(Another) Golden moment for the EU

On June 25, 1991, Croatia and Slovenia declared independence from Yugoslavia. The world watched in anticipation, knowing that war in the Balkans could easily spread across the region - as it had in the past. Only four days later, leaders from the European Community (soon to be called European Union) dispatched a "troika" of foreign ministers to sort out the situation. It was a golden moment: Europe was going to solve its own problem; no need for the United States, no need for the United Nations.

But the EU failed to secure a lasting truce.

As war began in Balkans, neither Europe alone nor the UN could bring about a cease-fire. It was Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, and - of course - Uncle Sam that finally got a real treaty signed - in Dayton, Ohio.

Today, in Lebanon, the EU faces an opportunity similar to the one in 1991.

The United States, while it has Israel's ear, has had its welcome mat all but yanked out from under it in Lebanon. Furthermore, U.S. troops have never been an option as part of the possible peacekeeping force. Even a NATO force without U.S. soldiers wouldn't be permitted in Lebanon, because of America's leading role in the alliance.

The EU could seize this chance, and offer their own troops - perhaps the Rapid Reaction Force - as the force worthy of a UN mandate, and the only one willing and able to keep the peace. The the EU would then have a solid card to hold up as they work with Lebanese and Israeli governments to secure a cease-fire. Without the card of "this is the military might we wield," negotiators don't have much to offer.

If not the RRF, EU leadership - within the institutions of the EU, not through bilateral discussions - could work to delegate peacekeeping authority to several member states. This would be a great chance for Italy, Spain, Poland, and other states that sent troops to Iraq to stay relevant in security circles.

Of course, all of this depends on the willingness of Israel and Hezbollah to allow a peacekeeping force between them. But having a specific troops waiting on deck could greatly increase the propensity of the parties to discussions, and then accelerate those discussions.

Bosnia didn't see peace in the 1990s until negotiators realized U.S. and other troops would be willing to step in and maintain the peace after a treaty. Now, the U.S. might be the impotent negotiator, and the EU might be the third party with both the neutrality and the troops necessary to bring a halt to the violence.

Will this golden moment be wasted, as another was in 1991?

Update: Apparently the EU read my post. The foreign ministers for all 25 countries (as the Council of the European Union) put out a joint statement, demanding an "immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire." Common foreign policy can be quite difficult for EU states to achieve - see the Iraq war - so this is a feat. The EU made a sensible common foreign policy statement, one different than that of the United States.

One problem, though, is that 21 of the states wanted to call for an "immediate ceasefire," but diplomats from Britain, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland wouldn't stray so far from U.S policy, according to Reuters.

Immigration showdown... in Cincinnati

Cincinnati, for some reason, has become a bit of a hotspot in the War on Illegal Aliens. The front of nytimes.com has two stories on the issue: one story about how employers are now being punished, as major companies are hiring contractors that seem to only supply illegal immigrants; and another story about a tough-on-illegals sheriff just outside the city.

Why Cincinnati?

My opinion is that just as immigration was becoming a national issue, Cincinnati noticed its brand-new Hispanic population. Larger cities, and areas further to the south, have had legal and illegal Hispanic immigrants for decades, while Cincy's Hispanic population just started booming in the late 90s.

Numbers:

Greater Cincinnati's Hispanic population more than doubled in 10 years, increasing 136 percent from 1990-2000, from 9,456 to 22,303. But of course, illegal immigrants are usually not counted in the Census. According to one study, there are as many as 58,000 Hispanics in the area.

Norad leaves the mountain

The threat of all-out nuclear war just isn't there these days, I suppose. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad) is moving most of its operations out of the underground lair in Colorado, according to this New York Times article and this Washington Post article. Most personnel will move into nearby (above-ground) buildings.

Russia and China still most likely have the capability of reaching us, so it's good the mountain's command center - 2,400 feet underground - isn't being sealed up. Some personnel will still stay there, although it ain't the same as the old days.

