McCain More Hawkish Than Bush

By Cernig

Bloomberg's Hans Nichols looks at both McCain's own words and the opinions of his own neoconservative advisors and finds that John McCain is even more belligerent than Dubya. Especially when it comes to nations like Russia and China that could actually put up some fight against a U.S. military which would still be overstretched by the perpetual occupation of Iraq.

On China, he has said he will make it clear to the government that the U.S. is unhappy at the weakness of the currency and the ``repression of democracy.'' He also vows to oppose any effort by China to force reunification with Taiwan.

``He thinks we need to make sure that the hard edge of the balance is kept up,'' said Gary Schmitt, a McCain adviser and senior fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute.

On North Korea, he questions the agreement by the administration to provide nuclear fuel in exchange for the country suspending its nuclear-enrichment program.

``The jury is still out on North Korea, and Senator McCain has been a little more skeptical about the route they've gone,'' said Schmitt.

McCain has also differentiated his Russia policy from that of the White House, insisting that when he looks at the eyes of departing President Vladimir Putin, he see the ``K.G.B,'' not the man Bush once said was ``deeply committed to his country.''

After the Russian elections earlier this month, McCain said they were ``clearly rigged.'' Bush told President-elect Dmitry Medvedev he wanted a ``close working relationship.''

And what a wonderfully hawkish set of advisors too. The American Enterprise Institute is the neocon mothership and Gary Schmitt "helped found and direct the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a key neoconservative letterhead group formed in 1997 that played a leading role advocating war in Iraq and an expansive war on terror in the wake of 9/11." Others who commented for the article include the CEO of the neocon Hudson Institute that backed Bolton as UN ambassador as well as neoconservative and gun-lobbyist Randy Scheunemann, who is a long-time friend of McCain's and his senior foreign policy advisor. Back in August 2006, when asked about McCain retaining less hawkish advisors such as Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft, Scheunemann had this to offer:

The foreign policy chief for Mr. McCain's presidential bid in 2000, Randy Scheunemann, said that while the senator consults widely, his policy stands track more with the neoconservatives than with the so-called realists.

"I don't think, given where John has been for the last four or five years on the Iraq war and foreign policy issues, anyone would mistake Scowcroft for a close adviser," Mr. Scheunemann said. He said if Mr. Scowcroft was a close adviser, Mr. McCain "was not taking the advice. Speaking out against the Saudis and the Chinese is not something you would associate with Scowcroft, but it is something you would associate with Kristol or Kagan."

John McCain is looking to enact a more bellicose neoconservative agenda than even Bush and Cheney should he become president, especially in his confrontational approach to nations with real nukes and real militaries at a time when the U.S. military is already stretched to breaking point. Should he sit in the Oval Office, the chances of that infamous red phone ringing at 3 am would rise considerably.

Medvedev By A Landslide

By Cernig

The Russian presidential election worked out just as Putin planned it:

Dmitry Medvedev has been declared Russia's next president, after winning the expected enormous majority in yesterday's election. According to exit poll figures released shortly after the polls closed, he won 69.4 per cent of the vote, more than three times the share taken by his three opponents put together. The turn-out was put officially at more than 65 per cent.

...Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist Party candidate, did better than expected, with 19 per cent – while the right-wing populist, Vladimir Zhirinovsky did a bit worse, with 11 per cent. The fourth candidate, Andrei Bogdanov, managed less than 2 per cent. Mr Zyuganov's relatively strong performance was thought to reflect concern about those left out of the general rise in living standards.

So now Putin gets to be PM and Russia's new soft-totalitarianism continues. About the best that can be said for it is that it's better than hard totalitarianism.

Experts - IAEA Successfully Disarming Iran

By Cernig

Nuclear non-proliferation experts Ray Takeyh and Joseph Cirincione have penned an op-ed for Britain's Financial Times which says that the recent IAEA report shows that the Agency has been successful in ensuring that iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program going forward.

The investigation and inspections – even the limited ones the IAEA is currently able to conduct – have, in effect, shut down direct weapons work and resolved many of the outstanding historical questions.

...the IAEA investigations have produced enough circumstantial evidence to support the view that Iran probably conducted nuclear weapons research in the past. But the evidence to date also indicates, as the US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concluded last November, that Iran stopped this direct weapons work. The path now is to recognise this success, deepen it, find a way for Iran to come clean safely on its past work and to prevent Iran from developing capabilities that could allow it to produce weapon material in the next decade.

Mr ElBaradei has disproved the notion that Iran’s nuclear strategy is immutable. Despite its apparent solidarity, there are divisions within the theocratic regime on the urgency of the nuclear programme. It is true that President Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad and his militant allies’ calculations are susceptible to neither offers of incentives nor threats of force. However, for the more tempered members of the ruling elite, the nuclear issue is considered within the context of international relations. Indeed, the fact that Iran has suspended the weapon design component of its programme since 2003 and is largely complying with the IAEA “work plan” reflects the propensity of the state to adhere to certain limits.

The best means of diminishing the hardliners is for the US and its European allies to offer Iran a chance for a resumed relationship...the west should appreciate that a nuanced diplomacy of reconciliation could both regulate Iran’s nuclear programme and help stabilise the Middle East. It is the much maligned Mr ElBaradei that has paved the way for success.

