Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that Gordon Brown, prime minister of the UK, Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany and Nicholas Sarkozy, president of France have sent a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, asking the UN to sponsor a meeting of allies engaged in the war in Afghanistan to discuss coordinating resources and support for the U.S.-led  effort, once the next government is formed.

Brown and Merkel face considerable opposition at home for their armies’ participation in the Afghanistan war.  Britain and German military forces are the second and third largest of NATO participants in the Afghanistan operation.  It is not merely Americans who are dying in Afghanistan.  Fifty British soldiers have died over the last four months; as a result, Brown faces increased opposition not only from the Tories but also within his own party — one junior minister already has resigned in protest.

The NATO airstrike called by a German general officer last Friday has generated considerable outrage in Germany. Speaking before the German Bundestag today, Merkel strongly defended the German military who called in the airstrike resulting in approximately 70 to 100 persons killed, while urging patience and called for a full investigation saying that “any innocent life lost in Afghanistan is one too many.”

The Financial Times also reported that

Ms Merkel on Sunday came under fire from opposition parties over her government’s military deployment in Afghanistan, which is opposed by most Germans. Gregor Gysi, parliamentary head of the radical Left party, criticised the air strike against hijacked tankers ordered by German troops in Kunduz province on Friday. Mr Gysi called the resulting deaths of civilians “unjustified and inexcusable.”

No doubt the Social Democrats and Greens also will make the NATO air strike an issue in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan has assigned Canadian Maj. Gen. C. S. Sullivan to lead the formal investigation along with an U.S. Air Force Officer and a German legal advisor.  Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Prime Minister of Denmark, who assumed the NATO secretary general position last month, also called for an investigation.

The timing of the Europeans’ announcement is no coincidence.  U.S. allies in Europe want to know what the Obama Administration’s plans are to “fix” Afghanistan, and will continue to withhold their full support until they have an answer.  Meanwhile, the Administration is weighing a new report from McChrystal that in all likelihood includes a request for more troops.  Although Obama will be focusing on health care over the next few weeks, Afghanistan is also likely to remain on the front burner, especially given the reported disagreements within Obama’s national security team.

As Merkel and Brown continue to face growing domestic opposition to continued participation in ISAF,  they will continue to push the Obama Administration to make its priorities clear and chart a way forward that will benefit the Afghan people — and in the process, make it easier for U.S. allies to convince their electorate of the need for continued engagement.

Related posts

• Citizen of the World? No, Debtor of the Chinese
• While You Were Away: Russia-Georgia
• Systems Theory and U.S. Foreign Policy: Obama’s Trip to Europe
• Sarah Palin and Henry Kissinger: Blech.
• Obama, Europe and Gallup: A Berlin Bounce?

I usually mock celebrities self-indulgent and frequently tin-eared dedication to causes (no matter how well-intentioned their efforts and how important the cause may be), but this is pretty cool (h/t):

The story of the Gurkha Regiments is extraordinary, and to this day, Gurkhas continue to serve in the British Army with considerable distinction.  I’m surprised it hasn’t been made into a film.  Kudos to Joanna Lumley (of Ab-Fab fame) and those who worked with her.

That said, the unspoken part of the story is that Gurkhas want to leave Nepal rather than stay.  The reality is that even before the civil war, Nepal was a mess.  The war’s end has done little to resolve the fundamental challenges facing the country — most notably its continued desperate poverty.  That the country’s heroes would rather live elsewhere is a sad commentary on their impoverished homeland.

Related posts

• Posturing for Change
• Parochial Headline of the Week
• Obama’s Foreign Policy: Nothing Personal
• Incredibly Bad Idea of the Day
• Ich bin ein Käse Auslieferungaffen essend

British Foreign Minister David Miliband, in today’s Guardian, via the always excellent China Digital Times:

David Miliband today described China as the 21st century’s “indispensable power” with a decisive say on the future of the global economy, climate change and world trade.

The foreign secretary predicted that over the next few decades China would become one of the two “powers that count”, along with the US, and Europe could emerge as a third only if it learned to speak with one voice.

