North Korea Fear Mongering Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Politico has a headline about a Rasmussen poll that shows that 57% of voters back a military response to North Korea.  I wonder if the answer would have been a little bit different if the question had been asked like this:  "Do you support getting entangled in a potential third land war in Asia that would likely dwarf Afghanistan or Iraq?"  Somehow I don't think 57% of voters would have supported that option.

Here is the problem.  Just about anyone from across the political spectrum, who has seriously looked at this issue, has come to the conclusion that the military option is an awful one.  We could bomb a bunch of nuclear sites in North Korea but we likely wouldn't get everything and they would double their efforts.  Who knows how the North Koreans would respond, but they could decide to incinerate Seoul with conventional weapons perfectly capable of reaching across the 38th parallel.  Who knows how many would be killed, but we would be talking about a human catastrophe. At that point, the whole thing could degenerate into a land war on the Korean peninsula.  And at that point, with all this happening right near the Chinese, the possibility of it creating a potential U.S.-China military confrontation would be quite real.

So here is my question for the folks at Rasmussen and Politico, who choose to poll this silly question and then write about it.  What is your proposed "military response" for North Korea that could actually be effective?  I'm sure there are a lot of people at the Pentagon, State Department, and White House who would be very interested to hear it.

North Korea's Launch -- Perhaps more Farce than Crisis? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

1.  North Korea watchers have been predicting this launch for a year -- not because North Korea is making inexorable technical progress (see below) but because North Korea's political m.o. is to use technical events to demand that it get back on the top of the international agenda.  Afghanistan, Iraq, economic meltdown... they may not make it into the G-20 but they can be top 20 for international nuisance value.

2.  All the major players (US, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, EU) had agreed in advance that the response would be to go immediately to the UN -- meeting set for 3pm today -- and in some ways, that signal of unity is as important as anything that comes out of the UN meeting.  It means that regional talks -- the only thing that has stopped or slowed North Korea for the past two decades -- can put united pressure on the North.

3.  It looks as if the rocket failed to get its satellite payload into orbit.  Extra-terrestrial life is safe from the recordings of songs praising the Dear Leader that the North Koreans promised us.  Follow along on this and other technical analysis of just how good the rocket really was at armscontrolwonk. 

4.  This may be a bit contrarian, but I actually think the North Koreans did Obama a favor by tying their launch to his non-proliferation speech -- their action demonstrates clearly what a global problem weapons of mass destruction are, and why their falling into that hands of states or non-state actors who don't share traditional calculus on their nations' interest (ie, who don't appear to care if masses of their citizens starve or are otherwise annihilated) is such a problem.

All in all, I'm struggling with the temptation to compare this to a soap opera -- dramatic, crowd-pleasing but highly predictable and involving far less actual drama than meets the eye (unless, again, you are a citizen of that wretched place).

NSN Daily Update 4/3/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

G-20 leaders pledged $1.1 trillion in new funds for the economic crises and added regulation.  U.S. unemployment jumped to 8.5% in March.  Congress passed President Obama’s budget.

The NATO summit on Afghanistan begins today.  The summit also celebrates NATO’s 60th anniversary.  Albania and Croatia gained full NATO membership.

A U.S. federal judge ruled that detainees at Bagram Air Base, in Afghanistan, have the right of habeas corpus, the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

Russian troops continue to hold Georgian territory in defiance of the cease-fire agreement.

Commentary of the Day

Steven Pearlstein celebrates the fact that the G-20 made substantive agreements.

The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic reflects on NATO as “the one international institution that’s still relevant.”

A former NATO secretary-general outlines the security steps that President Obama should ask of NATO members.

What Real Diplomacy Looks Like Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Barack Obama showed up in Europe this week and the world did not simply swoon at his feet.  Some may choose to portray that as failure, but they would be dead wrong.  Diplomacy is about interests and hard bargaining to find areas of common understanding.  No matter how popular he may be around the world, the President was never going to be able to repair eight years of damage in only three months.  And he wasn't going to change the fact that sometimes the United States and other countries have conflicting interests.  But what we saw this week, after years where personal relationships and saber-rattling often substituted for foreign policy, were significant steps on a number of fronts.  In fact, since the invasion of Iraq more than six years ago it's hard to remember such a positive week for American diplomacy.