Others, including Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, had already come to the same conclusions about what is actually in the "smoking laptop" - that the data therein relate to that earlier and now cancelled phase of experimentation that never actually got as far as using nuclear materials and was, in many ways, deeply flawed in any case. That is, the Iranian designs as contained in the laptop wouldn't have worked. But this view stands in stark contrast to the opinions from the neocon mothership, the American Enterprise Institute, where they called the IAEA report a "whitewash"...mainly, it must be said, for not insisting on war with Iran right now.

However, Russia is now indicating that it may support further sanctions on Iran because it is worried about Iran's heavy water plant. Heavy water reactors can be used to breed plutonium (from uranium-238) or uranium-233 (from thorium-232) and actually make it easier to extract weapons-grade material than conventional uranium enrichment techniques, so they are seen as major non-proliferation risks. But they also enable natural, un-enriched, uranium to be used in reactors - making them ideal for a small nation with limited resources to spend which is worried about being forced into dependency on other states for fuel. It may be that Iran's heavy water plant is a worrying risk - or it may just be that Russia is keen to see Iran locked in to a very profitable dependency on the larger nation for nuclear purposes. As usual with Iran's nuclear plans, there's a best-case and a worst-case scenario and which one you believe will depend on your own opinion of Iran's motivations.

INS Kitty Hawk?

By Cernig

The Weekly Standard's Reuben F. Johnson has an interesting piece today. He says the Bush administration are considering giving the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk, due to be decommissioned this year, to the Indian Navy for free.

The Indians, however, would have to make a committment to purchase 65 of the newest model Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to arm the Kitty Hawk with. As Johnson points out, this would sink the Indian-Russian $1.5 billion deal to purchase the refitted Admiral Gorshkov which is so far behind schedule and it's attendant deal to buy Mig's to operate from the Gorshkov.

If true--and if New Delhi accepts--this can do more than just sink the Russian carrier deal and the MiG-29K contract. The Indian Air Force (IAF) are deep in the throes of a tender to purchase almost 200 new fighter aircraft, with Boeing and RSK-MiG both in the field of six contenders. An order of 200 fighter airplanes is unheard of--larger than any such export sale in more than 20 years. In an era where sales of 12, 20, or 40 fighters are more common, this is the PowerBall Lotto of export competitions.

If the Indian Navy decide to take on the F/A-18E/Fs, it makes logistical sense for the IAF to do the same and the competition for this massive sale would probably be over for all of the other competitors before it gets started. This would be a huge blow to the fortunes of RSK-MiG, who are bidding an advanced, developed MiG-29 model they have now re-labeled the MiG-35. It could make it hard for the famous Russian planemaker to stay in the military aircraft market.

Just last December Boeing placed $1 billion worth of outsourced production with India's HAL. To run for 10 years, this contract will have the Indians building portions of the F/A-18E/F, the Chinook CH-47 helicopter, and other Boeing platforms. This incentive--plus the carrier deal--could make the Boeing Super Hornet the proverbial offer that is too good to pass up.

Moscow's reaction is likely to be less than joyful.

That's an almost British use of understatement. Russia would be furious and out for some kind of revenge for the stolen deal - and even more livid if their largest indigenous military aircraft manufacturer collapses thereby. Even if the U.S. would just be offering a sweeter version of the deal Russia has already offered.

It's an illuminating look at arms deals as foreign policy - and a moments thought presents some downstream consequences which show why using arms deals as such a blunt FP intrument isn't always a good idea. Russia, for one, is going to become far more recalcitrant over every issue from Iran to missile defense to Kosovo to free trade. Johnson nails it: "All of which will look just like what it is--a return to Cold War behavior, as well as the thinking that is behind it all." I'm left uncertain from reading his piece whether he thinks that would be a good thing or not.

But there's also a small matter of regional inter-relations to consider. That the U.S. will be seen by everyone in the region as cynically arming both Indian and Pakistan in their own arms race is not going to make America more trusted. Others may look elsewhere for a hoped-for edge over ubiquitous American equipment, pushing them further towards Europe, Russia or China.

That the Bush administration is considering giving away a Navy carrier taxpayers have already bought and paid for long ago to provide billions in corporate welfare to Boeing may make short-term sense to them, as well as being a golden opportunity to throw a spanner in Putin's works - but I'm rather worried about what the long-term tail of such a deal would be.

So The U.S. Has An ASAT Weapon

By Cernig

So, the U.S. has an anti-satellite weapon. It's a modification of the well-tried SM3 naval missile rather than one of the fancier and far more expensive per unit specially-developed anti-missile interceptors the military are keeping up in Alaska and plan to install in Europe. It might work under all weather conditions - but the military erred on the side of caution.

The neocons are jubilant - Michael Goldfarb calling it the "greatest PR boost the program could have gotten short of actually striking down a North Korean missile inbound to Hollywood". That's a bit hyperbolic - but then again he also headlines his piece "Missile Defense Works" when hitting a satellite the size of a bus in a predictable orbit doesn't actually say a damn thing about ability to hit a dodging, far smaller re-entry vehicle which might have onboard jammers or decoys deployed.

