I just finished Paul Berman’s ‘Flight of the Intellectuals‘ and while not a tour de force like its prequel, ‘Terror and Liberalism’, was a phenomenal read. I will give a full length review after my vacation (warning GPP is going on a two week travel break), but right now I will highlight to key part of the book’s conclusion. This section features Berman building his theme of Western intellectuals failing to stand up to the Islamist’s ideology, which he clearly lays out was partly fathered by European fascism, while at the same time spitting venom at actual liberal people with Muslim backgrounds, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The following sections immediately follow a listing of Western intellectuals (some with Muslim backgrounds) who require bodyguards to protect them from Islamist violent radicals. The list is sadly long. Enough of me, here’s Berman:

‘And so, Salman Rushdie has metastasized into into an entire social class. It is a subset of the European intelligentsia-its Muslims free-thinking and liberal wing especially, but including other people, too, who survive only because of bodyguards and police investigations and because of their own precautions. This is unprecedented in Western Europe since the fall of the Axis. Fear-mortal fear, the fear of getting murdered by fanatics in the grip a bizarre ideology-has become, for a significant number of intellectuals and artists, a simple fact of modern life. And yet, if someone like Pascal Bruckner intones a few words about the need for courage under these circumstances, the sneers begin-”Now where have we heard that kind of thing before?”- and onward to the litany about fascism. In the New York Times Magazine Ian Buruma held back from hinting even obliquely at the genuinely fascist influences on [Tariq] Ramadan’s grandfather, the founder of the modern cult of artistic death-Hassan al-Banna, who spoke highly of Adolf Hitler and helped the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem escape from getting tried at Nuremburg. Yet Pascal Bruckner, the liberal-here is somebody, Buruma would have us think, on the brink of fascism!’….[Pg. 296]

‘The Rushdies of today find themselves under criticism, contrasted unfavorably in the very best of magazines with Tariq Ramadan, who is celebrated as a bridge between cultures-Ramadan, an alumnus of the anti-Rushdie Islamic Foundation in Britain. Ramadan, who, even in 2009, managed to commend in a single sentence of his book Radical Reform both Sheikh Qaradawi, the theologian of the human bomb, and the Egyptian sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, who publicly defended the assassination of Foda. And yet, if there is a menace to society, nowadays it is said to come from Hirsi Ali or some other vocal and articulate opponent of the violent sheikhs-the European intellectuals from Muslim backgrounds who, in their unforgivable departure from the child-like image of how Muslims are supposed to behave, have arrogated to themselves the right to update a few ideas from John  Locke or John Stuart Mill or Bertrand Russell. During the Rushdie affair, liberals who called for courage were applauded. Liberals from Muslim backgrounds were positively celebrated. But not today.’ [pg. 298]

Hopefully, you were able to follow Berman’s thinking in these paragraphs. If so, please give GPP your thoughts. If not, please give GPP your confused thoughts.

I have been critical of some of the post-modern tendencies in the foreign policy of many of Europe’s leading states, and rightfully so. As much as many of us would wish, many of the world’s most intractable problems cannot be solved by aid, diplomacy, or institutionalism alone. A willingness to use a balance of tools is needed in most cases. That being said, the progress of that the states and people of Europe have made in the past 60 odd years is a remarkable achievement in global security and peace. An achievement that none of us should take for granted. A peaceful, democratic Europe seems especially fortunate when one looks at world facing increasing challenges (China’s rise, North Korean bombast, Iranian nukes, flotillas from hell, Brazil and Turkey alliances becoming muddled, international terrorism, financial crises, etc.) to worldwide stability. So let’s be thankful that Europe is at peace (if not financially, at least security-wise).

I googled 'Europe at peace' and this is what showed up. So I present to you the visualization of Europe at Peace!

