Week in Review Part III: Foreign Affairs

I wrote in this space on 4/3/10, “As Country Joe first sang over 40 years ago, ‘One, two, three, what are we fighting for?’” Back then, President Hamid Karzai was accusing the West and the United States of wanting a “puppet government” and of orchestrating a fraud in the previous year’s presidential election, though it was the other way around in the case of the latter.

Now, as the Financial Times’ Philip Stephens puts it, it’s a race to the end.

“In Washington this week a president and a prime minister declared victory even as they admitted defeat. The U.S. and Britain are getting out of Afghanistan. The rush for the exit is becoming a race. ‘We’ve been there for 10 years and people get weary,’ Barack Obama said. ‘People want an end game,’ Britain’s David Cameron chipped in. What happens next in that benighted country is, well, a problem for the Afghans….

“If there are differences (between the two leaders), they are about precise timing and choreography. Mr. Cameron was caught unawares when the Pentagon advanced its departure schedule. The British did not want to be a single step behind the U.S. The Americans do not want Britain to run ahead….

“The alliance’s combat troops are to leave by the end of 2014. The U.S. administration, however, intends to front-load the process, handing the lead combat role to the Afghan national army by mid-2013. This would allow an accelerated drawdown of the 90,000-strong American force. Britain does not want its 9,500 troops left exposed to the inevitable Taliban resurgence in southern Afghanistan. The deal in Washington seems to be that they will both come out faster. The exit strategy, as Henry Kissinger has observed, has become all exit and no strategy….

“Unsurprisingly, voters on both sides of the Atlantic have turned against the conflict – just as with Iraq. A U.S. election looms. Never-say-die conservatives such as Rick Santorum are questioning whether anything resembling victory is any longer possible.

“A violent Afghan reaction to the burning of copies of the Koran by U.S. troops, and a murderous attack on Afghan civilians by a serving U.S. soldier have crystallized doubts. The law of diminishing returns has set in: the presence of NATO troops has become the problem.”

It was another terrible week for the United States with the word a U.S. soldier had gone rogue, snapped, and killed 16 Afghan civilians, including children. A tragedy of immense proportions. A single act that impacts strategy.

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey said on NBC, “This is bad news…immense pain to everyone.” Then McCaffrey said, to compound matters, “President Karzai throws kerosene on the flames.”

Little did McCaffrey know that when he made the statement about Karzai, a few days later the hopelessly corrupt Afghan leader would demand U.S. troops return to their major bases and speed up transfer of security responsibilities to Afghan forces nationwide, though Karzai did not set a timetable of his own. A rapid withdrawal from the rural areas, however, would be devastating to the war effort and the end to any winning hearts and minds campaigns. So who knows how serious the mercurial Karzai is.

For their part, the Taliban took advantage of the awful situation involving the U.S. soldier to say they were suspending talks with the Americans.

As for the American people, in a Washington Post/ABC News poll, 55% believe that most Afghans are opposed to what the United States is trying to accomplish in that country. 54% want to see the U.S. withdraw even before it can train the Afghan army to be self-sufficient. For the first time, Republicans are now split on whether the war is worth fighting.

Overall, 60% of Americans believe the war has not been worth the loss in life and expense. Speaking of the financial cost, we are spending $2 billion a week over there. Staggering. Imagine what Bill Gates could do with $2 billion in one of his humanitarian efforts.

But, again, it’s amazing how the acts of one rogue soldier can impact policy in such drastic fashion. The mistrust between the United States and Afghanistan is irreversible. This messy ending is also on Obama, not Bush.

Editorial / Washington Post

“As they watch (Obama’s past helter-skelter moves in the Afghan theater), Afghans, the Taliban and neighbors such as Pakistan can reasonably conclude that the United States, rather than trying to win the war, is racing to implement an exit strategy in which the interests of Afghans and their government are slighted. Americans, meanwhile, rarely hear Mr. Obama explain the mission or the stakes. In this context, it’s not surprising that Afghans show little tolerance for U.S. failures – whether it is this week’s shooting or the accidental burning of Korans. And it’s little wonder that most Americans favor withdrawing troops as quickly as possible. If it’s evident that the president won’t defend the war, and is focused on ‘winding down’ rather than winning, why should anyone else support it?”

Iran: Both President Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron are on record now as urging Israel to hold off on any attack on Iran. Tactically, the bottom line is that it is now commonly accepted Israel, acting alone, can set back Iran’s nuclear program 1-2 years. The United States, however, could set it back up to ten years.

