Americans and their political leaders can have a peculiarly insular view of the world. Candidate debates tend to reflect and emphasize this insularity and often produce vapid, superficial commentary on policy positions that, like so much cotton candy, are sweetness and light and momentarily pleasing. But they rapidly dissipate, leaving behind only a warm and happy and fleeting memory of insubstantiality.
This is bad. Worse, though, is the major print coverage that follows these exercises in unreality. Take, for example, the Democratic debate of January 5, 2008. Here are a few samples from the program to illustrate the point.
Q: Senator Obama . . . it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after it [al Qaeda], whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?
Obama: I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their territory. What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Keaton, the heads of the 9/11 Commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course.
Yet the Kean/Hamilton editorial in the Washington Post also said the following:
--We face a rising tide of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world -- a trend to which our own actions have contributed. The enduring threat is not Osama bin Laden but young Muslims with no jobs and no hope, who are angry with their own governments and increasingly see the United States as an enemy of Islam;
--Four years ago, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld famously asked his advisers: "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"
The answer is no;
--We are also failing in the struggle of ideas. We have not been persuasive in enlisting the energy and sympathy of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims against the extremist threat. That is not because of who we are: Polling data consistently show strong support in the Muslim world for American values, including our political system and respect for human rights, liberty and equality. Rather, U.S. policy choices have undermined support.
Clearly, Obama's reference to the Kean/Hamilton editorial is not nearly as comprehensive as it ought to have been. Attacking Taliban/al Qaeda strongholds in Pakistan's northwest, in the absence of Pakistan's desire or ability to attend to the problem, is but a small part of the prescription offered by the two.
And the coverage by major print media on this critical issue? From the NY Times, this: "In a tense 90-minute debate among the Democrats — marked by bouts of shouting and finger-pointing — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York went after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois aggressively, contending that he had switched his positions on crucial issues, including health care and financing the Iraq war. Mr. Obama said she was distorting his record."
From the Washington Post: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tried repeatedly to knock Sen. Barack Obama off his footing during a high-stakes debate here on Saturday night -- criticizing his health-care proposal and questioning his ability to bring about change and actually serve as president."
From the Boston Globe: "Presidential candidates in both parties, facing a critical and increasingly competitive Tuesday primary here, got personal and sometimes nasty with each other last night in separate prime-time debates, arguing fiercely about who has the better record and who is more likable."
Only the LA Times included that part of the debate, with Sen. Clinton's statement on the costs to the US of replacing Pervez Musharraf (a move suggested by Gov. Richardson who said "I would ask Musharraf to step aside"): "If you remove Musharraf and have elections, it's going to be very difficult for the United States to be able to control what comes next."
And even here, there was no challenge to her statement that Musharraf "is the elected president" even though he secured that office with the help of rigged elections and a gerrymandered supreme court.
In short, there was little effort by the Democratic candidates to offer a comprehensible and comprehensive policy argument on Pakistan and its increasingly lawless and radicalized provinces. And certainly there was no moderator challenge to any of the statements made by the candidates (there wasn't even a correction suggested to, nor offered by, Governor Richardson's repeated references to the "Soviet Union" which hasn't existed for nearly 20 years).
After nearly seven years of foreign policy debacles created by substandard leadership and the lives and money spent on these poorly considered and badly planned enterprises, one would think it was beyond time for thoughtful policy positions and their articulation. Guess not.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Thursday, January 3, 2008
No Need for Stealth: Chinese Access to US Technology
The pending takeover of technology company 3Com by a consortium led by Bain Capital (founded by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney) has highlighted concerns that China continues to seek access to technologies that would otherwise have been denied it by the US government.
The buyout group includes Chinese company Huawei Technologies which is led by Ren Zhengfei, a former officer in the People's Liberation Army.
The Financial Times reports that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (or CIFus, an executive branch body) will likely extend its investigation into the deal because of concerns that the Chinese military might gain access to 3Com's "intrusion technology" which the company sells to the Defense Department.
It might be difficult to believe that the Bush Administration would sign off on such a deal, given the obvious potential security issues, but as the New York Times reported, the "administration quietly eased some restrictions on the export of politically delicate technologies to China" six months ago.
Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary of Industry and Security, said in November 2007 that "our core mission at BIS [Bureau of Industry and Security] is to advance U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by ensuring an efficient and effective dual-use export control system and by promoting continued U.S. strategic technology leadership."
