Posted by Kyle Atwell in
US Foreign Policy on Friday, January 11. 2008
Today’s Zaman 1: “Saakaashvili won around 52 percent of the vote, with most of the counting complete, double that of 43-year-old wine producer Levan Gachechiladze, whose poll hovered between 25 and 27 percent, the central election commission said. the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, backed the vote. 'I should like to congratulate the Georgian people on the peaceful conduct of a truly competitive presidential elections on Jan. 5,' he said in a statement.'”
EUobserver – “Georgia president Mikhail Saakashvili was re-elected Sunday (6 January) in a move set to keep the country on its pro-EU and NATO course. 'Reports from mass media, NGOs and opposition representatives have been coming in on numerous violations of election laws by the authorities,' the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement. 'Assessments by western observers [the OSCE]...appear superficial.’”
New York Times – “Georgia is also valuable to Washington because it is an ally in the Iraq war. With 2,000 troops in Iraq, it is the third-largest contributor of troops there, after the United States and Britain.”
Today’s Zaman 2 – "In these recent elections the Georgian people also endorsed Georgia’s membership in NATO with a 71 percent vote in favor… In conclusion, the Georgian people voted for stability and integration with the West… the recent elections in Georgia mark a new era where the Georgian political system will move from a Soviet system, in which the president enjoys broad discretion, toward a Western system in which the parliament assumes a greater role."
Financial Times - "Opposition leaders condemned the poll as rigged. Their criticisms were echoed by Russia, which declared the vote was 'hardly free and fair', with the foreign ministry saying the election was marred by 'the widespread use of administrative resources, open pressure on opposition candidates and tough restrictions to their access to financial and media resources.'"
Personal reaction: yay to Georgia, and boo to Russia. I am particularly happy about the country’s strong support for joining NATO – not necessarily because I think Georgia should be admitted to NATO, but rather because such a strong vote in favor of NATO is a clear indication of the pro-western sentiments of Georgia’s populace. Voting for a candidate who is pro-West is one thing, but voting to join the pillar of the western alliance leaves no room for doubt about Georgia’s western orientation
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
US Foreign Policy on Thursday, December 27. 2007
Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer writes in the Turkish paper Today’s Zaman:“US policy toward Pakistan is also dangerously shortsighted and reminiscent of the mistakes the US made in Iran prior to the 1979 Islamic revolution. Nevertheless, the US at least has a Pakistan policy -- which is more than can be said about NATO and Europe. In fact, it is all but incomprehensible that while the future of NATO is being decided in the Hindu Kush Mountains, and while thousands of European soldiers stationed there are risking their lives, Pakistan is not given any role in NATO’s plans and calculations.”
How successful has US policy been? President Musharraf’s decision to implement martial law--despite US pleas for him not to--has deeply frustrated US policymakers, and set the impetus for the US to modify its Pakistan policy. Part of this modification is to create a $750 million five-year civilian aid package, to be added to the more than $1 billion in military aid already given to Pakistan annually. However, the New York Times reports concern in the US Congress about how effective the aid will be:Weeks before it is to begin, an ambitious American aid plan to counter militancy in Pakistan’s tribal areas is threatened by important unresolved questions about who will monitor the money and whether it could fall into the wrong hands.”
I am not sure which is worse: having no Pakistan policy as Fischer contends is the case for Europe, or having a bad one? I also wonder whether the new US aid package offers a real change in Pakistan policy at all: is adding more aid to an already bounteous supply going to increase US influence in Pakistan?
I suppose the argument is that civilian aid will be different from military aid, because it will “win hearts and minds.”
This was exactly the case made by US presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) in an article he wrote for The Huffington Post back in November. He argued that military aid to Pakistan should be contingent on sound policy choices from Pakistan’s leadership, while civilian aid should be separate and unconditional so as to demonstrate to the people of Pakistan that the US supports them regardless of how reckless the leadership is.
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
Transatlantic Relations on Thursday, December 13. 2007
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed frustration with America's European allies, as reported in the Washington Post article, "Pentagon Critical of NATO Allies":
"I am not ready to let NATO off the hook in Afghanistan at this point," Gates told the House Armed Services Committee. Ticking off a list of vital requirements -- about 3,500 more military trainers, 20 helicopters and three infantry battalions -- Gates voiced "frustration" at "our allies not being able to step up to the plate."
