U.S. Role in the World

This week in which we marked Veterans Day (Remembrance Day for our allies) called to mind our more recent wars, but it’s also worth noting the end of the war that gave rise to the holiday, the end of World War I on Nov. 11, 1918. The war saw the end of great empires and marked the rise of the U.S. as a world power.  In this piece, posted to the American Diplomacy website, Francis Sempa looks back on the Great War and the changes it brought to the U.S. and the world.

It seems like each new day brings a new development in the Georgian crisis. Today President Bush reacted to Russia recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (The Associated Press - Bush slams Russian recognition of breakaway areas):

In an escalating war of words, President Bush on Tuesday urged Russia to reconsider its “irresponsible decision” to shower independent status on two breakaway Georgian provinces. Already rebuffed by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Bush warned Russia to change course and respect the borders of its Georgian neighbor. […] Bush shot back that Russia’s move violates both United Nations resolutions and the six-point cease-fire deal that Russia, under Medvedev’s watch, signed with Georgia to end a war. “We expect Russia to live up to its international commitments, reconsider this irresponsible decision, and follow the approach set out (in the cease-fire deal),” Bush said. The White House says the U.S. will use its veto power on the U.N. Security Council to ensure that the two separatist provinces remain part of Georgia in the eyes of the world.

In this op-ed, J. Victor Marshall, of The Independent Institute, argues that U.S. support for Kosovo’s independence from Serbia helped set the stage for the conflict in Georgia.

Just as NATO justified its intervention in 1999 as a humanitarian defense of Kosovo’s ethnic Albanians against Serbian atrocities, so Russia said it came to the defense of South Ossetia, which suffered terrible atrocities at Georgian hands in the early 1990s, after Georgian troops shelled its capital earlier this month.

Marshall quotes several analysts who warned that U.S. support for an independent Kosovo could set a risky precedent for other countries. Is there any evidence that this may in fact be happening? Russia today warned Moldova to avoid a repeat of the Georgia crisis in their separatist Trans-Dniester region which is mainly populated by Russians and Ukrainians and already has Russian troops stationed there.

The West told Russia that Kosovo was a special case, but I fear that in world affairs such fine distinctions are not as clear as we would sometimes like or wish them to be. The borders of Europe had been settled by past conflict and by law until Kosovo once again opened the door to the nationalist aspirations of restless ethnic enclaves. This is a world that Woodrow Wilson would be comfortable with, but not one that we easily recognize.

As Russian tanks move deeper into Georgia in defiance of the ceasefire agreement The New York Times’ On This Day section reminds us that it was on this day in 1961 that Berlin was divided as East Germany sealed off the border between the city’s eastern and western sectors. The original report from The New York Times can be found here. The Russian advance into Georgia has sent a chill through many of the former Soviet Republics in Eastern Europe who now enjoy freedom and membership (or potential membership) in the EU and NATO. They worry that Russia is seeking to restore the Russian Empire, or at the least, carve out an area of influence (Russia’s near abroad) that they will have no choice but to be a part of.

To allay these fears the leaders of the West must act quickly or risk accepting a new division of Europe. Secretary Rice will soon depart for Europe to consult with European allies and seek a coordinated response with the EU and NATO. Western leaders will be forced to aggressively assert the power and influence of these alliances. This would be a positive response, a more punitive response would be to expel Russia from existing alliances, both formal and informal. There has been talk that expelling Russia from the G8 is under active consideration.

As originally conceived the G8 was to be an economic group of Western industrialized countries, more of a study group or a steering committee really, an annual opportunity for the largest Western economies to consult on economic policy and chart a safe course through economic turbulence. In contrast to NATO and the EU, the G8 is an informal alliance, it was not founded by treaty. Over the years the agenda grew as the membership grew and now that Russia is a member there has been been talk of expanding the G8 to include the major emerging economies of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. The G8 summit agenda has grown to include environmental, humanitarian and energy issues far beyond the original focus on economic policy. Still, for all of that change, the G8 still retains the character of a group of democracies. Expelling Russia with a terse statement noting undemocratic trends in Russia would further define the G8 as a “democracies only” club and establish clear guidelines for aspiring members. It’s not clear though how damaging this would be for Russia, though it would send a strong signal.

