GOP, Putin and Kim

[Handel]

blue room eh?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00286.html

so it looks like Putin's gone one way and Kim Jong Il's gone the other. Ok, it looks like it anyways: diplomatically at least one's a stick and the other's a carrot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... rrer=email
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

As well, the Senate's Republicans are slowly, tentatively easing away from supporting Bush's war

Your thoughts?

[I Am Spartacus]

Could you please summarize the articles in one brief paragraph?

[Handel]

ok-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00286.html

Putin is backing out of a 1990 (amended 1999) agreement between NATO and Russia called the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (which includes restrictions on Russian deployment, especially in other former SSRs, as well as mutual inspections and other great stuff) to put pressure on NATO to change the plans for the new Missile Defense thing possibly going up in the Czech Republic.

(my own commentary): The program is meant to defend against an attack by Iran on the west, but the Kremlin believes it could also be used to defend and attack by Russia, which naturally then would give NATO (or more accurately the US) a massive upper hand in the sphere of Global Governance, severely limiting Russia's negotiating power.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

On a happier note, North Korea is closing down one of its Nuclear Facilities in exchange for oil and other aid, as well as greater diplomatic credibility. The question is whether this is a genuine step towards a continued de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula, or an isolated event. US officials are cautiously optimistic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... rrer=email
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Closer to home (well, from where I'm sitting at least), a renewed debate on the Iraq war began in the US Senate last week, with many proposals to end or modify the Americans' engagement. Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME) and Chuck Nagel (R-NE) are the third and fourth Senate Republicans to openly oppose the war, at least in this recent debate, and the Democratic leaders are confident that there are more to come.

(my own commentary, supplemented by the info in the article): However, I still remain somewhat skeptical that anything concrete will come of it, as a 60% majority is needed to break a filibuster, and there is of course the 66% majority needed in both Houses to override the Presidential veto, which would be sure to come. So while there's a slim chance of breaking the filibuster (if there is one-I'm not entirely sure), it seems unlikely that that many Republicans will vote against the President here, especially considering the fact that a number of Dems are also waiting out for the Petraeus report on Iraq's progress (which is filling in as the main bone of contention at the moment) due in September. That being said, this could come as a political blow to the White House, representing a concrete step towards bipartisan support for a troop pullout, at least in the more powerful (on an individual level) Senate.

so that's the summary-if I have time (which this summer I should) I'll continue to do that. Oh and when Parliament resumes and/or more interesting things happen up here, I'll be sure to give the Canadian scoop.

so yeah-your thoughts?

[DBS]

I think we are looking at two separate refutations of the "Neo-Conservative Go It Alone" strategy. Look at the two events and how they relate...

1. A more-or-less unilateral idea to further missile defence, ostensibly to protect potential innocent victims of a terrorist attack, has just gotten way more complicated and probably will now do more harm than good. Russia (rightly) fears the erosion of it's ability to deter aggression against them, should it ever happen, aggression itself more likely given the neo-conservative approach to foreign policy ...

2. By contrast, we have a more-or-less international negotiating team successfully making progress towards disarming one of the more serious nuclear proliferation issues of the last decade.

Taken together, it is clear evidence that international cooperation might just work better than going it alone!

[Handel]

hmm interesting analysis DBS. It's especially interesting that the countries dealing with North Korea are mostly those of a more closely-related heritage and culture. This isn't to say that Japanese, Koreans and Chinese are the same, but they're more similar than to the US. The difference between Russian and American culture, history and whatnot, and of course the shared but sharply differing (I gather) history of the cold war, is quite illuminating in this regard.

[I Am Spartacus]

DBS, I don't think the Pyongyang issue has anything to do with a successful negotiation with Kim Jong-il. Kim Jong-il himself is a master negotiator: he took what technology and resources were given to him by the west, used them at the appropriate time when there was no way the Americans would have possibly done anything about it, and secured what he needed. Fuel oil, so that he could continue to stockpile it so his military could continue to be relevant and discourage the South from stopping its "sunshine" policy of appeasement. Does anyone seriously believe it's just a coincidence that they were able to detonate their first warhead while the Americans were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan?

He never had any intention of actually developing a nuclear arsenal. He was simply playing the cards he was dealt, and he did so masterfully.

[DBS]

Good points, there.

I also wonder if the action might have something to do with the fact that their first bomb didn't exactly work as planned? Absolutely right on about the good DPRK negotiations. He should play poker...

Seriously, though, it is clear that one side effect of unilaterally disregarding nuclear arms treaties (ABM, CTB, etc.) by the U.S. and the impression that we might feel more freedom to use them if needed has led to only one response: The best way to be safe from U.S. nuclear weapons is to get them yourself, or so the idea goes. If we disregard those treaties, who is to stop other countries from disregarding the NPT?

[thatcha]

I must admit to being rather unmoved by Putin pulling russia out of teh conventional forces europe treaty.

in fairness to the russians why should it be any business of anyone else where they deploy their armed forces within their borders.

somewhat moreworryingly from a local (british)perspective, we seemto be heading towards a real diplomatic faceoff between London and Moscow. Incase anyone doesnt know the UK has just expelled 4 russian diplomatsfrom the UK. as i write the russian response hasnt come yet.

[Mikey]

I believe that the conventional forces treaty, from which Russia is removing itself, is somewhat outdated in any event, and further limits Russia's ability to handle any internal "unpleasantness."

In the case of North Korea, though, I wouldn't bet the house on the fact the Kim Jong Il was just using nuclear proliferation as a trump card. Master negotiator - perhaps. But that guy just doesn't have both oars in the water.

BTW, seeing more Republicans distance themselves from Bush on the war is not a case of these senators rectifying their moral position - these folks are trying to avoid the political suicide which is quickly becoming of stand by ol' "Dubbya." If Karl Rove left him, who's gonna stay?