Pondering Palin

Even though this site is meant to focus on world affairs, I feel like the US presidential election is going to creep in from time to time… (like now).

It’s been three days since John McCain surprised everyone with his pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for the VP slot on his ticket. Immediately the questions started flying on whether she had enough experience for the job (she has been Alaska’s governor for only two years), or more specifically if she had enough experience to step into the big job should something happen to McCain (more on this in a moment).

One retort was that along with being governor, Palin was also the commander of the Alaska National Guard (ANG for short). This was usually followed by a snicker of some sort since the ANG is usually not counted among the world’s elite military units. I have to admit I felt the same way, until reading this post.

It seems though that among the units in the ANG is the 49th Missile Defense Battalion based out of Fort Greeley, a key part of the “missile shield” covering America. They are the troops manning the interceptor rockets meant to protect the United States from ballistic missile attack from “rogue states”.

In other posts here, I’ve talked about how I think the missile interceptor program is a colossally dumb idea, so I won’t go into my objections again now. But the fact remains that President Bush doesn’t share my dim view on the missile shield and has made it a key component of the United States defense strategy. And the troops in charge of the interceptors are from the Alaska National Guard, Sarah Palin’s Alaska National Guard.

It’s one of the reasons why I don’t think the Left should be so giddy about Palin’s selection as VP. Arguing the experience angle is strange considering Barack Obama’s own lack of experience (he was only a United States Senator for about two years before deciding to run for president). In fact, early on his lack of experience was one of Obama’s selling points, he wasn’t “tainted” by the culture in Washington, so he was best positioned to change it (or so the argument went).

From an historic view, you could even argue that Palin’s two years as governor make her better prepared to be president than Obama’s time in the US Senate. Sixteen men have served as governors before becoming president, while only two have made the jump from the Senate to the White House. Why? Probably because like the President, governors have to make decisions, they are the ultimate authority (or as George W. Bush once infamously said “I am the decider”). The Senate, on the other hand, is built around coming to compromises and building consensus. There’s nothing wrong with that, it is why the Founding Fathers created the body in the first place, but it also doesn’t make for a decisive leader.

One final thought. By picking Palin, McCain boosted his image (whether it’s deserved or not) as a maverick. He selected someone with a record of taking on the power elite of her state (she beat Frank Murkowski, patriarch of one of Alaska’s most powerful political families on her way to the governor’s seat) and the oil and gas industry (the economic powerhouse of the state) as the person he felt best to be his partner in reforming Washington. By contrast Barack Obama thought Joe Biden, (someone I personally have great respect for) who’s been in the Senate since 1972, was the person best suited to bring change to Washington. Hmmm…

There’s still a long way to go before the election, and these are just a few random early thoughts. But I do think if Obama hopes to win in November, the Left needs to come up with some better arguments and do a better job in sticking with the message that has gotten them this far.

Relief agencies decry military role in Georgia

Non-governmental relief agencies (also known as NGOs) working in Georgia are outraged that President Bush has put the military in charge of humanitarian operations.

Bush's decision in August 13th passed with little notice in the press. But relief agencies active in Georgia say the decision will make their efforts harder, and could put their workers in jeopardy because they may be regarded as agents of the US military. Bush said that he made the decision because the military could move aid into Georgia faster and distribute it more efficiently. Officials from various NGOs agree that the military can bring aid into the country quicker than private groups, but point out that many well-regarded NGOs, like the International Rescue Committee, Save the Children and Mercy Corps, as well as the UN's World Food Program, were already working in Georgia before the conflict, and have the people on the ground to provide help to those affected by the war.

The NGOs also point out that military aid doesn't always work for humanitarian relief. MREs (meals ready to eat, the US military's standard pre-packaged food) for example provide too many calories in one meal for young children. Some NGOs also refuse to distribute MREs because of their military origin.

