www.dailyexception.com

During the Cold War, Europe was the principal cause of concern for US policy planners making NATO its most important strategic defense realtionship. Within that, Britain was America’s most steadfast ally and a consistent voice for Washington within the European community. Underpinning the “special relationship” was Britain’s strong military and its ability to project this power along side US forces, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Proposed defense cuts, however, threaten to undermine this critical ally at the very moment that the US needs military support to meet its global commitments. This is a cause of concern.

On the other side of the world, Japan is set to vote out its Liberal Democratic Party from power. The LDP has been the dominant force in Japanese politics since World War Two and the principal voice for the country’s pro-American policies. The opposition parties have made much noise about renegotiating the US alliance, stressing the importance of upgrading relations with China – America’s most important economic partner and nearest strategic rival. This is especially disturbing because the principal theater of America’s strategic focus is shifting from Europe to Asia.

In the end analysis, neither country is going to shed its pro-American policies. Britain has too many historic and cultural ties to the US. Moreover, its relationship with Washington has allowed it to punch above its weight globally. Japan’s security apprehensions about China are not going to go away. A strong US presence in Asia is in its continued interests, no matter what the new government may publicly say.

Nevertheless, the ability of Britain to shoulder some of America’s global burden, and the willingness of Japan to underwrite America’s role in Asia should be a cause for some concern for US security planners.

Washington needs to pay special attention to these special countries, and not allow local electoral or economic difficulties undermine its global reach.

www.dailyexception.com

Twitter: dailyexception

http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KG18Df06.html

www.dailyexception.com

Twitter: dailyexception

The article below appeared in World Politics Review by David Kampf. It makes a lot of good points about why America remains both the leading and the indispensable nation – both economically and militarily. (I would argue ideologically as well!)

Interestingly, Kampf talks at the end of the article about global problems requiring global solutions – something that i have been discussing a lot with regards NATO, which is why it is such an important focus of this column. He also mentions the need for a global leader too, which i think is quite appropriate. Its a good read.

Not So Fast: Rethinking America’s Decline
David Kampf | 07 May 2009
World Politics Review

Have we really reached the end of American hegemony? For those who think so, the signs of America’s decline and the rise of emerging powers are everywhere. According to this line of argument, the world’s sole superpower succumbed to overstretch. U.S. failures in the “war on terror” revealed the limitations of American military power, while its role in provoking the global economic crisis revealed the shortcomings of American economic leadership.

As a result, rising powers around the world feel suddenly emboldened by America’s visible weakness. Brazil’s president blames the worldwide recession on “white-skinned people with blue eyes,” and Russia and China call for the creation of a new international currency reserve to replace the dollar. Even President Barack Obama concedes that “if there’s going to be renewed growth, it cannot just be the United States as the engine.” America’s obituary, it seems, has already been written, and the next great powers have already been crowned.

Not so fast. America’s decline is overstated, and the questions and assumptions about its imminent fall need to be revisited.

Does the financial crisis reveal America’s relative weakness?

Quite the opposite, actually. The worldwide economic turmoil underlines the importance of the United States — for better or worse — to the global market. As the U.S. goes, so goes the world. When the American bubble burst, the speed with which the contagion spread beyond its borders is an illustration.

Conventional wisdom holds that the recent period of high spending, lax regulations and an overheated housing market reveal the weaknesses of the U.S. economic model. Analysts are questioning the wisdom of open economies and liberalization, when the “Beijing Consensus” of greater government control and intervention seems more effective at promoting growth with less volatility.

While there are flaws in the American model, its basic tenets will not soon be replaced. The global marketplace and international norms will change slightly, but recovery relies on U.S. leadership. International financial institutions depend on U.S. support, the success of producers around the world is contingent on strong demand from American consumers and the dollar will continue to serve as the international currency reserve.

Is the world shifting from a unipolar to multipolar order?

