The Compass

Putin Responds to Obama

"We do not assume strange postures - we stand firmly on our legs and always look to the future," said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, commenting on the statement of U.S. President Barack Obama in his address that he stands with one foot in the past, and the other in the present. "This is a feature of Russia in that Russia was always moving forward, strengthening in the process, and will do so in the future, I have no doubt of that," he said. "If we stand with one foot in the past, and the other in front, you know, we have a vernacular saying - we bend over for no one, we stand firmly on our feet."

"If we see something new in other areas, such as our American partners renouncing the deployment of new combat systems in Europe, the ABM systems or the revision of approaches to expand the military-political blocs, or if they completely renounce the use of 'bloc' thinking - that would be a real move forward," added Putin.

Putin also said Russia expects changes in the economic sphere: "In the United States economy, some decisions have been adopted at the height of the Cold War, for example, the notorious Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which we were already promised would be canceled for the past eight years," explained Putin. "It has not yet been abolished. If this happens now, it is also a great way forward."

"We are ready for effective interaction, we really expect much from the new administration. Those signals, which are still presented to us from Washington - they point to a positive dialogue, positive mood," he said. "We are awaiting the arrival of the U.S. President. I express the hope that it will be a useful meeting, it will aim to strengthen our dialogue. We are in need of that, and the United States in need of it, for sure.

"We are the biggest nuclear powers, and therefore the world will closely monitor these meetings."

Following Obama in Russia

As President Obama prepares for his visit to Moscow, RCP's Cathy Young will be keeping track of events on the RealClearPolitics blog, which we'll link to as well. Be sure to check out our Around the World page on Russia as well - which is update daily with the latest news, analysis and opinion on Russia.

One of the central questions facing the United States and Russia is whether the U.S. is willing to permit a Russian "sphere of influence" over the countries in her near-abroad. Such a competition would likely be costly for both the U.S. and Russia, but might work out well for the countries of Central Asia.

Consider the case of Kyrgyzstan. If you recall, earlier in the year, Kyrgyzstan said it would close down Manas air base, which the U.S. was using to support operations in Afghanistan. This news came the same day that Russia had unveiled a generous aid package to Kyrgyzstan. Well, that was then. Last week, Kyrgyzstan reversed its decision and said it will allow the U.S. to continue operating out of Manas, provided the U.S. pay three times as much for the privilege. Russia, in turn, lashed out at what it dubbed a "dirty trick" by Kyrgyzstan.

If you want to know what Russian President Medvedev thinks about U.S-Russian relations, well, he's video-blogging now:

The Iraq Blame Game

Even if Iraq falls back to the level of political mediocrity that surrounds it, the situation has changed from two years ago. If America had retreated then, it would have been a failure of our will and a failure of our military. But we did not fail. Our military adapted. Our leaders and country persevered. We have given the Iraqis what we owed them -- a decent chance at success, the only gift a liberator can give. Now, a failure would be sad and challenging -- but it would be their own. - Michael Gerson.

We'll see if this line really holds if security deteriorates and President Obama refuses to send in the cavalry.

Ask the Experts: What's Happening in Honduras?

A few weeks ago, RealClearWorld asked several experts and academics for their feedback on the presidential election in Iran and its subsequent aftermath. With a new political crisis now unfolding in Honduras, we thought it might be time once again to turn to the experts.

With the sitting president ousted at the hands of an apparent military coup, and heavy international criticism raining down on Tegucigalpa, RCW asks: what exactly is going on in Honduras?