The rest of us? Well, there isn't a single expert in the field who believes the "hydrazine threat" story. The consensus is that the Bush administration just rattled a sabre the U.S. already proved it had the capability for back in 1985 to no good outcome other than heightened international arms control tensions, at a time when the neocon lobby is calling for a walkback by the U.S. on various arms treaties to allow missile defense systems which will include the permanent stationing of weapons in space. The shootdown was a short-sighted act of marginal utility but incalculable diplomatic/foreign policy effects. Welcome to the new arms race with both China and Russia - and India, Japan, Israel...

Worse, if the neocons are successful in riding this PR victory into a Brilliant Pebbles deployment, the next time an SM3 is launched into orbit it may be targeted at a rogue satellite containing a half-dozen interceptor missiles of its own (or even a nuke-pumped X-Ray laser if one of the more nightamrish plans from Ronnie's old Star Wars comix makes a re-appearance). Wouldn't that make a nice firework video for the nightime news?

Cold War Rhetoric

By Cernig

I think we can safely assume the Cold War is back on again.

America has announced a third antimissile base in Europe will be built - probably in Turkey. This will continue the "accidental" encirclement of Russia by US anti-missile systems, ostensibly to guard against non-existant threats from Iran and North Korea. The US says it is surprised at the Russian reaction.

Russia is conducting long-range bomber patrols and full fleet exercises again - including overflights of US bases and carrier groups - and expresses puzzlement at the American reaction.

For those who weren't old enough to experience it first-hand, expressing puzzlement while carrying out provocative acts and attempting to out-manouver the other was a defining hallmark of the original Cold War. The inability to talk straight to each other ended up being the main reason the Cold War perpetuated itself. So we're back to that again. Nice.

Don't Poke The Bear

By Cernig

SecDef Bob Gates told reporters today that he believes Russia wants to resolve sensitive security disputes with the United States, including proposed missile defenses in central Europe.

``I think that regardless of what's said in public, I think there is still an interest (in Moscow) in pursuing the dialogue, and we are doing that,'' he said.

And you know what? He's right.

Western media outlets have been full of how Russia is "ditching Cold War pacts" like the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) from 1992 and threatening to stop adhering to the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987. Bad Russkis, bad!

But Vlad Putin, whatever one may think of his authoritarian streak, is plain right when he says that ""It is already clear that a new phase in the arms race is unfolding in the world...It is not our fault, because we did not start it." Undermentioned or ignored by Western media are the following:

- it all started because Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty so he could build his missile shield. Of course the Russians are worried about this. For one thing, Russian Foreign minister Sergey Lavrov is correct when he says that this expansion of the US missile defense system from American territory to northeast Asia and to European nations close to Russia's borders looks very like an attempt to encircle Russia and reduce it's own deterrent ability. It doesn't look good that influential neocon think-tanks are pushing for the Bush administration to overturn treaties against weaponry in space either.

- Bush has said he won't renew the INF treaty either, which is partly why the Russians won't. The Russians say they are happy to renew the treaty if the US will re-ratify the ABM treaty and this one.

- NATO nations never ratified the CFE treaty and Russia has only said it will pull out until NATO does ratify it. The eastern bloc nations which include Russia been keeping to it unilaterally since 1999.

Despite it being the Bush administration and NATO nations who began all the recent tension, if Gates pulls of any deal at all he'll get the credit for taming the Bear and have have won the easiest PR victory in history. All because the media didn't remember Putin's admonishment: "Let's not talk as if on one side we are dealing with pure, white and fluffy partners and on the other side with a monster that has just left the forest."

Update Who's the adult in the room here?

Russia and the United States must take leadership in discussions on a new international arms regime, Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Sunday.

Speaking at a security conference in Munich, Ivanov referred to the control and reduction of nuclear weapons, adding it was time to replace an existing SALT 1 arms limitation treaty with a new regime:

"As I see it, this is precisely an area of international relations where Russia and the United States not merely could, but are directly obliged to show leadership.

"Sooner or later, we will have to start working in a multilateral format since none of us here, I am sure, has any doubts about the importance of multilateral barriers to WMD (weapons of mass destruction) proliferation," he said.

Poland Agrees Missile Defense Sites In Principle

By Cernig

The Polish government has agreed in principle to allowing US missile interceptors to be based in their country - and Russia has threatened an "atomated response" to any launch.

Under the agreement, announced by Poland's foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, America will help bolster Polish air defences in return for permission to place 10 interceptor missiles on the country's Baltic seaboard.

"There is still a great deal of work for our experts," said Mr Sikorski on his first trip to Washington since Poland's centre-right government came to power in November. "But yes, I am satisfied that the principles that we have argued for have been accepted."

I'm guessing that the Poles are gambling that the Iranian threat is nothing like a real one, and in return for hosting US paranoia they will receive all kinds of military largesse. It's probably a good bet - but the bear on the horizon isn't happy. Russia sees the US anti-missile program as a threat to their own nuclear deterrent.

Russia's ambassador to Belgium said last week the programme could trigger an inadvertent nuclear holocaust.

"The trajectory of any American missile from Poland would be south-south-east and the speed would be very high," Vadim Lukov said at a seminar in Brussels. "In this situation any notion of an early warning evaporates. Poland is just six and a half minutes from Moscow and in this situation the Russians would rely on an automated response. I am sure you may all well imagine the unfortunate consequences."

