Tag: United States
Meltdowns, nuclear and economic
We are going to be hearing a lot about nuclear meltdowns in the next few days. Here courtesy of Reuters is a decently comprehensible explanation of what may have happened at the Fukushima nuclear power plant:
Nuclear power plants cannot explode the way a nuclear weapon does. But they can spew a lot of dangerous radioactive material if the containment is breached (this has not happened so far). That could make things a lot worse. Check here for more on this and other nuclear issues.
At the very least, we are looking at colossal economic losses due to the earthquake in Japan. The reactors alone cost on the order of $10 billion each, and that is small in the context of the other physical damage done in Japan. But the really big impact is likely to come from increased energy costs worldwide–uncertainty about whether nuclear reactors are safe will drive up electricity and other energy bills, which are already soaring due to Middle East uncertainties.
So…anyone who thought our budget problems might ease in a year when the economy is recovering, as I did, will have to reevaluate. Whatever budget constraints we were feeling before the earthquake, they are going to get a good deal tighter now. This unquestionably affects the way we think about war and peace, in particular how much we are willing to pay for either one. Tea partiers were already prepared to cancel funding for peace, and they were looking shaky on support for war too. How about the rest of us?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Counter revolution advances, not only in Libya
With the U.S. and Europe hesitating to take action against Gaddafi, the counter-revolution is in full swing, not only in Libya. The Saudis have prevented any sizable demonstrations and have sent military forces into Bahrain to reinforce its effort to repress the demonstrations, which yesterday focused on Manama’s financial district. In Yemen, seven were killed over the weekend and many more injured as the government used deadly force against university demonstrators. Demonstrators and local doctors are also claiming that some sort of illegal poison gas was used:
In Libya, Gaddafi’s forces have taken Brega and are headed east towards Benghazi. The once hopeful rebellion appears headed for defeat, if not oblivion. The past several days of inaction have had serious consequences, as Tripoli has used its unchallenged air force and superior fire power to force the rebels out of several key positions. Libyan forces are now approaching Adjabiya. Their long supply lines now represent the last, best hope of the rebellion to prevent the fall of Benghazi.
Will these reversals encourage conservative forces in Tunisia and Egypt to hold on to what positions they can, or even strike back to counter changes already in progress? Are the reversals temporary setbacks, or are we witnessing the end of the (early) Arab spring? Will the protesters find ways of reviving their efforts? Will the regimes turn their backs on protester aspirations or look for ways to offer more meaningful reforms? Lots of questions, few answers.
PS: Little did I know when I wrote this that Jackson Diehl had already asked similar questions, with a somewhat more pessimistic spin, in this morning’s Washington Post.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Revolutions require follow through
Michelle Kelemen had a good piece on NPR this morning focused in part on what shifts in U.S. assistance are required as autocrats fall in the Middle East.
This is a subject close to my heart, as I watched in Serbia when we abandoned Serbian civil society organizations as soon as Milosevic fell. Even worse, we cut off Otpor, the student movement that sparked the popular protests, because it put up billboards saying “we are watching you.” This ambiguous phrase, accompanied by a picture of a bulldozer, was meant to convey that the protesters would continue to monitor the new authorities, as well as the remnants of the old regime, to make sure that the transition was completed. The right thing to do, but too much for U.S. Embassy Belgrade.
Net result: reform in the Serbian security services never was completed. Serbia is still struggling with the consequences, which include a political spectrum unable to escape the unfortunate dictates of the ethnic nationalism that kept Milosevic in power.
I fear something like this may also happen in the Middle East, where the Obama Administration is already ambivalent about how much change it really wants. The remaining autocrats are no doubt pressing for less rather than more, and some think their influence is behind the President’s hesitation to take more decisive action in Libya. Would anyone watching recent events in Egypt be surprised if the security services managed to come out of this without thorough vetting and reform?
To Hillary Clinton’s great credit, she is quoted in the NPR piece as saying,
When I spoke with the Egyptian officials just over the last couple of weeks they kept mentioning central and eastern Europe. They kept saying that’s how we want to turn out. We don’t want to get this derailed. We want to make this work. So we want to help them make it work.
In Central and Eastern Europe there was a strong magnetic pole in Brussels that ensured the new governments would point in the right direction. That is not the case in the Middle East, where the Saudi and Jordanian monarchies as well as the Syrian and Yemeni secular autocrats (not to mention the Iranian theocrats) will weigh in heavily against fully democratic revolutions. Indigenous democrats are going to have to keep the needle pointed in the right direction.
The Secretary of State and her Egyptian interlocutors have the right approach, one that will require continuing support not only to the new post-autocratic governments but also to the civil society organizations, including some of the Islamic ones, that mobilized and steered the protests. I would shift substantial resources to them–and to support for the upcoming referenda and elections–quickly and decisively. Revolutions require follow through.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No fly may fly
The Arab League today asked the UN Security Council for a no-fly zone over Libya, while rejecting foreign intervention (presumably on the ground?). Wes Clark said no to the no-fly zone, for fear of heading down the slippery slope without adequate justification for military action.
I guess the question I would be asking the Arabs is whether they are prepared to contribute to the effort. Arranging that might be technically difficult, but a positive answer would certainly help to calm American nerves, which seem less than steady.
