I’ve noted before that the State Department is making use of Web 2.0 social networking tools and in this latest example they are using the Twitter service to promote public diplomacy:

For those of you on Twitter, you can experience public diplomacy in real-time as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Colleen Graffy, travels to Bucharest and twitters along the way. It is “International Education Week” in Romania, and she will be meeting with students, Fulbright scholars, conducting media interviews, visiting the University of Bucharest, and speaking at the Romanian Diplomatic Institute, among other things. Follow the details of Colleen Graffy’s trip here, and don’t forget, DipNote is also on Twitter.

I’ve been following DipNote on Twitter for a while now and I’m impressed with the State Department’s web savvy, they are making a real effort to bring diplomacy into the 21st Century. And, of course, you can also follow U.S. Role on Twitter.

In a recently released video message Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri challenged President-Elect Obama’s election promise to send more troops to Afghanistan, saying, “Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them,” and using other language that can only be termed racist propaganda.

I see this latest message as a tactical mistake, reinforcing the view of Al Qaeda in the popular mind as an implacable enemy, building resolve rather than undermining it. A more moderate and conciliatory message focused on the new opportunities presented by Obama’s election would have undermined support for the war at a time of economic uncertainty and suggested a path toward an eventual negotiated settlement. I can only conclude that Al Qaeda is genuinely worried that the new administration will focus on territory closer to them and present a real physical threat to their survival. There seems little doubt that the U.S. will soon send more troops to Afghanistan and challenge our NATO allies to do the same. We are also starting to see the outline of an “awakening council movement” type strategy in Afghanistan that promises to expand the number of tribal allies in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In this CFR interview Barnett Rubin comments on his Foreign Affairs article in which he argues for expanding our outreach not only to local tribal leaders but also to regional powers in order to secure peace in Afghanistan. With any luck, this strategy will really give Al Qaeda something to worry about, and maybe, just maybe, they won’t have time to make any more mocking videos.

Leaders from the G-20 countries met in Washington this weekend to discuss the global economic crisis. The inclusion of countries like China, India, and Brazil in these talks points to an important redistribution of economic power beyond the traditional industrialized nations. Albert Keidel explains how China’s historic decision to fund a $600 billion domestic stimulus package provides a road map for future U.S. policy. David Rothkopf argues that President-elect Obama will need to promote stronger multilateral institutions to govern global markets.

It’s interesting that much of the commentary I’ve read about the summit has noted the historic nature of Bush’s invitation to the leaders of emerging economies to join the summit. For a leader in search of a legacy it may be that his inclusion of these countries may have done more to promote multilateralism than the efforts of other countries whose actions seem to be based more on a thinly veiled anti-Americanism than a true desire to build a new international consensus.

Here are some additional international headlines on the summit:

• The Daily Yomiuri (Japan) - G-20 leaders resolve to overcome crisis
• Business Standard (India) - G-20 for overhaul of financial rules
• Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) - US agrees to share world’s financial top billing
• Independent Online (South Africa) - World leaders vow closer co-operation
• Financial Post (Canada) - Tradition and reality outweigh rivalries
• Deutsche Welle (Germany) - Media Questions Merits of G20 Summit
• The Age (Australia) - G20’s first steps

Center for American Progress Action Fund vice president Nina Hachigian comments to Politico on the implications of the financial crisis for the U.S. role in the world:

The financial crisis is horrible, but it’s reinforcing two central truths. First, that we really have to focus on home and getting our domestic house in order and getting our domestic economy growing again. In order for us to continue to be successful, to attract capital here, we really need to invest in our domestic education and health care infrastructure. … The other thing the financial crisis highlights is that we are all interdependent and what we do here can affect Europe. We need investments from Asian countries - this is all one boat that we are in together.

According to this post-summit report from The New York Times the world leaders gathered in Washington demonstrated a willingness to accept that interdependence and embraced new policies to make that interdependence more transparent and accountable. Specific actions will be hammered out in the coming months at the ministerial level while the G20 heads plan for the next meeting to be hosted by President Obama.