Whoops, Apocalypse! Of course, to the religious nuts haunting the GOP and the White House, this might be a feature rather than a bug.

As for Condi Rice, she's in "flat-out lying" mode:

US officials have tried to soothe Russian fears, saying the system would be impotent against Russia's huge nuclear arsenal. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later played down its links to the programme known as Star Wars, originally conceived under Ronald Reagan, which was intended to deflect missiles fired by the Soviet Union.

"This is not that programme," she said. "This is not the son of that programme. This is not the grandson of that programme."

There isn't a single person who knows how much the neoconservative lobby has influenced this administration, and who reads neocon position papers on their think-tank websites, who believes that. The neocons want space-based interceptors next, the old "Brilliant Pebbles" program resurected. The Russians certainly read these reports and their reaction to Condi's lying can be easily guessed at.

So here's the calculus - is it worth tempting mutally assured destruction when, even if the Iranians do lob a missile at Europe, the instant an interceptor launches the Russians will join in with an "automated" launch of their own? I think the answer is an obvious no. Either the Bushies and neocons are still living in their own reality where the rules of blowback don't apply to them or they know this is all window dressing for extending US instead of Russian influence in Eastern Europe.

(H/t Kat)

Russia - No New Iran Sanctions

By Cernig

Recall how Bush administration officials have been saying that the Iran NIE back in December hadn't dampened international unity and resolve regarding Iran's nuclear program?

Umm, not so much.

Russia said Wednesday a draft U.N. resolution on Iran's disputed nuclear program does not call for any harsh sanctions...Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the draft encourages countries to be vigilant in their dealings with Iran to prevent the illegal transfer of nuclear material, but it ``does not foresee any harsh sanctions.''

``It calls for countries to be vigilant while maintaining trade and economic and transport and other ties with Iran so that they are not used for the transfer of forbidden nuclear material,'' he said at a news conference a day after the draft was approved by the five permanent Security Council members and Germany.

These terms ``will be enforced until the International Atomic Energy Agency's concerns are resolved,'' Lavrov said, referring to the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring agency.

Rather than a signal that the US and its closest allies have to make a stronger argument using actual evidence before they can even justify sanctions, the "bomb Iran" crowd will, doubtless, take this as a new clarion call for unilateral aggression. Unfortunately, hardline Iranian bombast to the effect that they don't care what the UNSC says anyway won't help convince them otherwise. Two sets of radical hotheads, on a collision course and taking their nations and the world with them.

Force Projection

By Cernig

Did you know that India was about to complete construction of a military airbase in Tajikistan, which lies North of Afghanistan and borders China to the East? Neither did I until today. I bet that's got the Pakistani military right royally pissed. They and other regional neighbours are likely also worried about the forthcoming purchase of the Russian aircraft carrier Gorshkov, which will give the Indiian Navy some serious long-range strike capabilities.

Nor did I realise until I noticed it on the NewsNow aggregator that Russia is conducting strike-fleet exercises backed by long-range aviation units in the Atlantic. As well as units of the Black sea Fleet headed by the Moskva, Russian press statements say:

The group includes the Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, two big anti- submarine ships Admiral Levchenko and Admiral Chabanenko [both Udaloy class - C], and supply ships Sergei Osipov and Nikolai Chiker.

from the Atlantic Fleet. I've hyperlinked each capital ship for those who want to know just how big and bad they are.

Following hard on the news that France is to build a military base in the UAE, it appears that if you want to stand up straight in the shadow of the US as the single superpower, then force projection is the name of the game.

Putin Checks Iran

By Cernig

Opposition figure Kasparov may be the chess master, but Vlad the soft totalitarian is proving time and again, as he creates his Nu-Soviet, that he's a master of political chess. He's adroit at manouvering enemies and allies alike into situations where his true intent is suddenly unmasked and they find themselves in a no-win situation. Here's the latest:

Russia's delivery of nuclear fuel to the Bushehr power station makes it unnecessary for Iran to pursue its enrichment program, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying on Wednesday.

Lavrov, interviewed by the Moscow daily Vremya Novostei, also said any suggestion of "regime change" in Tehran had to be ruled out in discussions on verifying Iran's nuclear program.

"We believe that Iran has no economic need to proceed with its program of uranium enrichment," Lavrov told the daily.

"We are trying to persuade the Iranians that freezing the program is to their advantage as it would immediately lead to talks with all countries of the "six," including the United States."

Such talks, he said, would aim to end any suspicion that Iran had any secret aim to produce nuclear weapons. "Iran's agreement to this proposal is in everyone's interest."

If Iran doesn't play its part in Putin's plan then Russia will stop helping Iran stave off sanctions, according to Lavrov. If it does, there must be no further sanctions and no regime change attempts.

Putin's Russia has successfully, thereby, put a spanner in the works of both Western and Iranian plans and left itself as the fulcrum and lever of how this issue plays out. Putin has also tried to steal one of the primary "carrots" the West could offer, security guarantees,out from under Bush's nose, seriously weakening any US ability to re-take the diplomatic initiative. Instead, if Iran agrees, it would move irrevocably into the status of a Nu-Soviet client state. However if Iran doesn't agree then the implied stick is obvious.

