I would like to introduce a blog on European affairs, entitled “Certain Ideas of Europe”, which is published by the Economist. While people pay more attention to terrorism in the Middle East and the rise of Asian powers these days, Europe is a key player in international politics. Americans and Europeans are in a position to lead liberal democracy and intellectual progress throughout the world. Japan can assume itself one of the first class world powers, because it belongs to the top players club of transatlantic nations.
Now, Europe is becoming a critical focus, as state leader elections will be held in France and Britain. The media talk much about domestic issues, but the result of both elections will have significant influence on international politics. Particularly, I pay attention to the impact on transatlantic relations.
In France, center right Nicolas Sarkozy is the front-runner, but not strong enough to win overwhelming majority. I have left the following comment to the post, entitled “What's there to the Franco-American relationship anyway?”.
Speaking of Franco-American relations, I am more interested in security issues. Can the next President of France repair the transatlantic chasm? I am asking this, because France and Germany opposed to US plan for missile defence against Russia, while Britain and New European nations accepted it. It seems to be that the gap between New Europe and old Europe appears again, as it happened over the Iraq War.
If Nicolas Sarkozy were to be elected, will he be able to fill the perception gap on security?
Quite interestingly, Sarkozy shares common backgrounds with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He is a son of Greek and Hungarian parents, and Merkel is from former East Germany. Both leaders are immigrants from pro-American New Europe.
While Merkel does not manage to fill this gap, can Sarkosy succeed in doing this?
As to economic policy, you can read “What kind of socialism?” to understand agendas in this election.
Regarding Britain, I would focus on whether conservatism revives or not. It was expected that Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown would be the top candidate for the next prime minister. However, he lags behind Opposition Leader David Cameron, according to the recent poll. Moreover, the Iraq War has divided Labour Party. In the previous parliamentary debate on Trident replacement, Prime Minister Tony Blair needed Tory support in order to defeat Labour leftists who insist on denuclearization of British forces.
Cameron may be able to win the election this summer, but David Frum, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, criticize his policy in “Britain's Empty Conservatism” (National Post, October 7, 2006). Whether Brown or Cameron, the impact of election result on the Anglo-American special relationship is a significant issue for Europe and the world.
“Certain Ideas of Europe” discusses a broad range of issues. On this blog, Europe includes not only Western and Eastern Europe but also Russia and Central Asia. If you need to understand this Greater Europe easily and quickly, I would recommend this blog.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Reza Pahlavi at the Hudson Institute
As widely known among the global public, Former Crown Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi launches vigorous campaign against the theocratic regime in his country. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been the gravest threat to Middle Eastern security. Had there been a stable, strong, and pro-Western Iran, Saddam Hussein would never have dreamt of terrorizing his neighbors. Iran is the cause of the War on Terror and the Iraq War. Therefore, it is essential to explore a regime change in Iran to eliminate the source of further danger in the future. Let me summarize the speech.
Former Crown Prince mentioned the nuclear issue first. He points out that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) does not work against the regime which glorifies self-destruction of martyrdom. I would say this is a critical aspect to discuss nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Non-proliferation experts agree that MAD will be less reliable as the number of nuclear-armed states increases.
While the media and some intellectuals criticize the idea of promoting regime change because of on going troubles in Iraq, Reza Pahlavi refutes their viewpoints. Mentioning the collapse of communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Pahlavi commented as below.
President Reagan knew that he would not get behavior change from the Soviet regime unless he seemed serious about changing it. The actual change was a happy byproduct, which spelled the end of the Marxist mystique. East-European youth backpacked their way to the West to tell fellow students about the wide chasm between the deceptive promise of Marxism and its wretched reality. Long lines to take Marxist courses disappeared in Universities, from Buenos Aires to Paris.
Unlike Iraq, Pahlavi says that Iran has never been colonized, and Iranians established parliamentary system by themselves in early 20th century, when Russia was still under the czarist regime. I have to stress that widespread desire for liberal democracy is an important pre-requisite for regime change by foreign powers. Japan and Germany are successful cases of US led regime change. Prior to foreign intervention, the Taisho Democracy in Japan and the Weimar Democracy in Germany prevailed. From this perspective, regime change in Iran is more likely to succeed than that in Iraq. Pahlavi insists that Iranian journalists, intellectuals, and students get in touch with Western societies so that they can see current clerical regime critically. This is what happened in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Pahlavi criticize that the Baker-Hamilton Report shows no feasible ways to talk with Iran whose policy aims at humiliating the United States. While Iran has been isolated from the world, he points out that pressures from the United States and the global community do not have sufficient effect on this country. Current regime denies the Holocaust and tries to wipe out Israel. Also, it is acquiring nuclear weapons.
Since Iran does not have a common enemy with the United States as China did during the Cold War (the Soviet Union, of course), a Kissinger diplomacy with this country does not make sense. According to Reza Pahlavi, appeasement with Iran is not helpful to deal with current crisis.
