Crossing the Rubicon

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently visited Israel and called for greater engagement between our two countries. Given the fact that it’s difficult to find a closer political bond between two countries anywhere in this galaxy, one would surmise that there’s little distance to travel to cement the relationship between our two democracies. After all, we share similar values, ideals and interests.

There exists, however, a singular and important difference within this triangle of bonded friendship. Israel lives in a neighborhood that is far more unstable than that enjoyed by the United States. The geographic proximity of those whose stated goal is to vanquish the state of Israel — and who could soon have the capacity to do so — causes the Israelis to view threats through a different prism.

Patience and diplomacy might be the virtues of statecraft, but when an avowed enemy is close to placing a nuclear knife on your throat, well, the demands for action are likely to override the pleas for restraint.

Iran has used deceit and obfuscation to paint over the window into their activities. The world is left to speculate whether Iran is a year or more away from putting a nuclear genie into the head of a missile or into the headquarters of a pharmaceutical production facility.

So what is Israel, or the United States, to do? President Obama has intensified former President George W. Bush’s policy of imposing economic sanctions against Iran, and the European Union could cut off future purchases of Iranian oil. Yet many question whether the international community’s imposition of economic hardship on the Iranian oil sector will be sufficient to persuade Iran’s leaders to alter their current uranium-enrichment activities.

In the past, Israelis have not hesitated to attack those whom they believed posed an existential threat to their state. The destruction of Iraqi and Syrian nuclear plants offers proof enough of their determination never to face the threat of a second Holocaust.

Iran, however, presents a far more difficult challenge than those once posed by Saddam Hussein and Bashar al Assad. The elements of Iran’s nuclear program are dispersed over a large geographical area. Many of its research and development facilities are buried underground. Israel might decide to launch an attack against Iran’s facilities, but such an operation would quickly lose the surprise advantage and would likely take many days, not just hours, to complete.

As we assess the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to Israel, it’s important to remember that Iran’s leadership is not entirely irrational. It’s possible, but I believe unlikely, that they would consider conducting a nuclear strike against Israel. The real danger, I think, that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose is that other countries in the region would feel compelled to either develop or purchase nuclear weapons as a deterrent. With more countries joining the nuclear fraternity, the risk that an extremist group would acquire one of these weapons is greatly enhanced. If this were to happen, there is a good chance that Armageddon would play at a theater near you.

Although Israel remains on the front line of nightmare scenarios, it’s important to be mindful that it is not the only nation that would face both the predictable and untoward consequences of a military attack against Iran.

If such a strike were carried out, it would probably succeed in rallying virtually all of the Iranian people to the defense of their country. Any hope that the West might hold for the ripening of Iran’s Green Revolution would quickly dissipate, as Iranian citizens would turn red with hatred for those who supported such an attack. American military and civilian personnel deployed throughout the Gulf region would likely be victims of those who are masters in the dark art of terrorism.

President Obama has asked Israel not to take preemptive, unilateral action. According to news reports, the Israelis have chosen to remain silent. Fair enough — no country is required to disclose to others the place and timing of its military options should a decision be made to exercise them.

Privately, however, the Israelis have an obligation to keep American leadership fully informed of its plans. Israel’s actions have consequences for the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other countries in the region. A regional conflict would affect much of the industrialized world.

Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, has offered public assurances that any plans to take military action against Iran are very “far off.” But “far off” is a relative term and can easily become “lift off” if the Israelis decide that diplomacy has failed and they have no other option. But Israel also must understand that if it resorts to military action, it will be taking its friends across the Rubicon with them.

Related posts:

1. William Cohen: What the U.S. Should Do About Iran
2. Why EU Sanctions May Hurt the West More than Iran
3. The Iranian Challenge and Implications for U.S. Policy

The Dragon Comes to Africa

Africa’s development has been a focus of goodwill for the American people for decades, and a central topic of geostrategic importance for policy makers. China is working to develop Africa too—but how they aid and invest in the continent is different. This is leaving Africans with a choice about how to develop and where they end up. The countries of sub-Saharan Africa are learning quickly that even free money can come with negative effects.

China, the source of a massive influx of cash into the sub-Saharan continent, is offering sub-Saharan Africa money and technical support, ostensibly with no conditions.  This is the opposite of most Western trade and aid which comes with a number of conditions for transparency, good governance, and encourages sound economic planning.

China is taking a modern version of the mercantilist approach towards its trade, aid, and investment in Africa.  While the easy money may seem attractive to African leaders now, they may yet rue the day they fell under the sway of the Chinese.  Most Chinese loans to African governments and private firms for infrastructure projects are offered under agreements that require Chinese firms to do much of the work involved and in which African natural resources are often used as a source of collateral or payment.  So the Africans not only lose out by forgoing opportunities to  build technical expertise (because the Chinese are importing labor from mainland China), but also by depleting their natural resource stocks and failing to use them locally to modernize their own economies.

Most development economists agree that when a country relies solely on natural resource exploitation, the manufacturing and other industrial sectors of the economy often remain seriously underdeveloped. Digging and shipping natural resources is a low-value added and commodity process. Africa is starting to develop some advanced processing facilities for minerals, but not with much help from the Chinese. And this is the key to understanding the approaches and the risks to Africa right now.