In the speech, Gates commends those allies who have largely fulfilled their commitments in the war, specifically Australia, Britain, and Canada. The new Defense Minister of Australia, which is not a NATO member-state but nonetheless a significant contributor to the ISAF mission, echoes Gates' frustration about the Europeans (ABC News):
Australia's new Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon will deliver a blunt message to NATO countries meeting in Scotland on Friday, telling them that there will be no more Australian troops sent to Afghanistan until European countries increase their commitment.
Also, Spiegel Online published a great interview with German Major General Bruno Kasdorf, the highest-ranking German officer at ISAF headquarters in Kabul. This passage caught my eye:
Spiegel Online: From the outside, it often looks as if the aggressive waging of this war is further enflaming the insurgency.
Kasdorf: I repeat: Pulling out of OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom, the US-led military operation in Afghanistan] would not be helpful. It bothers the Americans when Europeans accuse them of waging the war in a brutal fashion. If there were no OEF, the insurgency would gain strength in the country and they would consider themselves unopposed here, which could also threaten ISAF's success. Here at ISAF we don't have the forces to go after the extremists alone.
German anathema of the use of force to deal with the Taliban and al Qaeda reminds me of a guest lecturer I had back in college. He was a pacifist professor who said that if he met bin Ladin, he would give him a hug. The entire class laughed when he said this, because the professor just did not seem to understand: there are some problems you cannot solve with hugs alone.
The best strategy to bring stability to Afghanistan is not black or white; it is not a choice between American bullets or German hugs. The two go hand-in-hand, and trying to frame one as necessary while the other as not is no less naïve than defining countries as "with us or against us". The world is more complex than these basic dichotomies allow.
What frustrates Americans is not only that Germany (and other Europeans) want to cherry-pick the popular and less-dangerous reconstruction projects (though that plays a major role in American and Australian frustration) - but also that these same allies give the impression they are on a higher moral ground than those who are taking on the most dangerous, and equally necessary, combat missions.
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
Transatlantic Relations on Thursday, November 29. 2007
DefenseNews reports that a scheduled January 5 referendum in Georgia on the issue of snap parliamentary elections will also include the question, "Do you support Georgia's entry into NATO?" Georgia is currently working to fulfill an Individual Partnership Action Plan under NATO tutelage.
If Georgia chooses to continue the slog toward full NATO membership, success will require convincing the current NATO clique that Georgia can be, on net, a security contributor rather than a security consumer (see NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer's speech on Georgian membership).
This referendum brings to mind two important questions: should NATO expand, and if so, which countries should it invite?
US Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani believes "NATO should be open to expanding its membership" to include Australia, South Korea, Israel, India, Japan and Singapore. Mr. Giuliani argues that NATO should be more than a military alliance, but a "global security alliance."
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
German Politics, Transatlantic Relations on Monday, November 19. 2007
Mark Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, is concerned about Germany's security. He describes Germany as the "soft underbelly of Europe," which presents a tempting target for Russia and the Jihadists.
Having been deeply humiliated in recent years, Russia is now "like Germany between the wars." Moscow is encouraged by European pacifisim and US failure in Iraq and views Germany as "the strategic gate to Western Europe," says Helprin.
And the Jihadists are interested in Germany, because it is according to Helprin the "richest target least defended," because Germany does not spend much on defense and lacks an independent expeditionary capability and nuclear weapons. Helprin assumes that nukes would deterr Jihadists... He also opines that NATO would not retaliate with nuclear weapons, if a member country was attacked by a nuclear weapon.
Germany, says Helprin, "sleeps and dreams unaware" of all theses threats. And the The US just views Germany as a "giant aircraft carrier with sausages." His entire post is available in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal (HT: ROA and GM Roper). I find Helprin's comments on Russia more convincing than those on the "Jihadists."
Posted by Editors in
Transatlantic Relations on Tuesday, November 6. 2007
"If the European allies in NATO do not get to determine the mission on equal footing, they should leave the US to fight it alone," says Nanne Zwagerman in the following guest blog post. Nanne is a Dutchman living, working and studying in Berlin.
 The war in Afghanistan is a controversial topic in many European countries. Where in Germany there is discussion on the extent to which German troops can support combat, the Netherlands has been actively fighting an increasingly intense insurgency in the southern province Uruzgan since 2006. Within three weeks, the Dutch government is supposed to decide upon continuing the mission beyond July 2008. It can be expected that it will be continued, though this will depend upon further commitment by other NATO countries.