The bunker mentality was a significant part of the Cold War, at least as it was reflected in literature and film. Herman Kahn started it all, I believe, and was later the person on whom the character "Dr. Strangelove" was based. Kahn was a nuclear strategist who worked at RAND.

A little history, from the Norad website:

In 1956, the idea of a hardened command and control center was conceptualized as a defense against Soviet bombers. The Cheyenne Mountain Complex became completely operational April 20, 1966. The Army Corps of Engineers supervised the excavation and construction, using 1.5 million pounds of dynamite to excavate approximately 700,000 tons of granite.

For the engineers:

The actual operations complex is a series of 15 buildings, 12 of which are three stories tall. The entire operations complex is mounted on 1,319 springs, each weighing 1,000 pounds, that allow the complex to sway up to 12 inches horizontally in any direction. The tunnel structure is reinforced by 110,000 rock bolts six to 32 feet in length that function like molly bolts, pushing outward on the walls to prevent implosion or cave-in. The two main blast doors are 25 tons, 3½-feet-thick baffled steel.

Anyway, some images Hollywood has drawn from the famous Norad location:


"Dr. Strangelove," 1964. However: the "war room" shown here is almost certainly not meant to represent Norad. The war room is similar to a facilities in Virginia and West Virginia, which are proximate to D.C and meant to house VIPs during an attack. But the characters do extensively discuss underground bunkers and surviving nuclear holocaust.

This movie really opened many Americans' eyes to the realities of nuclear war. It also made the concept funny, which might have led many to dismiss those who discussed nuclar combat as paranoid right-wingers. This is unfortunate.


"WarGames," 1983. Kid (Matthew Broderick) hacks into Norad's mainframe.


"Spies Like Us," 1985. Key elements of set: multiple phones, including a Red Phone - obviously a direct line either to Moscow or the White House; chess board - they're in for a long stay; blinking lights in background - huge mainframe present; Air Force guy in background - mostly an Air Fore operation, though all four branches and some Canadians work at Norad.

The best part is how Chevy Chase and Dan Akroyd access the bunker. Unlike Norad's 3-foot-thick doors in the side of the mountain, this bunker is entered by ordering a Pepsi in an abandoned drive-in theater. The floor then turns into an elevator, shooting down multiple floors.


"Deep Impact," 1998. Ok, this has even less to do with Norad, and more to do with the survival bunkers described in "Dr. Strangelove." One could say it's directly taken from that film: elites, and some random people, are put into bunkers while the masses await certain death. "Deep Impact" was about a comet, though. Overall, a pretty boring movie. Except for the prospect of global annihilation.

Fun fact: Every Christmas, Norad tracks Santa.

Lebanon as a test for NATO vs. EU

It's possible a multinational force will be called into southern Lebanon, but who should be part of said force? Israel has said it wants troops with "military capabilities and combat experience," but perhaps they'd settle for a force that has trained for combat - as opposed to simply peacekeeping. Either way, this rules out a typical U.N. crew.

Who can do it?

This could be a chance for NATO to further solidify its minted-in-Afghanistan reputation as an organization that is not only needed after the Cold War, but outside of Europe. NATO has taken care of business in Kosovo and now Afghanistan, but it's going to have to keep proving its relevance as critics continue to question it. The alliance says it's stretched too thin, so it would have to dig deep for this mission.

The bloc that truly has something to prove is the European Union. Its Rapid Reaction Force wouldn't be suitable for what looks to be a lengthy stay, but Lebanon would be a fantastic opportunity to show the world that the EU actually has a Common Foreign and Security Policy. All 25 states' representatives could meet, decide to send Polish troops, and that would still show more cohesion than Poland (or wherever) sending troops on its own or through the U.N. or NATO. A contingent involving more states would of course be preferable.

