Marin Forum

Despite calls for a ceasefire by the world leaders, Israel has continued its air strikes against Gaza. Unlike previous strikes against Gaza, this time Israel has broadened its list of targets. Israel is currently attacking anything connected to Hamas including mosques and a university. The Israelis believe that the only way to neutralize Hamas is to attack the entire system since the militant wing of the group gains it support through the social services that it provides.

The problem is that many people who support and belong to Hamas are ordinary civilians who are not directly connected to the militant wing. They support Hamas because Hamas is the only group that provides protection and social services. Thus, targeting all aspects of Hamas’ infrastructure leads to civilian casualties. This in turn only fans anti-Israel sentiment and encourages more attacks against Israel.

As in past operations the Israeli Defense Force seeks to eliminate the threat of future rocket attacks. The current and more aggressive operation seeks a permanent end to the rocket attacks by neutralizing Hamas’ ability to launch any future attacks. However, it is unlikely that rocket attacks will ever end as long as there is no peace settlement. The IDF can launch a ground offensive into Gaza (as they are currently ready to do so) but Hamas will still launch rocket attacks into Israel because such attacks are highly mobile and require few resources.

Israel cannot afford a prolonged conflict. Currently 81% of Israelis approve of the offensive but international opinion will quickly turn against the Israelis. The aggressive tactics of the IDF continue to prove the Muslim world’s view that Israel is an aggressive nation that seeks the destruction of the Palestinians. Arab regimes with some Israeli sympathies may have to reverse from recent initiatives to promote peace. Even European nations may begin to distance themselves from Israel. The incoming Obama administration will be less supportive than the Bush administration. Israel owes its existence to its allies and it cannot afford to strain those relations. Europe and the United States want to see a comprehensive peace agreement, but Israel’s actions do nothing to further that cause.

Israel is going for the knock out punch, but history has shown that groups such as Hamas are extremely resilient. The way to weaken Hamas is to separate it from its Palestianian base. All other efforts will end in failure unless Palestine were to be completely razed to the ground which would be the ultimate Phyrric victory. Israel has the right to defend itself from foreign attacks, but so far it has failed to retaliate in the appropriate manner. Brute force is not going to bring peace to Israel.

Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has steadily been seeking international prominence and a restoration of some mythical glory years. The 1990s were not kind to the new Russian democracy as corruption and crime spiraled out of control. On top of that Russia lost its holdings in Eastern Europe, the Caucuses, and north-west Asia. The 1998 economic crisis virtually destroyed Boris Yeltsin’s government. After years of suffering under Communism, the 1990s were so bad that people wanted to return to certain aspects of the Communist era.

Then came Putin. While the media is biased and elections are certainly not fair, Putin is immensely popular. Like many post-Communist leaders he has used nationalism to “revive” the country. Russian Orthodox churches have been restored and the tsar has been reborn as a symbol of Russian glory. Earlier this year the Russian high court, which is basically an appendage of the Kremlin, exonerated the tsar and his family. Over the last few years Putin has made several efforts to revive symbols of Russia’s imperial legacy. Meanwhile, the Russian military once again parades in the Red Square. Russian aircraft have resumed long range patrols and in Russia’s point of view its intervention in Georgia was a success. Putin’s Russia is a weird mix of Russian imperial legacy, Communist military might and “economic stability,” and a market economy closely associated with the State through former KGB members.

Unfortunately for Mr. Putin nationalism alone will not be able to revive the country. Nationalism is a quick fix for a floundering country. By focusing people’s attention on nationalistic ideals they may temporarily put aside economic problems. In Yugoslavia during the 1990s Slobodan Milosevic gained power through nationalism although by the end of the decade he had nearly lost all that power. Nationalism creates a facade of a strong country. It’s military may march through the streets of Moscow as it did during the the Cold War but is it still capable of fighting a war against a real adversary (i.e. not Georgia)? Is its chain of command still competent? Does it still have access to most of its military hardware?

Mr. Putin’s nationalism and military resurgence further covers up immense economic and social problems. During Communist years the Communist party was able to place significant burdens on the citizenry, because the people strongly believed in the Communist ideology and system. Putin’s government has no ideology so it cannot energize the people to look beyond domestic short comings. Every year Russia’s population is declining as the birth rate decreases and the death rate increases. Life expectancy has continued to decrease (although recently it has risen to 68 years). The health care system has completely atrophied. At least during the Communist years everyone had access to a minimal level of health care and social services. Meanwhile, people are fleeing the countryside for the the cities and central Russia. Large portions of Russia are completely depopulated and entire towns are becoming ghost towns. A depopulation of the countryside could lead to an agriculture crisis. In the cities the industrial and business sectors have their problems. Corruption has made it nearly impossible for small businesses to succeed while it has prevented foreign investment. The industrial sector is increasingly coming under control of former KGB officials and government officials. The outcome is a quasi-state owned industrial sector that is not conducive to efficiency, growth, and foreign investment. The government is becoming oligarchic and the courts are inefficient and flawed.