The remarks, in a Guardian interview, represented the most direct acknowledgement to date from a senior minister, or arguably from any western leader, of China’s ascendant position in the global pecking order. . . .

Miliband compared China’s potential role in the coming years to the role the US claimed for itself in the 20th century, recalling a 1998 boast by Madeleine Albright, then US secretary of state.

“China is becoming an indispensable power in the 21st century in the way Madeleine Albright said the US was an indispensable power at the end of the last century,” Miliband said. “It has become an indispensable power economically, and China will become an indispensable power across a wider range of issues.”

But in contrast to America’s 20th-century ascent, which eclipsed Britain, Miliband said China would not displace the US but rather join it at “the new top table”, and because of its low per capita income, it would not rival the US as the world’s leading superpower for at least a generation. . . .

Miliband compared China’s potential role in the coming years to the role the US claimed for itself in the 20th century, recalling a 1998 boast by Madeleine Albright, then US secretary of state.

“China is becoming an indispensable power in the 21st century in the way Madeleine Albright said the US was an indispensable power at the end of the last century,” Miliband said. “It has become an indispensable power economically, and China will become an indispensable power across a wider range of issues.”

But in contrast to America’s 20th-century ascent, which eclipsed Britain, Miliband said China would not displace the US but rather join it at “the new top table”, and because of its low per capita income, it would not rival the US as the world’s leading superpower for at least a generation.

I find it interesting that Miliband uses language — as he himself acknowledges — that echoes Madeleine Albright’s description of the United States (pre-Bush) as the “indispensable nation.” But there’s a fundamental difference here, one that I’m sure Milibrand intended.

Albright was arguing that the U.S. was essential not merely because of its military or economic power, but also because of its values.  Here, via the Googles, is (what I think is) the original quote, which came during a February 1998 town meeting in Columbus, Ohio (one, ironically, that was disrupted by protesters unhappy with the Clinton Administration’s decision to launch a military strike on Iraq):

“What we are doing,” replied Albright, “is so that you all can sleep at night. I am very proud of what we are doing. We are the greatest nation in the world. . . .”

She stopped as the audience rose and applauded.

“. . .and what we are doing,” she resumed, “is being the indispensable nation, willing to make the world safe for our children and grandchildren, and for nations who follow the rules.”

Milibrand, in contrast, is talking about China’s strong economic position, not its values:

“Historians will look back at 2009 and see that China played an incredibly important role in stabilising global capitalism. That is very significant and sort of ironic,” Miliband said. “There’s a joke that goes: ‘After 1989, capitalism saved China. After 2009, China saved capitalism.’” . . .

Those are two very different world views, and given the current world economic situation (and the shrinking role of the United States), I’m afraid that Miliband’s conception of indispensability is far closer to reality than Albright’s.

It’s also striking that Miliband does not see Europe as one of the “powers that count.”  I’m sure that will go over well in Brussels, Paris, and Berlin.  I wonder how the Tories will react — on one hand, they’re mostly Euroskeptics, but on the other hand, Britain’s own foreign minister just dissed the power of Great Britain (albeit indirectly).

To put all of this in context, the annual EU-China summit is scheduled to start on Wednesday.  Given Milibrand’s comments — which, among other things, makes a joke about what happened in 1989 — the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown may believe it no longer has the luxury to criticize a government that will play a central role in determining whether or not the British economy craters (further).

Perhaps what Miliband is actually saying is that China is indispensable to the U.K.’s success — and the future electoral success of the Brown government.

I’m sure quite a few folks in Beijing are smiling right now.

Related posts

• Posturing for Change
• Obama’s Foreign Policy: Nothing Personal
• Incredibly Bad Idea of the Day
• G-5, not G-4: The Rise of China
• Department of Unfortunate Metaphors

When I read Marc Ambinder’s report of Obama’s meeting today with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, the following passage stuck out:

At a briefing with reporters this morning, senior administration officials seemed to go out of their way to define the content of the developing Obama-Medvevev relationship as being workmanlike, rather than personal. ”Out strategy was not to make the goal of the meetings to establish some buddy relationship,” an SAO said. “The goal is to advance our interests. Having dialogue is a means…. but the goal is not to have a personal relationship.”