It’s too early to tell. The emergence of developing countries, the re-emergence of former powers and the growing influence of Europe are all undeniable. Still, no one can match America’s universal reach and military muscle.

China continues to steadily expand and improve its armed forces and acquire new defense technologies, while Russia has begun to modernize its defense capabilities and rearm. According to figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, however, the United States still spends more on defense than the next 14 largest militaries combined. U.S. defense spending accounts for more than 40 percent of the world’s total.

After a period in which the U.S. deployed its hard power disproportionately, with a resulting a rise in anti-Americanism worldwide, it would be logical to assume that American soft power would have suffered dramatically. But a recent survey (.pdf) of public opinion in five Asian states — including China and Japan — conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that U.S. soft power and influence remains predominant in the region.

Finally, the “unipolar moment” was always exaggerated. The United States could never dictate international affairs to the extent that many presumed.

Will rising powers soon surpass the U.S. and reshape the global balance of power?

Hardly. The rise of the BRICs — Brazil, Russia, India and China — is not inevitable. Brazil is constrained by crime and inequality. Russia is straddled with a shrinking population and debilitating corruption. India is plagued by massive poverty, insecurity and a lack of infrastructure. And China’s widespread inequality and lack of political freedom make it impossible to rule out the potential for social upheaval.

Of the four, the most serious challenge to American supremacy is likely to come from China. But while it represents the world’s third largest economy — fourth if the EU is included — China is still a poor country. If current projections hold, the Chinese economy will indeed surpass the U.S. economy in 30 or 40 years. But on a per capita basis, China will lag far behind deep into the 21st century.

Are we at the dawn of a new world order? Not yet. The United States remains the world’s dominant power and will be for the foreseeable future. That’s not to say that existing powers and emerging giants will not be relevant. The U.S. cannot address transnational threats — including the Great Recession, climate change, nuclear proliferation, poverty and terrorism — alone, and will have to rely on the cooperation of others. Just as in recent years, global problems will require global solutions, but also a global leader. And that’s still the role the U.S. will play.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=3717

So, how has President Obama done?

In terms of jihadi terrorism, the President has finally reversed George Bush’s terrible mistake in believing Iraq was the critical front in the War on Terror. He has correctly understood that it is Afghanistan and Pakistan (“AfPak”), as a single theater, that pose the greatest security risk. The President has now taken ownership of the Afghan war and is ramping up operations there – something we regard as a necessity to drain the swamp of Islamist extremism. On this, we give the President high marks, especially when taken in conjunction with his plans to overhaul the military to better take on counter insurgency operations. Pakistan, however, has deteriorated far faster than expected and puts the President’s plan to force it to stop the attacks in Afghanistan in jeopardy. Pakistan has in fact itself emerged as the bigger threat to US security as its own Taliban strengthen, posing an existential to this nuclear armed nation. Any terror attack on the West is likely to have been planned in Pakistan. We do not see a coherent plan from the Administration as to how to deal with Pakistan. So far, the President seems to be falling into the same trap as President Bush by sending over every increasing amounts of aid while not preventing the flow of arms and support to the Taliban. Unconditional aid produces limited results. President Obama had talked about “Islamabad not getting a blank check”. Yet that seems exactly what he feels compelled to give. Without a serious Pakistan policy, we doubt the President can succeed in Afghanistan. The US and the West also are at a heightened risk of additional attacks. So while we are somewhat encouraged by the “Af” side on the AfPak war, we are concerned with the “Pak” side.

