TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Russia

In Our World

By on 21 December 2008


Taj
and Trident Tower reopen, but not the Oberoi which will take another seven
months or so.


An unsmiling policeman stood behind sandbags, rifle poised. If the metal
detector beeped, a polite staffer requested guests to have their bags checked.

Besides the security, on Saturday, a day before the Trident reopened, it felt
like the most brazen terror attack on India never happened.

[...] On the fringes of the crowd were those who see the Taj every day. Prakash
Chavan, who has been selling peanuts outside the Taj for 15 years, said: “I
can’t afford to walk into the hotel, but when they reopen their doors,
I’ll clap proudly.”

Cheers to India. Never let down. Never let the thugs win.

Iraq’s parliament has dealt
al-Maliki a serious defeat. Sadr is smiling.


Iraq’s parliament has rejected a draft law that would have permitted forces
from the UK, Australia and a number of other countries to remain after 2008.

The bill, rejected by 80 votes to 68, would have given the 6,000 non-US troops
a legal basis for staying once the UN mandate expires on 31 December.

It will now be sent back to the cabinet for amendment. A vote is due next
week. [...]

It’s bad enough the Brits were demeaned to this lower agreement, but now that
Sadr has successfully defeated it that means the non U.S. forces could basically
be kicked out of Iraq. Juan
Cole has more.

The shoe thrower was beaten, according to reports by the Guardian.


he Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President George Bush was viciously beaten after being taken into custody, according to a police officer who accompanied him to prison.

Wrestled to the ground and then buried under a frantic mound of security officers, Muntazer al-Zaidi was last seen being dragged into detention. Controversy has since raged over what treatment was meted out to the man hailed a hero in many parts of the Arab and Muslim world for his protest against the invasion of Iraq. Yesterday there were further demonstrations in the Middle East calling for his immediate release. …

The story of the
Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip hardly makes the news in the U.S. It’s
indicative of our blindness to the suffering of the Palestinians. As good a
friends as we are with Israel, which is as it should be. If that is really true
then it’s time for us to tell our friends enough.


Impoverished Palestinians on the Gaza Strip are being forced to scavenge
for food on rubbish dumps to survive as Israel’s economic blockade risks causing
irreversible damage, according to international observers.

[...]The figures collected by the UN agency show that 51.8% – an “unprecedentedly
high” number of Gaza’s 1.5 million population – are now living below
the poverty line. The agency announced last week that it had been forced to
stop distributing food rations to the 750,000 people in need and had also
suspended cash distributions to 94,000 of the most disadvantaged who were
unable to afford the high prices being asked for smuggled food. …

Our problems with the Arab and Muslim world will not be solved until we give a little tough love to our Israeli friends.
The situation in Gaza is something no one should countenance. Will Barack and Clinton have the spine to do it together? They make the right team.

Settlements and the Palestinians, will we ever find a reconcilable medium?
At least PM Brown is making a concerted effort, one of the few. It’s a never
ending quagmire that awaits Obama. Our national security is tied up in it.


The international community must do more to hold Israel accountable – particularly
on its accelerated West Bank settlement construction – if peace efforts are
to have a chance, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad said in
an interview Saturday.

[...] However, in recent months, Fayad has tried a new approach, proposing
practical steps in which European countries could help curb settlement expansion.

In May, he wrote to 27 EU nations, proposing the link between an upgrade
in Israel-EU ties and halting settlement construction. Fayad also exchanged
letters with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who said he wants to make
sure products from West Bank settlements are denied favorable EU tariffs.

Under a 2003 agreement between Israel and the EU, settlement products must
be clearly labeled. Brown wrote Dec. 9 that he wants to make sure the agreement
is implemented effectively “and any abuse of the system fully investigated.”
Brown also wrote that he’s looking into ways to discourage British citizens
from buying property in settlements. [...]

As the 21st century unfolds, Russia goes backwards to the bad old days. George
W. Bush looked into Putin’s soul, but was too ignorant to see the darkness. Bush ignored Russia, which is odd considering Condi’s historical prowess on all things Soviet. Treason
is now being expanded to include talking to journalists as a possible punishable
offense.


In a country where government critics already feel vulnerable, legislation
to expand the definition of treason has inspired a new round of hand-wringing
about how far the state will go to rein in dissenters and regulate Russians’
contact with foreigners.

