I have reposted below my blog of September 1 last year about the developing pattern of mission-creep in Iraq. Now, four months later, we are seeing it happening again. Last week in Iraq Tony Abbott made it clear that Australia was receptive to any further requests to send more Australian military to Iraq. 

Tony Abbott, with John Howard, have both been part of our disastrous intervention in Iraq. We now intend to continue and expand it. 

War is a serious business, but Tony Abbott doesn’t seem to think so, given how easily he makes one military commitment after another. Last week he was pictured admiring the vinyl decal stickers on the side of an RAAF fighter denoting each Iraq bombing mission. What a thoughtless, provocative piece of stupidity to have decals on our fighter in the first place, let alone having the Australian Prime Minister looking on approvingly.

The mission creep continues and how obviously our Prime Minister seems to be enjoying it.  

 

In an excellent article in the SMH  [31.8.2014], Paul McGeough writes of our still being at the beck and call of the US and the mission creep already evident as we rejoin the war in Iraq.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/australia-still-at-americas-beck-and-call-20140831-10albb.html

Have we forgotten Vietnam and all the other disastrous wars that we have got involved in at the request of the US? Invariably they started with humanitarian aid, then advisers, then logistics support and all the way from there to full-scale military involvement in causes we didn’t understand – except that the US was an ally and we had to be loyal. In Vietnam we lost with disastrous consequences for ourselves, but mainly for the Vietnamese people. In Vietnam and later in Iraq and Afghanistan our role steadily expanded. We are already seeing this mission creep again today in northern Iraq.

We are now committed again to Iraq whilst refusing debate in our parliament. We were told by the Minister for Defence that ‘Were we to delay making decisions as the events confront us, people’s lives will be seriously at risk.’  This is an echo of the false reasoning we have been given in the past. Just forget that our ill-advised decision to join the war in Iraq was based on flawed information and costs hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. That foreign intervention in Iraq sowed the seeds of the disaster we are now seeing in that country. For centuries foreign interests have failed dismally in trying to control events in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don’t we ever learn?

Our latest commitment to help the people of Iraq began as humanitarian air-drops. Now we are to provide arms to a break-away province in the north of Iraq. In that province there are strong elements of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party which is a proscribed terrorist organisation. How will we ensure that the arms we are supplying will not finish in the hands of the PKK?

The mission creep has occurred quickly. It has now moved from humanitarian and military supplies to include our Special Air Services to protect air drops of food and deliveries of weapons. It won’t be long before the SAS is asked to extend its role.

But what are our ‘friends’ doing to combat the Iraqi State? There is speculation at the moment rather than clear information that IS is receiving support from some of our friends.

• France, Switzerland, Austria and Spain seem to have paid ransom money to IS for the release of their nationals. Presumably that has been done with the support of those governments. It is estimated that over the last five years IS has earned Pds75 million in ransoms for more than 50 European captives.
• The Director of the Centre for Research and the Arabian World at the University of Mainz in Germany has commented recently that ‘The most important source of ISIS funding to date has been support coming out of the Gulf States, primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and UAE. Aren’t these countries our friends with strong trade, investment and aviation links? The Director added ‘Saudi citizens now compose the largest contingent of foreign fighters in ISIS.’ He commented further that the funding was ‘less from the Saudi Government than rich Saudis’.

IS is also drawing on local resources. It looted the Central Bank in Mosul of $US429 million. The Iraqi Army that we had helped train fled and left their uniforms and weapons behind. IS has access to oil wells in Syria and Northern Iraq.  In the same way as the mafia it extorts taxes from businesses and individuals.

Surely we should be told more about what is involved in our recent rejoining of the war and what we are attempting to do, and how we will avoid the mistakes of the past. Surely the Australian Parliament should be the primary forum for this debate. With Simon Crean as Leader of the Opposition the ALP opposed our joining the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. That same leadership is sadly lacking today.

In terms of our own security, we will now be less safe. The head of ASIO has told us.

Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop have been playing loosely in our relations with Russia even thought those relations are quite modest, at least as far as the Russians are concerned. Threatening to ‘shirt-front’ President Putin is not a dignified way to behave with a major nuclear power.

Our recent behaviour towards Russia underlines that prejudices and rhetoric should be put aside. We should focus on evidence, principles and interest.

Major European powers being close to Russia and with far deeper experience of Russian behaviour do not afford themselves the luxury of playing politics the way we have been in recent months.

The Russian position deserves serious consideration. Richard Butler does this in the following article.  It is more lengthy than usual in this blog but the subject does require in depth consideration. And in a holiday period a longer read may be timely. It is a good read.  John Menadue.      

RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY: NOW AND IN THE PERIOD AHEAD

THE CONSTRUCTS OF RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY.

Under Vladimir Putin, Russia’s foreign policy seeks to realize three fundamental objectives:

1. Rejection of what it assesses has become the post Cold War order, dominated by the interests of the United States;

2. Insistence on a role and status for Russia in international affairs, as a great power whose participation in and influence over the conduct of those affairs is recognized as essential.

3. Enter into a new set of political and economic relationships, not western in orientation, and designed to strengthen Russia at home and in the world.

The West’s insistence that Russia is obligated to conform to standards, both domestically and in its international relations, which are set by western policies and western institutions, is viewed by Russia as aggressive and dismissive of Russian interests and values.

Even more striking, in the Russian view, is the flagrant inconsistency of western actions. Russia sees these as having repeatedly violated those same purported standards. The United States invasion of Iraq, and NATO’s action to change the Regime in Libya, without the authorization of the Security Council, are seen as a prime examples of such behavior.

In October, 2014, in a presentation to the Russian International Affairs Council, President Putin spoke directly to Russians concerns about what it sees as imperious behavior:

“ The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules and standards. This created the impression that the so called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and to reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and checks and balances got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition” (1)

In his second term as Russian President, Vladimir Putin has constructed  Russian foreign policy, in pursuit of the three fundamental objectives described above.