Kevin Casas-Zamora, Brookings Institution:

"What has happened in Honduras is, undeniably, a step back in the process of democratic consolidation in Latin America. Even though the ousted President, Manuel Zelaya, is largely to blame for the political crisis, the military takeover is entirely unjustified. It belongs to a dark past that an overwhelming majority of people in Latin America do not want to return to. Not surprisingly, the reaction of the international community and, in particular, the Latin American governments has been swift and uncompromising. Everyone is demanding, correctly, that Mr. Zelaya returns to power as the legitimately elected President of Honduras. Yet, that may turn to be the easy part. The truth is that the return of Mr. Zelaya to Honduras in and of itself would solve very little. The underlying issue is how to make Honduras governable, for it wasn’t when Mr Zelaya was in office, and it isn’t now due to the immense international pressure that the new Honduran authorities find themselves under. If it is not to worsen an already bad situation, Zelaya’s return must be accompanied by a process of political negotiation in which compromises will have to be made. Most likely Zelaya will return to power to serve out his term while giving up on his plans to engineer his own reelection. And in all likelihood all parties will end up turning a blind eye on the pervasive illegal behavior that all have engaged in.

The U.S. administration to the coup has been very adequate. This crisis presents President Obama with a golden opportunity to make a clean break with the past and show that the U.S. is siding unequivocally with democracy in the Western Hemisphere, a very powerful and sensitive message given the troubled past of U.S. – Latin America relations. So far, President Obama has made good use of this opportunity."

Jesus Rios, Gallup World Poll:

"The survey conducted by Gallup in Honduras (and other 20 Latin American countries) in 2008 suggests that the overthrow of President Zelaya is not just the result of his failed attempt to conduct a referendum that had been ruled illegal by the supreme court, but the culmination of a process that started at least one year ago. At the time the survey was conducted (August 2008) Honduras' public opinion environment reflected levels of tension above “normal” by Latin American standards. Back then, roughly half of Hondurans (47%) expressed concerns over the health of their democracy, and an unusually high number (29%) agreed that their country was headed toward a coup d’état (again, high compared to the median for Latin American of 15%).

The international community has unanimously condemned Zelaya’s ousting, and the latest indications point in the direction of his imminent return to Honduras. Whether he will be reinstated in office is still a question, but what seems clear is he will face important challenges at home. Back in 2008, Hondurans placed the blame for the country’s political tension primarily on his government and “other countries." The latest remarks by interim leader Micheletti suggest Zelaya’s increasing alignment to President Hugo Chavez’s regime is at the core of the crisis. So, if Zelaya does in fact return to power before the November presidential election, the question then becomes: how will he manage to govern amidst an adverse public opinion environment and among institutions that backed his ousting, including his own political party? And, what role, if any, will Chavez play in Honduran politics from now on? Will Zelaya drop or moderate his pro-Chavez stance to regain political support? According to the 2008 Gallup survey, just 20% of Hondurans approve of President Hugo Chavez."

Shannon O'Neil, Council on Foreign Relations:

"What complicated the situation in Honduras is that before the coup, the president was venturing into his own legal transgressions, planning on holding a non-binding referendum that both the Congress and Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. His approval ratings at the time were very low, and many do not want him to return – worried that he was (and might continue) to threaten Honduras’ democracy. But the ends does not justify the military means, particularly in a country and region known historically for military interventions and limits on democracy.

In the end, negotiations will most likely occur, with Zelaya potentially returning to complete his term, and then stepping down (with no new referendum or movement to allow reelection). He will also likely be subject to Honduras’ own laws, be it impeachment or something else. What this whole episode shows is the real and continued weakness of Honduras’ institutions. This is worrisome not just for today’s democracy, but because of other trends happening in the region. A big part of U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Central America policy today revolves around the fight against drug trafficking organizations through the Merida Initiative. If Mexico is successful in lessening the reach of these criminal organizations, then they will move to other countries (as we have seen in the past with the pressure brought on by Plan Colombia among other initiatives). This episode shows just how weak Honduras is, and is a red flag for the country, for its neighbors, and for the United States in thinking through these security relations going forward."

Leonardo Vivas, Harvard Kennedy School:

"Quite independent of President Zelaya coming to power again, what is happening in Honduras is a tragedy in at least three ways. Firstly, it brings us back to old times when Latin American armies were the arbiters of last resort. Secondly, it reveals the entanglements of hyper-presidential regimes in seeking solutions when they face confrontations between powers. Finally, it shows how the OAS Inter American Charter has become a one way street in which country sovereignty only rests on its presidents instead of on all elected representatives, be them Congress or governors. What occurred in Honduras only favors the advance of caudillos."

