The Lessons of Afghanistan?

The interview from General McChrystal, Commander of the US army and NATO forces in Afghanistan, in the magazine Rolling Stone showed his frustration and the gap growing between what the politicians want and what the military commanders want to do. I believe that he fully knew the consequences of such an act and wanted out. It also another sign of the values’ change compared to before, yet people expect the same results. Indeed, the lessons of the decolonisation, Viet-Nam and others have not been learnt. 

Does this gap between the two men shows the limit of the American war machine? It is obvious that if a developed army can win a battle against some partisans is not a trouble, winning the war against them is different. People at home do not want to hear about casualties but they still want to “win” the war. It is really odd because wars invariably involve casualties on both. It seems as if it was paradoxical. Interestingly many political figures such on both side the American political spectrum talk about winning the war and being patriotic and how they believe in freedom. Yet they have no trouble, imposing their own value on a different people leaving thousands of kilometers away from them. Is it the condition of winning the war? That’s not really democratic, it reminds me of the time of colony where western nations would “educate” other nations. The prime intention of letting people being master of their destiny is praiseworthy, however it is really hard to implement, let alone in a country prone to tribal war as it is a conflict between idea where education play a big role. The problem in this war is that the conditions of a victory are blurry. How are the strategists in the field supposed  to meet these requirements?

Then what can be the role of an army, how will it help a wannabe superpower to assert its influence and ambitions: I would think that this army wouldn't retaliate heavily, should be ready to take loss and reacting accordingly: no massive show of firepower, compassionate answer since political correctness is all over the place, rendering everything less natural and genuine. So are we back to Louis XV and the War of the Austrian Succession where France would be the peace maker of Europe while asking for nothing in return bar glory? However nowadays, soldier’s lives are much more valued this day making it hard to continue that kind of enlightened war.

And that is the trend as developed nations or at least western nations are less and less inclined to suffer human losses which make the exercise of war even harder. This will give the opportunity to others developing states to try the same: China in Africa, it is too early to get any lesson from its involvement there but it s not too glorious either, they benefited from an immaculate picture and used their own principles without adapting too much to the locals, it gets the job done but it doesn't make a country live if the workers are foreigners and do not integrate.

In conclusion, the role of an army shifted heavily toward a humanitarian pattern, it should rather defend and develop than attack and destroy, this is a frustrating position for the army now as they are being asked the double tasks of winning the war and bearing the brunt of the casualties while reorganising civil life.

I think that the Afghanistan war was started out of revenge and its goal was poorly designed. I do not put into question its motive and fully agree with it. However, the West and  chiefly the USA should have focused on continually eradicating Taliban leadership and their drug field without trying to get involved too much in the politics of this country not yet suited for democracy, instead they chose to achieve the impossible in spite of the previous lessons. Much easier said than achieved. And would have it been possible from a moral point of view? certainly not. However now, the coalition must go on.

-C

Is China buying up the world?

While the world cup started and is currently captivating the media, it appeared to me that another event seems to have passed quite unnoticed. Following the disaster of the Greek economic situation, China came in the form of a white knight. It might be a good deal for debt-ridden Greece but I wonder how this situation will turn out. China has already been strongly developing its ties in Africa and in the Middle East. It seems like China is trying to get a foothold in Europe so it could better protect its own interest. This deal would mostly concern maritim arrangements in the Piraeus port and some touristic contracts. Somehow, it reminds me of the way the EU soft power operates: investing heavily in developing countries and then forcing them to adopt positions more favourable to EU standards, most of the time they concern human rights and other subjects linked to freedom and lifestyle or simply business wise, it could be related to a sort of bullying. Same goes for China, unfortunately for Greece; the Chinese government does not have the same credentials as the EU governments of nowadays. In a parallel story, India is suspicious of Chinese exportations and its government is taking measures to ensure that Chinese equipments do not contain spywares, so Greece could provide the perfect foothold on Old Europe for the Chinese to install more spywares. Interestingly, I could not find a lot of articles in the western press on this event but I found a 2009 article, in French on this Chinese website, talking about a China-Greek deal in the Piraeus port but recently nothing bar an article concerning the rehearsal of a Greek tragedy at the Experimental Theatre of Beijing......


While browsing this website I found an article describing how China was slamming US pressure on RMB exchange rate and another one, including a poll, trying to find some argument to explain this situation, as if this situation was only affecting the US. The low exchange rate of the Chinese currency is a major component in China’s economic growth as it favours its exportations. At the same time, China and its government want to have the respect of the world for their achievement and keep their currency at the level of a developing nation, in a word they want to have their cake and eat it. What stroke me was the rhetoric employed which is bare of any critical spirit: everything seems to between China and the US when it comes to troubles and otherwise China is a peaceful nation. It is not surprising, yet it is the first time I have ventured on these kind of “news” sites and it was a shock.

However the million dollar question is what would happen when China’s soft power on developed nations will not be enough; indeed, it is plausible to believe that developed nations should be more reluctant to be told what to do as they have more choices and power than developing nations, and what would then happen to China’s "harmonious world"?