Even certain conversations with a foreign reporter could be “considered
treason under the new legislation,” contended Ernst Chyorny, the leader
of a human rights group in Moscow, because they could be seen as “consultative”
support to a foreign entity. And that, he says, could land a violator in prison
for as long as 20 years. [...]

China
sends navy vessels to fight pirates off of the Horn of Africa.

Iran
sends warships to battle the pirates off of Somalia as well.

In the plot thickens, Lebanon
now has an ambassador to Syria. Yep, that’s right. It coincides with another
tale I’ll tell you after the jump.


Lebanon appointed an ambassador to Syria on Saturday, the first time the
Arab neighbours will have full diplomatic relations since gaining independence
from France in the 1940s.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had issued a decree in October to establish
diplomatic relations with Lebanon, with whom bilateral ties have thawed since
the end of a Lebanese political crisis in May. [...]

Now before going on, this exchange was expected “before the end of the
year.” They made it by a week. But that’s not the thing to watch.

The real
story is the pending trial at the international court at The Hague regarding
the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri of Lebanon. After
judges being replaced, deaths, disappearances, witness protection and every
other manner of mob like threats, the beginning of the most dangerous part is near. All signs
are revealing the Assad government had a hand in the assassination, which doesn’t shock anyone who follows this region. The Atlantic lays it out in their December issue: Getting
Away With Murder? This will be yet another swirling wind President Obama will have around him in the coming year.

There is
much talk that even though many facts point to Assad and the people around him, including his brother-in-law, as well as generals in Lebanon, with things as tenuous as they are
in the region, the question is being asked whether the fall of Assad is something
anyone can afford. You likely know where I’m going. In order to save the Syrian
government, people around him could be held up, not exactly patsies but not the head of the snake, which would save Great Britain, the U.S., Israel, etc. from having to deal with the aftermath of Assad falling. The reality is that an assassination of this magnitude would need the backing of a state, with Assad the person at the top. But wait! There’s an on the other hand. What
will the majority Sunni in Syria do if it’s seen that people who planned al-Hariri’s
assassination (likely Shia) are not held accountable? Quite a dangerous situation, with the trial in early in 2009. We’ll see who has the courage to demand justice for the Lebanese people,
as well as for “Mr. Lebanon,” who clearly was more than just a politician to the people.
That’s why he’s dead, with his son in hiding for his life.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Clinton Foundation, and HRC as SoS

By on 17 November 2008

They’re getting nervous now. The Hillary haters are frantic, going back, digging up links about WJC from a year ago, wondering how in the world she could possibly go to State since her former president husband has a foundation that aids the world. It pops up that maybe they could use Hillary’s president husband as the last impediment to getting what she deserves on the world stage. However, it’s not just about vetting. It’s about conflict of interest if Hillary is chosen from secretary of state. That work being quite different from WJC’s foundation, which cannot be linked. It’s about crafting a way to get it done transparently, while separating their roles.

Republicans, respect them or not, are talking about the possibility more sanely than certain males, those so called “leading” progressives.


The possibility of Mrs. Clinton’s nomination generated positive response on Sunday, even from across the aisle. “She is a lady of great intelligence, demonstrated enormous determination and would be an outstanding appointment,” former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger told a forum in New Delhi, according to news services.

This is the point where I get emails on Clinton being the anti-Christ. Additionally, many wanting HRC to stay in the Senate. Some worried this is another close, but not quite moment, wherein Hillary falls short because of judgments beyond her own merits to do the job.

The Senate offers little for HRC at this point, other than serving New Yorkers. That’s great for them, but wastes a talent the United States needs at one of the most precarious moments in world history, not only on diplomatic and foreign policy terms, but economic as well. There is simply no other candidate being considered that can juggle the financial end of the global challenges we face. Whether you’re a fan of Tom Friedman of not, he raised this yesterday on “Meet
the Press.”


MR. FRIEDMAN: You know, Tom, I think that’s important. Obviously, having a woman secretary of state would be important. But I’d step back and say what are the unique conditions right now that actually should affect the actual job qualifications of the next secretary of state? And for me, I’d want a bankruptcy specialist because I think the next secretary of state’s biggest job is going to be managing weakness, not, not strength. Managing the weakness of Russia, managing the weakness of China. I might go back to George Bush Sr., Brent Scowcroft. “Hey, guys, what was it like to manage the collapse of the Soviet Union?” Because I think the biggest problem in the next couple years, given this financial crisis, is going to be managing the weakness of some of the big players in the world, not their strength.

