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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year from GPP!

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

'A deal's a deal, unless we need to cancel it, of course.' Love, Dimtri

“We reaffirm our commitment to the goals of the common fight against the threats of terrorism, armed extremism, and illegal drug trafficking in Afghanistan.  We shall continue and develop our cooperation in the interest of enhancing the capabilities of the government of Afghanistan to accomplish key socioeconomic objectives, to raise living standards, and to ensure the security of its people.”

Joint Statement by President Obama and President Medvedev

In all the hoopla over the Obama-Medvedev-Putin Summit this past week, many may have missed the most concrete accomplishment of the meetings, Moscow’s permission for over 4,500 flights over Russian airspace for American military personnel and equipment headed to Afghanistan.  Though this agreement was mainly hashed out before the summit, it was given attention and made to appear part of a greater cooperative future between these two states regarding the situation in Afghanistan by the release of this joint statement.  This strategic agreement goes beyond discussions of ‘reset buttons’, the idea that power is not a ‘zero sum game’ (I think it still is Mr. Obama), and may in fact hold more geopolitical importance than the promised reductions in nuclear warheads by Washington and Moscow (does anyone really think this will cause other states to give up their nuclear aspirations?).  The Obama administration claims that these new overflight routes over Russian territory will save valuable time and an estimated $133 million dollars.  And many also hope that the agreement combined with the nice words of cooperation in the joint statement portend a growing partnership between the two former cold warriors regarding stabilizing Afghanistan.

However, it has long been claimed that the US and Russia share similar interests in Afghanistan, mainly the destruction of international terror networks and regional stability.  But this has never meant that there are still not conflicting interests and the lack of real cooperation between the two great powers the past 7 years has shown these quite clearly.  Russia has and will probably never accept a strong US military presence so close to its borders and ‘near abroad.’  Moscow considers Central Asia its backyard and holds dearly its gas and oil pipeline monopoly in the area.  A stable, US/Western controlled/backed Afghanistan and Pakistan may mean diversified pipeline routes for the CA states.

Russia’s actions in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan (Manas airbase) showcase an aggressive state that will follow its perceived interests, even if they are contrary to ‘cooperating’ in stabilizing Afghanistan.  The Obama administration needs to be prepared for a possible setback after this positive agreement, as Moscow has shown that deals like this can easily be reneged upon and even outright contradicted.  Nicklas Noring from the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute offers cautious advice regarding US-Russian relations in Afghanistan;

Until Russia displays a genuine concern for Afghanistan and does not undermine other channels supporting this mission, it cannot be considered a worthy partner for cooperation. The terms of this “cooperation” suggest nothing less than that the U.S. is being duped, with the success of Afghanistan at stake.

*Adam Stern is the author of this piece, not Pat Frost

According to the New York Times, “President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday. The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.”

States have no friends, only interests. With a clever leak, it seems likely that the Obama Administration clearly buys into this oft-held realist notion, especially where U.S. foreign policy towards Russia is concerned. It seems as if just yesterday Vladimir Putin and Moscow were up in arms over the Pentagon’s plans to install missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russian leadership has remained adamant since that an American missile shield not be constructed on their watch. Their argument, and a reasonable one at that, is that Russian national security would be unduly compromised if NATO missiles were located within striking distance of their borders. In the early 1960’s, JFK had a similar reaction when nuclear components reached Cuban shores courtesy of our comrade Nikita Khrushchev.

Fast forward to the present. The U.S. is engaged in multiple conflicts abroad, a rise of terror in Pakistan and holding together a tenuous peace in Gaza. It’s clear that the Obama Administration has bigger foreign policy issues to contend with than Cold War era spat. It seems logical and in America’s best interests not only to diffuse unnecessary tension with Moscow, but, best case scenario here, enlist Russian support in curbing Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

It’s too early to tell if Vice-President Biden is serious when he expressed an interest in “hitting the reset button” on U.S. foreign policy towards Russia. The U.S. still harbors serious concerns over the amount of power wielded by former President (and current PM) Vladimir Putin. In addition, Russia’s handling of relations with its neighbors and former members of the USSR often leave much to be desired.

