Published 8 months ago
Despite the cacophony and chaos that has become the hallmark of congressional town hall health care reform meetings as of late, the President has nonetheless elected to embark on a series of his own.
Filled with pride, his supporters dutifully tout his bravery in the face of flagging poll numbers and dogged opposition. They swoon at the sight of their champion riding off to battle the forces of fear and hysteria with his cool demeanor, soft-spoken logic and zen-like rationality. They point to the subdued and respectful tone of his audiences as evidence that the fury over health care has reached it's zenith and will soon subside. Logic and reason will win the day and their knight in shining armor will deliver peace to the land and health care to it's weary people.
However, a closer, more objective look reveals something distinctly different from the fairy tale the President's supporters so eagerly espouse with starry-eyed devotion.
Are the President's forums more civil and placid in comparison to their raucous congressional counterparts? Clearly, but one should remain mindful of a few facts.
First, despite our partisan passions and philosophical differences, the vast majority of Americans remain respectful of the institution and office of the presidency. Regardless of the individual, there is a level of decorum and propriety that is inherent to the office. He is The President of the United States, a title of unrivaled weight and distinction in both our political system and national history.
Furthermore, beyond these intangible elements and social customs, there is the very real and tangible presence of the highly-trained, well-armed and psychologically-intimidating Secret Service. Should someone be so bold and dim-witted as to attempt to get in the President's face and shout him down, they would quickly find themselves forcefully removed from the venue and facing potential federal charges. The combination of these elements create an imposing atmosphere that discourages the catcalls and confrontations that have greeted Representatives and Senators in the dog days of their August break.
Indeed, despite the earnest hopes of the President's supporters, the fury over health care reform rages unabated. Moreover, in spite of his best efforts, the President's attempts to extinguish the populist wildfire have been for naught. Neither prime time White House press conferences nor intimate town hall meetings have had any impact whatsoever on public opinion towards the overhaul of the nation's health care system or their understanding of the details and components of the competing proposals.
Why is that, you ask? Because the President, much like the nation itself, knows dangerously little of the proposals' specifics. Nor, as demonstrated by his erroneous assertion of an AARP endorsement, does he know who supports what.
How can that be, you ask? Because the President is following and not leading.
Despite the President's references to "his proposals", the White House has failed to produce any bill whatsoever. Indeed, the confusing and contentious proposals at the heart of the conflagration are products of the House and Senate. Adding to the disoriented discourse is the fact the Senate bill remains a work in progress, still in the hands of negotiators in no less than three committees.
In light of the President's deference to the leadership of the House and Senate in drafting the proposals for health care reform, perhaps he and the nation would be better served if the authors of the bills, the committee chairs, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid would take point in leading us through this steamy legislative jungle. Put the Speaker of the "People's House" in front of the people themselves, place the Majority Leader in front of the majority of Americans.
Pelosi and Reid are the elected leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress. They should embrace the principal enshrined in their party's name and eagerly engage in the discourse of our democracy. Allow them to unequivocally demonstrate that the courage of their convictions is equal to their desire for the speedy passage of their proposals. Indeed, if they wish to be the architects of the Republic's future, let them be as forthright as those who laid it's foundation in the past. That dialogue, between the people and their elected representatives is at the very heart of American democracy, after all.
Then again, perhaps that is nothing more than a quaint fable from the fairy tales of yore.
Once upon a time, faithful readers. Once upon a time in America.......
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if there is indeed a happy ending to this story.
Published 8 months ago
Friday we took a look at the geo-economic forces driving Moscow and Beijing's aversion to actively joining Washington's drive to pressure Tehran over it's nuclear programs. Today, let's turn our attention to the strategic and geopolitical issues which compel the two to buttress the mullahs with their vetoes in the United Nations' Security Council to the exacerbated dismay of their American counterpart.
As noted in regards to Beijing's position on Pyongyang's nuclear program, China maintains a principled and long-standing apprehension towards internationally-sanctioned actions that infringe on a state's sovereignty. Accordingly, there is a natural inclination to defer to Tehran and defend it even to the brink of Iran's potential withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This conveniently coincides with larger geopolitical concerns including a desire to repay Washington for what at one time appeared to be an attempt to counterbalance a rising China with a nascent strategic partnership with India.
In what initially appeared to be a masterstroke of geopolitical chess, the Bush administration entered into a nuclear technology agreement with New Delhi. In addition to unilaterally absolving India of it's nuclear proliferation pariah status, the move was viewed in Beijing as a not so subtle part of a new American containment policy directed against the Middle Kingdom. Looking across the region, the Chinese saw American allies in Japan, South Korea, Australia and Taiwan, improving relations with Washington's former foes in Vietnam and now a burgeoning strategic relationship with Beijing's nemesis on the subcontinent. The subsequent unspoken quid pro quo is clear - if Washington can extend it's political patronage to New Delhi to the detriment of China's strategic interests, Beijing can do likewise with Tehran at America's expense.