Continue reading "Ask the Experts: What's Happening in Honduras?" »

Poll: Pakistan Turns on Taliban

As the Marines begin a major offensive in Afghanistan, there's some encouraging news on the other side of the Durand Line:

Most Pakistanis now see the Pakistani Taliban as well as al Qaeda as a critical threat to the country--a major shift from 18 months ago--and support the government and army in their fight in the Swat Valley against the Pakistani Taliban. An overwhelming majority think that Taliban groups who seek to overthrow the Afghan government should not be allowed to have bases in Pakistan.

That, via World Public Opinion, is the good news. Now for the bad news:

However, this does not bring with it a shift in attitudes toward the US. A large majority continue to have an unfavorable view of the US government. Almost two-thirds say they do not have confidence in Obama. An overwhelming majority opposes US drone attacks in Pakistan.

I think the Pakistani public's widespread dislike of the Taliban should further dampen the worries we were hearing a month ago when the Taliban were "60 miles" from the Pakistani capital. With just 5 percent of those polled voicing support for the Taliban, it seems hard to imagine them sweeping into the capital and assuming control.

But it should also serve to reaffirm the point below: people don't like other countries dropping bombs on them, no matter who they're dropping them on.

Poll: French Still Dissatisfied With Sarkozy

Via AngusReid:


The popularity of French president Nicolas Sarkozy has improved only slightly, according to a poll by Ifop published in Le Journal de Dimanche. 41 per cent of respondents are satisfied with Sarkozy’s performance, up three points since May.

According to the poll, the percentage of French saying they're dissatisifed with Sarkozy has hovered around 60 percent for the past three months.

Bomb's Away

John Bolton suggests that with Iran's hardliners putting the protests behind them, now is the time for Israel to start dropping bombs. Bolton writes:

Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.

I really don't understand this line of argument. Lots of Americans protest and march against the U.S. government all the time. There are many people who actively loathe the federal government. Yet, if another nation or terrorist entity blew up the Pentagon or the White House would they suddenly rise up against our government? Would we feel better about the attack because the country doing the bombing reassured us that they were only aiming for the government, not the people?

Moreover, as we learned from Eli Lake in the New Republic this week, U.S. intelligence has very little idea what's going on in Iran. How effective can our public diplomacy be with such a dearth of solid information?

Poll: World Has Confidence in Obama. Ahmadinejad, Not So Much

World Public Opinion surveyed the field of world leaders and found that President Obama topped the list as far as public confidence was concerned. Wallowing at the bottom, not surprisingly, was Iran's President Ahmadinejad joined by Russian Prime Minister Putin.

The envelope please:

WPO_Leaders_Jun09_graph1.jpg

The Cost of Iraq

iraq%20death.jpg

Over in Commentary, former Bush administration official Peter Wehner offers up an interesting piece of moral asymmetry:

The ultimate wisdom in initiating the Iraq war is still to be validated by contingent events still to unfold. What is happening today is a transition, not a final triumph....

Still, it is worth pointing out that those who wrote off the war as unwinnable and a miserable failure, who made confident, sweeping arguments that have been overturned by events, and who had grown so weary of the conflict that they were willing to consign Iraqis to mass slaughters and America to a historically consequential defeat -- they were thankfully, blessedly wrong.

I find this line of defense for the troop surge frankly bewildering. Wehner claims that those who wanted to wind down the war in 2006 and 2007 would have been responsible for "mass slaughters." I don't necessarily accept the logic that the U.S. is implicated in one Iraqi's decision to kill another. After all, many Iraqis were being killed by their fellow citizens long before the U.S. entered the picture.