As opposed to state-centric approaches by the State Department and the Pentagon, Pahlavi advocates that the West help civic organizations in Iran, such as women, youth, ethnic, and professional groups. Currently, pro-democracy activists in Iran have few contacts with outside. The government controls the media, and arrests bloggers even with limited readers. In order to resolve this problem, he recommends further broadcasting operations by VOA and BBC to Iranian grassroots who have some amateur satellite TV stations.
On the other hand, the Former Crown Prince objects to the war against Iran. He tells the reason as the following.
[the] Iranian people have changed their regimes many times before, when they had far less reasons to do so. He watches carefully for the signs of history repeating itself. Once he sees those signs, and only then, will he change his behavior.
Those who have keen interest in US led regime change can learn a lot from the speech by Reza Pahlavi. Unlike anti-Western leftists assume, promoting regime change in the Middle East is not belligerent. Nor, does it deny local cultural traditions to impose Western ways of tyhinking. This policy aims at empowering citizens across the Middle East. I hope those who are allergetic to the word “regime change” shed their misunderstandings to US and its key allies’ endeavor for the future.
Former Crown Prince mentioned the nuclear issue first. He points out that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) does not work against the regime which glorifies self-destruction of martyrdom. I would say this is a critical aspect to discuss nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Non-proliferation experts agree that MAD will be less reliable as the number of nuclear-armed states increases.
While the media and some intellectuals criticize the idea of promoting regime change because of on going troubles in Iraq, Reza Pahlavi refutes their viewpoints. Mentioning the collapse of communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Pahlavi commented as below.
President Reagan knew that he would not get behavior change from the Soviet regime unless he seemed serious about changing it. The actual change was a happy byproduct, which spelled the end of the Marxist mystique. East-European youth backpacked their way to the West to tell fellow students about the wide chasm between the deceptive promise of Marxism and its wretched reality. Long lines to take Marxist courses disappeared in Universities, from Buenos Aires to Paris.
Unlike Iraq, Pahlavi says that Iran has never been colonized, and Iranians established parliamentary system by themselves in early 20th century, when Russia was still under the czarist regime. I have to stress that widespread desire for liberal democracy is an important pre-requisite for regime change by foreign powers. Japan and Germany are successful cases of US led regime change. Prior to foreign intervention, the Taisho Democracy in Japan and the Weimar Democracy in Germany prevailed. From this perspective, regime change in Iran is more likely to succeed than that in Iraq. Pahlavi insists that Iranian journalists, intellectuals, and students get in touch with Western societies so that they can see current clerical regime critically. This is what happened in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Pahlavi criticize that the Baker-Hamilton Report shows no feasible ways to talk with Iran whose policy aims at humiliating the United States. While Iran has been isolated from the world, he points out that pressures from the United States and the global community do not have sufficient effect on this country. Current regime denies the Holocaust and tries to wipe out Israel. Also, it is acquiring nuclear weapons.
Since Iran does not have a common enemy with the United States as China did during the Cold War (the Soviet Union, of course), a Kissinger diplomacy with this country does not make sense. According to Reza Pahlavi, appeasement with Iran is not helpful to deal with current crisis.
As opposed to state-centric approaches by the State Department and the Pentagon, Pahlavi advocates that the West help civic organizations in Iran, such as women, youth, ethnic, and professional groups. Currently, pro-democracy activists in Iran have few contacts with outside. The government controls the media, and arrests bloggers even with limited readers. In order to resolve this problem, he recommends further broadcasting operations by VOA and BBC to Iranian grassroots who have some amateur satellite TV stations.
On the other hand, the Former Crown Prince objects to the war against Iran. He tells the reason as the following.
[the] Iranian people have changed their regimes many times before, when they had far less reasons to do so. He watches carefully for the signs of history repeating itself. Once he sees those signs, and only then, will he change his behavior.
Those who have keen interest in US led regime change can learn a lot from the speech by Reza Pahlavi. Unlike anti-Western leftists assume, promoting regime change in the Middle East is not belligerent. Nor, does it deny local cultural traditions to impose Western ways of tyhinking. This policy aims at empowering citizens across the Middle East. I hope those who are allergetic to the word “regime change” shed their misunderstandings to US and its key allies’ endeavor for the future.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
A Radical Agenda for Japanese People
In view of post Cold War uncertainties, Japanese people are reconsidering post World War Ⅱ regime. Particularly, nationalists question post war values “imposed” by American New Dealers, and trying to restore traditional Japanese values in place. It is a legitimate desire that Japan shed postwar defeatism as the Cold War is over. However, few Japanese opinion leaders—including politicians, businessmen, academics, the media, and bloggers—understand the fundamental of Japan as a modern state.
