Shinzo Abe's Strategic Miscalculation

Shinzo Abe was wrong to visit the Yasukuni Shrine.

Why?

Because at a foreign policy level, Abe's pilgrimage will be regarded by Beijing as a one-fingered salute. Indeed, Abe almost certainly intended to send such a message. The Japanese Prime Minister might have had fun, but his action was ill-advised. For a start, it's crucial to remember that the Chinese are desperate to advance their regional power base and perceptions of that power. This unambiguous reality is evident in both the East China Sea and in Space. In this sense, by challenging China in such an emotionally evocative way, Abe is playing straight into the hands of the Politburo hardliners. In essence, he's granting them the political cover that they need in order to push a tougher line against Japan. With Sino-Japanese relations already poisonous, this injection of emotion is thus likely to further destabilize the region. China's Foreign Ministry has already hinted that China may respond - they've stated Japan will bear responsibility for the ''consequences'' that follow. Let's be clear, this wasn't the way to send a (necessary) signal of Japanese courage. This wasn't the way to let China know that Japan won't back down in face of growing Chinese aggression. Instead, calm resolution is the far better option - China must understand that Japan and the US will not equivocate; that while we favor good relations, if necessary, we'll use force to defend our interests. 

Rather, this was a product of arrogance. The Japanese political elite remains largely unwilling to face up to the horrific crimes that Japanese military forces committed during WW II. By hiding from that reality, the Japanese Government has failed to understand how deeply those crimes are etched into the Chinese socio-political psyche. Their failure catalyzes the deeper problem - emotion plays a toxic influence in political strategy. It fosters mistrust in place of effective communication and it makes a miscalculation all the more likely. By playing games under the umbrella of American security, Abe has dishonored the United States. While that unyielding umbrella should (and will) of course remain in operation, Obama should also make clear his dissatisfaction over this profoundly unproductive act.

China-Russia Exercise - A cause for US concern?

Warming ties between China and Russia deserve US attention. From their joined support for Assad to their friendship with Iran, both these states have policy alignments that counter US interests.

However, although the US should be cautious in face of this emerging challenge, concern is not necessary. Both China and Russia face serious social pressures in the medium to long term. Russia faces an aging population and a weakening energy export industry (US energy supplies are more affordable). This will debilitate Russia's ability to wage energy extortion in Europe (a favorite Russia approach of recent years). In a similar vein, as Chinese citizens grow in wealth, education and aspiration, they'll demand more from their Government. The Chinese elite remain sheltered in networks of corruption/patronage and China's politics remain stagnant and obstructive of initiative. In short, China faces a major challenge in fulfilling the demands of her citizens.

This isn't to say that the US is perfect - the national debt proves otherwise. Nonetheless, China and Russia cannot compete with the political stability of the United States. This is their greatest sustaining weakness.

 

Hagel, Obama re-Afghanistan, Free Speech, Gun Control, China

1) I was wrong in my earlier support for Chuck Hagel. After re-considering my 'capability, knowledge and character' test (the framework I use when deciding whether to support cabinet nominees), I now no longer believe that Hagel meets the 'knowledge' requirement to be America's next Secretary of Defense. Put simply, his positions on the major issues of national security are deeply troubling to me. They indicate a world view that I believe to be misguided. This isn't about his Israel comments - it should be obvious to all that US-Israeli interests will sometimes diverge (though the anti-Semitic tone Hagel used was unpleasant). However, I cannot understand how Hagel honestly opposes sanctions against Iran. I cannot understand how he can be so openly comfortable with the notion of additional cuts to defense (further cuts on top of Obama's $450 bn/ten year cuts). Mainly, I have serious issues with Hagel's position on Iraq and Afghanistan. Hagel referred to the Iraq 'Surge' as the ''most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.'' When in fact, it was an audacious policy of great success. Hagel has also signaled a comfort with  Obama's increasingly ludicrous Afghanistan policy (see point 2). Taken together, these positions present a concerning picture about the advice and leadership that Hagel would provide as SecDef. Like other conservatives, I also worry that Obama intends to use Hagel to put a Republican face on major defense cuts.

