When someone asks you ‘who you are?’, what do you think of first?  In other words, what defines who think you are?  I would first probably just say, ‘Pat’ or ‘a really cool guy who coulda made the Majors if he went for it’.  But hopefully your sense of identity goes deeper than that.  There is no doubt that most people would first identify with their family, friends, and likely the city/town where they grew up or currently habitat.  But what about on a higher level; nationality, region, or world.  How would you respond if someone asked you this question:

Do you consider yourself more a citizen of [country], more a citizen of the world, or
both equally?

World Public Opinion.org asked this question to 21,307 people in 21 nations between July 15 and November 4 and the results are semi-interesting.  Though the poll hit a diverse amount of countries with various types of governments, cultures, sizes, etc., one should not jump to conclusions that the polls result mean any type of global trend.  To no surprise, the United States was the most nationalistic of the Western countries polled, as 72 stated Country, 5 World, and 22 Both Equally.  French, Germans, and Italians all had higher rates of World Citizen or Both Equally, with the Germans still (59) being rather nationalistic.  As I would expect, several nations with either strong histories/cultures, young statehood, or featuring autocratic societies had very high rates of nationalism (Turkey, South Korea, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Russia).

There were some interesting and somewhat unexpected findings from poll, however.  The United States neighbor to south, Mexico, had one of the highest Both Equally replys, 35, compared to only 56 Country, with 9 stating World Citizen identity.  That means almost half of Mexicans polled thought of themselves as at least partially a world citizen first.  Secondly, the similar results of China and India were both surprising, but maybe they shouldn’t have been.  Both scored fairly low on the Country answer, 35 and 40 respectively, poll average on the World reply, 6 and 14 respectively, and each had very high Both results, 44 and 32.  This maybe should not have been so surprising as though each is a rising great power with nationalist sentiment being promoted, and for good reason, but they are also both extremely large and diverse countries (especially India), where there are other serious strands of identity challenging nationalism.  India has dozens of disparate regions with contrasting cultures and ways of life and of course China has Tibet and Xinjiang Provinces.  This poll question is too narrow to shine through why these peopled answered the way they did.  If you didn’t feel like you were Chinese, Mexican, Russian, etc. what else could you really answer besides Both or World?

What do you think of the poll, results?  How would you answer the question?  Me, I’m an American.

Rashid, a highly touted Pakistani journalist, begins the final chapter of his 2000 ‘Taliban’ by calling the country one of world’s ‘orphaned conflict’s’.  The country would quickly change from being orphaned to a month after 9/11 being the center of global politics, as the United States uprooted the Taliban government and sent them packing, unfortunately for only a short-term vacation.

Rashid’s valuable book walks its readers through a rather dense social, religious, military, and even psychological history of the group of radicalized Pashtuns, known as the Taliban.  He provides a solid regional historical overview and does not forget the many geopolitical actors involved in the fragmented country (Iran, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.).  A solid half of the book details the violent rise to power of the Taliban as they battled first fellow Pashtun groups, than the government in Kabul, and finally the Northern Alliance actors, which would never relinquish their autonomy to Taliban-ruled Kabul and Kandahar.  This book is worth reading just for those who don’t know just how fractious the Afghan society can be with many various ethnicities and sects, all with foreign partners, that have had to violently attempt to protect themselves and further their own people’s positions.  This book, just like Afghanistan today, is full of conflict and violence that shows no real sign of ebbing.

Rashid provides a telling description of the early members of the Taliban (around 1994) as Afghans born in Pakistan and raised mainly by madrassas as their parents, especially mothers, may have been lost in the years of fighting during and after the Soviet invasion and withdrawal.  These young men had ‘no memories of the past, no plans for the future’ and knew of nothing else but their Taliban leaders.  Like we have heard many times in reference to terrorist and gang groups, the Taliban offered these men, and boys, a meaning to their lives that they could embrace and fight for.

This type of camaraderie of course becomes dangerous when it is based on ignorant, stubborn, violent, yet a strong ideology and form of Islam, as they, the Taliban, surely had.  The Taliban, which by 1996 controlled large swaths of Afghan territory, including Kabul, ruled with a fundamental Islamic iron fist that showed no accommodation, not even towards UN aid providers.  The Taliban was controlling a large population and recruiting members with a version of Islam that ‘divested’ it of nearly all of its positive legacies, including Islamic philosophy, science, arts, civil society, etc.  It was the Taliban’s way or the knife.  One has never read about a more oppressive society.

