Five Big Questions

[Michael]

These 'Five Big Questions' are from Stephen Walt of Foreign Policy magazine. They all represent an American-centric view of the world, but still provide some interesting food for thought.

1. Where is the EU project headed? The construction of the European Union was a major innovation in global politics, but new doubts have arisen about its long-term future.

2. If China's power continues to rise, how easy will it be to get Asian states to balance against it? Balance of power theory predicts that weaker states will try to limit the influence of rising powers by forming defensive alliances against them.

3. What's the relationship between U.S. defense spending, the deficit, and America's economic health and well-being? Many people believe that the United States is spending way too much on national security, especially given the 2008 recession, the soaring budget deficit, the impending retirement of the baby boomers, the looming fiscal problems facing states and local governments, and the need to rebuild infrastructure and improve U.S. education.

4. If the U.S. disengaged from key areas in the Muslim world -- most notably Iraq and Afghanistan -- would the threat of anti-American terrorism rise or fall?

5. Is the era of U.S. primacy over? How will the end of post-Cold War primacy affect its grand strategy and foreign policy?

Five Big Questions (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/12/five_big_questions)

These are all interesting questions that I figured I'd share. Perhaps we can work through all five of them if anyone is interested. :)

[Non Sequitur]

These 'Five Big Questions' are from Stephen Walt of Foreign Policy magazine. They all represent an American-centric view of the world, but still provide some interesting food for thought.

1. Where is the EU project headed? The construction of the European Union was a major innovation in global politics, but new doubts have arisen about its long-term future.

I think the problem with th EU is going to be balancing the core European states (France and Germany) and their needs vs. the periphery EU states (for example Greece). If such needs can be balanced or the needs of one can be viewed as the needs of all a very strong union could be reaced

2. If China's power continues to rise, how easy will it be to get Asian states to balance against it? Balance of power theory predicts that weaker states will try to limit the influence of rising powers by forming defensive alliances against them.


I wonder which Asian states we are talking about. It seems to me that the many of the Asian states are already alaigned in some way (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Pakistan with the US for example), are too small to be a big deal (would an alliance between the central Asian "stan" countries be a big deal), or large enough in terms of military and potential economic might to stand on their own (Inida and Russia). So I'm not quite sure who we are talking about :shrug:

3. What's the relationship between U.S. defense spending, the deficit, and America's economic health and well-being? Many people believe that the United States is spending way too much on national security, especially given the 2008 recession, the soaring budget deficit, the impending retirement of the baby boomers, the looming fiscal problems facing states and local governments, and the need to rebuild infrastructure and improve U.S. education.

I think all those issues need to be dealt with and they all seem to be related in some fashion. Pick one and you get the whole tangled mess. As the article notes, cutting defense spending produces problems in the short term (unemployment and it won't particularly help with the deficit). These problems are also a nightmare for elected officials and since we elect our leaders I'm pretty sure we might have to wait for crisis for this one to get solved

4. If the U.S. disengaged from key areas in the Muslim world -- most notably Iraq and Afghanistan -- would the threat of anti-American terrorism rise or fall?

I mean it might fall, but a lot people seem to think that if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan the Muslim world suddenly loves us. As was noted after President Obama's Cairo speech, it takes a long time to recover from a messy and sometimes horrible history.

Also, terrorism happens because of a variety of complaints people have (some legitimate some not) and pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan does not solve those complaints. There are structural issues at heart here that are not simple.

5. Is the era of U.S. primacy over? How will the end of post-Cold War primacy affect its grand strategy and foreign policy?

As the article notes, the US economy is still significant for a while so in that sense of primacy I might disagree. However, the game has changed since the Cold War.

[Michael]

(1) I think the problem with th EU is going to be balancing the core European states (France and Germany) and their needs vs. the periphery EU states (for example Greece). If such needs can be balanced or the needs of one can be viewed as the needs of all a very strong union could be reaced
Yes, the perennial conflict between the 'big two' and 'all the others', with Britain on the sidelines, half in and half out, is a very complicated political project to say the least.