Worse yet, putting the military in charge of relief efforts only stokes Russian fears that the humanitarian aid is merely a cover for secret arms shipments to the Georgian government. So far two US warships have docked in Georgia with aid shipments, plans are for more ships to follow. But the 34 tons of relief supplies brought by the Coast Guard Cutter Dallas could have been brought in by one C-17 cargo jet, plus the jet could have landed at one of several airfields in Georgia, instead of one port located far from the conflict. Of course that would not have provided the powerful image of an American warship docked at a Georgian port.

Update from Zimbabwe, power and gold

Two stories out of Zimbabwe today.

First the ongoing power struggle between President Robert Mugabe and his would-be replacement Morgan Tsvangirai is still ongoing.

The two have been negotiating for weeks on how to share power in the government. Mugabe rejected the latest proposal from Tsvangirai that the two jointly chair the country's ruling cabinet on the grounds that there can only be one president. Mugabe has been trying to form a unity government with Tsvangirai's MDC party, but only in a way where he keeps all the power and sidelines Tsvangirai. So far Tsvangirai has (wisely) been unwilling to accept any deal that leaves him powerless.

In a worrying sign the MDC is accusing Mugabe's attorney general of trying to prosecute five members of their party, presumably to get them tossed out of the parliament and shift the majority in parliament back to Mugabe's ZANU-PF party.

On the upside Zimbabwe was able to put aside the political wrangling for a few hours and honor their Olympic team just home from Beijing. The Olympians were given cash prizes totaling $148,000 (hopefully they weren’t paid in Zimbabwean dollars). $100,000 of that went to swimmer Kirsty Coventry who won one gold and three silver medals at the Beijing Games.

Mugabe called Coventry the country's "golden girl". After winning medals at the Athens Olympics in 2004, Coventry, who is white, was honored as a national hero.

Gaddafi, Berlusconi sign accord worth billions

Italy has just given Libya a historic apology for decades of colonial rule over the North African nation. Along with the apology came $5 billion in compensation for colonial misdeeds. The compensation will be both in the form of direct payments and Italian investment in Libya, for example Italy will now fund the construction of an east-west highway across the country. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi signed the historic accord in Tripoli, saying that it ended 40 years of misunderstanding between the two nations.

He added: "it is a complete and moral acknowledgement of the damage inflicted on Libya by Italy during the colonial era."

Berlusconi's move was a bold one for two reasons. First, European powers have been reluctant to acknowledge the toll their colonial rule took on large swaths of Africa and Asia, and even more reluctant to back up any apologies with compensation. Second, Italy is one of the first Western countries to invest heavily in Libya since that country renounced terrorism and their pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003.

Muammar Gaddafi was once viewed in much the same way Saddam Hussein was for his funding of terrorist groups across the Middle East. But in recent years Gaddafi has tried to repair his image and set himself up as one of Africa's elder statesmen. This rehab project included payments for Libyan-funded terrorist acts (like the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988) and giving up a decades-long quest to build a nuclear bomb.

For their part, Italy hopes that better relations will mean that Libya will step up efforts to prevent illegal immigration to Europe (many of whom land in Italy), and will provide future business opportunities for Italian firms. Italy ruled Libya from 1911 until being driven out during World War II in 1943.

McCain's #2

I've been trying to stay true to the point of this site and stick to discussing world affairs, but with the US Presidential election in full swing, I decided to take a short time out to talk about the campaigns, and sepcifically John McCain's decision to name Alaska Governor Sarah Palin his pick for Vice-President.

Keep in mind - this isn't an endorcement of one candidiate or the other, just my views on the strategy behind the election.

As for McCain's move? It was brilliant. It's a move that will win him the election, despite the deck seeming to be stacked in their favor this year. Why? Three reasons:

First, there's the timing of the announcement. McCain made his announcement the morning after Barack Obama's acceptance speech before 80,000 screaming fans at Invesco Field in Denver. Most accounts of the speech called it moving, historic, yet the timing of McCain's announcement blew it out of the news cycle - a day the Obama camp probably thought would be a 24-hour long free campaign commercial for them as the pundit class played and replayed soundbites from Barack's speech. In military terms McCain outflanked Obama and blunted the impact of his milestone address.

