead in return to a commitment of Moscow to work for the realization of those principles and values that are assumed to be shared.

The U.S. role in a balanced multilateral system is based on shared rules. We live in a time of transition and consolidation of new international balances. Political courage is critical to ensure that processes are governed in order to create a balanced and multipolar international system based on shared rules.

The possibility of creating an area of stability and peace in Europe depends on the ability of the three mainplayers, United States, Russia and Europe to address the current challenges without turning around the issue which remained unsolved from the Cold War: the anchoring of Moscow to the West, its integration in a collaborative plan, clear and structured, with Europe and the United States.

The discussions on the new European security architecture that are taking place within the OSCE may lead to the expected results if the Euro-Atlantic and Russian governments work together to create coordination currently missing between OSCE, EU, NATO, CSTO, CIS, giving life, with a bridge to the UN (As was foreseen in the Platform for Security in Istanbul in 1999)

The recognition of a policy of balance in Europe must include Russia in its structure (as indeed the Russian Empire was part in the Holy Alliance which played the historical role of a stabilizer of the international scene). Inversely, failure to include Russia, will continuet o divide “Eurasia” from “Euramerica”. Hopefully, the current US Administration will continue, as it has begun, a comprehensive review of the philosophy and practice of the previous policy, drawing lessons from the experiences of the last decade. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stressed to the US Senate (13 January 2009):

Now, in 2009, the clear lesson of the last twentyyears is that we must combat the threats and seize the opportunities of our interdependence. And to be effective in doing so we must build a world with more partners and fewer adversaries.

In Central Europe, the United States could be the focus of the network of alliances with Russia and the EU as main partners, in order to govern areas of instability such as the Balkans, Caucasus, and Central Asia. The Georgian conflict was proof that Washington is not always able to support the geo-strategic consequences of the NATO’s expansion in the East.

President Obama will have a crucial role in making sure that NATO redefines its identity in a
strategy to create stability in Europe. The role of the EU and the anchoring of Russia to the West are the key to a renewal process that cannot deny the fact that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization established itself in the well-known saying which in the fifties simplified the functions of NATO: “keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down.”

To quote Fareed Zakaria, in an article published in the Newsweek magazine (20 Oct. 2008), entitled There Is a Silver Lining:

We cannot deploy interceptor missiles on Russia’s borders, push Georgia and Ukraine into NATO and expect Russian cooperation on the Iranian nuclear issue. We cannot insist on preaching to the world democracy and capitalism while our own house is in the grip of such a wild mess.

The United States can give coherence and strategic vision to the world’s international politics. American contribution to the creation of an effective multilateral system capable of governing a multi-polar world which tends to be anarchic will be crucial. The political revival of the OSCE and the construction of more stable and functional architecture for European security, capable of integrating Russia, is an essential part of a broader programme.
* Mrs Elena Basile is in charge of the Section responsible for the OSCE, the Alliance of Civilizations and the Community of Democracies at the Italian Foreign Ministry, Rome. This is an abridged version of her article L’ OSCE e il Futuro della Sicurezza in Europa that appeared in the Comunita’ Internazzionale, Rome. The views expressed in this article are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Italian Foreign Ministry. 

Hits: 1119

Comments  

Lecturer, Ionian University
written by Dr. William Mallinson, November 21, 2010 

Signora Basile, il tuo articolo e davero raffinato, e basato sulla storia. It almost evokes Francesco Guicciardini, and his dictum that things have always been the same, the same things return with different colours, and that the past sheds light on the future. Your article is healthily almost devoid of the linguistically bulimic and bromidic sloganising of much modern IR debate, with its prisons of ‘conceptual frameworks’ and paradigms.Certainly,the world may be going through a period of mild anarchy, having now left the ‘order’ of the so-called ‘Cold War’, in which ideology was merely an excuse for hard-nosed business interests.You mention China. Let us remember that Nixon’s paranoia of the late fifties is returning, although such diststeful expressions as the ‘yellow peril’ are not used.

I think that your commentary would have been strengthened by reference to the following: first, the fact that the EU could disappear into a quagmire of bickering states, with no coherent foreign and defence policy at all, which is what the US and its European headquarters, Britain,want. At present, the EU has at least the theoretical semblance of a policy,in the shape of the CFSP (not to be confused with the NATO-dependent ESDP). But the EU’s current currency and financial disorder does not bode well for a co-ordinated European role in the apparently emerging multi-polar system. Second, the recent Franco-British defence ‘deal’ complicates various issues. Third, and particularly pertinently, Germany is behaving increasingly like a bull in a china-shop.There is no longer any historical guarantee that she she will toe traditional French communautaire approaches.Fourth, can one completely trust Poland’s role, which is still inherently more spasmodically Anglo-Saxon in its foreign policy formulation, to the extent of even irritating the Russians and Germans? Finally,do we have any serious statesmen, apart, perhaps, from Vladimir Putin, and, perhaps, Obama, who can really do their job? We have no more de Gasperis,de Gaulles, Spaaks and Beyens….
You are pleasantly optimistic in your article, which was good enough to stimulate me to comment on. Give Fellini’s Roma a big baccio from me. I hope that we meet one day.