That he is determined to pursue these objectives is clear, and particularly his refusal to accept a uni-polar world, based on American leadership:

“ Today we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat… The situation was presented this way during the Cold War… The United States always told its allies: ‘We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe,and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defense, but we will be the ones in charge of all it all, of course.’ In short, we see today attempts, in a new and changing world, to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their (the US’) exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.” (2)

While Putin’s policy determination is very clear, equally clear are: the divisions within western policy circles on how to respond to these circumstances, including Russia’s refusal to comply with western demands; the disarray within the American polity, and thus external policy formulation; and, the current proliferation of complex international political issues.

What needs to be underlined is that, during the period since the Maidan Revolution in Kiev, a major conflict of interests, between Russia and the United States, has, again, become a key dynamic in international relations.

On the Russian side, key sources of its deep dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in international relations, has included the following:

1. While significant actions were taken to construct a post Cold War system for common security: Treaty on the reunification of Germany; the Helsinki process on mitigating the Cold War, beginning in 1975 which led to the establishment of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 1994; the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1977, in which it was declared that “NATO and Russia do not consider themselves to be adversaries”; the US never the less commenced a series of unilateral actions which deeply disturbed Russia. For example; the partition of Yugoslavia and Serbia, the illegal invasion of Iraq, US withdrawal from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and failure to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the application of the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, passed under the principle of the responsibility to protect, to instead, change the regime in Libya.

2. In spite of the undertakings given to Russia at the time of the reunification of Germany that there would be no eastward expansion of NATO, the alliance has expanded to the borders of Russia.

3. The US insistence, at the level of the President that it is “the exceptional country”, which Russia takes as meaning that the US does not feel bound by international law; a view which has some basis in fact.

President Putin addressed the notion of US exceptionalism, among other issues, in his Op-Ed published in the New York Times on September 11^th, 2013, responding to President Obama’s address to the Nation on the situation in Syria:

“ I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is ‘what makes America different’. It’s what makes us exceptional”. It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.” (3)

In his address to the Nation on December 4^th, 2014, Putin accused the West of extreme hostility to Russia, to the point of attempting to dismember it.

WESTERN POLICIES

The major western concern about Russian policy and actions has arisen in the context of the crisis in Ukraine. The West has expressed alarm about Russian intervention in the Ukraine, inter alia on the ground that it violates Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, which forbids the ”use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”; and, the incorporation of Crimea into Russia, on the basis of a referendum, the legality and authenticity of which was clearly dubious.

These actions are seen as breaching a deeply important principle, widely accepted in Europe, that the agreements reached at the end of the Second World War (the UN charter, the Treaty of Rome), put and end to any alteration of national borders by force.

There were also a series of agreements, some taking a number of years to be reached, which covered a range of post World War II, borders: the Oder-Neisse line between Poland and the GDR, the border between West and East Germany, the Soviet Union and the Baltic States, for example. All of these, together with the question of the status of Berlin were managed between the West and the USSR on what could be called a basis of equal participation.

The situation entered a new phase with the reunification of Germany, in 1991 and the coming to independence of 15 former Soviet Republics, including Ukraine, in 1991. The issue of Ukraine’s status as a nuclear weapon state (several thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons had been stationed in Ukraine) and its future security was immediately addressed by it and the depository States of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear Weapons. (US,UK,Russia)

Ukraine decided to repatriate those weapons to Russia, and join the NPT as a Non Nuclear Weapon State. In return, the depository States signed the Budapest Memorandum of 1954 in which they undertook to guarantee Ukraine’s security.

Another important event, consequent upon the dissolution of the USSR, was the assurance given to Soviet President Gorbachev by the United States, that if he agreed to the reunification of Germany and accepted the inclusion of Germany in NATO, the alliance would not move further east than Germany. Gorbachev accepted this.

Clearly, the Budapest Memorandum is now dead, following the events of the past year in Ukraine, and both Russian and Western  intervention in them. In addition, NATO has now been joined by three Former Soviet republics and four States previously members of the Warsaw pact and has, thus, moved well east of Germany, right up to the Russian border. Signficantly, the Ukrainian Parliament, elected in November 2014, immediately expressed support for Ukraine joining NATO.

The situation in Ukraine remains unresolved and continues to be a source of significant dispute between the West and Russia, neither of which are likely to, easily, soften their position. However, it is widely regarded that the likelihood of direct military conflict, war between, NATO for example and Russia, over Ukraine is unlikely.

While there is growing division of opinion within Western circles about the appropriate policy to pursue towards Russia, on sanctions for example, there remains abiding concern about the principle of borders not being able to be changed by force.

It is not clear how far Russia will act to secure its Ukrainian objectives. Putin, appears not to want major armed conflict. It would appear to be far too costly, in every respect, and in any case may not resolve things. But, nor does he want to give up important Russian objectives, including that of not accepting Western authority in determining issues of major importance to Russia. This school of thought posits that his preference will be for a continuation of an unresolved state of dispute, a so called “frozen conflict”, in Ukraine.

Possibly serious sources of restraint upon Putin maintaining conflict with the West over Ukraine are: the impact of sanctions on the Russian economy, the attitude of key Russian stakeholders in that economy, as expressed by them to Putin, what the ordinary people will accept; in other words the impact of sanctions upon standards of living.

THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY

The Russian economy is a developing rather than a relatively fully developed one. It was recognition of the failure of the command economy, and that Russia was slipping backwards, that led President Gorbachev to begin significant reforms in the USSR, which then contributed to its dissolution. Putin has declared that dissolution to be  one of history’s great mistakes.

Currently, the World Bank ranks the Russian economy as the world’s ninth largest, by nominal GDP, and sixth largest by purchasing power parity in 2014.

