Those are the words of the current American President, Barack Obama. If this statement is true, which of course I believe it largely to be (prosperity = money= power, simple, but hard to argue with), than the charts below should worry all Americans and those around the world that depend on it as the guarantor of their security.

These two charts layout the projected deficits facing the US in the next ten years based on the Obama administration’s just released budget for 2010 and beyond. David Sanger of the New York Times and Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal are only the latest to warn how these deeply red numbers, which showcase a new ‘normal’ level of US debt around 5% of GDP, will have a negative impact on the US’s ability to defend itself and project power abroad. Here is Seib’s bleak assessment:

The U.S. government this year will borrow one of every three dollars it spends, with many of those funds coming from foreign countries. That weakens America’s standing and its freedom to act; strengthens China and other world powers including cash-rich oil producers; puts long-term defense spending at risk; undermines the power of the American system as a model for developing countries; and reduces the aura of power that has been a great intangible asset for presidents for more than a century.

Seib, Sanger are not alone as Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relation, states that “We’ve reached a point now where there’s an intimate link between our solvency and our national security. What’s so discouraging is that our domestic politics don’t seem to be up to the challenge. And the whole world is watching.”

So the US is pretty deep in debt and is not likely to get out from under it anytime soon (Las Vegas…’put it on black! Come on, come on. big money!…… Double Zero! What!… Mr. President, Mr. President….What?! It’s President Hu on the line. He wants to talk about the late interest payments. Uh….tell him to talk to Biden, I’m now the President of Mexico’), but the US has had serious debt issues before (Civil War, WWI, WWII, 1980s) and was able to keep growing economically and militarily. Is this time different? I think it really could be, but don’t count me as one of those ‘it’s only a matter of time before we fall flat on our faces. Many aspects of our debt (social security, medicare) are as difficult to penetrate as a rock inside of diamond that was swallowed by General Patton, but it’s not like other great powers don’t have similar or even more challenging problems themselves. Nevertheless, a growing deficit will have consequences and America will have to face them sometime.

Seib lists four of the ways that budget deficits threaten American’s national security; let’s take a look:

1. They make America vulnerable to foreign pressures.

China is what is on everyone’s mind here, but we must remember that this goes both ways, as it is in China’s interest to have their held reserves stay stable and strong. A recent story regarding Russia’s attempt to dump their Fannie and Freddie Mac holdings during the Georgia-Russian war in 2008 makes this a little more scary though.

2.  Chinese power is growing as a result.

Beijing’s ability to combine budget surpluses with American deficits no doubt puts itself in a more favorable position, but what it can actually do with this situation is less known. China has definitely shown itself to be a more confident and aggressive international power player in recent months.

3. Long-term national-security budgets are put at risk.

This is what worries me the most. If one believes in Paul Kennedy’s theory that great powers fall when they overextend themselves and can no longer support the large national security/power projection apparatus they have built, they have to start scaling back their global ambitions in concrete ways. All aspects of the American state budget will be looked at for cutting, the defense department’s included. A real way to save some money is to close foreign bases, bring troops home, and cut expensive weapons programs. All of these can be detrimental to US national security and international stability.

4. The American model is being undermined before the rest of the world.

If the US can’t keep its house in order, why should other states follow it? A good question and one definitely worth following, but I find this to be the weakest of the four. After all, the US has been deep in the red before and only came out stronger. Not many other countries have this record.

So how important are these current and projected budget deficits to US national security/power projection and to international security? Are these latest numbers just another downturn in otherwise American ascendancy and global power or are they portending the beginning of the end of the US as the world’s sole superpower? Something in between?

Tags: , , , , , ,

27
Jan

A Missed Opportunity

   Posted by: Pat   in China, United States   Print Print

During the 2008 Presidential Debates, I strongly lamented the lack of discussion of the rise of China and what this meant to the present and future of the United States. How did the two presidential candidates view a surging China? What would be their strategic calculus in looking at the Middle Kingdom? As a strategic competitor? As a strategic partner? How would this view affect their policy prescriptions and planning? How would they address the growing trade imbalances? How would they build/strengthen East and South Asian alliances to hedge against a belligerent Beijing? Was the growth of democracy in the country an important aspect of their future China policy? Did they think China was going to be a partner or hindrance in such key geopolitical issues as N. Korea and Iran’s nuclear programs, the ‘Great Game’ in Central Asia, the war on terror, piracy, etc.?

