A Review of Ex-PM Blair’s Commentary on Iraq and the War on Terror

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has released a new book, entitled “A Journey” on the day when President Barack Obama announced the end of the Iraq War. Is it a coincidence? Even if it is not, the book has appeared at a turning point when Obama decided to turn the page (“Was Obama's speech 'Mission Accomplished'?”; Washington Post; September 1, 2010). Though Obama was an opponent to this war as a presidential candidate, FPI Director William Kristol says the President was respectful to soldiers in his speech (“A Note to My Fellow Hawks: It wasn't a bad speech”; Weekly Standard Blog; August 31, 2010). Anyway, Obama tried to strike a delicate balance between his liberal belief and the duty as the President. Since the Commander in Chief does not have confidence in the mission in Iraq, it is vital to review the new book, in order to understand why Tony Blair fought the Iraq War along with George W. Bush. Also, I would like to refer to some articles by Blair to explore how major democracies lead the global community in the War on Terror.

As the Prime Minister, Blair insisted that Iraq and Afghanistan was beyond security and military issue but they were starting points to win the War on Terror in terms of values. Extremists want stable democracy to fail, and drive the Islamic world back to semi-feudal religious autocracy. Also, Blair said clearly that Iraq was a vital threat to global security, though WMDs were not found. Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran, and murdered the Kurds with chemical weapons. The United Nations issued 14 resolutions against the Baathist regime (“A Battle for Global Values”; Foreign Affairs; January/February 2007).

In his latest book, Blair talks about WMD information prior to the Iraq War. Though the media and antiwar activists blamed intelligence mistake, Blair says they would have accepted the war, had WMDs been found. In addition, Blair wonders why Saddam acted as if he had been hiding nuclear weapons. However, he still believes that the decision was right. Though Saddam faced tough sanctions, and it was a compelling priority to remove them to save the economy, Iraq still craved for dominance in the Middle East. Nuclear acquisition was vital for his ambition to overshadow Iran and Israel. I believe this is a critical point to evaluate whether American and British attack was right or not. Saddam mocked UN inspectors, because he did not give up such megalomaniac greed. Remember this when we deal with current proliferators like Iran and North Korea.

The threat of Baathist Iraq is not the only problem. Tony Blair mentions the number of Iraqi people who were killed by Saddam Hussein as shown below.

• Iran–Iraq War, 1980–8: 600,000–1.1 million total fatalities from both countries
(Anthony Cordesman, The Lessons of Modern War, Vol. II, p. 3)

• Anfal Campaign against Kurds, 1988: up to 100,000 Kurdish fatalities; many more injuries and displaced persons
(Human Rights Watch, ‘Genocide in Iraq’, 2003)

• 1991 Invasion of Kuwait/Gulf War: 75,000 fatalities
(Milton Leitenberg, ‘Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20th Century’, Cornell University, Peace Studies Program)

• 1991 campaigns/reprisals against Shia: 50,000 fatalities
(Leitenberg)

• Other political killings over the years: 100,000 or more
(Human Rights Watch, ‘Justice Needed for Iraqi Government Crimes’, December 2002)

Moreover, Blair points out that international sanctions inflicted significant impacts on health and sanitation for Iraqi citizens.

The Iraq War is just one case of the battle against extremist and autocracy. Blair insists that military intervention to rogue regimes has become increasingly required due to globalization. Among those regimes, Iran is the most critical. Blair comments, “Iran is a far more immediate threat to its Arab neighbours than it is to America ... That's why Iran matters. Iran with a nuclear bomb would mean others in the region acquiring the same capability; it would dramatically alter the balance of power in the region, but also within Islam." He concludes "I wouldn't take the risk of Iran with a nuclear weapon" (“Tony Blair: military intervention in rogue regimes 'more necessary than ever'”; Guardian; 1 September 2010).

As Barack Obama pulled US combat troops out of Iraq, it is time to explore rights and wrongs in the Iraq War, and learn lessons to defeat dangerous ambitions of terrorists, extremists, and rogue states. Tony Blair presents us invaluable suggestions.

Re-strengthen the Trilateral Alliance of America, Europe, and Japan!

Since the publication of debates between Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Columnist of the Financial Times, the challenge posed by Russo-Chinese illiberal capitalism to Western liberal capitalism is one of my key focuses. The United States, Europe, and Japan should wake up from post Cold War daydream, and re-strengthen the trilateral alliance of top industrialized democracies, in order to manage various global challenges in this century.

The clash of capitalisms is nothing new. Shortly after the Cold War, a French businessman Michel Albert argued a rivalry between the Rhine capitalism and the Anglo Saxon capitalism in his book, “Capitalisme contre Capitalisme”. This is just a matter of economics, particularly, government-industry relations. However, the challenge of authoritarian capitalism in Russia and China is not just the matter of economics but that of political and security rivalry against the West. Kagan and Rachman agree that resurgent autocracies like Russia and China defy Western democracy, and help their fellow autocrats in the Third World to win geopolitical power game against the West.

In addition to their warning, Ian Bremmer, CEO of Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm, presents in depth analysis on the clash between state controlled capitalism and free market capitalism in his latest book "The End of The Free Market", from a businessman’s viewpoints. Bremmer says, "We are no longer in a global, free-market economy. There are now two systems out there. There is a free-market system, largely in the developed world. There is a state capitalist system in China, Russia and the Persian Gulf. The systems are mutually incompatible." In China, Western multinational corporations face unfair competition with state sponsored Chinese companies. In the long run, state controlled capitalism will fall into bureaucratic inefficiency, but in the next 5 to 10 years, free market economies will face challenges by rising state controlled capitalisms.

Why is state controlled capitalism rampant now? In the midst of savage competition of neoliberal economics at the end of the Cold War, some developing nations tried to maintain economic stability and government influence in their domestic markets. The global financial crisis has undermined the trust for free market capitalism, which bolsters authoritarian capitalism furthermore. According to Bremmer, state capitalism is not socialist central planning economy. It is a system that authoritarian bureaucracy dominates markets for their political survival, not for the well-being of citizens in their country, which leads to political conflicts with free market corporations ("The Rise Of State-Controlled Capitalism"; NPR News; May 17, 2010).

In addition to illiberal capitalism, the rise of cheap labor Asian manufactures poses another challenge to developed economies. It takes workers’ jobs away from industrialized nations, and erodes their economic supremacy over Asian tigers.

The United States, Europe, and Japan share common strength to manage the above challenges by illiberal capitalisms and rising southern economies. It is the value of freedom that makes liberal democracy capitalists far more attractive than authoritarian state capitalists. Regarding rapidly industrializing Asian economies, top developed nations have vital advantages in knowledge and education. Just before the last general election in Britain, Susan Watts, Science Editor of BBC, stressed importance of science policy (“Let's talk about science”; BBC Newsnight; 29 April 2010). This is a common agenda for all developed nations.

A closer Trilateral Alliance of the United States, Europe, and Japan, will augment the soft power of the Best and the Brightest Club. Resurgent autocracies and rising economies may be gaining relational power to impose their will on others. However, when it comes to structural power to make the system of four areas of the Susan Strange model, (production, finance, security, and knowledge), the Trilateral Alliance towers over the rest of the world. Jointly upgraded soft power of the Trilateral Alliance will bolster structural power of top democracies furthermore to counter challengers.

Lessons from British Election for the US and Japan

The last general election in the United Kingdom gives some lessons to be learned for the United States and Japan, the Big 2 liberal capitalist economies. The United States will have the midterm election this November, and conservative citizens launch bitter backlashes against “socialist” Obama administration, as shown in the Tea Party Movement. In Japan, the election for the House of Councilors will be held in July. Japanese voters question the competence of the Hatoyama administration on child care benefits in the economy, the Futenma Base Dispute in national security, and the Ozawa scandal in political reform.

Quite interestingly, none of the parties won the majority in the House of Commons in the last election. This implies that no parties have captured the heart of British voters. What lessons should America and Japan learn from this election?