As I mentioned in the previous entitled “The Legacy of Queen Victoria in East Asian History”, Japan joined the Victorian world order on its own decision, in order to disentangle itself from dormant and Dark Age Asia. Through this way, Japan started to go through a success road after the Opium War. Contrary to popularly believed, modern Japan is an Anglo-German state rather than Asian one. Japan imported political and economic models, primarily from Britain, the United States, and Germany, and the whole nation adapted themselves to Western systems and thoughts. How could it happen?
A Dutch historian Jeroen Lamers, who is the author of “Japonius Tyrannus” (a research on 16th century ruler, Oda Nobunaga), points out that modern business rules of conduct were invented only in North Western Europe and Japan. Furthermore, he argues that people can pursue both economic development and social stability at the same time in advanced economies like Japan, Europe, and the United States, where such rules are accepted as fundamental norms of the society. This is not the case with rising economies in Asia, and economic development could trigger social instability there (News Letter of the Nagano Chamber of Commerce and Industry, June 2006). No wonder Japan is the only nation in the Far East to succeed in “becoming the West.” Actually, the Japanese share common values with Anglo-German Protestants, which is making contributions to the society through hard work.
Currently, Japan is a member of “Western”, or more precisely, “White men” Chief Executive Club to manage global affairs. Japanese should take pride in this. Prior to the St Petersburg Summit last year, US senators John Mc Cain and Joseph Lieberman cast doubt on Russia’s membership of G8, because authoritarian rule by the Putin administration as being incompatible with liberal norms of the West. To the contrary, none of policymakers in America and Europe questioned Japan’s qualification for Summit membership from the beginning. To my regret, conservatives fail to understand this, and they associate Japanese national identity with ancient myth and wartime militarism, although Japan is a modern liberal state.
No one doubts that the US-Japanese alliance is the central pillar of Japanese foreign policy. But few people understand that this is more than a regional security deal. The US-Japanese alliance guarantees Japan’s qualification for the most prestigious club of Western industrialized democracies. This is the vital reason why I feel disappointed to hear Foreign Minister Taro Aso say, “We, Japanese are yellow faced. We are in a superior position to Americans and Europeans in dealing with the Middle East peace process.”
The most importantly, those who denounce postwar regime change, as being imposed by the Allied Forces, must understand the following. Since Japan was a latecomer of modernization, the government had to force coercive enlightenment to the citizen. When the public grew mature enough to talk politics rationally, coercive enlightenment transformed into bottom-up enlightenment. The Taisho Democracy during the 1920s was driven by Japanese grassroots entirely. Unfortunately, wartime fascism interrupted this natural evolution. It was a kind of political market failure, and US led regime change just made everything on the right track. Just as Keynesian policy by Franklin Roosevelt was an economic New Deal, Allied Force rule was a political New Deal to promote the manifest destiny of everlasting enlightenment. Land, Infrastructure, and Transport Minister, Kazuo Kitagawa is utterly wrong to admire fascist policies during the wartime.
It seems to me, none of policymakers and opinion leaders have clear understanding of three key words: Japanese Success Road, Natural Evolution, and Manifest Destiny. This is quite worrisome to discuss the post-Cold War regime of Japan.
As I mentioned in the previous entitled “The Legacy of Queen Victoria in East Asian History”, Japan joined the Victorian world order on its own decision, in order to disentangle itself from dormant and Dark Age Asia. Through this way, Japan started to go through a success road after the Opium War. Contrary to popularly believed, modern Japan is an Anglo-German state rather than Asian one. Japan imported political and economic models, primarily from Britain, the United States, and Germany, and the whole nation adapted themselves to Western systems and thoughts. How could it happen?
A Dutch historian Jeroen Lamers, who is the author of “Japonius Tyrannus” (a research on 16th century ruler, Oda Nobunaga), points out that modern business rules of conduct were invented only in North Western Europe and Japan. Furthermore, he argues that people can pursue both economic development and social stability at the same time in advanced economies like Japan, Europe, and the United States, where such rules are accepted as fundamental norms of the society. This is not the case with rising economies in Asia, and economic development could trigger social instability there (News Letter of the Nagano Chamber of Commerce and Industry, June 2006). No wonder Japan is the only nation in the Far East to succeed in “becoming the West.” Actually, the Japanese share common values with Anglo-German Protestants, which is making contributions to the society through hard work.
Currently, Japan is a member of “Western”, or more precisely, “White men” Chief Executive Club to manage global affairs. Japanese should take pride in this. Prior to the St Petersburg Summit last year, US senators John Mc Cain and Joseph Lieberman cast doubt on Russia’s membership of G8, because authoritarian rule by the Putin administration as being incompatible with liberal norms of the West. To the contrary, none of policymakers in America and Europe questioned Japan’s qualification for Summit membership from the beginning. To my regret, conservatives fail to understand this, and they associate Japanese national identity with ancient myth and wartime militarism, although Japan is a modern liberal state.