The Taliban did not become the Taliban, or rule, in a vacuum.  They were of course incubated and constantly nourished by the Pakistani government and ISI.  When the Taliban needed more troops in their battles with Masud and what would become the Northern Alliance, Pakistan would just close some of their madrassas in FATA or the Northwest Provinces and send the men over the border.  Rashid, who also spends time on Osama bin Ladin’s terrorist network in Afghanistan, accurately predicted that the Pakistani state and military were creating their own nightmare with their support of the Taliban, instead of the ‘strategic depth’ they aimed for.  The author stated that the Islamic fundamentalism, drugs, weapons, and social breakdown that the Pakistani government was assisting the Taliban in performing or using, was making Islamabad ‘ripe for a Taliban-style Islamic revolution.’  While what is occurring today in Pakistan is so far, thankfully, not this extreme, it is too close for comfort.

Rashid’s ‘Taliban’ also details the human and women right’s abuses by the Taliban in great detail.  In addition, Rashid spends several chapters describing the ‘great game’ of pipeline politics in the Central Asia region and not surprisingly was correct in his assessment that Afghanistan, and the region as a whole, was just too unstable for Western groups to come in and build major gas and oil pipelines, no matter how much they wanted too.  Though these pipeline chapters were well researched, they can be passed over by most readers.

Rashid’s book provides much more than the history and make-up of a group that the powerful United States military is having a hell of a time defeating, it brings to life the challenging modern history of a people who have only known violence in their lives.  It is sad to think that one cannot imagine this changing in the near or even long-term future.  Though Rashid’s work is far from perfect, too many assumptions presented as facts (he is a journalist by trade), it brings light on a dangerous and important group, geopolitical actors and actions in a key region of the world, and on the suffering of millions.

Here it is folks, GPP’s Second Great Power Rankings! (eardrum shattering cheers) Here is the first one. I will update this list EVERY TWO MONTHS to provide these great powers enough time to tangle and jockey for new positions. Changes from the first list include; the United States and Germany trending down, Israel falling off, and the United Kingdom making it onto the vaunted and acclaimed Top 10. Take a look and then offer your opinion and thoughts in the comment section.

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. Turkey
10. United Kingdom

On the GP Bubble –  Iran,  Israel

Comments? Critiques? Praise? For the 2nd GPP Great Power Rankings-Bring it on!

A little over two years ago I was an intern at the United Nations Department of Political Affairs and while there I worked on summaries for all the speeches of European leaders at the 60th General Assembly. Most of these speeches were rather bland and basically reiterated over and over again ‘economic and political cooperation’, ‘working together’, and the like. While writing these summaries, I was given a break and decided to go down to the Assembly Hall and hear Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi in person. Needless to say it was Hugo’s speech that was most memorable. In his speech…

He called the United States a threat to ‘the very survival of the human species’ and then of course called President Bush the devil on multiple occasions while signing the cross. Unfortunately my personal memory of this speech was brought back to me suddenly when I walked by a copy of the LA Times and it had a picture of Hugo and Obama in a smiling embrace.

My first reaction was not a pleasing one. As the picture and short video were splashed around the American, and most likely world media, Obama attempted to put in perspective the meeting:

“Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States. It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States.”

There is definitely a part of me that understands the polite meeting between two world leaders. They each represent a state at a regional conference that is supposed to be about cooperation and engagement. US Presidents have met with all kinds of dictators and human rights violators in the past and will in the future. But I can’t get that original distasteful feeling out of my mind whenever I hear about or see the cheerful meeting between the two. Hugo Chavez in a medium where almost all others talked of peace and cooperation, the UN General Assembly, stated that the US, not just George Bush, was a ‘threat’ to world civilization! I think too many people are thinking this is not so bad because Hugo just hated George Bush and now he likes Obama, so it’s not really anti-Americanism or hurting our interests. While that’s just not true. Listen to his GA speech again, just one of his many anti-US tirades, and it can plainly be seen he wants America diminished or gone. Chavez’s anti-American stance goes beyond rhetoric of course as he has financially supported anti-American political parties and politicians across Latin America, had strategic security discussions with Russia about military basing rights, and held up the Castro regime in Cuba. I don’t see much to laugh about in any of this and I’ve got a pretty good sense of humor.

What would I have done if I was Obama? I probably would have shook his hand and offered a solemn ‘nice to meet’ you and moved along.

This apparently joyful meeting between the two leaders also comes right after Obama did a lot of apologizing for US history and actions in Europe and was immediately followed by his having to listen to several Latin leaders, including Bolivia’s Evo Morales, and Nicaragua’s Danny Ortega, disparage the United States. I mean diplomacy and opening relations is important, but who’s the great power here!? I do not believe the US should go to this event to ‘crack skulls’ and only push our agenda, but it would be nice to see some emphasis on America’s stances and defense of our policies and history.