Here’s well-regarded IR scholar and soft power advocate Professor Joseph S. Nye on why Europe and the EU are an influential and positive force in the world:

Europe does face severe demographic problems, but size of population is not highly correlated with power, and predictions of Europe’s downfall have a long history of failing to materialize. In the 1980s, analysts spoke of Euro-sclerosis and a crippling malaise, but in the ensuing decades Europe showed impressive growth and institutional development….

The American political scientist Andrew Moravcsik makes the similar argument that European nations, singly and collectively, are the only states other than the US that are able to “exert global influence across the full spectrum from ‘hard’ to ‘soft’ power. Insofar as the term retains any meaning, the world is bipolar, and is likely to remain so over the foreseeable future.”

Moravcsik argues that the pessimistic prognosis is based on a 19th-century realist view in which “power is linked to the relative share of aggregate global resources and countries are engaged in constant zero-sum rivalry.” Moreover, as he points out, Europe is the world’s second military power, with 21 percent of the world’s military spending, compared to 5 percent for China, 3 percent for Russia, 2 percent for India, and 1.5 percent for Brazil.

Tens of thousands of troops from the EU’s member states have been deployed outside of their home countries in Sierra Leone, Congo, Ivory Coast, Chad, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. In terms of economic power, Europe has the world’s largest market, and represents 17 percent of world trade, compared to 12 percent for the US. Europe also dispenses half of the world’s foreign assistance, compared to 20 percent for the US.

But all this potential strength may be to no avail if Europeans do not solve the immediate problems stemming from the financial markets’ loss of confidence in the euro. All who admire the European experiment must hope that they succeed.

'We can still make at least 2 nukes.'

In the past couple days, the world’s great powers have been busy courting and challenging the Middle East’s prospective regional power, Iran. To most people’s surprise, the leaders of Turkey and Brazil reached an agreement with Tehran to transport and hold about half of Iran’s enriched uranium, but the details are still thin. In the deal, it is believed that there are no limits to how high Iran can continue to enrich their kept uranium and unlike the US/European/Russia led deal which Tehran reneged on last year, it would allow Iran to still keep enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon. This announcement has been followed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s proclamation that the UN Security Council 5 permanent members plus Germany have reached an agreement on a fourth round of sanctions on Iran. It is unknown how extensive the sanctions are as Russia and China have likely watered them down. In any case, it is hoped that if the sanctions are passed, they could be followed by additional individual pressure from the US and European states.

Are these two great power plays contradictory or compatible? The real fear about the Turkey-Brazil-Iran deal is that it will allow Iran to continue its nuclear weapon buildup while having the cover of international legitimacy bestowed on it by Rio and Ankara. Unfortunately, nearly the same thing can be said about the sanctions. The US/EU/Russia/China can look like they are ‘doing something’ to stop Tehran’s nuclear pursuit, but the bottom line is that the Islamic Republic is still in the drivers seat. From what I’ve read, the Turkey-Brazil-Iran deal does not do enough to really stop Iran’s nuclear efforts. As Greg Scoblete of Real Clear World stated: ‘this is the kind of deal that is okay to countries - like Brazil and Turkey - that aren’t terribly concerned with Iran’s nuclear program.’ If this is true, then the deal made could really cause problems for the US, Israel, Europe, Egypt, and all others who fear a nuclear Iran. Apparently, the Obama administration tacitly supported Brazil and Turkey’s rapprochement to Tehran on this issue, but they surely are backtracking now. Clinton has been timid in her remarks about the 3-way deal and stated that ‘the details matter’.

There is hope that the UNSC sanctions are indeed a strong step forward in this process and can lead to further steps that can push Iran into a deal that can keep Iran from weaponizing and a physical confrontation from occurring. Of note, both Turkey and Brazil are currently 2 of the 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council and along with the 5 permies, 5 more votes will be needed to pass the sanction resolution. Even if the resolution passes without Turkey and Brazilian support it will suffer some international legitimacy and the Islamic Republic leaders can yak and yak about being unfairly targeted after they already made a ‘fair deal’.

