Settle down Poland.

Though I have already voiced my concerns, and for the most part, disapproval, of the Obama administration’s decision to scrap the major missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic, I was pleased to see the rather quick move to sure up these Eastern European allies with Vice President Joseph Biden’s visits over the last week.  Biden made stops in Poland, Czech Republic, and Romania with reassurance high on the agenda.  These states were shaken by Obama’s decision and several key leaders from the region (including Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa)  wrote an open letter to the administration calling for the US president not to forget about them as they try to improve relations with Moscow.  While in Poland, Biden discussed a new plan which would place SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles at a former air base in the town of Redzikowo in northern Poland.  It was reported early that the US would also station numerous Patriot missiles in the country.  Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine, and the other Eastern European don’t really fear a missile attack from Iran, but what they do fear are Russian boots on the ground.  Being close to the world’s superpower, better yet having its military personnel on your territory, is helpful in keeping the wolves at bay.  Hopefully, this Biden visit is followed by concrete measures that continue to tie these still nascent democracies towards the West and keep Moscow from fomenting any serious expansionist plans.  

While the relatively fast response to get back in line with our Eastern European allies was encouraging, a couple other recent developments by the Obama administration were a little, yes you got it, discouraging.  

With almost the first year of Obama’s presidency in the books it’s starting to become pretty clear that his administration is, in IR speak, part internationalist liberal, in the sense that they have strongly supported international law, the United Nations, multilateral rhetoric (if not action), and on the other hand, realist, as in stressing pragmatism, containment, and in de-emphasizing human rights and democracy in relations with other nations.  Kind of a Jeffersonian view of the world if you follow WR Mead’s view of American society.  Now this is a wide brush and I look forward to explaining it in more depth in later posts, but for right now I want to focus on the human rights aspect.  

The Obama administration is obviously in favor of human rights, but it has shown that it for the most part is taking a hands off approach.  In dealing with states such as Iran, Russia, Sudan, Egypt, China, etc., the issue of their internal human rights violations is a tricky subject to say the least, but so far the trend for the administration has been to put human rights and democracy issues second to more concrete, pressing problems such as nukes, security, economics, etc.  Obama’s decision to not see the Dalai Lama before visiting Beijing is a prime example of this policy.  Now, I disagree with this specific move and in terms of Iran, I think the administration may be blowing a major chance by legitimizing a nefarious government that could possibly collapse with more pressure, but I cannot reflexively denounce these moves out of hand.  I sympathize with the challenge of working in partnership with a leader and government that is authoritarian and violates human rights as at times it must be done. There are too many important security issues at stake and at times human rights and the spread of democracy must take a back seat.  

Where was I getting with this?  Oh yeah.  But I also found out about this and it did make me upset.  The Obama administration has decided to save 2-3 million dollars by stopping the funding for New Haven, Conn.-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, which does what its name implies, and Freedom House’s Gozaar project, an online Farsi- and English-language forum for discussing political issues.  These small projects and organizations work diligently to highlight the democratic/human rights problems in the Islamic Republic of Iran and, specifically in the case of Gozaar, provide a place where Iranian citizens can communicate with other people living in free societies.  I interviewed to work for Gozaar at one time and found their operation and staff inspirational.  At a time when the US government is spending like a teenager with a credit card, it was surprised me to hear that these programs where on the chopping block.  I don’t get it and I don’t like it.  

I was going to talk about Afghanistan too, but I think we all need a break.  Ok, Ok, I need a break.

During our GPP Power Ranking debate, Hubbel made this comment:

“Russia’s power comes from others’ perception of them and their totalitarian nature of conducting international affairs. I think the West is stuck in the Cold War and continually gives Russia too much deference. This translates into significant influence in their region. For instance, NATO induction of Eastern European countries should be a sovereign decision that is made with an eye towards protection against aggressive neighbors, i.e., Russia. The fact that we see people supporting Russia’s right to forcefully oppose countries like Ukraine and Georgia from joining NATO appears to be an implied acceptance of Russia’s ability to use military force against those countries in the future.”

Perceptions of Moscow are an important topic, but I want to discuss his emphasize on state sovereignty. Hubbel argues that the US should not heed the ‘sovereignty’ of Eastern European states such as Georgia and Ukraine to Russia’s main influence, because A. this is against US interests B. it undermines the sovereignty of those states.  The Bush administration cautiously carried pretty much the same viewpoint.  As Germany lead most European states to take on a realist view of Russia’s eastern sphere of influence, the Bush administration continued to push back, pushing for Georgia/Ukraine NATO membership during their last breathes in office.  Germany and most other Western European countries spoke out about state sovereignty, but their actions really told Russia that they were in control of their ‘near abroad.’  I saw this not with much criticism either, as for German interests (being so close in proximity to Russian power and gas manipulation) the move looks pragmatic.

