“No. 1 Geopolitical…” Ignorance?
Listen up, kids. I am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union was the United States’ “No. 1 geopolitical foe,” however you define that term. When its leaders gave speeches about possibly using the more than 30,000 nuclear weapons targeting us, instead of joining us for summits on how to safeguard them. When, instead of opposing us in Security Council votes over Israel, Iran and Syria, the Soviets fought or aided proxy wars against us in Korea, East Africa, Nicaragua. (No, I’m not old enough to remember Korea, but still.)
Mitt Romney reflexively saying that Russia is the U.S.'s "No. 1 geopolitical foe" today shows, yet again, how bad the U.S. political class is at geostrategy; it also shows how uncomfortable Romney is on national security issues, needing when in doubt to reach back to those comfortable certainties of the 1980s.
Today, Russia’s economy is dependent on extractive industries and stagnant; its nightmare demographics mean it fears Chinese takeover in its east and rapidly-aging cities in its West. It produces world-leading innovations in weapons, cybercrime, and high culture… Growing Arab-spring-style protests in its cities will dampen whatever global cachet as the anti-America its leaders have sought to build.
Were I asked to choose America’s number one geopolitical foe, I’d answer these questions:
1) Who has killed the most Americans in the past decade? (That would be nationalist and Islamist movements in countries we’ve invaded coming in at #1; Al Qaeda and its affiliates at #2; Iran at a distant #3 and perhaps even #4 behind nationalist and Islamist movements emanating from Pakistan.)
2) Who has the greatest ability to harm our economy and way of life – the foundations of our strength? (China, no contest; then maybe the Saudis?)
3) Who has the greatest ability and shown the greatest willingness to frustrate our key geopolitical aims? (Given that Russia has gone along with some of our Iran sanctions, facilitated our continuing presence in Afghanistan, and avoided using its energy wealth to pressure our European allies during their economic weakness, I’d vote for either China or the emerging powers writ large here.)
4) Who has not just capabilities but intentions to foil continued progress toward a more integrated, more democratic, more free and prosperous (free civilly, socially and economically) world – which is, ultimately, what most benefits the United States? (C’mon, the Russians are pikers in this category.)
In geopolitical terms, Russia has three things which pose significant problems for the US – its energy, its nuclear weapons and its Security Council seat. Ironically, Mitt Romney is on record opposing just about everything we can do to reduce the salience of both. He opposed the New START Treaty, which required Russia to destroy hundreds of nuclear warheads; and he opposes efforts to shift US energy production and consumption away from the fossil fuels in which Russia is so rich. I don't know his position on Security Council reform and diluting the veto. Might be fun to ask. Or, just check with his advisor John Bolton.
Employers: The New Facebook Stalkers
A new phenomenon has been sweeping job interviews. Many employers are checking out perspective employee’s social media profiles…and it gets worse…
The Maryland Department of Corrections has taken to asking job seekers to log-on during the interview so they can see information found behind the privacy filter. But some companies are going even further, asking applicants to give them their username and password.
If you’re getting the heby-jebies you’re not alone. Facebook is taking offense to this and posted on their privacy page that they will ”take action to protect the privacy and security of our users.” To Facebook, this is an invasion of privacy (ironic right?). But that doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Privacy filters are there for a reason and Facebook is threating legal action against anyone who tries to violate it:
Facebook takes your privacy seriously. We’ll take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action, including by shutting down applications that abuse their privileges.
However, there is an easy way around this, don’t put anything on Facebook, Twitter, or Youtube that you wouldn’t want your grandmother to see.
Mormonism and the Etch-A-Sketch
IN THE early days of Mormonism, the pioneer evangelists of the young faith saw considerable successes arguing the absurdity of the idea that for millenia God used prophet after prophet to make plain his will to man and then, suddenly, became mute, abandoning his favoured creatures to tease out with our meagre minds the meanings of the old prophecies and their application to present circumstances. That there is another scripture, that prophets roam among us still, should surprise only those ready to accept the outrageous notion that a once demanding and garrulous God has retreated from his children in silence, having nothing more to say.