The weaknesses of the leading countries due to the global financial crisis is another reason HRC is a fit for State.

That’s why certain males are having their own little fit, concocting their own little blogger swiftboating of the woman who could take over State. Rahm’s presence as chief of staff was blow enough. But HRC as SOS, it’s their biggest power horror since the primaries. Hillary working for Obama in a way that they hadn’t imagined.

Like it or not, and they don’t, the Hillary haters want to banish all things Clinton from the Democratic Party. Good thing the President-elect is smart enough to know what is needed and who can deliver. No one knows if this will work out so Hillary can indeed take a position she deserves, but that the mere thought is causing such consternation, once again revealing the derangement of some progressive males out there, makes the waiting worth it, no matter the outcome.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Beyond Obama, As The World Turns

By on 09 November 2008

–updated–



Putin is stirring open conversation, helped along by his man Medvedev:


[...] Alexander Rahr, a Russia expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations,
said the notion of Mr. Putin’s return had been discussed openly, with
some theorizing that Mr. Putin had wanted to stay on without amending the
Constitution himself. If Mr. Medvedev makes the change, “it is more
clean, because it’s another president proposing this, not himself,”
Mr. Rahr said.

But let’s get some things straight first. The colossal screw up on Georgia,
the crashing Russian market, and the plummet of oil prices makes Putin’s dreams
of returning to create an empire a bit iffy. That Medvedev started out of the
gate with the missile bluster isn’t helpful to Russia’s status either.

Obama’s office responded with a “no commitment” but, leaving, as they say in traditional security language, “all options on the table.”


“President Kaczynski raised missile defense, but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it,” Denis McDonough, Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser, said in a statement released to reporters. “His position is as it was throughout the campaign, that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable.”

Note to President-elect Obama: To keep Putin in check begin a green revolution
of job creation and energy independence. Nothing could be more important to
our national security and that crazy Central Asian area that’s going to cause
you so much trouble very soon.

Is
Putin Poised for a Comeback? offers more analysis, including that the
Russian people like Putin: Thanks to a carefully honed PR image and a suffocated
media and opposition, Mr Putin is by far and away Russia’s most popular politician.
He is credited with bringing stability to the country after the chaos of the
Yeltsin years in the 1990s.

Something else I’ve obviously been giving thought are the national security appointments. Laura Rozen wrote about it recently. Obama’s security team?



James Steinberg, the highly regarded former Clinton-era deputy national security advisor, is being considered for national security advisor. Long time Obama national security advisor Susan Rice, Clinton’s former assistant secretary of state for Africa, is being considered for deputy national security advisor, as well as for US ambassador to the UN. Top NSC appointment announcements could come as early as today, and other White House appointments would be announced after that.

For top jobs at State, the short list is said to include Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb, ret.), Richard Lugar (R-IN) (all moderate colleagues of Obama and VP-elect Joseph Biden on the Senate Foreign Relations committee), former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Georgia), former Clinton era Balkans envoy Richard Holbrooke, and retired Marine Corps General and Mid East envoy James L. Jones, who is likely to get a top job in the administration elsewhere if not at State. Deputy Secretary of State could go to Greg Craig, a former counselor to President Clinton.

Also take a look at Jane Harman, who’s likely to get appointed somewhere.

But getting back to Steinberg, Rozen evidently saw the same tape, which showed Obama with Steinberg as he went into his first intel briefing after winning the election. As she says, if you’re going for your first intel confab, it would be advantageous to have your national security advisor with you. Though at this point I’m not taking bets on any particular appointment, but Steinberg is someone to eye. Interesting reading from him:


[...]The new approach must have the following key “design” characteristics, which reflect the character of the threat we confront.

1. The handling of information must be decentralized, modeled on a network approach (just as our adversaries have modeled their actions on a network approach).
2. Our strategy must focus on prevention. Although apprehension and conviction of wrong-doers may in some cases contribute to prevention, a prevention mind-set must dominate.
3. The line between “domestic” and “foreign” threats is increasingly difficult to sustain, and our approach must avoid rigid structures and procedures based on this distinction.
4. The range of actors necessary to this task inevitably will extend beyond what can be contained in any single department or organization.
5. The network must reflect the fact that most of the key actors are not in the federal government, but in state and local government, and in the private sector.
6. Because the problem of terrorism is transnational, our approach must integrate the need for wide-scale international cooperation.
7. Since the effort to combat terrorism is a long-term problem and is designed to protect our way of life and our values, as well as our security, the policies and actions undertaken must have the support of the American people.

