Blog entries for aicyr

Intelligence & Intelligent Policy

aicyr — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:37:11 GMT

Regarding aggressive intelligence gathering, the Obama administration is now clearly at war – with the Obama administration. Very soon after assuming office, President Obama opted not to pursue prosecution of intelligence professionals who may have gone beyond the law during the Bush administration.

Now, however, Attorney General Eric Holder has reversed that course, appointing a special counsel to investigate possible abuses by the CIA, especially in regard to use of torture, euphemistically described as “enhanced interrogation techniques”. The CIA will no longer handle such interrogations. This is a major political victory for the anti-war left of the Democratic Party.

According to news reports, CIA Director Leon Panetta is extremely disturbed by this victory of ideology over policy pragmatism, and close to resigning. The controversial practice of using painful waterboarding to secure information from suspected terrorists has become a central symbol of alleged abuse.

The catalyst for Holder’s action is release of information from a 2004 report by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson. The report details harsh interrogation techniques, including threatening prisoners and their families, and various specific actions designed to inspire fear and intimidation.

However, the Inspector General also describes in detail a disciplined process by which procedures were defined very specifically and monitored continuously. The CIA consulted closely with the Justice Department and the Pentagon; the report states explicitly that the agency operated within the law. Nonetheless, with the foresight which typifies effective intelligence pros, some of those involved in the interrogations expressed concern they might later be prosecuted for political reasons.

The report is persuasive that interrogations were instrumental in preventing additional terrorist attacks. As one particularly important example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who oversaw the 9/11 terrorist strikes in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, provided very extensive useful information after being waterboarded. Other examples of useful interrogation include bringing down the network that carried out 2002 terrorist attacks in Bali.

As Attorney General Holder’s offensive unfolds, keep in mind germane lessons, especially from our recent history. First, Panetta as an intelligence outsider is actually well positioned in political and perhaps policy terms. When he was nominated, media critics carped that he lacked formal CIA credentials.

Successful CIA leaders have included outsiders. In the Kennedy administration, California businessman John McCone was notably effective. He was the only senior official of that administration accurately to foresee the Soviets were likely to try to put offensive missiles in Cuba. In the Ford administration, George H.W. Bush had a brief but eventful tour as head of the agency. The CIA headquarters building is now named for him.

Second, cooperation between civilian and military intelligence agencies is a major current asset. During the Vietnam War, U.S. commander Gen. William Westmoreland was so angered by pessimistic CIA assessments that he tried to wall off the agency. In response, Congress passed a law requiring cooperation, with continuing positive results.

Third, the media tend to fixate on sensational practices. During the Vietnam War, CS tear gas was used to force the enemy from tunnels. CS, which is very painful but normally nonlethal, for a time became a news obsession. Meanwhile, extensive use of napalm, which the U.S. has since banned, was largely taken for granted in Vietnam news coverage.

Protecting national security unavoidably involves some moral ambiguity. Collecting and effectively analyzing accurate intelligence information is very difficult. So far, ideologue Attorney General Holder’s very moralistic approach ignores these realities.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Kim Dae-jung: Great Korean Leader, Great American Friend

aicyr — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:31:57 GMT

Former President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea died this week at the age of eighty-five. His extraordinary career demonstrates the triumph of discipline and determination over tremendous barriers. He also personifies the long-term value of tolerance and forgiveness.

Kim’s effectiveness in opposing South Korea’s previous harsh dictatorship marked him as a special target, and he survived at least five attempts on his life. One of the most dramatic incidents occurred in 1973, when South Korean government agents kidnapped him from a Tokyo hotel and took him to a ship, where they planned to kill him at sea.

Don Gregg, the CIA station chief with extensive experience in Korea, intervened decisively. After a U.S. helicopter flew low over the ship, Kim was reluctantly released. Gregg, whose intelligence career dates back to training commandos during the Korean War, later served as U.S. Ambassador to Seoul during the George H.W. Bush administration and more recently has provided outstanding professional leadership to the Korea Society based in New York City.

Kim’s courage and commitment to representative government were rewarded when the opposition leader was elected President of the Republic of Korea in 1997. Without hesitation, he moved to begin détente with the totalitarian regime in North Korea. This culminated in a dramatic summit meeting in 2000 with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, beginning a now decade-old process of very fitful, often frustrating, but continuing direct contact with Pyongyang.

Very appropriately, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for these efforts. After the 2000 Summit, the historic event was tainted to a degree by revelations that at least several hundred million dollars had been paid to Pyongyang. The payment does not destroy the value of the dramatic breakthrough negotiation.

Kim was first elected to the National Assembly in 1961, though a military coup intervened. He was elected again in 1963 and able to take the seat. In the 1971 presidential election, he came close to defeating the incumbent, Gen. Park Chung-hee. Park was assassinated in 1979. Only then was Kim released from house arrest imposed in 1973 after he returned from Japan.

Following Park’s assassination, Gen. Chun Doo-hwan seized power. In protest at continued military dictatorship, very large demonstrations were held in the city of Gwangju, a center of very substantial support for Kim. In response, the regime cracked down harshly and sent large numbers of troops into the region. An estimated two hundred demonstrators by official estimates, and perhaps many more, were killed.

Kim, accused of instigating this protest, was sentenced to death by a military tribunal. Once again, Washington intervened. The sentence was reduced and finally suspended, and he moved to the U.S., where he lived until 1985.

After Kim achieved the presidency and moved into the Blue House, there was understandable uncertainty and considerable speculation about how he would handle the office. His personal and political story provided a dramatic backdrop to his inauguration. Kim to his great credit pardoned Gen. Chun, under a death sentence for rebellion, and others.

Comparisons of Kim to Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela are not surprising, and not misplaced. In sum, his political career demonstrates the value of exceptional determination combined with sustained commitment to representative government and the rule of law.

A large number of people came to visit Kim Dae-jung in the hospital as death approached. They included Gen. Chun and Ambassador Gregg.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Korea Detente?

aicyr — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:17:40 GMT

The release last week of Euna Lee and Laura Ling, the two journalists held by North Korea, is cause for celebration and also an opportunity to pursue change by Pyongyang. North Korea’s aging, inbred and isolated ruling clique confronts very extreme poverty, stagnation and global isolation. In consequence, Seoul as well as Washington has a diplomatic and political opening which should be exploited, especially over the coming weeks.

China is pivotal, an economic colossus which has so far avoided the severe international economic recession. Beijing is Pyongyang’s only remaining substantial ally, but now regularly sides with the UN and U.S. in pressing for restraint by the North, especially in regards to nuclear weapons development.

Interpersonal conflict attracts attention, and in the wake of former President Bill Clinton’s surprise trip to Pyongyang to secure the release much media commentary has emphasized that dimension. There has even been speculation that U.S. foreign policy will be hurt because Clinton in effect provided public legitimacy to a rogue regime by appearing side by side with Dictator Kim Jong-il, while in the process upstaging Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as President Obama.

In an age when professional news reporting is steadily undermined by media emphasis on entertainment, such commentary is not surprising but is distorting. Bill Clinton was a good choice to travel to North Korea. The Clinton administration was relatively successful in dealing with the very difficult North Korean government, especially in securing a temporary hold on nuclear developments.

