Poland to Europe: beat the retreat!

by | Jun 15, 2010 | Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia, South Asia

In February 2009, I wrote an op-ed for the European Voice about Poland’s decision to pull some of its troops out of UN missions in the Middle East:

Whenever European governments need extra troops for Africa or Afghanistan, it’s rarely long before they’re on the phone to Warsaw. Poland may not match the deployment levels of the UK, France, Spain and Italy – but it has a reputation for sending soldiers pretty much anywhere, and with fewer quibbles than many of its more cautious NATO allies.

But the commitments stack up: 1,130 personnel in Afghanistan, 400 more in Chad, 200 in Bosnia… At some point something was going to have to give. Last week it did. Poland declared that it would pull 800 troops out of UN missions in Lebanon and the Golan Heights, and not participate in a planned UN follow-on mission to the EU force in Chad. [RG notes: in the end, the Poles did stay on in Chad.]

This was down to money and politics. The defence minister admitted the prime cause was budget cuts – and with hard choices looming, “NATO and EU missions are Poland’s priority”. This was bad news for UN officials, short on high-quality forces and concerned that the financial crisis will drive other governments to follow the Polish lead.

Now, as Simon Tisdall points out today, the Poles are going wobbly on NATO too:

Nato’s Lisbon summit in November will hear a call from Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, for “a relatively quick and precise plan for ending this intervention” – an idea with growing appeal for other allies. The Dutch and Canadians have already decided to leave. Now David Cameron and defence secretary Liam Fox are hinting that Britain, too, will seek to draw down its troop presence next year.

I’m not blaming the Poles for their decision – they are still some of the hardiest of the Europeans. So if Warsaw wants out of Afghanistan, I doubt other Europeans are going to hang around. Beat the retreat!

Light comedy, North Korean style

by | Jun 15, 2010 | East Asia and Pacific, Influence and networks, Off topic

North Korea’s team put up a creditable performance against Brazil in their World Cup game today.  I’ve been keeping an eye on the North Korean news agency to see how they cover the game, but there’s nothing there yet.  Still, the arts news is engaging:

Light Comedy on Road

Pyongyang, June 14 (KCNA) — The light comedy “Echo of Mountain” has been performed in different areas of the country. The light comedy, recreated by the State Theatrical Troupe, is honored with the Kim Il Sung Prize.

The light comedy is based on painstaking efforts of farmers in a mountainous area to boost grain output and turn their village into a beautiful place good to live in, and their worthwhile life.

It, originally created early in the 1960s, still enjoys a great popularity, making the people deeply aware of their mission of the time.

After seeing the performance Jang Min, 47, a department director of the North Hwanghae Provincial People’s Committee, told KCNA he had realized that if officials failed in their duties, any good idea or intention could not be materialized.

Yun Chun Hwa, 40, chairwoman of the Management Board of the Chongsan Co-operative Farm in Kangso District, Nampho City, said the performance gave her the truth that only those working hard to realize high aims and ideal could be pioneers of the time. And she vowed to reap a rich harvest this year.

Ji Jong Ho, 50, a chief furnaceman of the Chollima Steel Complex, said that the performance representing people of the Chollima era made him deeply conscious of what he should do in the building of a thriving nation and that he would work hard with high aims and ideal as the heroes of the light comedy did.

Sounds hilarious!  But then again, I suspect most citizens of Pyonyang would be mystified to learn that people in the West still go to Robin Williams movies…

Turning point on Deepwater Horizon?

by | Jun 15, 2010 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America

Later today, Barack Obama will give his first televised address from the Oval Office. He didn’t do this on healthcare reform, and he hasn’t done it on the economy – so the fact that he’s doing it for Deepwater Horizon is a pretty clear indication of the political stakes on the issue. As John Dickerson at Salon observes, “a presidential speech from the Oval Office usually falls into one of two categories: The commander in chief is responding to an immediate crisis, or he is trying to change the dynamic of an ongoing one”. This is clearly the second kind. But what will he say?

Well, Newsweek’s handy guide of what to watch out for is a good starting point, and doubtless they’re right that the address will conclude with a call to action on getting an energy bill moving on the Hill. But the really big question is: will he use tonight to reopen the push for cap-and-trade legislation, as “senior Democratic officials on Capitol Hill” have been telling Ed Luce at the FT among others?

Admittedly, the politics don’t look auspicious, given how many Democrats are opposed to the Kerry-Lieberman bill (at least 11, apparently), and the fact that moderate Republican Lindsey Graham fell away back in May.

But on the other hand, Obama’s backed into a corner. He’s been wholly on the defensive over the 55 days of this story, caught in an unwinnable battle to seem more angry every time he visits Louisiana. Plus he’ll be painfully aware of the potential for a hurricane to multiply the story by ten at any moment, by showering the southern United States with black rain. All the while the midterms draw closer.

So, Obama badly needs to grab the initiative and set a much more proactive agenda. At the same time, he needs to flush the Republicans out, and paint them as being the party of big oil (something he hasn’t managed to do yet). At present, ironically, the Republicans stand to benefit from public ire over the Administration’s response to the disaster – despite the paradox that they’re more enthusiastic about further deepwater drilling.

Simply banning deepwater drilling is unlikely to cut it. Remember, deepwater production is forecast by the IEA to account for 40% of global oil demand by 2020. If the US pulls the plug, and other OECD countries follow suit, then that just multiplies the energy security problem without doing anything to solve it – a fact that Republicans would presumably pounce upon.

At this point, the potential political logic of cap and trade starts to become a little clearer. If Obama can successfully present America’s choice as one between cap and trade on one hand and deepwater drilling on the other, and paint the GOP into the latter corner, then thhe’d have pulled off a smart manoeuvre indeed.  It would make prospects for international climate policy quite a lot brighter, too.  As John Dickerson concludes,

Having approached the bold move, we’ll learn on Tuesday night just how committed the president plans to be. (…) In various contexts, Obama has said he’d rather do the right thing than win re-election. Aides say that applies to this issue. If that’s true, then he’ll be speaking about energy legislation at least one more time from behind his desk. The question is whether that final speech will be in two years or six.