First, the G20 summit set the framework for global actions that will help address the current financial crisis and put more checks in place to ensure that a similar crisis does not occur.  The Obama administration did not get support for the global stimulus package it was looking for, but it did get a dramatic increase in funding for the IMF from $250 billion to $750 billion and an overall commitment of $1.1 trillion to help support the global economy.  This was a critical step as the IMF acts as a lender of last resort and plays a crucial role in preventing countries from failing during financial crises.  The world also comes away from this conference with new agreements on international regulations of financial institutions and a strong statement opposing protectionism.  Is it everything that we might have liked to have seen come out of the G20 summit?  No.  But you never get everything that you want out of a summit of 20 countries and the steps that were taken are crucially important.

Second, rather than looking into Medvedev's soul Barack Obama sat down with him and hammered out a path forward based on common interest.  The joint statement released by Obama and Medvedev was realistic but far reaching and set the road ahead for negotiations on a number of issues.  It recognized that there were issues where the United States and Russia would not agree, but it also set out an aggressive agenda on issues of nuclear non proliferation - issues that are absolutely crucial to both countries' security as well as that of the world.  The statement concluded:

In just a few months we have worked hard to establish a new tone in our relations. Now it is time to get down to business and translate our warm words into actual achievements of benefit to Russia, the United States, and all those around the world interested in peace and prosperity.

This doesn't mean that Russian-American tensions will disappear over night.  But it is a far cry from where the United States and Russia were eight months ago after the conflict in Georgia essentially froze relations.

On Afghanistan we have also seen important movement in the right direction.  The international conference at the Hague earlier this week served to further internationalize support for the conflict.  And though it was only a first step it was an important one.  It also included recognition from the Obama administration that rather than loudly asking for troops, we ask for other types of support in Afghanistan.  After all, the U.S. has the most powerful military in the world. What it lacks is the civilian capabilities that are so critical for the mission in Afghanistan.  Many of our allies happen to have these types of capabilities and it is something they are willing to contribute.  This isn't just diplomacy, it's common sense.

Finally, the administration continued its outreach to Iran this week.  Iran was invited to the Hague conference and pledged to work to curb narcotics trafficking out of Afghanistan while also providing more humanitarian aid.  During the conference Richard Holbrooke, the Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, had a face to face conversation with the Iranian representative - the highest level interaction between the Obama administration and Iran.  This is only a small step, but a positive one in preparing for greater engagement going forward.

Barack Obama's administration did not redraw the geopolitical map this week.  We are still in the middle of a major financial mess.  America's position in the world is not what it was eight years ago.  But the administration did show that when the United States is not politically radioactive,  thinks seriously about its interests, and takes the time to listen, it can get important things done via diplomacy.

Obama's No Drama Foreign Policy Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at Undiplomatic, my old State Department colleague, Charlie Brown has an excellent post about Obama's new foreign policy realism:

For Obama, foreign policy is not a frat party.  Brown is not his “staunch friend.” Medvedev is neither a “soulmate" or “troublesome and unhelpful.” ; and Osama bin Laden is not an “evil-doer.”

Unlike his predecessor, who personalized everything, Obama is keeping his distance, regardless of whether he is dealing with a friend, competitor, or enemy.  He is pursing a businesslike approach to foreign policy, focusing on country-to-country relations, not private relationships.

That is pretty much a textbook example of realism.  He views relationships as a function of American interests, and acts accordingly.

We were so inured by the Bush Presidency that we forget what its like to have adult leadership from the Executive Branch.

But Charlie does raise one point that it is concerning to me as well - a new realist focus may lead to a de-emphasizing of human rights and democracy promotion in US foreign policy. It bears noting that we are 72 days into a new presidential administration and we still have no head of State's Democracy, Human Rights and Labor bureau and even worse, no USAID Administrator.

Obama's foreign policy is a long overdue correction to the notion of unlimited and unchecked America power. As I noted yesterday at Politico, "Obama’s approach to national security shows a more proximate understanding of the realistic limitations of U.S. power than any in recent memory."

But that means the United States needs to think more intelligently about how it wields power; and when it comes to human rights and democracy a good place to start would be the recognition that we need to realize we can only do so much -- and we would be wise to focus our energies on empowering local NGOs and non-state actors to advocate for political change.

I'll have more thoughts on this subject in a few days, but suffice to say meeting this goal is not necessarily that complicated - strengthening the NED, supporting multllateral and regional organizations, like the UN Democracy Fund, building up the MCC so that it makes NGO cooperation an integral part of its assistance package, using bilateral aid to build up governance capacity and ensuring that US diplomacy is protecting civil society actors.

This is not only a realist approach to promoting democracy and human rights; its a smart one as well. I understand and applaud the new realism of Obama's foreign policy (and I use that word loosely, because I think Obama's realism is a bit different from traditional realism). But if you have an Administration that is more judicious in its use of American power; then you need to have advocates who push for them to make the best possible choices.

G Whiz Posted by David Shorr

As Heather points out, there is a more basic set of diplomatic issues beyond the global economic matters at hand. Essentially, the geometry of 21st Century collective action. For years there has been a foreign policy cottage industry that focuses on 'the Gs' in their various numbers and permutations, and for good reason. I argued in Wednesday's Des Moines Register that the regular high-level meetings and global composition of these forums makes them an alluring source of political will. The palpable need for mechanisms that bring together global and regional powers of different sorts only further piques the interest. [Further thoughts and a shameless plug for our forthcoming Stanley Foundation book are on our publisher's blog.]

A bit of background that many of our knowledgeable DA readers might skip. The more familiar and established Group of Eight industrialized powers plus Russia had already been groping around for years, searching for a good way to pull China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico into closer consultation. To some in the latter group, the attempt seemed half-hearted at best, and insulting at worst. But then with the global recession serving as a cattle prod, the G20 -- previously a creature of finance ministers -- has now convened its heads of state and government not once but twice in five months.

All of which raises very interesting questions about the geometric shape of diplomatic things to come. Will the G20 become the 'go-to' summit, where the real power elite go to meet and eat? Will it adopt the forward-leaning pattern of meeting twice a year? If so, what becomes of the G8? And what will the G20 -- or G13, or G16 (GX?) -- talk about? (Answers to these and other questions below the fold.)

The unfortunate emergence of European unity Posted by Max Bergmann

The summit has seen the bizarre emergence of European unity at the G-20. France, Germany, Spain, among others loudly proclaim their opposition to greater stimulus efforts and Europe has stood firm in its calls for expanded international regulation. In fact, if you were say which superpower was driving the G-20 agenda, it would have to be Europe. The Obama administration has seemingly sought to avoid a fight on stimulus and has laid out a framework for financial regulations that is not all that different from what the Europeans are demanding.

Normally, I would be all supportive of European unity at a global summit. But in this case the unity that has emerged is more out of political weakness. Despite some indications from the Germans that they would step up to rescue failing EU economies, there is just not that much desire on the part of the European countries to do more to support each other. The opposition to stimulus - while it is about fears of inflation and deficits - is also about worries that any stimulus spending will bleed beyond national borders. Hence, Europe is unified that the U.S. should be the one to act on regulation, while they should be left alone.

National Security, the G20 and the Global Financial Crisis Posted by Adam Blickstein

Today NSN held a press conference call with Dr. Thomas Fingar, former director of the National Intelligence Council and current lecturer at Stanford's school of International Studies and Brad Setser, Fellow for Geoeconomics at the Council on Foreign Relations, examining the G20 summit and the national security implications of the global financial crisis. The audio can be heard here, and below are some quotes from the call:

Dr. Thomas Fingar:  “With respect to the larger institutional setting—and this goes far beyond the economic realm—there seems to be a dawning and growing recognition that we need to do something to re-engineer, to revitalize, to replace, to restructure.  But there’s not yet, in my view, a consensus on what the replacements should look like—or more importantly, on who should design them, who should lead the effort, or who should participate in the remaking of the global order.  Sixty years ago there were 140 fewer countries and the outcome of the war reduced the number of active players to a handful.  We’re in a very, very different situation today… with the United States, the European Union, Japan, the rise of the BRICs.  Essentially all of those participating in the London conference in some sense have a right to participate in the larger setting.