On this trip, Clinton was eminently diplomatic. The normally loquacious former chief executive was almost completely silent. His public meeting with the North Korean leader was very much a pro forma exercise, with no propaganda value to the other side.

Indeed, seizing and attempting to exploit the two young reporters for propaganda purposes projected an image of weakness by Pyongyang. A truly great international power would not spend time trying to turn a minor incident of alleged border trespass into a major diplomatic and propaganda exercise. Keeping them imprisoned ran the risk of exposing North Korea’s cruel and barbaric labor camp system to international attention.

Steady economic deterioration in North Korea provides a continuing incentive to expand very limited economic links with South Korea as well as substantial cooperation with China. There may also be an opportunity to restart the on-again off-again Six Party nuclear negotiations involving China, Japan, Russia and the U.S. with the two Koreas. Pyongyang presses for direct bilateral negotiations with the U.S.; there is no indication the Obama administration agreed to this or anything else in return for the release of the two women.

In future, Washington should provide the South Korean government with as much freedom and encouragement as possible to pursue cooperation with the North. The South Korean ‘economic miracle’ is truly just that. The continued extraordinary success of the country in economic terms will only reinforce steadily expanding regional – and global – political and diplomatic influence.

The Kaesong industrial area in North Korea provides a beachhead of South Korea capital and commercial expertise. Pyongyang has not shut down the facility despite the current freeze in relations. The Obama administration should encourage expansion.

In any case, this is one of a number of topics for Seoul to pursue directly with Pyongyang, with Washington providing encouragement and help. Commerce has transformed China, and may unfreeze North Korea.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Clintons In Africa & Asia

aicyr — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:13:25 GMT

Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are both making headlines. His surprise visit to North Korea has successfully secured release of Euna Lee and Laura Ling, young journalists held hostage. Her well-planned visit to seven nations in Africa has addressed important policy concerns ranging from economic development to combating terrorism.

Secretary Clinton began with a keynote address to the eighth African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) forum in Nairobi Kenya, followed by visits to Angola, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Nigeria and South Africa. AGOA, an initiative of President Clinton, gives preferential access to the U.S. market of imports from Sub-Saharan Africa and more generally encourages economic development.

Kenya contains the vexing frustrations of the wider continent. An ally of the U.S., the nation experienced major terrorist attacks in 1998 and 2002. The growth of extremism in neighboring Somalia, notably by the group al-Shaba linked to al-Qaeda, underscores the importance of this dimension.

Following a disputed 2007 Kenya presidential election, intense ethnic conflict resulted in the deaths of 1,500 people and the displacement of an estimated 300,000. Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General at the time, brokered a coalition government which brought a fragile cease fire, with the understanding that ringleaders of the violence would be brought to justice through the international legal system. Last week, however, Kenya Prime Minister Raila Odinga announced plans to employ the national legal process. Annan and others have protested, given the notoriously corrupt Kenya courts.

In Secretary Clinton’s Nairobi speech, she shrewdly stressed the success of Rwanda, scene of ethnic genocide fifteen years ago. Bill Clinton has strongly criticized himself for failure to act more vigorously against these killing fields. Since that terrible time, Rwanda has experienced rapid economic growth and political stability. Hillary Clinton effectively drew Continent-wide lessons from this horrific experience and encouraging aftermath.

Before the Clinton administration, Africa traditionally was largely ignored by U.S. presidents, with notable exceptions. Sen. John F. Kennedy chaired the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was faithful in attendance, reflecting strong personal interest. After winning the White House, JFK appointed G. Mennen ‘Soapy’ Williams, a Democratic Party power, as Assistant Secretary of State for Africa as a way of emphasizing that part of the world. Professor Thomas Noer describes these developments in his superb biography ‘Soapy’.

President Jimmy Carter appointed close aide and ally Andrew Young, an African-American, as Ambassador to the United Nations. By so doing, Carter sought to underscore the important ties between the peoples of Africa and America. He also wanted to reinforce the role of the UN in mitigating the Cold War.

Bill Clinton was the first U.S. President to visit Africa while in office. President Barack Obama’s personal heritage links the U.S. with Africa in a particularly direct manner. In Kennedy’s time, colonies were rapidly being transformed into new independent nations. During the Carter administration, Cuban as well as Soviet forces were deployed to assist radical elements in Southern Africa. By contrast, today extremely promising economic changes encourage much more continuous attention, while facilitating both representative government and the rule of law. In turn, the expanding influence of the UN along with regional economic organizations is vital to this progress. In this world, North Korea is increasingly isolated. The presence of a South Korean, Ban Ki-moon, as UN Secretary-General nicely reinforces that point.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Hillary Clinton and Asia

aicyr — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:08:41 GMT

While the Obama White House and Washington generally is mired in complex debate over health care reform, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just taken Asia by storm.

Secretary Clinton’s sweeping summer tour across the vast region, ending this week at the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) summit in Phuket Thailand, is undeniably a success in public relations and policy terms. Since diplomacy is inextricably tied to politics, especially when the diplomat is also a politician, she has succeeded in terms of American domestic politics as well.

North Korea obligingly helped draw global attention to the trip with harsh and unintentionally humorous commentary describing her variously as a “funny lady”, “primary schoolgirl” and “pensioner going shopping”. This was in response to her public emphasis on U.S. policy of mobilizing international pressure to rein in the increasingly isolated surviving Communist regime, including her complaint that the North Korean leaders are like immature unruly children.

At the Summit, Secretary Clinton signed the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, inspiring ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan to praise a positive “shift in strategy” by the U.S. toward the regional trade organization. The treaty actually is a general and essentially symbolic document, but that is an important dimension of diplomacy, and such gestures by the Obama administration automatically generate praise in the aftermath of Bush unilateralism. China signed the treaty in 2003, and Sino-American relations provide context for the Clinton expedition through Asia. Pressure from Beijing has been crucial to the little flexibility recently displayed by Pyongyang. North Korean freighter Kang Nam 1, believed to be carrying contraband cargo to Burma, recently turned back after generating global headlines. China’s hand has been evident pressuring Pyongyang on this matter and others.

Inevitably, Clinton’s trip and wider foreign policy role resonates in U.S. domestic politics. President Obama regularly refers to his admiration for Abraham Lincoln, who appointed political rivals to his own Cabinet. William Seward, Lincoln’s secretary of state, had been a strong contender for the Republican presidential nomination. This practice, however, has not been typical of modern presidents.

Since World War II, only three other U.S. Senators have served as Secretary of State, James Byrnes in the Truman administration, John Foster Dulles in the Eisenhower administration, and Edmund Muskie in the Carter administration. Byrnes’ service reflects continuation of pre-war practice, Dulles was appointed to fill an unexpired term and defeated in the election, and Muskie was picked by a beleaguered president desperate to improve rapidly deteriorating Congressional relations.

Obama deserves credit for courage as well as collegiality in picking Clinton for the job, especially given the intense, at times bitter character of their competition for the Democratic nomination in 2008. The President initially has divided top diplomatic responsibilities. Vice President Joe Biden led the U.S. delegation to an important European security conference in Munich, Germany and is generally very visible on the international stage. Special emissaries to deal with Afghanistan-Pakistan, Israel-Palestinian and other matters further hedge Secretary Clinton’s role.