Russia has produced advanced goods, particularly in the aerospace sectors, but it has a widely scattered population, which in both rural and urban settings, includes a substantial portion of people who are poor, by any comparable standard, and live with a parlous level of infrastructure. Its middle class has grown, but the economy is in many respects a classic dual economy, in which those with economic means and those without operate in two very different spaces.

For the latter group, the social support structure of the Communist period, for example free education and health services have largely disappeared. This is of virtually no importance to the small but massively wealthy group of people, the so called oligarchs, who have built private sector economic interests, following the end of what was virtually total State control of the economy. They have done this with the consent of the Government, starting during the period of Boris Yeltsin but continuing under Putin. The extent to which they invest in Russia’s social and economic development is mixed at best.

It is important to note that Russia is not alone in being a dual economy. Many western states share this characteristic. For example, some 18% of the US’ population live below the official poverty line.

The current demographic profile of Russia is of immense importance to its economic prospects. It is assessed that in 1995, Russia entered into “ a black demographic patch” of population decline. The gap between deaths and births was 1 million people. In recent years, Russia’s population has declined by between 0.6-0.7 million, each year. This is attributable to: decreasing fertility rates, increasing mortality rates and population aging. This demographic situation puts pressure on the economy, principally with respect to the availability of labor, but also in terms of the maintenance of demand.

While there is a growing middle class in Russia and overall, standards of living have increased under Putin/Medveydev, serious problems, such as  imposed as a consequence of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, are hitting Russia hard. This is particularly the case with respect to the major source of wealth generation for Russia, its export of hydrocarbons.

The sanctions have led to the cancellation of the South Stream pipeline to deliver gas to Europe. This was at the direction of Brussels and cost Russia $50 billion. Russia has attempted to replace this through a gas delivery agreement with Turkey, of more limited yield and at reduced price.

For the longer term, in October Putin signed a gas delivery agreement with China worth $400 billion. But, it requires substantial investment for its development, the sources of which are not established, and has a lead  time of some 10 years before its impact will be felt in the Russian economy.

Russia’s need of investment is of basic importance and as a consequence of sanctions, the rate of foreign investment has declined substantially, mainly as western banks have become averse to investment in Russia. Moody’s rating Agency has moved Russia to marginally above junk bond status. In addition, capital flight from Russia, disinvestment, has grown to a record level of $85 billion in 2014. Russia was obliged, in December 2014, to make payment of $40 billion to service sovereign debt, in circumstances where national currency reserves are declining.

The inevitable consequences of these trends have occurred: the value of the Ruble has collapsed. During the last year it has lost at least 40% of its value, and price inflation has doubled. The Russian Ministry of Economic Development has estimated, this week, that the economy will contract by 0.8% next year and that both household disposable income and GDP will decline by 2.8%.

Worst of all for Russia’s prospects, the price of oil continues to collapse. It has fallen nearly 50% since June 2014 and may fall further. This is of the deepest importance for Russia as every reduction of $1 in the per- barrel price brings a drop of $2 billion in revenue for Russia.

Possibly symbolic of the pressures upon the economy, as being felt by ordinary people is that buckwheat, a staple of the Russian diet, has doubled in price and in parts of Russia has disappeared from shop shelves. This has, in fact, largely been the result of bad weather but coming at the time of sanctions and price inflation generally, it has possible political implications.

These are significant trends and there are persistent reports that senior figures in the economy, both within Government and in the private sector, are expressing anxiety to President Putin.

On the micro level, daily life is becoming tighter for citizens although one notable consequence of the new circumstances is that many citizens are entering into import replacement; growing, farming, manufacturing domestically, goods and commodities people need, in replacement of formerly imported goods. In some measure, this is a positive development for Russia. President Putin made this point in his address to the nation on December 4^th, 2014.

Ironically, in some limited respects, sanctions could prove to be positive for the internal economic and social development of Russia. It would, in fact, be consistent with the overall experience of sanctions in a variety of countries in the past. When large economic interests are targeted, such as Banks, sanctions can prove to be effective, although always mitigated by cheating. But, as far as the bulk of the people are concerned, while sanctions cause pain, people find solutions and they often rally to support their government. This was the case with sanctions in Iraq from 1991 to 1999.

EU sanctions are causing concern to some of its members and they are breaking ranks. Hungary, a member of both EU and NATO has violated EU policy by entering into an agreement with Russia on the construction of a nuclear power plant and, Finland has also signed a nuclear energy development agreement with Russia.

Russia is now working towards replacing some of its significant economic dealings with the West with new relationships in the East and South: the BRICS, established in 2010, (the cooperation agreement between Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) China as a major bilateral partner, Turkey, the Shanghai Cooperation Council, established in 1996, ( Russia, China and four former Soviet Republics in Central Asia) and within its own sphere, the Eurasian Union (Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan) which will be launched at the beginning of 2015, providing a common market and possibly include the adoption of a common currency. Kyrgizstan is likely to join the Union.

It must be emphasized however, that there will be no early result for Russia in replacing reliance on western markets and western sources of finance. In many respects, the prospect of significantly diminished economic interaction with the main EU States – German industries, UK Banks, could border on a disaster for Russia.

Even so, the possibility remains that the West could lose from Russia’s turn away from it, but to what extent and how seriously this will be taken is yet to be calculated. No calculation is required in predicting that divisions within the West, on relations with Russia, will emerge.

The critical questions that arise in conjunction with the strong relationship between foreign policy and the economy are those of: the balance between policies designed to win approval on a nationalist basis, such as the annexation of Crimea and the price paid for such policies in terms of sanctions and political isolation; and, at what point does the combination of heightened nationalism and the associated resentments of others on the one hand, with rising economic hardship on the other, translate into bellicosity.