2) Obama's policy towards Afghanistan has always been a disaster. First, he couldn't make his mind up about whether to support McChrystal's strategy. Second, he announced to the Taliban that the US would withdraw on a timeline. Third, he has systematically entertained the notion that his domestic spending priorities outweigh this key concern of national security. Fourth, he allows his policy to be driven by the shifting tides of US domestic politics, rather than by the advice of his senior military/national security leadership. Obama must not burn our Afghanistan successes in a misguided rush for the exit.

3) The growing complaints over video game/movie violence are pathetic and to me at least, also exceptionally annoying. We live in a free society. The First Amendment protects the right of professionals in the entertainment industry to shape their creations as they so desire. This is simple. If games/movies exceed the boundaries of social acceptance, then those productions will cease to gain consumer support and their producers will go out of business. In this context, at the margins free speech regulates itself. America must not follow the European course on free speech. A route typified by highly destructive wars against freedom.

4) Alex Jones is a delusional moron. He loves the sound of his own voice and he doesn't have a clue. But if Jones is a representative of American conservatism, Stalin was a democrat. Piers Morgan is trying to improve ratings on his show and I expect that he is succeeding. On a more serious note, there's one major question that I have for aggressive gun control advocates. If access is the key, why is gun crime highest in highly restrictive gun control locales like Chicago, DC, LA and Detroit?

5) In the long term, China will not sustainably replace the United States as the world's sole superpower. Consider China's absence of basic freedoms, failure to respect human rights, entrenchment of wealth and power in an unelected few and endemic culture of corrupt political patronage. These social challenges portend storms over the horizon.

Pakistan-India, Hagel for SecDef, Assad speech, China threats, UK in EU, Debt Limit

1) The killing of a Pakistani soldier by the Indian military, illustrates the continuing tensions in Kashmir and beyond. I primarily blame Pakistan for this dynamic. Until the Pakistani intelligence service ends its support for anti-Indian terrorists, opportunities for a relationship of greater trust will not be forthcoming. It isn't too good when you have two states who a) hate each other, b) live next to each other, c) are both armed with nuclear weapons. Sadly, it doesn't seem to bother the Pakistani Government when their forces are killed by domestic extremists. Because they don't care, we must. 

2) I wouldn't pick Chuck Hagel to be my Secretary of Defense (for one, I think he was wrong to oppose sanctions against Iran), but I'm not the President. And if Obama wants Hagel for the role, I don't believe that Senate Republicans should oppose his nomination. Certainly, AIPAC's opinions of Hagel are irrelevant. Instead, a candidate's selection for this critical cabinet position should be made on the basis of three considerations: capability, knowledge and character. I believe that Hagel meets these standards and I don't believe that his nomination is worth another partisan battle (especially when he's a Republican anyway).

3) Assad is delusional. He still thinks that he has the power to survive. But he is running out of time. His regime is increasingly surrounded and is suffering defections and a dwindling supply of money. The only interesting part of Assad's speech came when he thanked China and Russia for supporting him. Those two states should be ashamed of their positions on the Syrian civil war. As I argued last week, Putin's Russia is a gangster state.

4) China is engaging in increasingly threatening behavior towards Japan. This follows further Chinese belligerence against other regional states like Vietnam. Obama must ensure that we stand firmly with our Pacific allies. And those around the world who hold fashionable anti-American views should also take note. China is no ally to international freedom. Western romanticism over China's economic rise must be tempered by reality.

5) The British Government is looking to fundamentally re-shape their relationship with the EU. This desire stems from two motivations. First, the UK has had to cede sovereignty to the EU and the UK Government now wants these powers repatriated. This is especially relevant in the field of Judicial issues. Second, with the UK economy still struggling, the Conservative Party needs an issue that can galvanize voters to support them. Because of public dissatisfaction with the EU, pushing for reform in this area is seen to present a political opportunity.

