« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »
July 18, 2006
The Reemergence of the Iron Curtain
While the Bush administration has lost its ability to assert itself internationally, the void in cohesive diplomatic power combined with fluctuating energy markets has created the opportunity for problematic relationships to develop outside of the Western spheres. China, a country high on energy demand and human rights abuse, and Russia, supplier of ever more tainted and corrupt oil, have become important trading partners. With the United States and Great Britain’s involvement in Iraq, NATO’s deployment in Afghanistan, and the short-term reliance on Russian gas in continental Europe, China and Russia have built a viable economic partnership as both continually support undemocratic and rogue states. While this has not manifested into a full-fledged political partnership, both China and Russia are increasingly agreeing on international issues that demand multilateral efforts.
In the first three months of 2006, bilateral trade between Russia and China exceeded $12 billion or up 53% year-on-year, and “it is only a beginning,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said during the SCO meeting June 15-16. “We have discussed military-technical cooperation—the volumes are very large, worth billions of dollars—and we intend to sustain these volumes”. On the sidelines of the high-profile bilateral summit meetings at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) sessions, Russian and Chinese officials reiterated earlier pledges to develop trade and investment cooperation (Sergei Blagov, Jamestown Foundation). The foundation of the agreements have been China’s energy demand and the Russian ability to supply crude oil, with neither having issues with one another’s pocked human rights record. The economic agreements are strengthened by similar aspirations towards Iran and North Korea, with the West desperately seeking each diplomatic support.
On the question of Russia, concerns of autocracy, bullying of NGO’s and political opposition, and the movement away from democracy and free enterprise have been shelved by the reality of energy demands and the hosting of the G-8 conference in St. Petersburg As Pavel Baev of the Jamestown Foundation enumerates, “The main topic President Putin, in his capacity as chairman, has put forward for joint consideration is energy security—and this seemingly uncontroversial headline has evolved into an explosive and bitterly contested proposition. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that Russia defines its energy security interests in such a way that would maximize the political dividends derived from the fact that it is by far the largest producer of energy in the world” and that “In the last public events before the summit Putin has exuded a confidence that no unpleasant questions about Russia’s retreat from democracy will spoil the meticulously planned schedule of photo-ops, small talk, and long toasts. Meeting with the participants of a broad international forum of NGOs in Moscow, he asserted that the G-8 had neither the time nor the intention to discuss human rights.” Energy security, the trump card in international affairs currently, has been used by the Russians to evade all conversations about internal reform and forced the West to create more lenience in comprises with Putin on international efforts.
While Dick Cheney has been critical of Russian interference in former Soviet republics, Mr. Bush looks to take a more muted voice into the G-8 conferences. This extends to European countries as well, with the inability to broker a deal with Iran over nuclear ambitions a continual topic that will debilitate the conversation with Putin: “and for now a deal on Iran’s nuclear aspirations still remains within that category of “possible.” For European leaders it also makes perfect political sense not to irritate the extra-sensitive host. Everybody will be on their best behavior—but it is quite possible that the club of politically super-correct leaders will fall victim to this “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” ritual.”
In the Washington Post, Fred Hiatt notes what is really remarkable about the G-8 conference, “is that Putin has become a leader and an emblem of an active movement to combat the spread of democracy.” China and Russia do not only support anti-democratic regimes throughout the world, but actively support them. Hiatt speaks of the latest example, “last week of how the Kremlin has eliminated Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts from most Russian radio stations without formally banning the programming—instead harassing, insinuating and threatening to revoke licenses—provides a good example.”, and the mimicking and importing of anti-democratic practices in other nations, “And the rebounding dictators are learning from each other. In January, Putin signed legislation regulating nongovernmental organizations that will give 30,000 bureaucrats the option of revoking the registration of any troublesome group. Now Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe are pushing similar legislation. China reportedly sent researchers to Uzbekistan and other former Soviet states to compare notes on democracy countermeasures; meanwhile, Belarus’ dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, “reportedly acquired China’s latest internet monitoring and control technology while in Beijing in December 2005,” NED reported.” China and Russia, with the West unable to react, have had a free hand at reasserting their prominence within their spheres of influence and building political allies across the globe.
