Tag: China
Good news, and bad
As world leaders meet in Doha for the climate change conference, IEA officials presented the World Energy Outlook 2012 at a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event. Jessica Matthews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, labelled the year “paradoxical.” Some of the fundamental facts of world energy are changing, especially in the United States, which is on track to becoming the largest oil producer in 2020, passing even Saudi Arabia. This development, brought on by the unconventional oil and gas revolution, in combination with recent improvements in efficiency, suggests a bright energy future for the U.S. But Matthews reminded the audience that the Outlook ultimately concludes the U.S. and the rest of the world are not on track for a sustainable energy future. If trends continue, the world will become 3 degrees Celsius warmer by mid century and 4-6 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100. Such warming will have catastrophic implications.
Daniel Poneman, the Deputy Secretary of Energy, seconded Matthews’ point that more oil and gas in the U.S., and in turn, more independence, is a result of higher production and decreased demand. Production of shale gas began slowly, but it now accounts for about 35% of annual gas production. If trends continue, the US will overtake Russia in 2015 as the largest natural gas producer. Increasing natural gas production in the U.S., Canada, and Australia will globalize the natural gas market, according Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and overseer of the World Energy Outlook. New producers will diversify the market and traditional gas exporters will face lower exports and prices.
At the same time, energy consumption is shifting from the West to the East. By 2035, OECD countries will use only about 30% of total energy production. Ninety percent of oil from the Middle East will go to Asia. This is partially due to rising standards of living in China, India, and the Middle East. About 20% of the global population (1.3 billion people) still have no access to electricity, however. Birol calls this an energy, economic and moral issue. Despite electricity generation growth in India, electricity consumption per capita in 2035 India will equal per capita consumption in 1947 America.
Iraq is another game changer. Right now it is the third largest oil producer. Its production is expected to increase as exploration discovers greater reserves. Iraq will produce 6 million barrels per day in 2020 and 8 million by 2035, noted Maria van der Hoeven, the IEA’s Executive Director. Iraq will account for 45% of growth in global oil production from now until 2035, passing Russia and becoming the second largest oil exporter in the mid 2030’s. By 2035 almost 50% of world oil production will come from OPEC countries. Iraq will be a significant contributor, with much of its oil going to China. Thirty percent of growth in Iraq’s oil exports will come from Chinese-owned oil fields in Iraq.
The prospects for climate change are sobering. Progress has been made on energy efficiency, but energy demand is growing due to many factors, including population increase and movement away from nuclear power in some countries. Fossil fuel subsidies, which Birol calls the greatest threat to climate change, are a serious problem. Fuel subsidies are up 30% to $523 billion in 2011, with the Middle East and North Africa in the lead.
According to Birol, the global goal of a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature or less will not be met with current policies. For the first time a decline in renewables is expected in 2012. Much of past and future renewable growth is dependent on subsidies. If it were possible to halt building of new infrastructure for the next 20 years, we would still use up 80% of the emissions permitted to keep the global temperature change under 2 degrees Celsius. We are not remotely doing all we can to improve efficiency. Two-thirds of the economically viable potential for improving efficiency is not being used. We have until 2017 to make serious changes, which will likely require a legally binding international agreement. If we don’t make changes by then, there will be no way to keep the planet from warming two degrees Celsius or more. If we become more efficient now, we might have until 2022 to make serious changes. The longer we wait, the more costly changes will be, which will make striking an international agreement harder.
The Outlook forecasts good news on energy production, but still bad news for climate change.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wisdom, not resolve
I’m in Atlanta this week for Thanksgiving, which Americans will mark tomorrow with parades, running races, a giant meal, lots of football (watching and playing) and much debate on the issues of our day, from cranberry sauce recipes to the state of world affairs. Some will go to church, but most will mark the day entirely at home–or in a relative’s home–with marathon culinary preparations, a lengthy and leisurely afternoon meal and a long denouement of talk, napping and TV, in my family followed in the late evening by a giant turkey sandwich, on white toast.