Chinese trade with Africa has increased by 1,124% from 2000 to 2010, when it reached $100.5 billion and China became the largest investor in Africa, beating out even the World Bank.  In 2010, about 63% of African exports to China consisted of crude oil and another 32% was made up of raw materials – mostly metals and wood; 95% of China’s imports from Africa were basic natural resources that China then uses to fuel its own economy, leaving the Africans far below them on the value-chain ladder.

While China’s use of imported labor, natural resource exploitation, and general lack of investment in the domestic African economy are all concerns, perhaps the largest concern is that China provides its financial largesse to governments with unsavory leaders (Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan come to mind) with no restrictions on how the funds may be used or limitations that prevent those funds from being used to purchase firearms (often from China) or other destructive goods that can be used to subdue their own domestic populations.  China insists it is only upholding the principle of sovereignty, but the international community has consistently worked to forbid such capital transfers to autocratic governments that commit human rights violations.

Even if you look past the financial support of the most despotic regimes, China’s increasing economic dominance of Africa gives quarter to those in pseudo-democracies who need aid or funds for infrastructure projects and prefer the soft terms of the Chinese aid or loans against the more forceful and accountability-producing restrictions that are placed on them by American or other Western aid.  Why deal with the foreign assistance bureaucracy of Uncle Sam when you can get an easy deal with the Chinese?

U.S. restrictions on aid and trade are put there to encourage governments to observe human rights norms, strengthen democracy and governance systems, and provide for the equitable well-being of their people.  When there’s an easy alternative to U.S. funding, U.S. influence in the region is significantly diminished as Americans begin to look like colonial-era missionaries trying to “save” the African people.  Unfortunately, it is the Chinese who, through their mercantilist practices and investments, may be enabling many of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa to go through another generation of endemic poverty by undermining local labor markets, failing to observe labor rights, and exploiting natural resources without building domestic capacity that enables countries to truly prosper from their innate natural wealth.

All is not lost.  The United States, working with its global partners, can continue and expand upon its funding to good governance, transparency, and human rights civil society groups that can use the technical skills they learn to better pressure their own governments.  Secondarily, African states should be encouraged to create better financial due diligence procedures to ensure that the money that’s promised them is going into sustainable endeavors that will benefit the people first and the elites second.  If the United States and other responsible actors do not use their leverage to intervene, we fear the second “scramble for Africa” will leave the continent as destitute as did the first.

Related posts:

1. To Sanction or Not To Sanction: A report from Myanmar
2. Zbigniew Brzezinski: After America
3. Guns, Butter, And Band-Aids: A Three-Tiered Approach to Foreign Policy

The range of possible outcomes include the following:

1. The EU oil embargo holds and the Iranian economy takes a huge hit hurting the Iranian middle class and the Green Movement more than the regime;
2. Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz prompting a US military response and potentially a military exchange between the US, NATO, and Iran;
3. Iran refuses to give in causing a spike in oil prices that cause the price of gas and food to soar in the US and EU;
4. The oil embargo is successful and Iran abandons its nuclear program.

Obviously the fourth option is the one that the EU is hoping for; however, it is the least likely and the other three possible outcomes should be of great concern to the US, Europe, and NATO. The driving force behind Iran’s nuclear ambitions lies in its desire to assert regional hegemony in the Middle East and build the strategic power necessary to counter US influence in Iraq and Northern Africa. Giving into the pressure of sanctions would destroy the image of military strength and political influence that the Iranian regime has attempted to cultivate over the past ten years. At the same time, Tehran has been very clear that they are willing to, and capable of, closing the Strait of Hormuz; recent military exercises in the Strait should be considered a clear indication that interference with their oil exports will result in the closing of the most strategically important trade route for the West

If Tehran decides that it does not want to risk a war over the Strait of Hormuz, we could be left with a combination of outcomes one and three, both of which hurt middle class, working citizens of Iran and the EU more than anyone else. In some EU countries 12-30% of the imported oil comes from Iran. An abrupt cessation of that trade would cause a huge shortage and therefore, an increase in the  price of oil for EU citizens. This leads to price increases in heating oil, gasoline, transportation, food, and the general cost of living. In the already troubled and depressed economies of the EU, this could lead to even more public discontent and economic volatility. While EU officials have said that they would be able to replace Iranian imports, they have not described their alternatives with specificity.   New agreements involving oil often require lengthy negotiations and the increased output necessary from potential suppliers like Saudi Arabia and Russia may incur new costs of their own. Also, Russia has been an ally to Iran and it is not inconceivable that they would refuse to supply the extra oil to the EU in an effort to pressure them to reverse the sanctions.

In Iran, where the government subsidizes energy prices along with bread, sugar, medicine, cooking oil, rice, and other necessities, a drop in government revenue could mean that these essential items are no longer available to those who need them. Furthermore, a worsening of the Iranian economy due to actions by the European Union only bolsters the regime who will spin the issue to convince the public that the development of a nuclear weapon and the bargaining power and deterrence ability that follows is essential to Iran’s national security and sovereignty.

Iran has consistently claimed that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only. While IAEA inspectors have reported that Iran does have the capability to create a nuclear weapon within a short period of time, they have found no evidence of Iran actually weaponizing uranium. Also, despite bellicose statements about Israel, Iran has been careful to avoid suggesting it would actually detonate a nuclear weapon if it did possess one. Discounting the power of diplomacy could severely hinder the possibility of a peaceful solution with Iran. The first step in this process should not be an increase in sanctions, but a diplomatic effort to convince Iran to stop producing highly enriched uranium and stick with low-enriched uranium which is sufficient for energy production but not easily weaponized.

