Tom is prolific again today.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 08:01 PM
Bush's pedal to the metal on Syria-hard to argue against
¦"U.S. Turns Up Heat on Syria to Leave Lebanon: Egypt, Saudis Join Push to Remove Troops," by Robin Wright, Washington Post, 3 March 2005, p. A20.
¦"Syria Under Pressure: Worse Trouble May Lie Ahead," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 3 March 2005, pulled off web.
¦"Get out now, Bush tells Syria: The hard line on Lebanon helps the White House heal its rift with France," by Paul Korning, The Globe and Mail, 3 March 2005, p. A1.
¦"Hezbollah set for key role in Lebanon: Parliamentary balance of power in hands of Iranian-backed group's 12 deputies," by Mark MacKinnon, The Globe and Mail, 3 March 2005, p. A13.
The Bush White House is pursuing a multi-pronged strategy: strong words in public, sterner ones along diplomatic channels (twisting some local arms to join in and working hard on this issue with the Europeans, basically healing much of our rift with France in the process), and threatening sanctions. The timing is good: Bashar al-Assad has reduced Syrian troops in Lebanon significantly since coming to power, from roughly 20k to 14k. Now the White House has the Egyptians and Saudis saying all 14k should go in the next two months. Apparently, we have convinced local governments that this is a key prerequisite to making peace come to Palestine and Israel.
What trouble lies ahead? Assad assumes a siege mentality, backtracking on some nice internal reforms since the invasion of Iraq. Okay, some loss there.
Bigger issue: where does Hezbollah go now? It's clearly the big player in Lebanon, and the connectivity to Iran is also clear. Hezbollah is both militant and Shiite. It's effectively Tehran's instrument of veto over peace in the region. The Parliament is split between pro- and anti-Syrian elements, putting Hezbollah in the driver's seat, because whom they side with will win.
This is what King Abdullah was talking about when he warned about a Shiite "crescent" running from Lebanon through Iraq and Iran. Our successes in transforming the Middle East have all had the same effect: removing Tehran's problems and elevating its allies. This is why it makes so much sense to find some modus vivendi with Iran. There is no future worth creating where Iran is not involved. We can wait on the mullahocracy to fall, or we can make that an end to these means (Big Bang) and not wait on this. People want to paint my call on Iran as appeasement, but I think it's the fastest way to getting what we want. The Big Bang is rumbling on. The question is, do we want to secure these gains or keep them at risk? Which way gets us to security faster? Which way more completely values the sacrifices we've made to date?
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 07:59 PM
Two big pessimists flip-flopping back into optimism
¦"Brave, Young and Muslim," op-ed by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 3 March 2005, pulled off web.
¦"A Force for Good," op-ed by Robert D. Kaplan, New York Times, 3 March 2005, pulled off web.
Friedman, ditching his neo-green nonsense for the day, is back to his usual optimism, even if he won't give the Bush administration any credit for what's going on in the Middle East (Does anyone believe this all happens absent our invasion of Iraq? Ask yourself!). It is very good to see:
The last couple of years have not been easy for anyone, myself included, who hoped that the Iraq war would produce a decent, democratizing outcome. And even in the wake of the remarkable Iraqi election, the toppling of the Lebanese cabinet and the reforms brewing in Egypt, it is too soon for anyone to declare victory. We're dealing with some very unstable chemicals. But what makes me more hopeful today is precisely what made me hopeful that the Iraq war might work out, and that is the number of Arab-Muslim youth I've encountered since 9/11 who have urged me to keep writing about the need for democracy and reform in their part of the world.
Of course, many Americans are surprised by this.
Hah! No one's more surprised than Friedman himself! I mean, it's good to have a short memory if you're either an NFL quarterback or cornerback, but it's more reasonable to expect some self-awareness from an op-ed columnist of Friedman's towering stature. Notice how he never mentions the Iraq invasion, the neocons, or the Bush administration in this piece, instead giving a stirring description of this great book written by a Muslim woman calling for a reformation process within this globalized religion. Fair enough, but come on man! Give the administration its due and eat some crow.
Is it too early to declare any victory? Of course it is. But again, does any of this happen in a Middle East without our military interventions, when oil prices rise naturally thanks to a long-term confluence of diminished investment in infrastructure and exploration and production with a rising demand curve in developing Asia (the real cause of the long-term price rise)?
Kaplan's also turning a new leaf, or perhaps just beginning his PR campaign for his new book called Imperial Grunts. Instead of harping on how unprepared the U.S. military is for the Global War on Terrorism, now he's recognizing the rapid pace of change. His example here is the Asian tsunamis response (a weak one, but okay), not exactly my definition of "imperial." But it's awfully nice to see some optimism from the man who's so in love with the U.S. military (you think I love them!). It means these changes are becoming apparent to journalists in the field with the pointy end of the spear. It says that Rumsfeld's moves over the past two years are starting to penetrate the furthest reaches of our operational forces.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 07:58 PM
Figuring the way ahead for Putin
¦"A To-Do List for Putin" op-ed by Stephen Sestanovich, Washington Post, 3 March 2005, p. A25.
Sestanovich has long been one of the most sensible Soviet-then-Russian watchers. Here's the gist of the op-ed:
As they think about the evolution of democracy in post-communist societies, American experts and officials usually have in mind a long to-do list -- ensuring the rule of law, a free press, minority rights and so forth. Bush mentioned all these goals during his news conference with Putin last week. Yet the big political breakthroughs we've seen in recent years have not revolved around these issues. In Georgia and Ukraine, opponents of the regime, though unhappy about many things, had a different overriding demand: free and fair elections.