I think we are looking at a period of retrenchment for the EU (though not by EU choice). The EU isn't going to unravel, but continued progress on integration doesn't look to be very high on anyone's political agenda in the near term. I fear the EU will remain 'unfinished business' on a permanent basis. Though, if they ever do figure out how to actually create the "United States of Europe", then they will have the model for 'one world government'. :shrug:

(2) I wonder which Asian states we are talking about. It seems to me that the many of the Asian states are already alaigned in some way (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Pakistan with the US for example), are too small to be a big deal (would an alliance between the central Asian "stan" countries be a big deal), or large enough in terms of military and potential economic might to stand on their own (Inida and Russia). So I'm not quite sure who we are talking about :shrug:
Militarily speaking, Russia, India, Turkey and Indonesia are by far the most important players that I'd assume the author was referring to, though Japan and South Korea are equally important politically and economically (though neither has any external military power to speak of).

Overall, I think this is the one area that the US is in for the most poltical surprises. China has been very aggressively moving into Africa and South America for political and economic-resource deals, building up a large network of international clients already (countries that might 'owe' China a favor, or look to it for international political support on some issue).

(3) I think all those issues need to be dealt with and they all seem to be related in some fashion. Pick one and you get the whole tangled mess. As the article notes, cutting defense spending produces problems in the short term (unemployment and it won't particularly help with the deficit). These problems are also a nightmare for elected officials and since we elect our leaders I'm pretty sure we might have to wait for crisis for this one to get solved
Agreed on all points.

There is no doubt in my mind that the USA is suffering right now because of an over-bloated military budget. One of the biggest problems with domestic problems is the lack of money - yet the Pentagon spends more money than all of the rest of the world's nations added together - every single year. One can chop $100 billion (about 15% cut) from the MIC budget and that wouldn't change the international military standings one whit, but it sure would improve the picture for US domestic policy!

(4) I mean it might fall, but a lot people seem to think that if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan the Muslim world suddenly loves us. As was noted after President Obama's Cairo speech, it takes a long time to recover from a messy and sometimes horrible history.

Also, terrorism happens because of a variety of complaints people have (some legitimate some not) and pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan does not solve those complaints. There are structural issues at heart here that are not simple.
I certainly agree that 'terrorism' is a lot more complicated than this question makes it out to be (but then, so does US politics!).

As for a rise or fall in the 'terrorism rate against Americans' if the US were to pull out of Afghanistan or Iraq is a foolish question for several reasons.

1. The defining act of 'terrorism against Americans' was 9/11 and it happened long before the US invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq.

2. Vigilant police work has proven to be a far more effective tool for preventing and/or dealing with actual terrorist attacks against Americans (in America) than the US military.

3. Nothing can ever prevent terrorist attacks against Americans in American military-occupied countries. That just goes with the turf.

4. The Vietnamese Communists did not follow US troops home and continue to wage battle on American soil after their 'victory' in Saigon. The dreaded 'domino effect' did not materialize either. Indeed, fifteen years later, the dominos did fall backwards onto the Communists themselves! No blood or guts needed for that victory!

On this basis, I can't countenance any discussion of 'second-guessing' what one's supposed opponents might, or might not think about your policy. American policy ought to be concerned with Americans and good policy. Trying to second-guess Osama bin Hidin is a fool's game. ;)

That is to say, American government needs to decide their Afghan policy based on American interests, not second-guessing the acts of others. Good policy is its own defense.

(5) As the article notes, the US economy is still significant for a while so in that sense of primacy I might disagree. However, the game has changed since the Cold War.
Agreed. US has primacy and will retain that for at least the next 20-30 years at least, no doubt about that. But what the US has lost is supremacy and that is irreplaceable.

While the world has less 'superpowers' now, it seems to be filled with a whole lot more 'middle-rank' powers than ever before, more than a few of them look quite troublesome and/or positively dangerous (ie. N.Korea).

[MeMyselfAndI]

Russia is already alligned with China.

Shaghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/thumb/7/73/SCO_logo.svg/600px-SCO_logo.svg.png
Member States


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg.png Kazakhstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Flag_of_Kyrgyzstan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Kyrgyzstan.svg.png Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Flag_of_Russia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Russia.svg.png Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Flag_of_Tajikistan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Tajikistan.svg.png Tajikistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Flag_of_Uzbekistan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Uzbekistan.svg.png Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan)

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is an intergovernmental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental) mutual-security organisation which was founded in 2001 in Shanghai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai) by the leaders of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China), Kazakhstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan), Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan), Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia), Tajikistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan), and Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan). Except for Uzbekistan, the other countries had been members of the Shanghai Five, founded in 1996; after the inclusion of Uzbekistan in 2001, the members renamed the organisation.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Shanghai_Five_Leaders.jpg
Former Russian President Vladimir Putin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin), Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursultan_Nazarbayev), Former Chinese President Jiang Zemin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Zemin), Former Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Askar_Akayev), and Tajik President Emomali Rakhmonov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emomali_Rakhmonov), the original leaders of the Shanghai Five.