Michael Barone, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, points out several implications for the midterm election in the United States this November. Most importantly, voters do not support heavy government spending. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s Labour government shifted leftward, and moved away from the third way of the Blair administration. Also, public support for the Liberal Democratic Party dropped just before the voting date, because Nick Clegg insisted on unrealistic policies, such as legalizing illegal immigration and joining the euro to abolish the pond sterling.

Policy agenda is not the only determinant in the election. In a time of disenchantment with politicians, the old political rules may not apply. Based on traditional uniform swings in party preference, David Cameron’s Conservative Party could have won more seats. This suggests that voters have different view points from those of Westminster insiders (“In Britain, a Cautionary Tale for U.S. Parties”; Washington Examiner; May 10, 2010).

Barone talks of the above lessons and interrelations between British and American political rhythms, as seen in the Reagan-Thatcher and the Clinton-Blair ideological duos.

The final lesson given by Barone is critical to Japan. Although drastic changes are expected due to the collapse of LDP and DPJ predominance in the diet, both old parties and new parties use old techniques to draw voters’ attention in the forthcoming election. Most of the Japanese political parties recruit candidates from TV personalities and athletes, in order to make use of their popularity to win the vote.

It is an irony that Japanese leaders failed to understand this point, although Britain has been a role model of parliamentary democracy when they explore political reform since 1980s.

Considering political rhythms mentioned by Barone, Americans will make use of implications of British election. However, it seems that Japanese political reform will be desperately a long way to go, unless political parties establish a solid recruiting system to find respectable candidates, and stop traditional bread and circus election tactics.

British Election and the National Grand Design

Britain will have the general election on May 6. The rise of the Liberal Democratic Party may change long time duopoly by the Conservative and the Labour Party since the Ramsey MacDonald premiership in 1924. Currently, poll results suggest this election extremely competitive, and the Conservative Party leads slightly over rival parties (“State of the Race for 30 April”; LSE Election Blog; 30 April 2010). I would like to talk of the overview of this election, and then, focus on foreign policy and defense issues. Also, I would like to talk about some vital points missed in the TV debate by party leaders.

First, listen to the above Pod cast of the Economist on April 30. The public debate on April 29 was predominantly on the economy. Andy Miller, Political Editor of the Economist, comments that Prime Minister Gordon Brown failed to impress TV audiences across the nation with his economic policy.

As the “change” has become a big theme, Prime Minister was overshadowed by his archrival David Cameron and rising Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg (“Bagehot: The last days of Gordon Brown”; Economist; April 29, 2010).

The Prime Minister may have failed to impress voters, but it is necessary to assess achievements of the Labour cabinet led by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in 13 years. Under a savage competition in the global economy, the Labour government struck a balance between economic equality and market capitalism to pursue social fairness. The minimum wage bill has saved the poor, despite criticism from the Conservative Party and the business. Inefficient public sectors, such as schools, hospitals, and job centers, have been improved through the private finance initiative. On the other hand, gross government debt has risen sharply under the Brown administration (“Labour's record: Things could only get better”; Economist; April 29, 2010).

The Iraq War spurred nationwide controversies, but Britain attacked Saddam Hussein whether governed by the Labour or the Conservative. Then, why is it the time for power transition?

First, the budget deficit has come to a tremendous level, at 11.6% of GDP. Brown has overturned Blair’s reform in public service. Despite amazing surge in the poll, the Liberal Democratic Party advocates more leftist policies than the Labour Party. In defense, the Lib Dems insists on scrapping Trident missiles, Britain’s only nuclear deterrent system. In the economy, the Lib Dems want to raise capital gains tax to 50%, which is higher than that of the Labour (“The British election: Who should govern Britain?” Economist; April 29, 2010).

It is understandable that the Economist selects David Cameron among the three. The problem is, the election debate focuses short term and daily life issues. However, long term and big picture issues are important as well, since this is the election to choose the prime minister.

Currently, Britain faces new global challenges, such as the War on Terror, proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the rise of Asian manufacturing. Therefore, it is a must to discuss foreign policy and defense more in depth. Academics of the London School of Economics leave brief comments on foreign policy debates among three candidates. Regarding the EU, Sara Hagemann, Lecturer in EU Politics, mentions gaps between Euro-skeptic Cameron and Europhile Brown and Clegg. She says that voters share Cameron’s view to Brussels bureaucracy. On the other hand, Professor Chris Brown and Research Officer Leandro Carrera talk of fundamental policy chasms between dovish Clegg and pragmatic Brown and Cameron. Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg insists on abolishing Trident missiles and drastic cut in defense budget (“Second Debate – International Affairs: What our Experts said”; LSE Election Blog; April 23, 2010).

Afghanistan is an urgent agenda of defense. Professor Christopher Coker says that the US led coalition has succeeded in ousting Taliban and helping nation building. However, NATO has not reached a consensus about the final stage of “stability enabling”, he says. As Britain is supposed to fight another War on Terror in Somalia and Yemen, Coker argues that war objectives needs to be defined more precisely. In any case, he says that it is Britain’s vital interest to impress its strength against terrorism and keep itself safe (“The Conflict in Afghanistan”; LSE Election Blog; April 20, 2010). The trans-Atlantic Alliance needs to be considered from this point.

Foreign and defense issues are not the only agenda, regarding Britain’s grand design. Susan Watts, Science editor of BBC, points out that the candidates failed to address science policies in the debate. Quoting a comment by Richard Pike, Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, she says that science will be the key to promote economic growth, and improve health and environmental levels of the country (“Let's talk about science”; BBC――Newsnight; 29 April 2010).

I agree with Watts, because arts and sciences are the vital area in which developed nations enjoy towering advantages over rapidly growing Asian economies. Also, nations like Britain, the United States, and Japan are assumed to take leadership for global public interest.

Does David Cameron, the most likely next prime minister, have a real grand design for Britain? Some critical issues are not discussed in the public debate. Attention to the next leader of the United Kingdom.

A Message of Condolence to Polish President Lech Kaczynski

Global American Discourse would like to express heartfelt condolences to President Lech Kaczynski of Poland, his wife, his policy staff, and airplane crews, who passed away in the accident on route to the Katyn Forest. I wish people of Poland would rise again from this tragedy.

British Foreign Policy and the Forthcoming General Election

Britain will have the general election, which will most likely to be held on May 6 (“The most likely date for the next election is May 6th, 2010”; Spectator――Coffee House; 1 May 2009). This election is expected to be highly competitive, and it is important to compare foreign policy viewpoints between those of the Labour and the Conservative.

In order to explore British foreign policy and the election, I would like to talk of the panel discussion, entitled “Britain's Place in a Changing World” at Chatham House on March 3, and a lecture called “How to understand and influence the EU, or The UK attitude Toward the Future of the EU" at the LSE Forum in Tokyo on March 20.

The panel discussion at the Royal Institute of International Affairs was moderated by Director Robin Niblett, and Acting and Shadow Foreign Secretaries participated in it. They are David Miliband of the Labour Party, William Hague of the Conservative Party, and Edward Davey of the Liberal Democratic Party. Throughout the panel, Labour Miliband stressed that Britain be at the heart of the European Union, while Conservative Hague emphasized British national sovereignty and importance of bilateral relations. See the video below (the text here).





Currently, Britain is involved with tackling Middle East threats, notably Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. Also, the world faces challenges by reemerging nationalism and rising economies, such as Russia, China, and India. In a changing global political environment, Britain needs to rearrange the relationship with the United States and the European Union.

Miliband foresees the world led by G3 (United States, China, and EU), not G2 (United States and China), and Britain will play a key role in global political economy through the EU. Also, he said that enlarged EU is upgrading its capability to manage relations with Russia, India, and Brazil, and also, fight wars like counterterrorist operations in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, Hague places more emphasis on relations with the United States, and he insists that Britain advise America to change its policy in case of wrong behavior such as mistreatment of Guantánamo prisoners. Also, he said the EU improve joint military capabilities to manage crisis like Bosnia.

Despite the above differences, both Acting and Shadow Foreign Secretaries agree that Britain has a distinct role as a hub of global political interactions through NATO, the Commonwealth, UN Security Council, and the EU. In my view, this role is strongly founded on imperial history and multiculturalism. The Japanese feel Britain “the most accessible” nation in Europe, though Japan has never been a British colony.