These questions were left unasked and unanswered in 2008 by the future leaders of the US. Since then China’s power has become more manifest and the Obama administration has consistently come up against China’s government in issues ranging from Taiwan, Tibet, trade, currency, cybersecurity, climate change, etc. The relationship between the United States and China will shape global politics for years to come and the US and world missed a valuable opportunity to debate where it was heading.

Uh Oh!

Tags: , ,

What does the tragedy that is Haiti’s earthquake have to do with great power politics or status. Well, thanks to the Wall Street Journal’s chart below (h/t UNRR) we can see how the world’s major actors have responded to the crisis:

The United States has committed by far the most humanitarian aid (163 million and counting) and one can bet that a sizable portion of the $106 million private individuals/organizations also hail from the States. France, which has a long history with the island nation, and the UK were also large donors. China ‘chipped’ in $4.4 million and India about $5 million. Not quite as impressive. The United States also took the lead in providing security and order for the disaster’s aftermath, though this was not done without some controversy. It should be duly noted that Haiti is clearly in the United States’ realm of responsibility and it is in the American interest to ensure Haiti does not devolve into further chaos, but if such a crisis occurred say in Southeast Asia, well like the 2004 tsunami, would aid from the US be overshadowed by closer powers? Would China, India, Japan, etc. stand up and take care of business? Well, this was not the case then and the great powers reactions to Haiti show no real change. The US may be declining in some ways, but it clearly is still the ‘indispensable nation’ and world leader in times of crisis. Just ask the people of Haiti.

Tags: ,

19
Jan

War in 30 Seconds

   Posted by: Pat   in Uncategorized   Print Print

The reality of war in 30 seconds…..

 


 

That was video of the Taliban’s recent suicide bomb-led attack in Kabul on Tuesday. Three Afghan soldiers were killed, two Afghan civilians were killed, 71 others were wounded, and all seven Taliban insurgents died.

Tags: , ,

12
Jan

Freedom Isn’t Free and It May Be Retreating

   Posted by: Pat   in Uncategorized   Print Print

 

The American based and founded Freedom House has just released their 2010 Freedom in the World Report and the results are discouraging. Freedom House rankings judge every country on earth by their level of political rights and civil liberties and designates a country either Free, Partly Free, or Not Free based on the scoring of the aforementioned indicators. Their 2010 findings show a world trending in the wrong direction. Here is their own summary:

For the fourth consecutive year, global declines in freedom outweighed gains in 2009, as measured by Freedom House’s annual survey of political rights and civil liberties,Freedom in the World 2010. This represents the longest continuous period of decline for global freedom in the nearly 40-year history of the report.
 
In a year marked by intensified repression against human rights defenders and civic activists, declines for freedom were registered in 40 countries in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union, representing 20 percent of the world’s total polities. Authoritarian states including Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Vietnam became more repressive. Declines in freedom also occurred in countries that had registered positive trends in previous years, including Bahrain, Jordan, Kenya, and Kyrgyzstan.
 
“The news for 2009 is cause for real concern,” said Arch Puddington, Freedom House Director of Research. “The decline is global, affects countries with military and economic power, affects countries that had previously shown signs of reform potential, and is accompanied by enhanced persecution of political dissidents and independent journalists. To make matters worse, the most powerful authoritarian regimes have become more repressive, more influential in the international arena, and more uncompromising.”
Though this report is not good news, it still must be noted that the majority (76%) of the world’s nations are listed as Free or Partly Free and just 25 years ago that would have seemed like a dream. 
What do you think about Freedom House’s rankings? Methods? How does these annual rankings and existence of such institutions like Freedom House actually spread individual rights and civil liberties? Do they? What would you think if you were the leader of say Kyrgyzstan, which was dropped from Partly Free to Not Free? How would you react to these findings? Should these rankings influence American foreign policy in anyways? What caused the overall drop in the freedom indicators? Is there a systemic problem to the world system that this ranking is helping to bring to light or should these been seen on just case by case basis?