Of course if McCain had made a conventinal pick for VP, the newsies might have gone back to Obama's speech pretty quickly. But rolling the dice and picking an absolute outsider like Palin guaranteed that the press would be glued to the McCain camp as they digested the news (this would be reason #2 in why it's a briliant move). Palin gave the McCain campaign something far more than a one-day spectacle, she validated the image of McCain as a maverick. Not only is she a Washington outsider, but she's an outsider with a record of taking on the powers that be. Palin took on one of Alaska's most powerful political families, the Murkowskis - defeating the patriarch Frank in a primary fight to win the Governor's seat. She also took on the powerful oil and gas industry (the lifeblood of the Alaskan economy) and in a move that likely endeared her to McCain, fought against funding for the infamous "Bridge to nowhere" that McCain rails about from he stump as pork barrel spending gone amok.

And while McCain was validating his image as a political maverick by tapping another maverick to be his running mate, Obama decided that the best person to help him bring change to Washington was Joe Biden, a very nice and honorable man, but also someone who has been in the Senate since 1973. Not exactly someone who screams "change".

But the third, and I think biggest, reason why I think Palin will help McCain win the White House is simply the Left's reaction to her. Almost immediately after the announcement the Obama camp, their surrogates, and allied media outlets and pundits began the attacks against her (the Right did the same thing when Biden was announced as Obama's VP of course). Their main line of attack is that Sarah Palin doesn't have the experience to be president.

This is a really odd (and poor) choice of attack considering that one of Barack Obama's biggest selling points early on was that he is "an outsider", someone not tainted by years in Washington. And that only someone who hasn't spent years becoming engrained in the Washington culture (like say, Biden) can really bring about the type of change we need. That begs the question though why is inexperience a virtue for Obama, but a flaw for Palin? You basically can't get further from Washington than Alaska.

To make it worse, they are arguing that Palin is too inexperienced to be "one heartbeat" from the presidency. They point out that she's only been governor of Alaska for two years and that three years ago she mayor of a town of 8,000 people (she served as mayor for six years). Yet these same people argue that Obama is qualified to BE president despite having only two years in the US Senate before deciding to run for president (along with seven years as a state senator in Illinois). In terms of number of years in elected office, Obama has more, but there is one important difference.

Obama has zero years serving as an executive, where Palin has two at the state level and six at the local (plus she and her husband ran a small business, something Barack never did). Why is that important? Because sixteen of our presidents were first governors, only two came to the presidency via the Senate. And that's not surprising, the president is essentially an executive, one who ultimately has to make tough decisions and live with the consequences (or as George W. Bush once infamously quipped, "I am the decider"). That's what governors (and mayors) do, they make decisions, where senators talk (and talk and talk). Not that there's anything wrong with that, the Senate is meant to be a deliberative body where decisions are made by consensus, but history has shown it's not the same training for the White House that serving as governor is.

So you could make the argument that Palin in fact has MORE relevant experience than Obama. I won't make that argument, but I can see the logic behind it. The bigger point here is that any questions raised about Palin having the experience to be president only serves as an unpleasant reminder that Obama too is a neophyte when it comes to the political big time.

But where I think Palin's critics are really going to damage (to themselves) is not in the questions about her experience, but the questions about her personality. The Huffington Post is already in a tizzy over Palin, most of the front page of their site was dedicated to hit pieces about her (that and stories about how Lindsey Lohan is mad at her dad and that David Duchovny has a sex addiction). The policy pieces are fine, questions about her past positions are more than valid. But the pieces about her hair, her glasses, her shoes, the way she talks, the way she acts with her family are not. Why? Because Sarah Palin looks and acts and talks like middle America. Another genius element to her pick is just how Middle America she looks.

I think these comments are going to be read as having an air of elitism about them. That this is the way the people in New York, and Washington and LA look (down) on "flyover country" as they like to call the big swath of the country between the coasts. The problem for Obama is that if people think his surrogates are elitists, they will think he is an elitist. George W. Bush's blood may be as blue as John Kerry and Al Gore's but Dubya came off as a guy who would have a beer with the fellas at the corner bar, Kerry and Gore were painted as never setting foot in a place that didn't serve brie and a nice cabernet. We all know how those elections turned out.

An Embattled Enclave Yearns to Be Free (and Liechtenstein)

The New York Times had an interesting piece today on the (potential) future of South Ossetia. It's worth a read if you have the time, but in short, the South Ossetians are looking at some of Europe's microstates as a model to follow in the development of their country (and that of course assumes that South Ossetia can make good on Russia's recognition of their independence).

One model is to become a banking haven like Liechtenstein. The more interesting idea though is to pattern themselves after the tiny state of Andorra (sandwiched between France and Spain) and become a destination for mountain sports and adventure. In an odd way the last 16 years of political limbo are a help in this regard since they kept development in South Ossetia to a minimum, leaving the mountains in a largely natural state.

Is Turkey getting fed up with NATO?

That's the question being asked in the wake of the Russia-Georgia conflict.

According to press reports, Turkey is fed up with NATO's military build-up in the Black Sea in the wake of the conflict. So far the United States alone has sent three warships to Georgia to deliver relief supplies, with more are expected to sail for the region. Several other NATO nations have ships in the area as part of a previously planned naval exercise.

The problem is that there are limits that regulate the size of naval vessels allowed to sail into the Black Sea. The only way into the Black Sea is through two narrow straits (the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles) that cut through Turkey. An agreement from 1936 (The Montreaux Convention for those keeping track at home) make Turkey the gatekeeper to the Sea, if a country wants to sail a large vessel into the Black Sea, they need Turkey's permission. Turkey is said to be getting tired of the United States repeated requests to sail large military ships into the Black Sea, fearing that it will only provoke a confrontation with Russia.

Of course there's more going on here than meets the eye. Russia is Turkey's largest trading partner thanks to oil and gas shipments. Turkey also feels a little jerked around by the European Union at this point. Turkey has been a candidate for EU membership for since 1999. Since then the EU has added 12 members, but Turkey still remains on the sideline, with their potential membership coming sometime next decade at best. There is a feeling in Turkey that they are being treated unfairly, since they have undertaken many of the massive government reforms that the EU demanded they make to become a member.

So recently, Turkey has been starting to look towards the east. They upset their fellow NATO members recently by welcoming the leaders of both Iran and Sudan to Istanbul. And Turkey has not joined the NATO chorus in condemning Russia for its actions in Georgia. In fact the Wall Street Journal article points out that Turkey considers Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili "crazy enough to unleash the next world war".

Turkey could be coming to a crossroads, a time to decide if it's worth waiting around hoping the EU someday let's them in, or if its time to break with organizations like NATO and forge new alliances with their neighbors to the east.

Is success going to Russia's head?

Russia's leadership is riding pretty high right now after their successful campaign in Georgia. Of course politicians and pundits from Washington to Brussels are vilifying Russia, but the fact remains that they have dismantled the Georgian military, granted independence to South Ossetia and Abkhazia and left the West largely powerless to do anything about it. But you have to wonder if the leadership in Moscow isn't getting way to overconfident.

They have taken some odd steps in the last couple of days. First there was the Russian ambassador to Moldova warning them about taking action in the separatist Trans-Dniester region of their country. The Trans-Dneister is a small sliver of land sandwiched in between the Dneister River and the Ukranian border. It is home largely to Russians and Ukranians, unlike the rest of Moldova, which is mostly full of Moldovans and Romanians. After a brief war it broke from Moldova's control, declared itself independent and pledged allegiance to Moscow (which, in turn, did not recognize it as an independent state, but did maintain some level of relations with their government). Sound familiar? Trans-Dniester has become an odd little place, a sort of mini-Soviet Union, where the KGB still keeps the peace and a small contingent of Russian troops are based to watch over some massive military depots left over from Soviet times.

Of course the big differences are that no one in Moldova was even remotely suggesting a military campaign to retake Trans-Dneister, and unlike Georgia and Ukraine, which the West has been actively courting as future members of NATO and the European Union, no one cares about Moldova. Its one of the poorest, and most forgotten, parts of Europe, on the radar screens of nobody except Romania and Ukraine and those two nations only care because they share a border with the place. So why the ambassador would choose to threaten a country no one cares about over a conflict no one has any intention of launching is a mystery.

Not to be out done, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin outright accused the United States of provoking the Georgia-Russia conflict. Putin made the statement during an interview with CNN today, saying that the United States may have in fact wanted a war in Georgia for the upcoming presidential election, both to distract Americans from the ongoing conflict in Iraq and whip up some feelings of patriotism among the voters.

Now before you think Putin is nuts, there is a certain logic to his statement when you look at the situation from the Russian point of view. The United States has been working closely with the Georgian military in the past few years to bring it up to NATO standards, Georgia has been begging for membership in both NATO and the EU, and their president Mikhail Saakashvili was educated in the United States (Harvard to be exact). Russia therefore assumes that Georgia is a client state of the West, the United States in particular. They cannot believe then that Georgia would launch such a large-scale military operation like the one they launched against South Ossetia without approval from their masters (the US).

The Russian media has also been widely reporting that their military captured several US humvees (which was confirmed by the White House) in the port city Poti, and that they had a "wealth" of intelligence about Georgia's campaign to retake South Ossetia (that part was not confirmed). There are also reports in their press that two "black-skinned" bodies were found in the city of Tskhinvali; the assumption is that they were Americans involved with the military (this also has not been confirmed by outside media).

String it all together and yes, it does make for a narrative of some level of American involvement - of course its built on a lot of assumptions and takes some sketchy reports as fact. Maybe, in the high emotions of the situation, you can see Putin believing this tale. What seems crazy though is him going on a major news network and expounding on it, without presenting any convincing evidence of his own. You do have to wonder what Putin was thinking, or is he just assuming that the West is so powerless right now he can pretty much say or do what he wants?

The third and final piece of this story is the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that just wrapped up. The SCO is an organization that includes Russia, China and several Central Asian republics as members, and a few others, like Iran and Pakistan, who have observer status with the group. Its primary concern is to be a forum for security issues in the region, though Russia is hoping to build the alliance into a regional powerblock that could rival (or surpass) NATO.

Russia was hoping that the SCO would issue a statement of support for its actions in Georgia and possibly even recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia's independence. In reality though, that was a silly thing to expect, given that China has its own problems with separatist regions (Tibet anyone?), not to mention Beijing still hopes one day to rule Taiwan again, so they're not going to eagerly recognize new states carved from old. What Russia got was mild support for their peacekeeping actions and statement on peace and stability in the region that was so wonderfully vaguely worded it was cited as a measure of support in the Russian press and a symbol of Russia's isolation in the West.

And that’s where Russia is in danger of overplaying its hand. So far the West has been full-throated in its condemnation of Russia’s actions in Georgia, while the rest of the world has been fairly silent. That allows Russia to frame this in terms of a “new Cold War”, a long-brewing dispute with NATO/the EU/the US, an attempt for that block to keep its hegemony over the world by oppressing the one power that might rise to challenge it (Russia). But it’s only a short trip to “rogue nation” status – and paranoid-sounding statements from the prime minister and threats to utterly unimportant little nations aren’t good steps to take.