Brad Setser: I think this is really the first deep crisis of the globalized economy that Dr. Fingar described.  It’s a synchronized downturn--all major regions of the global economy are now contracting--and it’s a synchronized downturn with a very large magnitude, with most major economies experiencing if not the sharpest downtown of the post-war era, something very close to it...The agenda for the leaders, I think, can be divided into two parts.  The first part is taking steps that will help stabilize the economy in the downturn…  I think the second immediate priority is to increase the resources available to the IMF.  A couple of years ago the IMF was sitting on a pool of lendable resources of $200 billion, $250 if you count its supplementary credit lines, and nobody wanted to borrow from it, and there were questions about its relevance.  Now with the downturn in cross-border capital flows and the large pool of countries looking to borrow from the IMF, it is clear that $250 billion isn’t anywhere near enough.  And I think we should have known that because the major emerging economies, countries that previously borrowed from the IMF, countries like Korea and Brazil and Russia, all more or less have concluded that $200 billion of reserves isn’t enough.

Medvedev's Move? Posted by Adam Blickstein

The past 24 hours have resulted in more positive diplomatic substance between Russia and the U.S. than occured arguably over the 8 years of the Bush administration. But putting the pieces together, the meeting between Medvedev and Obama in London might be more significant than just their agreement to further talks in July:

From Politico: "Yes, he was picked by Putin and all that stuff…but he wants to establish his own foreign policy," the official said.  "That’s his aspiration -- to be the guy driving that."

But the official acknowledged Prime Minister Vladimir Putin knew what was coming out of today's bi-lateral meeting.

"I don't know what documents he physically read, but I'm quite sure he's abreast on what we signed today," the official said of Putin.

To the degree that Medvedev has attained more autonomy over policy in Russia is debatable, but it is clear that Obama's trip to Europe marks a new era in U.S./Russia relations in that Medvedev seems to be in appearance, if not in substance, driving the Russian side of the relationship, not Putin. The final time President Bush met with Medvedev in Peru last November, Putin was nowhere in sight, but the meeting also yielded no actual policy imperatives, merely pleasantries reflective of Bush's time in power:

"It's an interesting moment because I've had a lot of meetings with Dmitry and Vladimir Putin," said Bush, who once famously told reporters he had gotten a sense of Putin's soul. "This will be my last meeting as the sitting president with the leader of Russia."

"We've had our agreements. We have had our disagreements. I've tried to work hard to make it a cordial relationship so when we need to work together we can, and when we disagree we're able to do so in a way that is respectful to our two nations," he said.

But today marks the first time that there was a substantive result from a meeting between a U.S. President and a Russian President not named Putin since Boris Yeltsin led Russia nearly ten years ago. That, and in light of Russia's current ecoomic crisis and reports of a growing rift between Putin and Medvedev, this week could portend a greater shift in U.S./Russian relations than what simply appears apparent at first blush. We will know far more after July's Moscow meeting, but for now, at least superficially, there may be greater uncertainty as far as who is actually in charge of Russia than there has been in quite some time.

What Diplomacy Looks Like Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

This seems like a sensible and promising way forward on Russia.

From an anonymous U.S. official in the pool report

It was a "constant strategy on the Bush administration's part, to develop this personal rapport . .. our strategy is to develop an agenda based on interest . .. not to make the goal of these meetings to develop some kind of buddy-buddy relationship [with Russia]."

"Having said that," he went on to say, "it's worth noting there was good rapport." (Obama and Medvedev" "they have some commonalties. They're young, they're lawyers . . . have a common language, and that's not just English, it's this legal language.")

Does rapport matter? "Better to be able to talk than not," he said.

This makes sense.  It's also a lot easier when you have common interests and somewhat compatible views on issues like non-proliferation, instead of having John Bolton and Dick Cheney dictating U.S. non-proliferation policy.