Related posts:

1. William Cohen: What the U.S. Should Do About Iran
2. Crossing the Rubicon
3. The Limits of Iran’s Reach

As an American with more than average interest and experience in Russia, it is a mystery to me why, unlike virtually every other country on earth, U.S. policy has tended to be so dependent on the personal relationship between the respective leaders.

This was especially true of Presidents Clinton, with the late Boris Yeltsin, and George W. Bush, with then-President Vladimir Putin (“I looked the man in the eye.”). This mystery of Russian relations is not totally confined to U.S. leaders: Remember Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s famous report to President George H.W. Bush on Mikhail Gorbachev as “a man we can do business with.” A humorist might call it the vodka syndrome, except Clinton was never known as a drinker and, of course, the second President Bush had sworn off alcohol.

This is a cause for reflection, when the question is raised as to how the United States might go about organizing its Russian relationship if Vladimir Putin were to be driven to the sidelines by an emerging, though putative, Russian Spring. Recent weeks have witnessed virtually unprecedented (for Russia) mass rallies in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities of what journalists have described as emerging middle-class Russians.

Those of us who have a history of frequenting Russia and keeping in touch with developments there are increasingly asked about what this means, whether it will continue or go away, and who is behind it. None of these questions is authoritatively answerable, at least for the time being. Like much of the uprisings of 2011 in the Middle East and North Africa, the Russian movement includes a number of factions and profiles. Together with middle-class protesters who seem, at least for now, not to have a cohesive ideology, there are Russian nationalist and aging communists, disgruntled pensioners and groups flying the banners of disparate causes.

At a distance they seem united, for now, by an attitude toward Putin that ranges from mild distrust to outright antipathy, even hatred. And again, like the Arab Spring, no single leader or small coterie of leaders has emerged to champion the uprising and give it direction. You can’t beat something with nothing, as the old saying goes. And the Arab Spring has given way to faction fighting, sectarian struggles, and citizen- versus-security-forces clashes. To be charitable, the hard work of democracy has begun … and without a Jefferson, Madison or Hamilton among them.

Those Russophiles among us, driven much less by dreamy nostalgia for Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky than by the certain realization that the United States and Russia have many more interests in common than we have differences, choose to believe that the incipient movement toward democracy embraces demands for multiple party elections; media freedom including protection from violence of reporters who uncover corruption; transparency in government operations; an end to cronyism; an independent and honest judicial system; and many of the other basic qualities and institutions normally characterizing democratic societies.

Even during the worst Cold War days, and certainly during the Gorbachev era of glasnost and perestroika, everyday Russians would tell Westerners: “We simply want an ordinary life; we want to live like everyone else.” That could be this movement’s anthem.

But if the Russophobes among us could let up for a time (and there are more of those in foreign policy circles than we would like to imagine), we might have a chance to institute a far-reaching bilateral policy emphasizing our mutual interests, minimizing our differences and seeking Russian support where it would be welcome and meaningful. That includes dealing with Iran and its nuclear potential; quarantining North Korea; managing the five Muslim republics on Russia’s southern border; isolating and crushing terrorism; countering proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; stabilizing world energy distribution systems; and a host of similarly important problems.

This agenda, including lending moral support for the nominally democratic movement in the Russian streets, should operate regardless of whether Vladimir Putin is reelected Russia’s president. Great powers, it has been said even before the arch-realist Henry Kissinger came along, do not have permanent friendships — they have permanent interests. In the great scheme of things, it matters less how Barack Obama (or for that matter, even Newt Gingrich) gets along with Putin or his successor and much more on whether we can identify and pursue, over several successive American administrations, those real and important permanent and mutual interests.

It is manifestly in the interest of the United States to do so. Years from now it will finally come to our understanding that our relationship with Russia is one of our most important.

Related posts:

1. An “Iron Hand” is No Substitute for Democracy
2. Why EU Sanctions May Hurt the West More than Iran
3. New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to Enter into Force Tomorrow

Guns, Butter, And Band-Aids: A Three-Tiered Approach to Foreign Policy

In the early hours of a tropical morning in January 2010, the Baltimore-based U.S. Navy hospital ship Comfort docked two kilometers off the coast of Port-au-Prince, Haiti equipped with military, U.S. Public Health Service, nongovernmental organization, and international organization personnel ready to respond to the raw wounds of the island nation still trembling from a 7.0 magnitude earthquake that had struck only days earlier. Despite initial doubts from the Pentagon that the ship was needed as another member of a swiftly-deployed fleet of similarly-equipped Navy and Marine vessels to the island[1], the U.S.N.S. Comfort quickly became a household name for U.S. military relief efforts due to the ship’s remarkable capability to quickly provide wounded Haitians a stable, secure place to receive desperately needed medical care. Not to be understated were the colossal efforts of the U.S. Agency for International Development.  This agency was designated to spearhead the U.S. intergovernmental agency response to the tragedy, which deployed disaster assistance personnel within a day of the crisis’ occurrence and continues to rebuild Haiti nearly two years later. Monitoring on-the-ground developments in Haiti, the U.S. Department of State preserved its strong tradition of diplomacy with the Haitian government and the international community; thereby assuring the distressed country that it had an ally in its long fight to recover, rebuild, and thrive.