On the Afghanistan front, Zbigniew Brzezinski signaled a bit of a shift on Afghanistan on Friday on “Morning Joe.”


“I think a limited additional deployment of forces may be necessary. There may be some parts of Afghanistan in which the military presence from the outside has to be beefed up. So I have no objections to some limited further military deployments. What I do feel strongly about is that the problem has to be viewed as a political problem rather than as a military problem and the only way to deal with it as a political problem is to engage the various Talibans, not just Taliban, because that’s to some extent is a fiction. But the various Talibans that exist in different parts of Afghanistan in a dialogue pointing essentially to local arrangements, whereby the local Taliban would commit itself to eliminate or expel any Al Qaeda presence in that region. … In return for which NATO would be prepared to disengage from that region, because ultimately Afghanistan has to solve its own problems, and it’s a country with a real sense of identity, but also xenophobia.”

This is a shift from what Zbig has previously stated, which to me signals that it’s possible some sort of dialogue has been engaged to explain Obama’s broader thoughts in order to bring Brzezinski on board. Pure speculation on my part, but not impossible given Zbig’s prior statements on expanding troop presence in Afghanistan, and also because Obama’s gone to him before.

On the Israeli front, see Rahm Emanuel. Message received?

As for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Juan Cole writes something I wish would catch on, but I say that often in regards to Professor Cole:


If the only real reason Iran is accused of supporting international terrorism is its arming of Hizbullah in south Lebanon, that is a pretty problematic charge. The recent agreement among political parties in Lebanon recognized Hizbullah as a kind of Lebanese national guard charged with defending the Lebanese south against Israeli aggression. …

As for that interesting letter from President Ahmadinejad, Obama responded:


“I will be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad, and we will respond appropriately,” he said, leaving open the question about whether he will reply. President Bush chose not to respond to a rambling 18-page letter he received from Ahmadinejad in 2006, but during the campaign Obama indicated he would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders.

“Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable,” Obama said yesterday. “And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening.”

If you’re looking for bombast or bluster from Obama, please adjust your windshield appropriately. Slow and steady she goes, we can only hope.

Indonesia executes Bali bombers.

U.S. halts Columbian aid, because of continuing scandals.

In the Congo, things continue to worsen.

Spain’s in at the G-20 thanks to France’s Sarkozy.

No doubt by the time you finish reading this there will be more developing. Tenuous times, especially for an incoming president at the beginning of the post Bush era.

UPDATE: This broke later this morning, after this post: China Announces $586 Billion Stimulus Plan:


China on Sunday announced a massive $586 billion stimulus package aimed at boosting domestic spending over the next two years in its most aggressive response so far to the spreading global financial crisis.

[...] “The leadership here is still reluctant to move aggressively, lest it be accused of not attending to matters here and simply following the lead of more powerful countries,” a Beijing-based political analyst, Russell Leigh Moses, said last week. “Beijing wants to look responsible internationally, but it is also terrified of seeming weak domestically.” …

Read full story · Comments are closed

PALIN ON FOREIGN POLICY: You know, it’s like, um, well, Russia is next door.

By on 25 September 2008

Watch CBS Videos Online

*@*$!!! How Katie kept a straight face during this one I’ll never know.

Transcript compliments of Ambinder:


COURIC: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land– boundary that we have with– Canada. It– it’s funny that a comment like that was– kind of made to– cari– I don’t know, you know? Reporters–

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our– our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They’re in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia–

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We– we do– it’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is– from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to– to our state.

Stunning ignorance multiplied by blithering stupidity gets you nominated for vice president? If you’re an attractive woman with a good set of legs, yes. The new standard for women being taken seriously on foreign policy. We’ll simply disarm the dictators with our beauty, as Palin did with Pakistan’s president. Oy, what a setback.

Worst case of gender affirmative action in U.S. political history. She’s George W. Bush in a skirt. Intellect not required.

As for Russia, Sarah’s never been there or done that or anything else for that matter. Via the AP:



Palin has never visited Russia and until last year the 44-year-old Alaska governor had never traveled outside North America. She also had never met a foreign leader until her trip this week to New York. In the CBS interview, she did not offer any examples of having been involved in any negotiations with the Russians.