The idea of an ongoing prophetic relationship to God has not only proven an effective selling point for proselytising Mormons, it has built into Mormonism a potent adaptive flexibility. In the face of potentially ruinous religious persecution from Congress, church president (and putative prophet) Wilford Woodruff in 1890 disavowed plural marriage in “The Manifesto”, which has been canonised and is believed by mainstream Mormons to reflect divine revelation. In 1978, after decades of pressure from the civil-rights movement, and facing the problem of expanding the church’s membership in countries with large mixed-race populations, church president (and putative prophet) Spencer W. Kimball announced a revelation making blacks eligible for the Mormon priesthood.
Yesterday, Eric Fehrnstrom, a Mitt Romney adviser, compared the ease of the classic post-primary pivot toward the centre to the act of refreshing an Etch A Sketch:
Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.
Since it is widely agreed that Mitt Romney’s lability is his greatest liability, this was a stupid way for Mr Fehrnstrom to make his totally conventional point. When Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum began to seize on the opportunity to wave Etch-A-Sketches at campaign stops in order to emphasise the impermanence of Mr Romney’s conservative principles, my mind turned to the doctrinal flexibility of Mr Romney’s religion of ongoing revelation and its evident advantages. Politicians, like religions or political ideologies, either adapt or fail. Mr Gingrich supported the individual health-insurance mandate before he opposed it. Mr Santorum championed “No Child Left Behind” when his party was for it, but he’s sorry about it now that the party has changed its tune.
A successful politician, like a religion of living revelation, is a palimpsest upon which shifting opinion is written and rewritten. Mr Fehnstrom’s mistake was so breezily to admit that the medium is not blood, that the constantly reworked surface is not stone. Mr Romney is especially dogged by his reversals in part because they are larger and more numerous than his opponents’. The vast distance between the median Massachusetts voter and the median American Republican primary voter made Mr Romney’s 2008 attempt to impersonate a dogmatic conservative seem especially brazen and false. He’s grown into the role, though, and he might have more easily coasted to victory this year had Barack Obama not queered his crowning policy achievement by replicating it. This has required more than a little agile revision from Mr Romney’s camp. What I find surprising, what I think many find objectionable, is how Mr Romney seems always a little pleased to have shaken the Etch-A-Sketch and drawn a more expedient picture—how denying that it is a new picture, rather than a more complete picture, seems to bring a spirited little glimmer to his eyes.
I don’t believe Mr Romney is really less principled than his opponents. Because they’ve all succeeded in politics, we know they’ve all moved freely in the ample space between their few truly fixed principles. The real difference may be that Mr Romney is more easy with the idea of a dogma that adapts, more alert to the living message of the daily polls.
(Photo credit: AFP)
Give Peace A Chance . . . in Afghanistan
Reading Steve Coll's latest take on the situation in Afghanistan has left me scratching my head – in particular this paragraph of recommendations:
Focussing directly and creatively on Afghan constitutional politics and the civil society necessary to bolster a successful transition (the parliament is also supposed to be up for election) might be more useful, in terms of promoting unity and cohesion among Afghan groupings, than the provocative talks with Taliban leaders have so far been. Currently, American political strategy is heavily located in these talks. They are valuable, should be continued, and might bear fruit, but they haven’t produced much so far. Their relevance on the road to 2014 and beyond is uncertain.
There's a couple things to unpack here. First is the notion that focusing on Afghan politics and civil society is a winning short-term strategy. For three years the US has been completely unable to bend the Karzai government to its will; relations between the US and Afghan government are at an all-time low (and that is saying something) and our leverage with Karzai, as US troops begin to head toward the exits, could not be lower. What makes Coll think that now is the time for focusing on constitutional politics? Isn't that something that we should have thinking about three years ago – and not now as the mission is winding down?
Moreover, why would the US want to open up the can of worms that is governance and constitutional reform when the far more important deliberation with the Karzai government should be over the strategic partnership agreement (SPA)? This makes little sense politically – and is an effort that appears destined to fail.
But the larger issue here is why is Coll so down on peace talks? He claims they haven't achieved much so far, which on one level is true in that a breakthrough has not occurred. But on another, far more important level, ignore the many signs of interest in negotiations emanating from the Taliban. These include Mullah Omar’s Eid statement in August 2011 acknowledging contacts with the United States; the exploratory talks that have already begun between the United States and Taliban representatives; the establishment of a liaison office in Qatar and the recent decision to release five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.