In terms of broader outreach to the Muslim world, we are not far from where we had expected to be given the President’s undeniable appeal. President Obama told the Turkish parliament in no uncertain terms that the US is not at war with Islam. His plan for a sensible drawdown of troops in Iraq will also help a lot on the proverbial “Arab Street” (if not the broader Muslim world). We hope that the President can stay the course in Iraq, and not get sidetracked by the inevitable violence that will flare up. America’s strategic priorities do not call for drawing borders or deciding constitutional niceties between Sunnis and Shia. The bold new initiatives in Iran are welcome though progress will have to wait until after the Iranian elections. Nevertheless, it is a new start with an important Islamic country and further demonstrates that America is not at war with the Islamic World. The Administration’s plan to place heavy sanctions on Iran if it goes nuclear misses the point that it essentially already has gone nuclear by acquiring the capability to enrich uranium. Rather a containment strategy is to be called for. It is unclear, however, how an American outreach to Iran will affect America’s relationship with its traditional Sunni Arab allies.

Despite these new initiatives, it is unclear to us how the President’s outreach has played with Muslims given the high degree of cynicism when it comes to the United States. We expect Arabs in particular will want to see progress on the Palestinian question before giving a thumbs up. Still, the President gains simply by not being George Bush. The sight of a black President with the middle name Hussein is still something most regard as remarkable. Although few Muslims will admit that Barack Obama’s story would scarcely be possible in their own countries, his election has confounded many detractors of America and American society. The President has also quietly begun to challenge the Muslim World to look at its own problems rather than just blaming America, but we doubt he will be heard, particularly on women and minority rights. At the very least, though, the President has begun to reduce the volume of US-Muslim rancor, and for this he deserves credit.

Dealing with China and dealing with America’s long term economic future have essentially meant the same thing over the past 100 days. China’s stimulus is important to the world economy and a welcome sign that it understands what is required of it as a leading economic power. The President seems to understand that tough discussions are going to be necessary if China is going to be forced to generate economic growth which does not involve huge trade surpluses with the US. But The President also needs China to finance his huge social programs, and so he has punted on any of the serious discussions, both on the trade deficit and on the related issue of currency manipulation. China’s talk of replacing the dollar is, for the moment, just that – talk. There’s not much they can do. However, they are asking a reasonable question about the stability of US finances. We have the same concerns.

While economics is binding America and China together, military rivalry is threatening to pull them apart over the longer term. China’s military buildup concerns us. The review of the fleet this past week, its deployment of ships to Somalia, its support to countries such as Sudan all worry us that a long term strategic game is afoot. Even though the President has wisely reached out to Japan, the fact that Hillary Clinton’s visit to Asia did not include New Delhi sends the wrong message to the other rising power in Asia, particularly given the great advancements in US-India relations made by both Presidents Clinton and Bush. The President is offering nothing new in North Korea. In fact it is being goaded into the same tired responses to Pyongyang’s tactics as were the Bush and Clinton presidencies. North Korea is already nuclear. Now is the time for containment and roll back, not hysteria at each new antic. Now is also the time to make China step up and take responsibility for North Korea, especially as it had a major role in creating this rogue state and commands the greatest degree of influence.

In terms of maintaining America’s broader strategic strength in the face of a rising China and still turbulent Islamic world, the President needs to reach out to Europe, as the Western World’s other major power center. This has not yet happened from a substantive point of view. The President’s trip in Europe smoothed a lot of ruffled feathers, but did not engage at all on the complex issue of the usefulness of NATO and the form of a future Western military alliance. America needs Europe to stand up on security – time will tell if and when the President will start a serious dialog on this. The President also left the G20 summit in London with little to show in terms of European economic cooperation. This is not encouraging. On other fronts, we are heartened to see that the Administration has placed a “reset” on relations with Moscow. Expanding NATO has earned us Russian enmity, while gaining us nothing. No one believes that we are seriously going to risk war to defend the Georgian Republic. Engaging Russia on Iran is a good idea, but it remains to be seen if the Russians will agree to the Administration’s offer to halt work on missile defense in Europe in exchange for help in Iran.