The Shanghai Five grouping was originally created 26 April 1996 with the signing of the Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions in Shanghai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai) by the heads of states of Kazakhstan, the People's Republic of China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. 24 April 1997 the same countries signed the Treaty on Reduction of Military Forces in Border Regions in a meeting in Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow).
Subsequent annual summits of the Shanghai Five group occurred in Almaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaty) (Kazakhstan) in 1998, in Bishkek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishkek) (Kyrgyzstan) in 1999, and in Dushanbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dushanbe) (Tajikistan) in 2000.
In 2001, the annual summit returned to Shanghai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai), China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China). There the five member nations first admitted Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan) in the Shanghai Five mechanism (thus transforming it into the Shanghai Six). Then all six heads of state signed on June 15, 2001, the Declaration of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, praising the role played thus far by the Shanghai Five mechanism and aiming to transform it to a higher level of cooperation. In July 2001, Russia and the PRC, the organisation's two leading nations, signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Good-Neighbourliness_and_Friendly_Cooperation_Between_t he_People%27s_Republic_of_China_and_the_Russian_Fe deration&action=edit&redlink=1).
In June 2002, the heads of the SCO member states met in Saint Petersburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg), Russia. There they signed the SCO Charter which expounded on the organisation's purposes, principles, structures and form of operation, and established it officially from the point of view of international law.
Its six full members account for 60% of the land mass of Eurasia and its population is a third of the world’s. With observer states included, its affiliates account for half of the human race.
At its fifth and watershed summit in the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, in June 2005, when representatives of India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan attended an SCO summit for the first time, the president of the country hosting the summit, Nursultan Nazarbayev, greeted the guests in words that had never before been used in any context: “The leaders of the states sitting at this negotiation table are representatives of half of humanity.” [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation#cite_note-0)
By 2007 the SCO had initiated over twenty large-scale projects related to transportation, energy and telecommunications and held regular meetings of security, military, defense, foreign affairs, economic, cultural, banking and other officials from its member states. No multinational organization with such far-ranging and comprehensive mutual interests and activities has ever existed on this scale before.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation#cite_note-rickrozoff.wordpress.com-1)
The SCO has now established relations with the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations), where it is an observer in the General Assembly, the European Union, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Organization of Islamic Conference.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

*Note, btw, on the logo, where the outline of the member states is pictured, the island of Formosa (what the West refers to as 'Taiwan') is shown as part of the People's Republic. That is not a mistake, it is SCO's official position, I am afraid. :)

[Michael]

*Note, btw, on the logo, where the outline of the member states is pictured, the island of Formosa (what the West refers to as 'Taiwan') is shown as part of the People's Republic. That is not a mistake, it is SCO's official position, I am afraid. :)

Gotta love that map-logo with the great Lake Mongolia! :D

[Michael]

Russia is already alligned with China.

Shaghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)

...

*Note, btw, on the logo, where the outline of the member states is pictured, the island of Formosa (what the West refers to as 'Taiwan') is shown as part of the People's Republic. That is not a mistake, it is SCO's official position, I am afraid. :)
I'm not afraid, nor surprised. China wouldn't be part of it, if it wasn't official policy.

As for Taiwan, the USA is honoring the old alliance with Chang-Kai Shek and the Chinese Nationalists who were US allies and were overthrown by Mao and the Communists. The US cannot and will not back down because of this - US honor is at stake in the guarentee given to Taiwan's defense.

As such, the name of the US game there is to play 'credible threat'. The US military puts the price so high that China is unwilling to pay it. That's the game - much like the Cold War. The idea is that it becomes almost impossible to resolve the 'Taiwan issue' with the use of military force - this necessitates a political solution.

I believe that Taiwan may be re-united with mainland China - probably in some kind of 'Hong Kong' type deal recognizing some local cultural customs, but only when a majority democratic vote in Taiwan permits it. Not likely anytime soon, but over the next couple decades, quite possible. China isn't stupid - time is on their side in this dispute.