Going to war is both intrinsically costly and a stimulus to domestic production but the reasoning or sentiment which comes to prevail can be: We are being treated so badly that there is little to lose from attacking those who have so seriously harmed us, our situation can barely be worse; and we can, by our actions, rectify it and salvage our national self respect.

While this may seem exaggerated, such reasoning is not unknown in history and, it must be said, that the level and style of propaganda currently being deployed in Russia with respect to the West; xenophobic and nationalist, is characteristic of situations which, in the past, led to war.

Clearly, a solution to the situation in Ukraine is needed and attention must be then given to problems within the Russian economy, although obviously this will not include manipulating the price of oil. That is determined by a combination of market forces and OPEC production decisions.

In a paper on: Russia’s Future in the World Order, prepared for the 2014 annual meeting of the Russian International Affairs Council, the scholar Ivan Timofeev observed:

“ The contemporary world order may appear to be paradoxical. On the one hand, we see a steady dynamic of social and economic development. In other words, there is no great shortage of resources that could lead to large-scale conflicts and violent change of the existing order. On the other hand, there are several powers in the world whose political relations and security policies may shake and overturn the world order, Russia is among such powers….. Russia’s position among great powers today is fairly vulnerable. While the country’s political resources are great, these resources are only converted into development in a limited way. The connection between Russia’s global weight and its potential for solving its own social and economic problems is tenuous.” (4)

PUBLIC SENTIMENT IN RUSSIA

The sentiment of the Russian people towards the official narrative in Russia is being measured repeatedly. The current form of that narrative is: Russia, led by Putin, has acted to prevent the West and it’s Nazi collaborators in Ukraine from seizing Ukraine; it stood up to them and rescued Crimea; for this and its attempts to defend the Russian people of the Donbas it is being punished with sanctions; Russia, in other ways too, is being treated with unacceptable disrespect; it is a great power and will never accept this; it rejects US attempts at dominance and a world based on proclaimed US leadership and exceptionalism; Russia is building new relationships, such as with the BRICS, the Shanghai Consultative Group, and is forming the Eurasian Union; and these will build a new and fairer global system, with better outcomes for Russia.

The people are told that, consistent with Russia being treated disrespectfully and in bad faith by the West, led by the US, economic punishment will be imposed on ordinary people, at least for a while.

The people are asked to accept this. For now, they are apparently ready  to do so and on the issue of how do you rate the job President Putin is doing, he is presently recording approval ratings in the 80% range.

Putin must be concerned, however, about the views of the small but powerful owners/managers of major Russian private sector corporations. One sign of this has been his banishing, incarcerating, stripping of the power and assets, of senior executives who have been reluctant to comply with his decisions. Although some of his opponents and those who have suffered losses under him, have condemned his policies, his actions seem, for now, to have relieved pressure on him. There have been loyalists willing to step into the positions thus opened up, and presumably the rewards that attach to them.

It is impossible to speculate accurately about whether or when a point will be reached when influential individuals may approach President Putin to explain, perhaps menacingly, that he and his policies can no longer be afforded. But, there have been some signals of this possibility and, it is now officially predicted that Russia is moving into recession.

THE MEDIA AND CIVIL SOCIETY

It is clear from the public discourse in both Russia and US, that cultural and spiritual values, deeply at odds with each other, are in play.

In Russia, the perceived greatness of its long history, the orthodox culture, its spiritual nature, all in their traditional conservative forms, support a powerful nationalism, which Russians will not allow to be trashed. Putin has invoked this with great credibility. Opposed to this is seen the lazy, self- indulgent West, legalizing drugs, tolerating widespread pornography and, approving same-sex marriage. That such people would purport to lead others, tell Russians how to live, is rejected officially.

Putin has drawn significant support from the Russian Orthodox Church leadership. The control over the Church exercised by the State intelligence agencies, during the period of atheistic communism, has not only ended, but Putin has specifically deepened cooperation between the Church and the Kremlin. A number of agreements have been signed between the Church and government ministries on matters of policy, ranging from international relations to public morality.

For example, the Social Affairs Minister has rejected as unthinkable any suggestion that sex education be taught in Russian schools, saying that such teaching would violate traditional Russian values. This is the policy of the Church.

Patriarch Kiril appears prominently at public events with Putin, demonstrating the strength of the relationship with the State. Putin prominently attends important Church services. These actions and Putin’s stated policy of ensuring “ closest cooperation with religious organizations” echoes the earlier Byzantine tradition of common purpose between the State and the Church. This is in sharp contrast to the role in support of reform of government, or even revolution, that was played by the Church, only thirty years ago, in: Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and East Germany.

This relationship has at its core, the assertion of Russian national identity and patriotism. Putin’s elemental political identity is that of a staunch nationalist and, to some extent, populist. His attitude towards the Church underlines that identity.

This has specific internal political utility given the challenges to central authority flowing from: the situations in Chechnya and Dagestan, in Russia, and South Ossetia and Abhazia in Georgia, and in Ukraine. Putin seeks to justify Russian actions in these areas of conflict and challenge to Russian authority by reference to notions of cultural as well as territorial and political integrity. The Church has been made basic to that notion of sovereign integrity and Russian-ness.

A major lever deployed by Putin for the exercise of social control, and the formation and expression of opinion, has been his reassertion of strict control of mass media. Media organizations allowed to work are obliged to broadcast government approved news and interpretations. Many go beyond this and create their own narratives, reports, designed to demonstrate their faithfulness to the government and to Russia’s purposes.

Social media is widely utilized by individuals not only for personal messaging but also as an alternative source of information to the official sources. As a consequence, the government has repeatedly sought to restrict the operations, and content of social media.

These circumstances are a cause of serious concern both inside Russia and internationally. It is sensible to recognize, however, that a parallel phenomenon exists in the west, particularly the US, with respect to Russian issues. Censorship and shaping of opinion is clearly carried out much less blatantly in the west, but it occurs, and this is noticed in Russia and viewed as propaganda.