I mention these things because close to 50% of my readers are non-Americans, only some of whom will have enjoyed the Thanksgiving experience first hand. To my knowledge, the holiday is entirely a New World phenomenon. Canada has its own version, celebrated last month. Of course lots of cultures express thanks in both religious and non-religious ways, but I wonder if any have made it quite the major event that the North Americans have. Readers should feel free to enlighten me.
Americans certainly have a great deal to be thankful for. We are slowly climbing out of a lingering recession, we’ve gotten through the difficult quadrennial drama of presidential elections without the uncertainties that have sometimes plagued the process, our troops are out of Iraq and moving out of Afghanistan, and there is no existential threat on the horizon, even if there are many less dramatic challenges. We are the solution to our own worst problems, which focus on the relatively mundane questions of what the government should spend money on and where it should find the revenue needed.
The world is not in such good shape. While statistics show that the overall frequency of war is down, the catalogue is full of long lasting conflicts and their devastating impacts on people: the revolution and civil war in Syria are getting on to marking two years, Israel and Palestine have been in conflict one way or another for 65 years, the Afghanistan/Pakistan war is dragging into its 12th year, and I don’t know how to determine when the war against al Qaeda in Yemen, the war against its affiliates in Somalia or the war in Eastern Congo began. Then there are the more recent conflicts: northern Mali and the all but defeated revolution in Bahrain. And there are the wars that might come: perhaps against Iran, in the South or East China Seas, on the Korean peninsula or between South Sudan and Sudan.
I can’t claim that most Americans will be thinking about these disasters as they give thanks for their own blessings. They are more likely to be thinking about Breezy Point and Hoboken, two communities that hurricane Sandy devastated early this month. We’ve still got tens of thousands homeless and some without power weeks later. Those who turn to America for help–and many do–are going to find us preoccupied these days with our own needs. I suspect this will not be just a short-term phenomenon, but a longer-term effort to put our own house in order, limiting commitments abroad and prioritizing them in accordance with America’s own interests.
This will sound ungenerous to non-Americans, who may bemoan American interference but also look to the U.S. to step in to help stop the Gaza fighting and turn to Washington when other disasters strike. We will continue to do what we can where vital American interests are at stake, but it will be healthy if we are a bit less committed and rely on others rather more than we have in the past. Our withdrawal–retrenchment is what some call it–will not be absolute. It has to be calculated and calibrated. Good judgment, not ideology, should be its guide.
That is one of the many reasons I am grateful to the American people for re-electing President Obama. I don’t always agree with his judgment–I’d rather he did more on Syria, for example–but he is thoughtful and cautious in ways that fit our current circumstances. Managing the relative decline in American power and constructing a global architecture that will limit conflict and provide space for those who choose to live in free societies to prosper are the great challenges of the coming generations. Wisdom, not resolve, is the essential ingredient to meet them.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
A very light holiday week comes as a break after the flurry of post-election events.
1. America and China in the Aftermath of Election and Succession: Paths and Pitfalls, Monday November 19, 9:15 AM – 12:00 PM, Brookings
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Jonathon D. Pollack, Cheng Li, Kenneth G. Lieberthal, J. Stapleton Roy, Alan Romberg, Jeffrey A. Bader, Michael Swaine
The reelection of President Barack Obama and the convening of China’s 18th National Congress only days later highlight converging political calendars that may set the contours of U.S.-China relations and East Asian politics for years to come. However, uncertainties remain, with China’s political, economic and strategic trajectories subject to major internal and external pressures. At the same time, the United States confronts a daunting, long deferred set of fiscal challenges that could reshape U.S. foreign and security policy options.
Register for this event here.
2. Militancy and the Arab Spring, Monday November 19, 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speakers: Peter Bergen, Leila Hilal, Souad Mekhennet
The deaths of four American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya in September, along with the reports of militant jihadists’ participation in the Syrian conflict, have given rise to serious concerns about the role of Islamist extremists in the various theaters of the “Arab Uprising.” Al-Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups have suffered severe blows since 9/11, but the chaos and confusion surrounding the revolutions that have roiled the Arab world could provide such organizations with fertile ground for recruiting new members.