Despite these severe economic and social problems Putin has pursued an aggressive foreign policy. Clearly Putin has expansionist goals in the Caucuses, and he wants to increase to increase his influence in eastern Europe. Belarus has already rejoined Russia although that was by choice not coercion. Russia has used its energy resources to exert its influence over eastern Europe. With very one-dimensional energy portfolios many countries have no choice but to bend somewhat to Russian demands. The Baltic states are nearly completely dependent on Russia for natural gas, Hungary and the Czech Republic receive 70% of their natural gas from Russia, and Ukraine is at 35%.

How does Western Europe and the United States respond to Putin’s Russia? To begin with they need to treat Russia has a superpower. It has the second largest nuclear stockpile and substantial conventional forces. Its abundance of natural resources gives it influence over many parts of Europe. Unlike many countries it has the ability to project its power anywhere in the world. Secondly, it is crucial that Europe develops alternative sources of energy. Instead of developing a missile shield for the Czech Republic, the United States should work on energy portfolio diversification and continued research into alternative sources of energy. The EU should also focus on energy diversification especially since the EU can play a more significant role. Third, Russia needs to be incorporated into European partnerships. As economic ties increase the possibility of military aggression decreases. These partnerships need to be mutual. While Russia is involved with Europe in energy distribution the relationship is completely one-sided and Russia holds all the cards. One goal should be to increase foreign investment in Russia, although Russia would have to make significant efforts to fight corruption. Companies are not going to want to invest in a country where bribes are the norm and the court system has no independence. However, it is important that Russia is not able to disrupt or undermine current successful European partnerships and supranational bodies.

Finally, Russian expansionist goals need to be addressed. Russia has long been fearful of “Western” intervention which has created a sense of distrust. The missile shield only increases that sense of distrust. Increasing NATO membership to include Ukraine or Georgia has its own problems. Russia views these countries as inside its sphere of influence. If they are included in NATO, Russia will feel that its national security is extremely threatened. These countries badly want to be a part of NATO since unfortunately they would be the first to feel the brunt of Russian expansion. Instead, Europe and the United States need to give these countries some level of assurance that a Russian incursion would be met with appropriate force. If one country falls to Russian expansion then its neighbors will be seriously threatened and a domino effect could begin. On the other hand, if a country voluntarily wishes to join with Russia then Europe and the United States should let such a merger occur. This isn’t a battle of ideologies so the “West” should only focus on protecting those who wish to remain free of Russian hegemony.

Russia is in a precarious position. It began to recover from the economic problems of the 1990s but the current economic crisis will most likely create a reversal. If Putin/Medvedev fail to respond to respond to the economic crisis then they could see their power wane. Alternatively, Putin could make Medvedev the scapegoat and return to power himself to “save” the Russian people. Yet the problems go beyond the current economic crisis. Putin is making the dangerious decision to use foreign policy initatives as a substitute for needed domestic reform. Eventually, the domestic situation will no longer be able to support Putin’s grandious ambitions. Foreign policy failure will then undermine Putin.  It’s for this reason that Russia cannot be allowed to expand. Europe and the United States need to take a hardline against any Russian expansion but at the same time prevent any action that would isolate Russia and treat it as a second-rate power. Outwardly Russia may be strengthening, but inwardly Russia is extremely weak and vulnerable. As long as Russia fails to reform its social and economic situation and tackle corruption it will always be a constrained superpower.

Pirating on the high seas has become a serious problem again. The modern Caribbean is the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia where a lack of any government has created a region of lawlessness. Two weeks ago pirates seized the Saudi supertanker, the Sirius Star, which was carrying 2 million barrels of oil destined for the United States. Last week they tried to capture a cruise ship full of tourists. And the pirates are still holding a Ukrainian vessel full of tanks and small arms. Pirate attacks have continued to increase and have become far more bold. Signs of their new boldness includes the capture of the Sirius Star which is the largest ship ever captured by pirates in history and the attempted attack on a cruise ship.