Much of such propaganda is conducted through public media, on both sides, and on both sides it is signaled that there are notions that are clearly not acceptable, within the public discourse. Unfortunately, gross characterizations of “the enemy” are not amongst these, but questioning of the purposes of one’s own Nation are.

The salient point to make here is that, at present, attempts to forge a dialogue based on facts and evidence, freed from a priori national purposes and stereotypes, is struggling. This is typical of situations which, in the past, have spun out of control.

THE WESTERN REACTION.

On western policy more broadly, it has three main structural elements: the US, the European Union, and NATO. The basic point about this Troika is that there is internal tension between the three elements.

While the EU has progressively transformed itself into a continent wide supranational institution, with all of the elements of government: legislature, judiciary, bureaucracy, and a range of standard setting Treaties, it experiences on a continual basis substantial tension between members of different weight and outlook. These tensions have been pronounced on the issues of both Ukraine and overall relations with Russia.

It is safe to predict that the EU would split over any suggestion of serious conflict with Russia and indeed, internal questioning of the sanctions policy is continuous. In this context, it is worth recalling that the fundamental motive for the establishment of the EU was to ensure that serious war would never again arise in Europe.

NATO is another matter. It is, in an elemental sense, all about war, deterring it and when necessary waging it, collectively.

The Treaty provides, in it’s 5^th article, that an attack on any member will be considered an attack upon all. It’s not clear how seriously this is taken

by Russia. For example, if Russia were to move to protect the Russian speaking population of Estonia, now a NATO member, from suppression by the government in Tallinn, would NATO then attack Russia, pursuant to Article 5?

This introduces the particular role of the US. It is very attached to NATO. It provides its military command and a good deal of the lethal hardware. It conceives of its doctrines. There seems to be a good measure of support for US approaches, as the 2014 NATO Summit in Wales showed, from the UK and the newer, smaller, apparently more insecure States members, but a smaller degree of enthusiasm for its doings from France, for example.

Finland, which remained neutral during the Cold War, is now undergoing a lively debate on whether it should join NATO, in the light of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its pattern of military incursions in the Baltic space. Were it to join NATO, the Alliance would again move closer to Russia’s borders.

The relevant point in the present context is, what does Russia think and calculate about this Atlanticist structure? At least one point is clear: As long as this hostile Troika exists, aimed at Russia; the US having withdrawn from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, and refusing to postpone further anti- missile system development, Russia calculates that it will need to maintain an effective array of nuclear weapons, targeted at both Western Europe and the US.

The issue of nuclear weapons is a serious, yet under discussed aspect, of the current stand-off between Russia and the West. The facts are that in violation of policy undertakings and Treaty obligations, both the US and Russia, during the last year have: authorized new nuclear weapons development/renewal, involving massive expenditures and, Treaty obligations for critical nuclear material management, inspections, and missile testing, have been broken.

A NEW WORLD ORDER AND GOVERNANCE?

What are the elements of a new world order or system of governance that Russia appears to want to see replace the present system?

The obvious first priority would be a reduction in the role played by the US. This is, of course, almost exclusively in the hands of the US and it’s very difficult to imagine how this could be brought about from outside the US. The only way the US would moderate its behavior, listen more to others, share authority and decision making, would be if it came to the conclusion, from within, that such action would be in the best interests of the US. Everything we witness from the current state of the US polity, points in precisely the opposite direction.

It could be said of Russia that it is in something of a symmetrical position, especially given the extent to which Putin has played upon nationalist and traditional sentiments within Russia. But there is a difference and it could be important.

What needs to be examined is precisely how much of the current system Russia wants to revise. Its detractors in the US charge that it wants the lot, to dominate, but this would appear to be hyperbole.

What President Putin has said is:

“ The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasize this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected”. (5)

Statements of a general character, such as this one, are only illuminating to a limited degree. But, it is important that it has been made and can serve as a basis for testing what can be achieved, practically.

For example a key instrument for global governance, in the vital area of peace and security, is the UN Security Council. The community of nations overwhelmingly believes it needs reform. Given the rules of the Charter this cannot happen without the consent of its five permanent members. In practice, this can be narrowed, or at least in the first instance started off by the US and Russia indicating that they are open to change.

That reform has two obvious parts: the constituency is too small and does not reflect the post-colonial and now post Cold War world. A new composition of the membership is needed to make it representative of the contemporary and foreseeable world.  A new decision making methodology is also needed: should there be vetoes, if so, which States should hold them, in what circumstances should they be able to be used?

Perhaps President Putin had something innovative in mind when he said in October 2013;

“ In the light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in the uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy or somebody’s complete domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence.” (6)

On the other hand, in his Op-Ed in the New York Times in September 2013, President Putin referred to the Security Council in terms supportive of its present configuration:

“ The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades”. (7)

This is not the position of a person who wants to change the system. Instead it suggests that President Putin is, in fact, not as much concerned about the need to establish systems of governance and cooperation amongst nations that are fit for the purposes of the modern world, but rather that he would simply prefer better outcomes for Russia from the existing system.

He would hardly be alone in such pragmatic thinking; indeed many argue that pragmatism is a good guide. A corollary of this is that Russia’s interests should be addressed pragmatically, not ideologically.

What is glaringly absent from the view Putin expressed in this Op-Ed is the fact that all of the permanent members of the Security Council, including the USSR/Russia have repeatedly abused the system for their own ends, causing a serious collapse in confidence in the system itself. It is this behavior, which a clear majority of Member States of the UN believe, needs to change.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. Twenty five years after the end of the Cold War, President Putin says he is convinced that the systems under which international relations and global governance are conducted today, harm and inadequately respect Russia.