In similar fashion, the Kremlin seeks geopolitical retribution for what it considers to be Washington's recent interloping in it's "near abroad" in Ukraine and Georgia.
Having supported anti-Russian "color revolutions" in the two former Soviet Republics, the Bush administration went as far as suggesting the two be considered for membership in NATO. Extending NATO's reach to the borders of the Russian heartland, the proposal was considered blatantly provocative and a direct threat to Moscow's territorial security. Revealing the limits of America's abilities to defend it's would-be alliance members, the Kremlin took advantage of Georgian adventurism and overconfidence to unequivocally reassert it's influence over it's former comrades last summer. Mercilessly mauling the tiny republic, the Bear displayed both it's military might and political resolve. Hamstrung by a lame duck president in the midst of a presidential campaign, it's military stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan with it's allies divided over what the appropriately inoffensive, symbolic response should be, America watched passively as Russian forces crushed the outnumbered and beleaguered Georgian defenders.
Regardless of it's military victory in the heart of the Caucuses, Moscow feels Washington has meddled in a region vital to it's long term geopolitical interests as well as it's prestige. Accordingly, it now seeks to return the favor. It views the Middle East and Iran as a means to that end.
Having withdrawn as a peer competitor for regional hegemony in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, the Kremlin now sees an opportunity to reassert itself in what had essentially become America's exclusive sphere of influence. Nurturing close political, intelligence and economic ties with Tehran, Moscow hopes to ride the cresting wave of it's influence across the region - a wave it believes will bring it lucrative economic and strategic opportunities while washing away the waning remnants of America's geopolitical dominance. This coincides with the belief in Beijing that America will be forced to dramatically scale back it's strategic commitments and military deployments globally over the coming decades, opening up similar opportunities for those poised to take advantage of them.
In the end, the Bear and the Dragon believes a graying Eagle will be forced to return on weakened and fraying wing to the comforts of it's North American nest. In it's wake, they intend to fill the political and strategic void left by it's absence.
That being the case, one wonders why it is in Beijing and Moscow's strategic interest to assist Washington with a recalcitrant and nettlesome Tehran, thereby alleviating some of the very pressures that may ultimately drive it from it's position of geopolitical prominence on the world stage?
The answer is simple - it is not.
Therefore, in the end, they will not.
Why is it the words to one of Joe Walsh's classics keep ringing in my ears, faithful readers? I can't help the feeling, we're living a life of illusion.
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if America remains backed up against a wall of confusion.
Published 8 months ago
After Pyongyang's most recent nuclear test and the repeated provocations of it's numerous missile launches, we looked at the underlying issues behind China's reluctance to aggressively sanction their maddening neighbors in the Hermit Kingdom. Now with hardline President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad having been sworn in for a second term, many wonder if the United States and Iran will ever enter into serious dialogue over Tehran's burgeoning nuclear programs. Looking far afield for any potential leverage against Iran, not only does China once again come into play, but Russia enters America's strategic calculus as well. That being the case, the question is - what are the prospects - or lack thereof - for assistance with this sticky Persian wicket from our "dear friends" in Beijing and Moscow?
First, we must recognize that many, including the Chinese themselves, see China as an ascendant power with an increasingly influential role in the international system. With the world's third largest economy, foreign currency and treasury bond reserves well north of a trillion dollars and double-digit annual economic growth and military spending increases, there is little doubt the Chinese dragon has woken from it's self-imposed slumber and is roaring with a pride and self confidence unparalleled in the modern era. Concurrent to Beijing's rise, Moscow seeks to reestablish Russia's position of prominence among the leading ranks of states. In doing so, it hopes to once again bask in the fear, respect and influence the Bear commanded in it's former glory days when it confidently confronted America and it's allies at the height of the bipolar Cold War.
Though the dynamics of the international sphere are fluid, there is the fervent belief among many in the foreign policy intelligentsia in what can be referred to as the Spider Man axiom of international affairs- With great power comes great responsibility. In their minds, Beijing and Moscow have a responsibility as stakeholders and would-be leaders in the international system to assist in the maintenance of it's stability. Part and parcel of that entails working in concert with other leading powers to address threats to the system. Iran, the argument goes for varying reasons in both Liberal and Conservative circles, is just such a gathering threat.
Nonetheless, this begs the question - Why is it in Beijing and Moscow's strategic interests to maintain the stability of an international order constructed by and favoring the United States and it's allies? The answer is simple - it is not.
As is the case so often, one of the primary integers in China and Russia's strategic calculus in regards to Iran is economics. That being said, today we'll look at the economic factors underpinning their reluctance to take substantive action against the recalcitrant regime in Tehran.
Let's begin with China. Beijing, ever taking the long view and mindful of the need to keep it's economic engine well-fueled, views the oil fields of the Middle East as critical to it's national security. As part of a broader global initiative that combines low interest loans, massive infrastructure investment, exclusive access agreements, partnerships with local firms and governments, outright purchases of foreign energy fields and political protection in the international arena and the United Nation's Security Council, China has signed long term development and exclusivity deals with Iran for both oil and natural gas. Beijing places access to reliable sources of energy and the societal stability and politically legitimacy of the Communist Party that is directly linked to a growing economy ahead of America's desire to restrain a rising and potentially nuclear-armed Iran.
In addition to energy, arms also trade hands between China and Iran. For example, the Iranian side of the Persian Gulf is dotted with Chinese-manufactured sea-skimming Silkworm anti-ship missile batteries. In the event hostilities would occur between the US and Iran, odds are the Iranians would launch an aggressive anti-access/area denial offensive that incorporated Silkworm missile follies designed to overcome American close-in naval defenses. The objective would be to drive the Sixth Fleet from the Gulf, thereby limiting it's operational effectiveness and lethality. Should the tactic prove successful, China would reap the windfall profits of both Iranian resupply orders as well as purchases from other states seeking to keep the American navy at arm's length.
Furthermore, the trump card of Chinese held American securities, treasury bonds and currency reserves provides a greater sense of maneuverability and independence of action for Beijing. Accordingly, the Obama administration must be mindful that should it press it's counterparts in the Middle Kingdom too forcefully it places the stability and value of the dollar in jeopardy.
While many rightfully point out that dumping dollars would result in serious self-inflicted wounds for China, the Administration would be well-advised not to take solace in this thought. Given the proverbial alignment of the geopolitical stars with the corresponding concert of the right set of circumstances at the right time, Beijing may well calculate that the pain is worth the long term benefit of toppling the United States from it's lofty perch atop the international system. Though China may willfully cast itself into the heart of the maelstrom, the rationale would be the end of America's preeminence and the inauguration of an era of true multipolarity. Such an event would open the door for China to challenge for the role of regional hegemon, not an unappealing prospect for a nation that believes it fails to receive the respect, deference and influence it is due as one of the world's oldest cultures and civilizations.
Russia, like China, is also a supplier of arms to Iran. From T-72 tanks to MIG-29 fighters, Moscow has sold billions of dollars and hundreds of weapons systems to Tehran over the past two decades. A point of contention between the Pentagon and the Kremlin and of particular concern to both American and Israeli Air Force planners is Russia's agreement to provide Iran with the advanced TOR M-1 air defense missile system. Ostensibly reported to supplement air defense of the Russian-built nuclear reactor at Bushehr, the purchase is a $700 million deal. Accordingly, it is in Russia's economic interests to allow tensions between Washington and Tehran to remain unresolved - tension generates fear, fear spurs arms sales.
As noted previously, Russia has built the nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Seeking to sweeten the pot and retain Moscow's protection in the UN Security Council, Tehran has suggested Bushehr could be the first of up to two dozen potential Russian-built reactors in Iran. Contracts for such an ambitious program would run in the hundreds of billions of dollars and span decades. Needless to say, by comparison, the prospects for similarly profitable opportunities in the US are exceedingly slim.
Finally, there is the issue of natural gas. Seeking significantly enhanced influence over global markets, Moscow has proposed the creation of a producer's group similar to that of OPEC. The foundation of that group would be Russia, Iran and Qatar, who collectively control roughly 55 percent of the world's proven natural gas reserves. That being said, one can hardly expect Moscow to countenance the sanctioning of a crucial partner in what it perceives to be in it's long term economic interest.
While Americans may disparage Beijing and Moscow for cynically placing their own economic interests ahead of global security and stability, one should remain mindful of the fact that the European Union, and the Germans in particular, have similarly been loath to aggressively sanction Tehran for fear of losing lucrative contracts worth billions of Euros. Accordingly, serious observers should be neither shocked or offended when the Chinese and Russians laugh off what might otherwise be biting condemnations were it not for the actions of some of America's closest allies.
Penny for your thoughts, faithful readers? Or perhaps your security?
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and tune in Monday for a look at the strategic and geopolitical forces behind Beijing and Moscow's rebuffing of Washington's entreaties for assistance with Tehran.
Loading
1 comment