Now take a look at what Obama said in his joint appearance with Gordon Brown at the White House last month:

Well, first of all, the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain is one that is not just important to me, it’s important to the American people. And it is sustained by a common language, a common culture; our legal system is directly inherited from the English system; our system of government reflects many of these same values. So — and by the way, that’s also where my mother’s side of my family came from.

So I think this notion that somehow there is any lessening of that special relationship is misguided. Great Britain is one of our closest, strongest allies and there is a link, a bond there that will not break. And I think that’s true not only on the economic front, but also on issues of common security.

At the time, much of the British press — and a not inconsiderable portion of the MSM in the States — hyperventilated over what Obama’s supposed “snub” of the Brits.  No State Dinner!  He returned the Churchill statue!  He gave the PM DVDs as a gift!  OMG the Special Relationship is no longer special!  In contrast, Obama’s meeting with Brown this morning was low-key, restrained and focused on the the challenges facing the G-20 — as it should be.

Next, take a look at part of the President’s statement on his Administration’s strategy for Afghanistan-Pakistan:

The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan.  In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier.  This almost certainly includes al Qaeda’s leadership:  Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.  They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan.  For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.

The object is to defeat al Qaeda, not get bin Laden.  Similarly, the Administration has made it clear (albeit informally) that it no longer will refer to the conflict with al Qaeda as the “Global War on Terror.”

So what do these stories and statements have in common?  For Obama, foreign policy is not a frat party.  Brown is not his “staunch friend.” Medvedev is neither a “soul” mate or “troublesome and unhelpful.” ; and Osama bin Laden is not an “evil-doer.”

Unlike his predecessor, who personalized everything, Obama is keeping his distance, regardless of whether he is dealing with a friend, competitor, or enemy.  He is pursing a businesslike approach to foreign policy, focusing on country-to-country relations, not private relationships.

That is pretty much a textbook example of realism.  He views relationships as a function of American interests, and acts accordingly.  The downside of this approach is that some issues, such as human rights, are less likely to impress the President as priorities simple because it’s the right thing to do.  He still may (or may not) champion human rights, but he’ll do so because it is in America’s best interest.

Obama has to walk a pretty fine line on his current trip.  He must demonstrate leadership without looking like the United States still has the ability — or the credibility — to define the agenda.  He must demonstrate to other world leaders that he can push his ideas forcefully without trying to cram them down their throat.  He must demonstrate a willingness to compromise without looking weak.

If he pulls all of that off, it might be because he didn’t try to treat everyone as his pal.  It’s a pretty sensible approach, and it mirrors his “no drama” persona.

It’s going to be a fascinating few days.

Related posts

• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• G-5, not G-4: The Rise of China
• While You Were Watching the View. . .
• Transition Open Thread
• The Speech

We’re taking one last look back at the most discussed — and controversial — Olympics since Berlin 1936. Previously, we looked at the winners and the losers.  Now let’s take a look at winners who in fact lost.

1.  Chinese women’s gymnastics team — nobody believes they were all sixteen years old.  Not even the Chinese.  They may have won gold, and the Chinese may have avoided a scandal as a result of forged documents, but the reality is that sooner or later, someone will talk.

2.  Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh — the American bikini-clad, gold medal-winning women’s beach volleyball team may have been the ugliest winners in the entire Olympics.  And May-Treanor’s “slap my butt” antics with President Bush set back both the sport and America’s image.

3. Russia — Russian athletes came in third in terms of total number of medals won.  After the invasion of Georgia, however, nobody wanted them to win anything.  And at one point in the Games, Georgia had as many gold medals as Russia.  In addition, Russia’s hosting of the winter games at Sochi in 2014 may be at risk, given their location only fifteen miles from the Russia-Georgia border.