If Turkey and Brazil indeed push against the UNSC sanctions and actively promote their Iranian deal as the only way forward it will be quite the gamble. In effect, they will be choosing the side of Iran. Turkey’s government has been lurching towards south and east and away from the US, Europe, and Israel so this is not that surprising, but Brazil’s choice in the matter is a bit more puzzling. Brazil has a not insignificant amount of trade with Tehran and has butted heads with the US on several minor issues (Honduras election, Colombia basing rights), but this move could really put it on the opposite side of the US on a major foreign policy issue that could become a crisis.

Alas, these moves are still in their early stages and it would not be surprising to see Brazil and Turkey come back into the fold during the coming UNSC resolution debates. We shall see.

Many of my favorite IR and US foreign policy issues are provocatively covered in the current book I’m reading, Robert Kagan’s ‘Dangerous Nation‘. Though I’m barely a 1/3 the way through the major themes, and their relations to my favs, are vividly clear:

1. The still too little covered story of the rise of the United States as a great power, with a strong emphasis on its understated early foreign policy strategy. Kagan potently asserts that far from being an ‘accidental’ great power, the citizens of the young republic saw themselves as indeed Founding Fathers of a great nation and acted accordingly.

2. The perpetual battle, or should I say ‘relationship’, between idealism (the spread of democracy, liberal values, and American exceptionalism) and realism in American foreign policy.

3. The lessons that can be learned about today’s foreign policy challenges by studying our human history. ‘Dangerous Nation’ is full of national security challenges paralleling many that the United States and the world sees today (i.e. The Piracy of the Barbary Pirates - International Terrorism).

Here is a quote from the book that hits on all three of these points:

The statesman of the founding era were not unfamiliar with the ways of power politics, however. They were idealists in the sense that they were committed to a set of universal principles, the defense and promotion of which they believed would improve the human condition as well as further American interests. But they were practical idealists. In their moment of weakness they employed the strategies of the weak. They viewed alliances as necessary but dangerous. They denigrated so called power politics and claimed an aversion to war and military power, all realms in which they were far inferior to the European great powers. They extolled the virtues of commerce, where Americans competed on a more equal plane. They appealed to international law as the best means of regulating the behavior of nations, knowing that they had not other means of constraining the great powers of Britain and France. They adjusted themselves to an unhappy reality that they knew to be very much at odds with their aspirations. They looked forward to the day when, as a more powerful nation, they might begin to shape the world to conform more closely to their ideals. Fortunately for the young United States, the world was configure in such a way as to make this possible.”

Robert Kagan’s ‘Dangerous Nation’, Page 57

If you want to have some fun, replace all the US/America’s with EU/Europe.

Be prepared…I’m about to recommend you watch…..American cable news! Thanks to Real Clear Politics I came across this short CNBC interview with David Murrin, the CIO of Emergent Asset Management. Murrin offers insightful analysis of current and future great power politics and is definitely worth listening too. He argues that China will quickly fill the “vacuum” left by the Western Christian empire, which he calls in ‘denial’ about its decline. There are lots of provocative bits in his short talk (just try and ignore the hosts!) that are worth discussing in the comments:

Two quick items today:

A. I would like to give a hearty recommendation to Real Clear World’s ‘The Compass‘ blog. It has two main contributors, Greg Scoblete and Kevin Sullivan, with guest writers chiming in from time to time (like Rob and Hubbel, hey what happened to that guy?). The Compass brings a Realist perspective to pretty much every foreign policy issue of the day facing the United States and world. Though I am at times in disagreement, their critiques of neo-conservative and liberal internationalist rhetoric and policy perspectives is always clear, concise, and based on what they see as basic American or another state’s national interests. So check out The Compass, Real Clear World for links to numerous foreign affairs articles, and well you’re at it visit Real Clear Politics, my favorite domestic political site!