The EU has shown its economic prowess, as a bigger market than either the U.S. or Japan, and its economic muscle, blocking U.S. mergers and fining Microsoft. But power still involves military might. The EU has gone out of its way to argue that its CFSP exists to compliment NATO, not replace it. Well, now's the chance to compliment NATO's overstretched forces.

Is either organization up to the challenge?

Suez Canal crisis: 50 years ago, yet echos today in Lebanon

Tomorrow, July 26, marks 50 years since the day Gamal Abdel Nasser announced his intention for Egypt to nationalize the Suez Canal. The British and French aligned with Israel to fight for control of the canal - and left the United States out of the loop. The European plan failed miserably, and is generally regarded as the last thrash of the dying British Empire. (Good BBC account here.)

In the years since, and certainly during my lifetime, Britain and France haven't considered military involvement with or near Israel - those days are over.

Or are they?

There's actually no plan for military alliance; it would be quite incorrect to suggest European troops would be shelling Hezbollah. The EU, unlike the United States, has called for Israel to cease firing. But for the first time in quite a while (ever?) Israel has said a NATO force in Lebanon - and not the IDF - might be the best solution. And the EU's high representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana, says it's a real possibility, and that "several member states of the European Union will be ready to provide all necessary assistance." (Not "EU troops," of course.)

It seems Solana is trying to make the EU the 911 force of the region. He says NATO would be too identified with the United States - and hence, Iraq. So obviously, according to his logic, EU states are the right ones for the job.

As soon as a state volunteers its forces.

Things are certainly not settled yet. The NY Times has an excellent article on the question of which countries would actually send troops into the conflict zone. Many states want to help, but not many want to be directly in the middle:

“All the politicians are saying, ‘Great, great’ to the idea of a force, but no one is saying whose soldiers will be on the ground,” said one senior European official. “Everyone will volunteer to be in charge of the logistics in Cyprus.”

Another tricky part is that Israel would want the force to disarm Hezbollah, and who else in Lebanon (not to mention the greater Middle East) would support that? Israel says it wants combat-experienced troops, not just "peacekeepers." This is not-so-subtle code words for "No blue helmets, thanks."

Side note/Different tangent: NATO also wants to be involved, and even Turkey has said it would contribute troops. This could be seen as evidence for one of two arguments that one could make: Militant Islam has saved "The West" and/or Militant Islam has saved NATO.

'Progressive realism' in Iraq and in the future

Another attempt to merge realism with idealism/liberalism:

The NY Times has an article by Robert Wright, wherein he suggests that "progressive realism" is the philosophy that liberals might want to try out, now that internvention in Iraq hasn't turned out too well. We still want to save the world, he writes, but we need to be a bit more... realistic... about it.

That's quite a bit down the road from realism in the IR sense, but Wright isn't the first to attempt such a move. As Daniel Drezner points out, Francis Fukuyama - a former neoconservative - outlined a similar foreign policy outlook in his latest book, published earlier this year. Fukuyama, however, preferred to term his concept "realistic Wilsonianism."

Basically, progressive realism comes down to adding morals to realism, while realistic Wilsonianism could be described as constraining morals with some realism. The degree one wants to be moral, or to exercise realism, is hard to quantify, so it all pretty much becomes gray area. Each crisis must be evaluated on the basis of its own unique circumstances.

The bumper-sticker titles suggested for the two perspectives sound appealing, but they are actually rather vague. They will need to be defined further before people can gather under the respective banners and actually agree on a course of action for a specific situation.

What does seem certain, though, is that neoconservative foreign policy seems to be behind us. For the latest evidence, check out what Larry Diamond at Foreignaffairs.org - who worked in the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004 - has to say. (Note: Diamond is not new to criticizing the administration's execution of the war, but his comments do underscore how difficult the nation-building exercise has become.)

It is hard for me to remember a time when I have felt that the United States was so hopelessly, brutally, and thoroughly trapped in a thankless policy. However, since despair is not a policy option, we are compelled to continue the search for practical options.