No one doubts that the US-Japanese alliance is the central pillar of Japanese foreign policy. But few people understand that this is more than a regional security deal. The US-Japanese alliance guarantees Japan’s qualification for the most prestigious club of Western industrialized democracies. This is the vital reason why I feel disappointed to hear Foreign Minister Taro Aso say, “We, Japanese are yellow faced. We are in a superior position to Americans and Europeans in dealing with the Middle East peace process.”
The most importantly, those who denounce postwar regime change, as being imposed by the Allied Forces, must understand the following. Since Japan was a latecomer of modernization, the government had to force coercive enlightenment to the citizen. When the public grew mature enough to talk politics rationally, coercive enlightenment transformed into bottom-up enlightenment. The Taisho Democracy during the 1920s was driven by Japanese grassroots entirely. Unfortunately, wartime fascism interrupted this natural evolution. It was a kind of political market failure, and US led regime change just made everything on the right track. Just as Keynesian policy by Franklin Roosevelt was an economic New Deal, Allied Force rule was a political New Deal to promote the manifest destiny of everlasting enlightenment. Land, Infrastructure, and Transport Minister, Kazuo Kitagawa is utterly wrong to admire fascist policies during the wartime.
It seems to me, none of policymakers and opinion leaders have clear understanding of three key words: Japanese Success Road, Natural Evolution, and Manifest Destiny. This is quite worrisome to discuss the post-Cold War regime of Japan.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Mr. Gore, Speak out on Iraq
Former Vice President Albert Gore has become a man of focus as he won the Oscar Prize for his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” His environmental crusade is valuable, but he needs to tell about vital security issues to America and the world. He was the Vice President, not the Secretary of Environment. He is a politician, not a movie director. Therefore, Al Gore is expected to say something on Iraq and terrorism.
Currently, the Iraq debate is being intensified between the White House and the Capitol Hill. But in order to discuss whether this war is right or wrong, it is necessary to understand policymaking processes on Iraq and terrorism during the Clinton administration era. In view of post Ba'athist insecurity in Iraq, the media and dovish opinion leaders assume as if a Democrat president would not have intervened there to topple Saddam Hussein. That is wrong.
To discuss this issue, Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, appeared in Q & A of C-Span on March 4. He said that neo-cons and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger urged President Bill Clinton to invade Iraq. Let me review the interview briefly.
During the interview, Brian Lamb who is the host of this program quoted the famous letter to President Clinton from signatories of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1998. Robert Kagan talked about the background of founding this think tank. In those days, isolationist mood was prevalent because the Cold War was over. Contrary to this viewpoint, Kagan said that the United States was facing new threats like authoritarian China and Russia. Among post-Cold War threats, Iraq was the most critical problem, as Saddam Hussein did not surrender pressure from the global community, even though he was defeated in the Gulf War in 1991. Also, Kagan mentioned that President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright were well aware that their policy against Iraq was not strong enough.
Saddam Hussein refused UN inspection in critically dangerous areas, such as his presidential palace where huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction were expected to be found. Saddam tried to obstruct inspectors, which raised further concerns among Western policymakers.
National Security Advisor Sandy Berger agreed with signatories to the letter, and he requested President Clinton that the United States resort to tougher measures as containment policy did not work against Saddam. Kagan said that the Monica affair hindered Bill Clinton from attacking Iraq.
Above all, Robert Kagan pointed out that Albert Gore was a leading hawk in the Iraq debate. Had he won the election in 2000, Gore would have attacked Iraq, Kagan insists. Why? Saddam was willing to invade Iraqi neighbors, if he had some slight opportunities. He invaded Iran and Kuwait. In addition, dealing with Iraq was a 10-year problem.
More importantly, 9-11 led American policymakers to reaffirm Iraqi threat. As it happened right after Pearl Harbor attack, White House leaders realized the danger comes from on going problem. Robert Kagan asserted that any president of the United States would have acted as advocated in PNAC letter to Bill Clinton in 1998.
Albert Gore has an obligation to talk about Iraq when he was the vice president. Moreover, he was the president-elect for a while, until what liberals mention “the Notorious Florida Accident” happened. He is in a position to tell the global public, how the Clinton administration evaluated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In addition, he needs to address his policy on Iraq and terrorism, because he could have been the president to fight this global war.
Anti-war activists and liberals blandish airy fairly tales that President Gore would have acted peacefully to deal with Saddam’s Iraq. However, it is vital to remember that the White House has been exploring topple Saddam Hussein for a decade. There is no wonder that Robert Kagan insists that even Al Gore would have attacked Iraq after 9-11.
There are too many people simply blaming the Bush administration for post Baathist insecurity in Iraq. However, it is important to remember that cabinet staff of the Clinton administration agreed unanimously that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed serious and imminent threat to the United States and its allies. Without understanding policy debates under the Clinton-Gore team, no one can evaluate current situation in Iraq properly. This is the reason why “President” Albert Gore must speak out on Iraq, as well as he does on global warming.