What one might glean from these examples is that the Taliban leadership has publicly recognized the legitimacy of a political settlement. At this point it should be obvious that the US has a potential partner with which to negotiate. And yet up to this point the US political strategy in Afghanistan has been almost completely subsumed by the military's tactical objectives.
None of this means of course that such talks will succeed – but the idea expressed here by Coll and repeated elsewhere by foreign policy pundits from all sides of the political spectrum that they are of little relevance — is both striking and clearly wrong. Indeed, considering all the indications of interest from the Taliban in talks I'm baffled by the argument that they haven't achieved much or don't show promise.
But what is even more surprising is Coll's notion that "their relevance on the road to 2014 and beyond is uncertain." Huh? How could the potential for political reconciliation be considered even slightly irrelevant to what happens after 2014 and US troops have left the country. Isn't the best case scenario for Afghanistan's future and stability in the region a political settlement? If anything their relevance is undeniable. And even if one is unconvinced they will succeed how would Coll or anyone else justify not moving heaven or earth to work toward the realization of a political settlement? If eve there was a time to be taking a chance for peace it WOULD BE THIS MOMENT.
Yet, Coll's sentiments are hardly unusual – they are something of conventional wisdom in the Afghan pundit community.
Indeed, if one looks at the coverage of the fallout from the massacre of 16 Afghan civilians by a lone staff sergeant it dealt overwhelmingly with the issue of the troop withdrawals and almost none on the need to jump start political negotiations. I get on some level that the national security community tends to think, overwhelmingly, in terms of military solutions. But the extent to which a political solution to the conflict in Afghanistan is treated as a sideshow of US strategy is one of the more bizarre elements of how we talk about the war in Afghanistan.
There is no way to kill ourselves out of the war in Afghanistan. This is one point that seemingly everyone agrees on. So if that's the case why are people so reluctant to talk more openly about finding a political resolution to the war in Afghanistan?
What’s In Theaters – 3.17.12
This must be a week for laughter with four comedies opening this week (with only 21 Jump Street is getting a full wide release).
Last week wasn’t strong for new releases, with The Lorax remaining in the top spot. Meanwhile the Sci-Fi spectacle John Carter opened to only a lacklustre million. Considering the movie’s 0 million budget, that is not good news. Silent House and A Thousand Words both opened around million.
21 Jump Street – This movie is definitely the most anticipated comedy of 2012 and has opened to high praise thus far. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum star as two cops who get involved in a revamp of the 80’s TV show plot. This is the sort of R-rated humor that people mostly seem to enjoy, while some find crass. Undoubtedly it will make a killing at the box office.
Jeff, Who Lives At Home – The Duplass brothers, champions of “mumblecore” films (for better or worse), direct this comedy starring Jason Segel and Ed Helms as brothers who have their issues. The titular character Jeff has a feeling that signs are all around him pointing him to his unforeseen destiny, while his brother Pat is dealing with a rocky marriage to Linda (Judy Greer), and their mother (played by a charming Susan Sarandon) is dealing with the bittersweet emotions of another birthday. We had a chance to catch this film and we completely fell for the clever script, endearing characters, and carefully injected humor. It’s really a fun film that has an emotional depth that catches you off guard. If you like quirky comedies we think you’d really enjoy this one.
Friends with Kids – Another film that we had a chance to see, this one a take on the romantic comedy which is seeing a theater expansion this week. It boasts a strong cast lead by Adam Scott and Jennifer Westfeldt (who also wrote and directed) with supporting roles by Bridesmaids alums, Maya Rudolph, Kristen Wiig, Jon Hamm, and Chris O’Dowd. Scott and Westfeldt are two 30-something best friends who decide to have a child together since they don’t seem to be having much luck with finding prospective partners. They also see that their friends’ relationships struggle under the stress of parenting, and think they can do better as friends. This is a romantic comedy so the familiar tropes can be found, but the script is rather smart and original for the genre. Elements of drama make the film well-rounded, and the cast brings it to life in a way that doesn’t make you mind any reminiscent territory. It also manages to not completely trivialize the female characters as romantic comedies seem prone to do.