Also, for the record, Foreign Affairs' entire roundtable seems to agree that Iraq is in some form fo civil war. And they started discussions before this report was released - the United Nations reporting more than 3,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in June.

End note: I realized I got off subject toward the end, veering quite away from realism vs. idealism. And no, neoconservatism is not the same as idealism, just as realism is usually not isolationism. But it is important to see how real-world foreign policy shifts match up with the speculation of academics.

'You think you're Mickey Spillane?'

When I heard the name Mickey Spillane today, I knew I had heard it somewhere. I knew it.

The internet, namely this Wikiquote page, led me to this "Full Metal Jacket" conversation:

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Forty-two twelve, basic military journalism. You gotta be shitting me! You think you're Mickey Spillane? You think you're some kind of fucking writer?
Private Joker: Sir, I wrote for my high-school newspaper, sir!
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Jesus H. Christ, Joker! You're not a writer, you're a killer!
Private Joker: A killer, yes sir!

Apparently Mickey Spillane was a writer of cop novels, and a particularly non-PC one - his protagonist was killing bad guys in the style of "Dirty Harry" and "Death Wish" in the early 1950s. It makes sense that author Gustav Hasford would have the tough drill instructor (immortalized by R. Lee Ermey) cite Spillane as a writer that a person would aspire to emulate.

I can just imagine the drill instructor curled up in his bunk with a paperback of Spillane's.

Anyway, Spillane died a few days ago.

Meanwhile, in Kentucky...

A Kentucky state senator said he doesn't support health benefits for domestic partners - presumably same-sex couples - because he doesn't want to "entice any of those people into our state." He then said, "Those are the wrong kind of people."

The next day, he referred to Log Cabin Republicans as "a bunch of queers."

Stay classy, Kentucky.

Actual surprises in the Middle East... maybe Newt Gingrich is wrong

While some things in the Middle East seem to never change, there were recently two significant turns of events in the region, as reported by the New York Times:

1. Sectarian violence has gotten so bad in Iraq that the Sunnis want U.S. troops to stay.
2. Some Arab states denounce Hezbollah's actions.

The latter, I think, is quite huge. On one hand, it simply shows the diversity of Southwest Asia, and reminds us of the rifts that often occur between Persians and Arabs. It is not a region one can paint with a single brush, despite some common enemies and a mostly common religion. (Of course, Syrians are generally not Persians, but the article indicates the Gulf/Arab states are worried about Iranian influence.) On the other hand, as the article says, it is quite rare for Arab states to criticize anyone who is fighting Israel.

A caveat is that the leadership of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and several Persian Gulf states may have criticized Hezbollah, but we know that leaders of those countries do not always speak for the majority. Still, it's nice to see discussion and divergent points of view.

Perhaps we're not on the way to World War III, as Newt Gingrich explicity said we are.

Note: Gingrich encourages Republicans to adopt a similar stance - because he says the party will benefit from the perception that we're in a third World War.

Israel's Lebanon incursion

The IDF's advance into Lebanon after two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah is certainly not the first example of cross-border hostilities between the states. Hezbollah has long been a dominant force in southern Lebanon, firing rockets into Israel, and the Israeli occupation force returned home only six years ago. The 1980s, of course, saw a war between the two countries, and Israel began its occupation before that decade ended.

But what does today's incursion say about the value of state borders, and the gravity of Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits states from infringing upon the territorial integrity of other states? Granted, Israel would surely invoke Article 51, which guarantees a right to self defense. Hezbollah is not the Lebanese military, but it does have seats in the Lebanese Parliament. So perhaps Israel's attack, including the destruction of a few bridges, is justified.

But it's still messy.

It reminds me of the U.S. Army's campaign into Mexico to get Pancho Villa in 1916 and 1917. We have a litte border violence today, but less than 100 years ago, hundreds of Americans were killed by Villa's men, and 75,000 National Guard troops were dispatched to the border. (The regular U.S. cavalry was there as well, including a young lieutenant named George S. Patton.) In comparison, President Bush's current plan to send 6,000 troops to the same area seems pretty tame.