Currently, the Iraq debate is being intensified between the White House and the Capitol Hill. But in order to discuss whether this war is right or wrong, it is necessary to understand policymaking processes on Iraq and terrorism during the Clinton administration era. In view of post Ba'athist insecurity in Iraq, the media and dovish opinion leaders assume as if a Democrat president would not have intervened there to topple Saddam Hussein. That is wrong.
To discuss this issue, Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, appeared in Q & A of C-Span on March 4. He said that neo-cons and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger urged President Bill Clinton to invade Iraq. Let me review the interview briefly.
During the interview, Brian Lamb who is the host of this program quoted the famous letter to President Clinton from signatories of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1998. Robert Kagan talked about the background of founding this think tank. In those days, isolationist mood was prevalent because the Cold War was over. Contrary to this viewpoint, Kagan said that the United States was facing new threats like authoritarian China and Russia. Among post-Cold War threats, Iraq was the most critical problem, as Saddam Hussein did not surrender pressure from the global community, even though he was defeated in the Gulf War in 1991. Also, Kagan mentioned that President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright were well aware that their policy against Iraq was not strong enough.
Saddam Hussein refused UN inspection in critically dangerous areas, such as his presidential palace where huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction were expected to be found. Saddam tried to obstruct inspectors, which raised further concerns among Western policymakers.
National Security Advisor Sandy Berger agreed with signatories to the letter, and he requested President Clinton that the United States resort to tougher measures as containment policy did not work against Saddam. Kagan said that the Monica affair hindered Bill Clinton from attacking Iraq.
Above all, Robert Kagan pointed out that Albert Gore was a leading hawk in the Iraq debate. Had he won the election in 2000, Gore would have attacked Iraq, Kagan insists. Why? Saddam was willing to invade Iraqi neighbors, if he had some slight opportunities. He invaded Iran and Kuwait. In addition, dealing with Iraq was a 10-year problem.
More importantly, 9-11 led American policymakers to reaffirm Iraqi threat. As it happened right after Pearl Harbor attack, White House leaders realized the danger comes from on going problem. Robert Kagan asserted that any president of the United States would have acted as advocated in PNAC letter to Bill Clinton in 1998.
Albert Gore has an obligation to talk about Iraq when he was the vice president. Moreover, he was the president-elect for a while, until what liberals mention “the Notorious Florida Accident” happened. He is in a position to tell the global public, how the Clinton administration evaluated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In addition, he needs to address his policy on Iraq and terrorism, because he could have been the president to fight this global war.
Anti-war activists and liberals blandish airy fairly tales that President Gore would have acted peacefully to deal with Saddam’s Iraq. However, it is vital to remember that the White House has been exploring topple Saddam Hussein for a decade. There is no wonder that Robert Kagan insists that even Al Gore would have attacked Iraq after 9-11.
There are too many people simply blaming the Bush administration for post Baathist insecurity in Iraq. However, it is important to remember that cabinet staff of the Clinton administration agreed unanimously that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed serious and imminent threat to the United States and its allies. Without understanding policy debates under the Clinton-Gore team, no one can evaluate current situation in Iraq properly. This is the reason why “President” Albert Gore must speak out on Iraq, as well as he does on global warming.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Key Person: U.S. Policy on Iran
Patrick ClawsonDeputy Director for Research, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, United States
Education: BA, Oberlin College; Ph D, New School for Social Research
I would like to talk about a leading expert on Iran, in order to foresee American policy against Iran. Iranian theocracy has been one of the most serious threats to the West and the global community since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Currently, Iran conflicts with the West on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and security in Iraq.
Patrick Clawson has written numerous books about the Middle East with special focus on Iran, including “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005, with Michael Rubin) and “Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran” (Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, 2005, edited with Henry Sokolski). Prior to joining the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Clawson was a senior research professor at the National Defense University, and then, worked for the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
In the post, entitled “Can We Talk with Iran?” on this blog, I mentioned his policy paper, “Forcing Hard Choices on Iran.” While Clawson insists that the United States demonstrate its military strength to deter Ahmadinejad’s adventurism, he refutes any kind of simple-minded approaches to attack Iran immediately. Fluent in Farsi, he is well aware of Iranian aspiration for a great power status by acquiring nuclear weapons.
Since then, Iran continues to be a problematic nation. On nuclear issue, Iran remains adamant to reject UN resolution to stop enriching uranium. On Iraq, Iran sponsors Shiite uprising, and it even detains 15 British sailors and marines. How can we talk with these issues with Iran? Should we expect Iran to be a responsible stakeholder on political stability in Iraq? Let me review his recent articles and comments to the media.
In a Policy Watch, “Hanging Tough on Iran”, released by the Washington Institute on February 9, Clawson points out fundamental weakness of Iran on nuclear negotiations. Despite this, Iran misunderstands its position. Certainly, Iran increased government revenue in 2006, thanks to high oil price. He argues Iran’s weakness from the following points. As to the economy, Iran is heavily dependent on oil. IAEA forecasts oil price will not rise steeply this year, because non-OPEC countries will increase the supply. Strategically, Iran is completely isolated from the world. As Iran does not suspend uranium enrichment, EU 3 (Britain, Germany, and France), Middle East neighbors, and even China and Russia, are increasingly concerned with growing Iranian threats. Politically, revolutionary ideology is losing ground. The government loosened bans on entertainment, such as mixed-sex dancing and alcohol.