Tags:

9
Jan

Great Power Politics Now On Twitter

   Posted by: Pat   in Uncategorized   Print Print

The God’s of international politics decreed ‘let GPP tweet’ and so it was done.

Ahhhhh…..Great Power Politics is now on Twitter. To follow my ‘tweets’ click here or search gtpowerpolitics.

The philosophical influences of President Barack Obama, like all the American presidents before him, has a critical impact on how his administration sees international relations and accordingly sets forth a foreign policy to match. The main arguments one hears regarding Obama’s foreign affair’s viewpoint are whether or not he is a realist, liberal internationalist, or something in between. Scholar Walter Russell Mead offers up a deeper analysis of the current president, one steeped in American history and culture. Mead sees American foreign policy sprouting forth from four schools, all named after influential American figures: Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, and Wilsonian. Mead describes these four schools and how they each have helped the United States rise from a tepid and weak group of colonies to the superpower we see today in his fantastic work ‘Special Providence‘.

Back to President Obama. Mead has just published a significant piece on how he views the current president in terms of the aforementioned four schools of US foreign policy outlooks. Mead sees Obama as a leader with split personalities (nothing surprising as most Americans, including our leaders, share many aspects and beliefs from 2 to 3 of the schools), with one foot strongly entrenched in a Jeffersonian world and the other more loosely fit into a Wilsonian sock. Here is Mead’s cogent description of Obama the Jeffersonian:

Obama comes from the old-fashioned Jeffersonian wing of the Democratic Party, and the strategic goal of his foreign policy is to reduce America’s costs and risks overseas by limiting U.S. commitments wherever possible. He’s a believer in the notion that the United States can best spread democracy and support peace by becoming an example of democracy at home and moderation abroad. More than this, Jeffersonians such as Obama think oversize commitments abroad undermine American democracy at home. Large military budgets divert resources from pressing domestic needs; close association with corrupt and tyrannical foreign regimes involves the United States in dirty and cynical alliances; the swelling national-security state threatens civil liberties and leads to powerful pro-war, pro-engagement lobbies among corporations nourished on grossly swollen federal defense budgets.

Obama seeks a quiet world in order to focus his efforts on domestic reform — and to create conditions that would allow him to dismantle some of the national-security state inherited from the Cold War and given new life and vigor after 9/11. Preferring disarmament agreements to military buildups and hoping to substitute regional balance-of-power arrangements for massive unilateral U.S. force commitments all over the globe, the president wishes ultimately for an orderly world in which burdens are shared and the military power of the United States is a less prominent feature on the international scene.

Mead goes on to discuss the drawbacks and benefits of Obama’s approach to the world from this viewpoint and also showcases how the president is still invested and affected by the other schools, specifically the Wilsonian’s. Mead is concerned that these school’s inherent contradictions could negatively affect President Obama if not handled skillfully. In the end, Mead warns of Obama becoming a reincarnation of a certain, much maligned ex-president:

The contradiction between the sober and limited realism of the Jeffersonian worldview and the expansive, transformative Wilsonian agenda is likely to haunt this administration as it haunted Carter’s

Read the whole piece and let me know what you think.

(Picture courtesy of foreignpolicy.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

3
Jan

CIA Hits the Taliban, the Taliban Hits Back

   Posted by: Pat   in NATO, United States   Print Print

lobbyseal-lg

A former intelligence official called it a “high-level asset meeting gone bad.” Bad is definitely an understatement. Of course the comment is in reference to the suicide attack which killed 7 CIA agents at Forward Operating Base Chapman in border province of Khost. They were “experienced frontline officers and their knowledge and expertise will be sorely missed,” said Henry A. Crumpton, who led the CIA campaign in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002. The attacker was a potential informant of the Haqqani network of the Taliban and was wearing an Afghan National Army uniform at the time of the attack. Apparently, the perpetrator made it through one checkpoint and blew himself and several others away before he was to be searched for weapons. The Pakistani and Afghan Taliban have both claimed responsibility for the attack, with one specific Taliban leader stating that the attack was in revenge for CIA-led drone attacks.