The President is right to raise the profile of Latin America – but its unclear what the follow through there will be. Latin America is an area that deserves far greater attention, particularly as it grows economically and is becoming increasingly linked to the Chinese, both economically and strategically. Latin America has traditionally been seen as America’s back yard and hence was assumed to always be in America’s orbit. This is no longer the case. Brazil’s rise as an economic power will give it room for strategic independence. This is something that Washington should both welcome and harness the potential economic prospects. The same can be said of Mexico, which deserves particular attention not because of its drug violence, but because its long border with the US makes it critical to the future of the US. If the Mexican flu virus demonstrates anything, it demonstrates this. The President was also right to begin the long process of normalization of ties with Cuba, a country which is currently not critical enough to be taking up so much newspaper space.

What worries us most from a geosecurity perspective, however, is not foreign policy but rather the President’s economic policies. We agree that the times call for an economic stimulus. We also agree that investment in roads, schools and even green jobs is required. But given the expansion in the money supply, the plans for healthcare, and the still high defense budget, we wonder where the money will come from. Actually, we don’t wonder – we know. Its called T-bills. However, issuing excessive debt is the fastest way to producing inflation which in turn will lead to higher interest rates, choking long term economic recovery. It will also lead to staggering national debt numbers. On the most critical issue of all, social security and medicare, the President has not yet signaled a serious willingness to tackle this. If he does not, he will be ignoring the biggest long term threat to American geosecurity. An America that lives beyond its means is the fastest way to ensure long term economic and hence geostrategic decline. We are therefore greatly troubled by the Administration’s inability to put forth a realistic plan of how to cut the deficit and arrest the ballooning of the debt.

All in all President Obama has had an extremely active 100 days. We suspect that globally the President is more popular as a person than the US is as a country right now. He is wisely using that to reintroduce America to the world, and even if nothing else has been achieved, the atmospherics are far improved. Closing Guantanamo, coming clean on torture (no matter how painful), and using his own personal popularity (and that of the Clintons) have all helped to restore some of America’s moral authority and popularity. On substantive matters, there is a huge amount yet to be done: a viable strategy in Pakistan that stabilizes it, removing it as a threat to both us and to US operations in Afghanistan; discussing new security structures with the Europeans; tough talk with the Chinese on the trade deficit (and other issues such as North Korea); and articulating a plan to address the country’s long term finances. But if measured in terms of “repackaging” America to a skeptical world audience, which was always going to be the first task for any new American leader, the President and Michelle Obama can look back to a successful first 100 days.

www.dailyexception.com
Twitter: dailyexception

China is clearly on its way to becoming an economic behemoth, and if there is to be a “Big Two” when it comes to global economic power, the other country will inevitably be China. However, China is not the only country rising. Not even close.

There are other great nations that are also emerging. The “BRIC” moniker after all includes three other countries: Brazil, Russia and India. Leaving aside Russia, which is currently more like Saudi Arabia than it is like China, the two other countries merit focus as rising powers. American policy planners would do well to start taking more serious note of them, and not obsess only on Beijing.

Although Brazil and India hail from opposite sides of the world, they have begun to align their interests both economically (eg the Doha trade round), and politically (eg UN Security Council membership). Along with another rising nation, South Africa, they have formed a loose grouping, un-imaginatively called “IBSA”, a group of democratic emerging economies.

It remains to be seen whether IBSA will become a more formal grouping. We hope that it becomes the core of a new coalition of democracies that America can work with in future years. As this column has repeatedly said, America cannot afford to “go it alone” in the twenty first century. Nor can NATO (in its current form) remain America’s primary alliance going forward.  Global challenges require global solutions.

The Wall Street Journal opinion page carried the following article yesterday entitled “Look to Brasilia, Not Beijing”. The byline talks of “The rising challenge to China’s great power aspirations.”  Its worth reading.

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123912571625797593.html

www.dailyexception.com
Twitter: dailyexception

Given the success of the atmospherics he was able to pull off in London and Baden Baden, we hope that the President will be able to repeat his magic and raise the level of dialog between the United States and Turkey, and through them to the Muslim World at large. This is something that the President is admirably capable of. President Obama successfully improved America’s standing with the European public, even though he was unable to make progress on substantive policy issues.