6) The Democrats are freaking out because they know that Republicans are going to push for major entitlement reform come the debt limit negotiations in March. As a conservative, for me this issue is simple. While I supported the fiscal cliff deal, I did so in large part because of the need to show conciliation as a foundation for future compromises from the President. Now, if the Democrats refuse substantial spending cuts/entitlement reforms in return for new revenue and a rise to the debt limit, the GOP should simply refuse to raise the debt limit. Again, this is simple. The American people have seen Republicans newly willing to make tough compromises for the sake of the national interest. Americans also understand that major spending cuts are necessary. So, if the Democrats want to be obstinate and refuse such cuts, then that is their prerogative. And their political risk. In such a situation, the Democrats will bear ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe that would stem from a default on the national debt. (Oh... and the 14th amendment debt argument/ platinum coin argument that some Democrats are throwing out... are totally absurd. I will be writing about the 14th issue in more detail next week.)

Israel, Hamas, Petraeus, Xi Jinping and BP

1) The conflict between Israel and Hamas is reaching new levels of escalation. As I predicted on Tuesday, the day before the conflict erupted, both Hamas and Israel have their own reasons for taking a tough stand. Regardless, in terms of my analysis now that the conflict is underway, I have a number of thoughts. First, in my view Hamas is to blame. Before Israel began to respond, Hamas had fired hundreds rockets at Israel settlements. No state can tolerate the continuation of such aggression. Israel had to respond. Now that Israeli forces are committed, Israel's objective should be to degrade Hamas ability to fire rockets at Israel and to challenge Hamas consideration of the consequences that such rocket attacks will incur. Second, in military terms, Israel should focus on air power rather than a ground force engagement. Facing an enemy such as Hamas, which revels in the use of human shields, any Israeli ground force action will inevitably cause significant civilian casualties (as well as put Israeli service personnel at far greater risk). In addition to the moral component of these casualties, Israel would suffer a strategic defeat in the public affairs narrative that would follow in media reporting. Populist sympathy among Palestinians would be driven towards Hamas and away from the more moderate leadership of President Abbas. Iran and Syria would attempt to use this narrative to drive a divide into the present anti-Assad alliance between Israel and Turkey. Iran and Syria would try to use such a narrative to distract attention away from their own activities in the region. In contrast to the risks inherent in a ground operation, the Israeli Air Force can continue to inflict severe damage on Hamas military infrastructure without ground force-comparative risks. The Israeli intelligence apparatus has extensive intelligence capabilities in Gaza and these assets enable effective targeting from the air.

2) The Petraeus 'scandal' rumbles along. It seems to me that this scandal represents the worst element of media sensationalism. The 'scandal' has seemingly not jeopardized any national security imperatives and yet the media are still baying for blood. General Allen, the ISAF commander, is now being dragged through the dirt for supposedly having committed the crime of the century - 'sending flirtatious emails'. Give me a break.

3) The coronation of the next Chinese leader is underway. Xi Jinping appears to be a pragmatist with some positive feelings towards the United States. We shall see. A strong relationship between China and the United States would be great for both countries. However, such a relationship must be built on a foundation of open dialogue and trust. Again, we shall see.

4) The BP settlement re- criminal justice sanctions, should draw a line under the Horizon explosion. Compensation has been paid, people have been fired. But we don't need a situation in which populist anger is allowed to drive the situation onwards into perpetuity.

Syria Explosion

The attack today on Syria's governing elite represents another step towards the fall of the Assad regime. As increasing numbers of the Syrian ruling elite and their families come to understand that Assad is finished, they will abandon him for their own safety. This trend has been accelerating in recent days. To add to his troubles, Assad is running out of money and simultaneously is loosing trust in the loyalty of his armed forces. As I have previously argued, the US should seek to provide more support to Syrian rebel groups while building sustained diplomatic pressure on China and Russia. While I believe that it is ultimately inevitable that Assad's regime will collapse, I also believe that there are still substantial risks in the near future. Primarily, if Assad decides to go "all out" against the rebels, he may consider the use of chemical weapons against Syrian urban centers. He also might dramatically increase his use of conventional force against Syrian civilians in a much more indiscriminate way (sadly this is still possible). In each of these two scenarios the US must be ready to provide direct intervention capabilities to prevent huge loss of life. The consequences of Assad using chemical weapons against his own people or allowing those weapons to fall into the hands of hostile entities would be catastrophic.