That said, if Wehner wants to pin prospective "mass slaughters" on the conscience of those who wanted to wind down the war, it's fair to ask whether he feels any guilt about the actual mass slaughters that occurred as a consequence of the invasion. If withdrawal advocates were willing to consign Iraqis to their deaths, what can be said of the architects and champions of the Iraq war?

---
Photo credit: AP Photos

Mrs. Fernandez Goes to Honduras

Several sources have indicated that Argentina President Christina Fernandez Kirchner will be among the international delegation that will accompany ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya’s planned return to Honduras on Thursday. Interim President Roberto Micheletti has promised to arrest Zelaya should he try to return to his country.

The international community has been highly critical of the arrest and deportation of Zelaya by the military. For Fernandez, accompanying Zelaya gives her a chance to play a popular role in world politics that might offer a distraction from her own political problems at home.

** Her Peronist party suffered a huge setback this past week, losing a majority in both houses of congress.
** Her husband and predecessor, Nestor Kirchner, lost a congressional seat in Buenos Aires to a rival in the same party. This places him as a long shot to return to the presidency in 2011.
** Kirchner’s loss also forced him to resign as head of the Peronist party.
** Fernandez’ approval rating has dropped to 29 percent in recent weeks.
** Argentina has been hit hard by the world recession. Most critics of the administration believe that Fernandez moved up the recent elections four months early in an attempt to solidify power before the economy gets worse.
** The Kirchner brand, which once was highly popular during Nestor Kirchner’s term (2003-2007), has now lost its shine. The Kirchners are now seen as autocratic and unwilling to compromise with rivals.

A trip to Honduras may be a step in the right direction for Fernandez to regain the Kirchner magic. However, with a failing economy and an antagonistic congress, Fernandez may simply be out of luck.

Iran's War on Journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists recounts some disturbing news from Iran:

In recent days, the Iranian government has launched a campaign designed to malign the foreign press, blaming demonstrations that followed the contested June 12 presidential elections on foreign news media, particularly British and U.S. news outlets. On June 19, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei blamed foreign media for social unrest, calling it "evil" for allegedly misleading and agitating the Iranian people. According to Iranian news reports, an official also claimed that the BBC, not government gunmen, had shot Neda Agha Soltan, the demonstrator whose death was caught on camera and broadcast across the world, purportedly to agitate the people of Iran against the government.

Fars News agency today posted an 11-page "confession" by Tehran's Newsweek correspondent Maziar Bahari, who was detained on June 21, in which he is reported to have said, according to a translation on The Washington Post's Web site: "The activities of Western journalists in news gathering and spying and gathering intelligence are undeniable." The document also claims Bahari said: "I, too, as a journalist and a member of this great Western capitalism machine, either blindly or on purpose, participated in projecting doubts and promoting a color revolution."

America Surrenders

surrender%21.jpg

It's hard to know what to make of this column from Thomas Sowell. He writes:

A quadrupling of the national debt in just one year and accepting a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism such as Iran are not things from which any country is guaranteed to recover.

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender — especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their granddaughters to live under sharia law.

I admit, I'm having a very difficult time imaging a scenario wherein America, with its 300 million people, 10,000 nuclear weapons, 12 aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, long distance bombers, etc., gets hit with two Iranian nuclear bombs and then surrenders to Iran. And then, presumably after Iranian occupation forces land in Washington, we institute Sharia.

But maybe I'm missing something.

----
Photo via Davi Sommerfield under a CC License.

Iraq: Obama's First Test

610x.jpg

I'm skeptical of claims that anytime any event happens overseas it's a "test" of the president. That strikes as a rather Washington-centric view of the world. Nevertheless, there are "tests" and then there are tests. And the U.S. pullback from Iraqi cities today strikes me as the latter.

At issue is a basic question: is the U.S. military an Iraqi police force, or do we let the country go its own way, even it entails renewed bloodshed?

The American pullback will test both the durability of the surge/Awakening's security gains and the Obama administration's pledge to end the war. It could very well end up in a political win-win: the Obama administration can take credit for fulfilling its campaign pledge to end the war, and the Bush administration can take credit for preventing Iraq's slide into chaos. This is the ideal, and we should all be hoping it comes to pass.