Unlike with Europe, however, the United States and Turkey have few policy issues dividing them. With the exception of the Iraq War, the two countries have been close allies for decades. America is a strong supporter of Turkey’s accession into Europe. The two countries broadly agree on the routing of new oil pipelines out of Central Asia, something that will be critical to the Eurasian country’s future. America supports Turkish efforts to modernize its legal system, and appreciates its assistance in Afghanistan. Turkey has a role to play in Iraq, and has been a key interlocutor between the Israelis and Syrians. Turkey may yet help America in its effort to reach out to Iran. Importantly, the Obama visit represents the first time in history, where a US President is visiting Turkey without also visiting Turkey’s traditional nemesis, Greece.

Despite this closeness, President Obama will face a Turkish public that is much less receptive than those of Europe. The Turks today increasingly identify with the rest of the Muslim World, and the clearest manifestation of this is to dislike America. The President may find reaching out to the Turks a challenging task.

We believe that the real cause of this drift away from the West, however, may not actually be America’s fault. The Turks made a firm commitment to joining the West decades ago, only to be rebuffed by Europe, not the United States. Europe has consistently created barriers to Turkish entry into the EU even while it let in 10 more recent applicants from Eastern Europe, only wounding Turkish pride further.  

The Europeans do not owe the Turks entry into their club. And perhaps, there are good reasons against it. That is for Europe to decide. But they do owe the Turks a clear answer. By dangling membership, but never actually delivering upon it, the Europeans have succeeded in pushing this pivotal modern, secular, Muslim-majority republic away from its Western alignment and in search of a new neighborhood, whether that is defined as Central Asian or Middle Eastern. In doing so, they have alienated what should be our biggest champion to the Muslim World, just when we needed it the most.

It is ironic that it is America’s image that has suffered because of Europe’s dithering. Hating George Bush and the War on Iraq has been so much easier for the Turks than dealing with the painful rejection from Europe. But given this fact, President Obama’s priorities in Turkey are the opposite of those in Europe. In Turkey, restoring America’s prestige takes priority over any policy discussion. The President’s job to reach out and reestablish America’s standing with the Turkish people, and through them, with the Muslim World as a whole.

We wish him the same success in Turkey that he had in Europe.

But measured in substance, Obama will return home empty handed. In London, he learnt that there is no more European money to stimulate the global economy. And in Baden Baden, he is learning that there are no more European troops to provide for our common defense in Afghanistan.

However, there are critical differences between the economic summit in London and the security gathering in Baden Baden.

In London, the world witnessed the beginning of a new global economic decision making forum. Whether the G20 can succeed as a group, or whether it ends up being replaced by a more direct G2 of the United States and China, one thing is clear – the old North American and European club of the G8 as the principal structure of economic coordination is over. There is general recognition that as the challenges and the players in the world economy change, so must the solution. America might not have gotten what we wanted, but at least it was at the right venue.

In Baden Baden, however, something far worse is happening. Not only is America not getting what it wants, it is not even talking to the right people. The United States and Europe continue to look to NATO, the most successful military alliance in history, as its continuing primary security agency. However, NATO was successful precisely because it clearly met the challenges at hand – namely to provide for joint US-European defense by countering Soviet aggression on the European continent. The problem is that this challenge has gone.

The new security challenges (both for America and Europe), lie in the Arc of Instability that runs from the Middle East to East Asia. And to NATO, these areas will always be secondary “out-of-region” afterthoughts. No wonder, there is little enthusiasm on the part of European governments to send troops or money for NATO operations that seem so far from home. For a myriad of historic reasons, conflicts outside of the European theater have not been considered part of Europe’s military focus area even if they are critical to Europe’s security.

Houston, we have a problem. There is a mismatch between the regional nature of America’s primary security alliance and the global nature of its security threats.