In Uruzgan, the Dutch have tried to apply an 'ink blot' strategy, which is focused on weaning the local population from supporting the Taliban, de-escalation and gradual expansion of a zone of security within which reconstruction can take place. Success has been mixed as the Dutch have not managed to expand the zone of security much. They have found it difficult to cope with the Taliban, who do not hesitate to apply terror in the villages outside of Dutch control, killing and maiming even children that cooperate. Recently the Netherlands seems to be gradually abandoning the strategy, as it is focusing more on fighting the Taliban.
Although the principles behind the Dutch strategy were promising, it was on the whole naive. Not because the tactics were too soft, not even necessarily because the Taliban has no scruples about the methods it uses. The reason is that the Dutch can't draw up a strategy in isolation. The Dutch force is but a small part of the international army in Afghanistan. Uruzgan is not an island. The Netherlands can't drive a wedge between the local population and the Taliban with 1,400 troops in Uruzgan when 20 to 30 thousand other troops are antagonising people of the same ethnic group in the surrounding provinces.
Continue reading "A Shared Mission in Afghanistan?"
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Thursday, October 25. 2007
 The Moderate Voice (TMV) is among the most popular political blogs in the United States. It is certainly the premier voice for centrist positions in the blogosphere. Joe Gandelman, the Editor-In-Chief, has invited me to join TMV as a co-blogger.
Here's a quote from TMV's mission statement: A prime guiding principle was that differing ideas don't give people brain cancer, so from the start TMV linked to Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative and centrist blogs. It also put a special emphasis on linking to blogs written by "independent thinkers" of any (or no) party who sought to discuss issues and promote dialogue rather than hype specific candidates or repeat talk show (of the left and right) talking points.
Since then, TMV has grown into one of the Internet's fastest growing and respected group moderate/centrist sites. And it hopes to grow more in coming years. I very much like these principles and goals. In fact, the Atlantic Review has also been linking to both sides of the aisle (and not just to both sides of the Atlantic. Some readers don't like it, but I will continue to link to both Davids Medienkritik and Dialog International, for instance. And I try to see both sides of an argument. Okay, enough navel-gazing and bragging. Of course, Atlantic Review continues as usual. I will cross-post a lot. Sometimes I will write a pointer on TMV and link to Atlantic Review or vice versa. My first post at The Moderate Voice is online: Secretary Gates Is Not "Satisfied" with NATO. It's about Afghanistan, obviously. More specifically: About the NY Sun's wrong point on European policy, about Canada's frustration with the lack of European solidarity, about the "threat" (?) to move US troops from Kosovo to Afghanistan and about US Defense Secretary Gates' politeness. You are invited to translate his diplo speech into plain English. There are quite a few interesting comments from TMV readers. Some of my responses might sound familiar. ;-) The first link in my TMV post goes to a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty interview with Secretary Gates, which was conducted by Ulrich Speck. I am sure many Atlantic Review readers used read Ulrich's Kosmoblog and might be interested in what he is doing now. ENDNOTE: The Moderate Voice has a lot of outstanding posts on the devasting California wildfires. Check it out.
Posted by Editors in
US Domestic and Cultural Issues, US Foreign Policy on Tuesday, October 9. 2007
Two weeks ago, our reader Prof. Stephen Clark wrote a guest blog post about Rudy Giuliani's views on international politics and globalizing NATO: Rudolph Giuliani: World's Mayor?
Now we have a guest blog post about another presidential candidate's views on international politics. David Vickrey, editor of the Dialog International, volunteers for Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign and explains how President Obama would change America's foreign policy and what this would mean for transatlantic relations:
Candidate Obama has delivered several major foreign policy speeches that have naturally focused on the Iraq War, but some clues as to how he would cooperate with Europe can be found in his essay that appeared in Foreign Affairs.
As president, Barack Obama would restore exemplarism as America's guiding foreign policy principle - the uniquely American, pragmatic idealism that has been seen in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, Harry S Truman's Marshall Plan, John F. Kennedy's Peace Corps, and Bill Clinton's Kosovo intervention.
As a first step, America must end the practices that have destroyed its legitimacy on the world stage:
Continue reading "Barack Obama: Restoring Exemplarism in US Foreign Policy"
Posted by Editors in
US Domestic and Cultural Issues, US Foreign Policy on Thursday, September 27. 2007
Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani would like to globalize NATO and apply his domestic reformist approach to international politics.