From an Iranian point of view, agreeing to the Russian plan may well be impossible. There's a lot of rhetorical and domestic political capital now invested in continuing enrichment activities. Refusal also makes sense from a national security angle - Russia's off and on again pronouncements about fuel supply wouldn't be countenanced by any nation serious about energy security as the supply is quite obviously not a reliable one and is attached to too many political strings.

Which means that in due course, Russia will ride to the West's rescue and back further sanctions - perhaps even regime change attempts under UNSC resolutions, despite their assertion that such should be off the table. Russia wins, no matter what, it seems.

Checkmate? Not quite. If America was to abandon attempts to keep control of Bush's envisioned fuel cartel so that it can be used to apply political pressure and instead hand the whole plan to the UN, under an expanded IAEA's control, Russia and Iran would both be left floundering. That's just so not going to happen while Bush and Cheney are still around, but it's something the current candidates should be thinking about, sounding out the American companies involved with guarantees of preserving their profits.

Putin To Be PM For Puppet President

By Cernig

ABC News reports that Vladimir Putin has found his way to retain power despite being term-limited as Rusia's President.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday he was ready to become prime minister if his close ally Dmitry Medvedev succeeds him, giving Putin a way to keep a grip on power after he leaves the Kremlin.

A 42-year-old lawyer with no political base of his own, Medvedev is virtually certain to win next March's presidential election since most Russians will vote for whoever the highly popular Putin endorses.

"If Russian citizens express their confidence in Dmitry Medvedev and elect him as the country's president, I will be ready to head the government," Putin told a congress of his United Russia party held near Moscow's Red Square.

For his own part, Medvedev made clear in his acceptance speech just who would be holding his strings.

In his brief acceptance speech, Medvedev listed priorities such as strengthening Russia's position in the world, preserving the Russian nation, looking after the young and the old.

"All this is in Vladimir Putin's strategy. I will be guided by this strategy, if I am elected president," Medvedev said.

"But carrying out an idea can only be successful with the participation of its author. I have no doubt that in the future Vladimir Vladimirovich (Putin) will use all his resources, all his influence in Russia and abroad for the benefit of Russia."

Observers still feel that there's a chance of Putin doing an end-run around the Russian constitution by a merger with Belarus...which would require a new constitution and allow him to be President of the new combined nation again.

All around the world wanna-be dictators are turning to a false form of democracy, a soft totalitarianism, to conceal their true intentions from their people. The hardline hard-nosed Hitler and Stalin form of dictatorship is so last century.

Russia Refuses New Iran Sanctions

By Cernig

The fallout from the new Iran NIE continues. First the credibility of the War Party's pundits disappeared, mostly due to their own pouty-lipped paranoid conspiracy theories as they demanded a do-over. Then Israel realised America wouldn't let the tail wag the dog. Now Bush's insistence on staying the course even when the course is the wrong one has been thrown into the trashcan.

Despite strong support from NATO allies in the wake of a new U.S. intelligence report that concludes Iran actually stopped atomic weapons development in 2003, the top U.S. diplomat was unable to persuade Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the urgency of fresh sanctions.

Rice said her talks with Lavrov were ``an extension of other conversations we have had,'' suggesting the two didn't see eye to eye.

``So it was a continuation of that discussion and a recommitment to our two-track approach,'' Rice said at a news conference, referring to sanctions and diplomacy.

...After seeing Rice at NATO, Lavrov told reporters: ``It fully confirms the information that we have: that there is no military element in their nuclear program. We hope very much that these negotiations with Iran will continue.''

You have to imagine that if both Russian and U.S. intelligence agree on something that had already been indicated by the IAEA, that constitutes a considerable preponderance of knowledgeable opinion. The Chinese seem to think so. last week they were all for new sanctions, now it looks like they will refuse to back any bid for a third U.N. Security Council resolution.

Gorby Blasts Bush On Nuke Treaty Refusal

By Cernig

Wow, it's a bad week to be Junior. Chavez refused to be a Dick, the three-letter folks poured cold water on his fearmongering over Iran - and now Gorby is having ago over Bush's lax attitude to his own nuclear proliferation. The ex-Soviet leader says Junior is set to undo all the good work Poppy did.

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev said on Tuesday a pillar of the arms control system could fall if Washington and Moscow replace the landmark START nuclear arms reduction treaty with a less formal pact.

The START treaty, signed in 1991, set ceilings on the size of the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals and became a symbol of the end of the Cold War. Washington has indicated it will not extend it in 2009 but wants to replace it with a pact that eliminates strict verification requirements and weapons curbs.

..."I don't see a negotiating process actually happening," Gorbachev, who signed the START treaty with then-President George Bush, the father of the current U.S. president, told a Harvard University forum.

...Diplomatic analysts have said a U.S. position on START reflects U.S. President George W. Bush's practice of repudiating arms control as a means of curbing nuclear weapons while relying more on measures like export controls, interdiction and sanctions.

Russia has said the treaty should be replaced with a formal, binding pact, and not an informal arrangement.

Gorbachev said verifying and inspecting each country's nuclear arsenals was crucial. "It is totally wrong to declare that this system is obsolete and unnecessary after the end of the Cold War," he said. "It is totally wrong."

Yet another international treaty bites the dust at Bush's hands - joining the treaties on the Geneva conventions, human rights, refugees, small arms control, climate change, the international court, landmine proliferation and several others.