This tragic incident highlights numerous issues challenging the US/NATO presence in Afghanistan. First off, it is indeed the nature of the covert intelligence game that one has to trust those who you really cannot trust. The CIA in Afghanistan need to gather information on Al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership and organization and to do this human intelligence is a vital component. After all, the drones don’t just know where the bad guys are hiding by themselves.

This specific incident, which involved a supposed Afghan Army member, also portrays the difficulties in discerning friend from foe. How serious is this issue to the Obama administration’s Afghan strategy? Vital would be an understatement. Key to future stability of Afghanistan, and to a lessening of a foreign military presence, is the growth in size and capability of the Afghan army and police. The Taliban of course know this and will do whatever they can to undermine its progress. A great way to do this is to infiltrate the Afghan army and police ranks with your own soldiers and inflict demoralizing and strategic calamities, such as this Chapman CIA incident and the shooting of five British soldiers by an Afghan police officer last month. Throw in the fact that the Afghan government, and its foreign purse holders, are desperate to build up the Army and police numbers and it should not surprise us that some ‘bad apples’ are mixed into the bunch. If I were the Taliban, this is what I would do.

Nevertheless, in terms of the CIA’s presence in Afghanistan, it is still critical to have an on the ground footprint in Afghanistan’s most volatile southeastern regions. The drone attacks have had a major impact on downgrading the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s leadership and the pressure must be maintained. This likely cannot happen if the CIA has to move out of Khost, Kandahar, etc. It has been reported that the CIA presence in Afghanistan is to increase by about 20-25% along with the surge in US/NATO troops this coming year, but one can bet that this Chapman attack will change some of the calculus on how the agency operates.

Tags: , , , , ,

31
Dec

Putin’s Ploy: STARTing to Get Worried

   Posted by: Pat   in Russia, United States   Print Print

Is that Vladimir Putin, Marlon Brando, or Al Bundy? Either way I'm in impressed.

So who’s in charge of Russia? Dmitri Medvedev, whose position of President is officially in charge of all major foreign policy matters, or Prime Minister, ex-President, and all around tough guy Vladimir Putin? Putin sure behaves like he’s the man behind the Bear, and with this latest foray into Moscow’s foreign affairs, he is cementing this view in GPP’s eyes. On December 30th, Putin asserted that the START nuclear weapon deal being negotiated between Russia and the United States would go nowhere as long as the US continued to develop a defensive missile shield. Putin warned that unless Washington DC came clean on this issue, Moscow would have to ‘go ahead with a new class of offensive nuclear missiles’. In other words, Putin is not happy with the already sweet deal that is START (Russia’s nuclear would be reductions are for the most part already obsolete or downtrodden) and the Obama administration’s decision to cancel the missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. He wants even more concessions!

I guess I shouldn’t be too worried about this Putin position, as it likely is just a negotiating gambit to get the best START deal possible for Moscow, but then I read this quote and started to believe that my fears of the Obama administration giving in to more Russian demands had merit. Alexandros Petersen, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said this about Putin’s government:

“They view Obama as somewhat of an anomaly in U.S. foreign policy, and START is for decades”

In other words, Obama is a true believer in getting rid of nuclear weapons anyway how and will be a tremendously pliable negotiating partner. Petersen went on to say: “You give them a finger and they take an arm. With this statement [from Putin], the debate has shifted completely.”

I still have confidence that the START deal won’t turn out to be too hurtful to US interests and that the Obama administration is a tougher negotiator than either Putin or Petersen believes, but this is still a bit disconcerting. One has to be glad that American Founding Fathers were prescient and wise enough to require all foreign treaties to get 2/3 majority Senate confirmation.

The Petersen quote above does indeed raise the larger question of whether or not Obama is really an ‘anomaly’ in US foreign policy history, present, and future. Many have argued that President George W. Bush was such a thing. In fact, I have a feeling that every president has been called something close to this during their tenure. It is still a provocative question worth thinking about though. Do you think President Obama is a foreign policy ‘anomaly’? In what ways exactly? Do you think that other world leaders view him as such? And if this is true, than wouldn’t that dramatically affect their positions and tactics toward the US during this time period?

After you’re done answering these questions, go and have yourself a Happy New Year!