Register for this event here.
3. U.S.-India Military Engagement, Tuesday November 20, 10:30 AM – 11:30 AM, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 Conference Room
Speakers: Karl F. Inderfurth, S. Amer Latif, Walter Doran
Bilateral military cooperation has deepened substantially between the U.S. and India over the past decade. The next challenge is to see whether military relations can transition to engagement that is more normal, routine, expected. Join the CSIS U.S.-India Chair and guest panelist Admiral (ret.) Walter Doran — who is featured in our October newsletter — for a discussion of the findings, recommendations, and conclusions of our latest report, entitled “U.S.-India Military Engagement: Steady as They Go.”
Register for this event here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
It’s a relatively light week for foreign policy events with all eyes focused on the US elections.
1. Political Shiism in the Arab World: Rituals, Ideologies, and Politics, Monday November 5, 9:00 AM – 11:30 AM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Arlington Campus, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 2201, Truland Building, Room 555
Speakers: Jana al Horr, Solon Simmons, Terrence Lyons
Researchers and experts on Arab politics have often debated the role of political Shiism as a source of regional instability and conflict following the 2003 U.S-Iraq war. Some argue that the expansion of political Shiism in the Arab world is a quest for political leadership resulting from a long-standing conflict with Sunnis, coupled with centuries of Shiite political and economic marginalization. Other argue that political Shiism holds revolutionary elements that can be re-interpreted to fit any political context that Shiites perceive as threatening. This view perceives that Shiite religious elements can be made to fit the current needs of various political contexts and are the main drivers of political mobilization and ultimately conflict. Both these views offer a narrow and restricted description of political Shiism; hence, the literature on political Shiism lacks a systematic understanding of the phenomenon. To address this gap, the research asks the following questions: (1) What is political Shiism? Is it monolithic? What are its forms? And who are its ideologues?; and (2) How do Arab Shiites mobilize for political protests?
In order to answer these questions, the research provides an examination of rituals, ideologies, and speeches of political Shiism embedded in the historical and geographical context of the Arab region in specific, and the Middle East in general, during the last century. Following a combination of methodological approaches, the research will first examine the centrality of Ashura rituals and celebrations in political Shiism; second, the research will explore the plurality of political Shiism thought in the twentieth, its progression from quietism to activism, and the influence of regional politics on its development; third, through analyzing current speeches of Shiite leaders in Lebanon and Iraq, the research will shed light on contemporary political Shiism language, its themes that mobilize the masses, and its connection to past ideologues previously examined.
The research seeks to extend the debate over the forces of mobilization of political Shiism, and contribute to a more constructive and coherent understanding of Shiite political actions in the Arab world. It confirms that the transformation of political Shiism from quietism to activism can be traced back socio-political changes that occurred in the early twentieth century. Additionally, it identifies how conflict associated with political Shiism is not linked to the Sunni-Shiite schism. Instead, the divide between the Arab world and the West is at the heart of political Shiism. Furthermore, the research highlights the importance of Ashura in political Shiism, but it is the rituals coupled with local and regional political events that create mobilization.
One important contribution of the dissertation is that it offers an inside descriptive look into the formation of political Shiism, its main ideologues, and issues that distinguish political Shiism as one of the main forces for political mobilization in the Arab world. The research aims at providing a broader understanding of political Shiism to address the gaps that exist in the current literature, and offer a new way of thinking about this rising religio-political phenomenon.
2. The Challenge of Security Sector Reform in the Arab World, Monday November 5, 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Steven Heydemann, Robert Perito, Querine Hanlon, Daniel Brumberg, Manal Omar
If the first season of the “Arab Uprisings” brought hope, the second season has illustrated many hard challenges, not least of which is restructuring the military, policy and intelligence services of Arab states. Even in Tunisia, where the military played a crucial role in supporting the “Jasmine Revolution,” the ultimate loyalty of the security services remains an open question. To examine this issue, USIP will convene a panel of experts on Monday, November 5, 2012 from 9:30am-11:30am to discuss the institutional, economic and political challenges posed by the quest to remake security sectors into allies of pluralistic democratic change. Please join us for what promises to be a revealing and provocative discussion.