4.  Zhang Yimou — the director of the the Opening and Closing ceremonies actually praised the “precision” of North Korean performers and dissed the New York Metropolitan Opera as whiners.  He also ignored his own history — as a victim of the Cultural Revolution — to suck up to the Chinese leadership and produce massive extravaganzas without any consideration of the resultant human cost.

5.  London 2012 — they may have the next games, but they have to follow what was (setting aside, for the moment, human rights abuses and other problems) the best-organized Games ever.  And the London contribution to the Closing Ceremonies was beyond bad.

Next up:  the medal winners in the Schadenfreude competition.

Related posts

• Picture of the Day
• Controlympics: Russia’s Bad Karma
• Controlympics: Losers (#2 of 4)
• Controlympics: Winners (#1 of 4)
• Where’s My Cane, Sonny?

Most of you already have forgotten all about the Olympics, but here at Undip, we already have London 2012 fever!  After all, who doesn’t want to see Jimmy Page balance his guitar on top of his walker while some eighteen-year-old in go-go boots mangles Whole Lotta Love?

Oh wait — that already happened.

All kidding aside, I’d like to share a few final thoughts on what arguably were the most discussed — and controversial — Olympics since Berlin 1936. First, let’s take a look at the winners.

1.  The Chinese government. Like it or not, the ChiComs pulled it off.  It was, in many ways, a spectacular show.  Despite some problems, embarrassments, and even a few unscripted moments, the Olympics that Hu Jintao and company wanted were the Olympics they got.  And most of the world bought their message hook, line, and sinker.

2.  Usain Bolt. The Jamaican sprinter not only captured three golds, but he managed to make Jacques Rogge cranky.  That alone made it a good Olympics.  Bolt looked particularly good when, a day after Rogge whined about his “antics,” a Cuban taekwondo athlete kicked an athlete in the face — and Bolt donated $50,000 of his prize money to earthquake relief as a “thank you to the Chinese people.”

3.  Michael Phelps (and his mom). Put it this way:  the Intertubes are still buzzing about the 100m fly.  Debbie Phelps will be the unexpected breakout star of the Olympics.

4.  Clean air. Does it matter whether the Chinese got lucky (rain at just the right moments) or actually knew what they were doing?  In the end, the pollution became a non-story.  And athletes who acted like it mattered — the American cyclists showing up in masks, the Ethiopian marathoner who passed on competing — looked foolish.

5.  Lopez Lomong. The Sudanese lost boy turned American flag bearer may not have won his race, but he had a gold medal moment.  Kudos as well to the American athletes who chose him for the job.

Related posts

• Controlympics: Losers (#2 of 4)
• Dillweed of the Day: Jacques Rogge
• Controlympics: China’s 21 Rules
• The Olympics’ Real Legacy: Greater Repression
• Reindeer Games: Bush, Human Rights, and China

My colleague Pin Collacott had a post a few days ago about British foreign minister David Miliband auditioning for the PM job.  Now we have this:

I have to admit that the man is impressive. But he looks like he’s twelve years old.  It reminds me of “Dish and Dishonesty,” that great BlackAdder the Third episode where Edmund takes on Pitt the Younger:

Pitt the Younger: I intend to put up my own brother as a candidate against you!

Blackadder: Oh, and which Pitt would this be? Pitt the Toddler? Pitt the Embryo? Pitt the Glint in the Milkman’s Eye?

Pitt the Younger: Pah! Gentlemen, as I said to Chancellor Metternich at the Congress of Strasbourg; “Poooo to you with knobs on!” We shall meet sirs, on the hustings!

Perhaps Gordon Brown could ask Rowan Atkinson to be his campaign manager.

Related posts

• Obama’s Foreign Policy: Nothing Personal
• Controlympics: Winners Who Lost (#3 of 4)
• While You Were Away: Russia-Georgia
• Vladimir Putin is Ruining My Vacation
• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight

From Telegraph (UK):

US officials given power to seize British visitors’ laptops

Along with everyone else’s, you solipsistic blinkered twits.