At the LSE Forum in Tokyo, Adam Steinhouse, Head of the School of European Studies at the National School of Government, talked about EU bureaucracy and successful lobbying process in Brussels. Also, he talked of British foreign policy between the EU and its own national interests.

Quite puzzlingly, the EU does not have sufficient personnel and financial resources to make pan-European policies. Steinhouse told the attendants that the decision making process in Brussels is bottom-up from Director’s level to the “Ministerial” level. Also, due to sectionalism among EU institutions, it is not clear who assumes the ultimate responsibility. For example, the EU has four “Presidents” in the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, and the European Parliament. Furthermore, Steinhouse told that Brussels bureaucracy has less budget resource than each member state.

Considering these points, it is understandable that the British, particularly Conservatives, prefer bilateral diplomacy rather than EU based approaches. Steinhouse points out that Britain has more bilateral relations with nations like India and Pakistan. Certainly, Britain talks with them bilaterally on the Afghan War and South Asian security without EU channels.

However, the Obama administration prefers integrated Europe to bilateral diplomacy. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton remarked that she would rather hope pro-EU Labour to win the election over bilateralist Conservative, as Edward Davies asked a question about this to William Hague in the video above. However, such pan-Europeanist approaches could ruin transatlantic alliance, because European nations act as sovereign states when necessary. Moreover, Steinhouse told us that European politicians see Barack Obama a “light weight” deep at the bottom of their heart. When Obama visited Europe as a presidential candidate, the media and youngsters were overjoyed but consummate policymakers were not well-impressed with such a “rock star”.

Regarding Anglo-American relations, highly possible victory of Atlanticist Conservative may paradoxically be at odds with pan-Europeanist Obama administration.

US President Barack Obama may not regard the relationship with Britain as “special”, since he is more inclined to engage challengers and adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran rather than allies with common values and interests. However, no other countries make so great a contribution to the War on Terror as Britain does. Also, EU member states give priorities to their national interests when Brussels bureaucracy does not satisfy their necessities.

The forthcoming general election between Europhile Labour and bilateralist Conservative will have crucial influence on transatlantic and global security. At the same time, we must remember that Britain will continue to play a hub role in global policy interactions, whoever wins the election. The panel discussion at Chatham House and a lecture by Dr. Adam Steinhouse must be understood in such contexts.




For further information on the forthcoming UK general election, see this blog.

Bitter Relations between Britain and Obama

Ever since inaugurated, President Barack Obama has been popular among Europeans who hope to heal the transatlantic rift caused by the Iraq War. However, Britain is an exception. Britain is the most significant contributor to the Iraq and the Afghan Wars since the Bush era. In addition, the British are outraged with Obama’s careless behavior to Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister Gordon Brown last spring (“Why Won't Obama Honor Our Queen?”; Politics Daily; April 4, 2009). Also, Business Secretary Lord Peter Mandelson criticized the Buy American Clause. Furthermore, Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth complained that Obama could not make a decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan, before the surge.

The Obama administration may not consider the Anglo-American special relationship important. However, since the presidential election, Barack Obama has been insisting that the war in Afghanistan is an issue of high priority in the War on Terror and US national security, and Britain’s commitment to this war is by far the largest among American allies. Therefore, it is valuable to mention viewpoints expressed by British media and experts.

To begin with, I would like to mention British evaluation on the Obama presidency. Robin Niblett, Director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, talked of American politics under the Obama administration at the panel discussion moderated by Bronwen Maddox, Chief Foreign Commentator of the Times. Niblett graded Obama 8 out of 10, though he said Obama had just started to implement his policy, and not achieved anything yet. Currently, Obama is preoccupied with key domestic agendas, such as passing the health care bill and driving jobless rate down. Therefore, Niblett says that Obama cannot afford to keep his eyes on some international agendas like the Middle East Peace Talk until the midterm election.

One participant asked how Obama repair American reputation damaged by unilateralism under the Bush administration. Niblett answered that Obama has been rebuilding bridges with "enemies" (Iran); adversaries (Syria) competitors (Russia, China); allies (Europe, Turkey, etc), since his inauguration. Despite vehement criticism by British media, Niblett commented optimistically that US-UK relations have been strengthened over Afghan operations and G20 London Summit last April (“Bronwen Maddox live: the Obama presidency one year on”; Times; January 19, 2010).

Some opinion leaders are not so warm to Barack Obama as Robin Niblett. The Economist says that Obama does not assume the responsibility as the commander in chief seriously, and he has not figured out how America should deal with captured terrorists, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. Moreover, Obama is just appeasing Russia and China without sufficient return for the United States and its allies (“Is Barack Obama tough enough?”; Economist; February 25, 2010).

Regarding bilateral relations, British media and experts are much bitter to Barack Obama. Unlike his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama does not take with us, or against us approaches. Nor does he believe in Senator John McCain’s vision for the world managed by a League of Democracies.

A son of Kenyan father, President Obama is critical to British colonialism in the past, and he sent a Churchill bust back to the United Kingdom from the oval office. More importantly, his policy advisors, such as Michèle Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, and Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, are supporters of European integration. However, EU member states give priorities to their national interests when they disagree with Brussels bureaucracy. The cost of disregarding the most reliable ally will be substantial (“Obama Gives Britain the Cold Shoulder”; Wall Street Journal; December 13, 2009).

US Ambassador to Britain Louis Susman tried to placate such worries, and said that the special relationship was stronger than ever. Ambassador Susman mentioned that President Obama respected the leadership of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and the United States was even following Britain in taxing banker’s income (“Special relationship with UK stronger than ever, says US ambassador”; Guardian; 1 January, 2010).

However, Barack Obama outraged the British again, as he kept neutral in the Falkland Dispute between Britain and Argentina this February. Nile Gardiner, Former Foreign Policy Staff to Lady Margaret Thatcher and Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, blames that Obama does not respect British contribution to the Afghan War (“The Special Relationship is under fire: Barack Obama’s refusal to back Britain over the Falklands is a disgrace”; Daily Telegraph; February 25, 2010). James Corum, Dean of the Baltic Defense College in Estonia, points out that Obama is utterly wrong to court leftist regimes in Latin America like the Kirchner administration of Argentina, because it is a bête noir in this region. Barack Obama simply hurts relations with America’s most reliable ally (“American neutrality on the Falklands is a symptom of US foreign policy drift”; Daily Telegraph; February 26, 2010).

Criticism rises from the American side as well. Some influential conservative blogs raises serious concerns with Obama diplomacy of appeasement to challengers and disrespect to allies (“The British Aren’t So Special to Obama”; Big Government; February 28, 2010 and also, “The Special Relationship is under fire: Barack Obama’s refusal to back Britain over the Falklands is a disgrace”; Blogmocracy; February 25, 2010).

President Obama has started new initiatives to engage challengers and adversaries, in order to overturn Bush foreign policy, and restore America’s reputation on the global stage. But bitter relations with friendly powers in return will do nothing but harm to US standpoint in the world. The Afghan War is a high priority issue, and therefore, current Anglo-American relationship needs to be reconsidered. Barack Obama’s popularity among leftists around the globe is nothing but Carterian.

NATO Should Engage with Challengers and Rising Powers?

NATO Secretary General Anders Fough Rasmussen said that NATO develop strategic partnership with Russia, China, India, and Afghan neighbors furthermore, at the Munich Security Conference (German link here) on February 7. Secretary General Rasmussen emphasized multilateral cooperation to defeat terrorists in Afghanistan. However, Konstantin Kosachev, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian state Duma, expressed skepticism to the West (“Nato calls for more global partners”; Financial Times; February 8, 2010).

Although the Munich Conference is just an unofficial forum on global security among leaders of major stakeholder nations, it is noteworthy that NATO Secretary General proposed strategic cooperation beyond nation-state rivalries. As the Prime Minister of Denmark, Rasmussen was in close ties with President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He was one of the leading proponents for the Iraq War. Such a conservative is appealing for common security initiatives with Russia and China, regardless of political regimes and values.

