Category Archives: foreign policy

“Tin Cups,” Is It?

Posted on by
Reply

An AP article certainly makes one attitude plain.

In a piece otherwise about US efforts to get other nations to help pay for the costs of developing, training, and equipping an indigenous Afghan army, the AP’s anonymous writer says,

U.S. officials have had their tin cups out for months.  Marc Grossman, the top State Department official for Afghanistan, recently hit up European nations….

While there is an element of begging in the manner of President Obama’s entreaties to other nations that they honor their obligations; it’s hardly a matter of tin cup-holding to insist that those nations do, in fact, honor their obligations.

The writer also notes that

…someone has to pay for that army in an era of austerity budgets and defense cutbacks.

It’s true enough that times are tough for everyone.  They’re tough not only for the nations that have to be begged to honor their commitments, though; they’re also tough for the women and children—and men—of Afghanistan, and they’ll be especially so after the US, NATO, and other participating nations leave.

It’s also true enough, moreover, that these straits, while not the result of the original purpose of the US’ invasion of Afghanistan, have become obligations due to the mission creep in our involvement.

A lesson here, aside from the unseemly need to press NATO and others in the present involvement to satisfy their obligations—which shame is on those who must be pressed—is to not allow such coarse mission creep the next time.  And there will be a next time, since the terrorists don’t agree that the war is over, or there will be a new Dark Age descended.

Defense and the Russians

Posted on by
Reply

The Russian government has shown their fundamental view of the United States and of their relationship with us.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last year that Russia will retaliate militarily if it does not reach an agreement with the United States and NATO on our missile defense shield.

At a daylong Missile Defense Conference that took place in Moscow last week, the Russians made explicit their threat against us.  General Nikolai Makarov, the Russian armed forces chief of staff said, referring to missile defense installations currently contemplated by us in eastern Europe,

A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens[.]

Makarov extended the scope of Russia’s intended actions.  He displayed on a large-screen video system for the benefit of conference delegates from 50 countries, including the US and NATO, computer-generated imagery depicting the reach of the American radar and missile systems that are components of our missile defense shield.  Russian missiles were shown streaking toward the US before being intercepted.

But this overt aggressiveness is not a new position for the Russians.  They threatened nuclear attacks against Poland four years ago if we deployed components of a then current missile defense shield there and in the Czech Republic.  We quietly canceled those plans.  The Russians invaded Georgia over a manufactured pique and perpetrated a Sudetenland-like partition of that country while we stood meekly by.

A couple of questions arise.

Why would Russia be thinking about a nuclear attack against the US?

Why would Russia casually threaten us in front of the world?

Perhaps they sense timidity on the part of the US administration.  Certainly, in the face of these public threats against both our allies and our homeland, our own State Department Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense, Ellen Tauscher could only say that it was

pretty clear that this is a year in which we’re probably not going to achieve any sort of a breakthrough.

But this was the point President Obama was making a couple of weeks ago to Medvedev when Obama pleaded for more time on the defense question—he’d have more flexibility to give the Russians what they want after he’s no longer accountable to the American people.

So much for Reset.  In the face of such naked threats of war—of preemptive war—how can the US do anything at all other than to press ahead with the deployment of a missile defense shield, now including defense against the long-range ICBMs that Russia has shown with their little demonstration that they fully intend to use against us?  On what basis can the Obama administration seriously be talking about disarming us in the face of these overt threats?

National Defense in Asia

Posted on by
Reply

Japan has begun taking a more aggressive approach to its national defense and to its partnership with the US in regional defense.  This may be spurred by the People’s Republic of China’s naked aggression in the South China Sea against the Republic of the Philippines and their threats against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam over the latter’s activities in the Sea.  This may be spurred by northern Korea’s attempted launch of an ICBM—Japan had already announced they’d attempt to shoot it down if its path were over/toward Japan.  This may be spurred by the fact that the PRC said last March that it plans to increase defense spending over 11% in 2012, making their defense spending second highest in the world after the our own.

Adding to this is the US talking more aggressively about our own self- and regional-defense responsibilities.  A newly appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and Pacific affairs will give “serious consideration” to the sale of F-16 C/D fighters to the Republic of China (recall that this administration last September acquiesced to PRC demands that we not sell the RoC these models—instead we agreed to sell markedly less capable A/B models).  Bloomberg reports our administration’s bigger talk, now: A jet sale

“warrants serious consideration given the growing military threat to Taiwan,” Robert Nabors, the White House’s director of legislative affairs, said in a letter [26 April] to Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican.