But appearing on 60 Minutes, former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, said talk of attacking Iran was “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

Dagan argues an attack would make Israel the target of up to 50,000 missiles fired by Hizbullah and Hamas.

“It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it.”

Dagan, who left Mossad last year, has been an outspoken opponent of a strike for some time now, though says if it’s necessary he would prefer the U.S. carry it out.

The problem is Israeli defense officials increasingly believe Iran is capable of producing highly enriched weapons-grade uranium in six months; after which it is assumed it would take another year or so to develop a delivery vehicle.

But if this is the case, Israel must act much sooner or, in the words of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Iran will have moved enough of its nuclear facilities underground and out of reach of conventional airpower, thus creating a “zone of immunity.”

Israel has been planning an attack for years.100 of its 300 planes would take part in the mission. Defense News reports that talks have been underway between the U.S.

and Israel for the latest bunker-buster bombs, GBU-28s, but as an Israeli security official told the paper, best summing things up:

“The Americans want to wait until they have evidence of Iran’s decision to assemble a bomb. But we say that’s part of Iran’s strategy. We say Iran will continue to enrich uranium, harden its facilities and add redundancies that will allow it to break out or sneak out with nuclear weaponization. At that time, for us at least, it will be too late.”

The other day I said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the smartest man in the world. What I didn’t add is that he also has a reputation for being indecisive. Netanyahu said on Wednesday:

“Israel has never left its fate in the hands of others, not even in the hands of our best friends.”

And to those who say if he could only reach agreement with the Palestinians, then the Iranian problem would go away, Netanyahu said:

“As if an agreement with Abu Mazen [PA President Mahmoud Abbas] would stop the [Iranian] centrifuges. Anyone who wants to believe that may do so, but he is burying his head in the sand.”

Netanyahu added, “Gaza is Iran’s forward position.”

“We left Lebanon, Iran came in. We left Gaza, Iran came in. There are those suggesting we do the same thing in Judea and Samaria. Iran would go in there as well. I don’t believe there is anyone who doesn’t understand that it is forbidden to repeat the same mistake a third time.”

“Sooner or later,” Netanyahu declared, “the Iranian terrorist base in Gaza will be uprooted.”

On Wednesday, appearing with Prime Minister Cameron, President Obama, as much as he doesn’t want to see an Israeli preemptive strike, did say:

“Because the international community has applied so many sanctions, because we have employed so many of the options that are available to us to persuade Iran to take a different course, the window for solving this issue diplomatically is shrinking.”

Separately, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a message to Iran through her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, that negotiations were Iran’s “last chance.”

A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 56% of Americans would support U.S. military action against Iran if there were evidence of a nuclear weapons program, while 39% were opposed.

For its part, the Washington Post reports that Iranian officials and analysts essentially say there is no way Iran ceases enriching uranium as part of any deal with the Group of Six (the U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany).

Plus, the talks aren’t even scheduled yet. The clock is ticking. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said recently in a televised address:

“Pressures, sanctions and assassinations will bear no fruit. No obstacles can stop Iran’s nuclear work.”

But starting Saturday, Iran does face a sanction of a different sort. The inability of Iran to transfer money internationally as SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), which facilitates most international money transfers, is cutting off Iranian banks’ access to its system; a move the U.S. and Israel have been lobbying for. This should be significant.

Lastly, I get a kick out of those who still talk about Iranian President Ahmadinejad as if he is calling the shots. I told you long ago that wasn’t the case; that if we had a choice, Ahmadinejad was a ‘moderate’ compared to Khamenei.

But Ahmadinejad is officially irrelevant. I’m not going to waste your time discussing the unprecedented interrogation he faced this week in the Iranian parliament, because it doesn’t matter. Ahmadinejad is not about to be removed before his term expires in June 2013. Khamenei calls the shots and he’ll let his one-time ally just sit there.

You see, Khamenei wants a parliamentary system with a prime minister only, thus eliminating the position of president, and that is what will happen next year. So ignore discussions concerning the president and any threats he is making to Israel. It’s Khamenei you need to focus on and the bottom line with him is…Iran is not giving up its nuclear weapons program for anything. Period.

Lastly, IAEA Director General Amano said of the Iranian military installation at Parchin, “We have information that some activity is ongoing there.”

The IAEA suspects the site is being used to test nuclear triggers. In two trips to Iran this year, the IAEA was denied access. “We have to go there,” said Amano. But Iran has signaled again it is unwilling to grant a request by the IAEA, even as Iran denies it is “cleansing” the site.