In addition to Afghanistan, Rasmussen says “NATO should become the global forum with other nations on a host of security issues extending from terrorism, cyber attacks, nuclear proliferation, piracy, climate change and competition for natural resources.” However, the Kremlin has become increasingly suspicious of the West since the Georgian conflict in 2008 (“NATO should be global security forum: Rasmussen”; Washington Post; February 7, 2010).

Even though President Barack Obama showed conciliatory attitude to Russia during his visit to Moscow last July, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev approved a new military doctrine which indentifies NATO expansion as a threat and reaffirmed the right to use nuclear weapons unilaterally (“Russia names NATO expansion as national threat”; Reuters; February 5, 2010). Kremlin leaders see Ukraine and Georgia their sphere of influence, but NATO Secretary General Rasmussen refutes such state to state antagonism (“Russian doctrine does not reflect real world: NATO”; Reuters; February 6, 2010). The Russo-Western gaps are hard to be filled. On Twitter, while Rasmussen says NATO is no enemy to Russia (“AndersFoghR”; Twitter; February 6, 2010), Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin asks “Americans and their allies want to surround Russian bear's den? (“Rogozin”; Twitter; February 10, 2010)”

The dispute over US interceptor missiles in Romania against Iranian nuclear threats poses another critical problem to the Russo-Western relations (“Russia condemns US move to put missiles in Romania”; Daily Telegraph; 7 February, 2010). When the Obama administration withdrew the missile plan in Poland and Czech, the United States was to build alternative sites in the south, closer to intercept Iranian missiles. The Kremlin is more concerned with geopolitical zero-sum games with the West than nuclear non-proliferation across the globe.

In a rapidly globalizing world, the concept of security may change, and transnational endeavors are required. However, we should remember that the chasm between Western democracy and Russo-Chinese autocracy is growing, and this is the reason why Robert Kagan talks of intensified nation state clashes in his book, “The Return of History”.

As seen in the operation in Afghanistan, NATO is globalizing, and it needs new partners. It is right that NATO explore strategic partnership with Afghan neighbors such as India and Pakistan. As I mentioned before on this blog, NATO is developing ties with Asia-Pacific democracies, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. I have no doubt that NATO can cooperate with them to manage transnational threats extending from terrorism, cyber attacks, nuclear proliferation, piracy, climate change and competition for natural resources, beyond the Euro-Atlantic area.

The problem is, can NATO build trustful relations with Russia and China, though radical nationalism is rampant in both countries? Has the sovereign state rivalries really ended? The idea cited by NATO Secretary General Rasmussen and supported by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay, sounds too Kantian. The Munich Conference shows that the reality of word politics remains savage and Hobbesian.





Further reference:
NATO’s New Strategic Concept

The Role of Vice President Biden to Control Damages in the Obama Foreign Policy

Vice President Joseph Biden seems to have the special role in foreign policy of the Obama administration. President Barack Obama has launched new diplomatic campaigns to improve relations with adversaries and challengers to America, such as Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and so forth. Some US allies claim serious concerns with such appeasement. Vice President Biden tries to soothe such worries when he visited Ukraine and Georgia in July, and Poland and Czech in October. Is Joseph Biden playing a supplementary role to Barack Obama?

As I mentioned in a previous post, Russia Today commented that the United States would not sacrifice the reset relation with Russia for the sake of Ukraine and Georgia while Biden was on a trip to both countries. They used a word, pecking order, to emphasize that President Obama’s visit to Russia was more important than Vice President Biden’s visit to Ukraine and Georgia.

As if suggesting that Russia saw America weak, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev denounced pro-Western Yushchenko administration to impose pressure on Ukraine. Obama may be popular among doves across the world, but his soft line stances and apologism to the American hegemony make loyal allies that face the threat of gigantic adversaries like Russia and China critically worried. For allies such as Poland and Czech, Barack Obama looks too naïve and inexperienced to deal with consummate challengers. Therefore, Joseph Biden is expected to placate their concerns.

Prior to Biden’s visit to Eastern Europe in October, Ewa Blaszynscaya, Research Analyst at the Center European Policy Analysis, insisted that the Polish government use this opportunity to reemphasize Polish contribution to NATO forces in Afghanistan, and urge Biden to reconsider the Missile Defense issue, on her blog affiliated with the Warsaw Business Journal (“Vice President Biden’s Poland visit more than just damage control”; CEE Policy Watch; 20 October 2009).

Though the missile shield was scaled down, the Obama administration showed their willingness for continual commitment to New Europe. Vice President Joseph Biden talked with Polish President Lech Kaczyński and Prime Minister Donald Tusk longer than scheduled to soothe their concerns. It was a damage control to President Obama’s clumsy announcement that the United States would withdraw the Missile Defense System from Poland and Czech. However, the opposition criticizes the agreement a hoax as no timetable to implement the alternative plan was shown (“Biden does damage control”; Warsaw Business Journal; 26 October 2009).

Biden did the same damage control diplomacy to talk with Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer. While Czech contribution to the Afghan War was praised, both sides did not agree how to implement the new plan: whether NATO based or bilateral (“Biden reassures ČR of defense role”; Prague Post; October 28 2009). Furthermore, former Czech President Vaclav Havel criticized Obama for rejecting to meet Dalai Lama, even though Biden explained it “logically” (“Havel: US foreign policy aware of threats”; Prague Daily Monitor; 26 October 2009).

Artemy Kalinovsky, Fellow at the London School of Economics, says Joseph Biden is the best choice to soothe Central European allies. Biden has a brilliant career to endorse NATO expansion to Eastern Europe during the 1990s, and he has extensive personal contacts in this region. However, both Poland and Czech will be discouraged, if Biden fails to meet their expectation. As Kalinovsky says, “In the end, the Obama administration might learn that, as with domestic politics, it is impossible to be friends with everybody.” (“The Man for the Job in 'New Europe'?”; National Journal; October 20, 2009)

Obama was premature to express his hope of reconciliation with challengers and adversaries at one of the most sensitive time, which has raised serious concerns among loyal allies. As both the Warsaw Business Journal and the Prague Post pointed out, President Obama did not give sufficient consideration to the provocative remark by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at the 70th anniversary of the Soviet-German invasion to Poland. Putin’s pro-Stalin speech chilled the spine of people across Central and Eastern Europe. Also, Biden did not tell detailed information about the alternative missile interceptor SM3. Joseph Biden needs to do more to complete his damage control mission and restore trust among allies of New Europe.

Obama cannot heal all stakeholders. The Prague and the Cairo Speeches were hailed, but he needs to face savage reality of global power games. The Vice President will play a vital role to take care of concerns from US allies, just as a manager of the customer service center does. In any case, the role of Joseph Biden in the Obama foreign policy is beyond New Europe and Former Soviet nations. Vice President Biden has substantial jobs to do in the Obama administration for America to fulfill the role of the global superpower.

An Open Letter to Question Commitment to Poland and Czech by a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate President Obama

The decision by President Barack Obama to withdraw the Missile Defense System from Poland and Czech has raised a serious concern among the public in Eastern Europe and foreign policy makers in Washington. President Obama may have taken a businesslike approach to Russia, in order to advance his own agenda of a nuclear free world. However, I believe this will pose some negative effects to America’s relations with East European nations, and also, former Soviet republics like Ukraine and Georgia.

Particularly, Poland and Czech are crown jewelries of US commitment to former communist nations. Both of them are successful case of transition to the market economy and liberal democracy. Some innocent free marketers believe that both are naturally coincided. Empirically, this is not true. On this blog, I have been talking of illiberal capitalism in Russia and China. To the contrary, growing socio-economic disparity has led to the rise of anti-Western cult nationalism in both countries.

Even pro-Western Ukraine has not made sufficient progress in developing transparent political and economic system to bid for EU membership (“Is Ukraine fit for the EU?: The Brussels-brokered loan offer may encourage Kiev to clean up its corrupt gas sector”; Wall Street Journal; August 24, 2009).