Chen continued..

The situation in China re-Chen is becoming a huge embarrassment for the Obama Administration. It now appears that the Chinese have reneged on a deal to grant more freedom to the political activist and are denying US officials access to him. Chen also appears desperate to leave China. 

The problem here is that Obama claims to be the agent of human rights.. and yet now we have a situation in which the US looks incredibly weak (China ignoring the supposed deal) and fundamentally realist in nature (US more concerned in Hillary Clinton's visit than in human rights issues). As I noted earlier (see post below), the President has a track record in this area. I understand the need for a balanced relationship with China.. I supported GW Bush's 2008 visit to the Beijing Olympics. However, when someone comes to a US Embassy for help after facing political prosecution.. we better be pretty sure that we are comfortable that person won't be screwed when he leaves that Embassy. Essentially, we must ensure that a freedom seeking man or woman isn't abandoned for the sake of our own short term consideration of political expediency.

Obama, Chen and Freedom

IF.. it is true that the Obama Administration forced Chen out, it is just another incident in which the Administration has failed to support pro-freedom movements. IF it is true, it is a profoundly sad moment for the US Govt. When someone enters our embassy because they fear prosecution for free speech, we have a responsibility to stand up for that individual.

Another two examples of where (early on in his term) Obama failed to stand up for individual freedom..

Egypt

and 

Iran

Skip to about 4 minutes in for the best moment..

Huntsman and the Republican VP Slot

Mitt Romney should pick Jon Huntsman as his running mate.

Huntsman's involvement would bring two key benefits. 

Firstly, Huntsman would provide credibility to the ticket in terms of foreign policy - an issue on which Barack Obama is generally well regarded by the American people. Asserting a mandarin-fluent, former ambassador to China into the forefront of the general election, will allow Republicans to show that we are serious about applying a successful and considered foreign policy over the next four years. Put simply, while one-line attacks on Obama's foreign policy are popular with Republican primary voters, these statements will be unable to attract voters in the general election. Huntsman has (in comparative terms) an extraordinarily strong base of foreign policy expertise and he has the charisma to effectively deliver that message to the american people.

The second benefit that Huntsman's VP candidacy will provide is in terms of its benefit for Republican policy debates and party identification. Since the rise of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and the tea party, the Republican party has far too often allowed fringe elements to dominate our narrative both inside and outside the party. This has damaged the long term Republican brand, alienating independents and weakening once robust policy debates. Huntsman would help present the republican party in a different light - a party still conservative, but less emotional and more rational. 

For the past few years, intellect has in some republican circles become synonymous with liberal elitism. Putting Huntsman on the republican ticket will show that this characterization is unjust and in terms of the benefit for republican foreign policy that such knowledge can provide, is also counter-productive.

Obama deserves praise for America's return to Asia

Obama's trip to Asia is a long overdue step towards re-establishing american influence in the region. Since 9/11, american foreign policy has been obsessed with the middle east and islamist extremism to the detriment of compelling interests elsewhere. The rise of democracy and economic growth in Indonesia, a country with around 240 million citizens, is an area where american foreign policy can play a positive supporting role. In attending the ASEAN summit in Bali, Obama will also be able to improve american relations with states like Vietnam and the Philippines that are concerned by Chinese expansion and perceived bullying on the part of that country. Obama's trip also plays a bigger purpose in that it will provide the signal of american commitment to the free movement of goods and services across the Indian Ocean. Supporting democracy, peace and economic growth in Asia serves both American and regional interests, Obama should be praised for this strategic endeavour.