The confluence of missions on the ground in Haiti reflects the latitude of the U.S. military, diplomatic, and humanitarian aid communities that ultimately advance overall U.S. goals in a positive light. Prior to the disaster, the U.S. gave over $200 million through USAID to Haiti in FY 2009. In FY 2010, the U.S. gave Haiti over $350 million through USAID and $450 million through DOD. Additionally, the U.S.N.S. Comfort’s response to the earthquake was not its first trip to the island, having stopped there in April 2009 en route through Latin America on another humanitarian mission. During an emergency, our military has the ability to respond instantaneously and provide a secure working environment for humanitarian assistance to occur. Without trusted diplomatic relations, the Haitian government wouldn’t have known who to help lead them toward normalcy. Even in non-emergency situations, U.S. foreign aid ensures continuity of leadership so that when crises do occur, the world looks to the U.S. as the Haitian government did in its time of catastrophe.

Crises like the earthquake in Haiti emphasize the critical role foreign aid has in a robust national security agenda that is earnest and proactive through a well-rounded approach, and not a reactionary, single-approached strategy. Unfortunately, cutting foreign aid has become a catchphrase proposal in conversations about solving our country’s debt and deficit crisis. In a tight budget environment, this notion can be appealing. Why continue to send funds overseas that could be used to better the lives of Americans at home? This, however, is a short-sighted solution to a multi-pronged problem. Foreign aid is an investment in the present and the future. The solution is not to cut foreign aid simply because it holds a line on the national checkbook; rather, the key rests in finding common operational themes with the military, diplomatic, and development communities to ensure our foreign aid dollars are maximized, our values are promoted abroad, and our leadership maintains its trustworthiness.

By having our military, diplomacy, and humanitarianism complement each other, the U.S. can achieve not only the goals of both the military and foreign policy, it can come together to provide a platform for the U.S. to do more globally. This is far easier said than done. Operationally, the military, diplomatic, and foreign aid communities have experienced turf wars over competing foreign policy objectives. The military’s inherent role is to defend the country while the foreign aid community’s objective is to enhance quality of life. Diplomacy remains the chief non-coercive method to advance U.S. interests overseas; however, the field has experienced deepened ties to both defense and foreign aid since September 11, 2001 that don’t particularly please members of the defense or aid communities.

Still, foreign aid as national security is here to stay, and this point has been acknowledged and supported by our military leadership. On June 9, 2011, then CIA Director and our current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in his confirmation hearing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, testified that foreign aid through education, agriculture, health, and justice programs are assets in the national security agenda. Specifically addressing the acquisition of weapons from terrorist groups in Pakistan, Secretary Panetta stated, “I know the U.S. Department of Defense is our primary military weapon in terms of securing weapons, but if we don’t follow it up with these other important assets, we will never be able to fully secure these countries.”[2] U.S. national security is not simply our military capacity; it is our value-projection through diplomacy and humanitarianism, without which, the globe will come to fear and distrust the U.S.

Any time an event of such magnitude to destabilize an already weak society occurs, like the humanitarian emergency in Haiti or even the sociopolitical uprisings in Libya, the U.S. must consider the interests it has at stake on the ground because intervention into every emergency is not feasible. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined a rubric against which defense, diplomatic, and development officials can determine whether a situation is worth intervention in what is termed the “Powell Doctrine.” The core aspects of the Powell Doctrine include an accurate determination that vital national security interests are in jeopardy, an analysis of risk, consequence, and cost, a clearly-defined and attainable objective and a strategy to achieve that objective to ultimately avoid an endless engagement, and the strength of support at home and abroad. These decisions cannot—and should not—be made by one branch of national security and foreign policy communities.

Despite the stark differences between the three extensions of foreign policy, there is common ground to be found. Military personnel can provide security in an unstable situation for diplomats, aid workers, and American citizens caught in a crisis. At times, military personnel can even engage in distributing relief aid and supplies if the situation warrants, and they can do so indefinitely should the stability of a situation call for this commitment. The military ensures speed of access because it has the equipment needed to enter a situation quickly. Diplomacy, however, is contextual in nature. Diplomats specialize in understanding the culture, society, and general environment of a country and work tirelessly to ensure the preservation of congenial relations with foreign governments. Diplomats can facilitate on-the-ground activity not only with their U.S. counterparts but also with other governments and their counterparts in those bodies.

Development workers possess the strength of longevity, ensuring action on the U.S. core values with the citizens of a foreign country. Development workers are flexible and motivated by the results they see on the ground, ensuring that U.S. values are understood and promulgated. Ultimately, the military has the resources to create stability, diplomats have the knowledge to provide stability, and development workers possess the stamina to preserve stability.

The cases of Libya and Haiti show how the U.S. is developing a humanitarianism policy as a means to promote its values and assert its leadership abroad. While this may not entirely be the planned course of action, it is the direction in which the U.S. is heading. There are three main ways for the U.S. to ensure the success of this route and recognize the strength of each foreign policy community. First, the U.S. must maintain its foreign aid program. Foreign aid allows the U.S. to proactively seek a stable world instead of being reactive with force. Problems are increasingly becoming global in nature and do not always require the military to solve. Further, it is expensive in both terms of human lives and money. Second, the U.S. must maintain its force projection. Force projection allows the U.S. to maintain its values while keeping the ability to act on them swiftly if needed. Finally, the U.S. needs to encourage a more engaged civil society through strengthened funding for the Peace Corps, Foreign Service, and nongovernmental organizations. Without an engaged civil society, the support for U.S. foreign policy dries up and discourages the public and international support needed to intervene in a crisis.

