A return to blogging and some foreign policy questions

I'm back, the blog lives, resurrected one might say. Apologies for my month long absence. I have lacked internet, had too much work, and generally been over occupied. Now the blog is back in earnest. Well... actually I've been sitting looking at my screen for the past half an hour desperately trying to remember how it was I did this thing. So I'm going to ease back into the swing of things with a post I meant to write a month ago.

When Sarah Palin went into hiding from the press after joining McCain's ticket, Foreign Policy's blog published 20 questions for her to answer. She obviously didn't but I think I'd like to. Please critize and lambast my responses.

1. In a broad and long-term sense, would you have responded differently to the attacks of 9/11?

A. Analysed the threat as particular groups and individuals not the abstract noun "terrorism". The threat to the United States and Europe which developed over the later portion of the 20th century does not threaten their very survival. An appeal for calm was required and the enemy should have been treated not as an army or a State but a group of criminals. The threat of "terrorism" should not have been used to frighten people into justifying an aggressive liberal interventionist, or neo-conservative, foreign policy, or for restricting their liberties at home. Atrocities should and must be prevented. The US and EU States had the capabilities for minimizing their risk. Subsequent policy has exacerbated the situation by treating it as unique. "Terrorism" is not new. It has existed in different guises down the ages, and is perfectly combatible without attacking the foundations of one's own society.

2. Is Iraq a democracy?

A. Not fully by any means, but clearly far more of one than under Saddam Hussein. Iraq is not moving in an increasingly democratic manner either. The Kurdish Region, which currently functions but its conflicts with the rest of Iraq will augment over the coming year, is run not as a Democratic entity but Barzani's fiefdom. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is difficult to conceptualise how at this point in history how the KRG could be otherwise. Maliki is seeking to, and being aided in this by US strategy, cement himself as a strong man by wiping out (Sadrists) or coopting (Hakimi) the other major Shiite factions. The very nature of Iraq sectarian differences leads to governments of national unity with Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds working in coopetition or inter-sectarian caos. Iraq is in real danger of becoming a Failed State and the "Beacon of Democracy" theory has been proved utter bunk.

3. What’s the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?

A. At its heart the split originates over a question of succession. The Shia, the minority group, believe that Ali, Muhammed's cousin, was his rightful successor. Since that point differences in legal interpretation, eschatology, and prayer have developed.

4. What is your preferred plan for peace between Israel and Palestine? A two state solution? What about Jerusalem?

A. To be honest, I do not know for sure. In the coming year there is a reasonable chance of a third Intifada in the Arab triangle and also a collapse in the Fatah leadership. These will be complete game changers. In principle, I fully support the rights of Palestinian Statehood and the right for Israel to exist. I do not view these two as in any way mutually exclusive.

5. How do you feel about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent visit to Syria? Do you believe the United States should negotiate with leaders like President Bashar al-Assad?

A. Sarkozy appears to be playing a superb role in Syria. The US and the EU should certainly talk with Assad and do everything they can to help bring Syria into modernity and out of the cold. This is crucial for three reasons, one ethical, two strategic. Syria is an economically backwards country which does not enjoy may of the freedoms we take for granted. Ethically, we should do what we can to improve the lives of the Syrian people. Strategically it is beneficial for the "West" to move Syria further out of the Russian orbit, with whom they have traditionally had ties. It is also in the best interests of the "West" to pull Syria away from both Iran and Hezbollah. More amicable relations with Syria will make a final settlement of the Golan Heights easier to bring forward, will help stabilise Lebanon, and limit the "Iranian Threat" to Israel on its northern border. A frightened Israel is a terrible negotiating partner. Helping to remove some of those fears makes a lasting peace all the more plausible.

6. Nearly 40 percent of the world's population lives in China and India. Who are those countries' leaders?

A. An easy one. My global leaders knowledge is pretty strong. Hu Jintao is the President and Wen Jiabao is the Premier of China. Manhoman Singh, of the Congress Party, is the Prime Minister of India

7. Do you support the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, which would lift restrictions on sales of nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country which hasn’t signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

A. I don't know enough to answer definitively. I can see the arguments for either side, especially as I am a strong supporter of the NPT and the CTBT.

8. Other than more drilling, what steps do you suggest the U.S. take in order to move toward energy independence? Do you believe more investment is needed in alternative energy research? If so, how would you recommend this funding be allocated?

A. I don't support energy independence, which somewhat renders the question void.

9. How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States' growing economic interdependence with that country?

A. Current US policy isn't too bad on this front. Bush's speach on Human and Religious rights in China shortly before the Olympics helped strike the balance. We must put pressure on the Chinese Government to extent freedoms, which in certain extents they are doing, but not forget the massive lifting out of abject poverty of hundreds of millions of Chinese that has occured in the last quarter century. We must be realistic. We have very little capacity to dictate to China how they should treat their citizens, but speaches like Bush's or Merkel's are positive.

10. What's more important: securing Russia's cooperation on nuclear proliferation and Iran, or supporting Georgia's NATO bid? If Vladimir Putin called you on the phone and said, "It's one or the other," what would you tell him?

A. The former. I have said before (see here and here), that at present I do not support Georgia's NATO bid in its current form. I do, however, fully support Georgia's EU bid once all the Copenhagen criteria have been met.

11. Critique the foreign policy of the last administration. Name its single greatest success, and its most critical failure.

A. Where to start. Torture? Guatanamo? Iraq? The "War on Terror"? Failing to make Russia a full partner in the global system? A litany of errors. Libya's partial transformation is the one success.

12. What do you think will be the most defining foreign-policy issue in the next five years?

A. Russian engagement with the "West" and visa versa.

13. What role should the United States play in the global effort to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS? Should it support contraception, or abstinence only?

A. Contraception, duh.

14. You've said that the federal government spends too much money. What, in your view, is the appropriate level of spending as a percentage of GDP?

A. There is no predefined level of spending as a percentage of GDP that should be met. I support a smaller State, which means a more redistrubitive State.

15. You're an advocate of reducing environmental restrictions on drilling. How much oil needs to be found in the United States before the country achieves energy independence?

A. See answer to 8 above. Energy independence is a stupid, mad idea.

16. What are your picks for the three most enlightening books written on foreign policy in the last five years?

A. I don't have the base level of knowledge (hey I'm only 21) to be able to disinguish between an enlightening book or one that just gave me lots of new information. Suggestions would be welcomed. What will blow me mind?

17. Who among the world's leaders can be listed as the top three friends of the United States and why?

A. Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy. The three most powerful, most pro-American leaders on the world stage.

18. In your opinion, which U.S. president was the most successful world leader and why?

A. Eisenhower by default. He made fewer lasting errors than any other President from FDR onwards. Having said that, US foreign policy does not change much from Administration to Administration.

19. Which U.S. political thinkers, writers, and politicians would you enlist to advise you on matters of foreign policy and why?

A. Not strictly all American, but here goes. Fareed Zakaria, Chuck Hagel, Colin Powel, David Petraeus, Stanley Hoffman, Bill Richardson, Christopher Hill, Schlomo ben-Ami, Ian Buruma, Timothy Garton-Ash, Charlene Barshefsky, Bjorn Lomborg, Jorge Castaneda, Joschka Fischer, Richard Haas... actually there are so many it'd take far to long to explain why for each one. I welcome anyone else's input.

20. Who is the first world leader you'd like to meet with and why?

A. Dmitri Medvedev to discuss signing up to the CTBT and framework's for Western-Russian competition and cooperation. I would also give a speach in Moscow on the subject of Russia's great cultural heritage pronouncing it firmly as a European State.


So what do you think? I look forward to being laid into.