What was your first reaction when you saw the Obama-Hugo greeting picture or video? What are your feelings after a few days have passed? Did this hurt, help, or not really affect US interests?

Although Pat did a great job discussing some of the highlights of President Obama’s trip abroad, I’d like to explore a few areas I found.

To begin his worldwide tour, President Obama met with the leaders of the G-20. He proposed a global stimulus plan which, incredibly, the Europeans rejected as fiscally irresponsible. I must say it’s truly scary when even Europe is telling the US that we are spending too much money. That being said, they did manage to shovel some $1.1 trillion into the “well-run, efficient” International Monetary Fund. And of course, our friends at the World Bank and the African Development Bank got their billions as well. Perhaps the leaders should be briefed on the causes and effects of “Dutch Disease.”

On tax policy, the G-20 endorsed a blacklist for many low tax jurisdictions (so-called tax havens) that have shown varying levels of cooperation when it comes to enforcing foreigners’ tax codes. The result is a move toward a global tax cartel and away from the tax competition that has made our world so much richer over the past quarter century. Such policy also disguises the real problem – bad tax codes that are hard to comply with and lack positive incentives to work, save and invest. (See Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Charlie Rangel, Hilda Solis, Kathleen Sebelius, etc.) Missing from the G-20′s communique was any discussion on when the Doha trade round would begin again.

Obama continued his journey through Europe by apologizing for “America’s past arrogance” (a few times). Of course a few of these jibes were directed at the previous Administration. Although I’m not aware of any foreign leader coming to America and apologizing for his country’s past policies or previous leader, it does little to further US interests and is embarrassing. It places Obama and the US in a distasteful light.

On to Prague where Obama announced an elaborate arms control regime to reduce nuclear weapons. This sounds like a laudable goal but I’m not convinced the way to go about it is to unilaterally reduce arms and rely on a moral example to stop others from going nuclear, i.e., Iran and North Korea. Frankly, I’ve always struggled to follow this logic. It’s like laws banning or severely restricting handguns. The purpose is to limit or stop crime, but in reality the law takes guns away from law-abiding citizens while criminals continue to obtain guns and break the law.

Like common criminals, North Korea and Iran are playing by different moral codes. Codes that ignore laws or treaties that don’t fit their interest. I’m sure most of our allies would be willing to join us in reducing nuclear weapons but to do so we must acknowledge that the world will be a more dangerous place.

Speaking of dangerous, right around the time this speech was delivered we witnessed North Korea directly violate a U.N. resolution banning them from launching missiles. Rightly so, Obama expressed indignation and declared that, “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.” So obviously the next step was to go to the U.N. to get….more words! On top of that the Security Council has yet to offer any response! I thought all our apologizing and genuine diplomacy was supposed to get us more sway with the international body. Unfortunately, the U.N. was destined to be a feckless organization.

Comments? The second part will be posted tomorrow.

Regarding some of President Obama’s recent foreign policy moves, I have on several occasions thought and written here on GPP, ‘what’s in it for us?’, or ‘How does this concretely help either side?’ Most of this comes from soft power moves of Obama apologizing or distancing himself from American ‘arrogance’ or mistakes. I know state leaders need to play a bit to their foreign audience, but I don’t quite buy the theory that this type of ‘rapprochement’ brings either truly better strategic relationships between allies or makes enemies into partners ready to deal. If the US president was going to disparage the country and let others agenda’s trump our own at times, I would at least like to see some hard results, such as Russia denouncing North Korea’s missile launch (they did the opposite) or truly help out on Iran or maybe some stronger NATO commitment in Afghanistan. Alas, after stating all of this I am willing to give President Obama time. Time to show that all of this is part of larger strategic plan that will pay off dividends for the US and international security.

It is on that positive note that I turn to another topic, where I’m afraid I think Obama’s long-term plan is unfortunately not attainable and therefore his current moves might hurt more than help. I am talking about Obama’s Czech speech, where he laid out his policy towards nuclear weapons. He stated that the US would reduce their nuclear weapon collection, deemphasize their use in military affairs, and lastly that because the US was the only nation to use the weapon, we bare a ‘moral’ responsibility to work toward their elimination.