Considering these problems associated with the transition to capitalism and democracy, Poland and Czech are vital show cases to demonstrate the success and the victory of Western liberalism. Therefore, I strongly advocate that the United States and key NATO allies like Britain, France, and Germany, demonstrate their willingness to defend Poland and Czech from pressures by autocratic powers. Historically, Poland and Czech are the frontline of Western democracy. It was Adolf Hitler’s aggression to both countries that led to World War Ⅱ.

In view of these concerns, the Foreign Policy Initiative and the Center for European Policy Analysis sent a joint open letter to urge President Obama to make firm commitment to eastern and Central Europe, and not to surrender Russian pressure. Signatories are distinguished foreign policy experts, including Robert Kagan and William Kristol of the FPI, and A. Wess Mitchell of the CEPA.

Actually, Russian hawks are invigorated to hear to hear Obama’s announcement of withdrawal as I told in the post. Also, as Obama hesitate to provoke Russia on Ukraine and Georgia, Russia Today reported as if America were weak. Fouthermore, Iraq War veteran Captain Pete Hegseth regards such challenges as critical threats to global security.

In the open letter, signatories emphasized that Poland and Czech supports the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan despite vehement criticism from anti-American leftists throughout the world. Also, they insist that the plan to build missile defense facilities in both Poland and Czech is a clear message for continual American engagement in New Europe.

People in Prague expressed wholehearted welcome to President Obama when he visited there. Will he betray them through drawing back security assurance to Czech? As I quoted a comment by Nile Gardiner, former policy aid to Lady Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom, isn’t Barack Obama confident in American righteousness? If both questions are true, he is no icon of world peace. Poland and Czech crave for American support. A friend in need is a friend indeed. Never forget this President Obama! Again, read the open letter carefully. We shall defy a Nobel Peace Prize at the expense of Poland and Czech.

US Missile Defense Withdrawal from Poland and Czech May Activate Russian Hawks

The Obama administration has decided to withdraw the Missile Defense Plan to deploy anti-ballistic missile system in Poland and Czech. It was intended to protect US allies from Iranian nuclear missiles. Russia bitterly has been opposing this plan since the Bush era.

President Obama’s decision spurred vehement criticism among Republicans such as Senator John McCain and Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. Alternatively, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the United States would deploy Aegis-equipped ships to shoot down Iranian missiles (“U.S. replaces Bush plan for Europe missile shield”; Reuters; September 17, 2009).

Russia is likely to regard this decision as a victory to the United States. On the other hand, Poland and Czech raised concerns that the Obama administration is appeasing to Russia. (“U.S. to Shelve Nuclear-Missile Shield”; Wall Street Journal; September 17, 2009)

Thomas Valasek, Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the Centre for European Reform, says that Obama is right to proceed nuclear disarmament with Russia, but it must be combined with assurance American engagement to Eastern Europe. Also, he points out that Russia is still obsessed with the idea of zero-sum game, which is US gains mean Russian losses, and vice versa (“Missile strategy must not be seen as a retreat”; Financial Times; 9 September 2009).

However, things are quite tough. I have been writing some posts on Russia to explore widespread cult nationalism in the post communist era. In view of this, Republican Senator Jon Kyl condemns President Obama as the following.

Despite the fact that Poland and the Czech Republic have committed their soldiers to fight alongside U.S. forces in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, today the Administration has turned its back on these allies. ….. The message the Administration sends today is clear: the United States will not stand behind its friends and views ‘re-setting’ relations with Russia more important. This is wrong! (“Kyl Blasts Obama Missile Defense Surrender”; Weekly Standard Blog; September 17, 2009)


Gary Schmitt, Director of Advanced Strategic Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, comments “It looks like not only have we hit the reset button when it comes to Russia, but now with our friends in Central Europe—except this time, it’s a big fat “no thank you” for your willingness to stick your neck out to protect allies" (“Are We Dropping Missile Defense in Europe?”; The Enterprise Blog; September 16, 2009).

More importantly, hawks are invigorated to hear this deal in an increasingly rightist Russia. I have mentioned that Russians are more and more infatuated with Joseph Stalin these days, and the Medvedev-Putin administration make use of this patriotic passion for their authoritarian rule.

Russian diplomacy is based on zero-sum ideas, and Moscow foreign policymakers do not understand Western concepts of “win-win” deals which Obama has in mind. The rise of hardliners will pose negative impacts on Ukraine, Georgia, and trans-Caucasia as well (“Demise of U.S. shield may embolden Russia hawks”; Reuters; September 17, 2009).

I strongly argue that the Obama administration needs to understand the nature of the counterpart regime. As shown in the Prague and the Cairo Speeches, Barack Obama is too hesitant to trumpet American power and ideals. Nile Gardiner, Ex-Foreign Policy Staff to Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, said it was too apologetic. The world never needs soft and sweet America. President Obama, please don’t discourage Poles and Czechs, whose real HOPE lies in close ties with the West.

The War and the Election in Afghanistan by US and UK Experts

Prior to the presidential election on August 20, the Brookings Institution has released special issues on Afghanistan. In the above videos, Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, talks some key points of the war and the election. He says that the Taliban is extremely strong at present. Riedel insists that the coalition can win the war through rebuilding Afghan security forces to contain, not eliminate Taliban forces. Quite importantly, Riedel points out that “the race is competitive this time, which makes the result of this election more legitimate than that of previous one." The legitimacy of the elected government is critical for the HOPE OF THE CHANGE in this war, Riedel says. Finally, Riedel argues that the United States is the only actor to intermediate mutual distrust between Afghanistan and Pakistan, regarding Taliban and Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistani territory.

The above video comments are concise and insightful. In Iraq, successful election and legitimate government discouraged terrorists. This election is a turning point in Afghanistan as well. Furthermore, I would like to mention two articles.

Jeremy Shapiro, Director of Studies at the Brookings Institution, says that the success of this election is a matter of domestic politics in the United States and Europe as well. American and European governments send troops to promote the value of democracy, and good achievements will enhance their domestic and international grounds (“The 2009 Afghan Elections and the Future of the International Community in Afghanistan”; Brookings Research and Commentary; August 13, 2009).

Vanda Felbab-Brown, Fellow at the Brookings Institution, warns that the United States and NATO allies not give interventionist impression to Afghan people, and respect self-motivated initiatives by Afghan leaders and citizens (“The 2009 Afghanistan Elections and the Future of Governance”; Brookings Research and Commentaries; August 13, 2009).

As the election is coming, Taliban attack is getting intensified. As I mentioned in a previous post, recent sharp rise in the number of casualties is a controversial issue in Britain. In face of bitter criticism to the Afghan policy, Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said the war is winnable. Ainsworth stressed that the British forces are making progress to defeat the Taliban and help Afghanistan protect their country on their own.

The British forces started the Operation Panther’s Claw in June this year for intensive offense against the Taliban in Helmand province. Since then, the number of casualties soared dramatically, as shown in the table below.



Source: BBC


General Sir Richard Dannatt who is leaving Afghanistan, articulated that good governance in Afghanistan and Pakistan would secure the British public in the end, and appealed morale support for this war despite current difficulties (“Ainsworth defends Afghan mission”; BBC News; 17 August 2009).

The incoming head of the British Army, General Sir David Richards refuted the rumor of a 40 year stay of UK forces in Afghanistan, and defended the Defence Secretary, regarding war objectives (“General Sir David Richards backs Bob Ainsworth on Afghanistan time frame”; Times; August 17, 2009).

Shortly after the election, General Stanley McChrystal of the US Army will address a strategy assessment as the head of the coalition (“RPT-Obama to seek to rally support for Afghan war effort”; Reuters; August 17, 2009). This election is a landmark for the future of Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda will not disappear immediately, even though the election succeeds. The post-election assessment by General McChrystal is a must to read, in order to understand the prospects of the War on Terror.

The Debate on British Troops in Afghanistan

Britain is considering a surge in Afghanistan to defeat Taliban and Al Qaeda guerrillas. Throughout the postwar period, Britain has been pursuing the policy of “punch above its weight” to maintain the position as one of influential powers, while struggling with shortage of military budget and manpower. In Afghanistan, British ground forces face insufficient support from the air, and they are much more disadvantaged to engage in counterterrorist operations than American forces. Prime Minister Gordon Brown decided to send withdrawn troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to defeat insurgents. This strategy has been considered since the Blair era, and now, security in Iraq has improved while things in Afghanistan is evolving increasing serious.