Regarding Iraq issues, Clawson insists that it is not of much use to appease Iran. In another policy watch, “Engaging Iran on Iraq: At What Price and to What End?”, he points out that Iran has little interest to talk with the United States on Iraq. Even supposedly moderate Ali Rafsanjani argues that there is no reason for Iran to help the United States getting out of the Iraqi quagmire. Supreme Leader Ali Hossein Khamenei remarked “To justify their presence, the occupiers need insecurity in Iraq. Accordingly, they fan insecurity and instability” in Keyhan newspaper on November 27. Furthermore, Clawson points out that Iranian influence on Iraq is overestimated. He says that Iran can cause trouble, but cannot bring peace.
Patrick Clawson recommends further pressure on Iran in his article, “Iran Options”, in San Diego Union-Tribune on February 18. Due to isolation from the world, Iran has a limited access to foreign technology to develop nuclear weapons. However, adamant leaders in Iran are not likely to surrender in a short period, and the United States needs to reassure its allies in the Middle East protected from Iranian threat. Otherwise, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, may explore nuclear possession. Even a pre-emptive attack against Iran should not be ruled out.
Established in 1985, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has been committed to advance US interests in the Middle East, notably, security, peace, prosperity, democracy, and stability. The Board of Advisors includes influential policymakers from both parties. Patrick Clawson is a leading expert on Iran at the Washington Institute. Therefore, he is a man of focus for Iran watchers.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Prospects of Presidential Election in Russia
Major powers are preparing for elections this year. The United States will have presidential election in 2008, and candidates are competing now. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair will step down this summer, and policy debate between Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown and Conservative Leader David Cameron will be intensified. Also, Russia will have presidential election next year, as President Vladimir Putin promised to quit his job. In “The List: Next President of Russia” on Foreign Policy web exclusive this January, Julian Evans, Analyst at the Eurasian Heritage Foundation in Moscow, comments briefly about presidential candidates to succeed Putin. Each candidate has his or her own strength and weakness.
Among presidential candidates, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov are prominent, says Evans. Medvedev is the most likely to succeed Putin, because he is popular, rich, young, and good-looking. He worked with Putin in St. Petersburg a decade ago. Western analysts see Medvedev market-friendly and pro-Western. However, he is only 41 years old, and too inexperienced for executive positions. On the other hand, another Deputy Prime Minister as well as Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov is confrontational to NATO. As an ex-official of the Federal Service Bureau (formerly KGB), his administrative skill and fluency in English are outstanding. Western Diplomats, including Condoleezza Rice, respect his competence. Although not as popular as Medvedev, Ivanov may seize the opportunity when Putin feel it necessary to protect Russia from the West.
In addition, dark horses like Vladimir Yakuinin, CEO of the Russian Railways, and Valentina Matvienko, Governor of St. Petersburg, need to be paid attention. Yakuinin has KGB connections, but he is not well-known by general public. Since female leaders attract media attention these days, Matvienko could enjoy this advantage. However, her performance as the Governor of St. Petersburg and Ambassador to Malta is obscure.
Whoever wins the election next year, it is important to keep it in mind that Russia has a cycle of Peter the Great (pro-Western, enlightenmentalist) and Ivan the Terrible (nationalist, authoritarian). Whether czarist, communist, or capitalist, this cycle has been consistent throughout the history. Let me pick up some examples.
Peter the Greats:
Peter the Great, Alexander II, Nikita Khrushchev, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Boris Yeltin?
Ivan the Terribles:
Ivan the Terrible, Joseph Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev, and Vladimir Putin
This dichotomy is not always the case. Catherine the Great had both characteristics. In her early reign, she was a typical enlightened despot. However, she became an authoritarian despot later, in order to maintain the feudal order and expand the territory.
National leader election in Russia is no less important than those in the United States and Britain. Regardless of media coverage, those who have keen interest in international affairs need to keep an eye on this election. Will the next president Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible? This is a significant question to global security and world energy problem.
Among presidential candidates, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov are prominent, says Evans. Medvedev is the most likely to succeed Putin, because he is popular, rich, young, and good-looking. He worked with Putin in St. Petersburg a decade ago. Western analysts see Medvedev market-friendly and pro-Western. However, he is only 41 years old, and too inexperienced for executive positions. On the other hand, another Deputy Prime Minister as well as Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov is confrontational to NATO. As an ex-official of the Federal Service Bureau (formerly KGB), his administrative skill and fluency in English are outstanding. Western Diplomats, including Condoleezza Rice, respect his competence. Although not as popular as Medvedev, Ivanov may seize the opportunity when Putin feel it necessary to protect Russia from the West.