On this Asia trip, and more generally, Hillary Clinton demonstrates she has done serious homework, is well briefed and articulate. A brief flap regarding her statement on Iran’s nuclear program reflected Israeli overreaction more than a truly serious diplomatic misstep. In an era of global interdependence and integration of societies as well as economies, a very smart domestic politician so far is providing very effective leadership of American foreign policy.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (Macmillan/Palgrave and NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Ben Bernanke's Town Meeting

aicyr — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:04:47 GMT

The international economic recession began in banking and finance but has now spread far beyond. The production of goods as well as services has been very hard hit in the long established advanced industrial economies of Europe, North America and elsewhere, though China continues to drive growth in Asia.

While there are signs of recovery in demand, unemployment remains very high. For several decades, the U.S. companies in particular have been notable for cutting costs through eliminating jobs. Technology in machines as well as computers facilitates the process. In consequence, unemployment will undoubtedly remain high even with recovery.

This past week, Chairman Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve Board was stage center in discussion of the ‘Three R’s’ of Recession, Recovery and Regulation. Public Television (PBS) and the Kansas City regional Fed collaborated on a special program with a well-informed studio audience in town meeting format.

Exceptionally effective educational TV resulted. Economists are notorious for esoteric ideas, jarring jargon often at odds with clarity, and a penchant for hedging on policy.

Plain speaking President Harry Truman said he longed for one-armed economists because when asked for advice, their response usually was along the line of “on the one hand, Mr. President, but on the other hand…”

Bernanke breaks the stereotype. In the recent financial meltdown, the Fed has acted fast on varied fronts. Funds were loaned directly to investment banks, and new forms of consumer credit relief have been developed. The Fed has pursued fresh “swap” accords with other central banks even while pumping enormous amounts of money into the system. During the final months of the Bush administration, Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson collaborated in pressing for the Federal banking rescue package.

The Chairman is now pressing hard for regulatory reform. With refreshing candor, he does not claim to have a complete blueprint. Rather, he argues for comprehensive analysis encompassing traditional banks and newer credit sources. Effective policing will require integrated oversight. Monetary policy alone is too blunt and rigid.

At the start of the recession, unpersuasive optimistic declarations by President George W. Bush conjured up the eerie image of unfortunate President Herbert Hoover, who declared the U.S. economy “fundamentally sound” even as the Great Depression took hold. Congressional hearings, where Bernanke has been prominent, also recall the Depression era in giving vent to public anger about commercial excess.

During the presidential campaign, nominees Barack Obama and John McCain emphasized the importance of economic regulation, and Congress collectively is now doing the same. Simply bailing out failed financiers is rightly viewed as far from sufficient.

Only about a decade ago, President Bill Clinton and long-term Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan were praising dramatic deregulation, which included abolition in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, the 1933 New Deal reform which established the foundation Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and strictly separated commercial and investment banking. In the wake of the latest crash of investment markets which had turned into casino gambling, public sentiment has sea changed back to pro-regulation.

Bernanke’s strong intellectual and policy credentials argue for continued leadership. President Obama should reappoint him when his term as Chairman ends next year. He clearly wants to stay; the PBS performance is part of a comprehensive media offensive. Obama has already endorsed expanded Fed financial oversight.

Before becoming chief financial fireman, Ben Bernanke spent his career as a professor. Academics, take heart.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

The Moon - And Beyond

aicyr — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:42:55 GMT

“From the ground up,” was President John F. Kennedy’s smooth recovery remark after retrieving a medal he dropped at an awards ceremony for U.S. astronauts. That remark was seen by an exceptionally wide television audience, reflecting great public excitement about exploration of space in the 1960s.

Forty years ago this month, U.S. explorers reached and walked on the Moon. This week Apollo 11 Moon mission Astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins met with President Barack Obama at the White House. Obama had words of praise and honor, but remains noncommittal about space prospects after the Shuttle program ends next year.

The death of CBS icon Walter Cronkite adds poignancy to this anniversary. The uniquely influential television news anchor was famous for his dispassionate delivery of the day’s events. Regarding our space program, however, his boyish enthusiasm was always obvious and almost universally shared by the public.

The Cold War initially spurred space exploration. Four years ago next month, a Russian rocket based in Kazakhstan successfully launched an American satellite. The two-ton Galaxy 14 satellite was built by Orbital Satellites Corp. for PanAmSat Holding Corp. to deliver high-definition cable television programming.

Meanwhile, little land rovers Opportunity and Spirit have chugged for years over the surface of Mars, transmitting over 250,000 images and 36 gigabytes of data. Occasional stalls in terrain do not detract from the phenomenal accomplishments of these and other robot probes of the planets and wider space.

Reflecting appreciation of the importance of space exploration, President George W. Bush made some effort to make space flight a higher national priority, to include a manned mission to Mars. During his first term, NASA was directed to plan for Mars. That initiative, however, received neither much public notice nor sustained emphasis from the White House.

Space flight generates far less public excitement than in JFK’s time, in part because we are collectively much more cautious. That attitude is well represented by the constant concern over safety of the Shuttle flights.

Nevertheless NASA is currently looking beyond the routine Shuttle missions to more adventurous space efforts, and this should be supported for several reasons. First, while the initial space program was fueled by the fixations and fears of the Cold War, this one could be defined by global cooperation.

Science has always held an olive branch. During the height of the Cold War, President Eisenhower fostered scientific exchange from both sides of the Iron Curtain. This time around, Sino-American relations could be furthered by cooperation to get to Mars.

For example, Wisconsin’s Merit Models Co. and Carthage College Professor Douglas Arion have developed an inexpensive small telescope manufactured in China. The project is recognized by the current UN International Year of Astronomy marking the four hundredth anniversary of Galileo’s discoveries.

Second, space exploration has driven practical technological advances. Economically useful products have resulted from extreme miniaturization of components. Most dramatically, the personal computer was facilitated in part by the Moon program requirements.

Third, the Obama administration’s greatly expanded public spending is heavily domestic in nature, driven by economic fears in the current severe recession and more personal fears of an aging population facing very expensive and often inefficient health care delivery.

The range and diversity of an expanded space program could combine further economic stimulus with needed recovery of national confidence, plus greater global cooperation. We should go for it.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and the author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Secretary Gates Forceful on Force

aicyr — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:22:55 GMT

On July 16, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates provided a tour de force on U.S. national security policy. Speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago before a notably attentive audience, he bluntly addressed life and death in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and beyond.

Gates savaged inefficiency and profiteering in weapons programs, providing hard evidence for the continued malign existence of what President Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell address termed the “military-industrial complex”. With direct but hardly dry style, the former head of the CIA and Texas A&M University provided key insights into managing what may be the most challenging enormous organization on earth.

The forum Gates selected is notable – he is the first Defense Secretary to speak before the Economic Club. In earlier times, Pentagon heads usually chose the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. The economics of defense were prominent throughout.

In a very partisan time, with intense rancor between Democrats and Republicans, he is particularly adept at bridging the great divide. Appointed secretary of defense by President Bush, he is the first incumbent to remain in the office after a change in party in the White House.