In view of the rise of casualties among British soldiers, Army General Sir Richard Dannatt requested more troops and equipments in Afghanistan (“Troops need more, says Army head”; BBC News; 17 July 2009). At the Westminster parliament, Conservative leader David Cameron asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown to clarify the objective of the war in Afghanistan, in order to maintain public support for it. Also, Cameron expressed serious concern with helicopter shortage, and criticized defense policy of the Brown cabinet (“PM challenged over Afghanistan”; BBC News; 16 July 2009).

The controversy on the Afghan mission is getting increasingly intensified among the public. The Conservative Party urged to send more British troops in Afghanistan in order to speed up trainings for Afghan armed forces and the police (“Conservatives to increase British troop levels in Afghanistan, David Cameron hints”; Daily Telegraph; 3 August 2009). After talks between Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, General Stanley McChrystal of the US Army said Britain would send additional 2,000 soldiers (“Britain to send 2,000 extra troops to help train Afghans”; Times; 2 August 2009).

Britain must resolve equipments and manpower problems, while maintaining global commitment. As shown in the table below, Britain shares disproportionately great burden in the Afghan mission.




Source: Economist


Currently, the British public is supportive of the mission in Afghanistan, as Britain takes pride in its military success. However, both hawkish Tory and dovish Liberal Democrat are critical to strategic troubles of the current administration. Particularly, helicopter shortage is so serious that the out-going head of British army General Dannatt needs to use an American one. The incoming head, General Sir David Richards, mentions contending viewpoints in British defense policy. British generals complain that White Hall policymakers give preference to big arsenals such as strategic nuclear weapons and war ships, but do not give sufficient consideration to land battles against insurgents (“British forces in Afghanistan: And the soldier home from the hill”; Economist; 16 July 2009). Labour MP Mike Gapes, who led to release a report by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, criticized high casualty rate of British troops, and administrative sectionalism among the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Department of International Development. Furthermore, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague questioned who was in charge of the war in the cabinet (“Tell us why we're in Afghanistan, MPs say”; Times; 3 August 2009).

General Sir Mike Jackson told that structural reform of the Ministry of Defence was necessary to follow the recommendation in the House report led by Gapes, in order to focus on tightly defined strategic objectives. Current operations include counternarcotics missions as well as defeating insurgents (“UK troops 'given too many tasks'”; BBC News; 2 August 2009). If the allied forces were to focus on definite objectives, rapid trainings for Afghan security forces are required.

The Afghan problem is strongly related to British foreign and defense policy across the globe. Prior to the Falkland War, admirals of the Royal Navy objected to sacrificing aircraft carriers for the sake of Trident SLBMs. After the war, Prime Minister-then Margaret Thatcher decided to maintain carrier squadrons. Here again, Britain faces a dilemma between managing resource problems and maintaining global military presence.

Paul Cornish, Head of the International Security Programme, and Andrew Dorman, Associate Fellow, both at the Royal Institute for International Affairs, explore British defense policy. In 1998, the government released “The Strategic Defence Review (SDR)” to define British defense objectives: commitment to Europe, partnership with the United States, securing British economic interests, and defending British freedom. In order to fulfill the above aims, “After all, a careful strategic assessment might well reveal that the United Kingdom will need aircraft carriers and fast attack aircraft as well as ‘men on the ground’ .“ Cornish and Dorman proposes to withdraw troops from Germany and possess fewer types of fighters for maximum availability, thereby transform personnel and equipments more effective and cost-efficient (”National Defence in the Age of Austerity”; International Affairs; April 2009).

Finally I would like to mention an article on Afghanistan by Sir Adam Roberts, President of the British Academy and Professor at Oxford University. In a periodical published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Sir Adam comments that British and American forces have much lessons to learn from past counter insurgent operations, and foreign troops should not behave as eternal occupiers (“Doctrine and Reality in Afghanistan”; Survival; February 2009).

Policy discussions on Britain’s involvement in Afghanistan have profound implications to other US allies. Within limited resource, free nations need to explore maximum contributions to global security and defend their own sovereign interests. Some allies like Japan have mush to lean from British experience, in order to pursue greater presence in global politics and strengthen alliance with the United States.

Ex Prime Minister Tony Blair Addresses the Case for Military Intervention against Extremists

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave a lecture, entitled “Faith and Globalization” at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on April 22. In this lecture, Former Prime Minister Blair argued against criticism to the Anglo-American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, and said that the use of force had become more necessary than ever (“Force must be an option – Blair”; BBC News; 23 April 2009).

I talk of this event, because the global public does not understand the threat of Islamic radicalism and repressive regimes. Also, some opinion leaders distract attentions from those threats to past European colonialism and American global hegemony. Tony Blair tells they are entirely wrong. This lecture presents significant policy implications to US allies in Europe and Japan, because all of us face common dangers.

As a leader of conscience and global respect, Former Prime Minister Blair played a crucial role to legitimize the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, while leftist media criticized the Cowboy Diplomacy by President-then George W. Bush.

Tony Blair articulated “I still believe that those who oppress and brutalize their citizens are better put out of power than kept in it.” He believes that such oppressive regimes be toppled through military intervention by leading democracies if necessary.

The threat is widespread throughout the Middle East and the war is prolonged “Because it is based on an ideology and because its roots are deep, so our strategy for victory has to be broader, more comprehensive but also more sharply defined.”

In addition, Blair refuted widespread misunderstandings that British colonialism in the past and the foundation of Israel are the cause of Middle East instability. To the contrary, he pointed out that deep root of extremism must be weakened through active intervention.

In addition to military intervention, Blair stressed that the West should help empowerment of Islamic societies, and endorse moderate Muslims, in order to eradicate the roots of extremism.

Regarding Pakistan whose commitment to the War on Terror is questioned currently, Blair told it preferable to assist social reform, instead of military action.

For detail, you can read the text, and listen to the audio from those links. Global liberals were overjoyed with the inauguration of President Barack Obama, but they must understand the nature of the War on Terror. It does not change whether the President is Bush or Obama. Tony Blair’s lecture will be a great help for you to understand this vital point.

Key Person: The 60th Anniversary by a British Historian Who Made NATO More Active than Ever

Jamie Patrick Shea

Director of Policy Planning in the Private Office of NATO Secretary General, United Kingdom

Education: B.A., Surrey University; D.Phil., Oxford University



NATO held the 60th anniversary summit at Strasburg and Kehl in early April this year. France has come back to NATO command structure prior to this historical landmark. Jamie Shea has been working for NATO since he received his doctorate degree from Oxford University. Currently, he is the closest policy advisor to Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (Netherlands).

In order to promote public understanding on NATO, Shea gives lectures on NATO history through the video, entitled “Jamie’s History Class”. As he mentions in the video of the first lecture, we learn history to understand what happens in the future. NATO is in the era of transition. It faces new threats of global terrorism, non-state actors, nuclear proliferation, and the Russo-Chinese challenges. As threats evolves increasingly global, NATO operations spread outside the Euro-Atlantic area. Also, NATO has transformed into an acting and fighting organization instead of a deterrence organization against communism. Shea endorsed NATO intervention in Kosovo.

As if implying his future of being involved in policymaking at the turning point, Jamie Shea was born in London on 9-11 in 1953. Having received degrees in modern history from Surrey and Oxford Universities, Shea has been engaged in public relations and policymaking for NATO.

His lecture entitled “1949: NATO’s Anxious Birth” presents some lessons to Atlantic and global security present days. Jamie Shea is right to say that history is a mirror to foretell the future.

From the beginning, some NATO members explored to expand the organization’s coverage out of the Euro-Atlantic region. France wanted to include French colonies in Africa. Actually, Algeria was under NATO’s security umbrella, before winning independence in 1962. The Netherland wanted Indonesia, Belgium wanted Congo, and Portugal wanted Mozambique and Angola, included into NATO defense area. There is something common between these past arguments and global NATO debate today.