While the efforts of China and Russia have not been formalized beyond economics and trade, the increased cooperation of the two states means a new shift in the diplomatic arena. Russia, the closet partner in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and China, the man behind the North Korean and Sudanese curtain, have been viewed as the key partners to restoring order to these hot button issues. And for that exact reason, anti-democratic efforts facilitated by Russia and China have not been checked as diplomatic and economic reality trump political ideals.
While the Bush administration has lost its ability to assert itself internationally, the void in cohesive diplomatic power combined with fluctuating energy markets has created the opportunity for problematic relationships to develop outside of the Western spheres. China, a country high on energy demand and human rights abuse, and Russia, supplier of ever more tainted and corrupt oil, have become important trading partners. With the United States and Great Britain’s involvement in Iraq, NATO’s deployment in Afghanistan, and the short-term reliance on Russian gas in continental Europe, China and Russia have built a viable economic partnership as both continually support undemocratic and rogue states. While this has not manifested into a full-fledged political partnership, both China and Russia are increasingly agreeing on international issues that demand multilateral efforts.
In the first three months of 2006, bilateral trade between Russia and China exceeded $12 billion or up 53% year-on-year, and “it is only a beginning,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said during the SCO meeting June 15-16. “We have discussed military-technical cooperation—the volumes are very large, worth billions of dollars—and we intend to sustain these volumes”. On the sidelines of the high-profile bilateral summit meetings at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) sessions, Russian and Chinese officials reiterated earlier pledges to develop trade and investment cooperation (Sergei Blagov, Jamestown Foundation). The foundation of the agreements have been China’s energy demand and the Russian ability to supply crude oil, with neither having issues with one another’s pocked human rights record. The economic agreements are strengthened by similar aspirations towards Iran and North Korea, with the West desperately seeking each diplomatic support.
On the question of Russia, concerns of autocracy, bullying of NGO’s and political opposition, and the movement away from democracy and free enterprise have been shelved by the reality of energy demands and the hosting of the G-8 conference in St. Petersburg As Pavel Baev of the Jamestown Foundation enumerates, “The main topic President Putin, in his capacity as chairman, has put forward for joint consideration is energy security—and this seemingly uncontroversial headline has evolved into an explosive and bitterly contested proposition. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that Russia defines its energy security interests in such a way that would maximize the political dividends derived from the fact that it is by far the largest producer of energy in the world” and that “In the last public events before the summit Putin has exuded a confidence that no unpleasant questions about Russia’s retreat from democracy will spoil the meticulously planned schedule of photo-ops, small talk, and long toasts. Meeting with the participants of a broad international forum of NGOs in Moscow, he asserted that the G-8 had neither the time nor the intention to discuss human rights.” Energy security, the trump card in international affairs currently, has been used by the Russians to evade all conversations about internal reform and forced the West to create more lenience in comprises with Putin on international efforts.
While Dick Cheney has been critical of Russian interference in former Soviet republics, Mr. Bush looks to take a more muted voice into the G-8 conferences. This extends to European countries as well, with the inability to broker a deal with Iran over nuclear ambitions a continual topic that will debilitate the conversation with Putin: “and for now a deal on Iran’s nuclear aspirations still remains within that category of “possible.” For European leaders it also makes perfect political sense not to irritate the extra-sensitive host. Everybody will be on their best behavior—but it is quite possible that the club of politically super-correct leaders will fall victim to this “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” ritual.”
In the Washington Post, Fred Hiatt notes what is really remarkable about the G-8 conference, “is that Putin has become a leader and an emblem of an active movement to combat the spread of democracy.” China and Russia do not only support anti-democratic regimes throughout the world, but actively support them. Hiatt speaks of the latest example, “last week of how the Kremlin has eliminated Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts from most Russian radio stations without formally banning the programming—instead harassing, insinuating and threatening to revoke licenses—provides a good example.”, and the mimicking and importing of anti-democratic practices in other nations, “And the rebounding dictators are learning from each other. In January, Putin signed legislation regulating nongovernmental organizations that will give 30,000 bureaucrats the option of revoking the registration of any troublesome group. Now Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe are pushing similar legislation. China reportedly sent researchers to Uzbekistan and other former Soviet states to compare notes on democracy countermeasures; meanwhile, Belarus’ dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, “reportedly acquired China’s latest internet monitoring and control technology while in Beijing in December 2005,” NED reported.” China and Russia, with the West unable to react, have had a free hand at reasserting their prominence within their spheres of influence and building political allies across the globe.