International powers such as NATO, Russia, and the United States have deployed warships to the area but the region is too big to provide blanket protection. Some merchant ships are provided with escorts but most have to traverse the region on their own. Ships like the Sirius Star are too slow to outrun the small pirate dinghies. One other solution is to put armed security on merchant vessels. However, by using armed guards the crew could be put in greater risk. Also the pirates have no lack of weaponry so armed security will only prompt the pirates to be more heavily armed. Another solution is to blockade all the deep water ports along the Somali coastline. The pirates need deep water to anchor the large merchant ships and by depriving them of these ports it may  make pirating less cost effective. Unfortunately, the pirates are resourceful and are likely to find a counter-solution.

The only way to end pirating off the Somali coast is to address the root causes. To begin with Somalia is a failed state. It’s government only has “control” over the capital. Constant warfare and a lack of a government have led to a significant humanitarian and economic crisis. Many of the pirates used to be fishermen but holding supertankers for ransom has proved to be far more profitable. Other pirates belong to the various militias that roam the country.

The only long term solution is intervention that is able to establish order and an effective government. At the moment there is little support for another military intervention in Somalia. However, it is only a matter of time before the pirates anger enough countries that someone is going to push for military action. Perhaps If they seize a couple Russian vessels, Putin may respond with Russia’s traditional disproportionate use of force. In any event continued piracy may unite states together to take action.

Piracy could be the thing that stability to the region. Somalia is a failed state which technically has no national sovereignty; thus, there should be less legal obstacles to intervention in Somalia. As more merchant ships are captured the international community will have to take action. The increased piracy has increased insurance costs and has disrupted trade. Slowly momentum should build up to the point where one country will take the initiative for pushing intervention.

Any intervention in Somalia should have the goal of nation building. Somalia will only be stable when it has a government that has control over the country. Any effort will require a sizable military force but the long term regional stability will be a significant plus. Not only will piracy be practically eliminated but the flow of small arms and militia groups into the rest of Africa will be contained.

Somalia will only be stable with international intervention. Piracy will only be contained with a stable Somalia. Therefore, in order to end piracy and protect the shipping lanes the international community must intervene in Somalia. In the short term international powers can send more warships to the region to make piracy more difficult and risky, but the only way to end piracy in the long term is to remove the pirates’ safe haven. The recent increase in piracy finally gives the international community motivation to bring stability to Somalia.

This week the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism released a draft report claiming that the odds of an attack on a major city with WMDs has greatly increased. The report rightly claims that the biggest threat comes from biological or chemical weapons not nuclear weapons. However, the report states that a nuclear threat has increased as nuclear materials and technology has significantly spread.

At least at the moment there is not much of a threat posed by nuclear weapons. First lets begin with non-state actors. Just because there is more information available does not mean that a terrorist group can immediately create a nuclear weapon. Plutonium bombs are extremely sophisticated as the mechanism requires precise implosion (known as the implosion method). Non-state actors lack the skill and resources to create such a bomb. The second type of mechanism is called the gun-type weapon. This works by shooting one piece of material into another. This technology is far more simple but it has many limitations compared to the implosion method. The first problem is that it requires a significant amount of uranium (specifically highly enriched uranium) which would be out of reach of most non-state actors. Finally, the gun method is very accident prone, although safety concerns might not be considered a limitation by terrorist groups. It seems highly unlikely that a terrorist group or non-state actor would be able to develop a nuclear weapon on their own. The skill and resource requirements are too high.

The next possible threat is from current “unstable” nuclear powers. Pakistan is a significant problem as it is becoming a haven for terrorist organizations and extremists. However, ultimate control lies behind the military who also control Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. As long as the military is competent, coherent, and retains control of Pakistan, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will be safe from falling into the wrong hands. In the meantime, Pakistani leaders definitely do not want nuclear material falling into non-state actor hands, even friendly hands. North Korea is the next threat but they still lack both an effective nuclear weapon and a delivery device. Their threat lies in the potential for selling off information and technology. The international community is already at work to diffuse the threat.

There’s still the threat from Russia. When the Soviet Union broke up there was the threat that portions of the Soviet arsenal would “disappear.” While large amounts of Soviet military hardware was sold off by recently turned capitalist former Soviet officers, so far it seems the selling of hardware stopped at conventional weapons. Then during the 1990s the Russian political structure decayed and became completely ineffective. The lack of oversight and safeguards significantly limited accountability over nuclear stockpiles. However, unless some group has a nuclear weapon stashed away somewhere, this threat does not seem significant. Furthermore, Russian is now on a path to reassert itself as a global power rivaling the US. It’s going to need all the military hardware it can muster, so fire sales should decrease. Finally, Russia does not want to see more groups with nuclear weapons. It threatens their security. If they feel threatened by the United States they may think twice about deploying nuclear weapons to friendly governments (Belarus comes to mind) but they will want to keep significant control over the weapons.