On top of this, the administration is working a deal to base a small number of American troops at a location on Australia’s northern coast.

So far, though, little Japan, with its constitutionally mandated limits on its military posture, seems to be taking the more aggressive action.  As The Wall Street Journal reports,

“Japan will promote…enhancement of its defense posture in the area, including the Southwestern Islands, in coordination with the US strategy of focusing on the Asia-Pacific region,” [Prime Minister Yoshihiko] Noda told [the paper], referring to a chain of islands in the East China Sea over which China and Japan have clashed.

It’s also useful to note that the Southwestern Islands loosely bound the East China Sea, and they are part of a longer island chain that loosely connect Japan with the Republic of China.

The WSJ cited Mr Noda further as describing

…a number of concrete measures that would spread Japan’s military presence throughout the region.

The two nation will develop the American-controlled Pacific island of Guam as “a strategic hub” and consider building joint training facilities there and on nearby islands—a move that would establish for the first time a permanent Japanese military presence on US territory.  Mr Noda said one possible location would be the Northern Mariana Islands.

We’ll see in time whether our own moves are just more of a piece with President Obama’s foreign policy technique—idle chit-chat—or whether it’s serious.  Still, it’s a promising beginning.  In an election season.

Another Thought on Self Defense

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote, a short time ago, about individual self-defense.  In this post, I’d like to explore a little bit of the self-defense rights of a nation.  Senator Jon Kyle (R, AZ) asked, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, “What’s at Stake in the Missile-Defense Debate?”  His question also raises a larger question concerning a nation’s right to self-defense.  I’ll address the second question first, then I’ll talk about the role of missile defenses within that right.

As our Declaration of Independence acknowledges, all men have a right, among other things, to our Lives, our Liberty, and our Happiness.  In that earlier post I demonstrated the right, and the obligation, of each individual to defend himself—lethally, if necessary—against threats to himself, his family, his property, and to extend that defense to others whom he might see under similar threat.

Far too often, that individual is incapable of conducting that defense, even acting in concert with a few of his fellows.  This is why, as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, et al., have demonstrated, men come together to form social compacts, nations, with governing structures.  Universal among these men’s demonstrations was a purpose of those compacts: to defend the individual members against external threats.  Thus, nations are formed for an explicit purpose of defending its citizens—of defending itself.

The right of a nation to defend itself thus flows directly from its members’ individual rights to defend themselves.

Within a national right of self-defense, where do missile defenses fit?  Plainly, a nation that does not use all of the tools at its disposal is limiting itself in its ability to carry out its duty of defending its citizens, of defending itself.  A nation that disgorges itself of any of the tools it has, and/or turns its back on acquiring all the tools it might, that are useful in defending itself is turning its back entirely on its obligation to defend itself.

This failure is exacerbated in a nuclear world, where one of the weapons of attack is fully capable of destroying an entire city, murdering the hundreds of thousands or millions of people who live(d) there.  A missile defense capability becomes critical to national defense, even to national survival, when such offensive destruction is possible.  Certainly, a missile defense of the kind discussed by Lyle and dismissed by President Obama is useful only against missiles and is not proof against those missiles.  However, with our enemies capable of missile delivery of nuclear destruction, not defending against that threat is not just amoral, it’s actively immoral.

For the United States to walk away from a maximally capable defense capacity solely to appease our enemies who have that nuclear offensive capability is not just amoral, it’s actively immoral.  Yet this appears to be the path on which Obama is setting us.  He already has withdrawn missile defenses against rogue Iranian missiles from eastern Europe (where they could defend Israel and Europe against Iranian attack) at Russia’s behest.  Now he’s telling outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin that, given time to win his reelection before being pressed on our missile defense system, he’ll then no longer be accountable, and he can give the Russians everything they want in the complete removal of any American missile defense capacity.

Senator Kyle rightly points out legal concerns about this course.

[President Obama] may have to ignore or circumvent commitments he made to Congress to secure support for the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start)—among them, that he would deploy all four phases of planned U.S. missile-defense systems for Europe, and that he would modernize the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system for the protection of the U.S. homeland.

Never mind that acceding to Russian demands would eliminate

…the only U.S. theater missile-defense system capable of catching intercontinental-range Iranian missiles, making it important for the defense of our homeland.