While the efforts of China and Russia have not been formalized beyond economics and trade, the increased cooperation of the two states means a new shift in the diplomatic arena. Russia, the closet partner in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and China, the man behind the North Korean and Sudanese curtain, have been viewed as the key partners to restoring order to these hot button issues. And for that exact reason, anti-democratic efforts facilitated by Russia and China have not been checked as diplomatic and economic reality trump political ideals.
Originally on PBH and Publius Pundit.
Posted by Alec at 11:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Cursing Cowboy
Posted by Alec at 11:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 6, 2006
Germany: Towards a New Role as a World Peacekeeper
The national conscious of the Nazi atrocities in German memory has led to cautiousness towards conflict in the German public and government. While this position is a natural reaction and in many respects noble, it has unfortunately decreased Germany’s ability and consequent role to be an international peacekeeper and decision maker. Indeed, Germany’s relations with traditional powers such as the United States and Great Britain have undoubtedly been affected by the apprehension associated with German worldwide involvement. In order to sufficiently repair important diplomatic relationships and raise its role as a purveyor of social democracy, Germany must engage in a plan to increase militarization with the appropriate adjustment of political stance to encourage public opinion towards proactive international contributions.
In the wake of World War 2, West Germany was decidedly demilitarized in order to avert future German involvement in conflict and to spur economic growth by focusing funds on development and human capital. Though West Germany rearmament occurred in 1951 in reaction to the Korean War, West Germany’s military (and later reunified Germany’s) was willfully smaller in comparison to other NATO nations. This has continued to this day, where German spending on military as a percentage of GDP is significantly less than other industrialized nations (approximately 1.5% of GDP in 2003 compared to 4% in America, 2.4% in the UK). Further, “According to a Department of Defense report, Germany’s defense spending was 1.45% of GDP in 2003 and with $35 billion amounted to less than ten percent of US spending ($384 billion). The only US allies with a larger defense spending than Germany were France, the UK and Japan. As percentage of GDP, however, Germany’s defense spending is smaller than those of 21 US allies.” Politics and policy have been similarly affected: Germany participated in Operating Enduring Freedom because of NATO commitments, but was a staunch opponent of action against Iraq, leading to a freeze of relations between Germany and several countries.
Currently, the German economy is the fifth richest in the world per capita and third largest in the world by nominal GDP. Conversely, Germany is the 36th biggest provider of military and police contributions to UN efforts (in-between Rwanda at 35 and Slovakia at 37). Combined with NATO figures, Germany contributes approximately 6700 troops worldwide, including two thousand in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan, a multilateral operation agreed upon by NATO, serves as an excellent example. German assistance is done at considerable smaller percentages than other NATO nations, with 20 thousand originating from the United States, 2500 from Canada, and 1000 from Spain. Further, Romania, a country with an average income of $3000, contributed over 800 troops.
However, Germany is presently experiencing an economic stagnation combined with high unemployment. A logical part of the solution could be increased spending on military and efforts towards recruitment, especially in East Germany where poverty and joblessness has fueled the rise of Neo-Nazi groups. A simple rise to 2 percent of GDP spent on military, on par with other modernized nations, would mean an increase of 11 billion dollars.
German’s increased involvement worldwide will have numerous positive outcomes. Countries such as Romania and Slovakia, relatively new NATO and EU members, will not be forced to carry the burden that could be sufficiently executed by more traditional and developed countries such as Germany. This will buoy German position in its two most important member groups, NATO and the EU. Domestically, increased employment for able-bodied Germans will hinder extremism and the hostility in the reunified nation. Most importantly, Germany will emerge as a proactive, rather than reactive, member of the international community, contributing to the welfare of the globe and repairing its relations with the United States and Great Britain.
German’s increased involvement worldwide will have numerous positive outcomes. Countries such as Romania and Slovakia, relatively new NATO and EU members, will not be forced to carry the burden that could be sufficiently executed by more traditional and developed countries such as Germany. This will buoy German position in its two most important member groups, NATO and the EU. Domestically, increased employment for able-bodied Germans will hinder extremism and the hostility in the reunified nation. Most importantly, Germany will emerge as a proactive, rather than reactive, member of the international community, contributing to the welfare of the globe and repairing its relations with the United States and Great Britain.
Posted by Alec at 10:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack