FPI Overnight Brief: March 26, 2010

Iran

“Reza Kahili” writes: We can’t allow Khamenei’s statements to deceive us. Whether it is haram or not, Iran is almost certainly developing nuclear weapons, and an Islamic Republic of Iran with atomic bombs would strongly destabilize the world. The choices are clear: We can either rise up to our principles and defend the aspirations of the Iranian people for a free and democratic government, or we can continue with our vacillation and indecision, allowing Iran to become a nuclear-armed state. Instead of counting on watered-down United Nations sanctions, the West should cut off all diplomatic ties with Iran, close down all airspace and seaports going to or from Iran, sanction all companies doing business with Iran, and cut off its gasoline supply. We should then demand an immediate halt to all Iranian nuclear and missile delivery activities and the right to peaceful demonstration and freedom of speech for all Iranians. And if that fails, a military action should be in the cards. – Christian Science Monitor

Russia

Paul Saunders writes: Jamie Fly and Gary Schmitt are right to ask questions about the role that the relationship between President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev plays in U.S. policy toward Russia and U.S.-Russian relations. But the administration's greatest failing thus far in working with Moscow is not the relationship between Obama and Medvedev; it's between Obama and Vladimir Putin. The prime minister "is still calling the shots" in Russia, as Fly and Schmitt write, and it is difficult to envision how the United States can hope to improve relations with Russia in a sustainable way without Putin on board. – Foreign Policy

A day before the long-standing U.S. nuclear arms treaty with Russia was due to expire in December, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters that the presidents of the two countries had spoken that morning. "In the event that we don't finish or conclude negotiations, which seem unlikely to be concluded in the next 24 hours, there will be a joint statement from the two presidents," Gibbs announced. – Washington Post

Iraq

The man who was widely derided as an American puppet when he stepped down as prime minister five years ago has become a leading contender for Iraq's top job based on his strong showing in this month's elections among a group that lost more than any other with the U.S.-led invasion. Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite known for his willingness to use brute force when necessary, has returned to the center of Iraqi politics after receiving millions of votes from Sunni Arabs, a minority that has felt marginalized since Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003. Political blocs led by Allawi and Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are neck-and-neck in a race that is still too close to call with 95 percent of ballots counted. – Washington Post

China

Ted Galen Carpenter writes: Australians are increasingly uneasy about both China and the United States, although for very different reasons. That dual uneasiness is creating an incentive for Canberra to hedge its bets and become, ever so quietly, more independent regarding security issues and capabilities. That is a development Washington should encourage rather than discourage. China’s voracious appetite for industrial commodities makes that country a crucial trading partner for Australia…Understandably, Canberra wants to remain on good terms with Beijing. At the same time, officials are not entirely convinced that China’s proclaimed “peaceful rise” will be all that peaceful and benign. Beijing’s unexpected arrest of top executives of Rio Tinto…demonstrated that China was willing to play hardball, if not engage in outright bullying behavior, even toward a valued trading partner. China’s rapid military modernization reinforces Australia’s uncertainty about what kind of regional power—and neighbor—the colossus to the north will turn out to be. Canberra’s uneasiness about future U.S. policy is for the opposite reason. Members of the country’s political and policy elite have been quite content with America’s hegemonic role in the western Pacific and East Asia since the end of World War II. But during my recent meetings in Canberra, it became apparent that many of them were worried that Washington would be unwilling—or more likely, unable—to continue such a dominant posture in the future. A parade of American dignitaries and policy experts over the past few years telling them that everything was fine and that U.S. benevolent hegemony would go on forever and ever left them unconvinced. – The National Interest

John Bolton writes: Google's decision should also tell the U.S. government something about how to advocate its interests with China. The Google controversy coincided with cyber attacks against over 200 American companies, believed by U.S. authorities to have been launched by the People's Liberation Army. China's unchallenged behavior shows why we should not be optimistic that romancing Beijing will produce "crippling" sanctions against Iran's nuclear weapons program any time soon. Instead, the Obama administration should emulate Google's approach in official dealings, and support U.S. businesses in situations similar to Google so they do not have to act alone. – Wall Street Journal

Japan

Bruce Klinger writes: On March 9, a Japanese foreign ministry panel revealed that several military agreements between Tokyo and Washington had been kept secret from the Japanese legislature and public for decades. The panel was created ostensibly to fulfill a Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) campaign pledge to improve government transparency. But the report conveniently provides the DPJ a political opportunity to lambast the Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) “lies” and “dishonesty” in the run-up to July’s legislative elections. The DPJ, pummeled by bribery scandals and faulty leadership, is already facing plummeting public support. Although the DPJ insists that this report will not affect its relationship with Washington, the already tense bilateral U.S.–Japan partnership could very well be further strained. These revelations could inflame anti-U.S. opinion, particularly on Okinawa, as the DPJ struggles to produce alternatives to an existing agreement on the realignment of U.S. military forces in Japan. The task force results could also prompt the DPJ to advocate policies during the April nuclear summit in Washington that would undermine U.S. nuclear deterrence capabilities. – Heritage Foundation

Democracy and Human Rights

ICYMI, FPI Director of Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork writes: McFaul pronounces America’s performance in promoting democracy underwhelming—even while crediting the U.S. role in defeating the Soviet Union, building NATO, and establishing a world financial system. These are manifestations of American leadership, with profound and lasting consequences. At a time when there is a concerted challenge to the idea of democracy from regimes in Russia and China, the United States should not contemplate a retreat from the field. Nor would most overseas democracy activists welcome this. For the foreseeable future, American leadership remains indispensable. That leadership, in turn, depends on officials like Michael McFaul who believe that promoting democracy is in the American national interest, and in the interest of people living under dictatorships. – The Weekly Standard

Pakistan

Pakistan and the United States wrapped up two days of high-level talks on Thursday, with a raft of economic development initiatives, an agreement to hasten deliveries of military hardware and a promise to put their often mistrustful relationship on a new footing. – New York Times

Nigeria

Joseph Bottum writes: Make no mistake: What is happening in Nigeria is a battle of religion. Perhaps it has roots in the ancient divide between herdsmen and farmers. Perhaps it echoes some of the old tribal animosities among the Fulani, Berom, Hausa, Tarok, Yoruba, Ibo, and all the rest. And perhaps it is exacerbated by the geographical problems of a nation with an impoverished but politically powerful north and an oil-rich but weak south. One way or another, however, these divisions are now invariably translated into religious terms—and the blood that gets spilled is always in the name of God. – The Weekly Standard

Sudan

FPI Research Associate Julius Krein writes: Amid the growing number of international challenges, recent developments in Sudan have gone largely unnoticed. Yet the progressing conflicts there have the potential to impact the entire continent of Africa and could have far-reaching consequences for the West. To date, most international attention has been focused on Darfur, but it is the imminent independence of South Sudan that may finally push the country over the brink. The U.S. and the international community need to implement a realistic geopolitical strategy for the South or risk regional conflagration. – RealClearWorld

Ideas
Douglas Feith and Abram Shulsky write: There are organizational challenges to integrating efforts to counter extremist ideology into U.S. national security strategy. How can operations regarding information become a key tool of national security policy? How can the government ensure that such operations receive the necessary resources and high-level attention and are properly coordinated with other policy tools? Would these purposes be served by the creation of a governmental agency like the old U.S. Information Agency? If so, what should its charter and activities be? What would be its relationship to the State Department? What should be the role of other U.S. government departments and agencies – for example, the Defense Department and CIA?...In the course of the project, a new concept was developed: an international non?governmental organization to promote moderate thought – that is, favorable to individual rights, anti-extremist, anti?totalitarian, conducive to economic prosperity – in predominantly Muslim societies. – Hudson Institute (pdf)

Europe

Leaders of the 16-nation euro zone, bridging sharp philosophical divides that tested the decade-old currency bloc, backed a deal under which they and the International Monetary Fund would jointly bail out Greece should the country's debt troubles intensify. The agreement won't immediately trigger a Greek rescue, but it lays the groundwork for both the first intervention by the IMF in a euro-zone country and a major relaxation of the tight restrictions on country-to-country bailouts that have been a feature of the currency union since its birth. – Wall Street Journal

ENDS

© Scoop Media