Senator Kyle adds

It is questionable whether concessions on missile defense would induce Russia to further reduce its nuclear arsenal.  Unlike the U.S., Russia maintains a robust nuclear warhead production capability, and its national security strategy is to increase reliance on nuclear weapons.  Russia is also modernizing ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Indeed.  I’m reminded of the Third Punic War.  Rome insisted that Carthage disarm itself, and Carthage acceded to the demand.  After that, Rome attacked, razed Carthage to the ground, occupied all Carthaginian territory, and enslaved its surviving people.

But Obama has said of his moves to eliminate our missile defenses

As a nuclear power – as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon – the United States has a moral responsibility….

Sorry.  The one who would unilaterally remove our ability to defend ourselves is in no position to discuss any part of our military posture.

Further, the champion of wealth distribution, of “you’ve made enough money,” give up what I’ve determined for you as excessive for me to redistribute; the champion of denying anyone his right to live his life to the fullest of his own potential through that wealth redistribution is in no position to lecture anyone on morality.

Chinese Governance

Posted on by
Reply

The rumors of a coup in the People’s Republic of China serve to illustrate the PRC’s concept of governance.

Its economic success over the last generation and a half, or so (roughly 30 years), seems apparent.  It has accumulated the world’s largest stash of foreign currency reserves (some $3.2 trillion), and it has grown into the world’s second largest economy, albeit with the world’s largest population across which to amortize that economy.  Some even argue that this success demonstrates the superiority of the Chinese method of centrally managing an economy.  After all, those folks say, the Chinese government doesn’t waste time debating; they simply decide, and promptly.  Moreover, specific leadership candidates are selected carefully and only after a proven performance record.

But at what cost has come this success?  That’s what the coup rumors highlight.  The power struggle underway (whether it’s really a coup in progress or not is unimportant to this post) is purely a Party struggle; the people of China are not at all involved other than being stuck with living with the outcome.

The current showdown—of whatever form—threatens the carefully planned change in the party and national leadership, including seven of the nine positions on the Politburo Standing Committee.  The thrust of the argument seems to be whether China should go back to a more “revolutionary”—i.e., more directed from above—form of government or reforms should be instituted that lead toward a more constitutional state.

But even at best, whose constitution?  Notice where this argument is occurring: internally, at the top levels of PRC’s Communist Party and People’s Liberation Army government—not among the people.  In fact, the people may also be discussing this, but since they have no say in their own government, their discussions “are unimportant, and [government] does not hear them.”

The coup rumors illustrate another aspect of governance PRC-style.  The rumors began appearing about two weeks ago via Sina Weibo (“China microwave” or “China microblog”), the Chinese version of Twitter.  The government promptly deleted those messages.  Now, searches for key words like “gunfire” or “Changan Avenue” (where much of the Chinese leadership lives and where gunfire allegedly was heard during the “coup”) are answered with this message:

These terms are not being displayed in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations and political guidelines.

Here is Chinese free speech.

The PRC is a one-party dictatorship: there are no checks or balances, as from an independent judiciary or legislature.  The people are unrepresented by individuals of their own choosing in an elected government.   In sum, the people are not Sovereign in their own country—the government that has placed itself above them is.

And that economic success?  Yawning cracks in it have appeared.  The vast migration over the last several years from the hinterland to the coastal cities, where the jobs are, have led to severe housing shortages in those cities, shortages exacerbated by those cities’ governmental requirements that the people must be registered with the city government in order to get city services like utilities, housing, and so on.  The migrants are denied registration, though: they’re not residents of the city.

Additionally, those who do find jobs, including the original residents, are demanding higher wages, which hurts production, which hurts job availability.  On top of that, the lack of jobs for that massive influx of migrants leaves people without money to buy goods and services other than those basic city-provided services (which the migrants can’t get anyway).  This also hurts production, and job availability.  And on top of this, those migrants generally are their families’ bread-winners and were intending to send money back home to family members who didn’t make the move.  This lack deepens the impoverishment of the hinterlands.

All of these changes are easily handled by a flexible, free market, but a centrally managed one, even managed by carefully selected government leaders, simply cannot keep up with the dynamicisms of the country’s (any country’s) real-world economic evolutions.  It’s an edifice poised for a major retrenchment, drawdown of those reserves, or hard collapse.  Or all three.