Now the hypothetical situation: a nuclear Iran. Iran wants nuclear weapons as a deterrent to threats by the United States or Israel. Iran has ambitions to a regional power in the Middle East; thus, it will want hegemony on military power. The quickest way to military hegemony is by obtaining nuclear weapons. During the Cold War the United States was able to maintain a balance of power with Soviet conventional forces through its nuclear weapons program. Under these conditions it seems unlikely that Iran would give nuclear handouts to its extremist buddies since they could then present a threat to Iran itself. Iran wants nuclear weapons as a deterrent to US aggression and would only use nuclear weapons if provoked by the United States.

States want nuclear weapons to protect their national security. Most of the current nuclear powers are actively involved in nonproliferation efforts. The spread of nuclear weapons presents a threat to their hegemony on global power. Nor will they use nuclear weapons unless in the most dire situation because of the ultimate repercussions for their security and power. In international relations a state’s primary concern is its national security; thus, state actors with nuclear weapons do not pose a threat to US interests.

The areas for immediate concern are Pakistan and Russia. If Pakistan’s military were to lose control, which is possible, there would be serious problems. Policy needs to focus on keeping Pakistan stable. The second threat is Russia. Just because a Russian origin bomb has yet to surface in some terrorist group doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. The key in Russia is to focus on non-proliferation and making sure Russia has secured their nuclear material. The report places too much emphasis on a nuclear threat. The real immediate threat is from chemical and biological weapons.

However, the report is right in that globalization has allowed for the spread of nuclear material and information. Regional terrorist groups can now attract a global following and a global source of doners. Technology advancement is a double edge sword. In the future nuclear weapon technology will be further perfected which will allow a bomb to be created more cheapily and with less skill. Non-state actors may not pose a threat today, but in fifty or a hundred years small nuclear weapons could be readily available. Non-proliferation enforcement is paramount.

On Monday Barack Obama announced the key components of his foreign policy team. As expected Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State, Robert Gates is Secretary of Defense, Gov. Janet Napolitano will head Homeland Security, General James Jones will be his National Security Adviser, and Susan Rice will be the UN ambassador. With these additions Team Obama is proving to be full of high profile figures and large personalities. The question is whether these personalities can mesh into a coherent and effective foreign policy team. Or rather the question is what role will Clinton play.

Hillary Clinton is by far the highest profile figure on Obama’s foreign policy team and will be a leading voice. This is not to undermine the role of the rest of the team, but Clinton will receive the most attention. The first question is whether Obama and Clinton will be able to work together. This should not be a problem. Obama has repeatedly shown that he can work with former opponents. Clinton proved her backing of Obama on the campaign trail.

A second question is what will become of Bill. He has considerable influence around the world and his charities have a global impact. The difficulty will be in separating Bill Clinton’s charity work from his wife’s diplomatic efforts. Clinton’s charities cannot become ears for US foreign policy. Bill will not go away and he will be a factor. It will be important for Team Obama to use Bill when necessary but also keep him distant to prevent conflicts of interest or any scandals.

In previous posts it has been mentioned that Clinton would best serve in a leadership role in the Senate. That being said, Clinton could be able to play a key diplomatic role in guiding US foreign policy. She is perhaps one of the highest profile figures to head the State Department. Colin Powell or George Marshall both come to mind. Many presidents have feared a popular and ambitious Secretary of State. Both Bill Clinton and Kennedy picked low profile, yes-men for the position. Clinton particularly floundered in foreign policy precisely because of his yes-man Secretary of State. By selecting a high profile figure with their own following for Secretary of State, Obama has allowed another voice to interject opinion and critique his foreign policy initiatives. The end result should be stronger foreign policy which will only be helped by Clinton’s energy and influence.

The rest of the foreign policy team brings things to the table. As previously mentioned Gates will provide a transition in Iraq. General Jones brings military experience and an emphasis to refocus on Afghanistan. Rice has been in the State Department for many years where her background was in African affairs. Her diplomatic background will be important in the UN. Napolitano has knowledge on immigration issues as a Governor of a border state. Her selection as Secretary of Homeland Security suggests that immigration will be a top priority of DHS.

Obama’s greatest task will be able to channel all these personalities into one coherent administration.