by Richard Gowan | Aug 25, 2008 | Global system, North America, Off topic
Enough with the NYT op-ed page! My main point of reference in the U.S. election will be the Wu-Tang Clan. In an interview with New York magazine’s Denver bloggers, RZA goes places that Dowd, Herbert et al have never been…
What do you think of Biden?
I don’t know Mr. Biden. I just saw him on TV yesterday.
He got in trouble last year for saying Obama was the first “clean and articulate” African-American candidate we’d ever had run for president.
He got in trouble for that?!
I guess it was seen as stereotyping.
A lot of us ain’t clean and articulate, because we grew up in harsh conditions. So Mr. Obama is clean and articulate. I’m actually proud to watch him on TV, myself, as a black man, because I think we hold our dicks when we walk — know what I mean? — and he got something about him that’s really classy. It’s like in every nation and every race, you have some people that are born as a prince because of the natural way they are.
Do you support him because he’s the first black candidate or for other reasons?
I’m not really a political guy. Some of my friends were supporting Hillary in the beginning, and I do what my friends do. I was trying to help Hillary in the beginning.
Really? Why?
Because I thought, When the Clinton family was in office, my family had better food in their house. I could call my aunt up and she could say, “Yeah, things is good.” Now everybody calls me for money. So I thought that Clinton could help out families better. But when she moved out of the race and I started watching Mr. Obama, I actually became a fan of his. You know, this man has something elegant about him!
And I watched Mr. McCain, too, and I know he went through a struggle with the war and all that. But in all reality, if you’re a P.O.W., it means you’ve been locked up and in jail. And in our country, you can’t vote as a felon. A lot of people can’t vote because once you’ve been locked up and incarcerated, it changes your mentality. He did that for his country. That’s a great thing and a great sacrifice. But people I know have been making comments, saying, “You know, a man who’s been through that … Rambo was crazy!”
by Richard Gowan | Aug 19, 2008 | Influence and networks, North America
In the current Atlantic Monthly, Joshua Green paints an astonishing picture of the Clinton campaign’s self-destructive tendencies. The whole thing was, in the words of one of the confidential e-mails he has got hold of, “a circular firing squad”. Today’s NYT suggests that some of those involved are still firing. Clinton’s chances of becoming Obama’s running-mate are now nearly nil. And why?
In interviews on Monday, Clinton aides said they thought Mr. Obama did not like Mrs. Clinton. Clinton aides also said they thought Mr. Obama thinks Mrs. Clinton does not like him. And, like him or not, she is skeptical that he can win, her aides continue to say. Bottom line, chemistry might be a problem here.
Please shut up. Still, the story comes with my political picture of the year:
by Daniel Korski | Aug 18, 2008 | Cooperation and coherence, Europe and Central Asia, Influence and networks, South Asia
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is resigning, thus opening a new chapter in this country’s history as the governing parties, PPP and PML-N, are bound to go at each other’s jugulars once the celebrations end.
But there is little time for festivities. The government has not been able to assume control over the military and intelligence apparatus or engage an increasingly capable alliance of Pakistani militant groups and al Qaeda, which looks set to control much of western Pakistan. Pakistan’s turmoil has pinched the country’s economy, and stoked inflation. In addition, relations with India have taken a turn for the worse.
The governing parties should be helped to re-draft the constitution to give way to a new, ceremonial President (like in India). But what is really needed is a new coalition agreement, which commits the government to deal with the economic meltdown, intelligence reforms, the emergence of a Pakistani Taliban and Pakistan-India links.
To bring the military on board to such an agenda, a revision is needed of US military assistance with the implicit promise of more and better-targeted assistance as a reward for a deal. A new U.S administration should use the threat of a suspension of military assistance if the Pakistani military balks at the necessary changes. Before the “nuclear option” of a legislative ban on assistance – which Barack Obama has supported in the past – a new administration could direct an audit of U.S military assistance.
While Europe can only play a limited role in moving the Pakistani military, it can play much bigger part in dealing with the Pakistani government. Over on the Spectator’s website, I offer suggestions for what shape this can take and the leverage the West has:
As a carrot for a new deal – which should include a balanced counter-insurgency strategy, regional peace initiatives and intelligence reforms – the Prime Minister could offer to host high-profile donor’s conference, which could lay the foundation for a UN-led assistance programme to be overseen by an assistance envoy. Perhaps this could be a job for Paddy Ashdown, who was lined up for the UN job in Afghanistan until Afghan President Hamid Karzai changed his mind.
No peace in Pakistan is possible without a regional peace process and Gordon Brown should persuade George W. Bush to appoint a Presidential Envoy – a regional version of Zalmay Khalilzad’s previous Afghan role – and for the EU to do the same. These two “tandem envoys” could then begin the long trek towards regional stability, helping to prepare the ground for a new strategy from a new U.S administration.
However much it spends, the U.S will get little for its aid dollars given its reputation in the region. Therefore, any international, UN-led assistance programme needs to be kicked-off by the Europeans.
by Daniel Korski | Aug 15, 2008 | Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia
At the risk of sounding morbid, it’s now possible to designate winners and losers in the heats of what will hopefully not become a new Olympic discipline: Russo-Georgian Warfare.
The ex-Soviet heat: Between Medvedev and Shakashvili, the winner’s clearly Russia’s new leader who, while having to initially share the stage with ex-president and former champion Vladimir Putin, was gradually allowed a greater role. Losers include ordinary Georgians and their government.