Register for this event here.
3. Turkey in the Middle East: Role, Influence, and Challenges, Monday November 5, 6:00 PM – 7:15 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602
Speakers: Omer Taspinar, Bulent Aliriza, Edward Skip Gnehm
Under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan, Turkey is a major player in the Middle East. Turkey’s active involvement in the Syrian crisis, rivalry with Iran, and outspoken advocacy of Palestinian statehood place Turkey at the center of regional events. The panelists will examine Turkey’s rising role in the region, addressing regional opportunities as well as domestic politics.
Register for this event here.
4. Aiding Conflict: The Impact of U.S. Food Aid on Civil War, Tuesday November 6, 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, Hall of Government, 2115 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Kendrick Seminar Room, Room 321
Speaker: Nathan Nunn
This paper examines the effect of U.S. food aid on conflict in recipient countries. To establish a causal relationship, we exploit time variation in food aid caused by fluctuations in U.S. wheat production together with cross-sectional variation in a countrys tendency to receive any food aid from the United States. Our estimates show that an increase in U.S. food aid increases the incidence, onset and duration of civil conflicts in recipient countries. Our results suggest that the effects are larger for smaller scale civil conflicts. No effect is found on interstate warfare.
Register for this event here.
5. Post-Election Day Analysis – What Happened and What Comes Next?, Wednesday November 7, 10:00 AM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Attendance by webcast only.
Speaker: Benjamin Wittes, William A. Galston, Robert Kagan, Thomas E. Mann, Isabel V. Sawhill
This year’s presidential and congressional elections are likely to be close—perhaps very close. They will have a profound impact on the nation’s future course in both the domestic and foreign policy spheres. The outcome of the November 6 election will raise important policy and political questions: What was key to the winning presidential candidate’s success, and what do the results reveal about the 2012 American electorate? In what direction will the new administration take the nation? What might a lame duck Obama administration and Congress look like—and how will the negotiations over the fiscal cliff proceed? What will be the congressional dynamics? What are the incoming administration’s policy prospects during the 113th Congress? And what are the consequences for U.S. foreign policy?
On November 7, the Campaign 2012 project at Brookings will host a final forum analyzing the election’s outcomes and how these results will affect the policy agenda of the next administration and Congress. Panelists will discuss the approach of the incoming administration, the political makeup of the new 113th Congress and the prospect for policy breakthroughs on key social, fiscal and foreign policy issues.
After the program, panelists will take questions from the audience. Participants may follow the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag #BI2012.
6. Syria: The Path Ahead, Thursday November 8, 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Saul/Zilkha Room
Speakers: Daniel L. Byman, Michael Doran, Salman Shaikh
As the Syrian conflict approaches its twentieth month, fears are mounting that Bashar al-Assad’s regime may stay in power or that Syria will collapse into sectarian war. An enduring conflict in Syria will have far-reaching consequences for the region, could threaten key U.S. partners, and may require urgent decisions. Has the struggle for democracy in Syria been lost? Is there more the United States could do to influence events there? What steps could the international community take to prevent strife and sectarianism from spreading throughout the region?
On November 8, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will explore these and other questions about the conflict in Syria. Panelists Mike Doran, the Roger Hertog senior fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, and Director of the Brookings Doha Center Salman Shaikh, appearing by video conference, will discuss policy options for the U.S. and international community, with a focus on Shaikh’s recently authored paper, “Losing Syria (And How to Avoid It).” Daniel L. Byman, senior fellow and research director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, will moderate the discussion.
Participants can follow the conversation on Twitter using hashtag #SavingSyria. After the program, the panelists will take audience questions.
Register for this event here.
