Ideas
Willy Lam writes: China's ongoing tussles with the United States over issues including Taiwan, Tibet and trade are in a sense nothing new. For more than two decades, Sino-US relations have periodically gone through rough patches over these and related causes of disagreement. What is new is China's much-enhanced global clout in the wake of the world financial crisis, which is coupled with a marked decline in America's hard and soft power. More importantly, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is gunning for a paradigm shift in geopolitics, namely, new rules of the game whereby the fast-rising quasi-superpower will be playing a more forceful role. In particular, Beijing has served notice that it won't be shy about playing hardball to safeguard what it claims to be "core national interests". – Jamestown Foundation
David Ignatius writes: The rise of China is one of the blessed miracles of modern economic history. But Chinese leaders know they cannot repeal the economic laws of gravity. As the economist Herbert Stein observed decades ago, "If something is 'unsustainable,' that means it won't be sustained." That is surely true with the unbalanced, export-led growth that has powered China's ascent…For a country addicted to export-led growth, transitioning to a sustainable economy won't be easy. People who assume that an ever-expanding China will inexorably replace America as the world economic superpower should take a close look at the numbers. – Washington Post
Michael Young writes: Islamist parties have lost momentum throughout the Middle East in recent years. Despite their many differences, all have one problem in common: they offer no persuasive vision for nation-building. In Iraq’s elections last weekend, religious parties lost ground to broad-based “nationalist” lists. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is divided over how to deal with the state. Hamas has failed in its bid at governing, and its crushing of Fatah in Gaza in 2007 created many enemies. Even Hizbollah, arguably the most successful of the Islamist groups, has dangerously antagonised Lebanon’s Sunnis in recent years, while all it offers to the Lebanese is a prospect of incessant conflict with Israel. Handing Hamas a lifeline now is a terrible idea. It would only increase Syrian and Iranian control over the Palestinians at a time when Mr Fayyad is strengthening autonomous state institutions. It would also indicate that Hamas has succeeded, when the movement has, in fact, systematically undercut Palestinian interests. Hamas may eventually have to be brought into peace talks, assuming that Israel ever makes serious territorial concessions. But that should happen only when the movement’s power is greatly diminished, not a moment sooner. – The National
FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly writes: There is a powerful group of disarmament advocates in Washington that has been opposed to missile defense for years and now includes some of the chief proponents of the president’s disarmament agenda. Currently leading this group is missile-defense skeptic Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund, which is bankrolling a media offensive using other organizations — such as the Glover Park Group, Think Progress, and the National Security Network — to advance the administration’s agenda on Capitol Hill and in the press. It seems that “getting to zero” isn’t cheap. Another prominent missile-defense skeptic is Philip E. Coyle, III, a former Pentagon official who has criticized just about every aspect of U.S. missile-defense policy over the last decade. Mr. Coyle has been nominated by President Obama to serve as associate director for National Security and International Affairs in the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House. – The Corner
Ariel Cohen and Owen Graham write: Russian President Dmitri Medvedev traveled to Paris last week for a three-day visit and to launch a new strategic partnership with France. The new Franco-Russian embrace is marked by major arms sales, a space deal, lucrative energy contracts, and greater market access—all under the banner of a blossoming personal relationship between Mr. Medvedev and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. But this rapprochement comes at the price of European security…One can only hope that Mr. Sarkozy will use his apparent leverage to get Moscow on board with tough sanctions on Iran, to counter the dismemberment of Georgia, and to promote Russian rule of law. Paris would also be wise to remember that its gains from Franco-Russian business ties should not come at the expense of European security. That includes the security of France's newest EU brethren, the formerly communist democracies in the East whose adoption of Western ways continues to rankle Moscow. But judging from Paris's warm embrace of Moscow, the future of Russia's expanded clout in Europe has never looked better. – Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required)
Nearly fifty retired four- and three-star generals and flag officers called on Congress [yesterday] to fully fund President Obama’s International Affairs Budget request in a letter released by the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition’s (USGLC) National Security Advisory Council (NSAC). Among the letter’s signatories are the NSAC Co-Chairs, General Michael W. Hagee, USMC (Ret.), Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps (‘03-‘06); and Admiral James M. Loy, USCG (Ret.), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (‘98-’02). “Our military works hand-in-hand with diplomats and development experts in meeting the challenges and responsibilities we face around the world,” said General Hagee. “It is critical that our civilian agencies are properly resourced so they can lead key elements of our national security strategy.”…In the letter, the 48 military leaders say the International Affairs Budget is “a fundamental pillar of U.S. national security and foreign policy.” – US Global Leadership Coalition
James K. Glassman writes: Much of the public diplomacy effort in the past has focused on America's own image, on how Americans are seen by others. But today, in the war of ideas, our core task is not how to fix foreigners' perceptions of the United States but how to isolate and reduce the threat of violent extremism. In other words, it's not about us…A better way to communicate is through the generation of a wide and deep conversation. The U.S. role in that conversation is as facilitator and convener. We generate this conversation in the belief that our views will be heard -- even if U.S. government actors are not always the authors of those views. – Foreign Policy
The State Department plans to create seven new senior positions to ensure that a public-diplomacy perspective is always "incorporated" in policymaking around the world, as well as to respond quickly to negative coverage of the United States in foreign media. In an ambitious strategy that goes beyond any previous efforts to reach out to other countries, the Obama administration "seeks to become woven into the fabric of the daily lives of people" there, its top public-diplomacy official said Wednesday. "We must do a better job of listening, learn how people in other countries and cultures listen to us, understand their desires and aspirations, and provide them with information and services of value to them," said Judith A. McHale, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. Ms. McHale presented the administration's strategy, which emerged from an eight-month review of the government's programs in the field, at a hearing of a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee. She repeatedly used the word "narrative" to describe how the United States is being depicted overseas. "In this information-saturated age, we must do a better job of framing our national narrative. We must become more proactive and less reactive," she said. "Increasingly, our opponents and adversaries are developing sophisticated media strategies to spread disinformation and rumors, which ignite hatred and spur acts of terror and destruction. We must be ever-vigilant and respond rapidly to their attacks against us," she added. – Washington Times
Danielle Pletka writes: Don’t get me wrong: I know the president made some courageous choices in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And while many have caviled at his repeated emphasis on America’s exit from the two theaters, rather than underscoring the importance of victory, these are quibbles. But on the “soft” side that was ballyhooed as this president’s hallmark, things are, well, awful…Too many of these problems can be sourced back to the arrogance of the president and his top advisers. Many of Obama’s foreign policy soldiers are serious, keen, and experienced, but even they are afraid to speak to foreigners, to meet with Congress, or to trespass on the policy making politburo in the White House’s West Wing. Our allies are afraid of American retreat and our enemies are encouraged by that fear. George Bush was excoriated for suggesting that the nations of the world are either with us or against us. But there is something worse than that Manichean simplicity. Barack Obama doesn’t care whether they’re with us or against us. – The Enterprise
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) writes: Trying Guantanamo detainees in America and moving them to US prisons are indefensible and dangerous proposals and must be rejected. The American people have made it abundantly clear that they do not want these detainees in our country in any way, shape or form. And with our nation facing a growing budget deficit, now is not the time to build new super-secure prisons in the United States for al Qaeda terrorists when taxpayers already paid to build one at Guantanamo…President Obama, it is time to listen to the American people and face up to the fact that your Guantanamo decision and your attempt to try terrorist suspects in America were both mistakes. You can't trade one mistake for another. – New York Post
- 1 of 103
- ››