Also, Europeans tried to entangle the United States with their security in face of Red Army threat posed by Stalin. This is true to Missile Defense debate these days. Poles and Czechs want to keep the United States close in order to curb the threat by increasingly nationalistic Russia.

The role of NATO is a vital issue in present context as well: whether to deal with military issues only or including socio-humanitarian ones. While Britain and France preferred military role only, Canada insisted on including humanitarian role as currently stated in Article Ⅱ of the organization.

Regarding trans-Atlantic involvement, Shea tells conflicts between isolationists and internationalists in the United States.

Jamie Shea mentions in this lecture that the Congress and the military wanted Europeans to rearm by themselves during the early days of postwar era. Shea points out that they were so isolationists because they desired that the United States retain the right to declare the war independent of multilateral organizations. Come to think of it, Americans took the Iron Curtain Speech by Sir Winston Churchill so bluntly at first.

On the other hand, Department of State was a leading proponent to build a multilateral security organization to deter Soviet expansionism. Shea points out that the Vandenberg resolution by Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg enabled the United States to overcome constitutional restraints to join a multilateral military command structure.

Once involved, the United States has expanded the notion of trans-Atlantic security more broadly than Europeans. Unlike the WEU, the United States included peripheries like Norway, Iceland, Italy, and Portugal into NATO. The foundation objective of NATO was to deter communists, not necessarily to promote democracy. Shea points out that even the membership for General Franco’s Spain was considered.

Another point of focus is Britain in the Atlantic community. Shortly after World War Ⅱ, Britain was a proponent of joint European defense. The United Kingdom led the launch of the WEU. Sir Winston Churchill endorsed regional integration to reconstruct war devastated Europe. However, once NATO was established, Britain leaned toward the special relationship with the United States rather than leading European integration. Shea says this was a lost opportunity for British diplomacy.

Finally, Shea mentions a critical point that real victors of NATO creation were Germany and Italy. I strongly agree with him, considering relatively isolated Japan in the postwar era, because of its hesitation to join collective security organizations.

NATO history presents us with lots of implications to trans-Atlantic security, and also foreign policy of the United States, Britain, and continental Europe. In addition, the German-Italian experience gives invaluable lessons to Japan.

“Jamie’s History Class” is a great help to understand the past and the future of trans-Atlantic affairs, or more broadly the Western alliance of liberal democratic nations. More importantly, he is a man who made NATO more active than ever. Therefore, I recommend this video lecture series for highly motivated students of international affairs.

Another CHANGE in the Anglo-American Special Relationship, As Well?

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited Washington DC to talk with US President Barack Obama and give a speech at the Congress on March 3 and 4. Though media focused how President Obama hosted Prime Minister Brown, things must be discussed through reviewing a set of ministerial diplomacies, including multilateral talks such as NATO meetings.

Opinion leaders on both sides of the Atlantic interpreted fact that Barack Obama did not mention Britain in his inauguration speech implied a change to end the special relationship. Let me mention some commentaries by the media. The Daily Telegraph notices that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said “The United States and the United Kingdom share a special partnership”, instead of relationship. Steven Clemons, Senior fellow at the New America Foundation, says that current administration will not admit the special relationship unless Britain does not make sufficiently impressive contribution. On the other hand, Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Ambassador to the United States Sir Nigel Sheinwald stress Britain’s strength in managing the global economy, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran (“Will Barack Obama end Britain's special relationship with America?”; Daily Telegraph; 29 February, 2009).

News Week is more skeptical to the special relationship. The only superpower can found a special relationship with any country, including Germany, France, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, and so forth. It argues that Britain should stop talking of punch above its weight through acting with the United States on the global stage. Instead, the writer insists that Britain be confident of its soft power, like top universities, role model of parliamentary democracy, and financial infrastructure in the City, and act more on its own (“An Island, Lost At Sea”; News Week; February 14, 2009).

Professor John Dumbrell at Durham University in England comments that US-UK special relations do exist in defense and intelligence, but there are some problems of imbalances. Dumbrell points out that the focus of US-UK security cooperation has changed from military intervention under Tony Blair to soft power promotion under Gordon Brown, as seen in the speech at the Kennedy Library in Boston in April 2008. Though Britain is the largest contributor to the United States in the War on Terror, opinions on the British side are not necessarily reflected in Washington policymaking. The case of British prisoners in Guantánamo is a typical example. This imbalance is due to America’s global hegemonism and fragmented policy processes ―― such as sectionalism between the White House and the Congress, between the federal and state government, and among the department (“The US–UK Special Relationship: Taking the 21st-Century Temperature”; British Journal of Politics and International Relations; Vol. 11, Issue 1, 2009).

It is true that President Obama is so pragmatic that he does not value the Anglo-Saxon brotherhood. News Week is right to mention that he is the first black president. Actually, Obama is cold blooded enough to reject to appoint some liberal loyalists to his cabinet positions. From this point of view, the Anglo-American relations will change into more business-like one.

Prior to Prime Minister Brown’s visit to the White House and Capitol Hill, Britain and America had some ministerial talks. Foreign Secretary David Miliband met Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on February 3, and both nations attended NATO Defense Ministers Meeting in Krakow of Poland on February 19 and 20. After the US-UK Summit, Secretary Clinton flew to Brussels to attend the NATO-Russia Coucil on March 5. Vital security issues are discussed in the above mentioned meetings. At the bilateral foreign ministers talk, Britain and America confirmed further commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan (“Press Conference with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton”; UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office Newsroom; 3 February 2009). At NATO meetings, key issues were Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Georgia. Among these issues, Britain is the most supportive of American operations in Afghanistan (“Hutton calls on NATO partners to do more in Afghanistan”; UK Ministry of Defence―Defence News; 19 February 2009 and “NATO Foreign Ministers”; UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office Newsroom; 5 March 2009).

When Prime Minister Brown visited Washington, leaders of both countries focused more on the economy as G20 London Summit will be held on April 2. At the joint press conference with President Obama and the speech to the joint congress, the Prime Minister talked extensively on the economy, including financial crisis, protectionism, and the global economy. Also, the Prime Minister stressed common political values between Britain and the United States at the Congress (“Speech to US Congress”; UK Prime Minister’s Office News; 4 March 2009 [and the video] and “Press conference with President Obama”; UK Prime Minister’s Office News; 3 March 2009 [and the video]).

Though Gordon Brown is the second leader to visit the White House after Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso, agendas at the meeting were more global and transatlantic. Britain will play a crucial role in G20 Summit in London and NATO Summit in Strasburg/Kehl. Taro Aso may have talked on economic crisis and Afghanistan, but issues were more bilateral. Apparently, it is the problem solving capability that determines the agenda and special relationship with the United States.

Britain will remain the primary ally to the United States, despite some imbalances. The problem is, the Obama administration is willing to develop partnership with Russia and China over democratic allies. On the first trip to Asia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to found a ministerial level hotline with China to manage global security issues. She even thanked China for buying US bonds. This raises a serious concern that China will see America as weak. At the NATO-Russia Council this month, Secretary Clinton was more enthusiastic to talk with Russia than traditional allies in Europe.

There are a lot of lessons to be leaned from the Anglo-American relations. They are important for other primary US allies such as France, Germany, and Japan. News Week is right to say that allies must upgrade its own capability to deal with global problems. This is the key to make partnership with the United States more helpful to their national interests.

Buy American Clause: President Obama’s Unilateral Socialism Worsens US-EU Relations

Europeans blamed American unilateralism when the Iraq War broke out. They expected that the Democrat candidate Barack Obama would heal the transatlantic rift. Now, the European public and global media need to face the cost of irresponsible criticism to the Republican administration.

President Barack Obama announced that a new protectionist policy, called the Buy American Clause, would be applied to his economic stimulus plan. Some leaders in the United States and overseas criticize Obama’s clause a new kind of Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. When the Iraq War broke out, liberals in America and across the globe said “Hatred causes hatred in return.” President Obama is endorsed by these liberals who believe that love regardless of national interests and ideology leads to unify citizens across the world. In reality, the Great President is proposing protectionism to provoke retaliatory protectionism.