If states have no friends though, it might also be said that states have no enemies. At least not on a permanent basis. Currently, it’s in the American interest to take symbolic steps to bring Russia on board. President Obama’s letter and Vice-President Biden’s rhetoric might not amount to much in the long run but for time being these symbolic gestures indicate that the Administration recognizes there are far more pressing challenges on the horizon. Challenges like Iran, which will be far easier to confront when allies lend support.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with President Obama and spoke before a joint session of Congress yesterday. Here are some of his words from his eloquent, and uplifting speech:

Madam Speaker, Mr Vice-President, I come in friendship to renew, for new times, our special relationship founded upon our shared history, our shared values and, I believe, our shared futures.

I grew up in the 1960s as America, led by President Kennedy, looked to the heavens and saw not the endless void of the unknown, but a new frontier to dare to discover and explore. People said it couldn’t be done – but America did it.

And 20 years later, in the 1980′s, America led by President Reagan refused to accept the fate of millions trapped behind an Iron Curtain, and insisted instead that the people of Eastern Europe be allowed to join the ranks of nations which live safe, strong and free. People said it would never happen in our lifetime but it did, and the Berlin Wall was torn down brick by brick.

So early in my life I came to understand that America is not just the indispensible nation, it is the irrepressible nation.

At time when it seems that most have nothing nice to say about the US, especially Americans, I was more than pleased with Brown’s words and tone. Unfortunately, Brown was not welcomed to this country like his and his predecessor’s former visits as President Obama did not meet him at Andrew’s airbase for a ‘before the flag’ photo op, nor did he introduce him before a joint press conference, and US Press Secretary Robert Gibbs referred to a ‘special partnership’ not ‘relationship.’ These moves may seem trivial, especially if one adds Obama’s return of the Winston Churchill bust given to America by Tony Blair after 9/11, but to Britain, these slights cause much concern that the ‘special relationship’ may be thawing under this new American administration.

It can definitely be argued that Bush put a too emotional spin and emphasis on foreign relations (Putin, Koizumi, Blair, Howard), but I don’t see this as folly when it is with truly special partners, like the British. This is the nation that has sent its troops to fight along side ours in two difficult and controversial campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unlike so many others, they have proven their worth and their commitment and this should be honored by our Head of State. It seems that Obama desires to be above old fashioned politics, but certain traditions should be honored. Though during their joint press conference Obama stated, “The special relationship between the United States and Great Britain is one that is not just important to me, it’s important to the American people,” it still did not convince me that he really sees the partnership as very much different then say the US’s relationship with France, etc. Obama tends to lean ‘realist’ in foreign issues and ‘realists’ do not think there are such things as ‘special relationships’ or alliances last very long. In many ways this is constructive and leads to prudent policy, but I think the linkages of history, culture, democracy, capitalism, and the fight for liberty attach Britain-United States in a special way. In Brown’s speech before Congress you can hear the earnestness of Britain’s appreciation for America and its view of the two nation’s relationship.

So let it be said of the friendship between our two countries; that it is in times of trial – true, in the face of fear – faithful and amidst the storms of change – constant.

And let it be said of our friendship – formed and forged over two tumultuous centuries, a friendship tested in war and strengthened in peace – that it has not just endured but is renewed in each generation to better serve our shared values and fulfil the hopes and dreams of the day. Not an alliance of convenience, but a partnership of purpose.

Alliances can wither or be destroyed, but partnerships of purpose are indestructible. Friendships can be shaken, but our friendship is unshakeable. Treaties can be broken but our partnership is unbreakable. And I know there is no power on earth than can drive us apart.

I think that says it all.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

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.

In what is looking more and more like a lukewarm proposal, it appears that Moscow is at least ready to suspend their plan of basing Iskander missiles in the western region of Kaliningrad, a small Russian territorial enclave near Poland and Lithuania, and directing them toward Europe. It was reported through a news agency that a Russian defense official stated that the government was suspending the missile deployment, but other Russian officials denied such a policy was changing.

Kaliningrad's the cute little territory near the top. Russia's promised to put missiles all over it, making it much less cute.

The move seemed at first to possibly be a goodwill gesture to the Obama administration, which would hopefully make it easier for his administration to cancel the US-Poland-Czech missile defense system.  The missile defense plan, just officially approved by all groups involved months ago, is reportedly under review by the Obama administration and this forward move by the Russians to not do something they haven’t even done yet is no doubt an attempt to persuade Obama to rescind the missile defense deals.  Obama and Russian President Medvedev talked on the phone for the first time on Monday and discussed their ‘intention’ on promoting ‘constructive’ US-Russian relations.

Concerning the missile defense standoff, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had some words: “We have heard signals concerning anti-missile defense, and we know that people close to Mr. Obama say they should not hurry and the issue demands further analyses.  We are glad to hear such statements. Beyond that, our proposal on developing those systems is still on the agenda.”

How Obama’s team handles this delicate issue with Moscow will be telling of his stance against the world’s great powers.  I for one do not think it enough that Russia just ‘not deploy’ the Kaliningrad missiles, though its a good start.  If the US were to revoke already agreed defense plans with Poland and the Czech Republic we would need other Russian concessions, especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program and Afghanistan stability.  Moscow’s Kaliningrad move (test?), which has itself not even become an official stance by no means, seems like a cheap opening to give Obama a chance to say he received something in return, but I’m just not buying it.

In the early 90s, I used to listen to a Radiohead song called ‘Electioneering‘ from their groundbreaking album, OK Computer.  The song bitterly bemoans the UK/US electoral process and vote getting tactics by politicians and parties.  Though the song brilliantly and rather accurately portrays some of the unfortunate truths of our electoral system, it is a protest song that could only come from a stable, free state, and many of the items criticized by the lead singer Thom Yorke, would be welcomed in many of the worlds more autocratic states.

A Russian observer 'monitoring' the Belarus elections in September

This thought came to me after reading Clifford J. Levy’s excellent article detailing the Russian election monitoring process in former Soviet states, such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan.  In the report, Levy details how the Kremlin is countering Western efforts to judge and monitor elections in the world to see how they measure up, that is how free and fair are they.  This is mainly done by the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  Moscow now sends their own election observers, who Levy showcases as just there to put a legitimate stamp on otherwise corrupt and unfair elections.  

Why would Moscow want to spend the money and time with their own monitors?  For one thing it gives a countering voice to the OSCE, an organization which called Russia’s own election in 2004, ‘far from fair.’ The process also protects the authoritarian regimes still loyal and dependent on Moscow, such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.  The Kremlin will create an illusionary vision of a fair and free election process to legitimize the process and government in the eyes of the nation’s citizens and its own.  

Another reason I believe Moscow makes the attempt to legitimize these corrupt election processes is because of democratic norms that have started to pervade the international system.  Levy discusses how these former Soviet dictators, Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan and Lukashenko in Belarus, desire to be seen as ‘democratic’ to the world.  Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan have been brutal dictatorships, but their leaders still hold elections where they receive nearly 90% or greater of the vote.  Why?  They want their the world to see them as legitimate and they think any election process, any at all, will give them more political weight at home and abroad.  Of course there are strategic reasons, such as building closer relations with the democratic West, which helps these leaders diversify their economic portfolio, but that can’t be the only reason.  

Back to Russia’s role in these former Soviet states: Moscow desires stability and influence in their ‘near abroad’ and the war in Georgia and recent gas cutoffs to Ukraine have shown that they will push their neighbors around if this is challenged.  Scholar Stephen Blank’s ‘Military Rivalry in Central Asia‘ in great detail describes Russia’s domineering attitude and policies to the countries to their south.  Blank calls them ‘neocolonial’ and basically ‘domestic stability operations’, meaning that Moscow considers these former Soviet states basically just that, Russian states.  All of ‘Stans of Central Asia are authoritarian governments strongly connected to Putin’s government, with one small and important exception, Kyrgyzstan, which had a democratic orientated ‘Tulip Revolution’ in 2005, that scared the bejeebies out of Moscow.  Since that incident, Moscow, with a little help and competition from China, has tried to even further cement its military and political presence in the region in a desperate move to make sure this does not happen again.