B. After the attack occurred, there was much written about the Jordanian double agent suicide strike that killed 7 CIA personnel and injured several others. Over the past month the story has inevitably faded from the newsstands and our conscience, but thankfully former CIA operative Robert Baer has kept the tragic incident and its important implications on his mind. Baer has written the definitive piece on the topic that I have seen so far and he finds many lessons that need to be relearned (yes, re-learned) by the CIA to prevent future ‘Khost’s from happening. Using his contacts in the intelligence world, Baer does his best to recreate the how the whole process of Humam Khalil Abu-Malal al-Balawi’s recruitment, infiltration of Al Qaeda, and finally his successful attack against the Khost CIA base. Weaved in this dramatic story is a harsh critique of Clinton era CIA Director John Deutch’s decision to downgrade the importance of and future prospects for, on the ground operatives. This process included ’scrubbing’ all nefarious contacts (drug dealers, arms dealers, dictators) of the CIA’s slate and depending more on local intelligence groups to do the dirty work (i.e. Jordan’s intelligence operatives in the Balawi case). A provocative claim in a dramatic retelling of an important event. (Yes! 3 adjectives to 3 different nouns in one sentence! Too bad it’s not a good sentence )

What are the threats facing the United States? What are the threats to international security and global stability as a whole? Well, Gallup asked over 1,000 Americans to ‘assess the threat of each of seven international issues to the United States’. Here are the results:

First, I will give GPP own answer to this question by listing what I believe to be the greatest threats facing the United States national security and interests today. Secondly, I will give my opinion of what I see as the greatest threats to international security and stability overall in a post to follow.

In the poll above, Americans listed their perceived threats as 1. Terrorism 2. Iran 3. North Korea 4. Israel-Palestine 5. China 6. India-Pakistan 7. Russia. Here’s how I would breakdown the question above, starting from least threatening to most to US security and interests:

Threat #7- The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians - Putting this one as the least threatening I’m sure with displease many people who see in this conflict the root to many of the world’s and America’s problems. Like all of these seven threats, the longstanding Palestinian-Israel conflict is a major factor for global instability and its continued presence no doubt hurts US national security and interests in the Middle East, with its use as a reason for terror attacks being the most central, but it does not have the impact, or potential consequences, to American security interests as the others.

Threat #6 - The conflict between India and Pakistan - This always cold war, sometimes hot war, conflict has been a threat to US interests for decades, but with the current situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan it has taken on a new level. These states both hold nuclear weapons and have a seemingly intractable issue, Kashmir, keeping them at odds. The fact that this conflict is intertwined to the future of Afghanistan and it becomes even more clear how important the resolution, or at least semi-civil containment, of this Pakistan-India conflict is to US interests. The US has a major stake in the stability of the Pakistan government and state, with which it needs to stamp out Al Qaeda and other international extremists. For the US, India is a natural great power partner that can help it to balance against a rising China in South Asia.

Threat #5 - The military power of North Korea - Here is another assessment that I think might surprise people, including many Americans that answered the poll question. Kim Jung Il’s nuclear armed military state is something to worry about indeed, especially if you are South Korea and Japan. North Korea’s government has continued to give narcissistic dictatorship’s a bad name and has successfully denied international pressure to conform to foreign demands for years now. Kim’s government is not shy in testing nuclear weapons nor in building missiles that some estimate will be able to reach California in just a few years. The city of Seoul, Tokyo, Kyoto, etc. are already well-within reach. So why is North Korea’s military power not higher on the list? They are #5 because I believe that Kim’s government, and its likely successor’s, can be deterred. I just can’t foresee Kim actually launching an attack against Seoul, Japan, US, that would surely lead to his and the state’s destruction. This is a tough one though, as Kim’s government has also been caught red-handed providing weapon technology and know-how to Iran, Pakistan, and Syria.