The Americans, if they want to do no-fly, still face opposition inside NATO, especially from Turkey. Not to mention the Security Council, where China and Russia may not be thrilled with the idea.
Even if Arab participation is not possible, the Arab League call is an important diplomatic step, especially coupled with its decision to open a dialogue with the Interim National Transitional Council and in effect recognize it as the legitimate government of Libya. Gaddafi may not be listening, but people around him are no doubt wondering how long he can hold up against peers who want him out. His cronies will want to act before he absconds.
Of course none of the diplomatic dance, important as it is, will make much difference if Gaddafi’s forces continue to gain ground. Nothing succeeds like success. That goes for the Interim National Transitional Council as well of course. I certainly wish them, and the long-suffering Libyans of Tripoli, the best.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Time to make history
President Obama yesterday declared Gaddafi to be “on the wrong side of history.” By this he presumably means that in the long-term Gaddafi is finished. The trouble is it does not look as if the Colonel is finished anytime soon. History can be a long time in the future.
Things are moving, slowly. The Arab League is meeting today to discuss a no-fly zone over Libya. The head of the Libyan Interim National Transitional Council, who now has the honor of a substantial price on his head offered by Gaddafi, has called for a sea blockade as well. The Americans, belatedly in my view, have announced that they will establish liaison with the Council. The president of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, made a strong statement calling for Gaddafi to step down but did not call explicitly for a no-fly zone and in fact offered no indication of concrete steps the EU is taking to force Gaddafi out. NATO is reportedly studying military options. But the African Union has issued a fence-sitting declaration that excludes military intervention.
Gaddafi has said he will turn Libya into another Vietnam. In a perverse sense, he has already done that, with his forces playing the unfortunate role of the Americans in Vietnam. But the Americans held on for a long time in Vietnam, and Gaddafi may do likewise in Libya. He knows, as does Washington, that no one is even thinking about putting American boots on the ground. The Iraq/Afghanistan Syndrome is much in evidence, with Defense Secretary Gates making it clear he does not want to take military action against Gaddafi.
The issue now is how to keep the rebellion alive while we all deliberate. Humanitarian assistance to the rebel-held areas is becoming urgent, as supplies there are dwindling. A shift in the military balance is also important. Gaddafi’s forces have taken Zawiya in the west and likely also Ras Lanuf towards the east. Superior fire power and organization are giving Tripoli important advantages. We can all hope that the Libyans will handle this situation on their own, or that the Arab League or EU will rescue the rebellion.
But in our heart of hearts, we know that international leadership lies with the Americans. When did Europe or the Arab League ever take decisive action? Everyone is waiting for President Obama to make history in the present, without waiting for it to happen in the future. He has a lot of options. The time has come to choose the ones he wants to pursue.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This is interesting
Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Bozidar Djelic is cited today as saying that Serbia has to find a solution for Kosovo before it can enter the EU, which might happen by 2015. This is not new, nor is it as promising as it sounds at first reading, because he adds:
Such compromise would guarantee economic and political autonomy of Kosovo, without jeopardizing Serbia’s territorial integrity….We cannot have a long-term peace if we support one nationalism against the other. It’s good to support the European kind of compromise which is not satisfactory but it is functional.
It is also said that he cited two precedents: Hong Kong and the two Germanies. Both of these are cases in which reintegration into a single sovereign state was the eventual result.
Anyone who follows Kosovo knows that autonomy within the context of even nominal Serbian sovereignty is no longer possible, if it ever was. Nor will reintegration happen, except in the context of EU membership for both Belgrade and Pristina. Belgrade cannot hope to govern Kosovo the way China today governs Hong Kong or Berlin governs East Germany. That’s a pipedream.
Djelic’s statements are nevertheless interesting, as they suggest that Belgrade is beginning to think seriously about what it has to do about Kosovo in order to get into the EU. This should be the vital question for Belgrade. It is also urgent, since the EU is unlikely to move quickly on an application for membership from a state that cannot define its own borders.
It should also be the vital question for Brussels, which so far has not spoken unequivocally about the need to resolve the Kosovo issue before Serbia can enter the EU. It is of course hard for Brussels to speak with one voice on this subject, as 22 of its member states have recognized Kosovo and 5 have not. Some of those 22 are sure to block Serbian membership so long as the Kosovo issue remains unresolved and have said as much publicly and privately. Getting an unequivocal statement out of the 27 would go a long way to clarifying the situation. You don’t need to have recognized Kosovo to know that EU membership for Serbia is impossible without resolving the Kosovo issue.
Washington will also have to be clear with Belgrade about the need to resolve Kosovo before Serbia can enter NATO. This is less urgent, as Serbia understandably shows few signs of really wanting NATO membership. But no one should be encouraging Belgrade to think that anything less than a full resolution of the Kosovo issue is vital to Serbia’s long-term relationship with the United States.
Pristina should take notice too. It would be perilous for Kosovo if Serbia were to enter the EU first, even if it has accepted Kosovo as a sovereign state. Belgrade would then have a veto on Pristina’s EU membership. The only reasonable solution to this problem is for Pristina to accelerate its own efforts at preparing for EU membership. It has done well to meet the EU technical requirements for the Schengen visa waiver, and I hope the EU will come to its senses and allow that to go forward. But there are many other areas in which Pristina is lagging. It needs to get its own house in order. Governing well is the best revenge.
RSS - Posts