Well, how will Obama’s administration tackle the sovereignty of states which is challenged by nearby great powers?  While at least in terms of Eastern Europe, it looks like it will be similar to Bush in making it well-known that the US views these states as having sovereign control over their territory and foreign policy views.  This view was reiterated by VP Joseph Biden at the Munich security conference.  In discussing NATO expansion the MDS in Czech and Poland, Biden stated: ”It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances.”

This looks like a diplomatic line in the sand that will be tested time and again during the next few years as it has in the past.  The Eastern European states do not want to resume a US-Russian standoff, but they very much desire some political cover to make moves that go against Russian interests and views.  A strong American presence and voice of support will help them do so.  That being said, the Georgia war showcased that geography is destiny.  For all the US power, when it came down to it, Georgia’s future and present was largely in Russia’s hands to mold.  

So I see it as important that Obama showcase to the world that state’s have a right to their own foreign policy and that America will be there to support them.  However, the idea and reality of sovereignty can become sticky rather quickly and the US, just like Germany, will need to be flexible along the way, as I’ve said before, at times ‘geography is destiny.’

Vice President Joseph Biden made the Obama Administration’s first major foreign policy today in Munich at a security conference attended by many world leaders. It was at this venue last year when Russian President Putin derailed US policy in Europe. In Biden’s speech, he took a modest stance on US missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, stating that the US will continue to move forward with them, but offering caveats concerning negotiations with Moscow and on the system’s ability to function. Biden’s words:

“We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven and it is cost-effective.”

Let’s hear the rest of Biden’s remarks concerning US-Russian relations:

“It is time to press the reset button, and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia.”….“the United States will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. We will not — will not — recognize any nation having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances.”

So it appears that the Obama administration may put the missile defense systems in Poland and Czech in play, but will do so only in the context of further negotiations, hopefully involving some give and take. Regarding a ‘reset button’, unfortunately those don’t exist in international relations. The situation is somewhat static, the US and Russia both desire influence in some of the same regions, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and this will not change anytime soon.

Biden seems to be aware of this though as he made a strong statement against ‘recognizing’ any nation’s ‘sphere of influence’ and instead countering that all states had a right to make their own foreign policy decisions. This is a direct rebuttal to Russia’s recent geopolitical moves and pronouncements as it has only been a few months since President Medvedev made a major speech reclaiming Moscow’s right to a ‘sphere of influence’. However, Biden’s denouncement of such an outlook does not mean that in many ways Moscow still concretely owns geopolitical powers of influence in its former Soviet states, as can be seen in its recent moves in Kyrgyzstan (including some cyber dirty tricks), Ukraine, and Georgia. People have talked about Obama bringing a close to the recent cold war type tension between the two powers, but this is naive, as the two states have structural constraints and interests geopolitically shoulder to shoulder that will continue to cause conflict. This speech by Biden is just the opening remarks in what will continue to be an important and fluid relationship with Moscow.

Biden also spoke about US-Iran relations, arguing that the US is finally ready to ‘TALK’. This of course ignores the last few years of the Bush administration, which made efforts to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and Iraq and Afghanistan with the Islamic Republic, if only on low levels. I believe it likely that Obama’s administration will continue these low level talks until it appears that real progress can be made. Biden’s condescending reference to America being able to ‘talk’ is disappointing to me. He represents the United States government to a group of foreigners in a foreign capitol and disparages his own country. What other state apologizes for its actions in front of other state leaders? I can’t think of one. Biden and Obama need to concentrate on the work ahead and not on past grievances. The election is over.

Back to Iran, Biden continued on about the need for Iran to unclench their fists regarding their illicit nuclear program and their support of terrorism abroad. Just like Sec of State Hilary Clinton on Hamas’ responsibility to be a real partner on in the peace process, the Obama administration seems to be taking a similar hard line on Iran. Here is Biden’s warning/offering to Tehran:

“Continue down your current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives.”

What these ‘meaningful incentives‘ are we and Iran will have to wait and see.

Biden, a great talker, has given us much to discuss here.

President-elect Barack Obama presented his national security cabinet yesterday and the group seems to be overall an experienced and pragmatic group.  Some of the members are extremely well-known, Hillary and Bob Gates, with others having experience in Washington’s biggest stage, but still relatively unknown, General James Jones, National Security Advisor, Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, Janet Napolitano, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, and Susan Rice, the presumed future UN Ambassador.  Reviews of the group have been relatively positive in the media, with most commenting that the group is quite centric, pragmatic, and realist leaning.  The main criticism of the group as a whole is from those who were hoping for a greater imprudence or ‘change’ from an Obama administration.  The New York Times raved and raved about the selections, and one has to wonder if they will ever see a critical comment about this president in the paper (This is a brash transition, as I’m used to reading in the Times only of a US President who can’t do anything right).  