Poor Joe Biden. This woman is so incomprehensibly ignorant on foreign policy that no matter what he does he’ll come off as either showing off, showing her up, or simply not respecting her, because she’s just that uneducated on national security. I honestly don’t see any way he can beat what will likely be a spin blizzard of platitudes from Sarah’s lipsticked mouth unless he simply ignores whatever she says, which will bring cries of SEXISM! from the babewatch police for not taking this national security nitwit seriously. What a revolting state of affairs.

Read full story · Comments are closed

VEEPSTAKES: The Case for Joe Biden

By on 14 August 2008

Biden’s views on a new Pakistan policy illustrates yet again he can handle the job of secretary of state. But considering other challenges our nominee faces, Biden’s expertise convinced me a long time ago that he’s the
man who can most help Obama when it comes to the nominee’s unknown quantity, which has some European leaders nervous, as reported in the Washington Post. Biden as Obama’s
vice president quiets nerves immediately, because leaders around the world know him. He’s proven. Biden’s recent op-ed in the Financial
Times on the Russia – Georgia conflict further points out Obama could have no steadier
hand by his side than Joseph Biden. Russian
must stand down:


… By acting disproportionately with a full scale attack on Georgia and
seeking the ouster of Georgia’s democratically elected President Mikheil
Saakashvili, Moscow is jeopardising its standing in Europe and the broader
international community – and risking very real practical and political
consequences.

The historic precedents in this case should trouble the Kremlin. The Red
Army’s invasion of Hungary in 1956 succeeded in putting down an anti-Soviet
rebellion, but simultaneously unmasked the brutality of the Soviet regime
and tarnished Moscow’s reputation around the world. Similar consequences
followed Soviet interventions in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. If Russia
continues to overreach in Georgia, it might earn a small tactical victory.
But it will do so at the expense of a monumental strategic defeat.

For years, Russian leaders have had a constant refrain with their American
counterparts. Russia, we were told, wanted two things: international respect
and to be treated as an equal by the United States. However, its leaders have
evidenced few qualms about denying such treatment to nearby countries….

Biden goes on to make the case, not only that Russia is endangering their WTO
possibilities (partially because of the Jackson-Vanik amendment that he mentions in his op-ed), but risks the Olympics in
2014.


For Moscow, the most obvious casualty of the fighting could be the Sochi
Winter Olympics in 2014 – supposedly the crown jewel in the country’s
campaign to reinvent itself. Sochi is only a few miles from the border with
Georgia’s other breakaway region of Abkhazia. Regardless of any political
consequences, if fighting spreads, it could drive up insurance rates for the
games to the point that it becomes prohibitively expensive to hold the Olympics
in the region at all.

He then calls on Russia to stand down, for the country’s own sake: The
only hope for preventing this crisis from becoming a calamity for Russia’s
relationship with the west is for Moscow to immediately ceasefire, pull back
its forces and agree to negotiations brokered by the international community
– all steps that the Georgian government has agreed to. If the fighting
continues, this moment could emerge as a turning point in the west’s relationship
with Moscow, and deny Russia the international standing it seeks.

Can Tim Kaine offer this analysis? Can Evan Bayh? Not without conjuring up his Joe Lieberman, neocon committee roots. As for Kathleen Sebelius,
she is a non-starter for most Hillary supporters and breaks the one rule above
all for vice presidential choices: do no harm. She would shatter the Clintonites
to the four winds, as most would dig in and refuse to work or vote for Obama,
with this happening upon her announcement and before we even get into what she
offers to the ticket. Clintonites simply wouldn’t care. As for the
latest buzz, John Kerry, no one can doubt he’s been out front fighting for
Obama, giving what he didn’t last year. But he brings a whole lot of baggage with him, too, which makes him the absolute wrong choice. So, if it’s not going to be Hillary Clinton… though I still hold out hope.

John Nichols of The
Nation wrote on Biden as well recently. On just about every point we
agree.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hugo And Vladimir Make A Deal

By on 30 July 2006

guest post by Mash

In the age of terrorism, the international arms bazaar is alive and well. While George W Bush myopically marches forward in his War on Terror, the rest of the world is quietly arming themselves and taking sides. Last week, America\’s "strategic partner" and George W Bush\’s soul mate Vladimir Putin inked a $3 billion arms deal with the always-entertaining Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Washington protested feebly as Moscow counted the money.