Gates is pressing an enormous strategic shift in the Defense Department. He bluntly criticizes Pentagon emphasis on preparing for unlikely general wars with China, Russia and other major powers, while our most serious immediate challenges involve unconventional wars. These conflicts, especially in Afghanistan, are now the priority – for the first time.

The Secretary is consistently notably specific in describing his Pentagon plans. Every weapons program currently behind schedule or over budget will be reduced. Prime targets include the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor fighter, Boeing C-17 transport, a Boeing program to arm 747 aircraft with laser weapons, the Army’s Future Combat Systems program, and the Missile Defense Agency.

As an alternative to the F-22, Gates favors the much newer F-35 fighter, which is half as expensive and can perform a much wider range of missions, including particularly important air-ground targeting. Underscoring his difficulties, the F-22 nevertheless remains very much alive in the corridors of Congress, and in the spending the politicians press on the Pentagon.

Discussion of weapons systems was balanced by considerable attention to personnel, an even more complex dimension than contemporary technology. Gates described the enormous strain on dedicated troops resulting from constant rotation back to Afghanistan and Iraq. Discussing continuing suicides, the man some criticize as a bloodless bureaucrat clearly was the reverse.

Gates addressed controversy over gays in the military, noting that specific law will first have to be changed to effect more flexible policy. However, in the meantime he has asked the Pentagon general counsel to search for available avenues for more tolerant implementation of current policy, and to prevent the problem of vendettas against gays currently serving.

Economic Club Chairman Bill Daley noted in his introduction that the speaker was the first CIA head to spend his entire career there. In the address, Gates described the special difficulties involved in managing very large organizations.

Dwight Eisenhower appointed Charles Wilson, President of General Motors, as his Secretary of Defense. Wilson became famously misquoted that what was good for GM was good for the U.S., but he also supervised a very remarkably comprehensive reconstruction of war-devastated South Korea, laying the foundation for that country’s ongoing economic and political success.

The important Chicago speech adds evidence Gates personifies this positive Pentagon legacy.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’. He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Afghanistan, Britain and US

aicyr — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:17:01 GMT

London

The killing in Afghanistan of eight British soldiers in twenty-four hours at the end of last week has heightened debate over involvement in the war and underscored the very human costs. Pictures of the generally very young British troopers lost are prominent in the media. Beleaguered Prime Minister Gordon Brown is facing sharp attacks from opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

Nonetheless, British public support for this war holds. A poll by the firm ICM for the BBC and ‘The Guardian’ newspaper shows an even division, with 46 percent supporting and 47 percent opposed.

The last ICM poll on this topic in 2006 showed support at 31 and opposition at 53 percent. British forces have since nearly completely withdrawn from Iraq, a consistently very unpopular war. Since World War II, the British public generally has not favored substantial military engagements overseas. Even the decisively successful 1982 Falklands War with Argentina over the Falkland Islands initially lacked strong public support.

Yet Britain is a vital ally of the United States in Afghanistan, as elsewhere. “Someone to talk to” is how McGeorge Bundy, President Kennedy’s national security adviser, described this rapport. Fundamental affinity helped forge an enduring special relationship during the total struggle of World War II.

That nation’s history testifies to distinctive strengths in secret operations and unconventional conflicts. The British Empire survived in part through an exceptionally sophisticated global intelligence network. Ian Fleming’s James Bond and John le Carré’s more introspective agents are fiction and film exaggerations which nonetheless reflect reality.

During World War II, Gen. Orde Wingate became widely respected for intensity and effectiveness in leading the special Chindits force against the Japanese in Southeast Asia. An American counterpart, Merrill’s Marauders, was inspired in part by this British example. Again, real experiences were soon translated into commando exploits by novelists and screenwriters.

After the war, the British and Australians successfully fought Communist insurgents in Malaya from 1948 to 1960. Sir Robert Thompson, a Malaya commander and Chindit vet, was sought out by President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger for advice on Vietnam strategy. The resulting emphasis on small unit actions, and specific targeted killings, was acknowledged later by Vietnamese revolutionaries to have been highly effective.

Former Australia Army Lt. Col David Kilcullen, a respected counterinsurgency expert, currently works for the U.S. government, focused on Afghanistan. His blunt criticism of past policy, or lack thereof, has given him considerable prominence. The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has spent his entire career in special operations.

While media commentary on Afghanistan regularly refers to the disastrous Soviet invasion and consequent defeat in the 1980s, the more complex very long-term history of British engagement is generally neglected. Over decades of the 19th century, separate sizable British military expeditions experienced frustration in Afghanistan; one was completely wiped out.

However, London eventually was successful in achieving a stable, tolerable regime in Kabul through economic incentives combined with military occupation. The paramount lesson is not to rely on military force alone. Last summer the Group of Eight foreign ministers agreed on approximately four billion dollars in new aid to Afghanistan, concentrated in tribal areas bordering Pakistan where insurgents are strong. There is other encouraging news, including evidence of continued significant economic growth.

There is also consensus that Afghanistan requires a very long-term effort. In this Allied operation, British collaboration is vital.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Internet & Information Technology

aicyr — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:13:04 GMT

LONDON - The Internet and cell phones are blessing and bane, combining the enormous advantages of readily available information with dangerous alien invasion.

A visit to London highlights the constant competition between freedom and repression, even with the world's oldest sizable representative system of government. The prevalence of freedom includes gross displays in the media. But vulgar license is only one dimension of a society where lively information and interchange seems to be everywhere.

Concerning gross displays, the tabloid "News of the World" owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Group is accused of breaking the law by hacking into cell phones, a practice known as telephone tapping. According to "The Guardian" newspaper, Murdoch's firm paid approximately one million dollars to avoid news, settling three cases with victims without publicity.

Andy Coulson, communications director for the Conservative Party, previously was the editor of "News of the World". The Conservatives understandably are working hard to minimize political fallout, currently through curt statements usually delivered with dismissive demeanor.

"Big Brother Is Watching You" was a pervasive propaganda punch line in British author George Orwell's classic novel "1984."

Orwell, one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, was also a committed socialist. Unlike many on the left today, however, he had powerful personal involvement with working people, including doing manual labor. His socialism stressed egalitarianism, while remaining hostile to concentrated state or corporate power.

Britain has never had Big Brother, but effects of "Big Bang" deregulation of financial and other sectors under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s are profound. Thatcher's own heavy-handed style earned her the occasional sobriquet of "Big Sister," but her forceful opening of the economy continues to pay very positive dividends, even in recession.

The telecommunications revolution was fundamental to successful transformation. London's geographic location is ideal for round-the-clock global trading, while capital overall has moved more quickly. A generally more open society mitigates class conflict and other rigid parochialisms.

Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair in the 1990s had his own dramatic impacts on institutions, including ending the hereditary House of Lords and creating regional governments, but he generally left the marketplace alone. Traditional Labor socialism was replaced by a forward-looking pragmatism that won elections, at least during his tenure.

However, some Blair government proposals are troubling. Among other initiatives, the prime minister tried to create a new national identity card for each citizen and to abolish judicial hearings for many generally petty crimes. Efficiency, always a priority with businesslike Blair, was used to justify disturbing expansion of government power. Fortunately, Parliament generally successfully resisted such efforts.

A wit once said "1984" should really have been titled "1948", given the Stalin-style government portrayed. However, even democratic governments invade privacy, and the "News of the World" controversy reminds us that private as well as public power can menace freedom.