Among our most pressing national security priorities, leadership is one of the most critical. If the U.S. is going to intervene when our values of democracy, human rights, equality, and opportunity are at stake, we need to show an example of leadership at home. Furthermore, a foreign policy that doesn’t give equal respective weight to the contributions of its three tiers is destined to chip away at the world’s perception of the U.S.’s capabilities to lead. The long-term cost of a destabilized world in which disengagement is the currency between nations is higher than the cost of current U.S. investments in foreign aid, which account for less than 1% of our federal budget.

Related posts:

1. Will Senators Have the Midas Touch?
2. Crossing the Rubicon
3. Too Important to Fail: The Least Bad Call on Afghanistan

For the vast majority of Americans, watching the last American boot leave Iraqi soil is nothing short of good riddance. The numbers have become seared in Americans minds: Nearly nine years. Nearly a trillion dollars spent. Nearly 35,000 US soldiers wounded. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers dead.

The long-term effect of the Iraq War is pretty obvious—a national sentiment for retrenchment—a streak of isolationism that is being espoused by both sides of the political spectrum. It’s hard not to watch Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry warn against “military adventurism” without comparing him to his predecessor.

But despite the desire to go inward, the simple fact is that if there was any hope for the US to go on the sidelines, that’s changed forever with the onset of the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring has reminded the world of the danger of failed states. With long-time dictators losing power, militant Salafists (not solely Al Qaeda) are looking to fill the vacuum.

But the Arab Spring also comes with a new challenge—a new type of interventionism.

That new interventionism will not look like Afghanistan of 2009-2011—where we put boots on the ground in order to take out a ruling, rogue power. It will also not look like Pakistan—where our intervention will largely rely on airpower (unmanned predator drones in particular) with a small, light on-the-ground footprint to conduct reconnaissance and special operations, but with no motive to change the leadership.

The new interventionism will be a mix of two factors. Like Pakistan, it will be heavy on airpower, light on boots. Like Afghanistan in 2001, the effort will involve removing a rogue power, but with a slight difference. The intervention will not lead the effort to remove a rogue power, but will enable an indigent rebel to do the job.

In other words, it’s the fullback strategy of foreign intervention. The new intervention does not mean playing the halfback, taking the ball to the endzone for the touchdown. It means playing the full-back, creating the hole for the indigenous rebel groups to score the winning touchdown.

In this case, the main objective is very different. The hope is helping enable a victory on the ground that forestalls a long, drawn out war that creates the type of environment where a terrorist group can take hold.

The merits of the new (or fullback) approach to interventionism contrasts, for example, how the Iraq War was executed.  Because the new interventionism does not do the heavy lifting, it doesn’t overrule the will of the people in a given country.

Also, because the interventionism largely relies on airpower, with limited if any boots on the ground, it makes it easier and more likely to develop the type of multilateral coalition that is associated with legitimate and successful interventionist endeavors. And because of the airpower focus and multi-lateralist character of the intervention, the result is greater political legitimacy, a substantially decreased likelihood of casualties, and, therefore, staying power to finish the job.

In short, the new paradigm of successful intervention is not Afghanistan or Pakistan, but Libya. Heavy on firepower, multi-lateralism, and a limited mandate that paves the way for a rebel victory, not a Western one. While the removal of Qaddafi is an enormous immediate benefit, the long-term goal is preventing the drawn-out civil war that would make Libya a terrorist launchpad.

But ignoring the inclination towards isolationism is not only good for the Middle East. Successful, limited intervention also benefits the United States. When the US is involved in liberation that increases US influence in the world. This is not only an upside in the Arab World, but it means improving our soft power in other parts of the world, including areas where we are competing for influence with China.

And it also revives the notion of American humanitarian sway. The greatest casualty of the Iraq War is that it dampened our ability in the eyes of the world. We were distracted from ongoing operations in Afghanistan. We had a slow response to atrocities in Darfur. Now, the fullback humanitarian approach is attached to the heightened likelihood of intervention. That could have a deterrent effect on would be genocidaires and reinvigorates the idea of American power.

It’s not easy to ignore a nine-year war where America lost valuable blood and treasure. But isolationism is the easy approach. Isolationism was the approach after 1919 and the world was in the midst of another world war twenty years later. The goal is not taking the ball and going home. The goal is finding a pragmatic approach that means greater political stability, the return of American influence, and the preservation of innocent life. Just don’t call it leading from behind.

Related posts:

1. A Time to Lead
2. No-Fly Zone Over Libya: A Case for Multilateralism
3. Graeme Bannerman: Libya, A Costly Victory

Cyber-based threats against information infrastructures in the United States have generated an increasing concern for national security. According to a Congressional Research Service report, these emerging threats consist of cyber terrorism, debilitating U.S. command over the electromagnetic spectrum, facilitation of terrorist operations, cyber crimes involving theft of intellectual property, patent violations, or copyright laws, and identity theft. These threats also involve unauthorized probing of tests that target a computer’s configuration and its system defenses and, in some instances, the unauthorized viewing, copying, and extraction of data files. The low expense of access to the internet combined with the ability to operate anonymously, are strong key factors that make information operations enticing for those who are unable to combat the U.S. in conventional warfare.  Understanding these real threats against our nation enforces the need for a shift in prioritization and funding to address any future cyber security threats in all capacities.