Syria: I said it was rather pitiful that the UN sent former Secretary General Kofi Annan to negotiate with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; Annan being more appropriate for house watching duty and taking care of your plants than hard diplomacy. So Annan left after two sessions with Assad, tail between his legs. Far more effective would have been to have a real figure, like Colin Powell, go to Assad and do this:

“Mr. President, I want to show you a little video of what a cruise missile could do to your face. Now here is what it would do to your family. I suggest you leave forthwith.”

And then just walk out of the room.

Benny Avni / New York Post

“(Assad’s) troops killed more than 160 Syrians this weekend while ‘peace envoy’ Kofi Annan sipped tea at the presidential palace in Damascus.

“As the death toll in the rebellion against the Damascus tyrant inched closer to 10,000, the ever-optimistic Annan failed to convince anyone to end the fighting. Annan sought a compromise, but is that possible when Assad hopes to secure his hold on power while the rebels hope to end it?

“Annan was sent to Syria by current UN chief Ban Ki-moon and the Arab League, but he’s also the only game in town for the West. In rejecting Sen. John McCain’s call for military intervention in Syria, Obama administration officials made it clear that Washington won’t use air power, let alone ground troops, and that it won’t arm the rebels. Neither do we have any other plan.

“Cue the diplomacy-mongers.

“No one’s better at that game than Annan, who in 1998 ‘averted’ a second Gulf War during President Bill Clinton’s term. Annan declared on his return from a Baghdad meeting with Saddam that ‘I can do business with that man.’

“Annan has a history of turning a blind eye to genocidal massacres. As chief of United Nations peacekeeping, he ordered UN troops to avoid intervention in horrific bloodbaths in Rwanda in 1994 and Srebrenica, Bosnia, in 1995.”

Annan is calling for a cease-fire, then negotiations. Assad will just keep fighting until he wins, as was the case with Annan’s departure.

Amnesty International released a report on Tuesday that said the scale of torture in Syria is the worst the country has experienced in 30 years, with the human rights group documenting 276 deaths as a result of it.

But this was before 23 victims of “extreme torture” were found near the city of Idlib. The bodies were discovered blindfolded, handcuffed and shot dead, according to British-based Syrian Human Rights Watch.

Assad turned out tens of thousands of “supporters” in Damascus on Thursday. His forces are laying hundreds of landmines along the Turkish border to prevent people from escaping and to stop supplies from coming in to the rebels. 30,000 have fled to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Another 200,000 are displaced in Syria.

Meanwhile, analysts are increasingly concerned over the fate of Syria’s chemicals weapons stockpile. An analysis from Foreign Policy notes:

“The country is a chemical powder keg ready to explode,” according to their experts.

Most of the stockpile is comprised of sarin and mustard blister agent that can be dispersed via artillery rounds, air-dropped bombs, rockets and missiles. There are supposedly 50 chemical arsenals and manufacturing facilities throughout the country.

Lebanon: I couldn’t help but make note of the following: “The U.S. Embassy in Lebanon sent an emergency message to Americans in Lebanon, Tuesday, warning them not to travel to the Baalbek area because of clashes between Lebanese authorities and criminal groups. The embassy message, sent in the afternoon, warned citizens to avoid the area while clashes continue and also noted recent clashes in the Bekaa and border regions. ‘The embassy advises U.S. citizens to monitor the security situation, avoid areas where clashes have occurred, and maintain low profiles in public.’” [The Daily Star] Been there, done that. Lebanon remains a powderkeg of a different sort.

Yemen: Last week I wrote, “I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised to learn of an American airstrike or two on al-Qaeda bases in the not too distant future.” Word came about two hours after I posted that “Airstrikes carried out by U.S. warplanes killed at least 33 suspected al-Qaeda terrorists,” Yemeni officials said. [AFP]
A report in the London Times notes that al-Qaeda has launched a PR campaign in the south of the country where they are strongest, offering food aid. As a UK development minister said, “We don’t want al-Qaeda to become the Hamas of southern Yemen.”

Israel: Speaking of Hamas (really Islamic Jihad this time), which has been firing rockets and receiving Israeli retaliation, Israel’s Iron Dome rocket shield is acing its first big test. Iron Dome uses cameras and radar to pick off those incoming deemed a threat to people and property, while ignoring rockets that would fall in open areas. Israel said of 143 rockets fired between Friday and Monday (3/9-3/12), Iron Dome tried to intercept 63 and succeeded in all but nine of those attempts, as reported by the AP. No Israelis have been killed in the current fighting.