-C

To protect or not

The competition between Boeing and EADS/Northrop concerning the USAF tanker offer went to an end last week when Northrop decided to pull out. The whole story started back in 2004 after charges against Boeing were filed and some of its top executives fired as a result. The senator McCain wanted a fair competition on this contract. It was for EADS and Airbus a good opportunity to enter the US market and to diversify its production and source of income.  The contract is estimated at 35 billion dollars and is only the first part of 3 phases.

If EADS is a European company, the incorporation of Northrop, a Californian defence firm, was supposed to help with this negative image and it also planned to build a factory in the USA to manufacture the tankers based on a version of the civilian A330. On the other hand, Boeing would build its tanker, based on the smaller 767, in USA too; however it is arguable that the Boeing tanker would have an all American plane as most of its components are outsourced abroad.

This end of the competition is mainly due as what is seen as some form of protectionism by the USA in favouring Boeing. Indeed the first leg, in February 2008, of the competition was won by EADS/Northrop but Boeing protested that the plane of its rival was not conform, even though it was deemed better, to the contract. As a result the offer was remade and this time Northrop felt it had to pull out. Its CEO observed that this contract clearly favoured Boeing.

The EU commission threatened to bring the whole case in front of the WTO and the leaders of France and the United Kingdom Mr Sarkozy and Mr Brown, amongst others, showed their disapproval of such a behaviour especially since protectionism is “a policy that the USA usually warns other countries against.”

So what was the whole point of opening the competition to foreign companies? I could understand that the USA would keep their defence market closed, although they do not like to be put away on this basis abroad, but this opening of the competition showed that it was not the general feeling at the moment to do it this way. The EADS/Northrop joint venture would also create some jobs in the USA in a non-unioned company (Northrop) whereas Boeing is and thus is susceptible to strikes. Did the American leaders think that Boeing was so good at its business that no-one could do better than them and this competition was just a show for fair competition? It seems unlikely that the US leaders would be that naive. Is it favouritism from Obama as he was the former senator of Illinois and that Boeing has some of its offices in Chicago? That would be quite naive too.

However the facts remain that it is another feud between the EU and the USA in the trade sector.  This contract might have an influence on how the F35 JSF will happen. Indeed, it is overdue and its price still rising. If the USA does not act smoothly with its European allies, why should they expect them to continue to act in a polite manner? Even the United Kingdom, the best ally of the USA, is unhappy. Competition is rising everywhere in the world; I would not advocate starting a mini trade war between strong allies.

-C

partnership or rivalry?

These last weeks had shown that the relationship between the USA and China was not as close at it had seemed to be but rather maybe just a convenient fling. In fact, following the Google charade this past month, the refusal of China to revaluate its currency, the Yuan, despite cries from the West, and the sale of weapons from the USA to Taiwan (worth $6,5 Billion) Chinese relationships have turned cold. As a result, the Asian giant decided to cut short all its military relations with the largest military power in the world. In addition, President Obama’s decision to see the spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, provoked another row with the Chinese—they do look favourably on foreign governments supporting the Buddhist leader. The behaviour of the Chinese government during the Copenhagen summit was also exemplary for its casualness and a major cause for its failure.

More and more, China has been seen as reacting in a capricious way. The media has been justifying this reaction because of the weight of the Communist state in the world economy. The Chinese for example, had enough power to cancel a visit to Europe last year because Nicolas Sarkozy, possessing at the time the presidency of the EU, was scheduled to meet the Dalai Lama. They further have the power to intrude in African affairs. The Chinese are not anymore largely welcomed in Africa by the locals as they can arguably be charged with exploiting African natural resources. (Claims, however, none too different from those made towards Europeans in Africa or even Americans in the Middle East). This lead Jack Straw to compared their actions to neo-colonialism, comment that he had to apologize for, of course.
These events seem to show that China is willing to prove the world that it is a force to be reckoned with. That is a fair request, however, how long will they be provoking the other nations? Indeed, China might be powerful but it suffers many problems internally and is heavily dependent on its exports and rely on a undervalued currency. It would probably not be wise for them to continue this behaviour and whether they possess the first population in the world doesn’t make them able to behave like nouveaux riches.

-C

A new nuclear nation

On the 9 February, Iran was supposed to start its production of enriched uranium for medical purpose. It has been reported that Iran set out a plan to begin enriching its stockpile to 20-percent purity, news reports said. That is high enough for use in the medical reactor but significantly lower than the 90 percent levels needed for weapons. The worry is that any effort to produce 20-percent enriched uranium would put the country in a position to produce weapons-grade uranium in a comparatively short time, nuclear experts say.

So it is possible to deduce from this information that Iran is starting to develop a nuclear industry that would be more powerful than it should be. Does this mean that its program will go further? Obviously this is a million dollar question but it is fair to say that the Islamic Republic is trying to see what the limits of the West tolerance are. Ahmadinejad claims that Iran does not need the bomb but it would be naive to believe the man on his word especially after his bold statements notably toward Israel and its presence on the map.
France, Russia and the United States of America pushed for more sanctions on Iran at the UN council. It is noteworthy to observe that Russia, often opposed to sanctions to Iran, is getting worried by the Iranian actions.