The vulnerability of cyber security significantly impacts the state of a nation’s economic and national security.  Cyber warfare and cyber-crimes have become more frequent and sophisticated in current times.  The usage of mobile devices, social networks, and confidential information are constantly threatened as the global society integrates more services and operations with the internet. Chen McGuire, the Vice President of Symantec Corporation’s Global Government Affairs & Cybersecurity Policy, in a House Homeland Security Committee hearing stated, “the volume and sophistication of threat activity increased more than 19 percent over 2009, with Symantec identifying more than 286 million unique variations of malicious software or malware…with an estimated 431 million adult victims globally in the past year, and at an annual combined cost of $388 billion globally based on financial losses and time lost, cybercrime costs are significantly more than the global black market in marijuana, cocaine and heroin combined- which estimate at $288 billion per year.” The threat is real; the results of these attacks are costly to businesses and governmental operations.  In order to adequately address these threats, it is imperative that information sharing is increased between all stakeholders; the government, the private sector, and the individual citizen.  Effective risk-based approaches must specifically address each individual risk, while the promotion of strong private-public partnerships through innovative research and development. More importantly, accountability measurements must be demanded to prevent costly financial losses while increased protective mechanisms safeguard the rights of everyday citizens.

During the 112^th Congress, legislators have taken considerable steps to address the cybersecurity concerns. Recently, Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA), Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies (CIPST), introduced H.R. 3116, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012. This legislation addresses multiple key issues of emerging cyber threats. H.R. 3116 would require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to protect federal and critical infrastructure information systems through risk assessment; develop essential security technologies and capabilities to protect the systems, in conjunction with government and private-sector entities; develop and lead nationwide awareness and outreach on the importance of cybersecurity, ways to promote best practices, and training to support the development of the cybersecurity workforce; take other necessary lawful action to accomplish the requirements of this section; coordinate with other relevant federal, nonfederal, and international entities, including suppliers of technology for CI; designate a DHS official to lead cybersecurity activities; ensure coordination with other relevant DHS activities, including intelligence and law enforcement; and report regularly on program coordination to appropriate congressional committees, among other directives.

H.R. 3116 is a commendable first step in addressing the cyber threats that impact the lives of countless Americans daily. The Senate and the Obama Administration have also taken significant steps to address cybersecurity. Despite the strong partisanship in the nation’s capital, threats to cybersecurity should be a point of consensus and unification, as it has an immediate and egregious effect on our nation’s livelihood. Securing cyberspace will take a coordinated effort between the federal, state, and local governments, and also the private sector. As each day goes by, our nation faces new cyber threats from new actors seeking to access classified government information, while attempting the theft of personal information, in order to disrupt our quality of life.

In this digital era we are all connected.  Everyone must employ safe and secure computing practices because no individual, business, or government entity should be solely responsible for cybersecurity.  We must all understand how online computing practices have an impact on our nation’s cyber security. If we choose to ignore these warnings we will leave our cyber networks vulnerable to future catastrophic events.

Related posts:

1. National Security Experts Launch Energy Initiative
2. A High-Risk, Low Reward Strategy Could Lose the Future
3. Zbigniew Brzezinski: After America

There’s a Better Way to Gauge Congress

I suspect that most members of Congress will want to forget the year that just ended.

The institution that symbolizes our democracy finished 2011 plumbing depths of unpopularity it has never experienced before. Its low approval ratings set records — suggesting, as Gallup put it, “that 2011 will be remembered as the year in which the American public lost much of any remaining faith in the men and women they elect and send off to Washington to represent them.”

The poor jobs picture, the lurching from one brink-of-disaster deadline to the next, the polarization that keeps the parties from working together, the widespread sense that Congress is so dysfunctional it cannot meet the nation’s challenges — all play a role.
These are all valid ways of judging Congress, but they are not the only way. Every year, the Center on Congress at Indiana University polls a group of congressional scholars on how they think the institution is doing, and one of the challenges we face is devising a set of questions that meaningfully probe Congress’s performance. It’s not as easy as you’d think.

The historic mission of the Congress has been to maintain freedom, a goal whose achievement is impossible to measure in a year’s — or even a few years’ — time. Moreover, a well-functioning Congress has to operate on many fronts: as the legislative body representing a diverse nation, as a counter-balance to the president, as an overseer of the federal bureaucracy, as a forger of policy, as two separate institutions (Senate and House) that have to find common ground and uphold processes that allow each one to perform effectively.

The first of Congress’ responsibilities is to protect its constitutional role as a strong, coequal branch of government. It must stand apart from and serve as a check upon the excesses of presidential power. So how well is it safeguarding its powers from presidential encroachment? Does it live up to its proper role in determining the federal budget? How’s it doing at oversight of the executive branch? Is it generating meaningful, politically sustainable policy alternatives or just sitting back and letting the White House take all the political risks? Does it set the national agenda, or act timidly? And does it safeguard the war powers assigned it by the Constitution?