Harper tightens grip on Canadian Arctic

The struggle for a very cold part of the world is quietly heating up.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stepped up his country's efforts to control their slice of the far north during a visit to the town of Tuktoyaktuk (which if you have been watching this season of Ice Road Truckers you've become rather familiar with) in the Northwest Territories. This includes extending Canada's jurisdiction of the Arctic Ocean from a distance of 100 miles to 200 miles from their coastline and a new requirement that any ships entering the waters register with Canada's Coast Guard.

Global warming is the reason the countries around the Arctic Ocean are starting to take an interest in it. Large areas of the ocean are now becoming ice free for longer and longer portions of the year. For Canada, not only does this mean access to potentially huge reserves of natural gas and oil, but also that the fabled Northwest Passage is becoming a reality.

For centuries explorers looked for the Northwest Passage (a shortcut route from Europe to Asia by passing north of the American continent), but found only ice. But as that ice retreats, the Passage is becoming a commercially viable route, one that could shave weeks off the travels of the world's largest ships (ones too large to pass through the Panama Canal).

It's also a cause for dispute. Using the Passage would mean sailing between islands in Canada's far north. Right now many, including the European Union, consider these straits international waters. Canada thinks the straits are part of their territory and want to regulate, and likely earn revenue for, their use.

Separately, Harper announced the construction of a new icebreaker to serve as the flagship of the Canadian Navy's Arctic fleet.

"If you are in Canada's Arctic you will be playing by Canada's rules," Harper said in Tuktoyaktuk.

Black Sea Shuffle

There's a complex dance going on in the Black Sea, and the US is stepping on its own toes. Consider what's been going on in the past few days.

First the US dispatched three warships to the Black Sea to provide humanitarian relief to Georgia. Russia has accused the US of using the missions as a cover to bring weapons to the Georgian military, a charge the US vigorously denies. The first ship docked at the Georgian port of Batumi, which is located in the south of the country, far from the fighting so aside from a few words of protest the Russians didn't do anything to stop it.

Then the US announced that the next ship, the Coast Guard cutter Dallas, would dock at Poti, which is still under Russian control. This move would put the Russian and American militaries face-to-face. Since the Russians believe that the Dallas’ mission was a secret effort to rebuild the Georgian military, a group they have worked hard to dismantle these past couple of weeks – it would seem like a recipe for conflict.

So on Tuesday Russia countered with an announcement that the Moskva was leaving its port in Sevastopol on a cruise to conduct tests on its weapons systems. The Moskva is one of the most powerful ships in Russia's navy, and the flagship of their Black Sea fleet. It took part in operations that sank one Georgian ship during the recent fighting and bottled most of the rest of Georgia's navy up in the port of Poti. Sevastopol isn’t all that far from the Georgian coast.

Still later on Tuesday Reuters reported that the US Navy had a sudden change of mind and cancelled the Dallas' visit to Poti, taking away the immediate potential for conflict between US and Russian forces.

So while it's good to see a US ship not heading into the middle of a Russian-held port with tensions and ill will running as high as they are between our two governments, its also a move that is only going to reinforce the idea among the Russian leadership that the US, NATO and EU are nothing but paper tigers who, when push comes to shove, will back down. It was a dumb idea to think to send the Dallas to Poti in the first place, and a dumb idea to use warships to deliver humanitarian aid (it's hard to imagine there's a shortage of cargo ships floating around the Black Sea or the Mediterranean that could be hired to bring in supplies) considering how high tense the situation is at the moment and that the Georgian military was trained and equipped by the US and NATO (another sore point with the Russians).

Given Russia's actions during the past two weeks, it's clear that they are not going to be swayed by vague threats of consequences, so thinking that sending a warship to dock at an occupied port would get them to leave the city was dumb, especially when the Navy wasn't (apparently) willing to follow through on the threat. The West's weak hand in dealing with Russia and Georgia just got a little weaker.

Meanwhile Pravda is reporting that the Dallas will stay off the coast of Georgia, ready to take Mikhail Saakashvili into exile should the Georgian population become angry enough with him over the failed war to rise up and kick him out of office.