As much as I disagree with the CIA prosecution policy of the Obama administration, it has helped highlight a critical and complicated issue in US national security, international security, and for modern democracies.  Discussions by President Obama, ex-VP Dick Cheney, leading intellectuals, newspapers, and citizens, like us here at GPP, attests to this, and I hold up that we can find an acceptable, if not happy, medium.  In any regard, that’s all I’m going to say about that right now.  Well, almost.  Here’s two provocotive CIA/torture pieces worth checking out:  Liberal Columnist Richard Cohen looks at ‘Torture’s Unanswerable Questions‘ 2.  A high level debate on the issue spurred by Cohen’s piece.

The rest of this post will be as the title suggests, a hodge-podge of Great Power topics.  Are you pumped or what!?!  I am!!!

• Stratfor’s George Friedman takes a stab at reviewing the now concluded, opening stage of President Obama’s foreign policy.  Friedman’s take is centered on two related points: Obama’s policies are a lot like Bush’s and this is no surprise because state leaders’ foreign affairs decisions are shaped by ‘necessity’ and constrained by fundamental strategic interests.  Friedman is a Realist, and a consistent one, so this should not surprise.  The most interesting aspect of the review is Friedman’s geopolitical analysis of Obama’s ‘Reset’ policy with Moscow.  He sees an inherent problem with the strategy:

The problem, of course, was that the last thing the Russians wanted was to reset relations with the United States. They did not want to go back to the period after the Orange Revolution, nor did they want to go back to the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Orange Revolution. The Obama administration’s call for a reset showed the distance between the Russians and the Americans: The Russians regard the latter period as an economic and geopolitical disaster, while the Americans regard it as quite satisfactory. Both views are completely understandable.

This is true for many international issues, as just because we desire ‘talks’, ‘resets’, ‘war’, etc. does not mean our ally or enemy want the same.  Conflicts happen for a reason.

• For only the 2nd time in decades, with this time looking to be much more consequential than the first, Japan has a new ruling party running its domestic and foreign affairs.  The perennially in power Liberal Democrats have been booted out of government and replaced by the Democratic Party of Japan and this will muddies the future Japan-US alliance, if even just a bit.  From their very existence, the Liberal Democrats were closely allied with the US, and the DPJ has held some troubling policy prescriptions toward its relations with the US while in opposition.  Though a sea change in relations is extremely unlikely, there is indeed some cause for concern, especially in regards to the presence of American military personnel on certain Japanese islands.  The Obama administration will need to show some agility in dealing with this new government and keeping the Japanese-American alliance strong.  A rather mundane, stable US foreign policy sphere has suddenly become a bit more exciting/worrying.

• Speaking of East Asia and Realism, Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini wrote a short and sweet piece persuasively arguing that no one should expect to see US-China partnership any time soon.  Here is a list of the contrasting interests and positions that will keep them apart: 1. US focus on geopolitical headaches around the globe with China confining itself with geo-economic challenges 2. Both state governments have internal issues to keep their attention (economic, health care, Uighurs, baseball playoff races, etc.) 3. Internal bureaucratic infighting, especially in regards to a lack of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington’s respective State and Treasury Departments 4. Lastly, on major international security issues, like Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Russia’s moves in Eastern Europe, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, climate change, the two behemoths have diverging positions.  What’s interesting about this piece by Bremmer and Roubini is that they make a Realist argument, but stress internal aspects (bureaucracy, domestic politics) as key factors.  Realist theory largely and mistakenly misses these factors by focusing too much on just the state and international actors.

• Speaking of Russia in Eastern Europe (at least I did a little bit ago), Moscow is having a good ol’fashioned great power row with Poland about who was more Nazi-friendly during World War II.  I know what you’re thinking….this is great-power-awesome!  Apparently, Russia has been releasing documents showing elements in Poland helped the Nazis, while the Polish are trying to remind Moscow that they invaded and conquered them in a partnership with the Third Reich!  It seems like this morbid diplomatic fight is not a real threat to Polish-Russian relations, just an interesting verbal spat.

• Apparently, the War on Terror may not be dead just yet.  Obama Press Secretary used the phrase in its proper context when defending Obama’s Afghan strategy.

• Just when you thought your great power work was done, here is a bloggingheads.tv video by two mostly well-spoken folks debating whether America will remain a great power, with the much more important question of How, being addressed as well.  Hat tip to my friends at Foreign Policy Association’s Rising Powers blog, specifically David Kampf, for this and for already picking out the discussion’s ‘money quote’:

“the greatest advantage that the United States has going forward is that as other countries become more powerful there is always going to be the feeling among their neighbors and among others in the world that they are going to view that apprehensively and I think they are going to look to the United States…to provide you with a security partner.”

Just like the Pittsburgh Pirates’ playoff chances, this post is finished!

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!