The ex-Warsaw Pact heat: Strong showing by the leaders of Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states, but the medal goes to Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk who announced Thursday that his country had agreed to host 10 American missile-defense interceptors in return for enhanced promise of mutual defense between the U.S. and Poland. Poor showing by the Czech, Slovak and Hungarian leaders – memories of losses in the 1956 and 1968 heats clearly weighed down the contestants.
The US heat: Between Barack Obama and John McCain, the Arizonian comes out on top. On holiday, Obama issued the occasional and concerned-sounding press release while McCain talked daily and tough, building on his tough-guy image. Polls suggest McCain’s come out better than Obama. Worst of all did George W Bush who’s belated reaction to the war’s horrors – preceded by photographed bonhomie with Vladimir Putin – guaranteed a poor showing.
The European heat: The French president has clearly come out on top despite a strong early showing by Sweden’s Carl Bildt who likened Russia’s tactics to those of Nazi Germany. A surprisingly strong showing by Finland’s youthful foreign minister Alex Stubb. One to watch in future competitions.
There was no Middle Eastern, Asian or Central Asian heats whilst the UN pulled out at the last minute.
Correction: In reference to my earlier posting on Georgia’s reconstruction, it has been pointed out that the U.S did not steal a march on the EU’s reconstruction efforts. As David Ringrose, Head of the Information and Communication unit in DG External Relations of the European Commission, points out, the EU’s assistance arm provided € 1 million for medical assistance, water & sanitation, food, blankets, clothes, and shelter for victims of the conflict. I guess the U.S were just better at publicizing their contribution….
by Alex Evans | Aug 10, 2008 | Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia
Taking a quick tally of where some of my favourite US blogs stack up on the Russian / Georgian conflict, there are some interesting perspectives. Steve Clemons at the Washington Note is in forceful mood:
The U.S. has displayed a reckless disregard for Russian interests for some time. I don’t like Russia’s swing to greater domestic authoritarianism and worry about its stiffened posture on a number of international fronts — but [Nixon Center President Dimitri] Simes convinces me in his important Foreign Affairs essay, “Losing Russia,” that much of what we are seeing unfold between Russia and Georgia involves a high quotient of American culpability.
When Kosovo declared independence and the US and other European states recognized it — thus sidestepping Russia’s veto in the United Nations Security Council — many of us believed that the price for Russian cooperation in other major global problems just went much higher and that the chance of a clash over Georgia’s breakaway border provinces increased dramatically…
At the time, there was word from senior level sources that Russia had asked the US to stretch an independence process for Kosovo over a longer stretch of time — and tie to it some process of independence for the two autonomous Georgia provinces. In exchange, Russia would not veto the creation of a new state of Kosovo at the Security Council. The U.S. rejected Russia’s secret entreaties and instead rushed recognition of Kosovo and said damn the consequences.
Now thousands are dead. The fact is that a combination of American recklessness, serious miscalculation and over-reach by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, as well as Russia’s forceful reassertion of its regional national interests and status as an oil and gas rich, tough international player means America and Europe have yet again helped generate a crisis that tests US global credibility.
Greg Djerejian – making a welcome return to regular posting on his site the Belgravia Dispatch – more or less agrees:
First, let us disabuse ourselves from the notion that Mr. Saakashvili is some glorious democrat (the election he barely won in January included irregularities, and there continues to be endemic corruption in Tblisi).
Second, let us recall that many south Ossetians and Abkhazians are not particularly keen to live under Tbilisi’s yoke, indeed some prefer Russian influence to predominate there for the time being.
Third, if there is any truth to Russian allegations that there are some 1,500 fatalities in the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali–and they were caused by a major initial over-reach by the Georgian military (we will need to wait for more details to emerge)–expect many more brutish bombardments like the Russians apparently have conducted in the Georgian town of Gori, alas.
Fourth, some context: ever since the overly hasty recognition of Kosovo went live, Putin has been very keen to intimate what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, having personally threatened Saakashvili that Russia would formally recognize as independent states Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Meanwhile, Ben Smith at Politico notes that the sudden outbreak of conflict presented McCain and Obama with “a true ‘3am moment'”, and furthermore that “their responses to the crisis suggested dramatic differences in how each candidate, as president, would lead America in moments of international crisis”:
Obama’s statement put him in line with the White House, the European Union, NATO and a series of European powers, while McCain’s initial statement – which he delivered in Iowa and ran on a blog on his Web site under the title “McCain Statement on Russian Invasion of Georgia” – put him more closely in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President Bush’s first term.
A McCain adviser suggested that Obama’s statement constituted appeasement, while Obama’s camp suggested that McCain was being needlessly belligerent and dangerously quick to judge a complicated situation.
Finally, lots of praise all over for James Traub’s excellent backgrounder in yesterday’s New York Times, which provides a wealth of historical context. One angle that jumped out was the pipeline politics dimension (about which I blogged on Friday):
Marshall Goldman, a leading Russia scholar, argues in a recent book that Mr. Putin has established a “petrostate,” in which oil and gas are strategically deployed as punishments, rewards and threats. The author details the lengths to which Mr. Putin has gone to retain control over the delivery of natural gas from Central Asia to the West. A proposed alternative pipeline would skirt Russia and run through Georgia, as an oil pipeline [i.e. the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline] now does. “If Georgia collapses in turmoil,” Mr. Goldman notes, “investors will not put up the money for a bypass pipeline.”