After a lot of bellicose statements regarding confronting Moscow after the Georgian invasion, many have called for restraint and asked the question, ‘what does this have to do with us?’  Though I largely agreed that the US must have a realist viewpoint of the situation and not go overboard with rhetoric or antagonizing of the Kremlin, these stories of Moscow’s domineering attempts to keep pliable dictators in charge clearly shows that the West and United States need to take the great power seriously.  The growth of democracy and liberal ideals is not set in stone and aggressive autocratic powers such as Russia can have a tremendous impact as to how the world is shaped.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

NATO has just finished another formal summit of member foreign ministers yesterday and several interesting issues were debated. Going into the summit were the central issues of Georgia and Ukraine’s future membership, the US missile defense system in Eastern Europe, relations with Russia (connected to the previous two), and the war in Afghanistan.

Weeks ago i discussed here, how the Bush administration was making a strong push for a more rapid acceptance of Georgia and Ukraine into the Alliance. Much has been made of Germany’s leader Angela Merkel’s resistance to such a maneuver, arguing that it would just incite Russia and would need to wait. Germany, along with other European states, has many reasons to desire to go slow on Georgia and Ukraine’s membership as the country is strongly tied to Russia in energy and other business ventures central to its economy and national well-being. Trade between Russia and Germany increased by over 25% last year and Merkel probably fears further antagonizing Moscow into further destabilizing actions, as the joining of NATO by its former vassals Georgia and Ukraine would likely do.

Now the US’s Bush Administration wants to give no concessions to what it has described as a ‘newly aggressive’ Russia. By outwardly supporting the integration of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO it is sending a message to Moscow that the Alliance cannot be intimidated or have its decisions made from an outside power. Of course, the fact is that Russia is a great power that matters greatly to NATO, as the military alliance would not exist without it. Basically, Germany is advocating ‘guiding’ Russia and the US ‘containing’ it.

What happened at the NATO summit was a little bit of accommodation and containing regarding relations with Russia. Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated the Alliance would begin “a conditional and graduated reengagement” with Moscow, saying that “Russia is such an important factor in geopolitical terms, that there is no alternative for NATO than to engage Russia.”

In terms of the ascension of Georgia and Ukraine, the Alliance members reconfirmed that the two states would eventually become full-fledged members and that cooperative reform programs, like the NATO-Ukraine Commission and newly formed NATO-Georgia Commission, would be accelerated. This outcome has to please Germany and other members who desire a more moderate growth strategy, and I would think placate the US, as progress toward the two’s acceptance is at least involving other mechanisms besides the lengthy Membership Action Plan. Russian Ambassador to NATO Mr. Rogozin told his home audience back in Moscow that this signaled a break or a weakness in the Alliance: “there is an open split within NATO and it will widen if NATO tries to expand further. The schemes of those who adopted a frozen approach to Russia have been destroyed.” It should be noted that as members of NATO are having this debate, the people of Georgia are still dealing with a rather menacing Russian force on and in some places inside their newly reduced borders.

The US defense missile defense shield (MDS) was also a topic of debate during the summit and this brought unquestionable good news for the Bush Administration. In the final communique of the summit, all foreign ministers gave their unanimous support for the Czech and Poland based MDS, calling it a ‘substantial contribution’ to Western defenses. The communique also called for Moscow to embrace American proposals for greater cooperation regarding the system. In this debate, Moscow clearly suffered a setback, at least for the moment.

Lastly, Afghan troop levels were discussed in the light of the upcoming Obama administration arrival in January. Secretary General Scheffer stated in an interview; “It’s crystal clear that we need more forces in Afghanistan.” Scheffer also stated that he was sure that leaders’ phones would be ringing all around Europe soon after the inauguration, with Obama on the other line asking for troops and money. The consensus seems to be that these leaders may have a harder time saying ‘no’ to a newly elected Barack Obama then to a lame duck Bush, but I’ll believe this only when I see it. I’ll leave you with a call to action by Scheffer to all his members:

“The allies need to do better. I want to see the balance in this alliance. I don’t want to just see more American troops. It has to be a combination of a military and civilian surge, and what slightly concerns me is that allies on this side of the ocean will have difficulty in matching the extra effort a new U.S. administration might put into Afghanistan.”