Ironically, there are many other countries who absolutely realize their critical interests in these “out-of-region” problems. They understand the stakes at hand, often have large standing armies, and are nearly always willing to deploy force when their interests are threatened. The only problem is that they tend to be “out-of-region” countries, and hence not formally a part of NATO.

So, we have the bizarre situation where America is not engaging with countries like India (which has enormous strategic interests in Afghanistan, a large standing army, and a willingness to use it), whereas it is begging the Dutch to send a few thousand troops to a part of the world they have no interest in, and even if they did, do not understand. Using this rationale, the United States will probably look for help from the Danes and Finns if there is trouble in North Korea or Taiwan – without automatically engaging its Japanese and South Korean allies (unless they are actually under direct threat) as they are not part of NATO’s command structure.

We suggest that there is, and will always be, a strong need for a common North American – European security platform. Europe is the closest of America’s allies, with common heritage, values and concerns. But an exclusively European-based security structure is no longer sufficient. Global challenges required global solutions. If America going to get the support in men and materiel that it needs to meet its new security challenges – and going it alone is not an option – it needs to stop trying to using twentieth century solutions for twenty first century problems.  

America may have failed to get additional funding to stimulate the economy. But it wasn’t even in the running on getting additional troops for Afghanistan.

NATO was formed as the organization that bonded North America with Western Europe in our epic struggle with the Soviet Union and its communist block. With its guarantee of common defense, it became the most important source of security for all of its members. When the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet empire collapsed, NATO could proudly point out that no NATO country had been attacked by the Red Army, and none had fallen. However, the end of the Cold War also marked the end of NATO’s original purpose. And ever since then, it has stumbled to find relevance in an increasingly complicated world.

Two trends have characterized NATO in recent years, both of them worrying. First, is the unceasing enlargement of the organization (from 16 to 26 today), with the possibility of even such ex-Soviet republics as Ukraine and Georgia joining. Second, is the introduction of “out of area” missions, as the West’s primary military alliance – most notably in Afghanistan.

The enlargement of NATO is the most worrying. It does not make the United States, or Europe, safer. In fact, it has made us less safe. It has directly threatened Russia – a country which we should be befriending – causing a reintroduction of Cold War tensions with that country. Moreover, it over-commits our military to the common defense of tiny countries half way around the world, where we have absolutely no strategic interests. What made NATO so successful was the unshakable belief in one-for-all defense. That an attack on one would be an attack on all. Are we seriously to believe that if Russia invaded a Baltic state, the United States would launch an all out nuclear attack?  Would we really imperil our very existence for a country that most Americans could not locate on a world map? Those who say that NATO should be enlarged and strengthened in Europe because of Russia’s recent belligerence do not want to admit that it was NATO’s very expansion that led to this belligerence.

The enlargement of NATO has either made us militarily overcommitted to a nonsensical degree, or it has undermined the very credibility of NATO’s call for common defense. Whichever way you look at it, this is not tenable.

Where military unity in the Western world is now required is in that “arc of instability” that runs from the Middle East through Afghanistan/Pakistan through China to North Korea. It is from these regions that our new security challenges arise. None of these, however, are in NATO’s traditional geographic zone of focus. Hence began the “out of region” mission – the most important being the current deployment in Afghanistan. But without a clear mandate to be a global organization, and with membership restricted to North American or European countries – NATO has struggled to get real support from its members for such missions. Many European nations do not see their fundamental strategic interests to be in Southern Afghanistan, while those Asian countries with a real strategic interest in this conflict are not members of NATO.

And there lies the rub. There is a fundamental mismatch between the global nature of our challenges, and the regional nature of NATO’s membership. Either NATO needs to fundamentally change its structure, or we need a new global security structure that can serve as our primary security vehicle. America does not have the resources to “go it alone”. And ad hoc “coalitions of the willing” are neither lasting nor stable.

Either way, the NATO that we have known for the past sixty years cannot guarantee our security for the next sixty. The challenges have changed. The solution should too.