It's funny/horrific to think about, but if Bush and Cheney had to live under the strictures of the NPT and IAEA inspections as leaders of a nation that didn't have prior membership of the Big Five nuke club, their administration would almost certainly be in bigger violation than Iran is.

Can the Reagan and Bush Senior Republican adults please report to the front checkout, as their party is lost in the toy aisle.

Israel Briefed On NIE Before Congress

By Cernig

Laura Rozen at War and Piece notes that, according to Haaretz, "During their visit to Washington last week, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were briefed on the report." However, when top State negotiator Under Secretary Burns met with his opposite numbers from Europe, Russia and China to press for more sanctions on Iran, "Mr. Burns could not divulge the intelligence findings at that meeting on Friday because Congress had not been briefed."

I bet Britain and the rest are sooo pleased, even if so far the Europeans are outwardly continuing to back Bush.

Laura also notes the glaring conclusion - Israel got a briefing before Congress did.

Not that it made a difference - the Israelis immediately announced their own dark suspicions that Iran had "probably" restarted it's nuclear program - helpfully kicking the ball down the road for US neocons.

Russia's Putin, in a meeting with Iran's nuclear negotiator, has vocally backed the IAEA who themselves say that the NIE is consistent with the U.N. atomic watchdog agency's own findings and "should help to defuse the current crisis."

"Although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran," International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohamed ElBaradei said in a statement.

It's just possible that Israel and those neocons "in the know" are quietly kicking themselves today. Kevin Drum cites Laura again on why their was a sudden turnaround on releasing the NIE's key findings, something which the White House had originally said wouldn't happen:

The NIE released today had been held up for more than a year. At a House Armed Services Committee hearing on global threats this summer, the CIA's top intel analyst indicated to Mother Jones during a break that the delay was due in part to new intelligence that the United States had obtained. The source of that intelligence has not been revealed, but comments by national security advisor Stephen Hadley today suggested the United States had received new information a few months ago and that a conclusion on the NIE's findings was reached only last Tuesday.

Remember the Iranian general, Ali Rez Asgari, who defected/was kidnapped back in March to much glee from the wingnuts about how he could blow the whistle on Iran's nuclear weapons plans? Maybe he did - just not in the way they expected. In turn, as Kevin puts it, "the intelligence community was directly responding to the fact that Bush and Cheney were continuing to make hawkish statements even when they knew the evidence didn't back it up."

Update There are others thinking about that Iranian general, it seems.

The U-turn by US spy agencies over Iran, the biggest since the Iraq debacle five years ago, is the result of "physical" intelligence, likely to be a defector, according to various diplomatic and security sources in Washington today.

One of the main figures in the frame is General Ali-Reza Asgari, a former deputy defence minister and Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander.

Asgari apparently disappeared in Turkey over the last 12 months, having either defected or been kidnapped, and may be in US hands.

I well recall how many of the neocons were crowing that Asgari would blow the lid off the lies over Iran's nukes.

But all accounts said that Israel was sharing the intel from Asgari, having been part of his kidnap or defection - so if the Israelis are stonewalling the NIE today having been briefed on it last week, then they already know they are warmongering on the feeblest of pretexts.

Putin - Naughty Or Nice?

By Cernig

I think this, from AJ Strata, is satire.

Want to know why Russia and the West is at odds? The West is pretty damn insulting towards Russia right now and it is OUR actions which are causing the rifts. Vladimir Putin’s party just won 70% of Parliament. This is not even close and an outcome like this cannot be rigged unless you have armed guards threatening voters at the booths (e.g.,Saddam Hussein’s rigged elections). Putins foes have chased the electorate into Putin’s open arms due to their wild and unsubstantiated accusations, then they claim foul as if they cannot face up to their own mistakes.

I mean, AJ coudn't possibly have missed the widespread reports in non-American mainstream media outlets about voters being told to vote for Putin's party or lose their jobs, could he? (Such a simple tactic - why didn't Chavez think of it?) As a result Russia is now, as Gary Kasparov describes it, "a soft version of one-party dictatorship" and any words of condemnation out of the Bush administration have been, Larisa notes, very lukewarm. One would almost think they are quietly envious.

I'm going to say AJ's post must be satirical - and as such it raises what at first glance looks like a valid criticism of left-of-center punditry. Many of us have indeed argued that the West could do with being less confrontational with Russia in such areas as the U.S. missile defense shield or Western plans for new generations of hi-tech weaponry and nuclear-tipped missiles. Yet if Russia is indeed a soft dictatorship, it could be argued, isn't that appeasement? And appeasement, based on the single data set of Hitler's Germany, never works.

But...containment does. As was proven by the decades of the Cold War and the decades before WW1 where the great powers of Europe managed an unquiet peace through mutually "respectful" distrust. There are no signs (as yet) that Putin wants more than the return of Mother Russia as a player, a proud nation. He's decided that he is the man to deliver that and, like many an egotistical leader, conflated his own continued power with the needs of his nation. The missile shield will never be an effective containment or detrerrent to Russia's military might - which makes it instead a senseless provocation. New nuclear designs just restart an arms race the world had thought was past and it could breath a sigh of relief. Russia's power and resources would make sanctions of dubious effectiveness. Still, a mix of peaceful and resolute political containment and carrots - through diplomacy, education and trade - can be an effective method for helping Russia back towards democracy in more than just name.