In a multi-year deal, Venezuela will purchase 24 Russian Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jets and 53 military helicopters. In addition, Venezuela will begin manufacturing Kalishnakov rifles under license from Russia. There are also reports that Venezuela plans to purchase surface-to-air missiles and a submarine from Russia in the future. This new deal comes on the heels of a deal signed with Russia last year for 100,000 AK-47s and 10 military helicopters. Like the current deal, the previous deal also faced feeble protests from the United States.

Russia isn\’t alone in selling arms to the oil rich South American country. Last year even Spain got in on the act by selling Chavez naval patrol vessels and transport planes for "peaceful purposes". It goes without saying that the United States complained to Spain about the arms sale and was promptly ignored.

The United States has imposed a unilateral arms embargo on Venezuela to try to squeeze Mr. Chavez. Predictably, the arms embargo opened the door to the rest of the world to feast on Venezuela\’s vast oil wealth. Venezuela is purchasing the Russian fighter jets to specifically replace American F-16s that it now possesses. With no spare parts available for the F-16s, it was only a matter of time before Venezuela found a more willing arms pusher.

Enter Vladimir Putin. Since taking office he has increased Russian arms exports by 70%. The revamped Russian arms export business brings much needed revenue into the Russian economy. While the United States busies itself by selling arms to allies in the War on Terror such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, Vladimir Putin\’s Russia picks up the slack by supplying arms to China, India, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar and the Palestinians. There is no ethics in the arms business. It is a profit-driven multi-billion dollar industry that has littered the 20th century with the deaths of millions. Now the same stellar record of death and conflict all over the Third World continues unabated in the 21st century. The wars and politics have changed, but the profit motive remains the same.

While each side accuses the other of arming countries that commit human rights abuses, the only sure result is a better-armed world. Russia, for its part, says that by selling arms to some states the United States might consider disreputable, it is violating no international embargoes or laws:



Russia says it abides strictly by international embargoes, and does not engage in trade with banned regimes. But rights groups criticize it for not unilaterally limiting itself.

The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) says Russia has sold weapons to states whose forces have committed abuses. "In Russia\’s export control system, there is virtually no reference to controlling arms exports for reasons connected with respect for international human rights and humanitarian law," the network of agencies said in a June briefing paper.

While the United States obsesses over the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is the proliferation of small arms in the Third World that poses the greatest threat to the average citizen of the world. Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration opposes any treaty banning the trade in small arms because it may weaken its stance on the Second Amendment.

By itself, the Venezuelan arms deal does not pose an immediate national security risk to the United States. However, it does pose a long-term challenge to the stability of the region as Venezuela modernizes its armed forces and sets up its own arms manufacturing capability. Inevitably, if left unchecked, Venezuela will become an exporter of arms to other countries in the region. Given Chavez\’s well-known distaste for the Bush Administration, the possibility of miscalculation exists both in Caracas and in Washington. Furthermore, with characters like Otto Reich and Elliot Abrams in the Bush Administration, any apparent provocation from Venezuela might trigger a neo-con fantasy war in South America. Having failed in 2002 to overthrow Chavez, the neo-cons in the Bush Administration would love to get another crack at him.

Now is the time for tough and nuanced diplomacy with Venezuela to diffuse what could become, without active diplomacy, a serious national security issue for the United States. However, I am not optimistic that the Bush Administration is capable of preemptive diplomacy. Its Doctrine of Preemption is strictly military. The irony of course is that by following its doctrine, the Bush Administration ignores the very diplomacy that would have prevented the need for preemptive war. Having proved its value in the Middle East, the Bush Administration is likely to bring its failed Doctrine to South America.

Here\’s to hoping that time runs out on this Administration before a regional concern turns into a regional war.

 

Read full story · Comments are closed

While the Middle East Burns

By on 16 July 2006








“Our message to Israel is to defend yourself, but be mindful of the consequences,” Bush said at the joint press conference with Blair. “We're urging restraint.” – Bloomberg

Does anyone doubt why the Middle East is in flames?

Thanks to Pamela at Democratic Daily for sending these to me.

By the way, anyone else have any comments about that first picture? Someone looks like he's fallen off the wagon, now doesn't he? The current situation is enough to do it to you, that's for sure.

Bush should just imagine how we feel. Now imagine the Israelis and the Lebanese, to say nothing of the Iraqis.

Memo to Bush: diplomacy now, drink later.

Read full story · Comments are closed