But is US national security advanced by this deal (one of several)? The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, in a newly released report subtitled "Lowering U.S. Controls on Militarily Useful Exports to China," says the the US government, by lowering the export threshold on technologies which might have military application, has eased the way for China to have access to sensitive technologies "since U.S. officials will no longer review these shipments before they go out." The report notes that "of the first five companies approved, however, two (forty percent of the total) do not meet the selection criteria. They are affiliated closely to China’s military industrial complex and to companies that have been punished by the U.S. government for proliferation or other improper export behavior. Reducing controls on exports to such companies increases the risk that American goods will help China improve its armed forces, and that American goods will be sent illicitly to Syria or Iran."
The Bain takeover of 3Com isn't listed in the Wisconsin Project report (as are American companies Boeing and Hexcel, both fined multiple times by both State and Commerce Departments for export violations in selling sensitive technologies to China), but the 45 day extension by CIFus underscores the seriousness of the problem.
Serious enough that the House of Representatives passed in October 2007 a "Sense of the House" bill that expressed its concern over the Bain transaction. The bill concludes by saying "the preponderance of publicly available evidence clearly suggests that as currently structured, the proposed transaction involving Huawei threatens the national security of the United States and should not be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States."
Undersecretary Mancuso has said that "our regulatory regime is essentially a regime of denial. In effect, it assumes that we have something that other nations don’t have or can’t get. In an era where technology and talent are ubiquitous, this assumption is no longer always and everywhere true."
Perhaps not. But we need not make it easier for potential foes, despite the supposed ubiquity of technology and talent, to acquire knowledge, skills and manufacturing sites that produce tools and/or weapons that might be used against us in the future.
Congressman McCotter (R-MI) has described Bain's proposed purchase as a "stealth assault on America's national security."
But with such a friendly administration in power, China doesn't require stealthiness. It merely needs dollars.
The buyout group includes Chinese company Huawei Technologies which is led by Ren Zhengfei, a former officer in the People's Liberation Army.
The Financial Times reports that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (or CIFus, an executive branch body) will likely extend its investigation into the deal because of concerns that the Chinese military might gain access to 3Com's "intrusion technology" which the company sells to the Defense Department.
It might be difficult to believe that the Bush Administration would sign off on such a deal, given the obvious potential security issues, but as the New York Times reported, the "administration quietly eased some restrictions on the export of politically delicate technologies to China" six months ago.
Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary of Industry and Security, said in November 2007 that "our core mission at BIS [Bureau of Industry and Security] is to advance U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by ensuring an efficient and effective dual-use export control system and by promoting continued U.S. strategic technology leadership."
But is US national security advanced by this deal (one of several)? The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, in a newly released report subtitled "Lowering U.S. Controls on Militarily Useful Exports to China," says the the US government, by lowering the export threshold on technologies which might have military application, has eased the way for China to have access to sensitive technologies "since U.S. officials will no longer review these shipments before they go out." The report notes that "of the first five companies approved, however, two (forty percent of the total) do not meet the selection criteria. They are affiliated closely to China’s military industrial complex and to companies that have been punished by the U.S. government for proliferation or other improper export behavior. Reducing controls on exports to such companies increases the risk that American goods will help China improve its armed forces, and that American goods will be sent illicitly to Syria or Iran."
The Bain takeover of 3Com isn't listed in the Wisconsin Project report (as are American companies Boeing and Hexcel, both fined multiple times by both State and Commerce Departments for export violations in selling sensitive technologies to China), but the 45 day extension by CIFus underscores the seriousness of the problem.
Serious enough that the House of Representatives passed in October 2007 a "Sense of the House" bill that expressed its concern over the Bain transaction. The bill concludes by saying "the preponderance of publicly available evidence clearly suggests that as currently structured, the proposed transaction involving Huawei threatens the national security of the United States and should not be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States."
Undersecretary Mancuso has said that "our regulatory regime is essentially a regime of denial. In effect, it assumes that we have something that other nations don’t have or can’t get. In an era where technology and talent are ubiquitous, this assumption is no longer always and everywhere true."
Perhaps not. But we need not make it easier for potential foes, despite the supposed ubiquity of technology and talent, to acquire knowledge, skills and manufacturing sites that produce tools and/or weapons that might be used against us in the future.
Congressman McCotter (R-MI) has described Bain's proposed purchase as a "stealth assault on America's national security."
But with such a friendly administration in power, China doesn't require stealthiness. It merely needs dollars.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
A State of Disarray
One of the more troublesome phrases widely used by the political classes involve the words "seen to be." Less often do these people simply say "are" or "is."
A case in point are the comments of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband who said of the delayed Pakistani elections that "it is vital not just that we have a date for elections, but also that those elections are seen to be free and fair." Apparently, it's asking too much to have a distinguished person such as Miliband straightforwardly say it's vital that Pakistani elections are free and fair.