Too often, extreme conservatives of all nations characterise foreign policy decisions as "you're either with us or against us". But this introduces a level of obvious hatred into diplomacy that is always counterproductive. It's also lazy thinking. A stance of "we won't provoke you but we won't roll over either - play nice and you get a treat, don't and we'll find a way to swat you that you won't expect" works with dogs, kids and regimes with authoritarian tendencies. It takes more effort, more hard work, but it is the very heart of effective foreign policy.

It's Official - Chavez Loses

By Cernig

As I type, newswire tickers at nasdaq and the BBC are saying Chavez' reforms have failed to win voter's approval in Venezuela.

Reuters has this:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez lost a tight vote on Sunday in a referendum on giving him new powers and scrapping term limits on his left-wing rule.

The national electoral authority said early on Monday the "No" camp won 51 percent of the vote compared to the pro-Chavez "Yes" camp's 49 percent.

It said the trend could not be reserved and declared Chavez the loser.

The referendum vote on a raft of reforms would have allowed Chavez to run for reelection indefinitely, control Venezuela's foreign currency reserves, appoint loyalists over regional elected officials and censor the media if he declares an emergency.

Chavez has said he wants to rule for life and turn Venezuela into a socialist state. But defeat will likely put the Cuba ally under intense pressure to slow or halt his self-declared socialist revolution and step down when his term ends in 2013.

Chavez called the referendum vote "a photo finish".

Now, what was that about a dictator who was rigging the vote to make sure he ruled forever? If he's going to do that, seems Chavez will have to take a more direct approach.

I wonder how rightwingers are going to explain being so wrong?

Meanwhile, mostly unwatched by the American Right, Vlad Putin has rigged himself a cushy number.

Vladimir Putin's party won a crushing victory in parliamentary elections Sunday, paving the way for the authoritarian leader to remain in control even after he steps down as president.

The vote followed a tense Kremlin campaign that relied on a combination of persuasion and intimidation to ensure victory for the United Russia party and for Putin, who has used a flood of oil revenues to move his country into a more assertive position on the global stage.

"The vote affirmed the main idea: that Vladimir Putin is the national leader, that the people support his course, and this course will continue," party leader and parliament speaker Boris Gryzlov said after exit polls were announced.

Several opposition leaders accused the Kremlin of rigging the vote, and the Bush administration called for a probe into voting irregularities. Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov called the election "the most irresponsible and dirty" in the post-Soviet era and party officials vowed to challenge the results.

Polls just before the election had shown Putin's party had, at most, a 35% lead.

Now, will someone please explain why US conservatives got so worked up over the election in the tiny country and failed so badly to say anything much about the bigger, more rigged, election in the large and nuclear armed one? Everywhere but the U.S., the Russian authoritarian's victory is the lead story, not the Venezualan alleged-dictator's defeat.

Update Part of the Right's tactic appears to be to pretend it was everyone else, not them, who accused Chavez of being a "dictator-in-waiting." And then hope like hell no-one calls them on it. What a shameless lack of integrity. (Lest I be similiarly accused, I wrote and still believe that Chavez has mistakenly conflated his own power with the wellbeing of his nation. It's the beginning of becoming a dictator-in-waiting but it isn't there, quite.)

Update 2 Atrios has my answer (via The Sideshow):

I always find Hugo Chavez to be a somewhat annoying subject because he's neither the Satanic Hitler as reflected universally in our media (and it's really creepy how much he's distorted) nor the Great Savior Of The Left. He's a left wing populist with an authoritarian streak, but no matter what they say it's "left wing populist" which makes the Villagers froth, not the authoritarian part. There are plenty of dictators around the world which get respectful treatment from our media, and the anti-Democratic authoritarian actions of our own president disturb them not at all.

Avedon at The Sideshow adds:

I think Chavez' suggested changes were a bad idea, and I'm unsurprised that the people were not enthusiastic about them. But you can hardly argue that Chavez is a dictator because he asked the people if they'd let him make those changes, while at the same time pretending that Bush is not a dictator when he simply ignores the laws that the people don't want him to change. And the people have spoken.

Venezuela is looking a lot more like a democracy than some other countries I could name....

Indeed.

Chavez, Putin and the American Right

By Cernig

I'm wondering why so much ink, eletronic or otherwise, is being spilled writing about Chavez, who may have succeeded in getting his "reforms" pushed through by a thin margin and who heads a small nation which is no threat to the U.S.

Compare it with the relative dearth of outrage from American conservatives at Putin's outrageous vote-rigging which has delivered a massive 60% approval for what will certainly become a decision to make him "national leader" for life. Yet Putin heads a behemoth (still) of a nation with an actual, real, nuke-armed military and resources that far outstrip those Chavez can hope to command.

Is it about hating socialists (Putin is no socialist, or communist) so much or is it about quietly looking the other way lest conservatives inadvertently call into question Bush's ability to see a man's soul in his eyes?

Loyalty Pledges

By Cernig

Start with loyalty pledges and televised open debates where only loyalists should be allowed to ask question...end up here.

The Kremlin is planning to rig the results of Russia's parliamentary elections on Sunday by forcing millions of public sector workers across the country to vote, the Guardian has learned.