In the nuclear world, Iran is surrounded by Russia, India, Pakistan and Israel; does this mean that as a result Iran need to get some nuclear capabilities because it feels threatened? By extension every country in the world should get it as Kenneth Waltz advocated. I believe that it would be a mistake to allow any new country to get the nuclear weapons, not because my country owns it and is capable of sending them anywhere in the world. The spread of these devices would at the same time increase the chance that somewhere a nuclear war would start. In addition, following the principle that the nuclear weapon is a weapon of the big powers, it would mean that any nations with a nuclear weapon could check any others thus creating a chaos in the world hierarchy. Indeed, no one would really like to start a war in which they would lose too much. I for one believe that Iran should not get it because it would motivate more nations to try to get it and also because it would raise tensions in the Middle East and god knows what might happen there. It is also possible that Tehran might not use it all like Pakistan, India or Israel but I would personally feel safer if they just did not have it.

Olympics 2010

I have started watching the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics and it has not only excited me but it has gotten me thinking. Not only is the Olympics and amazing and interesting display of physical capacity and sportsmanship but also of international capacity and, for the lack of a better phrase, international sportsmanship.

Theories of international relations are put into question with the Olympics in some respects. I am not fully aware of all the politics and governance of the IOC but this international organization is able to form partnerships among countries which create surprisingly successful international events. North Koreans, though tightly controlled, travel to the West and the Chinese welcomed democratic guests by the plane full into their red lines. There are politics in the display of national athletes on the international stage—one possibly of strength—but I think there might be the buds of cosmopolitanism within these international gatherings. Every nation desires gold medals and cheers on their own with pride, which demonstrates the residual nationalism, but the fact that so many nations are able to gather every two years is somewhat remarkable. Many nations meet everyday at offices of the United Nations or in universities world wide but the fact that such national demonstrations take place without large international chaos is just startling. Is sport an international universality that cosmopolitanism can build on?

I would like to suggest the universality of a sport like football (aka soccer) and the World Cup. This game appears to be the most unifying sport with players on all continents (well maybe not Antarctica). Though it is highly nationalistic, the fact that it is a universal game represents areas in the world of agreement. Sport, the World Cup, the Olympics, may be the first steps towards global cosmopolitan governance.

There is one point of critical however that I want to touch on…The Olympics and the World Cup do not demand or enforce participation. They are therefore voluntarily participating. With the ability to not participate means that there is no international enforcement, which is the same issue that the UN and other international organizations run into. However, as there is a universal dimension, it seems to be the most successful.

Francafrique? Still on?

In 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy pledged to end the Francafrique network that was linking the government of France to various dictatorships in Africa. In exchange for various services, generally in the form of military help, the various rulers of the old French colonies would allow French companies to benefit from advantageous contracts when it came to exploit the rich African lands. In addition, the elites from the French government would receive nice royalties. This corruption has been characteristic of the relations between France and its African allies for the past 40 years. What has happened now three years after his election?
This rupture with the past was further emphasised in 2008 when Jean-Marie Bockel, the French minister for overseas aid, declared that he wanted to sign the death warrant for Francafrique. Unfortunately for him, his declarations scared some African leaders and he was quickly replaced by Alain Joyandet. In fact, Sarkozy did not need someone knowledgeable on the question of development but someone capable of following directives and able to act as a business man defending the interests of the Republic. This is a huge shift compared to his declaration.

In November 2009, the New York Times was recapitulating the different actions that were suspect to the eyes of observers. In September 2009, Ali Bongo, the son of the late Omar Bongo, was elected at the head of the Gabon and perpetuating the rule of his family. This election, that was suspected to be rigged, was fully backed by the Elysées.
In October, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, the general who staged a coup in the desert nation of Mauritania was also backed by the French capital; and in Niger, President Mamadou Tandja who locked opposition figures and managed to maintain himself in power for longer than he should , can also count on the support of Paris.
Furthermore In July, President Sarkozy cordially received the president of Cameroon, Paul Biya, who has been in power since 1982 and has removed presidential term limits last year. Mr. Sarkozy praised the country as a “pole of moderation.”
Yet, in France everything that has been noted by the NYT is only objected by the media that do not carry a lot of weight. Although everybody is aware of these practices, nothing seems to be done in order to change this cycle as it coincides with the economic sphere of France and stopping these relations would likely result in the fall of some national industrial champions. It is possible to think that Nicolas Sarkozy genuinely wanted to remove this circle of influence. However, the power of corruption that the African leaders wield is enough to provide contracts to French multinationals and force any leaders on their sides. Nevertheless after three years of his presidency, Mr Sarkozy did not manage to apply his promise.
However a lot of factors are to be taken into account. First, the advantages that France takes as a beneficiary of the resources and largess of the African countries. On the other hand, these African regimes are not developed enough to defend themselves and assure stability on much on their internal than external affairs. The recent case of China being a new favourite of African leaders shows that they can barely control and develop their country (or rather continent) on their own. This vicious circle is likely to continue for Africa. The nationality of their protectors does not really matter as long as they bring money and weapons to sustain their authority. And last but not least, the greed of certain rulers, if not all, is not to be excluded from the equation.