Happy New Year from GPP!

(Side question: Because states like China and Iran will not be celebrating the new year tonight does that hurt their status in the GPP rankings? Yes, yes it does.)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Christmas, Hanukkah, the New Year would not be complete without a little GPP Great Power Rankings would it!?! The last rankings created quite a bit of discussion and I look forward to even more this time around. There have been a couple slight movements in the actual rankings, but many of these great powers have shown to either be trending upward or downward. As I stated before I released my first rankings; ‘Great powers have come to their position of power slowly and have generally left their esteemed place in international politics in a similar fashion, so how can one do a monthly Great Power - Power Ranking system, one may ask? Long term prognosticating will of course be an important aspect of GPP’s rankings, but short term moves, issues, and strategic successes and failures will also be considered. For instance, if I did a power ranking after Russia’s successful invasion of Georgia, which proved Moscow’s hard power was not only still capable, but willing to be used, Russia would have gotten a ‘bump up’ in my rankings.’ Let’s get to it!

Here are the criteria in which the great powers are measured:

  • Power - Basically, how much total influence does your state have in the world. In what ways can your state make other states or actors do something that they don’t necessarily want to do?
  • Economy - What is your GDP? Is your economy growing? Declining? How much can your economic power be easily translated into ways to influence other actors?
  • Permanent/Near Permanent Resources - natural resources controlled, population size, geography
  • Ideology/Cultural - How powerful is your state’s governing and lifestyle philosophy in the world? Do your beliefs and ideas translate to influence around the globe?
  • Internal State Strength - How strong and legitimate is your domestic government? How stable?

It is time. Below are my Top Ten Great Power Rankings, followed by a Tier breakdown, with short explanations to follow:

  1. United States of America 
  2. China
  3. Russia
  4. Japan
  5. Germany
  6. India
  7. Brazil
  8. France
  9. United Kingdom
  10. Turkey
On the GP Bubble -  Iran,  Israel
Tier A - USA

Tier B - China

Tier C - Russia, Germany, Japan

Tier D - India

Tier E - Brazil, France, Turkey, United Kingdom

1. USA - It has been an interesting few months, isn’t it always, for the USA. The recession appears over for good, but in many ways the damage has been done. The unemployment rate is still above 10% and the government’s debt is reaching ridiculous levels. Economist Niall Ferguson persuasively has argued that unless the US starts to tackle this debt problem, it will face constraining budgetary options for decades to come. This can affect the United States’ superpower status by forcing it to reduce its role in the world. For example, if interest rates on our debt keep eating a fair amount of our federal budget, we may not be able to maintain a base or two in East Asia or to provide financial aid to an ally in trouble. Or it could force the US to continue to fall behind in the space race. However, things are not all gloom and doom for America. After all, its economy is growing again, its relationship with rising India has taken a positive step in military matters, and its arms sales still dwarf the competition. Concerning the last item, the numbers are overwhelming. In the last year, the US has made weapons agreements totaling more than $37 billion dollars. Not impressed? Second place was Italy…..at $3.7 billion.

2. China - This was a strong few months for China’s great power status. First off, the President of the United States paid the country a visit and by looking at the lack of results for the US side, the orchestrated visits and speeches, and the delicate manner that Obama treated the host government, one could appropriately ponder ‘just who is the superpower here?’ The United States did not come back with progress on any of these fronts; North Korea and Iranian nuclear programs, currency manipulation, emissions, human rights, etc. The Communist government also stuck out its chest with an extensive, ostentatious military parade, followed by exercises, through the streets of Beijing celebrating 60 years of its rule. Of course, the fact that the government had to have security so tight for the parade that most citizens were forced to stay in their homes and watch from their windows also showcases a government with a political legitimacy weakness. Lastly, the lack of progress on any type of climate binding agreement in Copenhagen was a clear sign that China will not be pushed around, even with tremendous pressure coming from the EU and United States. China’s influence on more and more matters that effect people and states around the globe is becoming more apparent everyday.