First off, about the ‘moral’ responsibility part. As horrible as the US use of nuclear weapons against Japan in WWII, I would disagree that it was immoral, in terms of state actions. The US and Japan were losing thousands of soldiers in the fighting around Japan, with Japan also losing thousands of civilians by Allied bombing of their cities on a daily basis, and the US calculated that they needed to end the war as soon as possible and utilized their most effective/destructive weapon to do so. This move caused untold human destruction, but it also saved thousands of other Japanese and American lives and ended the bloodiest war known to mankind. Since the wars end, the US and Japan have also had a strategic, friendly, and prosperous relationship. The US does indeed carry with it a burden of the weapons’ use, but I would argue against America still having any ‘moral responsibility’ for it use during what was an extraordinary moment in world history.

Alright, back to the speeches main points: A world without nukes sounds wonderful, but it is not realistic nor I think an area where Obama should be spending his global political capital. In his speech, Obama alluded that if the US showed it was willing to lessen its support of nuclear weapons, all other states, especially rogue ones, would feel less threatened and it would help the global norm against the weapon as a choice for states. In other words, if the US stopped being nuclear hypocrites other states and regimes would give up their nuclear ambitions. Unfortunately, history tells us otherwise. Did India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, South Africa, France, Great Britain, Al Qaeda all pursue nuclear weapons because the US had them? No, they pursued them for their own national strategic interests and defense.

What about the idea of a nuclear free-world? Though it would be very difficult to reach, wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing? Not really. As I have discussed before on GPP, I feel that states would still not trust that the others did not have nuclear weapons and this would create a security dilemma, where states would inevitably try to circumvent or protect themselves from another by obtaining them again! Except we would have to relive the dangerous early part of ‘who has the weapon?’, ‘will they use it?’ This sounds like a scary, unpredictable world to me. I would rather have our current situation where only a few, mostly stable states, hold nuclear weapons and it is well-known who. To have a world with no nukes would require some form of strong world government to verify this outcome and that does not appear on the horizon.

'I thought your speech was very inspirational Mr. Obama'

So once again, I ask about a new US foreign policy stance or maneuver, what does the US or world get out of this policy? Will it cause Iran to come to the negotiating table and actually negotiate instead of buy time? Will it stop North Korea from launching another missile, which may one day carry a nuclear weapon, in six months? Will it end nukes forever in 30 years? How does this policy make the US and world safer?

I have always felt that just as important as the increase in troop numbers and the new counterinsurgency strategy, which involved getting US troops out into the streets of Iraq and partnering with the Sunni Awakening groups, to the growing stability and strength of an Iraqi society and government, was the fact that all actors involved in the Iraqi conflagration, Sunnis, Shias, Iran, Sadr, Maliki, etc., had to come to the realization that the US was going to be around for quite awhile and they therefore changed their tactics and policies accordingly.  Though the ‘surge’ has been a remarkable success, all three of these aforementioned elements will soon be disappearing from the country’s landscape, with the last one already nearly gone, that is the fact that Obama has already stated that the US combat mission in Iraq will end in 2010 and all troops removed by 2011.  

Though I believe Obama’s plan to be pragmatic and plausible, the rising violence of the last few days in and around Baghdad makes me worrisome.  I have to wonder that certain radical elements, and other groups positioning for power, are starting to stretch out their muscles in preparation for an American withdrawal.  I am not suggesting that the recent rise in violence, which is still rather small and will hopefully fade out again, is strictly connected to US withdrawal plans, but I think it would be naive to think it is not a factor.  

Iraq’s gains in the past couple years are fragile as almost everyone agrees, including Obama, and I’m starting to be even more concerned that they will increase as our withdrawal date comes closer.  Did Obama really need to unequivocally state that the US would be gone for good?  I believe the US exit from Iraq can be positive in many fronts, but this move also comes with great risks.  Here is the end of a well-written piece by Joshua Treviño:

Iraq looks good now only in comparison to how Iraq looked a short while ago. It is still an impoverished, violence-prone, semi-anarchic weak state — and pulling out much of the massive American army there, the central pillar of what order it has, is a tremendous risk.

“I worry,” writes Ricks near The Gamble’s end, “that there is more to come [in Iraq] than any of us expect. This is a concern I heard expressed much more often by American officials in Baghdad than in Washington, D.C.” That’s not going to change any time soon. With the President focusing upon the war he wants instead of the wars he has, and with American media mostly ignoring the hard-won and exceedingly tentative gains in Iraq, the best we may hope for is that The Gamble does not become a document of what we had, and lost.

The United States and President Obama have been called to rise to action over many things lately; the economy, volunteering, global leadership, Afghanistan, to name a few, but what about in Iraq?  The Obama administration, the media, and the American people need to also rise up to make sure this costly policy and crucial strategic conflict are not ‘lost’, but won.  I don’t think we should just aim to ‘end’ the war in Iraq, but instead should remain attentive and willing to win it, and this will involve continued sacrifice.  

