|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
Is Russia the New Peacemaker?
Russia today finds itself in a unique position in global affairs -- it is the only close U.S. ally that maintains diplomatic relations with the entire "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. This means that Russia may prove to be the indispensable U.S. ally in negotiating with hostile states, and nowhere is this made clearer than in the case of North Korea. |
|
|
Operation Telic: "No Ordinary Measure"
While somewhat dwarfed by ongoing American mobilizations, the Jan. 20 announcement that the UK is to deploy 26,000 more troops to the Persian Gulf region means that over a quarter of the British Army will soon be deployed for a possible war with Iraq. That the British contribution has gotten so large is a reflection of the seriousness with which the British Prime Minister Tony Blair views the threat he sees Saddam as posing. |
|
|
CDI's "Briefing Room"
Report Details Iraqi "Lies" ~ South Korea Proposes Economic Union With North ~ Defense Secretary: Philippines Will Not Become U.S. Training Facility ~ Army Develops Laser Mine-Clearing System ~ Quotation of the Week |
|
|
This Week on SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV — "Immigration and Security" |
|
Is Russia the New Peacemaker? Seva Gunitskiy, Research Associate, seva@cdi.org To a casual observer, Russian diplomacy seems to be suffering from multiple personality disorder. One day President Valdimir Putin is shaking hands with North Korean President Kim Jong Il, and a few days later he is bonding with his newfound soulmate George W. Bush. How is it possible, one might ask, for Russia to straddle the fence so effectively, playing both sides without drawing critique for its diplomatic ambivalence? Aren’t they supposed to be, after all, either with us or against us? In fact, Russia today is in a unique position in world affairs – it is the only close U.S. ally that maintains diplomatic relations with the entire "axis of evil" – Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. A few factors may explain Russia’s ability to do so. First, unlike America, Russia is not pretending to pursue a moral agenda in its activities abroad; instead, it has propounded a policy of pragmatic, hard-nosed realpolitik. No longer constrained by Communist ideology, Russia can – and does – make friends with whomever it wants to. Second, Russia is still lingering in the gray area of post-communist transition: it is reaching out toward the West, but has not yet relinquished its historical ties to the old comrades and comrade-wannabees. And third, Putin himself has proven to be a nimble diplomat. In his utilitarian search to determine what is "good for Russia, " he transcends the traditional politician’s dichotomies of "liberal" or "conservative." What all this means is that Russia may prove to be the indispensable U.S. ally in negotiating with hostile states. It can, in effect, act as a diplomatic buffer between countries that are resistant to American diplomacy. Perhaps the best example of this dynamic at work is the current situation with North Korea. In dealing with North Korea so far, the best foreign policy tool Bush has been able to muster amounts to a form of bribery – the US will resume sending food and energy aid to the country if North Korea abandons its plans to develop nuclear weapons. Russia, on the other hand, has important economic and historical ties to North Korea and is one of its few allies and as such, has far more diplomatic leverage. If some sort of mutually agreeable resolution is to be achieved, Russian involvement will be necessary. If anyone may be said to have built a rapport with North Korea’s reclusive leader, it’s Putin. The two have met for talks three times in the past three years. Kim Jong Il has visited Russia twice, the last visit involving a somewhat unusual trek across Siberia in his own armored train. And as the Financial Times (Jan. 7) notes, the North Korean government even has a special "Friendship with Russia" link on its official website, complete with video footage of the Russian Foreign Minister’s recent visit. So it was no surprise when on Jan. 14 Russia assigned Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov, Moscow’s top expert in Asian affairs, to circulate between China, the United States and North Korea in an effort to break the impasse with a "package solution." The Interfax news agency (Jan.14-20) states that Losyukov’s proposal "calls for achieving non-nuclear status for the Korean peninsula, strict observance of the treaty on the non-proliferation on nuclear weapons, and the fulfillment of obligations under other international agreements, including the 1994 framework agreement." Undoubtedly, Russia no longer has the economic influence on North Korea that it did in the days of the Soviet Union. Trade volume between the two countries amounted to $115 million in 2001, an 80% decrease since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, and a fraction of its all-time high of $1.5 billion during the Soviet era. Yet Russia’s Ministry of Economy estimates that bilateral trade between the two countries is currently growing at up to 10% per year, and Pyongyang is eager to keep those numbers climbing. North Korea wants Russian rocketry and weapon technology. It also needs immediate updating of its heavy industries – oils refineries, metal factories, and nuclear reactors – which were built to Soviet specifications. Russia, meanwhile, would like to see the construction of an annex to its trans-Siberian railway that would run through the Korean peninsula, and thereby open up a profitable route for Asian exports to Europe. Such a route would also produce positive externalities for Russia’s far eastern regions, whose shrinking population is a concern to the Putin Administration, given the burgeoning Chinese population nearby. Even beyond economics or demographics, Russia may be a better negotiating partner simply because it has more experience dealing with North Korea and, presumably, enjoys a greater degree of trust among North Korean leadership than the United States does. That is not to say Russia’s path is completely clear-cut – its diplomatic multipolarity can be a hindrance as well as a virtue. Putin does not want to be seen as a lackey of American foreign policy interests. Perhaps that’s why Russia was initially hesitant to engage in anything but behind-the-scenes discussions with the North Korean leader. Even now, after Losyukov has been dispatched to find "a political and diplomatic solution to the situation," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov emphasized that this solution must be achieved "by political means, without issuing diktats and ultimatums." Losyukov echoed the sentiment several days later, stating that "in this situation, you cannot speak in the language of ultimatums and strict demands. You need to approach the situation in a more delicate manner." Inside Russia, feelings are mixed at best. Various political leaders and news agencies express concerns that a) North Korea demonstrated "the limits and paradoxes of American might" by playing the nuclear card and getting a different treatment than Iraq; b) this is only the first stage of "nuclear blackmail" that could result in a chain reaction of similar threats by rogue states and c) the United States is pushing Russia into a corner by shoving diplomatic priorities down its throat. The undercurrent of meaning is similar: the United States is to blame. Not everyone can be as coolly pragmatic as Putin, and there is a hint of emotion, a trace of defensiveness in these concerns, however valid they may be. Putin will need to keep that in mind. As a proponent of moral relativism, Putin may be the first post-modern political leader, but he can’t afford to race ahead without waiting for modernity to catch up.
| |
|
Operation Telic: "No Ordinary Measure" Mark Burgess, CDI Research Analyst, mburgess@cdi.org On Jan. 20 the UK announced that it was to send another 26,000 troops to the Persian Gulf region. As the British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon put it, this commitment "was no ordinary measure." Indeed, while somewhat dwarfed by ongoing American mobilizations, this new deployment is unexpectedly large, and means over a quarter of the British Army will soon be deployed for a possible war with Iraq. Proportionally, this is a larger commitment of British troops than took part in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Moreover, if prolonged it will subject the UK’s armed forces to a severe risk of "overstretch," with British troops fulfilling commitments as far a field as Afghanistan, the Balkans, and Northern Ireland, and some 19,000 military personnel currently providing emergency coverage for striking British firefighters. Even without such commitments, the deployment of such a large proportion of the UK’s armed forces to the Persian Gulf in anticipation of potential military action against Iraq is unlikely to be sustainable beyond three or four months, and may well necessitate a larger call up of British reservists than has hitherto been the case. Operation Telic, as the British Gulf build-up is codenamed (Telic meaning "expressing purpose") will see the latest deployment of British troops join the 5,000 Royal Navy personnel already in the region or en route there, as well as the 4,000-strong amphibious force also on its way to the area. Together with the 3,000 Royal Air Force personnel engaged in policing Iraq’s no-fly zones (a number expected to be doubled soon), this will see over 40,000 members of the British military ready for any action against Saddam Hussein’s regime. The latest deployment includes 120 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, 150 Warrior infantry fighting vehicles, 32 AS90 Self-Propelled Guns, 18 105mm light guns, and assorted reconnaissance and other vehicles. The new force’s relatively large size is partly due to the fact that its main constituents are two independent brigades –each requiring their own logistical support. In addition, each brigade enjoys different strengths and capabilities. For instance, 7 Armoured Brigade has formidable firepower and is capable of high-speed maneuver warfare. It also possesses both armor and mechanized infantry, allowing it to seize and hold ground. Meanwhile the other unit in the latest British deployment – 16 Air Assault Brigade – comprises attack aviation and air assault elements and can carry out aviation raids, air maneuver, and infantry air assaults. Together with the Royal Marine Commandos already on their way to the Persian Gulf and the British Special Forces who will join them (some of which area rumored to already be in the region) these formations will impart flexibility to the British contribution to any war against Iraq. Because of the disparate nature of these British forces they will work best when combined with U.S. formations rather than operating as a separate "national" taskforce. That the British contribution has gotten so large is a reflection of the seriousness with which British Prime Minister Tony Blair views the threat that Saddam poses. Thus far Blair has weathered criticism from within the ranks of his own Labour Party over his stance on Iraq and his decision to deploy more troops there (the opposition Conservative Party was quick to offer its unqualified support for the move), as well as opinion polls which show that British public support for military action against Saddam has fallen to a record low. According to The Guardian newspaper, 30 per cent of those questioned backed such a move -- the lowest since such polls began in August and down six per cent since last month. Such factors notwithstanding, Prime Minister Blair appears resolute in his desire to keep pressure on Saddam’s regime. Speaking the day after the latest British troop deployment was announced (and just before anti-war protestors lobbied the British parliament) Blair insisted that the Iraq leader was weakening in the face of the U.S and U.K. military build-up. The size and nature of the UK’s military deployments to the Gulf also indicate that Britain’s participation in any future war against Iraq will not be token. In numbers and capabilities British troops could contribute more to any new war in Iraq than they did in 1991. Such participation, while not necessary for America to prevail militarily over Iraq, would certainly make that victory easier, not least by conferring a certain degree of legitimacy (albeit implied) to any U.S. action there by internationalizing such a move. 7 Armoured Brigade and 16 Airmobile Brigade should be totally in place, probably in Kuwait (although Turkey may allow elements to deploy there) by the middle of February. This will most likely push back the launch date of any land campaign in Iraq to early-March if America is to await the arrival this latest British contingent. The following month will see temperatures begin to rise in the region, making such military operations more difficult. According to the British ministry of Defence website, the following units (or elements thereof) are involved in the latest British deployment to the Persian Gulf region: 1(UK) Armoured Division Headquarters and Signal Regiment
7 Armoured Brigade:
16 Air Assault Brigade:
102 Logistics Brigade Additional ground troops include:
UK naval forces in the Persian Gulf or en route there include:
Naval Task Group 2003
The amphibious force numbers some 4,000 and includes:
| |
|
CDI’s "Briefing Room"
Report Details Iraqi "Lies" — The White House released a report Jan. 21 that details what it describes as a Saddam Hussein’s "apparatus of lies." According to the 34-page report, Iraq has in place a propaganda program that is "highly developed, well-disciplined, and expertly organized....designed to win support for the Iraqi regime through outright deceit." The report was released as the White House announced the creation of the new Office of Global Communications, the official goal of which, according to a prepared statement is "to prevent misunderstanding and conflict, build support for and among United States coalition partners and better inform international audiences." For more information, see the full report "Apparatus of Lies: Saddam's Disinformation and Propaganda, 1990-2003." South Korea Proposes Economic Union With North —South Korea’s president-elect Roh Moo-hyun is prepared to offer potentially massive economic support to North Korea through an economic union, in exchange for Pyongyang’s agreement to abandon its nuclear program. With complete reunification