The global growth of open markets and representative governments encourages complacency about abuse of power, public or private, which is dangerous. Murdoch's enormous commercial and financial success undeniably encourages emulation amid the major challenges facing traditional more responsible journalism.

Conservative Party Leader David Cameron should address rather than avoid this subject, not primarily for partisan reasons but to reaffirm the principle of restraint of power. The traditional rule of law remains the core of our freedom. Cameron caution means beleaguered Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Labor just might win the next general election.

(Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Kenosha, Wis. He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu.)

Iran Turmoil Provides Opportunity

aicyr — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:39:33 GMT

The supreme leader of fundamentalist Islamic Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has confirmed the legitimacy of the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He did so publicly at a prayer ceremony on Friday at Tehran University, symbolically reinforcing the close connection between very traditional Moslem religion and practical politics in this country.

The reformist political leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who lost the election and has strongly challenged the results as rigged, was notably absent. As the Ayatollah spoke, a very large audience chanted “death to the U.S.”, which has become common background music in this sort of political theatre.

Three decades ago, Iran’s popular rejection of secular modernization, overthrow of ruling Shah Reza Pahlevi and return to Islamic traditionalism resulted in a sharp break with the United States, previously a close and distinctively influential ally. Over the intervening years, the gulf has remained, confirmed by policies on both sides.

In this context, the extremely carefully chosen words of Pres. Barack Obama to discuss developments in Iran are particularly appropriate as well as important. The “external enemy” has been a useful device for dictators from Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin to Castro and Cold War contemporaries. The current rulers of Iran reflect this practice, but in a context of only partial dictatorship. Overt Washington efforts to influence Tehran could only backfire. To a remarkable degree, the average Iranian is very aware of U.S. interference.

Immediately after World War II, Soviet troops occupied northern Iran. The Truman administration successfully pressured Moscow to withdraw. Under Eisenhower, British agents and the CIA overthrew the popularly elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh, which advocated nationalization of oil and other industries.

After the Islamic revolution, the lengthy hostage crisis in which personnel from the American embassy were held captive poisoned relations and helped defeat Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1980. Likewise, their release during the inauguration of Pres. Ronald Reagan provided an early boost in American public opinion for that new administration. In the interim, the Carter White House effort at a military rescue of the hostages, which ended in disastrous collision of U.S. aircraft at night in the desert, reinforced a reputation for weakness which plagued that administration. Pictures of ayatollahs poking the burned bodies of American special operations troops were very widely disseminated.

During the 1980s, the U.S. supported Iraq in the lengthy eight-year war with Iran. Yet beneath this tapestry of conflict, there are some promising signs of Iran moderation. The Ayatollah’s statements at Tehran University reflect support for fair elections and the rule of law. He emphasized that accusations the election was rigged should be addressed “through legal ways” and also noted that politics involving competing perspectives was “natural”. Much media commentary on protests in Iran focuses on use of cell phones, yet this high-tech dimension is more effect than cause, reflecting a relatively sophisticated active society. The 1979 revolution also was characterized by extensive popular demonstrations. The Shah’s modernization policies over the long term created a relatively well-educated population and sizable middle class.

Nearly a decade before the Bush administration occupied Iraq, former Pres. Richard Nixon wrote in his book ‘Beyond Peace’ that permitting Saddam Hussein to provoke invasion would be a mammoth blunder, which would reinforce the regional influence of Iran, a country of vital U.S. interest. The Obama administration clearly shares this assessment. Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (Macmillan and NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Gen. McChrystal, Special Forces & Afghanistan

aicyr — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:29:29 GMT

Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the new commander in Afghanistan, and has followed up immediately by granting media interviews. Both developments are very significant for reasons that reach beyond the rising levels of Allied troops and violence in that beleaguered country.

This particular officer has spent his career in the shadows in special operations. In an earlier U.S. Army era, a Special Forces career would have guaranteed being sidelined without possibility of promotion to top rank. During his open confirmation hearings, there were a number of subjects he could not discuss. For example, other than confirming being in Saudi Arabia during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, all other aspects of his responsibilities there remain classified.

Unconventional operations are as old as warfare and have been prominent in U.S. history. The American Revolution involved irregulars and raiders using tactics far removed from the conventional set-piece battles of European armies. The image of British Redcoats marching in formation, while Colonial irregulars took cover and fired with great effect, is a very well established part of our folklore as well as history.

During World War II, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor of the modern CIA, was particularly effective in sabotage missions and support for anti-Nazi partisan groups in Europe. Specially trained raiders, such as "Merrill's Marauders,'' were celebrated in film as well as the news.

The Army's modern Special Forces date from the earliest years of the Cold War, though accompanied by considerable irony. Intense anti-Communist sentiment, directed at alleged subversives at home as well as the new Soviet enemy abroad, came fundamentally to define partisan politics in America.

During the 1952 presidential campaign, the Republican Party promised to give new emphasis to liberating Eastern Europe from the Red Army. This had very practical political utility in the U.S. given the substantial populations of East European heritage, especially in major urban areas in large states.

Apparently, the policy of containment that had been developed and put in place with great effort by the Truman administration was to be abandoned. After the landslide election of the Republican ticket of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, new Army special operations teams were created, accompanied by increased propaganda efforts.

However, Pres. Eisenhower then proceeded to lock up Special Forces. He seemed strongly to favor the conventional military. In fact the services overall, especially the Army, were severely restricted by fiscal frugality and tight budget control.

Special operations did take place but both the President and the Pentagon remained insulated from any acknowledged direct role. In reality, in the White House as during World War II, Ike was very engaged, obsessed with securing accurate intelligence and ensuring that covert operations were successful.

Policy and posture changed very dramatically with the Kennedy administration. The Army's Green Berets assumed stage center, and the White House became very visibly involved. Special Forces, however, remained a career killer in terms of advancing to general.

The growth of revolutionary groups using terrorist means, especially in the more fluid environment since the Cold War, has changed this. Defense Secretary Robert Gates spent his career in the CIA, an unusual path to the top Pentagon post. In consequence, he and McChrystal are well qualified to work together to integrate unconventional warriors in the wider military.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of 'After the Cold War'(NYU Press and Macmillan/Palgrave). E-mail him at acyr(at)carthage.edu

Strange Things Happening in Korea

aicyr — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:38:10 GMT

Strange things are happening on the Korean peninsula. In the North, the return to an isolated, threatening stance by Pyongyang has abruptly terminated fitful cooperation to dismantle nuclear facilities. A second nuclear explosion, following the first three years ago, accompanied by long-range missile launches has definitely gotten global attention.

Dictator Kim Jong-il has made a rare public appearance at the Supreme People’s Assembly to designate his youngest son Kim Jong-un his successor. Much media commentary focused on the father’s aged appearance, striking evidence for reports he suffered a stroke last fall. The fact that he followed feudal practice in designating a son the next head of state is not surprising; his own father Kim Il-sung did the same.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the 38th Parallel which divides the two states, the suicide of former President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea has cast a shadow over politics. His family has been the focus of a financial investigation attended by very sanctimonious and strident partisan criticism from political opponents. Popular anger at alleged criminal behavior has been replaced with highly emotional public expressions of grief and sorrow.