7. Ending Wars Well: Order, Justice, Conciliation, Thursday November 8, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs
Venue: Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs, Georgetown University, 3307 M Street, Washington, DC 20007, Suite 200
Speakers: Eric Patterson, Timothy Shah, John P. Gallagher
Why don’t wars “end well?” From Rwanda to Colombia to Afghanistan, it seems that modern wars drag on and on, with terrible costs for civilians and their neighbors. In his new book, Ending Wars Well, Berkley Center Senior Research Fellow Eric Patterson argues that just war principles can provide a framework for bringing wars to modest yet enduring conclusions. More specifically, he criticizes grandiose peace schemes that are not rooted in the realities of security and political order. In contrast, he proposes a model that begins with investment in Order as a practical and moral imperative. This provides a foundation for Justice (e.g. punishment, restitution) and Conciliation in unique situations.
Patterson uses Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, East Timor, the Camp David Accords, and the US Civil War as test cases for this model. The Berkley Center’s Timothy Samuel Shah will moderate Patterson’s discussion with LtCol John Gallagher, a former West Point professor and current staff officer to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Register for this event here.
8. Anti-Extremism Laws in Russia, Pakistan, and China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Thursday November 8, 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM, Freedom House
Venue: Freedom House 1301 Connecticut Ave. NW 4th Floor Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: David Kramer, Virab Khachatryan, Peter Roudik, Aleksandr Verhovsky, Laney Zhang
Freedom House is pleased to host a roundtable with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on the anti-extremism legal frameworks in China, Pakistan, and Russia. Moderated by Freedom House President David Kramer, the on-the-record roundtable will provide an opportunity for participants to engage experts and authors of The Law Library of Congress’s report Legal Provisions on Fighting Extremism. The participants will compare and contrast the differing approaches to anti-extremism laws in China, Pakistan, and Russia. The round table comes at an important time as repressive regimes are developing anti-extremism laws and implementing them in broad terms to suppress criticism.
Register for this event here.
9. Afghanistan 2014: What Happens Next? A Discussion with the Former Ambassador of Afghanistan Said Tayeb Jawad, Thursday November 8, 7:30 PM – 9:00 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Henry Harding Auditorium, Room 213
Speaker: Said Tayeb Jawad
Delta Phi Epsilon Professional Foreign Service Sorority and the Afghan Student Association proudly present “Afghanistan 2014: What Happens Next? A Discussion with the Former Ambassador of Afghanistan, Said Tayeb Jawad.” The Ambassador will discuss the future of Afghanistan with the scheduled U.S. withdrawal and the 2014 Afghan elections.
Register for this event here.
10. Cyber as a Form of National Power, Friday November 9, 5:00 PM – 6:30 PM, Institute of World Politics
Venue: The Institute of World Politics, 1521 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speaker: Samuel Liles
Dr. Samuel Liles is an associate professor at Purdue University West Lafayette in the Computer Information Technology Department of the College of Technology where he teaches computer forensics. Dr. Liles is a faculty member with CERIAS at Purdue University. CERIAS is known as the premier multidisciplinary academic center in information security and assurance, and has produced nearly half of the PhD graduates in that field in the US over the last 15 years. Previously he was a professor in the Information Resources Management College at The National Defense University in Washington DC, and prior to that the Computer Information Technology Department at Purdue University Calumet. As a researcher his interest is in cyber warfare as a form of low intensity conflict has had him presenting to audiences world-wide. Samuel Liles completed his PhD at Purdue University primarily studying cyber conflict, issues of cyber conflict, information assurance and security, and cyber forensics.
RSVP for this event to kbridges@iwp.edu.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Not a good idea
Governor Romney will no doubt repeat tonight that he will label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. This is what he won’t say:
1. The Chinese have already revalued their currency a good bit (yuan/dollar), much of it during the Obama administration:
2. The designation of currency manipulator is one provided for in U.S. law, not in international agreements. Labelling China one would only require that the U.S. government negotiate with Beijing about their sin, something it has been doing for years (with the results portrayed above). There is no other legal consequence in domestic legislation. Washington could file a complaint with the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization, but the consequences of doing that are unclear. Neither organization has tried in the past to provide a remedy for currency manipulation.
3. The Brazilians have been accusing the U.S. of manipulating its currency downwards (through the Fed’s “quantitative easing,” which injects dollars into the world economy), in order to compete more effectively. Any success we have in pursuing a remedy against China will pave the way for a Brazilian complaint against the U.S.