President Bush will welcome world leaders to Washington this weekend to address the global financial crisis. He has already signaled his resistance to increased regulation of global finance in advance of the competing agendas the leaders will bring to the table. This AP report examines the diverse proposals world leaders bring to Washington and it makes clear that Bush’s status-quo approach may not sit well with his peers who are eager for  major reform on par with the Bretton Woods agreement which established the post-war  financial system. It’s worth noting, that agreement was negotiated and implemented over many years, it’s doubtful that a weekend summit will lead to a comprehensive successor. Perhaps this meeting will merely be an opportunity for the world leaders to set forth their initial negotiating positions while leaving it to a future conference, one attended by the new American president, to forge a new framework for the global financial system.

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.

This is a follow-up to the previous post about the Russian decision to place short-range missiles in Kaliningrad. In this analsysis for ISN Security Watch, Sergei Blagov suggests that the Russian decision is not an attempt to challenge the new U.S. president (suggested by the timing of the announcement) but instead can properly been seen in the context of the moves and counter-moves by the U.S. and Russia over the issue of missile defense. It remains to be seen if today’s test of a new Iranian long-range missile (the kind the American ABM system is designed to protect against) will have any impact on the Russian decision. The U.S. quickly denounced the missile test.

I will be off tomorrow for the holiday, so I wanted to wish you a happy Veterans Day. As I previously mentioned, I grew up as a military brat (those who have one or both parents serving in the military) and this is a holiday that we tend to take seriously, as we have witnessed first-hand the sacrifices and hardships that veterans endure in service to their country. The Department of Veterans Affairs website is a great resource if you would like to find out more about this holiday:

Tuesday, November 11, is a day to honor all the men and women who have served in America’s armed forces and to thank them for that service. For information on the history of Veterans Day, this year’s national and regional observances, to read the President’s 2008 Veterans Day Proclamation or to download this year’s Veterans Day poster, visit www.va.gov/vetsday.

As you go about your business tomorrow I hope you have an opportunity in word or action to say thank you to a veteran, and please feel free to use the comments link below to share with us your efforts to honor our veterans.

I mentioned yesterday the Russian challenge to Obama, an escalation in the dispute over missile defense in Europe. Why is Russia mounting a nuclear challenge to a candidate who promised to dramatically change the U.S. nuclear policy by seeking a ban on the production of fissile materials, a reduction in nuclear stockpiles, a reaffirmation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and securing loose nuclear materials worldwide? One would think that this is a nuclear agenda that Russia would welcome. Of course, we don’t necessarily have to cast this in terms of nuclear policy, the U.S. ABM interceptors will not be nuclear and the Russian missiles probably won’t be nuclear either (they have stated that the missiles will be Iskander missiles, a nuclear-capable short-range mobile ground-launched missile), but the question remains, why alienate a president-elect that by all accounts is willing to adopt a more flexible and moderate approach than his predecessor? Stratfor suggests that the Russian action has less to do with missile defense and more to do with dividing Europe:

We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention — and U.S. power — to bear.

Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can’t afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War. The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force. The Russians will be prepared to talk, and will want to talk a great deal, all the while pursuing their own national interest of increasing their power in what they call their “near abroad.”

President-Elect Obama will need to tap into every bit of the European goodwill they offered him during his campaign if he hopes to forge a united allied response to this Russian strategy.

In my e-mail this morning I found the latest newsletter from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace promoting their comprehensive series of reports examining the foreign policy challenges facing the next president:

Next January, the new U.S. President will be confronted with the longest list of severe challenges any president has faced in decades. Prioritizing among them will be even more important than usual. In its new series, “Foreign Policy for the Next President”, the Carnegie Endowment’s experts endeavor to do just that. They separate good ideas from dead ends and go beyond widely agreed goals to how to achieve them.

Topics in the series include nuclear weapons, dealing with Iran, engaging Pakistan, the rise of Asia, the League of Democracies idea, Mideast peace, and climate change.