atlantiker.de

"NATO's 60th anniversary summit in France and Germany in April, 2009 may well offer Europeans their first reality check on the 44th president," write Michael F. Harsch and Calin Trenkov-Wermuth in the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) feature on PostGlobal (via German Joys):

Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier recently stated that he does not believe the Obama administration will make any unrealistic demands once it comes into office. Steinmeier is likely to be disappointed. The first item on Obama's wish list will most likely be greater European burden-sharing in Afghanistan. The danger of a NATO failure in Afghanistan is real, and this issue will dominate the NATO summit's agenda.

Second item on the wish list is Iran:

Before starting any negotiations, Obama will expect the Europeans to agree on more than just 'carrots' promising rewards if Iran should abolish its nuclear program. The new administration will also demand agreement on credible 'sticks' in case the Iranians are not ready to compromise. These could be simply tougher economic and political sanctions but Obama has also made it clear that he will not put the military option off the table.

Okay, those are the usual speculations about Obama's wish list. The third point on China was new to me. Harsch and Trenkov-Wermuth expect Obama to

urge Europeans to take a tougher stance on China, which is seen as undermining the West's efforts to put pressure on Iran. China has dramatically increased its economic ties with Iran, filling some of the gaps created by the departure of American and European companies. Recently, Iran announced that trade exchanges with China will exceed $25 billion this year, compared to $9.2 billion in 2005, and unless this trend is stopped or reversed, the threat of tougher economic sanctions will not have the desired impact.

Well, should not the US also take a tougher stance on China? Sarkozy, who currently holds the EU presidency, just got "tough" by announcing that he will have a chat with the Dalai Lama in Poland. This was enough for the Chinese to cancel a summit with the EU.

The US seems to be very dependent on China in the current financial crisis, so I am not sure if Obama will put pressure on the Chinese over the Iran's nuclear program.

Finally, the authors believe that US policy on Russia and Eastern Europe won't change much under Obama:

The US under President Obama will still call for a tougher stance and a more unified reaction from the European countries to Russian threats, especially from Germany, France and Italy. Obama will urge the big European powers to send a clear message to the central and eastern European NATO members that they are ready to defend them, and he will reaffirm the US commitment to the accession of Georgia and the Ukraine to NATO.

That's pretty stupid. In my humble opinion, journalists, think tankers and politicians should not use the phrase "tougher stance," which the authors used to describe policy advice for dealing with Iran and China. This phrase is so vague. It's meaningless. You want to be really tough, then boycott Chinese and Russian goods. Anybody ready to do that?

Wess Mitchell: President-elect Obama will be the first president facing the reality of global multipolarity. In view of the intricate international agenda that is challenging US policy, Obama must break with the unipolar mentality of President Bush. He must distance himself from his predecessors bipolar approaches and adjust US foreign policy to the actuality of a multipolar world.

Strobe Talbott: President-elect Obama faces a host of short term crises. Long-term issues, though, such as climate change and nuclear proliferation must be at the top of his agenda. To tackle these challenges he has to recognize these priorities and act quickly together with allies—above all Europe.

NATO Review: Nick Grono, Deputy President of the International Crisis Group, outlines elements of the Taliban's media war in Afghanistan, including its strengths, weaknesses, and how to fight back.

Lloyd's, in cooperation with RAND Europe and the RAND Institute of Civil Justice (ICJ), has issued an intriguing report on trends in transnational class action litigation and related […]

Bernhard Lucke: The US and NATO should develop exit strategies instead of increasing their military presence in Afghanistan. Winning back tribal leaders' allegiance is the key to successfully drawing down troops. Western policy makers can learn many valuable lessons from the Soviet failure in Afghanistan.

Between 55 to 65 percent of Ukrainians oppose joining NATO, according to recent surveys.  Andrew Bishop, a freelance journalist and blogger at What You Must Read, addresses the issue of “Why Ukrainians Don’t Want NATO” in the Diplomatic Courier:

1. “Ukraine remains an eternally “torn country” with approximately 17 percent of its population being ethnic Russian…

... after the Georgian crisis, where Russia justified its intervention in terms of defending Russian citizens, the Ukrainian authorities remained concerned that this scenario could be repeated in the Crimea.”

2. Ukraine, one of the first victims of Russia’s “energy imperialism” back in 2006 when the Kremlin cut the country’s gas supplies for several days, has no desire to experience that wrath again. Already the country’s power bill has been increasing by the year, and with winter approaching, few would argue that now is the time to test the fierceness of Moscow’s Putin-Medvedev tandem.”

And third, constant political fighting between Ukraine's political leaders means: “In short, few Ukrainians see the current period as the right one for engaging in a battle over NATO, whether it be amongst themselves or against Russia.”

Continue reading "Why Ukrainians don't want NATO"

Read at : <newsletter@ecologic.eu> Ecologic Newsletter No 69 - November 2008 Deutsche Version siehe unten. Please scroll down for the German version. ________________________ Contents: 1.    Conference "Sustainable Development in Policy Assessment - Methods, Challenges […]

David Neil Lebhar: Lotte Leicht, Director of Human Rights Watch in Brussels, says that the EU must fulfill its role in upholding human rights. But before it can credibly promote human rights throughout the world, the EU must first hold its allies accountable for human rights violations, particularly the US.

Georgetown professor Charles King argues the United States needs to hold Georgia accountable for its role in last August's conflict with Russia (Foreign Policy):

The Russian military response was precipitous and brazen, and has rightly been condemned by outside powers, but the next U.S. administration must learn that brinkmanship is a game that countries can play with friends as well as adversaries. U.S. officials warned Tbilisi of the dangers of using military force, but Saakashvili escalated his rhetoric anyway and took advantage of Western statements that Georgia’s path toward consolidated democracy and NATO membership were guaranteed. A history of mixed messages coming from the United States contributed to the Georgian government’s sense that a quick, successful war would meet with U.S. approval.

Continue reading "Western rapprochement with Russia: capitulation or pragmatism?"