2. He rejects forcefully the triumphalism the US expresses for having “won” the Cold War. In particular, he rejects, indeed seems repulsed by, the notion that the US is the “exceptional country” and what is implied by that notion, particularly, that international law and rules do not apply to the US.

3. Russia feels threatened by the policies and actions of the Atlanticist institutions: US/EU/NATO. The promises made by them have been serially broken and always in directions that have been regarded as hostile to Russia.

4. Russia will pursue vigorously the establishment of a new set of political and economic relationships, principally in the East, to the exclusion of the West. President Putin does not seem to have anxieties about what some have called an emerging Pax Sinica, in replacement of the reviled Pax Americana. These relationships will have an almost immediate political effect but they will be slow in delivering prosperity.

5. The Russian economy faces major challenges, particularly given its demographic profile. These challenges are being substantially expanded as a consequence of the sanctions currently applying to Russia and the sharp drop in the price of oil and the devaluation of the Ruble. The question of how Russia will work through these circumstances, without recourse to international conflict, is a crucial one.

6. Russia claims it wants to see a revision of the system and framework for the conduct of international relations, which will be fairer and establish a new degree of interdependence. At this stage this is a rhetorical claim, not yet given substance.

7. It is important to note that much of President Putin’s stated concerns are rejectionist – a list of the things of which Russia disapproves and will not accept. There have been few if any concrete, positive, new proposals by Russia.

8. A solution to the Ukraine problem is likely to be found, without major war, because that would be too costly and not provide a solution. But, it will not be found without a respectful consideration of Russia’s interests.

9. If the Russian economy descends into significant hardship and loss, and if this leads to an increase in xenophobic nationalism within Russia, the possibility of recourse to war, for example in Ukraine and Russia’s “near abroad” will grow.

10. As long as nuclear weapons exist, great care needs to be exercised in threatening the use of force. Neither the US nor Russia have been clear enough about this in the recent period and, indeed, their actions in strengthening and expanding their nuclear weapons systems should be a cause for serious concern.

Notes: 

(1) V Putin: Valdai Speech, Sochi, October 25^th, 2014.

(2) V Putin, Op cit.

(3) V Putin: New York Times, September 11^th, 2013.

(4) Ivan Timofeev: World Order or Anarchy, Working Paper 18/24, Russian International Affairs Council, October 2014.

(5) V Putin, Op Cit.

(6) V Putin, Op Cit.

(7) V Putin, New York Times, September 11^th, 2013.

Richard Butler AC is a former Australian Ambassador to the UN and now distinguished scholar, International Peace and Security at Penn State University.

 

 

I posted the following blog ‘Will we ever learn?’ on 27 October this year. Amongst other things it highlighted the domestic risks that would result from the Abbott Government’s decision to join the war in Iraq and Syria.

Keysar Trad from the Islamic Friendship Association has today  described the hostage taker and killer as a ‘nutter’.It is also clear that there were numerous warning signs in the previous  behaviour of the attacker,

John Menadue.

The Coalition and conservative commentators have told us for years that international action by Australia in taking the lead on climate change would only be symbolic and would not really have any effect.

But the Abbott Government has stood this argument on its head by urging and agreeing to join the war in Iraq and Syria. Our participation in this war will be militarily insignificant and symbolic– eight fighter jets, four support aircraft and 200 Special Forces. Our involvement won’t have any strategic effect. But the government wants to be seen to be ‘doing something’ .Whilst it may pay short term political dividends, it will not work in the longer term.

With our symbolic act of joining in the war against IS we are making Australia less secure despite what Tony Abbott says. It is clear from opinion polling that Australians believe that our involvement in Iraq and Syria will make us more prone to attacks at home. The Canadians are experiencing that right now with social misfits and publicity seekers trying to make heroes of themselves. We are being bated into the use of more and more force against IS

When intelligence officials and police are allowed to tell us openly what they believe, they tell us that we will be more vulnerable. The Chilcott Enquiry in the UK was told by the Head of MI5 that UK participation in the Iraq War substantially increased the threat of terrorism in the UK. A former head of the AFP in Australia told us several years ago that we faced the same risk because of our involvement in Iraq.

We have been told many times that our security and economic future is in cooperation with our region. We have endorsed the US ‘pivot to Asia’, but now we are pivoting back to the Middle East again. Two of our key associates in regional cooperation and security are Indonesia and Malaysia. Neither of them or indeed any other significant countries in our region are committing their military against IS.

Julie Bishop has now announced that we are to deploy 200 Special Forces to advise and assist the Iraqi military. She chooses to disregard the fact that the US spent billions of dollars to train the Iraqi army, but because of the sectarianism of the Iraqi Government, the Iraqi military collapsed and ran away from ISIS, abandoning its US supplied equipment? How absurd is it to think that our 200 Special Forces will make any difference.  But some people feel good, by ‘doing something’.

The government is hoping, as Hugh White has said, that there will be a good, cheap and successful war against ISIS. But all the evidence is against that hope.

• The US and other air forces will soon run out of targets. After three weeks of the air war in Afghanistan, former Secretary Rumsfeld said that the US air force had run out of targets. The RAAF may already be finding this out.
• As Malcolm Fraser has pointed out, without a ground force and an end point, the war against IS will be a farce.
• Allied forces in Iraq and Syria will only be there for the short term, but IS, in whatever form, will always be there.
• In Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, together with our allies, we started the escalation with military advisers, then bombing, and then limited ground forces and then large-scale ground forces. It will be the same again as our intervention flounders.
• Foreign involvement in civil and sectarian wars never works. In the end ‘success’ depends on the motivation of the participants in the conflict.
• The countries and groupings in the Middle East are a maelstrom of religion, ideology and tribal groups. We are taking sides in a constantly changing and complex political, sectarian and ethnic struggle. Hezbollah, the Kurds and the Assad regime were believed to be the ‘baddies’. Now it seems that they are the ‘goodies’ in opposing IS. Iran may yet turn out to be on the side of the ‘goodies’.
• Tony Abbott has said that IS is an ‘existential threat to Australia’. Does he seriously think that IS represents a threat to our survival? If such a threat exists, why don’t nearby countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and the Emirates join in a united front to oppose IS? Yet night after night we see Turkish tanks sitting on the hill side outside Kobari and refusing to intervene against IS.
• We are appalled when we see public executions by IS fighters, but we  turn a blind eye when US drones directed from CIA headquarters in Langley direct hellfire missiles and kill scores of citizens at wedding celebrations in Yemen and Afghanistan. We ignore our own ferocious violence.

