A New Cold War?

Jon Goldsmith

Does no one understand what a huge deal this is? This is a fiasco. We have the Russian mobilization of military aircraft, tanks, and battleships in an attempt to overthrow a pro-Western leader in Eastern Europe—all of which has been commanded by a former KGB Colonel who claims that the biggest catastrophe of the 20th century was Russia losing its satellite states. Russia is no longer a democracy and cannot be treated as one; the same leader has been in power in one form or another for the better part of a decade. This could very well be the start of a new cold war… The United States, worst of all, is bogged down in moronic invasions and is caught with nothing to throw at the USSR but words. The fact that we haven’t even sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Russia to try to work something out it is simply pathetic.

What kind of message does it send to every former USSR satellite nation that a strong U.S. ally, Georgia, is receiving absolutely no support from the U.S.? What hope do we have of stopping Ukraine and Armenia from turning away from the Russian Federation? Where are our cold warriors? Do we forget, readers, that a certain man named Hitler rolled through Czechoslovakia in the exact same manner as Russia, without any opposition from Western European powers or the United States? Is this another time for appeasement? NO! At the very least, the U.S. Sixth European Battle fleet should be mobilized to the Black and Baltic seas. All U.S. reserves must be called up, Nuclear B-52 and B-2 bombers must be placed on alert and commissioned to initiate the 24/7 figure eight flight pattern over the Pacific as they did in the 60′s. Trident Nuclear Subs must be sent to sea.

Although our military is exhausted, the Russians are ten years behind us in technological military research. If we give them time, they will have developed their new UAV and 5th generation fighter in addition to a new Main Battle Tank…Time is not on our side.

John McCain and The Crisis in Georgia

Frank Lyon

Russia’s deplorable actions in Georgia this week provide us with an ideal opportunity to scrutinize presidential leadership. Despite his belated condemnation of Russia’s invasion, President Bush has obviously been more interested in his Olympic visit, where he was seen relaxing and joking around with American athletes while the crisis unfolded. His lame duck status makes his muted reaction to Putin’s (and Medvedev’s) strong arm tactics understandable, though not less excusable.

Since our current president seems to have abdicated the leadership role on the issue, Americans have a chance to see how the contenders for his job might handle it. Conventional wisdom suggests that this crisis will favor John McCain, with his superior experience that comes largely as a result of his age and longevity in the Senate. He should be hitting this one straight out of the park, but if his performance over the last two days is any indication of how he might manage this and future crises, he hasn’t done himself any favors.

CNN this morning (I’m sorry I can’t say on which program – I was watching at the gym and flipping channels) reported primarily on McCain’s inability to pronounce the name of Georgian president Saakashvili, showing back to back to back clips of the Senator mangling the Georgian’s name over the course of a short statement. If the world leader in cable news is trying to give Jon Stewart a run for his money, they are doing a good job, but this is hardly a valid criticism of McCain’s leadership on this complex issue. In an effort to be fair,  CNN also quoted Barack Obama’s response to the Russian incursion, noting that while Obama’s first response was tepid, he seems to have ratcheted up his criticism as the crisis has worn on. There was no footage or reporting on Obama’s pronunciation.

Lost in the serious questioning of whether or not McCain will be able to speak to foreign leaders even if he can’t speak about them is the question of what he might actually do. Here CNN was, probably unintentionally, informative when they broadcast a clip of McCain calling for a UN Security Council Resolution condemning Russia’s actions in Georgia. On its face this sounds like a sensible idea, one which steals Obama’s thunder in building bridges with U.S. allies and approaches foreign policy more multilaterally than the Bush administration has. The problem, however, is with McCain’s proposal itself. It is highly unlikely that the Security Council will ever vote to censure Russia because Russia is one of its permanent five members and holds a veto over any proposed Council actions. Russia, therefore, would be able to block any UNSC measure of censure against itself. If McCain wants to be taken seriously as a master of international affairs, he should know this.

There are a number of possible explanations for  this boneheaded policy suggestion. The most charitable is that McCain simply mis-spoke; he meant to say a UN General Assembly resolution censuring Russia, although GA resolutions certainly have less bite than those coming out of the Security Council. More cynically, McCain could have offered up his policy proscription believing, probably correctly, that most Americans either don’t know how the UN works, don’t care, or don’t trust the organization anyway. The most troubling scenario would be that McCain himself doesn’t really understand how the UN works and its role in international diplomacy. If this is the case, he is closer to the Bush administration in terms of international relations than he would probably like us to believe. Regardless of your opinion of the current administration’s internationalism, it is not too much for us to ask that a candidate President show a little care and nuance when discussing actions to be taken that might confront the world’s second most powerful nuclear arsenal. Especially if he is holding himself out as the expert on world affairs. 

Sarkozy the Mediator, Sarkozy the Capitalist, Sarkozy the Dreamer?

Gabriel Rom

After Nicolas Sarkozy’s recent victory with the dramatic rescue of Ingrid Betancourt from Columbia’s FARC separatists he has received a much needed boost of popular support in his home country, as well as from the international community. Now Sarkozy is playing the role of mediator and is hosting a myraid of middle eastern nations for France’s annual Bastille Day celebrations.

Present at the festivities are Bashar Assad of Syria, Ehud Olmert of Israel, as well as Mahmood Abbas, the prime minister of Palestine. An odd group one may think for a day of french nationalism. Yet Sarkozy has invited such figures for two main reasons. Firstly, To try and foster stability in the Middle East which has been a primary tenet of his presidency since he came into office. But secondly, and more interestingly, Sarkozy sees the huge economic potential in the Middle East that is only now beginning to be tapped.

As Sarkozy has the head seat on the EU’s main governing body for the next 5 1/2 months, economic stimulus and integration between the EU and many of its Mediterranean neighbors seems to be at the forefront of his agenda.

Yet Sarkozy’s “grand plan” has holes in it. As the economies of many Mediterranean nations continue to grow exponentially economic integration with Europe may be seen as just an exploitative way to get a piece of the action in the Med. The mean FDI of Mederteranian nations has grown six times from $9.8 billion in 2000 to $59 billion currently…with growth like that economic autonomy may be a more financially as well as nationalistically attractive course of action compared to European integration.

Additionaly, such political and economic union between nations such as Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, and Israel could be seen as nothing more than Mr. Sarkozy’s naive (or maybe just egotistical) pipe dream.

This topic won’t be leaving the news anytime soon, so expect to see more on it here as well.

Gabriel Rom