Senator John McCain would have never remarked such a narrow view pointed policy, had he become the President. McCain is an ardent advocate for the League of Democracies. He would have respected American allies much more than Barack Hussein.

It was British Business Secretary Lord Peter Mandelson who criticized this protectionist clause first. Lord Mandelson comments “This, if we do nothing, will lead to a new form of protectionism, a retreat of globalisation and a reduction of trade and cross-border activity that will be followed quickly by the old trade protectionism of the past. This is a time not just for individual, national measures to deal with the crisis. This is the time for the world to come together as one” (“Mandelson condemns Obama 'Buy American' call as protectionism”; Times; January 31, 2009). Secretary Mandelson says such de-globalization "un-welcome, undesirable, and unnecessary" (“Jeremy Warner: Do as we say, not as we do when it comes to protectionism”; Independent; 31 January 2009).

The bill raises a serious concern across EU member states. Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado said "We want to underline the responsibility of government to avoid this protectionist, xenophobic, nationalistic trend" (“EU attacks 'Buy American' clause”; BBC News; 3 February 2009).

The Buy American Clause will inflict a significant influence beyond US-EU relations. Pascal Lamy, director-general of the World Trade Organization, warned against the “dangers of sliding into isolationism and tit-for-tat measures, which have proven so devastating in the past" (“WTO Seeks to Curtail Protectionist Measures”; Washington Post; February 7, 2009). Gary Hufbauer, Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at The Peterson Institute for International Economics said that the U.S. action "will be seen as a license to other countries to do their own protectionist measures. The U.S. has always preached open markets and open trade. And now the United States is violating its international commitments." He insists that the bill costs more new jobs than it creates (“Analysis: Buy-US clause draws fire abroad”; Washington Post; February 4, 2009).


Do you want to see America like these?

O Hail Obama



THE LORD OBAMA - A RED DAWN



Apparently, President Obama does not respect the role of hegemonic state, that is, the guarantor of free trade and liberal world order. It is not the lack of experience that undermines his qualification for the leader of the global superpower, but his creed is extremely questionable for his job.

Criticism to President Obama comes from home as well. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell demands the President modify the bill and include Republican ideas (“Top Republican: Scrap 'buy American' stimulus clause”; AFP; February 3, 2009).

President Obama must understand that America’s best products use imported appliances, and this creates more employment in the United States. M1 tank, which is the pride of the US Army, uses British designed armor and German gun. Without them, a substantial number of American workers will lose their jobs. America needs crème de la crème products from Europe and Japan, and vice versa.

Those who were fascinated by Obama simply because of annoyance with Bush’s cowboy diplomacy are naïve. They were mesmerized, and did not think of the consequence. It is desirable that current cabinet staff change the President into the real leader of the superpower. Will he defend our free trade and liberal world order? Well, President Obama went on the razzle-dazzle with pop entertainers during the Ukrainian crisis…….

Britain and France Step towards the New Atlantic Century

The Anglo-French Summit on March 26 and 27 in London will be a landmark in the future of the Atlantic alliance. As shown in the Franco-American relations, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has impressed his willingness to develop strategic partnership with Anglo-Saxon powers.

Throughout the postwar era, Britain and France have been frequently at odds in many issues on global security, Atlantic diplomacy, European integration, and so forth. Meanwhile, Germany and France have shed World War hostility dramatically. The Anglo-French strategic partnership will change interactions among major Atlantic powers: the United States, Britain, France, and Germany. As British Conservative Party Leader David Cameron said at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Europe has to make substantial commitment to develop the Atlantic alliance furthermore, which cannot be achieved through efforts by a couple of European nations. However, close Anglo-French defense initiative will stimulate active European involvement in global security. At the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, France has reintegrated itself to NATO military command structure.

In order to symbolize friendship between Britain and France, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and President Nicolas Sarkozy visited the Emirates Stadium which is the home of Arsenal FC, a soccer team of the English Premier League (See the video). Prior to Sarkozy’s visit to London, the Economist talked about the dawn of new Anglo-French relations. His declaration to send more troops to Afghanistan pleased British opinion leaders. Unlike his Gaullist predecessors, Sarkozy does not push Euro-skeptic Britain hard to commit to ESDP (the European Security and Defence Policy) over NATO (“Anglo-French Relations: An Entente in London”; March 19, 2008).

John K. Glenn, Director of Foreign Policy at the German Marshall Fund, concludes his survey that America and Europe are nonetheless converging on some issues, principally on the threats that face them. Europeans are more alarmed than they were about Islamist fundamentalism, for example, and America is waking up to global warming. And he notes that on some questions about the use of force France is as close to America as Britain is. (“Britain and America: Anglo-Saxon Attitudes”; Economist; March 27, 2008)

Though new Atlanticism is under attack by the Socialists at home (“France and Defence: Gaullist No More?”; Economist; April 3, 2008), Sarkozy does not simply respond to pressure from the United States, Britain, Canada, and the Netherland.　

Charles Grant and Tomas Valasek, Director and Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the Centre for European Reform respectively, point out practical motivations of Nicolas Sarkoy’s pro-American, British, and NATO policy. Through full NATO membership and sending troops in Afghanistan, France can achieve symbolic and geopolitical success. France has been exploring to expand EU role in European defense, but Given the limited quantities of personnel and equipment that European governments can provide, NATO and the EU need to work more closely together. Under Chirac, French officials often blocked such co-operation; now they encourage it.” Both Britain and America welcomes his decision (“Sarkozy's bold European defence initiative”; Financial Times; 24 March, 2008).

At the press conference, Prime Minister Gordon Brown concluded this summit as the following.

Together, we will address the challenges of this new global era. Together, we are well placed to do so. Our two countries are at the heart of what we want to be: an outward-looking and globally-focused Europe. We both favour a strong relationship with our American partners. We agree that only by working together can we confront the challenges we face from terrorism, climate change, poverty, disease and failed states. We have agreed that we will deepen and strengthen the partnership between our two countries. We will turn the entente cordiale into the entente amicale in the following ways of working together in the future.

Tomas Valasek at the Centre for European Reform analyzes the reality behind President Sarkozy’s quest for improving relations with Britain and the United States in a recent policy brief (“France, NATO, and European Defence”; Centre for European Reform; 12 May 2008). France had been insisting that the EU should play more active role in European security since the launch of ESDP at the meeting between President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Tony Blair in St Malo in 1998. However, both Britain and the United States have been in favor of NATO supremacy over the EU, as far as security issues are concerned.

However, the Sarkozy administration has changed approaches, instead of provoking defense policy rivalry between NATO and the EU. Valasek argues the following.

Sarkozy does not share Chirac’s penchant for competing with America, and he and his team are more keenly aware of the insecurity around Europe’s borders. So they have essentially told NATO that France will stop playing politics with defence, and that both the EU and NATO should get on with the job of building and operating military forces.

Valasek points out that Sarkozy wants France to be at the heart of NATO rather than to stay outside of US led Atlantic security organization. This is why he visited London to　advance relations with Britain, and declared to rejoin NATO command structure and send forces to Afghanistan at the Bucharest Summit of the Atlantic alliance. In other words, President Sarkozy explores to expand French influence on trans-Atlantic security, not thinks of subordinating to Britain and America. Remember this, anti-Anglo-Saxon politicians!

In return, Valasek recommends that Britain agree with France to strengthen EU defense policy.

Regardless of the Atlantic command structure, both Britain and France are developing next generation aircraft carriers (CVF or Future Aircraft Carriers for Britain, and PA2 or Porte-Avions No2 for France) through a joint venture. This project is a Concorde of the 21st century. For detail, see the following links to British MoD (1, 2, and 3). Also, Navy Matters, an affiliated website of UK National Defence Association, tells further in detail about CVF projects in both countries. This site is also linked to some useful sources in French.

The Brown-Sarkozy summit is an important step of the Atlantic security for the future. Europe can get out of post-modern daydream, and confront critical threats to our liberal world order. A new Anglo-French entente will lead Europe to the new era.

Picture: Sarkozy se joindra à la ligue d’Anglo-Saxon? (“Britain and America: Anglo-Saxon Attitudes”; Economist; March 27, 2008)