In the midst of these disturbing developments, the role of another Korean leader continues to evolve favorably, with far fewer headlines – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations. Despite armed conflict and economic turmoil, the UN has not only maintained but strengthened the role of global coordination, oversight and law enforcement.

This Secretary-General represents a bridge between developed and developing worlds. The original institutional vision of the United Nations acknowledged power realities but also promoted inclusive representation. The Security Council still reflects the nations which led the Allied victory in World War II. The General Assembly remained inclusive even as the number of new nations ballooned during the 1960s.

The Republic of Korea was once part of the diverse Third World population of lower-income nations, but that status has changed very dramatically in a brief period of time. As recently as the early 1960s, Korea was among the poorest nations in the world.

In marked contrast, today South Korea ranks as the eleventh largest economy in the world and for more than two decades has practiced turbulent but successful democracy. Market economics as well as representative government now include a steadily increasing share of the world’s population. Secretary General Ban therefore bridges both developed and developing nations in an era when both dimensions appear to be merging.

In the midst of developments in Korea which are both grim and weird, a little noticed move in North Korea is nevertheless very significant. The regime which has publicly returned to rigidity has just quietly resumed negotiations with South Korea regarding the future of the special trade zone at Kaesong, just north of the 38th Parallel. This island of growing prosperity in the midst of the desperately impoverished North clearly is too important to sacrifice because of ideology.

Communism traditionally has included visions of social as well as economic utopia. The reality instead has confirmed the persistence of cruelty and greed as inevitable parts of the human condition. The promise of market economics, in the context of law and regulation, has been efficient and effective expansion of prosperity for people as a whole.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (Korean ed. Oruem Publishing; Macmillan and NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

D-Day: Enduring Lessons

aicyr — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:31:08 GMT

From ancient times to the present, amphibious military operations have been rightly regarded as particularly challenging. The largest such enterprise was the Allied invasion of France in World War II on June 6, 1944 – D-Day.

The Normandy invasion combined thorough planning, mobilization of vast matériel, and great imagination. When the operation already underway was publicly announced, a U.S. newspaper highlighted a front-page drawing of Allied soldiers cascading into Europe, as a terrified Hitler fled. A year of very brutal almost continuous combat lay ahead, but the end of Nazi Germany was in sight once the beaches were secured.

The rule of supreme allied commander Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was crucial. He demonstrated great executive ability in supervising an unprecedented logistical challenge, and his remarkable interpersonal skills welded and held together the most diverse military alliance in history. Related to this, Ike was able to establish overall unity of command. This was never achieved even among the American military alone in the Pacific theatre, where Gen. Douglas MacArthur constantly pursued one strategic vision, while Navy admirals took a competing approach.

Extensive bombing of transport routes and supply depots in France was proposed as part of the enormous effort to prepare the way for invasion. Such air action would bring an estimated minimum of 60,000 civilian casualties, and perhaps many more. For that reason, American and British air commanders resisted widespread destruction, and argued for a much more limited bombing effort.

Eisenhower was adamant about the absolute need for extensive bombing, arguing that less would put the invasion at severe risk. He was able to turn to the leader of the Free French, Gen. Charles de Gaulle, whose nation was the target. De Gaulle agreed completely, and gave unequivocal support. Ike had managed to establish an effective working relationship with the very difficult French leader; few others could.

Simultaneously, the American leader never lost awareness of the terrible human costs of war, borne primarily by the enlisted ranks. He constantly stressed the fundamentally important role of the combat soldier, and regularly went to see troops in the field. This dimension is captured especially by classic photographs of his visit with young American paratroopers about to depart early on D-Day.

Ike had the gift of imagination. During heavy fighting for Sicily in 1943, Gen. George S Patton Jr. slapped two U.S. soldiers suffering from combat stress, and in the ensuing very public maelstrom he was almost fired. Simultaneously, the controversy was dismissed as propaganda by Nazi leaders; the German military annually routinely executed thousands of their own men for various infractions.

Eisenhower responded by isolating Patton in England, where an entirely fictitious army was created around him. Actors were assigned roles, bogus information generated, phony structures constructed of cheap materials. The great trick worked. On D-Day and immediately thereafter, crucial German units were held back, in part because Patton’s (fictitious) forces had not yet moved.

Carthage College faculty over the years have made good use of the ancient classic ‘The Art of War’ by Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu, who stressed the importance of deception. I don’t know if Eisenhower read the book; I do know he could have written it.

When Eisenhower died, newly inaugurated Pres. Richard M. Nixon rightly compared him to George Washington as ‘first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen.’ On this sixty-fifth anniversary, there are important lessons for current leaders.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (Palgrave Macmillan and NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

UN Main Hope Re Iran, North Korea

aicyr — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:20:06 GMT

As the international community grapples with the latest thundering threats from North Korea, which for the second time in three years have been accompanied by a nuclear explosion, the principal forum is the United Nations. Likewise, as Iran defiantly if fitfully moves ahead with efforts to develop a nuclear capacity, the primary mechanism for restraining that provocative power is the UN.

Derided in the United States from the start by isolationists, a very powerful domestic political constituency into the 1950s, the global organization has endured and in many respects become stronger over the decades since the founding conference in San Francisco right after World War II.

Great credit for making the vision a reality accrues to President Harry S. Truman and his deputies, notably Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and George C. Marshall. A very powerful ally in the context of American public opinion was Eleanor Roosevelt, FDR’s widow.

Today Iran, North Korea and the few other remaining national renegades in the world are increasingly isolated – especially in economic terms – because of the comprehensive reach of UN credibility as well as membership. When outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made his farewell speech at the end of 2006, he chose as venue the Truman Presidential Library.

Equally important, President George W. Bush turned to the same forum for major policy statements, even during unilateral initial years in the White House. When North Korea exploded the first nuclear device three years ago, the initial sentence of the initial Bush public response mentioned the UN.

As U.S. problems mounted in Iraq, the administration turned to the UN for assistance. Despite the Bush base on the political right, there was never a suggestion during his two terms of getting the U.S. out of the UN. By contrast, that goal was a very prominent slogan on the Republican right during much of the Cold War.

Very frustrating aspects of the world organization should not be glossed over or denied. The global gabfest seems to go on endlessly, dominated by diplomats whose self-importance is frequently inversely related to the actual power of their nations. In recent years, there was far reaching financial corruption associated with UN supervision of the Iraq oil for food exchange, though these problems were extensively investigated, addressed and then Secretary-General Annan was never directly implicated.

Practical UN tools include economic sanctions and the glare of global media; both dimensions will become more important as more nations adopt reasonably open elections, the rule of law spreads and political censorship fades. China’s important UN role has facilitated Beijing’s unprecedented strong criticism of North Korea regarding the latest nuclear test. Trials under UN auspices regarding crimes in Africa, the Balkans and elsewhere reinforce influence.

Current Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of South Korea has unusual influence. For the first time since Dag Hammarskjold in the 1950s, the UN has a Secretary-General not bound by Third World or Cold War strictures.