In addition, dark horses like Vladimir Yakuinin, CEO of the Russian Railways, and Valentina Matvienko, Governor of St. Petersburg, need to be paid attention. Yakuinin has KGB connections, but he is not well-known by general public. Since female leaders attract media attention these days, Matvienko could enjoy this advantage. However, her performance as the Governor of St. Petersburg and Ambassador to Malta is obscure.
Whoever wins the election next year, it is important to keep it in mind that Russia has a cycle of Peter the Great (pro-Western, enlightenmentalist) and Ivan the Terrible (nationalist, authoritarian). Whether czarist, communist, or capitalist, this cycle has been consistent throughout the history. Let me pick up some examples.
Peter the Greats:
Peter the Great, Alexander II, Nikita Khrushchev, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Boris Yeltin?
Ivan the Terribles:
Ivan the Terrible, Joseph Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev, and Vladimir Putin
This dichotomy is not always the case. Catherine the Great had both characteristics. In her early reign, she was a typical enlightened despot. However, she became an authoritarian despot later, in order to maintain the feudal order and expand the territory.
National leader election in Russia is no less important than those in the United States and Britain. Regardless of media coverage, those who have keen interest in international affairs need to keep an eye on this election. Will the next president Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible? This is a significant question to global security and world energy problem.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
US Policy against China’s Military Build-up
China announced 17.8% increase in defense spending this Sunday. This is the largest military budget surge in five years, which raises serious concern among American policymakers. According to “Beijing Increases Defense Spending” in the International Herald Tribune on March 4, a Chinese official says "We must increase our military budget, as it is important to national security," and the Chinese "military must modernize. Our overall defenses are weak." Most defense analysts do not take this message as it is. They see China explores dominance over the Taiwan Strait, and try to deter US intervention in Sino-Taiwan conflicts. Some foreign military experts estimate that China spend three times more on arms expansion than the official figure.
US officials are alarmed to see Chinese ambitious pursuit for power. Vice President Dick Cheney denounces Chinese anti-satellite missile test, as it is inconsistent with China’s stated goal of peaceful rise. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte demanded that China be more open about its military build-up.
Prior to this announcement, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace held an event, entitled “Reframing China Policy Debate 3: The Implications of China's Military Modernization” to discuss Chinese military expansion and its implication to global security on February 6. The following opinion leaders participated in this panel discussion.
Larry M. Woltzel: Commissioner on the US-China Economic Security Review Commission
David M. Finkelstein: Director of "Project Asia" & the China Studies Center at the CNA Corporation
J. Stapleton Roy: Former Ambassador to China
And moderated by
Michael D. Swaine: Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
At the beginning of this discussion, Former Ambassador Stapleton Roy mentioned China’s military growth is in parallel with its economic growth. Also, he said that if US-Chinese relations were cooperative, a stronger China would be helpful for US effort to promote world peace, stability, and economic development. On the other hand, if US-Chinese relations are confrontational, a stronger China will undercut US national interests. A former ambassador in Beijing and born in China, Roy points out that China has in armed conflicts with Japan, the United States, Korea, India, the Soviet Union, and Vietnam, and insists that Americans need to understand these historical contexts to evaluate Chinese behavior.
Considering these aspects, Stapleton Roy asks the following critical questions regarding Chinese defense spending and military build-up.
(1) Americans say China spends too much on defense, but how much is enough?
(2) Americans criticize China spends too much on defense, but its military expenditure is about 50% of those in Britain, Germany, France, and Italy.
(3) Americans tend to assume Chinese are eager to confront with the United States, but do they sacrifice their economic development?
Having asked the above questions, Roy set agenda for this event: “China is actively preparing for potential military conflict scenarios with the United States, and we have to understand what’s going on, and that’s the purpose of today’s debate.”
In order to assess whether Chinese military modernization is a threat to the United States and Asia, Larry Woltzel and David Finkelstein discussed military capabilities and intentions of the PLA (People’s Liberation Army). Both experts presented their viewpoints at first.
Larry Woltzel insists that China is not an enemy to the United States, although its regime is authoritarian and it counters US diplomacy. He argues that both China and the United States share interests in economy and peace. However, China is at odds with the United States, regarding human rights and global security.
Although China’s military intention is not clear, Woltzel says it pursues dominant position over the Taiwan Strait and in the Western Pacific region. He says China is capable of achieving this objective. China’s state of the art technologies, like strategic missile, anti-satellite missile, and so forth, target US military power. Woltzel insists that the United States be well prepared for curbing Chinese ambitions.
Then, David Finkelstein presents his analysis on transformation of the PLA: from ground-forces-centric and manpower dependent one to equal emphasis on naval and air power and high-tech dependent one. Finkelstein points out that the Chinese authority was shocked to see spectacular US victory in the Gulf War in 1991. This is the reason why the PLA has begun to modernize itself for the Information Age.