Related posts

• Will China Force Pakistan’s Hand?
• While You Were Watching the View. . .
• Where are the Media? Where is the Outrage?
• U.S. Embassy in Yemen Attacked
• Thought of the Day

While John McCain and Barack Obama continue to battle for the Presidency of the United States, the contenders for leadership in the UK also have begun posturing — but this time, it’s within the Labour-majority Government’s own ranks.

Yesterday, David Milliband, the current Foreign Secretary, took advantage of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s summer break to publish his own platform for change:

In the aftermath of Labour’s third successive defeat at the 1959 election, a famous pamphlet asked the question: “Must Labour lose?” Today, the temptation is similar fatalism. We must not yield to it. We need to remember that there is little real sense among the public — or even among Tory MPs — of what the Conservatives stand for, or what they would do in power.

The odds are against us, no question. But I still believe we can win the next election…. The starting point is not debating personalities but winning the argument about our record, our vision for the future and how we achieve it.

When quizzed at a press conference (that just happened to follow publication of the article) about whether he was challenging Brown for leadership of the Labour Party, Milliband’s body language was the opposite of his weak words. Watch the video for yourselves here.

Autumn 2008 promises to be an interesting time politically.  Watch out world — we may see a whole different kind of “coalition of the willing” emerge!

Related posts

• Department of Unfortunate Metaphors
• Obama’s Foreign Policy: Nothing Personal
• Ich bin ein Käse Auslieferungaffen essend
• China 1, Europe 0 (and the United Kingdom -100)
• Auditioning for PM?

From Justin Webb, a blogger at the BBC:

Incidentally CNN described Gordon Brown as a “Head of State.” This mistake - a common one - is part of the reason why Americans often think Brits are uncomfortably nasty to their prime ministers. To American eyes attacking them can sometimes seem unpatriotic - they do not realise that these figures represent a party not the state. Conversely we Brits forget sometimes that Obama and McCain are competing to become America’s Queen.

Oh no you din’t!   Sometimes it’s better not to go there.

Related posts

• You Have Got to Be Kidding Me, Hillaryland Edition
• You Have Got to Be Kidding Me
• Yesterday’s Best Speech
• Wonk’d: The ALDAC “Controversy”
• Will McCain Stick to His Plan?

I’ve had been planning to blog on the whole Obama at Brandenburg gate issue, but Marbury managed to sum up the my concerns pretty well:

First post:

Audacious, heavily symbolic gestures like this make me queasy (Gordon Brown did something similar, on a smaller scale, and look how that worked out). It’s the kind of thing that can seem brilliant when cooked up at a strategy meeting, and genius when it’s actually executed. But if things start to go wrong afterwards, for whatever reason, it’s the first thing critics will point to and shout “hubris“!

Second post:

Here he is, not even president yet, and he wants us to think of him as Ronald Reagan demanding that Gorbachev tear down the wall. Why does he even have to make a speech whilst in Europe? What’s wrong with a few handshakes and an eight-course dinner?

Let me put it another way: it is an unfortunate fact of life that many Americans are convinced that all Europeans a) are secretly French; b) hate us; c) want us to fail; and d) to use The Simpsons’ classic phrase, are “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.”

So let’s just say I have my doubts about how the Obama speech is going to play back home.

Read the rest of this entry »

Related posts

• Obama, Europe and Gallup: A Berlin Bounce?
• McCain’s Ad: More Disgusting Than We Thought
• Heute sind wir alle Amerikaner (Obama in Berlin)
• Dillweeds of the Day: Right-Wing Poster Posters
• Department of Unfortunate Metaphors

Jim Hoagland wants to “blow up” the G-8 and replace it with a G-3:

Predictable suggestions that this body be expanded to a G-13 or a G-20 go in the absolute wrong direction. More expansion will destroy any opportunity for informal, effective consultation by world leaders. They will be talking for the press releases, not for each other. Such proposals should be put forward only as cover for a more sensible proposition: The United States, the European Union and Japan should quietly form a G-3 that would operate in the shadows of the much larger talk shop.

Oh boy would that be a good idea incredibly stupid thing to do:  alienate everybody except Japan, the one country without the capacity to help us militarily.