Nation states, however, maintain control over military forces in the world. If war does break out because of actions by Iran or North Korea, Washington and other national capitals must cooperate for effective armed response. Diplomacy through the UN remains the most promising avenue to forestall such terrible contingencies. The very costly Korean War is a raw reminder of the costs of failure – though the UN did successfully defend South Korea.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Facebook in Russia

aicyr — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:15:31 GMT

Facebook, the exceptionally fast growing networking site, is both symbol and tool of globalization. The Internet represents development of a global society as well as economy. This particular social arena is populated primarily by young people, entirely appropriate and not at all surprising. Generational change encourages progress, and technical innovation is often most readily embraced by the young.

Facebook has just announced a new partnership with Digital Sky Technologies (DST), a very large but also new and relatively unknown Russian firm founded in 2005. A principal is Yuri Milner, who was head of Russia’s largest Internet portal, Mail.ru. Another main player is Alisher Usmanov, a billionaire from the very traditional metals industry.

The deal makes good sense for both sides. For the Russians, there are valuable contacts through association with a particularly high visibility high flying firm. This consideration transcends DST’s relatively small stake of less than 2 percent of equity.

For Facebook, there is access not only to money but also very veteran expertise. The Russians have survived and prospered in a particularly rough and raw newly emerging capitalist environment. Always keep in mind that communist control ended there less than two decades ago.

DST reportedly has stakes in approximately thirty Internet companies in Eastern Europe as well as Russia. While arguably there are fewer strong potential competitors in these markets than in more advanced economies, there is also less risk-oriented capital available, especially in a recession.

The Russian Internet entrepreneurs in this company have been able to attract money in very challenging times in part through alliance with a very traditional commodity business. Additionally, there is considerable expertise in that part of the world concerning applied as well as basic science, a positive legacy of the intense Cold War competition in space exploration as well as arms development.

The Russian marriage also helps protect Facebook from less desirable suitors closer to home. Google has had continuing interest in establishing a strong and perhaps controlling interest in the networking company. In part to head off this unattractive possibility, a significant investment by Microsoft was worked out two years ago.

At that time, Facebook stock was considerably higher than today. The current deal with DST implies a total valuation of approximately $10 billion, about one-third lower than two years ago. Nonetheless, Facebook stock has plunged much less than that of other major Internet and computer companies.

There are much wider implications to this dramatic Russian-American business partnership, with very significant political and indeed philosophical implications. First, despite the serious global recession, considerable liquid capital is available. In this context, the central role of the U.S. dollar since World War II facilitates very active international deal making even in the midst of adversity.

Second, effective international regulation of business grows steadily more important to encourage as well as oversee commerce. Paul Volcker, who currently directs Obama administration efforts to provide emergency capital to troubled corporations, previously chaired the International Accounting Standards Board based in London. In that role, he spearheaded enormous progress in modernizing accounting standards around the globe. This dedicated public servant is remarkably well suited by temperament and experience to integrate the domestic and international dimensions of commercial regulation.

Finally, the somewhat odd couple of DST and Facebook demonstrate undeniably that the Cold War is truly over. For that, let us give thanks, and hope for a happy marriage.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of “After the Cold War” (NYU Press and Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

North Korea Tests Balance of Power

aicyr — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:11:51 GMT

The nuclear test by North Korea on Monday, following an earlier one three years ago, occurred not only on Memorial Day in the U.S. but during mourning in South Korea for former President Roh Moo-hyun, who committed suicide. The explosion has also been accompanied by missile tests. This latest move in the now long story of provocation by the communist regime is cause for very serious concern. Last month, after great public fanfare, Pyongyang test launched a missile. The Taepodong 2 missile fell into the ocean after passing over Japan. The device dubbed Unha-2 was an improved version of one tested on July 4, 2006 U.S. Independence Day. Those on the front line of diplomacy most directly affected by these tests - in particular South Korea, Japan and the United States - have reacted with public protest but military restraint. Significantly, North Koreas ally China has also condemned this latest nuclear test, along with Russia. Pyongyangs provocations stymie prospects for diplomatic progress, which recently had been promising once again. Last fall, Washington removed North Korea from the list of terrorist states in return for Pyongyangs agreement to disable a key nuclear facility. The Bush administration also gave renewed emphasis to the Six Power talks involving China, Japan, Russia and the U.S. along with the two Koreas. This dramatic reversal from earlier emphasis on unilateralism provided strong testimony for the durable value of trying to reach diplomatic understanding with the isolated communist state. The high stakes involved are self-evident. The three-year Korean War which began in 1950 took at least one million lives, and probably far more, brought direct combat between American and Chinese forces and devastated the Korean Peninsula. In the United States, public support for the Truman administration evaporated and anti-communist alarm greatly increased. Currently, economic tools beyond customary diplomacy should receive priority. Given the extraordinary poverty of North Korea, financial pressure may help bring a return to relatively moderate behavior. There is instructive recent precedent. In the first part of 2007, Washington declared Banco Delta Asia (BDA) based in Macau a renegade institution assisting illegal financial activities by Pyongyang. U.S. businesses were banned from dealing with BDA, and others followed suit. Macau government authorities froze $25 million in North Korean funds. Washington then offered to facilitate sending the funds to Pyongyang in return for restraint concerning initiatives regarding developments of nuclear weapons capabilities. A transfer of funds to North Korea eventually was carried out by BDA, reportedly with assistance from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the central bank of Russia and a small private Russian financial institution, the Far East Commercial Bank. This pressure resulted in a more flexible attitude by the North Korean government, at least for a time. A return to similar economic incentives as part of a comprehensive diplomatic response might be useful now. Pyongyang is rightly notorious for extensive black market activities, including weapons along with other products. Now is the time to focus on that dimension. Over the years, Pyongyang has become masterful at creating crises, sometimes approaching the brink of war, only to step back, usually in return for substantial economic assistance. For Seoul, Washington and their negotiating partners, the process has been very arduous, and at times painful. Nevertheless, war has been averted and regional stability maintained. Right now, patience is in order. Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of After the Cold War (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan; Korean edition from Oruem Publishing). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Middle East Turmoil - Israel & the U.S.

aicyr — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:35:18 GMT

The visit to Washington of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has been free of public acrimony. Some predicted a contentious meeting with President Barack Obama given the particularly hard-line personality of the Israeli leader. Instead, Netanyahu has emphasized support for an independent Palestinian state, though with restrictions, and urged immediate resumption of peace negotiations.

Wisely, President Barack Obama has emphasized areas of agreement regarding Iran and other matters, even while the administration continues to pursue a sovereign Palestinian state. The long-term growth in support among Israeli voters for nationalist conservative parties has clouded prospects for reconciliation with the Palestinian population. Nonetheless, important broad developments within the Middle East are encouraging moderation, and Netanyahu reflects this changing reality.

Netanyahu’s notable visit follows dramatic support for a Palestinian state by Pope Benedict XVI on a visit to the Middle East last week. Generally, this pontiff has so far avoided the strong policy declarations of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. This time, however, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church seemed to seek occasions to make news in support of the Palestinian cause.

The Pope spoke at Manger Square in Bethlehem, at a Palestinian refugee camp by the Israeli barrier which separates the population, and at the base of Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah. He referred to the barrier as a “wall”, the preferred Palestinian term, in contrast to the official Israeli term “fence”.

The Pope had been criticized for not including Gaza, the scene of large scale Israeli military strikes in December and January in reprisal for attacks by militants based there. By the time he departed, such complaints had faded.