of the North and South still a distant prospect, Roh’s proposal underlines his belief that economic incentives are essential to encourage North Korea to reverse its plans to continue the development of its nuclear weapons production capabilities. It is unclear what specific form the arrangement would take, but a spokesperson for the incoming government, which takes power next month, said that if North Korea abandon’s its plan, "South Korea will reward them beyond their expectations." Defense Secretary: Philippines Will Not Become U.S. Training Facility —Philippine Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes said this week that the United States cannot use any part of the country as a training site for its troops. Reyes said that U.S. training of Filipino soldiers in counter-terrorism does not mean that the United States can set up training facilities in the country as they have done in others. Last year over 1,000 U.S. troops deployed to the Philippines to train their military in counter-terrorism, and in November, the U.S. and Philippine governments signed the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA), which will make the Philippines a staging area for military operations in the region. It permits the United States to store ammunition, spare parts, food, fuel and other supplies. Army Develops Laser Mine-Clearing System —The Army is currently developing a vehicle-mounted laser that has the capability of destroying surface landmines at a distance of up to 220 yards. Called "Zeus," the system is carried on a Humvee. It uses a camera to locate surface mines, or can use Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates supplied by other sources to locate and destroy mines. When a mine is located, a low-power laser "illuminates" the target. The main laser is then used to heat the mine’s explosives, causing them to detonate. Since the laser cannot penetrate soil, however, it is not useful against buried mines. While only one system currently exists, the Army is considering whether it can be deployed now.
Quotation of the Week —
"[President George W. Bush] should offer a detailed public explanation of what the United States knows about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and challenge the United Nations, one last time, to preserve its relevance by acting to implement Resolution 1441. In the meantime, the administration should continue to prepare the military coalition that even now is taking shape in the Persian Gulf. It would be best if that coalition could act with full Security Council support; but it can, if necessary, succeed without it," Washington Post editorial, January 22, 2003.
This Week on SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV —
SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV examines the timely issues that affect the United States together with foreign experts from around the world.
While the Statue of Liberty still greets immigrants with the inscription "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" with recent changes U.S. immigration policy for some, the United States has effectively added, "Give me a photograph, an interview and your fingerprints as well." While some charge this is discrimination and effectively racial profiling, immigration officials insist this is necessary in the "War on Terrorism." What are the issues surrounding this recent change and how have America's long-standing precedents in immigration policy been perceived around the world?
Joining Superpower moderator Lisa Simeone to discuss the issue will be Mark Thompson, national security correspondent for Time magazine; Jose Carreno, Washington Bureau Chief of El Universal in Mexico; and Mian Zahid Ghani, U.N. Correspondent for News Network International.
If you would like to submit a question or comment to be read on this week's show, please send an e-mail to feedback@superpowertv.org.
WHERE TO SEE SUPERPOWER:
SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV is aired in the Washington, DC area on Wednesday at 8:30pm on MHz, and again on Saturday at 8:30am on MHz (Channel 56 -- check local listings at: http://www.mhznetworks.org/cable/listings.html).
Superpower is broadcast nationwide:
WorldLinkTV, Channel 9410 on Echostar Communications Corporation's DISH® Network direct broadcast satellite system. Superpower and WorldLinkTV are available on Channel 375 on DIRECTV® satellite TV service.
Broadcast times for Superpower: Global Affairs TV on WorldLinkTV
To see when Superpower broadcasts on WorldlinkTV and your DISH® Network direct broadcast satellite system or your DIRECTV® satellite TV service, please visit: http://www.worldlinktv.com/cgi-bin/displayProgram.cgi?code=superpower
For more information, please send an e-mail to: info@superpowertv.org. For free transcripts of past shows, go to www.superpowertv.org
|
|
WEEKLY DEFENSE MONITOR HOME CDI HOME