Still, there’s no denying that this response is merely shuffling memberships in international organizations, there is at this point no talk of intervening in the Georgian crisis or doing anything to challenge Russia on the ground. Even the diplomatic effort to secure a Security Council resolution is thwarted by the threat of a Russian veto. The institutional inability of the U.N. to act as a collective security organization when a veto wielding permanent member challenges international peace and security has undermined the credibility of the U.N. in the eyes of many. This is an institutional flaw of the U.N. system and no reform is under consideration to change it. If the U.N. can’t act and the EU has a minor military capability and will not act, NATO is limited by the fact that Georgia is not a member of that alliance, and the U.S., already stretched thin with engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq is reluctant to directly challenge Russia when cooperation is needed in other areas (like Iran), then what is to be done? Is the U.S. as “leader of the free world” left to speak loudly and carry a small stick (with apologies to Teddy Roosevelt)?

One proposed solution has been to formalize the “coalition of the willing” concept and create a League of Democracies that would be capable not just of economic action, like the G8, but also of collective security action like the U.N. or NATO in support of democratic states. This would be a new international treaty organization with a new mandate: democracies coming to the aid of other democracies. This sounds like a great idea, but is it needed? Would it undermine or duplicate the efforts of other existing organizations? To gain insight into such questions the Atlantic Community recently offered a pro-con analysis of the idea, with Ethan Arrow laying out the arguments and counterarguments. I recommend this resource to you as we are bound to hear more about this idea in the coming weeks and months as the world adapts to a new (yet familiar) geostrategic reality in Europe.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has journeyed to Germany to deliver a speech today (text, video) and although I know that the Foreign Policy Association is non-partisan, I just thought I’d mention it in the wider context of the historic speeches delivered in Berlin by John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Is Obama’s speech in the same league? I’ll let you be the judge.

For those of you still in a patriotic mood after the Independence Day holiday, how would you like to read a speech given by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams on July 4, 1821? The American Diplomacy website provides a review and a link to the text of the speech. I thought the speech was interesting because it speaks to the constant tension in American foreign policy between isolationism and engagement (and some would say interventionism) with the world. In his speech, Adams says:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

What would Adams make of a world in which monsters are so self-evident that they needn’t be searched for? On a day when Iran demonstrated the capability to attack American interests throughout the Middle East, is Adam’s advice still relevant 187 years later?

It is fitting that progress on disarmament talks with North Korea has been made this week as this also marks another important milestone, the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty forty years ago this week. The treaty created a framework for countries to pledge not to seek nuclear weapons and for existing nuclear powers to pledge to work toward disarmament. Most countries in the world have signed the treaty (including the U.S.), three have not (Israel, Pakistan, and India) and one dropped out (North Korea). Progress is now being made with North Korea, the U.S. is negotiating a deal with India (actually the deal is done but domestic politics in India threatens to derail the deal), Israel remains a “secret” nuclear power (their approach is called strategic ambiguity or opacity, it’s designed to keep their neighbors guessing), and Pakistan, well there are major issues there to address but they seem to have been tabled by the war, at least for the time being. The treaty remains both relevant and timely, when you hear Iran assert their right to develop peaceful nuclear power, that right is enshrined in the NPT Treaty. For more information on this important treaty, I refer you to the Nuclear Vault maintained by the National Security Archive.

I’d like to begin this blog about the U.S. Role by using this first post to look back to a time when the U.S. aided a former enemy and helped lay the foundation for the post-WWII era in world affairs (International Herald Tribune - Germany remember Berlin airlift on 60th anniversary):

Germany on Thursday commemorated the 60th anniversary of the start of the Berlin airlift, celebrating an unprecedented undertaking that probably saved the city from falling to the Soviet Union and helped mend German-American relations after World War II. Often called the first battle of the Cold War, the airlift pitted the United States and the Soviet Union against each other for the first time and set the tone for the decades to come.

Imagine for a moment a world still reeling from the damage of WWII as the U.S. stepped up to airlift food, medicine and supplies to the besieged citizens of Berlin. If public opinion had been as active then, if there had been bloggers, would war-weary people have supported such a daring and certainly dangerous humanitarian mission? U.S. intervention is often cast in negative terms these days, so I thought perhaps this first post might take a moment to look back to a time when international issues seemed to allow for greater moral clarity than do many of the issues we face today. The Berlin Airlift is remembered as a shining moment of American resolve against the Soviet Union, which set the stage for later Cold War confrontations, and as an example of the kinds of humanitarian assistance that the U.S. went on to extend to many nations (most recently in China and Myanmar) in times of trouble.