Extra, Extra: Obama and Medvedev met for the first time in what looks like a smooth, successful first gathering of the two new leaders of two great powers.  They released a rather generic paper about mutual cooperation and more substantially continued discussions, started by Bush and Putin, about renewing and strengthening START, which may even lead to a lessening of each nation’s nuclear weapons holdings to around 1,500 each.

'Med-baby, could you back up a little? You're kinda scaring me.'

Lastly, check out my write up at FPA about the Afghanistan International Conference at the Hague.  A US envoy talked to an Iranian deputy minister for 2 possibly 3 seconds!

President Obama arrives in London for the G20 Summit and Michele Obama is having a horrible hair day.

President Obama and the rest of the G20 leaders sure have quite the task ahead of them during their summit in London this week: To Save the World!  While I guess it isn’t that dramatic, but there are some pretty big expectations for this meeting, ones that go beyond what Barack Obama will be wearing.  Here’s a short list of issues on the agenda:

A coordinated global response to the worldwide economic crisis, building consensus on an international financial regulatory framework, adoption of international accounting standards, coordinating Central Banks policies, curtailing any talk or movements toward protectionist measures, saving capitalism, and avoiding these guys….

These protesters are scarier than bankruptcy!

The last major economic summit in DC to work out these problems did not breed much concrete success nor calm global markets, so we must temper our expectations.  In fact, though there were calls for diligent openness in terms of global trade during the Fall conference, the World Bank recently reported that 17 of the 20 countries had imposed a total of 47 trade-restrictive measures, a bad sign to say the least.  However, Daniel Drezner of Newsweek argues that the G20′s last summit should receive a ‘mulligan’ and offers hope that with a newly instated and popular US President, 6 months more of the global crisis to sober up the skeptics, and more time for those involved to come up with possible financial solutions something could be done.

I am far from an economic expert and am loath to recommend specific proposals to solve this economic downturn, but I have some thoughts.  President Obama needs to lead the charge of anti-protectionism at this conference and show the world that we can’t tariff our way out of this mess.  I am already concerned about this occurring as Obama and the EU are already bickering over the breadth of a European stimulus package.  (Americans telling the Euros to spend more!).  I believe these heads of state of the world’s largest economies also need to come to this conference with a sense of urgency, but not a sense of emergency.  I do not think we need to tear apart a global economic system (World Bank, World Trade Organization, IMF) that has led to the prosperity we have taken for granted, in order to solve this crisis, nor do I believe we can ‘regulate’ our way to solvency and growth.  These institutions need to be reformed and re-legitimized in the eyes of the world so they can continue to help bring the benefits of free trade to all states.

Conflict occurs at all times in world politics, but at times of economic distress it becomes even more likely and acute.  The world must not repeat mistakes made during the Great Depression, where states looked only inward to solve their problems.  We need calm, yet energetic world leadership to help get us all through this current economic crisis.  Let us hope we find some this week in London.

Two of GPP’s Top Ranked Great Powers have made strategic moves, or are about to at least, to push them up the standings.

Russian Long-Range Bomber

Russia is in talks with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro to base strategic bombers on some of their islands. “There are four or five airfields in Cuba with 4,000-meter-long runways, which absolutely suit us,” stated Russian Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev. The Major General also stated that Hugo Chavez offered a military airfield on La Orchila island as a temporary base for Russian strategic bombers. Of course these deals are far from completed and Zhikharev admitted that ‘political’ considerations needed to be addressed. If either of these two would come to fruition it would be a blatant disregard for the Monroe Doctrine and put the Obama administration in a difficult position. Of course Moscow’s public talk about such a strategy is itself an affront to US regional interests and influence. Obama is expected to meet with President Medvedev or Prime Minister Putin during April’s NATO meeting and this will only add to their long list of topics.

'Just a moment, Dmitri. Yes, I would like to order a Snuggie, please"

Speaking of NATO, France is back in. Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday announced that France was to be fully integrated into the military structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This is largely a symbolic move as France has been one of major contributers to NATO’s military actions in the Balkans and Afghanistan and has actually been a member of the Military Committee since 1994, which lets it participate in all political and military activities. Paris’s participation can be seen in their 2,000 troops in Kosovo and more than 3,000 in and around Afghanistan.

Do you think either of these moves raise the stature of each respective state? Or do you actually see some downsides to these decisions? What about for the United States?