Friday, April 24, 2009

A New Mideast Policy--Part III

The U.S. needs a more even-handed policy regarding the Palestinian problem, needs to distance itself from unpopular, undemocratic regimes, and work towards energy independence so that we can disengage ourselves militarily from the Middle East. We need to engage in a more realistic foreign policy, acting on what is, not what we would like things to be.

The key to better relations with all the Arab states and the Arab "man in the street" is an even-handed approach that recognizes legitimate Palestinian grievances and promises a two state solution. The Saudi proposal (which has been accepted by all the major Arab states) to recognize Israel and normalize relations on the basis of a two state solution, with Israel abandoning its settlements and returning to its pre-1967 boundaries, should be the policy pushed by the U.S. We should guarantee those boundaries and promise to aid Israel should her territorial integrety be threatened. We should also say that any non-retaliatory WMD attack on Israel will be considered the same as an attack on the United States. In return for the Palestinians giving up their "right of return", they should be gifted all the domiciles built by the Israelis on the West Bank and money currently being suppliied to Israel for military aid should be shifted to the Palestinians, with one-half going in the form of direct payments to Palestinians and one-half going to development projects in the new state of Palestine. In addition, we should greatly reduce military aid to our allies Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and close almost all of our military bases in the area except for a few military training missions and maybe a couple of listening posts.

The fact is, if there were no oil in the Middle East, it would be of no strategic importance to the United States. We should strive for energy independence through the development of alternative energy so that Middle Eastern oil is not of great importance to us. This will also allow us to disentangle ourselves from the corrupt Saudi royal family. I am convinced that some day they will be overthrown and it is best that we not be identified with them when that happens. Likewise, the increasingly repressive Mubarak regime in Egypt is another government we should disassociate ourselves from. We should seek to promote democracy in both states but, if as likely will happen, those states make no moves to broaden their bases of popular support, we should move away from them before they become albatrosses around our neck.

We should push Israel to negotiate with Syria over the return of the Golan Heights. The outlines of a deal are clear: in return for the Golan Heights, to remain demilitarized while under Syrian control, Syria would agree to stop funding and supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon. Syria should also agree to reduce its involvement in internal Lebanese affairs. In return, not only would it get the Golan Heights and normalized relations with Israel, the U.S. should pledge giving monetary aid to Syria for a limited time period (such as three years) with the promise that the period could be extended if Assad opened up the society and allowed more freedom and participation by his people in the political system.

In short, we should associate ourselves with the promotion of democratic principles but not insist on or require them. We should not become closely associated with regines that do not promote democratic principles. We should not intervene in the internal affairs of the area's nation states and not support any state in the area which intervenes in the internal affairs of another of the area's states. We should promote regional organizations. We should disentangle ourselves from the region and engage in a neo-isolationist policy.

The biggest obstacle to this policy will probably be Israel and the Israel lobby. With the election of the latest government, it seems very unlikely that Israel will be ready any time soon to accept such a solution. Even worse from our point of view, our internal pro-Israel lobby will make it extremely difficult for the U.S. government to put any pressure on the Israeli government. However, this is what we must do because the solving of the Palestinian problem is not only the key to Mid East peace, that and our subsequent withdrawal from the area is key to diffusing Muslim terrorism against the United States. I believe that if we were to follow and implement these policies much of the terrorist threat will dissipate.

During World War II, Britons used to grouse that there were three things wrong with American soldiers: they were overpaid, oversexed, and over here. And these were our closest allies! Our presence in the Middle East is several orders of magnitude worse than what the English complained about. This is definitely one case where absence will make the heart grow fonder. If we remove ourselves from the Middle East, our popularity there will probably soar.

Next, what we should do about Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

U.S. Mideast Policy--Part II

The biggest problem/mistake facing U.S. mideast policy is the Israel--Palestine problem. The Bush Administration approach bordered on the criminal and, combined with the invasion of Iraq, it may take ten to twenty years to repair the damage done to U.S. relations in the area.

Since Lyndon Johnson U.S. policy has been totally out of whack. Our policy vis-a-vis Israel is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. U.S. support of Israel has been way out of proportion compared to any possible gains that c ould be realized. As of 2005 the U.S. has given Israel $150 billion in aid; it is likely now over $160 billion. At the UN, since 1970 the U.S. has employed more vetoes against resolutions involving Israel than all vetoes cast in Security Council during this time period. And it is not like we have a lot of support. We often cast votes in support of Israel that are opposed by almost all of our Western allies. Especially since 20001, polls done in the Middle East show an overwhelming negative view of the U.S. and huge majorities believe that we are heavily weighted towards Israel. We used to be seen as an honest broker. For anyone interested in how out of balance U.S. policy is regarding Israel, read The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Mearsheimer and Walt, especially Chapter 2. In return for our largesse, we have an ally that causes us no end of problems. From the U.S.S. Liberty to the Pollard spy case and violation of the Oslo accords, Israel has taken advantage of the U.S. and put us in a doifficult position time and again. The above cited book carefully and completely documents this history.

Sunday, April 5, 2009

A New Middle East Foreign Policy--Part I

A quick and easy prescription is to do the opposite of the Bush Administration.