Local administration officials have called in thousands of staff on their day off in an attempt to engineer a massive and inflated victory for President Vladimir Putin and his United Russia party. Voters are being pressured to vote for United Russia or risk losing their jobs, their accommodation or bonuses, the Guardian has been told in numerous interviews with byudzhetniki (public sector workers), students and ordinary citizens.

...Analysts say the pressure is designed to ensure a resounding win for the United Russia party and for Putin, who heads its party list. The victory would give him a public mandate to maintain ultimate power in the country as "National Leader" despite being unable to stand for a third term as president in March.

In a televised speech yesterday Putin implored the nation to turn out and vote for United Russia, saying: "I count on your support." The president enjoys genuine popular backing but a spokeswoman for Golos, an independent organisation monitoring the elections, said "big pressure on voters across the country" was being used to balloon the result for United Russia.

"We are seeing a new phenomenon where voters are forced to get absentee ballots under threat of being sacked or being denied bonuses," she said. "People are then instructed to vote at their workplace where everything is tightly controlled." The spokesman said the pressure applied to private businesses as well as state-run enterprises.

Students have been told they risk the prospect of failing exams or being removed from courses if they do not vote for United Russia.

It isn't a million miles away from what Chavez is up to in Venezuala. Essentially, a rigged deal to make the current holders of power into permanent holders of power - based off current popularity and including various pot-sweeteners and pressures, but still a peaceful power-grab pretending to be democracy. Of course, there are other ways to achieve the same effect:

Today, the Republicans are trying to exploit the discontent with the electoral college among Americans in a way that would rig the system in their favour. At the moment, every state apart from Maine and Nebraska hands out its electoral college votes according to a winner-takes-all system. This means that if 51 per cent of people in California vote Democrat, the Democrats get 100 per cent of California's electoral votes; if 51 per cent of people in Texas vote Republican, the Republicans get 100 per cent of Texas' electoral votes.

The Republicans want to change this – but in only one Democrat-leaning state. California has gone Democratic in presidential elections since 1988, and winning the sunny state is essential if the Democrats are going to retake the White House. So the Republicans have now begun a plan to break up California's electoral college votes – and award a huge chunk of them to their side.

They have launched a campaign called California Counts, and they are trying to secure a state-wide referendum in June to implement their plan. They want California's electoral votes to be divvied up not on a big state-wide basis, but according to the much smaller congressional districts. The practical result? Instead of all the state's 54 electoral college votes going to the Democratic candidate, around 20 would go to the Republicans.

If this was being done in every state, everywhere, it would be an improvement. California's forgotten Republicans would be represented in the electoral college, and so would Texas's forgotten Democrats. But by doing it in California alone, they are simply giving the Republicans a massive electoral gift. Suddenly it would be extremely hard for a Democrat ever to win the White House; they would need a landslide victory everywhere else to counter this vast structural imbalance against them on the West Coast.

You can see this partisan agenda if you look at who is behind the campaign. It was set up by Charles "Chep" Hurth III – a Republican donor to Rudy Giuliani. It was drafted by Tom Hiltachk – a Republican attorney. Its signature drive was co-ordinated by Kevin Eckery – a Republican consultant. Its funds were provided by Paul Singer – a Republican billionaire and one of Rudy Giuliani's biggest donors. Its chief fundraiser is Anne Dunsmore – who went there straight from her post as national deputy campaign manager for Giuliani. Seeing a pattern yet?

Indeed, this bias is so blatant that the state Republican Party itself has now chipped in $80,000 (£39,000) to the campaign. Of course, the campaign is not marketing itself as a Republican rigging escapade. They insist: "This initiative is not about helping any one party or candidate. It simply ensures that every vote cast in our state counts in the electoral college." But the best they can do to provide "balance" is to point to the fact that one of the men who has given them $20,000, Edward Allred, once also gave $2,300 to the campaign of Democratic contender Bill Richardson. Wow.

Welcome to the 21st century's "soft dictatorships", where the power-mad clothe themselves in the trappings of democracy. They aren't your grandpappy's totalitarians.

Tables Turned

By Cernig

It's a measure of just how much damage Bush and the neocons have done to America's reputation that a Russian general can say stuff like this and the world doesn't automatically laugh in his face:

Yury Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, said in an interview with the Russia Today TV channel on Tuesday that the Russian Armed Forces were under no obligation to protect the world from the U.S. Answering a question as to whether or not the world could count on Russia to defend it from "insidious American plans," Baluyevsky replied, "Today, there is no need to be afraid of the Russian Armed Forces. However, I do not believe that the Russian military is obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans".

The world should laugh, but it doesn't. Even Anne Applebaum admits that America's prestige has suffered a massive blow - although Kevin notes that the reason she's upset by the Iraqi misadventure and America's diminished credibility is that it makes it less likely that anyone will support U.S. military action against Iran.

It's exactly that kind of non-thinking by bush and his neocon WormTongues that has managed to posthumously deprive Reagan of his Cold War PR victory and hand it to Putin's Russia instead. When the current crop of Republican presidential candidates are, at one and the same time, treating Bush as a messianic figure who has done no wrong and each trying to claim Reagan's reputation for themselves, could someone please point out that the two are mutually exclusive?