4. The most likely immediate Chinese reaction would be to halt the appreciation of the renminbi in preparation for a difficult negotiation with Washington. This would certainly harm U.S. exports. The Chinese could also retaliate in other ways: not buying U.S. bonds or blocking U.S. investment.
Bottom line: we have a lot more to lose than gain from a rhetorically stirring but ineffectual declaration that China is a currency manipulator. Maybe that’s why the Bush and Obama administrations have both passed on the option Romney is pushing?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A few questions for tonight
It’s a high campaign week. I don’t expect tonight’s town hall debate to focus much foreign policy. Apart from budget, about which I’ll write during the next week, the main difference on international affairs is one of tone, not substance: Romney accuses Obama of projecting weakness, not strength. On Iraq and Afghanistan in particular Romney has criticized the Administration’s past performance but offered little or no idea how he would handle things differently in the future. Obama has so far mostly vaunted the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the killing of Osama bin Laden, and mocked Romney’s lack of distinctive policy proposals.
But there are several areas of real difference: China, Israel/Palestine and Iran are the important ones. A few sharp questions are in order.
China: Romney says he would label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. Someone tonight should ask what difference that would make.
It could form the basis of a complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO), but there is no guarantee that the complaint would be found justified or that the WTO could provide a remedy. In fact, the Chinese currency (renminbi, whose primary unit is the yuan) has already been revalued by more or less the percentage it was once regarded as undervalued. This was currency manipulation the U.S., including Mr. Romney, should welcome. Chinese retaliation for an American president who declared Beijing a currency manipulator could include not buying U.S. government bonds and maybe even manipulating the renminbi back down, which would help revive the slowing Chinese economy. In short, the U.S. has as much to lose from this macho first-day-in-office declaration as the very uncertain gains.
The Obama administration deserves at least some of the credit for the revaluation of the renminbi. It has also filed trade complaints focused on auto parts with the WTO, but so far as I can tell none of those have been decided yet. It takes years. Using the WTO to bring specific cases has clear advantages over the blanket “currency manipulator” approach: the Chinese have agreed to WTO rules and retaliation is far less likely if a specific case is won there.
Israel/Palestine: Romney now says he favors the two-state solution that has been the U.S. goal for a long time, putting him in tune with the rest of the world. But that’s not what he said on the 47% video, when he proposed just kicking the can down the road and hoping for something good to happen. He gets substantial funding from Sheldon Adelson and others who actively oppose the two-state solution and want Israel to hold on to “Judea and Samaria,” aka the West Bank. You can choose to believe that Romney would buck his moneyed supporters, but I doubt it.
The Obama Administration has failed to deliver a two-state solution, like the administrations that preceded it. You can blame it all on Prime Minister Netanyahu and his right-wing government if you like, but the fact remains: little or nothing has been accomplished between Israel and Palestine, which however has begun to build a more credible state apparatus than existed in the past. Little credit to be gained on this issue, except that the relative peace has held, including with Hamas-controlled Gaza.
The question to be asked is this: what specifically would you do to bring about a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine?
Iran: The difference here is certainly in part one of tone. Those who have spoken with Romney advisor John Bolton come away with the impression that he would relish war with Iran, which other advisors have advocated. Obama administration insiders want a deal and see a credible threat of force as a tool in getting one.
But there is also the “red line” issue. The President has refused to specify his red line, essentially reserving to himself the decision on when Iran has gone so far that he needs to use force. Romney wants to prevent Iran from getting the “capacity” to produce nuclear weapons. This is in some ways just as vague a concept, but it implies willingness to draw the line, for example, at accumulation of only as much 20% enriched uranium as would be required to make less than one nuclear weapon. Romney also wants to reach an explicit agreement on the red line with Israel, so that there is “no daylight” between us on this issues.
Personally, I prefer an American president who decides whether to go to war based on American interests and does not outsource the decision to a foreign leader. But however you feel about it, someone should ask tonight how each candidate would decide whether or not to go to war with Iran.
RSS - Posts
