Why Obama must get tougher on Putin

Why Obama must get tougher on Putin. My latest piece for The Week.

North Korea missile test

From my perspective, the latest North Korean missile test raises three immediate points.

1) North Korea's decision to fire the missile over Okinawa is a deliberate challenge to the United States (the US has a major military presence on the island). The US response must be clear and robust. While it is likely that this test is partly the result of Kim Jong Un's desire to flex his muscles and in so improve his credibility with the North Korean generals, it's also important that consequences follow this provocation. As such, the United States should summon a UN Security Council meeting to condemn North Korea and to begin moves to tighten international sanctions against the regime. The North Korean leadership must be made to understand that every action like this one, drives them further away from a detente with the international community. A detente that North Korea desperately needs in order to strengthen their presently shambolic economy.

2) North Korea's ballistic missile capability is improving. The regime's paranoia and predictably unpredictable behavior mean that North Korea will become an increasing international security challenge in at least the near-medium term future. The United States and the international community must ensure that we do not neglect the need to be vigilant in the face of increasing North Korean aggression. International security does not begin and end in the Middle East.

3) Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their destructive enabling components (for example ballistic missiles) presents the key security concern of our age. As I've noted with regards to other parts of the world, we must be attuned to this threat.

Iran Talks?

It appears that the Obama Administration is planning to talk to Iran if the President is re-elected in November. Of course, the Obama Administration is now denying that the reports are true. I don't believe them.

 I have no problem with any President discussing Iran's nuclear program in one on one talks. However, I would add two caveats to that. First, that the President or his representatives go into the discussion with the understanding that no sanctions are lifted or delayed until Iran accepts full, verifiable inspections of an ended nuclear program. Two, that there is clarity on the part of the President that Iran has a long record of using negotiations as a tool to buy time and divide alliances against them. Iran last tried this in February 2012. It was a joke then and it is probably a joke now. But... the cause of peace and the horror of war demand that we extinguish all diplomatic avenues before resorting to the use of force. Let me emphasize again - no concessions until a full solution is reached.

Romney - Bolton

Mitt Romney's decision to have John Bolton campaign for him is a mistake. From my perspective, Bolton's criticism of Obama is unfair. Obama's foreign policy record presents a number of important areas for Republican criticism (uncertainty vis-a-vis Iran policy, contradictory positions on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, failure to fully support/take advantage of the arab spring, artificial deadlines for Afghanistan troop withdrawals etc) - BUT it is absurd to state that he doesn't care about protecting the US or that he deserves no credit for the Bin Laden operation*. Because John Bolton dislikes the President (a lot) he makes too many emotionally rooted statements that lack logical substance. 


However, what American foreign policy really needs is more rational analysis and less populist screaming.


*Re - Bin Laden Strike.. While in my opinion Obama waited too long before authorising the strike, he deserves credit for maintaining the secrecy of the operation and having the courage to decide to send ground forces into Pakistan.

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.