Conservative governments have led us to our three most recent debacles in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan – and they still keep repeating their mistakes. Will we ever learn?

Until the leaders and the people of the Middle East address their own domestic and regional problems our intervention will only make things worse.

There has been a history of Western intervention in the Middle East – colonisation, supporting authoritarian rulers, military occupation and exploitation of Middle Eastern land and resources such as oil. The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Mosaddegh government of Iran in 1953, for the benefit of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company, now BP.

When will we ever learn?

From what we are feeling

Will we ever learn?

As sorrows deepen.

In the Washington Post on November 25, Katrina vanden Heuvel had a very interesting article on the mistakes that Europe, NATO, and the US have made in their approach to Russia over the Ukraine and Crimea. She quotes Henry Kissinger as saying ‘Nobody in the West has offered a concrete program to restore Crimea. Nobody is willing to fight over Eastern Ukraine. That’s a fact of life.’  Kissinger has said that the West might weigh its real security concerns before posturing and escalation over Ukraine.

Even far away Australia has been posturing over Ukraine. In one of his more bellicose moments, and as a way of shirt-fronting Vladimir Putin, Tony Abbott suggested that Australia might send 1,000 Australian  troops to secure the crash site in Eastern Ukraine!  The link to this article is below.  John Menadue

http://wapo.st/11sAUyu

In diplomacy, sometimes a nod is as good as a wink. You can argue later over the question of who nodded first (if at all). The leaders of Japan and China are maneuvering towards their first face-to-face meeting after two years of chilly and occasionally belligerent relations. To enable the meeting to happen officials on both sides have been engaged in a tortuous diplomacy of the nod/wink kind.

The Japanese have a word, nemawashi, which loosely translates as ‘spade work’. They are masters at the patient, protracted negotiations––and accompanying softening up process––necessary to bring off a business deal, public works project or diplomatic coup. Their obvious equals in this are the Chinese.

Two years ago, the centre-left government of Yoshihiko Noda, jammed in a wedge by right-wing agitators, took the fateful decision to nationalize several islands in the Senkaku group, close to Taiwan, which have been administered by Japan for most of the past 120 years. This, as far as China was concerned, changed the status quo in the two countries’ management of their territorial dispute over the islands.

The Communist Party gave the green light for widespread protests in China, which sometimes turned violent: Japanese business premises were attacked, trade flows declined sharply and Chinese tourists stopped visiting Japan. When Chinese military vessels and aircraft started aggressively intruding into the sea and airspace around the islands, and Beijing unilaterally declared an exclusion zone in the East China Sea, it seemed possible that a military conflict might be triggered.

The replacement of the Noda administration by the conservative LDP-led government of Shinzo Abe in December 2012 only sharpened the conflict. Abe adopted a hardline ‘no recognition’ policy towards China’s claim to the Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands and deployed additional military resources to defend Japan’s interests.

Though the risk of an ‘accidental’ clash remained real, this writer never believed a military conflict was imminent, for several reasons. First, it was not in Japan’s interest to start one. Secondly, China knew that its naval power, at this stage, was not sufficient to be assured of victory. Thirdly, the Chinese economy is going through a delicate transition to a lower pattern of growth and would be vulnerable to any shocks flowing from a military clash with Japan. Finally, the Senkaku/Diaoyu issue is essentially about muscle flexing; the islands have little intrinsic value. In an exercise of muscle flexing, the idea is to display your biceps and triceps without actually lift the weights. This goes for both Abe and China’s President Xi Jinping.

Diplomacy, rather than war, always held out the best solution for both sides: hence the months of backroom meetings aimed at achieving a result that allows both to maintain face. The APEC leaders forum, which kicks off in Beijing tomorrow (Monday), is the obvious occasion for a first tête-a-tête between Abe and Xi. It’s not a guaranteed success, but it seems likely that it will mark the start of a new modus operandi for managing the territorial dispute.

The fact that the meeting will happen in China satisfies Beijing: ‘Japan came to us’. The formula to be adopted, according to reports, is that both sides will ‘agree to disagree’ over which has sovereignty over the islands. This would satisfy Tokyo by falling short of an open admission that China has a claim to the islands. The two leaders are also expected to endorse the work of officials, undertaken during the past year, to put in place a conflict-resolution protocol for de-escalating situations that could give rise to a military clash.

The presence of a great number of coast guard and military vessels from the two nations, not to mention their competing fishing fleets, in the crowded East China Sea has been causing alarm in the neighbourhood and beyond. If Japan and China can agree on a better way to manage the consequences of their dispute, even if they cannot resolve it fundamentally, much will have been achieved.

The other concession sought by China is that Abe should stop making visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, a symbol of Japan’s wartime aggression, and do more to acknowledge the nation’s past mistakes.

On these issues, the diplomats will have been throwing out their most delicate nods/winks. But remember, the horse is blind. Abe almost certainly will not publically abandon his prerogative to visit Yasukuni––but having stayed away during the recent autumn visiting ‘season’, he may already have sufficiently signaled his intention to tread carefully. (Other members of his Cabinet, however, have continued to visit the shrine where 14 convicted Class ‘A’ war criminals are commemorated among the 2.5 million war dead whose spirits are enshrined there.)