But things could go awry. Today's car bombing hints at a future of renewed violence. In such an environment, there will be a fair number of analysts, pundits and politicians who will pressure the Obama administration to slow, or even reverse, the drawn down. Then, the administration will have to choose not just between the political question of keeping faith with its pledge, but between a basic strategic issue of whether it is in America's interest to police Iraq indefinitely or whether it's time for us to leave.

-----
Photo credit: AP Photos

Was It a Legal Coup in Honduras?

The expulsion of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by the Honduras military has sparked a lively debate over whether or not the takeover should be called a "coup". The reason for the debate is simple enough -- "coup" conjures images of a military junta seizing power by extralegal force and repressing all opposition akin to Argentina in the early 1980s. Defenders of the Honduran military action point out that this action was not extralegal and was, in fact, authorized by the legislature and the courts in response to Zelaya's own illegal attempt to extend his power in an imitation of his international mentor, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Critics, however, believe that this is just a rhetorical shill to cover up some kind of bias against Zelaya's leftist politics.

What both sides miss is that a "coup" isn't always extralegal. In short, what is happening in Honduras may be an example of a coup that is not only legal, but mandatory. The oddness of this concept to American minds requires an explanation.

Civil-military relations in the United States are founded on assumptions both inside and outside the military that derive from the work of the late Samuel Huntington in The Soldier and the State. Under Huntington's ideal of "objective civilian control," the military is granted substantial autonomy over a professional sphere of managing the application of violence, but is given no political role. Various forms of "subjective civilian control" where the military becomes embroiled in civilian political struggles are argued by Huntington to be militarily deficient and presumed by most westerners to be morally deficient as well. Americans frequently assume that this ideal is universally shared as an intrinsic component of a democracy.

But this American presumption is more a pretension than an objective description of how societies organize themselves politically. While it is true that American and European consultants make a priority of encouraging developing democracies to adopt Huntingtonian ideals (NATO's "Partnership for Peace" is a notable example, as is the reformed curriculum of the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly-known and still-protested as the "School of Americas"), some countries explicitly endow their military with a role in maintaining democratic governance. For example, in Turkey, the military is constitutionally empowered to act as a check on the potential for Islamic parties to undermine the secular foundations. In 1962 and 1980, the Turkish military undertook coups that were not only seen as legal, but mandatory and necessary. This military influence has continued to function in less aggressive forms during more recent political crises involving the banning of Islamic parties and the selection of the head-of-state.

Like the Turkish military, Latin American armies have a long tradition of political involvement. While in some cases, most notably Argentina, this tradition has been intentionally deconstructed (the disaster of the "dirty war" and defeat in the Falklands War provided a strong impetus for change), officers have continued to hold a widely-accepted political role in other countries. It is worth remembering, for example, that in spite of his pretensions of outrage over this coup in Honduras, Venezualan dictator Hugo Chavez was himself the leader of a coup attempt in 1992.

As more news continues to filter out of Honduras, it appears as if the Honduran military was specifically authorized by a court order to arrest a President that was judged to be out of control. The fact that the American military would never be so authorized should not distract us from the possibility that legal authorizations for military interventions into politics might exist in other countries' constitutional arrangements. The takeover in Honduras might be, in fact, a legal coup.

The author is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. His dissertation forces on variations in the political and policy-making roles of the U.S. military.

(Cross-posted at PoliGazette)

Poll: Afghan Election Preview

Karzai.jpg
On August 20, Afghanistan will hold its second presidential election since the Taliban were run out of town in 2001. New polling from the International Republican Institute Right (pdf) shows incumbent President Hamid Karzai with a 3-to-1 lead over his main rival, Ali Ahmad Jalali. However, Karzai needs to claim 50 percent of the vote for a first ballot victory, otherwise he'll face a run-off.

Angus-Reid has some good background on the Afghan election here.

--
Photo credit: AP Photos