Like most of you, I am learning more and more about these officials day by day and will declare right now that my views of them and their work will be fluid, as they in due time show how effective/ineffective, realist/liberal internationalist they can each be in their assigned position.  That being said, let the judging begin!  Well, I’ll at least give a quick take on a few of the bigger names.  

I couldn't resist.

Hillary Clinton – Sec of State – Hillary, she goes by her first name, is obviously a capable politician and government official who will not be shy in the face of foreign adversaries or challenges, nevertheless her choice brings caveats.  First off, I was surprised at the move, as I thought Obama had many other fine choices, and would not wan to bring the Clinton baggage.  Hillary brings with her Bill and they both bring with them a huge media following that could prove distracting and make policy making and implementing that much harder.  It’s almost like bringing Barry Bonds on your baseball team, sure he’s a great hitter and would help the team, but man, it would suck to deal with all the extra press and attention, a lot of it negative.  Another issue about Hillary is her lack of foreign policy experience.  Obama and his team, including Susan Rice, criticized Hillary’s claim of FP experience as First Lady during the election and for good reason.  Hillary has also been an active member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she voiced her disapproval of the Iraq surge policy, and during her presidential campaign showed that she can handle stressful and difficult situations, but we should expect much from our leader of diplomats and foreign policy.  Of course, Condi Rice has a Phd in International Relations and she was involved in some questionable decision making.

Bob Gates – Sec of Defense – I love me some more Bobby Gates in the Defense Department!  Gates has proven to be a strong, pragmatic, and thoughtful manager of US defenses and of the Afghan and Iraq wars. It is this type of pick that gets me excited about a moderate and wise Obama administration.  Even Gates is only around for a year or two he’ll bring stability in a time of great turmoil in America’s foreign wars and global position.  The internal word in the defense department is very positive about this move.  What will be interesting to see is how Gates deals with the likely dismissal of most of his subordinates.  

James Jones – National Security Advisor - To be honest, I have not heard much about the General since before Obama mentioned him in one of the debates, but the more I learn, the more I like.  He has a strong non-partisan past of patriotic service to the US and has been the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and served as an envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the Bush administration.  He lived for most of his childhood in France, but I won’t hold that against him.  Seriously, this combined with his NATO experience should definitely help future EU-US relations, especially during times of disagreements, say over Afghan troop levels.

Eric Holder Jr. – Attorney General – Holder was a hold over from the Clinton administration and is said to be a capable man for the job.  The one caveat is his role in the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich, a tax fraud convict, and there are some who think this alone should disqualify him.  Though what I know about the Rich case is not pleasant, I do not think it enough for a Senate denial.  The challenges facing Holder will be immense.  He will attempt to close Guantanamo Bay while figuring what to do with all of the enemy combatants who may pose a real threat to the US, but lack verifiable material evidence for a conviction. This modern day warfare brings with it a tremendous challenge to our legal and individual rights, one that will be with use for the foreseeable future.  

Susan Rice – UN Ambassador – Rice apparently is a real go-getter, finishing her Phd in International Relations at a young age and serving in President Clinton’s National Security Council.  She is considered the most liberal of all of Obama’s team and was a close advisor to him on the campaign trail.  The relationship between Rice and Clinton will be something to watch as there were some animosities between the two during the campaign.  Regarding Rice’s possible FP leanings, she is an avowed humanitarian intervention supporter, who is for the use of force in situations such as the Rwandan genocide of the 1994.  Here is a quote:

“I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again {Rwanda}, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required,” she told The Atlantic Monthly in 2001

Now if a Bush administration official stated this it would be quite the uproar.  Obama seems to be rather measured in the foreign policy realm, in other words more realistic than idealistic, and it will be interesting to see how these two views connect or disconnect.  

This last point is important.  For it seems that Obama has put together a team of realists, those who will let US national interests lead their policy prescriptions and implementation.  Obama does not talk about the ‘worldwide growth’ or ‘greatness’ of democracy.  He seems to be more of a Jeffersonian American, a person who desires to protect US democracy here at home rather than find tyrants to defeat abroad.  Interestingly, George W. Bush entered the White House 8 years ago with a similar world outlook, but we all say how that drastically changed.  Obama, his national security team, and America’s exceptionalism will all bear watching during these next, what are sure to be exciting, four years.