3. Russia - Pretty much in a holding pattern from the last rankings, but I have decided to move them into a lower tier than China. The Russians have been getting closer to Venezuela, keeping sanctions against Iran at bay, sending nuclear submarines off the US east coast, likely to ensure an advantageous new START agreement with the Obama administration, and still has the buffest leader in these great power rankings.

4. Japan - Japan is definitely a country in transition. The Democratic Party of Japan has started what will no doubt be a consequential first period in power. It is still too early to tell how much the DPJ will change Japan’s role in foreign affairs from the LDP’s long standing American centered one. President Obama’s stop in Japan was rather uneventful, with both choosing to put off the most contentious part in the relationship, the placement of American military bases in Okinawa, for a year. Just like most state governments right now, the DPJ are spending most of their attention on the rebuilding the domestic economy. In this regard, one writer sees a culturally and economically stagnant Tokyo, calling it ‘a middle-aged man contemplating his afternoon nap.’ But on the bright side, Japan has their first aircraft carrier since World War II, well kind of.

5. Germany - Political and economic structure still look very stable compared to Japan. The country’s role in Afghanistan is a constant challenge for its government and citizens.

6. India - On the one hand, India is a clear winner in the US decision to stay and help build up the Afghan state. India has been quietly working to strengthen the Karzai government as it is considered innumerably more friendly than a Taliban-controlled Afghan state. India has also upped its defense spending by 10% this year, though this is still far below China’s estimated build up, and as was alluded to earlier, India and the United States partnered up for what was called a ‘massive‘ war game, though details were hard to come by. But for this rankings, I have to give India a dropping ranking. This decision mainly has to do with Mumbai terrorist attacks from last year. How does an attack from last year hurt India’s place in the rankings today? Well, I watched the CNN Fareed Zakaria documentary of the attack and lets just say, the Indian police and government did not show themselves well. Mumbai is one of India’s most vibrant and important cities and it was basically taken hostage by a group of terrorists. The police reaction, both local and federal, was shown to be pathetically incompetent. Great powers need to first be able to protect their own homeland before they can really expand their influence around the globe.

7. Brazil - One would think that in a period when they won the 2016 Olympics over many other worthy applicants, I would have Brazil trending upward, but this is not the case. The Olympic victory definitely is an opportunity for Brazil to show it has arrived on the global stage, but it has also shone light on other less flattering facets of the country. The massive blackouts it had last month show that like the Mumbai terrorist attack, the garnering more of the world’s attention isn’t always for the better. Jose Cardenas also voices some reservations regarding recent Brazilian efforts in regional and world affairs: ‘Brazil aspires to be a global leader deserving of a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. But it stumbled badly on Honduras. It moved quickly to denounce the removal of Zelaya and led the regional charge for Honduras’s isolation, but in the end failed to influence the course of events. More egregious, however, was allowing the fugitive Zelaya to re-enter the country and set up shop in its embassy in Tegucigalpa, inflaming an already dangerous situation. Which raises the question, if Brazil can’t even responsibly manage a crisis in tiny Honduras, how does it propose to influence Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?’

8. FranceRien à dire ici

9. United Kingdom - I have listened to the comments of my GPP readers and they have shown me the light on the UK. And that light shines on a sign that says in a powerful, echoing voice, ‘Move the UK above Turkey!’. The long term influence of this medium-sized island has been monumental for centuries and though its capacity to affect world events and actors has faltered greatly in past decades, its cultural and political influence continues to show itself. Like the United States, it has also shown an ability to live in a realist world, where military power still matters, and in a liberal internationalist world, where democracy, multilateral institutions, and economic connections lead the way. The only problem now is that France and the UK are right next to each other in the rankings. Can they get along?

10. Turkey - The Islamist AK party, led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ruling Turkey appears to be strategically turning to the East and closer to the Muslim world. While relations with the EU and Israel are on the decline, Turkey’s ties with Syria, Iran, Sudan, and China are growing stronger. Now geography is destiny so one shouldn’t blame Turkey for trying to foster stable, productive relationships with its neighbors, but Ankara must be careful not to seriously damage decades of growing good will with Europe and the United States. Though this is likely just a passing phase, it will be well worth watching closely in the next year.

Comments? Critiques? Questions? Praises!?!

Tags: , , , , , ,

Page 1 of 2012345»...Last »