Threat #4 - The military power of Russia - Commentators on this site have criticized my respect for Russia as still a highly relevant player in European and global politics, and this ranking of fourth show’s that there are several greater threats to US interests than Mother Russia, but not many. One of reasons I feel that Moscow is still a major player in the great power game and a threat to US interests and homeland is its proven willingness to use old school power political tools, specifically military and natural resources, to defend its interests and expand its influence. The Georgian-Russian war of 2008 showcases this capability and the fact that Russia has made a deal to build a military base in Abkhazia and keep it there for 49 years leads one to believe that this event was not a one-off. The US relies on a safe and secure Europe and Russia has to still be considered the number one threat to its existence. Concerning the US homeland, Moscow is still the only state on the planet that could destroy all major population centers through the use of a massive nuclear strike. This fact can never be ignored, no matter how unlikely the possible occurrence.

Now that is threatening!

Threat #3 - The military power of Iran - It was difficult to place this higher than the Russian military forces, but Iran deserves to be here, especially in light of the recent IAEA report which states that the Islamic Republic has been working on weaponizing a nuclear device. Iran’s military does not come close to touching Moscow’s, but the Islamic Republic’s intentions and proximity to Afghanistan, Iraq, oil-filled allies, and Europe makes it a more direct threat to US interests. The Islamic Republic has based part of its legitimacy as a fighter against the ‘Great Satan’ and has fought against US interests in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan (at times), North Korea, Syria, and I could go on. Though I believe an Iranian government in control of nukes will be mostly rational, and therefore deterrable, I am much less confident about this than I am about North Korea. Iran has been given the opportunity by a rather pliant American administration to bring itself back into line with most of the international community, in a sense ‘come out from the cold’, and shown time and time again it is unwilling to do so. Unless the Islamic Republic is overthrown, there aren’t really any good signs that this will end well.

Threat #2 - International Terrorism - The American public’s number #1 is not quite mine, but who could blame them. It seems like everyday one turns on the television, opens their newspaper, or clicks on a website there is yet another story about a terror attack directed at either American interests or homeland. From the panty-bomber, US Army member Hassan, Zazi, David Headley, the Bronx group, to the fact that America’s number intelligence leader says that an attempted attack on the homeland in the next 6 months is a ‘certainty‘, it should come in surprise that 81% of Americans view international terrorism as a major threat. I too believe international terrorism, specifically of the Islamic extremists nature, is the most immediate threat to America’s homeland. Unfortunately, there are just too many fanatics out there that believe the United States is the cause of their or their people’s problems and that the only way for them to rectify the situation is to kill themselves and as many of us as possible. So international terrorism is very serious challenge facing the US, and it will be for a long time, but it’s not the number one threat. That honor goes to….

Threat #1 - The military power of China - The blog’s called Great Power Politics after all, so how could I not put the battle between the world’s two greatest behemoths number one? I can’t! Cold-blooded IR realists see this picture: a superpower in likely decline relative to a rising great power who no doubt has superpower ambitions; both locked in the same playground = conflict. This does not mean violent tank-to-tank, destroyer-to-destroyer, nuke-to-nuke conflict is guaranteed, but that it, along with economic, political, social, cultural, ideological battles are indeed very likely to occur. Just in the past couple months the wounded United States and surging Middle Kingdom have spared over currency, multi-national corporations, North Korea’s nukes, Tibet, global warming, cyber attacks, and I feel that these will get worse and others will arise as time moves forward. American relations with its many allies in East and South Asia (South Korea, Japan, Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, India) will be shaped by these states’ evolving relations with the burgeoning neighbor. The Chinese government has shown itself to be pragmatic to the core, but its growing resources and influence, are expanding what it sees as its interests further and further abroad. As this occurs, Beijing and Washington’s interests will inevitably collide (case in point). Major conflicts between the US and China are far from preordained, but as of right now I do strongly believe that a rising China is the greatest threat to US interests and homeland.

The current American administration is aware of these challenges facing the country and it would be interesting to see how some of the higher ups (Obama, Clinton, Gates, Mullen, Petraeus) would answer this survey. What do you think they would be? What are your top 7 or more for the US? I will make a new list from the vantage point of threats facing international security very soon.

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