Of course, the United Nations wasn't around in 1916 to be concerned about Mexico's territorial integrity, but then-President Wilson did ask Mexico for permission before we sent troops in. Agreement was reluctant, but it was agreement.

V. Putin as 'very Western'?

A little gem appears in the NY Times piece about Larry King's interview of George and Laura Bush. King apparently described Vladimir Putin as "very Western," and Laura Bush "politely set Mr. King straight," the reporter writes. Mrs. Bush's interjection:

"Well, I don't know if I would say that. I think he's very Russian. But I like him a lot."

Very Russian, that's a good way to put it! The first lady is as sharp as a tack.

Here's a link to the story, which will probably remain accessible until Bastille Day.

How much do you know about Finland?

The BBC has a pretty sweet quiz up about Finland. It's worth doing to be reminded of Berlusconi's comment about national food.

Finland is getting ready to begin its year of EU presidency.

U.S.-Canadian cooperation on border control... sovereignty issue?

While Mexican and U.S. border agents keep their distance, the Americans and Canadians have been conducting joint operations, according to the Washington Post. And the intermingling is only increasing. Because of concern about seeming sovereignty issues with the joint ops, though, the countries use the term "parallel investigations."

The article is framed in a manner to highlight the differences between border control operations on the southern and northern U.S. borders, and there are many: The southern border's 1,900 miles is patrolled by 10,200 U.S. agents, but the 4,000 miles of northern border is monitored by 950 American agents.

Putting Mexico to the side, though, the descriptions of U.S.-Canadian cooperation sounds a little like European Union integration:

From the article:

Five years ago, only Canadians worked at the Mounted Police headquarters in Ottawa, said Joe Oliver, a Canadian police superintendent. Now, Americans representing four agencies are based there, he said, adding that cooperation is "pervasive."

Just a few years ago, cross-border law enforcement cooperation was difficult and ad hoc. "You could get punished for improper disclosure to a foreign country," said Roy Hoffman, who runs the Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation in Blaine. "You used to need a friend on the other side to work a case together with you. Now it's ingrained behavior."

Gradual integration by lower institutions, instead of forced cooperation from above? Ernst B. Haas wrote a bit about that.

Europe, of course, is a whole different matter. Ever since the Shengen Agreement, enacted into law in 1995, treaty signatories have had to think about shared concern over borders. (The Shengen Agreement is more commonly known as the one that eliminated border checkpoints at national boundaries.) States in the agreement have joint training, share intelligence, "hot pursuit" laws that allow chase into a neighboring country, etc.

Those things might be in the near future for U.S.-Canadian relations, but down south, all we seem to be heading toward is a bigger wall.

Warren Buffett's kids

The NY Times has an interesting article about the children of the second richest man in the world. There are three of them, and each will inherit "only" about $1 billion, now that Warrenn Buffet gave most of his loot to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And that billion bucks won't come in cash, but will instead go to each child's charitable foundation.

(I've been reading Vonnegut's "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater" again, and it, too, is about the use of a charitable foundation to avoid taxes.)

But the article is a peek into the philanthropy of the very rich (or their families), and it's odd in that it treats the giving of one's money as if it were professional basketball:

"That will propel them, along with a larger foundation named for their late mother, into the top ranks of philanthropy...

The younger Buffetts, given their current interests, could emerge as powerful forces in the areas of early childhood education, safe drinking water and the well-being of Native Americans."

Propelled into the top ranks, eh? Powerful forces? Interesting.

And as far as each child's philanthropic interest, I suppose it's good to have focus.

One other gem - the activities of Buffett's son, Howard:

"He lives ... near an 800-acre farm he owns, and spends much of his time traveling the world to photograph wildlife and poor people."