In announcing the delay, Musharraf said "elections will be free, fair and transparent [but] we also must ensure elections are peaceful." Of course, his support for the democratic process goes well beyond mere voting. This is the man, after all, who casually dismissed Pakistan's Supreme Court justices and replaced them with more malleable judges (an action termed a "reshuffling" by Assistant Secretary Of State For South And Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher) who would rubberstamp his "legitimacy".
****
It's no surprise, then, that Musharraf's "desire" for electoral transparency is seen as farcical.
The Pakistani Dawn news site reported that Benazir Bhutto "was poised to reveal proof the night she was assassinated that the Election Commission and a shadowy spy agency were seeking to rig the elections." Bhutto's evidence reportedly included "documentation rigging tactics" using fake ballots "and were in some cases unwittingly funded by US aid."
Ah, yes. That problematic US aid.
In a January 1 letter to Secretary of State Rice, members of the US House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations reportedly threatened aid cuts to Pakistan if elections were not held as scheduled and if the government refused to hold an independent inquiry into Bhutto’s assassination. The letter reads in part, "without being satisfied that an investigation is truly impartial and independent, and with the belief that elections were postponed in order to further setback the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people, we will focus intently on the status of these funds already withheld and may seek additional restrictions in the future appropriations bills." (Perhaps not surprisingly, shortly thereafter Musharraf announced that a Scotland Yard team would investigate Bhutto's death). Yet even as members of Congress voiced their concerns, Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to sell Pakistan 18 F-16 aircraft.
****
Given the dubiousness of Pakistan's election commission independence from Musharraf (as noted by Bhutto's reported accusations), it's impossible to take seriously Musharraf's comments that "he had wanted to hold parliamentary elections as scheduled on January 8, but he deferred to the election commission which formally announced earlier in the day to postpone them for six weeks until February 18. 'The election commission has taken a timely and correct decision," the president said."
Bhutto wrote in a December 10 column for the Christian Science Monitor that "democracy offers the best hope of containing extremism. Yet democracy depends on a fair electoral process and an independent election commission willing and able to implement Pakistan's electoral laws to prevent vote fraud. That is not happening."
No, indeed. And with US "help," it may never happen.
A case in point are the comments of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband who said of the delayed Pakistani elections that "it is vital not just that we have a date for elections, but also that those elections are seen to be free and fair." Apparently, it's asking too much to have a distinguished person such as Miliband straightforwardly say it's vital that Pakistani elections are free and fair.
In announcing the delay, Musharraf said "elections will be free, fair and transparent [but] we also must ensure elections are peaceful." Of course, his support for the democratic process goes well beyond mere voting. This is the man, after all, who casually dismissed Pakistan's Supreme Court justices and replaced them with more malleable judges (an action termed a "reshuffling" by Assistant Secretary Of State For South And Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher) who would rubberstamp his "legitimacy".
****
It's no surprise, then, that Musharraf's "desire" for electoral transparency is seen as farcical.
The Pakistani Dawn news site reported that Benazir Bhutto "was poised to reveal proof the night she was assassinated that the Election Commission and a shadowy spy agency were seeking to rig the elections." Bhutto's evidence reportedly included "documentation rigging tactics" using fake ballots "and were in some cases unwittingly funded by US aid."
Ah, yes. That problematic US aid.
In a January 1 letter to Secretary of State Rice, members of the US House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations reportedly threatened aid cuts to Pakistan if elections were not held as scheduled and if the government refused to hold an independent inquiry into Bhutto’s assassination. The letter reads in part, "without being satisfied that an investigation is truly impartial and independent, and with the belief that elections were postponed in order to further setback the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people, we will focus intently on the status of these funds already withheld and may seek additional restrictions in the future appropriations bills." (Perhaps not surprisingly, shortly thereafter Musharraf announced that a Scotland Yard team would investigate Bhutto's death). Yet even as members of Congress voiced their concerns, Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to sell Pakistan 18 F-16 aircraft.
****
Given the dubiousness of Pakistan's election commission independence from Musharraf (as noted by Bhutto's reported accusations), it's impossible to take seriously Musharraf's comments that "he had wanted to hold parliamentary elections as scheduled on January 8, but he deferred to the election commission which formally announced earlier in the day to postpone them for six weeks until February 18. 'The election commission has taken a timely and correct decision," the president said."
Bhutto wrote in a December 10 column for the Christian Science Monitor that "democracy offers the best hope of containing extremism. Yet democracy depends on a fair electoral process and an independent election commission willing and able to implement Pakistan's electoral laws to prevent vote fraud. That is not happening."
No, indeed. And with US "help," it may never happen.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)