Whether the two leaders can bring to their talks anything constructive on the vexed issue of historical accountability is very unlikely. The meeting, in fact, may prove little more than a handshake and a photo opportunity: the first step on a long and difficult road back to a saner future.

Walter Hamilton reported from Japan for the ABC for eleven years.

 

 

 

 

In my blog of 20 October ‘It is becoming much easier to go to war’ I highlighted the reasons and the background  to developments since the Vietnam War that are making it much more likely that we will commit ourselves to war. 

In an earlier posting of March 23 – see below –  I carried an interview with Hugh White.

We are venturing into very dangerous territory. John Menadue

Repost

In this interview in November 2013 and related articles, Dr David Stephens of Honest History has drawn together comments by Hugh White on ‘Australians and war’.

Hugh White is professor of Strategic Studies at the ANU and a former senior public servant in the Department of Defence. He considers several themes about Australians and war.

• How ‘soft’ wars have made Australians more bellicose.
• How the perceived need to preserve the American alliance makes most wars acceptable in Australia.
• How Australians are reluctant to focus on the purpose of war.
• How Australians celebrate the experience of war while downplaying the reasons for particular wars; the centrality of Anzac.
• How romanticising war makes future wars more likely.
• How these chickens might all come home to roost in the East China Sea in the not too distant future.

The link for this interview can be found at:

 http://www.honesthistory.net.au/wp/stephens-david-hugh-white-on-australians-and-war/  and click on 188 Hugh White on Australians and War.

Honest History (honesthistory.net.au) is a coalition of historians and others supporting the balanced and honest presentation and use of Australian history during the centenary of WWI.

In September 1892, the headline ‘The Hobart Mercury warns the Tsar’ did not threaten Russia sufficiently to attract a response or change its belligerent behaviour. I don’t think the Tsar thought it necessary to respond to people who have an exaggerated view of their own importance

The Hobart Mercury over-reached itself. Australian Prime Ministers, particularly when they need a diversion from domestic issues, often do the same. There has been a lot of beating the drums of war and macho posturing lately. Perhaps we will soon see Putin-esque photos of a shirtless rider on his bare-backed horse.

Despite all the international posturing what has really been achieved?

• MH350 has still not been found, despite the Prime Minister telling us months ago that we had almost certainly found the black box. We have now decided to fund and contract out the further search for MH350. Why?
• We projected ourselves quite naturally into the recovery of MH17, but it was the Malaysian Government and not the European governments that really delivered for us in the removal of 200 bodies by train and the retrieval of the black boxes. Thanking the Malaysians has been an afterthought.
• We sent the AFP to Ukraine and the Netherlands to secure the crash site. They failed and had to be withdrawn.
• We have become an ‘enhanced party’ in NATO.  What national interest is there in that?
• By siding so deliberately with Japan in its dispute with China we have antagonised China, our ally in WW2
• Now we seem exceptionally eager to commit Hornet aircraft to the war against IS in Iraq.  We don’t seem to learn from our mistakes and Tony Abbott now suggests that the failure of the Western involvement in Iraq from 2003 was the prosecution of the war rather than its flawed policy in the first place.

 

As in the Hobart Mercury in 1892, our over-reach in foreign policy has led to extremist language. The Prime Minister has described the Islamic State (IS) as a ‘death cult’ and please ‘we should not give credence to people who are pure evil, pure evil’.  He added ‘people have been radicalised and brutalised through contact with this death cult’. He added further ‘this mob, as soon as they have done something gruesome and ghastly and unspeakable, they are advertising it on the internet’.

Nothing could justify the barbarism that we have seen from IS in Northern Iraq, but Muslims would remember, even if Tony Abbott does not, the centuries of barbarism against Muslims.

• In 1099 the first Christian crusaders stood ‘knee deep in blood’ of Muslims and Jews after the capture of Jerusalem.
• The Muslim expulsion from Andalusia.
• Tens of thousands of Muslim women were raped in Bosnia 20 years ago
• We stood aside in 1995 from the massacre of Muslim men in Srebrenica.
• Ethnic cleansing went on in Bosnia for years before the West intervened.
• We cooperated in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which George Bush called the new crusade. It resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and the break-up of their country which has helped spawn IS.
• More recently have we really expressed sympathy for the death of over 2,000 Palestinians, mainly civilians in Gaza? Israelis, yes. But Palestinians!
• CIA officers in control rooms in Langley, press buttons for predator drones to kill insurgents and many civilians in Pakistan and Yemen. There is no blood on their hands like we have seen on the hands of IS killers. But is mechanised killing OK?
• We did nothing for years about our good friends in Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries who funded the Sunni rebels.
• For the best part of a century foreign companies have exploited the vast oil resources of the Middle East.
• We have been invited to join ‘team Australia’ but many Muslims feel it is directed against  them and  casts doubts on their patriotism

We should not be surprised that some young Muslim men have been radicalised. In 2004 after the train bombing in Madrid the Commissioner of the AFP warned us and said ‘If this turns out to be Islamic extremists responsible for this bombing in Spain, it’s more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq’.

To avoid responsibility for the response of young Muslim men, John Howard and now Tony Abbott are repeating at almost every opportunity that ‘would-be terrorists don’t hate us for what we do but for who we are and how we live’. What tosh. They will judge us by our actions…what we do.

Some young Muslim men are responding to the humiliation of centuries in unacceptable brutality. Yet when ethnic cleansing of Christians and Yaziidis occurred in Iraq and when American hostages were murdered in Syria, our response was immediate.

Where is our even-handedness in resisting violence and injustice in all its forms against all people? It is time our leaders looked at the history of foreign intervention in the Middle East and the great injustice that has been done. We are now reaping the harvest of what we have sown.

Overreach, like the Hobart Mercury’s posturing 120 years, ago is not serving us well.