Its second great role is to represent the American people. This means making sure that all voices get a fair hearing and that diverse viewpoints play a part in crafting initiatives — all while safeguarding institutional practices that allow legislation to move forward in a timely manner. Just as important, does Congress spend its time on key issues facing the country, or instead let itself get diverted by partisan concerns or by issues of importance only to well-heeled special interests?

Third, in a country as politically and demographically varied as ours, negotiation and compromise are key to crafting legislation that can enjoy broad political support. To gauge whether Congress is following sound process, you would want to know several things. Are its leaders capable of working hard to forge a consensus? If they can’t, do conflicts over legislation represent substantive differences or mere political game-playing? Does it balance careful deliberation with making decisions? Does it protect the rights of the minority and allow all points to be heard? Is it transparent — so that its members can be held accountable for their actions?

Fourth, does Congress set sufficiently high standards for its individual members? That means keeping excessive partisanship in check and making sure its members are behaving ethically.

And finally, how strong is the connection of members of Congress to their constituents back home? Do they understand their constituents and try to represent them in Washington? Do they make themselves accessible in a variety of settings and speak out for their communities at times of need? Do they listen well and are they closely attuned to the core needs and interests of the people they represent?

All of these questions add up to how well Congress represents the interests of the American people and, as always, it does better on some than on others. Despite its obvious troubles, the picture is not entirely bleak. And I can’t help but believe that the more well-rounded our understanding of where Congress falls short and where it performs well, the better we can hold it to account.

Related posts:

1. Reducing the Deficit Requires Skill and Risk
2. James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton Op-Ed: Breaking the War Powers Stalemate
3. Graeme Bannerman: Libya, A Costly Victory

After America

Not so long ago, a high-ranking Chinese official, who obviously had concluded that America’s decline and China’s rise were both inevitable, noted in a burst of candor to a senior U.S. official: “But, please, let America not decline too quickly.” Although the inevitability of the Chinese leader’s expectation is still far from certain, he was right to be cautious when looking forward to America’s demise.

For if America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent successor — not even China. International uncertainty, increased tension among global competitors, and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes.

While a sudden, massive crisis of the American system — for instance, another financial crisis — would produce a fast-moving chain reaction leading to global political and economic disorder, a steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or endlessly widening warfare with Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective global successor. No single power will be ready by then to exercise the role that the world, upon the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, expected the United States to play: the leader of a new, globally cooperative world order. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive realignments of both global and regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers, in a setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global well-being. Rather than a world where dreams of democracy flourish, a Hobbesian world of enhanced national security based on varying fusions of authoritarianism, nationalism, and religion could ensue.

The leaders of the world’s second-rank powers, among them India, Japan, Russia, and some European countries, are already assessing the potential impact of U.S. decline on their respective national interests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian mainland, may be thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in India and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America falters and China rises. Russia, while perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America’s uncertain prospects, will almost certainly have its eye on the independent states of the former Soviet Union. Europe, not yet cohesive, would likely be pulled in several directions: Germany and Italy toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure Central Europe in favor of a politically tighter European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a balance within the EU while preserving its special relationship with a declining United States. Others may move more rapidly to carve out their own regional spheres: Turkey in the area of the old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere, and so forth. None of these countries, however, will have the requisite combination of economic, financial, technological, and military power even to consider inheriting America’s leading role.

China, invariably mentioned as America’s prospective successor, has an impressive imperial lineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience, both of which have been critical to its overwhelmingly successful, several-thousand-year-long history. China thus prudently accepts the existing international system, even if it does not view the prevailing hierarchy as permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the system’s dramatic collapse but on its evolution toward a gradual redistribution of power. Moreover, the basic reality is that China is not yet ready to assume in full America’s role in the world. Beijing’s leaders themselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every important measure of development, wealth, and power, China will still be a modernizing and developing state several decades from now, significantly behind not only the United States but also Europe and Japan in the major per capita indices of modernity and national power. Accordingly, Chinese leaders have been restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership.

At some stage, however, a more assertive Chinese nationalism could arise and damage China’s international interests. A swaggering, nationalistic Beijing would unintentionally mobilize a powerful regional coalition against itself. None of China’s key neighbors — India, Japan, and Russia — is ready to acknowledge China’s entitlement to America’s place on the global totem pole. They might even seek support from a waning America to offset an overly assertive China. The resulting regional scramble could become intense, especially given the similar nationalistic tendencies among China’s neighbors. A phase of acute international tension in Asia could ensue. Asia of the 21st century could then begin to resemble Europe of the 20th century — violent and bloodthirsty.

At the same time, the security of a number of weaker states located geographically next to major regional powers also depends on the international status quo reinforced by America’s global preeminence — and would be made significantly more vulnerable in proportion to America’s decline. The states in that exposed position — including Georgia, Taiwan, South Korea, Belarus, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and the greater Middle East — are today’s geopolitical equivalents of nature’s most endangered species. Their fates are closely tied to the nature of the international environment left behind by a waning America, be it ordered and restrained or, much more likely, self-serving and expansionist.