This obviously bodes well when looking at the threat posed by Hizbullah in Lebanon. Iron Dome is produced by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, but it is a private company. I knew this but wrote Rafael anyway, asking if there was any public angle whatsoever and told them who I was. No reply. But I’m sure I gained a reader! Hopefully a long-term one. It’s like when I finally get to Israel one of these days and in the security check they ask me, “Why have you been to Lebanon twice and Jordan?” “Because I can.” “Smart-ass.”

Iraq: So from time to time you hear of a big jewelry heist in New York’s diamond district, or some high-end joint around the country. It’s usually smash and grab. In Iraq, the heists are a little different, just a bit more violent.

“Iraqi police and health officials say robbers have killed nine people and wounded 14 others in a jewelry heist in eastern Baghdad.

“A police officer says two carloads of robbers stormed four jewelry stores Monday in a small market in the Shiite neighborhood of Ur before noon.”

Just in case you were thinking of strolling the shopping areas of this fine city.

China: By week’s end there was one story; the purging of Maoist Bo Xilai, a high-flying member of the Communist party politburo and the “princeling” son of a revolutionary hero. Bo had been embroiled in a scandal for about six weeks involving his handpicked police chief who attempted to defect to the U.S., claiming Bo was trying to kill him.

Bo was chief of Chongqing, a southwestern metropolis, but it was announced on Thursday he was being replaced and while no further details were released, it is assumed he is under house arrest, which is standard operating procedure in these cases.

Bo was known for his Maoist tendencies and “cultural revolution-style” policies in Chongqing, including a crackdown on businessmen and their gangs. Bo, however, was a direct threat to the reformers in China.

Editorial / South China Morning Post

“Reformers on the mainland have waited a long time for a positive signal from the Chinese Communist Party leadership. It came yesterday with the news that ambitious Chongqing party chief Bo Xilai had been removed from office. This followed, by less than 24 hours, Premier Wen Jiabao’s rebuke of the municipal leadership over the scandal in which the former city police chief sought refuge in a U.S. consulate. Wen’s remarks were the first comment on the incident by a state leader. He did not mention Bo by name, but with hindsight the fate of the aspirant to the top echelon of party leadership was sealed. More significantly, at Wen’s annual televised press conference [Ed. which lasted three hours], he also invoked the fear of another Cultural Revolution to argue for political reform. His remarks appeared aimed at Bo’s attempts to revive Maoist values with revolutionary campaigns and the singing of ‘red’ songs. Memories of that period still play on the emotions of everyone in China, including state leaders, who suffered hardship and tragedy during those troubled times.

“Perhaps the most important aspect of the decision to remove Bo is that a struggle between reformists and leftists over China’s future direction, hitherto waged behind closed doors, has burst into the open. With hindsight again, Wen flagged it long ago with repeated remarks, at home and abroad, that political reform was needed to safeguard China’s national economic achievements for the benefit of the people….

“Leftists believe reforms have gone too far and blame them for a widening income gap and growing social unrest. Reformists are concerned that despite China’s rise, the country faces an uncertain future unless it undertakes another round of economic and, more importantly, political reforms. Bo had emerged as the flag carrier for the leftists….His fall came only two days after he had defiantly vowed to continue with it.”

So does the sudden move endanger the planned leadership change for year end? Probably not, but it makes China’s efforts to prevent a hard landing all the more critical.

Incoming president-in-waiting, Xi Jinping, said in a speech published after Bo’s removal that the party’s authority had been weakened by a “lack of principles” among some members.

“To maintain the party’s ideological purity is to guarantee the unity of the party,” said Xi. “Today some people join the party not because they believe in Marxism and want to devote themselves to Socialism with Chinese characteristics…but because becoming a member brings them personal benefits.

“If the thoughts of members and cadres of the party are not pure, their ideas cannot be firm, and their political positions can easily change.”

Bo’s supporters will not go quietly, and the history of China is full of figures such as him who have made extraordinary comebacks, think Deng Xiaoping.

The fear is you’ll see a replay of 1989, and Tiananmen Square, only in reverse; Maoists protesting against reformers viewed as elitists in the battle over inequality.

Back to Premier Wen, during his press conference he responded to a question, saying the desire for democracy in the Middle East must be “respected and truly responded to.”

“I believe this trend towards democracy cannot be held back by any force,” he said, adding it was an “urgent task” to press ahead with reforms or risk losing the enormous gains made over the past three decades.

Items such as the wealth gap, endemic corruption and a public distrust of the government could only be addressed through reforms. While Wen has achieved no major political reforms himself in his ten years, his comments this week were viewed favorably in the blogosphere. Wen took the blame for all of China’s problems during his decade in leadership. “Ultimately, history will have the final say,’ he said.