China no longer faces land threats from the Soviet Union, and it needs to invest more resources to protect the sea-lane to import oil. Like Woltzel, Finkelstein comments that China is not willing to confront the United States, but aiming at becoming a leading military power in East Asia and countering Japan and India.
As to the question whether Chinese military spending is excessive or not, both expert mentioned rapid progress in Chinese arms technology, which would be able to attack US aircraft carrier battle groups. The moderator asked a simple question whether China intends to eject US influence from the Western Pacific. Both commentators said China is not willing to fight with the United States, but it wants to establish its own sphere of influence in its neighborhood on land and in the sea. In addition, they talked about challenges posed by the Sino-Russian military partnership to US supremacy. Russian military assistance promotes PLA modernization furthermore.
In conclusion, it is unclearness of intention that raises serious concern on rapid Chinese military expansion among Washington policy makers.
For detail, you can see the video on Windows and Real Player, and listen to the discussion with i-Pod.
US officials are alarmed to see Chinese ambitious pursuit for power. Vice President Dick Cheney denounces Chinese anti-satellite missile test, as it is inconsistent with China’s stated goal of peaceful rise. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte demanded that China be more open about its military build-up.
Prior to this announcement, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace held an event, entitled “Reframing China Policy Debate 3: The Implications of China's Military Modernization” to discuss Chinese military expansion and its implication to global security on February 6. The following opinion leaders participated in this panel discussion.
Larry M. Woltzel: Commissioner on the US-China Economic Security Review Commission
David M. Finkelstein: Director of "Project Asia" & the China Studies Center at the CNA Corporation
J. Stapleton Roy: Former Ambassador to China
And moderated by
Michael D. Swaine: Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
At the beginning of this discussion, Former Ambassador Stapleton Roy mentioned China’s military growth is in parallel with its economic growth. Also, he said that if US-Chinese relations were cooperative, a stronger China would be helpful for US effort to promote world peace, stability, and economic development. On the other hand, if US-Chinese relations are confrontational, a stronger China will undercut US national interests. A former ambassador in Beijing and born in China, Roy points out that China has in armed conflicts with Japan, the United States, Korea, India, the Soviet Union, and Vietnam, and insists that Americans need to understand these historical contexts to evaluate Chinese behavior.
Considering these aspects, Stapleton Roy asks the following critical questions regarding Chinese defense spending and military build-up.
(1) Americans say China spends too much on defense, but how much is enough?
(2) Americans criticize China spends too much on defense, but its military expenditure is about 50% of those in Britain, Germany, France, and Italy.
(3) Americans tend to assume Chinese are eager to confront with the United States, but do they sacrifice their economic development?
Having asked the above questions, Roy set agenda for this event: “China is actively preparing for potential military conflict scenarios with the United States, and we have to understand what’s going on, and that’s the purpose of today’s debate.”
In order to assess whether Chinese military modernization is a threat to the United States and Asia, Larry Woltzel and David Finkelstein discussed military capabilities and intentions of the PLA (People’s Liberation Army). Both experts presented their viewpoints at first.
Larry Woltzel insists that China is not an enemy to the United States, although its regime is authoritarian and it counters US diplomacy. He argues that both China and the United States share interests in economy and peace. However, China is at odds with the United States, regarding human rights and global security.
Although China’s military intention is not clear, Woltzel says it pursues dominant position over the Taiwan Strait and in the Western Pacific region. He says China is capable of achieving this objective. China’s state of the art technologies, like strategic missile, anti-satellite missile, and so forth, target US military power. Woltzel insists that the United States be well prepared for curbing Chinese ambitions.
Then, David Finkelstein presents his analysis on transformation of the PLA: from ground-forces-centric and manpower dependent one to equal emphasis on naval and air power and high-tech dependent one. Finkelstein points out that the Chinese authority was shocked to see spectacular US victory in the Gulf War in 1991. This is the reason why the PLA has begun to modernize itself for the Information Age.
China no longer faces land threats from the Soviet Union, and it needs to invest more resources to protect the sea-lane to import oil. Like Woltzel, Finkelstein comments that China is not willing to confront the United States, but aiming at becoming a leading military power in East Asia and countering Japan and India.
As to the question whether Chinese military spending is excessive or not, both expert mentioned rapid progress in Chinese arms technology, which would be able to attack US aircraft carrier battle groups. The moderator asked a simple question whether China intends to eject US influence from the Western Pacific. Both commentators said China is not willing to fight with the United States, but it wants to establish its own sphere of influence in its neighborhood on land and in the sea. In addition, they talked about challenges posed by the Sino-Russian military partnership to US supremacy. Russian military assistance promotes PLA modernization furthermore.
In conclusion, it is unclearness of intention that raises serious concern on rapid Chinese military expansion among Washington policy makers.
For detail, you can see the video on Windows and Real Player, and listen to the discussion with i-Pod.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)