A faltering United States could also find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy. America’s economic resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the challenges posed by such sensitive neighborhood issues as economic dependence, immigration, and the narcotics trade. A decline in American power, however, would likely undermine the health and good judgment of the U.S. economic and political systems. A waning United States would likely be more nationalistic, more defensive about its national identity, more paranoid about its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others’ development. The worsening of relations between a declining America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous phenomenon: the emergence, as a major issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by history and ignited by cross-border incidents.

Another consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the generally cooperative management of the global commons — shared interests such as sea lanes, space, cyberspace, and the environment, whose protection is imperative to the long-term growth of the global economy and the continuation of basic geopolitical stability. In almost every case, the potential absence of a constructive and influential U.S. role would fatally undermine the essential communality of the global commons because the superiority and ubiquity of American power creates order where there would normally be conflict.

None of this will necessarily come to pass. Nor is the concern that America’s decline would generate global insecurity, endanger some vulnerable states, and produce a more troubled North American neighborhood an argument for U.S. global supremacy. In fact, the strategic complexities of the world in the 21st century make such supremacy unattainable. But those dreaming today of America’s collapse would probably come to regret it. And as the world after America would be increasingly complicated and chaotic, it is imperative that the United States pursue a new, timely strategic vision for its foreign policy — or start bracing itself for a dangerous slide into global turmoil.

Related posts:

1. Why EU Sanctions May Hurt the West More than Iran
2. Ambassador Linton Brooks Speaks on Nuclear Challenges
3. OP-ED: How to Weaken the Power of Foreign Oil

It has now been over a week since the announcement of Kim Jong Il’s death. We learned the news in Seoul and observed shocked but calm South Koreans diligently following events.

The sense of calmness in Seoul reflects that there appears to be an orderly transition of power within North Korea. Of course, no one knows for sure what exactly is going on and what is going to happen in North Korea. That said, we hope, once an appropriate period of mourning is concluded, that steps toward positive engagement in such areas as humanitarian food assistance and nuclear talks that were underway at the time of Kim’s death will continue to move forward.

However, hope is not enough. We must recognize that even in places such as North Korea the future doesn’t simply happen. Rather, the future there as elsewhere is, to a significant degree, the result of a complex interplay of ideas and action. U.S. history provides a clear demonstration that among the most powerful of those ideas are notions of widely available education and open scientific inquiry. One need look only to the actions associated with U.S. support for these ideas in the countries of Western Europe following the Second World War. Or perhaps even more relevantly, consider programs such as the U.S. State Department funded Minnesota Project which developed sustained medical, engineering, and agricultural support to a South Korea suffering from the consequences of the Korean Conflict. Or the Fulbright Program which has served to help in the transformation of higher education throughout much of the world.

Nor have U.S. collaborative science and education programs been limited to countries with which it has enjoyed easy relations. Scientific engagement and exchanges with the Soviet Union went on throughout much of the Cold War and these were thought to be an important precursor to arms limitations treaties that followed. When President Nixon went to China he brought with him suggestions for science and technology engagement.

In the case of North Korea there have been relatively few sustained science and educational engagements with the U.S. One example is Syracuse University working with Kim Chaek University of Science and Technology in Pyongyang over the past ten years in the area of digital libraries. A result was the first digital library in the North. A nongovernmental organization, the US-DPRK Science Engagement Consortium has been working with U.S. universities and the North Korean State Academy of Sciences to encourage safe academic science cooperation between the two countries and, again, the focus has been on opening information resources through a virtual science library initiative. Interestingly, one of the last delegations to leave Pyongyang prior to the announcement of Kim’s death was a group working with the State Academy of Sciences on sustainable agriculture. In this context it is important to recognize that North Korea has engaged with other countries in academic science and education. Programs exist with many Asian countries as well as Germany, the U.K., and Canada.

Why is more not being done with the U.S.? At one level, the answer is painfully obvious. North Korean nuclear programs have led the U.S. (and the U.N.) to impose strict export controls against the North and these controls make it exceedingly difficult for U.S. academics to work with counterparts in the North. The difficulties range from an inability to share equipment and deemed export regulations which limit the sharing of knowledge with North Koreans to the almost complete lack of U.S. government financial assistance. Further, the lack of formal diplomatic relations makes travel and other sorts of exchanges difficult. And, of course, all of this takes place in an environment in which North Korea has been demonized by much of the Western press. This all makes it very difficult for a democracy such as the U.S. to constructively engage North Korea. Moreover, these constraints reflect real differences. There are aspects of North Korea that violate the sensibilities of most U.S. citizens.

Yet, as always, the challenge is what to do. Do we simply bemoan the fact that North Korea is not as we wish it to be? Or does the U.S. do as it has done with great pride in the past and trust that ideas such as the power of education and the freedom of inquiry will ultimately bring about enduring and positive change. Importantly, change resulting from ideas is most often change from within rather than change imposed from outside. Such change is likely to be robust and to reflect the culture and values of North Korea as well as those of the larger world.

So, in this spirit we urge that the U.S. once again consider trusting in the power of the great ideas that have helped to fashion increased opportunity and development in the past century and move to work with the new leadership in North Korea to open up bi-lateral educational and scientific engagement opportunities between the U.S. and North Korea. Through such exchanges we can learn from one another and, in so doing, build the trust and shared institutions that are so essential to building a more peaceful world.

Related posts:

1. Remembering India’s Henry Kissinger
2. Ambassador Linton Brooks Speaks on Nuclear Challenges
3. New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to Enter into Force Tomorrow