Casa de mi Padre – Will Ferrell starring in a Spanish language film? Like seriously, this is the sort of brilliant idea that Adam Sandler only thinks he has. Whether you want to see this completely depends on how much you love Ferrell and his antics. If you think this sounds stupid then you will definitely feel the same after seeing it.
What do you plan to see in theaters? What do you think about any films you have seen lately?
On China, Romney’s Money, Mouth in Different Places
The New York Times reports this morning that a company owned by Bain Capital, Mitt Romney’s former private equity firm, has significant investments in surveillance equipment makers that cater to the Chinese government:
In December, a Bain-run fund in which a Romney family blind trust has holdings purchased the video surveillance division of a Chinese company that claims to be the largest supplier to the government’s Safe Cities program, a highly advanced monitoring system that allows the authorities to watch over university campuses, hospitals, mosques and movie theaters from centralized command posts.
The Bain-owned company, Uniview Technologies, produces what it calls “infrared antiriot” cameras and software that enable police officials in different jurisdictions to share images in real time through the Internet. Previous projects have included an emergency command center in Tibet that “provides a solid foundation for the maintenance of social stability and the protection of people’s peaceful life,” according to Uniview’s Web site.
Now compare that news with what Romney’s foreign policy white paper says about human rights in China. It’s worth quoting at length to underscore the disparity here:
Any serious U.S. policy toward China must confront the fact that China’s regime continues to deny its people basic political freedoms and human rights. A nation that represses its own people cannot be a trusted partner in an international system based on economic and political freedom.
While it is obvious that any lasting democratic reform in China cannot be imposed from the outside, it is equally obvious that the Chinese people currently do not yet enjoy the requisite civil and political rights to turn internal dissent into effective reform. The United States has an important role to play in encouraging the evolution of China toward a more politically open and democratic order.
If the United States fails to support dissidents out of fear of offending the Chinese government, we will merely embolden China’s leaders…
A Romney administration will vigorously support and engage civil society groups within China that are promoting democratic reform, anti-corruption efforts, religious freedom, and women’s and minority rights. It will look to provide these groups and the Chinese people with greater access to information and communication through a stronger Internet freedom initiative.
Mitt Romney will seek to engage China, but will always stand up for those fighting for the freedoms we enjoy.
Now, back to the Times, which explains how Uniview Technologies’ actions violate, if not the letter, than the spirit of sanctions instituted against Beijing after the Tiananmen:
As with previous deals involving other American companies, critics argue that Bain’s acquisition of Uniview violates the spirit — if not necessarily the letter — of American sanctions imposed on Beijing after the deadly crackdown on protests in Tiananmen Square. Those rules, written two decades ago, bar American corporations from exporting to China “crime-control” products like those that process fingerprints, make photo identification cards or use night vision technology.
Most video surveillance equipment is not covered by the sanctions, even though a Canadian human rights group found in 2001 that Chinese security forces used Western-made video cameras to help identify and apprehend Tiananmen Square protesters.
It’s worth noting here that this is not the first time Bain has been tied up with problematic Chinese companies. As the Washington Post reported last August:
Romney’s former investment company, Bain Capital, worked on behalf of at least two Chinese companies trying to acquire U.S. technology firms. One case involved Huawei, which Bain joined in its failed bid to buy the software firm 3Com…
In 2005, a Rand report questioned Huawei’s “deep ties with the Chinese military, which serves a multi-faceted role as an important customer, as well as Huawei’s political patron and research and development partner.”
In 2008, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multi-agency government panel, blocked Huawei’s plan to buy 3Com.
At the time, as the New York Times reported, the potential deal prompted “several Republican lawmakers — including Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — to oppose the deal as one that ‘threatens the national security of the United States.'" Someone should check with those lawmakers now.
Voters should allow Romney a foray into the management of his blind trust – divest of these holdings immediately, as well as any companies that would, in the future, countenance such investments. Profit should not trump human rights in China or American security, especially not when the beneficiary of that profit is running for president.
P.S. For the progressive view on human rights in China and Chinese investments in U.S. assets and companies, see the report I released with Nina Hachigian this week on U.S-China relations in an election year.
Photo: Flickr
democraciaglobal.net © 2012.