One other topic. President Hu Jintao, who is also Communist Party general secretary [Xi becomes general secretary first in the fall, then president early 2012], called on the People’s Liberation Army to safeguard social stability and the loyalty of the army ahead of the fall’s crucial party congress.

“The PLA and the armed police must prioritize ideological and political development and unswervingly uphold the Communist Party of China’s absolute leadership over the armed forces.”

It’s a little disconcerting Hu felt compelled to issue the statement and makes one wonder just what kind of dissent is in the military these days. Reformers vs.

Maoists vs. the Army? Or just the first two, with the military being pulled from both directions?

Lastly, China announced it was increasing its military spending to above $100 billion, $106 billion to be exact, though many believe it to be much higher.

North Korea: Uh oh…Pyongyang declared it will launch a long-range rocket carrying a “working” satellite to mark the centenary of founder Kim Il-sung’s birth next month, which would be in total violation of a 2009 Security Council resolution banning ballistic missile launches. The North had just told the U.S. it would suspend long-range missile testing as part of its recent talks. The Commies said the launch would not impact neighboring countries, but of course it is an important test of its capabilities…and how quickly it can hit the U.S. accurately! Which is why I maintain you have to sleep with one eye open, just as we do here.

The launch will take place April 12-16, according to the official news agency, so mark your calendars. Kim Il-sung’s birthday is April 15.

Then again, it’s a ploy for further food aid. And with this single statement by the North, announcing an illegal missile launch, the United States should scrap the deal that would have traded cessation of uranium enrichment at Yongbyon for stale Drake’s cakes.

It should also be noted that just this week, IAEA Director General Amano said he believes the threat posed by Iran’s atomic activities pales next to those of North Korea.

“The problem (with North Korea) is serious and its impact on the world is larger than Iran,” Amano said. The IAEA has not worked out a deal with the North for the return of inspectors, which is part of the Washington-Pyongyang deal. Amano admitted his agency doesn’t have a clue what is really going on there.

Separately, the Korea Herald reported that the South is not prepared for a smallpox attack by the North, the threat being part of Pyongyang’s biological weapons capabilities. A 2001 U.S. modeling study indicated that 3 million people could contract smallpox in no more than two months after the beginning of a pandemic. 30% would then die based on past history.

Russia: Fears of a crackdown on the protest movement emerged as a few of the leaders were given fines, but the husband of one of the organizers was sentenced to five years on unrelated fraud charges. The thing is the case is more than four years old and as the New York Times reports, “comes in spite of a ruling by the Russian Supreme Court last September that overturned (Aleksei) Kozlov’s earlier conviction in the matter….Russia has no statute against double jeopardy.”

Last weekend’s protests drew a far smaller crowd than expected and, for now, the movement is over, or so it seems. But it will be back. It’s just the reality Vladimir Putin would have received 50% and avoided a run-off even with the fraud in the presidential vote that has hit them in the face. The protesters need to be better organized but they are split on their objectives.

Meanwhile, there are stories Putin is increasingly distrustful of his inner circle, as he should be, while there was quite a tussle on the corporate front that attracted attention.

Billionaire Viktor Vekselberg resigned as chairman of the world’s biggest aluminum producer, RusAl, saying the company is overloaded with debt and facing a “deep crisis” due to the improper actions of its management. RusAl then accused Vekselberg of failing to “perform his functions as board chairman of a public company” over the last year. Vekselberg is aligned with fellow billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, he of the Nets and the failed presidential bid.

France: Opinion polls are now mixed concerning the April 22 presidential race. One has Socialist Francois Hollande at 29%, with President Nicolas Sarkozy at 27, and National Front candidate Marine Le Pen at 18; with Hollande then prevailing in round two by 10 points.

But a separate survey on Tuesday gave Sarkozy 28.5% to Hollande’s 27%, though Hollande still won a hypothetical run-off by 9 (54.5-45.5). Le Pen slipped to 16% in this one.

Le Pen, by the way, did finally get the required 500 signatures, beating the Friday deadline, but Sarkozy is successfully picking off her far-right supporters and there now seems little chance Le Pen can pull off an upset and finish ahead of the president in round one.

But there was this funny tidbit this week.

Sarkozy was forced to apologize to a policewoman after his 15-year-old son, by ex-wife Cecelia, threw a tomato at her. He was with friends in the presidential palace when he launched it from a window, the policewoman being in the street outside.

The kid is known as Little Sarko. Bad boy. Baaaad boy.