First, some basic tenets. One of the things that I noticed during the run-up to the Iraq War was the lack of any reference to the concept of the national interest. Neoconservative foreign policy is not a foreign policy of realism. As stated by such realists as Hans Morgenthau, a realist foreign policy should pursue only goals that are in a nation's national interest. We should be unconcerned with things like the nature of a regime or the promotion of ideals and more concerned with things like geography, natural resources, real (and not imagined) threats to our security, and building alliances and/or coalitions to advance our interests or inhibit the efforts of our adversaries. It requires a hard-headed analysis of the international system and the real, relative power of the states in the system. Realistic cost/benefit analyses should be part of foreign policy decisions (even if Iraq turns out successfully, it is not worth the cost of the war, for example). Maybe one existed, but prior to the Iraq War I never saw a realistic appraisal of the threat that Iraq posed to the United States. Even had Iraq possessed WMD's, they had no method of delivery and no history of working with Al-Qaeda. Also, as we know now (see the book Cobra II), Saddam Hussein was mostly concerned with internal revolt and Iran and did not really pay much attention to the U.S. until two weeks before our invasion. Another striking thing about the Bush Administration is that ignorance was prized. The more you knew about Iraq or the Middle East, the less likely you were to be involved in the post-war running/reconstruction of Iraq (see Losing Iraq, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, Fiasco, and any number of other accounts). We need to restore realism (with some modifications) to our foreign policy. Fortunately, Obama seems to be much more of a realist than the neocons or than John McCain.

We also need to remember basic tenets of a successful foreign policy. As British Lord Palmerston famously said, a nation doesn't have friends, it has interests. Foreign policy should not be personalized, as when Bush said he could see into Putin's soul. A major power should not allow itself to be put into a position where its policy is determined by the actions of a minor power. McCain's statement that "we are all Georgians now" was a horrible foreign policy blunder. There is more than one type of power, commonly called hard power (military) and soft power (cultural economic, etc.) and a successful foreign policy does not rely only on one or the other. As Churchill famously said, it is always better to jaw, jaw, jaw, than to war, war, war. In other words, diplomacy should always be pursued whenever possible and military force should be a last resort, used only when a vital national interest is at stake. Robert Asprey in his book War in the Shadows differentiates between "wars of necessity" and "wars of convenience." We should only engage in wars of necessity. It should be recognized that diplomacy does not bring success overnight and that successful negotiations are not a zero sum game. That is, like a trade in baseball, both sides should get something they want. We should recognize and allow for the fact that other nations have legitimate national interests. Diplomacy is best done when it is non-public and oblique so that involved parties can maintain flexibility. When they are public and direct, this results in domestic interests intervening and positions that may be hard to change. For example, President Bush's Axis of Evil speech was a bad mistake because it named specific countries and then made it harder to negotiate with them in the future. Contrast that with FDR's Quarantine the Aggressor speech where he didn't even use that term and never called any specific country an aggressor. Foreign policy goals must be reasonably achievable. Again the Bush Administration provides wonderful examples of what not to do. When President Bush called for a war against terror he did not limit it in any way (something I noticed immediately, but that was largely uncommented on by pundits at the time). Thus, we were at war with terror everywhere in the world, whether it affected us or not. Do we really care about the ETA (Basque separatists) in Spain or the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka? We shouldn't but under the Bush Doctrine we will be fighting all terror anywhere for who knows how long. Finally, foreign policy should take the long view. The neocons were concerned about preserving American dominance for the next decade or two. What we should be doing is using our preeminent position to set up an international system that will be to our benefit when we are no longer dominant. We should recognize the brilliance of George Kennan who foresaw that communism would eventually collapse because of its weaknesses and internal contradictions. Had we taken this longer view that he had, we could have avoided numerous foreign policy blunders during the Cold War. Similarly, Al-Qaeda is basically a nihilistic movement and its terrorism, while dangerous, is a transitory threat.

Specifics about the Middle East to follow.

New Revelations About the Economic Crisis

For those who didn't see it, Bill Moyers Journal on PBS on Friday, April 3, 2009 contained an interview with Professor William Black of the University of Missouri-Kansas City that was jaw-dropping. In addition to seeing it on PBS.org, you can also find an article he has written on the Huntington Post of February 25, 2009 with a title like The Two Things Everyone Should Read About the Economic Crisis. Black was formerly a government regulator who investigated the Savings and Loan Scandal in the late 80's and wrote regulations to deal with it thereafter.

In short, Black said that the crisis is the result of massive, intentional fraud by a relatively small number of top financial executives. According to Black, the FBI warned back in September of 2004 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud. According to Black, had the Bush Administration taken action then the financial crisis could have been avoided. One problem was that the FBI had shifted 500 agents from white collar crime to terrorism and did not have enough resources to investigate when the problem became known. Black says that Geithner and Obama Administration officials are not taking the required steps because they are afraid that the banking system will collapse because most of the huge banks (Citigroup, Bank of America, etc.) are basically insolvent. In his Huffington Post article he states that 80% of the frauds were initiated by lenders. According to Black, when a person controls a business and uses it to perpetrate fraud, that is known as control fraud and he states that control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other property crimes combined. Finally, he implied that Geithner and other top officials are aware of these facts but choose not to remove the officials responsible or take other necessary corrective actions because of the previously stated fear and because they still believe in a deregulated free market.

These are just some of the high (or low) points. Implicit is that the Obama Administration is knowingly shielding criminals and past criminal activities.

As I have stated in previous posts on this blog, Obama seems unwilling to take the major reform that is required. Similarly, (see my Get Tough on Crime) Obama also wants to look the other way when it comes to war crimes and other crimes of the previous administration. It appears that his desire to bring the country together and to rise above partisanship has led to a continuation of the moral crisis that is just as serious for this country as any economic crisis. If people are not held accountable, then it will happen again and again. It is time we start speaking out and demanding full investigations and prosecutions.