The Indian Ocean is great for this blog. Why? Maybe cause there’s a bunch of great power politics going on there! China, India, Iran, Middle Eastern oil cartels, the United States all have vital and strategic interests throughout the lengthy tide of the Indian Ocean and its importance in world politics is only becoming greater. Not only does the Indian Ocean encompass all of these world actors it is also hosts most of the Islamic world, is a major transport hub for oil, gas, and many other global goods, and will be the seen for great power cooperation and conflict for years to come.

Robert D. Kaplan, a US national security expert, is in the process of writing a book about the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean (IO) and recently contributed a essay on the topic for Foreign Affairs magazine. Kaplan calls the IO, the ‘center stage’ for the challenges of the 21st century as the rise of India and China have started to reveal in the colossal waterway a ‘multilayered and multipolar’ world. The Indian Navy has grown much in the past 10-15 years and has sought to spread its influence and power through this mechanism across the IO, including battling pirates in the Gulf of Aden. China’s lifeblood of oil and trade transport are held hostage, or more nicely put, held in a cradle, in the IOs pathways. Kaplan notes that more than 85% of Beijing’s oil crosses the Indian Ocean, more specifically the Straight of Malacca, which is controlled by the US Navy. This of course causes China’s leaders a great deal of heartburn as they could literally be ‘cut off’ from oil supplies by the US at any time.

Speaking of the US, what should its role be in the geopolitically shifting IO? While, the US, which has been the preponderant naval power in the Ocean every since WWII, holds many keys. As China, India’s, and Japan’s naval power has grown in recent decades, and cut into US relative naval dominance, there has been created an opportunity for cooperation and competition in the IO. Kaplan believes this process of change can be handled smoothly if the US follows an ‘Elegant Decline’. By this he means, balancing the power of China by leveraging the sea power of India and Japan against it, but at the same time assuaging China’s fears by continuing the American policy of having no territorial ambitions in the region. This would help the US Navy burden-share in the region and pass off some of its responsibilities to the like-minded, democratic allies of Japan and India, while still maintaining a very strong presence.

Why would China play along with this, one might ask? While, first off, they have to in a way as the US Navy is so dominant that dislodging it would be near impossible. Even if this were possible, could China protect the sea lanes on their own? Doubtful. China and the world economic system have benefited from safe sea lanes guaranteed by the American navy and this will likely remain for years to come. That being said, Beijing is continually looking for ways around the US naval zone in the IO, on land across Central Asia, where they are building gas and oil pipelines and major highways, and by the sea, as the Chinese government is working towards creating an Eastern Panama Canal in Thailand’s Isthmus of Kra, which would circumvent the US-controlled Straight of Malacca. Another major factor that could work in Kaplan’s American ‘Elegant Decline’ strategy is the fact that India, China, Japan, and the many other actors in the IO can all work with the US more effectively than with each other. In this vein, it is hoped that the US presence could curtail a burgeoning China-India-Japanese rivalry in the Indian Ocean.

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?

Soft power has once again become a favorite news topic during the G-20 Conference and ongoing NATO Summit, and to some the US is actually losing this battle to the Euros, but there is one actor in this world where the word ’soft’ are just plain not appropriate, North Korea and its leader Kim Jong-il.  North Korea is set to launch a Taepodong-2 missile, which most experts believe will be a show of their intercontinental missile capabilities and nuclear weapon prowess, this coming Saturday and as of right now it appears the US, Japan, South Korea, China, and the whole international community can and will do nothing.  President Obama and others have called the possible launch a ‘provocation‘ and warned NK of ’stern’ action, but these words are unlikely to change Pyongyang’s decision.

This advertised Taepodong-2 missile launch and its likely occurrence is just another of a long line of aggressive, yet useful tactics by Kim’s government.  They do some something dangerously provocative, test a nuclear weapon, kidnap foreign nationals, partake in naval skirmishes, sell nuclear know-how to rouge regimes like Syria, and somehow it only leads to further aid and attention from the international community.  This is obviously a poor precedent to set for other would-be pariah states.  That being said, figuring out a way to handle and react to such a situation as the missile test this weekend is easier said than done.  My GPP colleague, Hubbel Relat, I know believes we should end all forms of appeasement to the Kim regime and play the hardest of ball, but I’m not sure this would A. work and B. Not lead to something worse.  China and South Korea know that if the North had a major governmental or societal collapse they would face a huge humanitarian and strategic challenge that could disrupt their lives for years and they just don’t seem willing to put themselves in that position.  The US of course has to work with the South Koreans and Chinese to get anything done in North Korea so it has to take their considerations seriously.  

What makes the situation even worse is the fact that Pyongyang is holding two US journalists hostage and threatening to put them on trial, with a lengthy prison sentence in the horizon.  How is this type of behavior by a modern nation-state aloud today?  Where are the Europeans and others, who cried and cried aloud about Israeli war crimes in Gaza a few months ago, on this issue?  

North Korea’s provocative and aggressive actions need to be halted for good as soon as possible.  We need to figure out a way for them to calculate that when they perform these types of actions it will lead to negative consequences, not just negative words, or aid, or greater leverage, etc.