Our long-time reader and commentator Prof. Stephen L. Clark explains that "a distinguishing characteristic of Giuliani's approach is the belief that local reforms engender global reforms." Stephen was so kind to write the following guest blog post:
A person's life experience informs their view of the world. Rudolph Giuliani became the Mayor of New York City at a troubled time in the city's history. His policies and administration as mayor have been widely credited with addressing the problems he found and his rise to national prominence as mayor of the city through the period of the 9/11 attacks is a story well known.
Continue reading "Rudolph Giuliani: World's Mayor?"
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Friday, September 21. 2007
International Herald Tribune: NATO is backing away from establishing a combat force that would be capable of moving rapidly into conflict areas because it lacks the money, the troops and the equipment, officials said Thursday. NATO's decision to rethink the Response Force is a blow for the 26-member alliance, which was seeking a way to alter a cumbersome and reactive organization of the Cold War era to field flexible units capable of being deployed within days to carry out a range of operations, including counter-terrorism. (...)
Tomas Valasek, a defense expert at the Center for European Reform, a research institute in London, said: "NATO has a problem that affects the EU as well. There are simply not enough troops. NATO is asking member states to sign up to the Response Force at a time when more troops are needed for Afghanistan. NATO has hit a ceiling. The Response Force is a luxury member states cannot afford." The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has sent 40,000 soldiers to Afghanistan and 17,000 are still in Kosovo, nine years after the alliance deployed troops to the Serbian province. (...)
De Hoop Scheffer said that 7 of the 26 alliance members were meeting the benchmark of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Related posts in the Atlantic Review:
• "Maybe It's Time for NATO to Die"
• Bumper Stickers Slogans: What is the Purpose of NATO?
• France Might Rejoin NATO's Military Command
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Friday, September 14. 2007
 "NATO is ready to discuss bringing France back fully into the fold after signals from Paris that it may reverse its decision 41 years ago to withdraw from the alliance's military structures, officials said Thursday. President Nicolas Sarkozy set the tone with a foreign policy speech last month, in which he said that NATO was no rival to France's ambition of a robust European Union defense capability," reports the International Herald Tribune:
Alliance diplomats note France has just taken the command of the 16,000-strong NATO-led peace force in Kosovo and has in the past played a command role in its larger Afghan peacekeeping operation. France could seek assurances from allies - not just the United States but more Atlanticist countries ranging from Britain to Poland - that efforts to build a proper EU defense capability would not suffer as a result of it rejoining NATO. Concrete steps may have to await publication in March of a wide-ranging "White Book" on French defense sector reform being prepared by a committee under the defense expert Jean-Claude Mallet.
Endnote: NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer discussed the future of operations in Afghanistan with foreign policy experts from all parties in the German parliament:
Atlantic Community: Afghanistan: The Way Ahead
Posted by Editors in
Transatlantic Relations on Thursday, September 6. 2007
NATO's Rapid Response Force (NRF) is not at full operational capability, because member states had pledged only about 75 per cent of what was needed, according to General John Craddock, NATO's top military commander, whose letter to NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is covered in the Financial Times.
The German business daily Handelsblatt (via Finger.Zeig) even claims that the United States have "suddenly" reduced its actual contribution down to 5 per cent of the pledged contingent, therefore the NRF's supposed strength of 25,000 is just "above 50 per cent," i.e. lower than the number mentioned in the Financial Times.
Our regular reader and commentator Don Stadler, an American software engineer in England, wrote the following guest blog post on this matter for Atlantic Review:
Continue reading "NATO's Split Personality: Why The Rapid Response Force Is Not Fully Operational"
|
or 
:
Latest Comments
How do you know that people don't also dispise the Turkish government as well? Even [...]
Marie Claude about "Obama Effect": increased diversity in global politics?
bizarre bizarre my posts got into the spam box, uh is it cause of the links, funny [...]
Pat Patterson about "Obama Effect": increased diversity in global politics?
Still on a per capita basis the Jewish population of Germany appears to have declined [...]
quo vadis about Turkey is the most anti-American country
Results like these only reinforce my position that world opinion regarding the US is, [...]
John in Michigan, USA about "Obama Effect": increased diversity in global politics?
Joe, I enjoyed your series [...]
John in Michigan, USA about "Obama Effect": increased diversity in global politics?
'um, this freedom of speech is "killing" your democraty' Yes, our democracy is so [...]