The French, Brits, and Germans would be angry because their three votes would be reduced to one, not to mention the fact that the EU would be represented by whichever country happens to hold the Presidency  (right now, that would be France, but come January it would be the Czech Republic, whose economy currently ranks somewhere between 31st and 40th largest, depending on your source).

The Russians, who already disdain us (as we do them), would get even madder.

The Chinese, Spanish, Brazilians, Indians, and Koreans would have brand new reasons to be annoyed with the arrogance of our foreign policy.

The Canadians and Italians would be upset at being kicked out of the one club where they are somewhat relevant.  And of course, we would look like the big bully once again.

I’m no fan of the G-8.  I think it’s the wrong grouping for the wrong reasons.  I agree with Hoagland that it’s not a very useful construct.  Every two years these (mostly) guys get together and set out an ambitious agenda on a given problem or set of problems, which they then trumpet as a breakthrough.  Two years ago, it was Africa, debt, and development (thanks largely to Bono and Blair).  This time, it’s (again) climate change and the rapid rise in commodity prices.  But if the past is prologue, they’ll negotiate until the last minute, issue a communique, and then… go home.  Little else ever comes of these “breakthroughs.”  And that doesn’t even get to the fact that the host country has to establish a miniature police state to make the event happen.

Part of the problem, as Hoagland notes, is that the G-8 really doesn’t have a clear definition of membership.  That is in part a consequence of the dumb decision to admit Russia in the post-Cold-War-end-of-history euphoria of the 1990s (I would not be the first to call this one of Clinton’s dumber ideas).  But it also is a product of the fact that the G-8 (with that one exception) has remained a static body while the world has changed.

So what is the G-8?  To put it in Jim Collins’ Good to Great terms, what is its hedgehog concept?  Is it a gathering of the world’s largest economies?  If so, what’s Russia doing there?  Is it the world’s largest democratic economies?  Again, Russia disproves that.  Furthermore, Spain (which by some (but not all) accounts has surpassed Canada in terms of nominal GDP), India, and Korea have just as much right to a place at the table as the Canadians.

I also have a hard time understanding why China is excluded when Russia remains at the table.  It’s either the world’s biggest economies or it’s the world’s biggest democratic economies.  Right now it’s a ridiculous hybrid.

Instead of maintaining the status quo or arbitrarily growing the club to include/exclude certain countries, why not draw a line that gives countries aspiring to membership a clearly delineated criteria for membership?  From now on, The G-xx will include

1. only those economies whose annual GDP is equal to US$1 million or greater;
2. only those democratic economies whose annual GDP is equal to US$1 million or greater; or
3. some other equally arbitrary criteria that is clear to outsiders.

Doing this might create incentives for economic growth and perhaps even democratic governance.

Of course, the problem is deciding whose standard to use.  If we were to use the first criteria listed above, would the membership be ten (using World Bank numbers) or twelve (using those of the IMF)?  That explains one of the real reasons the group hasn’t changed:  everyone is terrified of making somebody else angry.

I recognize none of what I’m proposing is new:  as Hoagland notes, there are numerous proposals to expand the group to a G-13 and even a G-20.  But instead of coming up with a bad idea to fill a column, let’s acknowledge the truth of the matter:  the time has come to revise G-8’s mission statement or abolish it altogether.

Of course, the chances of this happening are almost infinitesimal — if it takes these guys months to negotiate a statement on debt relief, imagine how long this project would take?

Related posts

• Thabo Mbeki Is So Bad….
• Systems Theory and U.S. Foreign Policy: Obama’s Trip to Europe
• India-Pakistan: China, Obama,and the Specter of 1914
• A Reverse Nixon with a Half-Twist
• So Much for Mars

Turns out Pringles are not potato chips after all.  On behalf of my diet, I would like to thank the British tax courts for this momentous decision.

Related posts

• Afghanistan: See EU Later?
• Virtually Invisible in Sarajevo
• Posturing for Change
• Parochial Headline of the Week
• Obama’s Foreign Policy: Nothing Personal