There is a lesson here for President Bush. Without forgetting his long list, he needs a short one, too. In fact, there should be only one item on it: Russia's presidential election in 2008. No other event is likely to have as large an impact on the course of Russian democracy -- and no other commitment that Putin makes will be as easy to monitor.
Under the Russian constitution, Putin cannot run for a third term, which leaves him and his entourage two choices: rewrite the constitution or try to put one of their own in the top job, just as Leonid Kuchma sought to install Viktor Yanukovych as president of Ukraine. For this reason, Western policymakers need to send Putin the same message they sent Kuchma for two years before Ukraine's election: A fraudulent vote will taint Russia's international standing for years to come.
Rather than make the 2008 election a litmus test of Russian democracy, some Western policymakers will prefer to stick to generic, and less confrontational, urgings about civil society and the rule of law. Without progress in these areas, they'll say, elections won't matter much anyway. They'll also argue that Putin, unlike Kuchma, is so popular he can probably get his own man elected fairly. If so, why focus on a contest that won't really strengthen democracy?
While I agree with those that say it's the economic connectivity, stupid! I also like this idea in the sense that it gives the political community something to focus on that is both good and right, plus it will keep them out of the hair of those in the private sector pushing for rule of law, etc., in the economic realm. As a looming possibility, this is the biggest rule-of-law issue out there: preventing the rise of the Big Man in Russia in the person of Putin. Will he disappear into private life once he leaves office? Unlikely. His guy will probably win, although we shouldn't rule out a Ukraine-like outcome (in fact, we and the EU should push for it like crazy, if quietly), but Putin will loom afterwards in the Kremlin, like Lee did in Singapore after leaving the PM's office.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 07:57 PM
When Greenspan worries, I worry
¦"Greenspan Says Federal Budget Deficits Are 'Unsustainable,'" by Edmund L. Andrews, New York Times, 3 March 2005, pulled off web.
This is Greenspan's basic message:
"When you begin to do the arithmetic of what the rising debt level implied by the deficits tells you, and you add interest costs to that ever-rising debt, at ever-higher interest rates, the system becomes fiscally destabilizing," he told lawmakers. "Unless we do something to ameliorate it in a very significant manner," he added, "we will be in a state of stagnation."
With deficits soaring since 9/11, this administration has pushed up the federal debt from $3.4 trillion to $4.3, or an increase of 26% in just three years. There is unlikely to be any serious deficit-reduction in coming years in terms of budgetary cuts. Our aging population simply makes that impossible. The bigger danger right now, is the almost $2 trillion added to the debt over the next decade if we keep the Bush tax cuts. They were crazy then, they will be crazier in the future. You can't combine any aging population with aging public infrastructure and a Global War on Terrorism with a tax cut. That isn't fiscal responsibility, and I don't care what excuses or rationales the Bush White House offers. That level of deficit spending is a serious threat to our national security in coming years. Saving some bucks now will put lives at risk later on.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 07:57 PM
The UN shoots back in the Congo (a nice start)
¦"U.N. Troops in Congo Kill 50 Militiamen in Gun Battle," by Associated Press, New York Times, 3 March 2005, pulled off web.
Here are the opening paras:
United Nations troops killed at least 50 militiamen in a stepped-up campaign to clear northeastern Congo of rogue gunmen who have preyed on residents and are suspected in the recent slaying of nine peacekeepers, United Nations officials said Wednesday.
Responding to gunfire, the peacekeepers, backed by an attack helicopter, killed more people than in any other operation during their six-year mission in Congo.
The gun battle took place on Tuesday between 242 Pakistani peacekeepers and militia fighters. It broke out at a heavily fortified militia camp near the village of Loga, 20 miles north of Bunia, the capital of the lawless Ituri region, said Col. Dominique Demange, spokesman for the United Nations forces in Congo.
"While on operation we were fired upon, so we immediately responded," he said. He said 50 to 60 militia members had been confirmed dead.
You have to give it to the Pakistanis. They do deliver regularly on peacekeeping.
This is a good sign, but I suspect it goes nowhere. The UN can justify shooting back when their guys get killed, but the real step up is killing to prevents deaths of locals. 50k dead since 1999 (since the major war periods of the 1990s where roughly 3 million are believed to have been killed) and half a million forced out of their homes. Now the UN is talking about seriously pursuing these militias. Can it? Probably not, but at least it shows that the UN realizes how impotent it has looked for years in Africa.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 07:56 PM
You go, (Muslim) girl!
¦"British girl wins battle over Muslim clothing: "I'm happy that I did this. I feel that I have given hope and strength to other Muslim women," by Dilpazier Aslam, The Globe and Mail, 3 March 2005, p. A14A.
British schoolgirl wins right in court to wear head scarf and full head-to-toe clothing at public school. Doubleplusgood for her. She shows the way for tolerance from non-Muslims and she lights a path for young Muslim women struggling for personal connectivity in the West, where they need-for now and probably a very long time-the social protection offered by these clothes. As Olivier Roy points out in Globalized Islam (excellent book), this re-traditionalization isn't about rejecting the West or its ways, but about trying to compromise with them. Remember, this is a discussion about how we get Muslim girls in public schools, not how we keep them out.
Yes, she may be excluded by some peers in the short term, but the longer-term inclusion of this young woman in educational and later work settings is the real future worth creating. The clothes will go away with time, but the connectivity will only grow.
This is the right way. The French are doing it the wrong way.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 07:55 PM |