Less dramatic developments, beyond the immediate headlines, help explain the current declarations advocating flexibility. Also last week, Syria announced important steps to encourage foreign investment. New banking licenses are being issued and the Damascus Securities Exchange will be expanded. There are also moves to enlarge manufacturing and tourism sectors.

Syria is not a major global or even regional economy, but has had steady economic growth at an annual rate of about 5 percent over the past five years. During the same period, the government has deregulated banking and financial services. State banks no longer have a financial monopoly, and have been joined by a growing number of private banks.

The U.S. maintains economic sanctions against Syria, partly in reaction to support for militant anti-Israel organizations Hezbollah and Hamas. But commercially, the times are definitely changing, with developments in Syria reflecting wider economic modernization throughout the region, including major oil producing states.

Headlines regarding terrorism and Israel’s incursions in Lebanon also mask the fact that the Middle East has been free of a truly region wide war for more than thirty years. Earlier decades were marked by such wars in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973.

The Obama administration has important leverage, and here ally Turkey is vital. Ankara controls the Straits of Bosporus, linking the Black Sea and Mediterranean, an ancient trade route of fundamental importance. Turkey also controls headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, which supply Iraq and Syria. Since the 1970s, Middle Eastern states generally have seen domestic water shortfalls as demands have expanded.

Very old time religions, of an extreme sort, too often define the Middle East. Meanwhile, old time geostrategy provides important positive insights.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Asia Diplomacy Uneven for Obama

aicyr — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:33:01 GMT

In relatively slow but steady fashion, the Obama administration has been filling diplomatic posts. John Roos, head of the powerful Silicon Valley law firm of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati, reportedly is about to be named Ambassador to Japan. He is close to President Obama and a major campaign fund raiser. Moderate Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah has been nominated as Ambassador to China.

Despite current preoccupations in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, including the now long-term war in Iraq, Asia overall is of growing importance to United States foreign policy. Since 1985, total trade with that region has been greater than with Europe, and the disparity steadily expands. The Spanish-American War, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War were fought wholly or to a significant degree in Asia.

China and Japan represent respectively the second and third largest economies in the world, after the United States, and all three are enormously interconnected in terms of trade and investment, including holding substantial amounts of American public debt. Huntsman knows China well, served as a Mormon missionary in Taiwan and Ambassador to Singapore, and speaks Mandarin. He was also Deputy U.S. Trade Representative.

The Tokyo post has evolved in a much more complicated manner. For some weeks the name of Professor Joseph S. Nye Jr. of Harvard circulated in the media on both sides of the Pacific as the likely choice.

Nye in various respects is an ideal candidate. He has senior experience in the State and Defense Departments during the Carter and Clinton administrations. A scholar and teacher, he was long-term dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

He originated the term “soft power” to describe important dimensions of international relations beyond military means, including cultural as well as economic resources. While these tools are not new, Nye has given them a contemporary currency helpful to public education as well as policy definition. Enormous rapid economic redevelopment after defeat in war makes Japan a primary example of soft power potential.

The White House would have been wise to give Nye the position, especially after so much public anticipation. The current global economic financial turmoil and recession, combined with the rise of China, whose relations with Japan are very complex, places a premium on diplomatic skill and insight.

Throughout our history, there has been tension between diplomacy and domestic politics. The State Department traditionally has been relatively weak, lacking the support of powerful economic interests which gravitate to Commerce, Labor, the Pentagon, the Treasury and other large federal departments.

During the intensely anti-communist McCarthy era, the State Department became a primary political target. President Harry Truman responded by appointing strong Secretaries of State, Dean Acheson and Gen. George C. Marshall. Both were highly intelligent and politically adept; Marshall was widely revered for his crucial strategic leadership during World War II.

John F. Kennedy was especially sensitive to serious professional credentials for diplomatic posts. His father had been a disastrous U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain early in World War II. Another Harvard professor, Edwin Reischauer, became ambassador to Japan and served with notable effectiveness.

The Obama administration has given priority to naming special emissaries to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran and other matters. Professor Nye would be an ideal candidate for such a role, in East Asia or elsewhere.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Torture, Morality & Laws of War

aicyr — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:27:09 GMT

Barbarism and the law collide in war. Armed conflict is inherently terribly destructive. The law is a vital tool for mitigating the most brutal aspects of war. Both dimensions are present in the intensely politicized debate in Washington about torture.

Anti-war Democrats have pressed for release of classified information. Republican counterattacks include accusations that Democrats were fully briefed on use of waterboarding on prisoners during the Bush administration. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denies this.

The debate does not divide strictly along partisan lines. Republican Senator and 2008 presidential nominee John McCain has been a very visible outspoken opponent of torture, which he suffered first-hand as a long-time prisoner in the infamous Hanoi Hilton during the Vietnam War.

The current debate directly reflects decisions by the Bush administration, which following the 9/11 terrorist attacks defended use of torture – euphemistically described as “enhanced interrogation” - in the struggle with al Qaeda. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others argued that neither the Geneva Conventions nor U.S. law applied to terrorist suspects; large numbers were incarcerated at Guantanamo Cuba without recourse to judicial appeal or review.

This was a political as well as moral mistake. Slowly but explicitly, the U.S. judicial branch culminating in the Supreme Court has determined unequivocally that basic human rights are universal, and that Guantanamo prisoners must be provided some form of legal due process.

The U.S. military has very effectively reinforced the point. Military lawyers have balked, and some have gone public, to protest absence of due process. The current 2006 edition of U.S. Army Field Manual (FM) 2-22.3 entitled “Human Intelligence Collector Operations” explicitly prohibits torture and other abuse.

A proposed version of this manual would have included a classified section with instructions on how to torture prisoners. This was vetoed after very intense internal debate, in which the military was able in effect to overrule Secretary Rumsfeld.

Historically the United States has played a major role in developing laws of warfare. This is no surprise, given the ethical grounding of our Constitution. During the Civil War Francis Lieber of Columbia Law School, military adviser to President Abraham Lincoln, wrote a treatise promulgated in 1863 as General Orders 100 and used for a half century. The orders described the rights of noncombatants, partisans, prisoners and spies, along with prohibited weapons, such as poisons.

Professor Lieber, a German veteran of the Napoleonic wars, knew combat intimately. One of his sons fought for the Confederacy while two served in the Union Army. The Confederate was killed; another son lost an arm.

The American example encouraged the 1899 Hague Convention on “Laws and Customs of War on Land”, followed by the Geneva Conventions. During World War II, Allied leaders Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt emphasized applying law to war, directly reflected after the war in the Nuremberg and Japan war crimes tribunals and substantial expansion of the Geneva Conventions.

If clarity of commitment by Bush and Rumsfeld to torture was undeniable, though described with linguistic legerdemain, the Obama administration so far has been awkwardly ambivalent. After releasing classified details about Bush administration discussions, the White House has now backed off releasing graphic, gross photos of prisoners held in U.S. custody. Reportedly, CIA Director Leon Panetta and other officials have strenuously opposed the release of this classified information.

Obama has yet to provide persuasive justification for his fitful footsteps. A brilliant presidential candidate, in this matter he has not demonstrated presidential leadership.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College. He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu