AFP Princeton November 2010

From the Publisher

Staff

Dear Readers,

Editor-in-Chief Ben Cogan ‘12

In recent years, pundits and voters across the political spectrum have derided the series of ‘do-nothing’ Congresses that have supposedly plagued our once-healthy democracy. It seems clear, however, that whatever you think about the past Congress — the 111th — it did not do nothing. From the stimulus package to the health care overhaul to the Wall Street reform bill, it is undeniable that the current Congress has done plenty. After the so-called “shellacking” of the Democrats in the recent midterm elections, however, this will almost certainly change as a divided government, representing an increasingly divided country, struggles to find common ground in any area.

Though President Obama’s signature achievements thus far have arguably come in the form of legislation affecting the domestic sphere, the President will likely find himself peering abroad soon; like his predecessor, President Obama will find it easier to effect foreign policy change, where his executive powers allow much greater unchecked leeway.

Though the President’s opponents criticized his much-delayed trip to Asia in light of his party’s losses in Congress, it is perhaps no accident that President Obama has chosen, so soon after the election, to emphasize the realm — international affairs — where his powers remain largely undiminished.

This month’s AFP includes a series of articles that touch on issues related to the past election. Cara Eckholm, for example, argues that the U.S. should primarily donate climate change aid to India and not China. The concern over China, India, and the loss of American jobs was paramount in this month’s elections. Kristie Liao, in a similar vein, argues that the US should counter China’s growing dominance in the clean energy sector by promoting its own and addressing unfair Chinese subsidies in the international forum. Dillon Smith, in this month’s cover story, argues that a ballot initiative that was narrowly defeated on November 2nd — Proposition 19 — is a harbinger for greater relaxation of our draconian drug laws in the months and years ahead. Legalizing marijuana would, Smith argues, be a boon for Mexican-American relations.

I am also proud to announce that, for the first time, this month’s AFP will include interviews with key political and foreign policy leaders. A newly formed consortium of politically oriented campus magazines from around the country, the Alliance of Collegiate Editors (of which AFP has now become a part), conducted the interview with Mark Rudd, former leader of the Weather Underground movement. I, along with the rest of the AFP leadership team, am excited about these ongoing developments and partnerships, and we hope that you think the magazine in your hands is better because of them.

Publisher Brian Lipshutz ‘12 Managing Editors Matthew Arons ‘13 Taman Narayan ‘13 Jake Nebel ‘13 Aaron Abelson Brendan Carroll Vishal Chanani Katherine Gaudyn Rachel Jackson Addie Lerner Zayn Siddique Eric Stern Kit Thayer Oliver Bloom Yun Chung Sweta Haldar Jim Hao Natalie Kim

Editors

‘11 ‘11 ‘11 ‘11 ‘11 ‘11 ‘11 ‘11 ‘11 ‘11 ‘12 ‘12 ‘12 ‘12

Charlie Metzger Jay Parikh Peter Wang Don Butterworth Jonathan Lin Andres Perez-Benzo Daniel Toker Emily VanderLinden Audrye Wong Rohan Bhargava Sunny Jeon Kristie Liao Adam Safadi Rachel Webb

‘12 ‘12 ‘12 ‘13 ‘13 ‘13 ‘13 ‘13 ‘13 ‘14 ‘14 ‘14 ‘14 ‘14

Layout

Yanran Chen ‘12 Production Manager

Christina Henricks Kim Hopewell Ben Kotopka Shreya Murthy

‘13 ‘13 ‘13 ‘13

Emily VanderLinden Grace Ma Adam Safadi Jenna Weinstein

‘13 ‘14 ‘14 ‘14

Editors-in-Chief Emeriti Rush Doshi ‘11 Dan May ‘11 Copy Editor Emerita Kelly Lack ‘10

Sincerely, Ben Cogan ‘12 Editor-in-Chief

Business Staff

American Foreign Policy is a student-written, student-run publication based at Princeton University. It was founded in the wake of September 11th to provide Princeton students with a forum to discuss the difficult problems and choices facing the United States in the world. American Foreign Policy magazine is sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, and the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.

No part of this publication should be construed to promote any pending legislation or to support any candidate for office. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Woodrow Wilson School, the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, the James Madison Program, Princeton University, or American Foreign Policy. AFP gladly accepts letters to the editor, article proposals, and donations, which are fully tax-deductible.

All correspondence may be directed to: American Foreign Policy, 5406 Frist Center, Princeton, NJ 08544 afp@princeton.edu www.afpprinceton.com

2

Emma Cunningham ‘11

Samuel Roeca ‘12

AFP Advisory Board

Wolfgang Danspeckgruber: Director, Liechtenstein Institute for Self-Determination Robert P. George: Director, James Madison Program G. John Ikenberry: Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs Christina Paxson: Dean, Woodrow Wilson School

American Foreign Policy

AFP Cover Story

Photo Credits: Creative Commons images from Flickr

A merican F oreign P olicy

November 2010, Volume X, Issue II

ta b l e o f co n t e n ts

4 6 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 18 20 22

High Stakes Marijuana and Mexico Dillon Smith ‘14 American Clean Energy Policy Surviving in a Heated Environment Kristie Liao ‘14 Two for One U.S.-India Relations and Global Warming Cara Eckholm ‘14

AFP Quiz Benjamin Cogan ‘12

Global Update Taman Narayan ‘13

Fiscal Austerity in Britain Too Much, Too Fast Rohan Bhargava ‘14 Interview with Aurelia Frick Current Foreign Minister of Liechtenstein Ben Cogan ‘12 and Tara Lewis ‘11

In Context Taman Narayan ‘13

Malware?

Stuxnet and the Future of Cyberwarfare Michael Becker ‘14 All Quiet on the Western Front Turkey’s Changing Role on the World Stage George Maliha ‘13 America’s Land of Opportunity Supporting Yemen’s Fight Against Terrorism Collin Berger ‘14 Interview with Mark Rudd Former Member of Weather Underground Association of Collegiate Editors

November 2010

Cover Image by Shreya Murthy ‘13

3

Cover Story

A US CBO officer examines bundles of marijuana found in a commercial shipment of scrap metal at the El Paso port of entry on May 6, 2009. Photo from Wikimedia Commons.

High Stakes Marijuana and Mexico

P

roposition 19, the recently defeated California ballot initiative, sought to legalize the possession and production of marijuana and thus ameliorate the state’s financial crises and reduce crime. The initiative was defeated for a number of reasons: worries about health issues, ambiguities with respect to enforcement, and moral objections, to name a few. Lost in these debates, however, was the impact that the legalization of marijuana would have on U.S. foreign relations; quite simply, the continued expansion of the criminal marijuana trade in the U.S. risks rendering Mexico a quasi-failed state at the hands of drug gangs. The United States cannot afford to share a porous 1500-mile border with a failed state whose population is half our own.

The overflow of violence, torrent of immigration, curtailed economic growth, and loss of regional stability that would ensue are liabilities too great for the United States to assume. However, policies pursued by successive American administrations to curb domestic consumption and limit the importation of drugs have utterly failed. Therefore, the best option for the United States to pursue from a foreign policy standpoint is to legalize the consumption and production of marijuana.

4

Dillon Smith ‘14 To be clear, this article will not engage in the domestic policy debate from which California has recently emerged. It will not weigh in on the morality of legalizing marijuana, its impacts on Americans’ health, or on its potential tax revenues. Smokers and libertarians can square off against moralists and health advocates in some other forum. This article will instead explore the impacts that the federal legalization of marijuana would have on U.S.-Mexican relations, and will argue that legalization would yield gross benefits for both nations.

Any analysis of the drug trade must start with a candid admission: U.S. attempts to defeat domestic consumption have been – and forever will be – a dismal failure. Despite four decades of tough law enforcement and draconian criminal penalties, lifetime consumption rates of illegal drugs among adults continue to hover around 45 percent, and are even rising for some drugs, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Youth education policies have also failed: the percentage of high school seniors who say they use cannabis is now close to 50 percent, according to the same study. Some states, like Massachusetts, are ignoring the federal ban entirely

American Foreign Policy

by decriminalizing possession, while others are using medical marijuana as a way to skirt the federal ban (a few states such as California and Maine do both). The prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s failed, and the prohibition of cannabis has and will fail for the same reason: domestic demand is simply too great and too resilient. Accordingly, it is unfair and hypocritical for the U.S. to let Mexico bear the brunt of enforcing its ban on marijuana, simply because the U.S. is unable to enforce it.

In recognition of the failure to curb domestic consumption, the second President Bush declared a renewed “War on Drugs” in an effort to target the importation of drugs into the U.S. In other words, Bush sought to shift the focus from decreasing demand to cutting off supply. Although enforcement agencies have had measured successes in the seizure of imports, domestic consumption remains strong. Moreover, viewed from south of the border, the drug busts have only increased the ingenuity and deadliness of the Mexican cartels. The border is too vast and American demand too immense for policy watchers to have any great faith that the federal government will be able to the stem the torrent of contraband gushing northward by out-witting or out-gunning the drug gangs.

The American policy of exporting drug policy enforcement to Mexico has had disastrous consequences. Although the Mexican government is still in charge of its capital, Mexico City, it is clearly not in charge of all of the border regions. Corruption runs rampant at all levels of government; according to The Economist, half of all police offi-

cers in the northern states regularly receive bribes.

The narco-gangs therefore operate with legal impunity, as evidenced by the ubiquitous SUVs filled with armed mobsters that roam the streets of Juarez and Tijuana. Civil society has started to break down as the narcotics gangs become the de facto governments in some areas; in September, a front page editorial appeared in a popular Mexican newspaper, El Diario de Juarez, asking for direct guidelines from the cartels on what it could publish without the abduction and murder of its journalists. The homicide rates have become staggering; 28,000 people have lost their lives since Felipe Calderón assumed the presidency in 2006, a murder rate more than three times higher than that in the U.S. The northern border regions of Mexico have come to resemble Somalia or preinvasion Afghanistan more than their southern counterparts. The Mexican government reacts angrily to statements of this kind, especially the use of the phrase “failed state.” The anger is probably justified. For the moment, Mexico does not warrant the designation “failed state,” for although the northern border regions may resemble lawless Somalia, the rest of the country clearly does not. A more appropriate comparison would be to Pakistan, where the central government is in control of Islamabad, but clearly has no clout in regions such as Waziristan and the Northwest Frontier Provence. The risk is that Mexico will end up in the same position, with a government that controls the capital but not the borders. To remind the reader, these borders are our borders.

This outcome would be terrible for the United States for four reasons. First of all, the lack of security could eventually destroy foreign investment in Mexico and hamper if not reverse growth in the economy overall. Large, modern businesses, including American business, cannot operate and certainly will not invest if commercial law evaporates. Since Mexico is America’s thirdlargest trading partner, slow or negative growth in Mexico will directly impact U.S. economic prospects. Second, the most assured long-term solution to America’s immigration problems involves growing the Mexican economy and thereby reducing the economic pressure for migrants to head northward. A declining Mexican economy will face the U.S. with unprecedented levels of illegal immigrants seeking to escape both economic hardships and violence, which would put even further strain on the American labor market.

Third, the violence engulfing northern Mexico will undoubtedly spread into the U.S. (the main narcotics gangs are known to be operating in 195 American cities), creating new nightmares for the federal enforcement agencies. Finally, the existence of Mexican democracy itself would come in to question, which would create significant

problems for U.S.-Mexican relations. American foreign policy interests tend to coincide with those of other democracies, and if democracy in Mexico falters (whether due to the gangs or far-right militarists), the United States may face awkward diplomatic rows with Mexico, much as it does now with states like Venezuela.

Given the grave consequences of Mexico becoming akin to Pakistan, the U.S. must use every means at its disposal to avoid this situation. The current American policies of limiting domestic demand and the importation of narcotics, however, are clearly ineffective. This article posits, therefore, that the best solution is to legalize marijuana nation-wide. As the least harmful and most widely used of illegal narcotics, cannabis is the best candidate for legalization. If legalization were to occur, domestic production would become legitimate, which would force Mexican gangs out of

“North of the border, the legalization of marijuana would have many positive spillover effects from Mexico, in addition to the direct elimination of the crime problem. ” the American marijuana market for two reasons: first, due to economies of scale and reduced transportation costs, domestically produced marijuana would be far cheaper than its Mexican counterpart, according to a recent report by the NGO RAND. Secondly, American producers would be able to focus their efforts on producing highergrade marijuana (of the type that is currently used for medical purposes), which is both more potent and longer lasting. Faced with competition from American firms supplying cheaper and highergrade cannabis, Mexican cartels would effectively be priced out of the U.S. market.

Given the secrecy with which the cartels operate, the proportion of their revenues that come from the exportation of marijuana is not precisely known; credible estimates range from 25% to 40%. However, even a reduction in profits of 25% is likely to have a sizeable effect on both sides of the border. In Mexico, a decline in revenue would correspond to a decline in the power of the gangs, in at least three areas: first, since the gangs do not

November 2010

seem to exhibit product specialization (the only distinguishing factor is geography), U.S. legalization would force all gangs to downsize their operations and lay off workers. The gangs would also be obliged to offer less enticing economic incentives to young Mexicans considering joining their operations, which would reduce their influence in Mexican society. Second, reduced profits from the loss of U.S. market share would hinder the ability of the cartels to bribe police officials, politicians, and journalists, which would allow for better law enforcement and increase public awareness of the gangs’ atrocities. Third, decreased revenues would simply mean decreased working capital, both for the maintenance and expansion of the gangs’ activities, and for the purchase of weapons.

Each of the above factors would likely contribute to lower levels of violence in the long term, reports RAND, as a decline in the cartels’ power would allow the government to regain control of the situation, although it has been suggested that violence might increase in the short term while the drug markets stabilize.

North of the border, the legalization of marijuana would have many positive spillover effects from Mexico, in addition to the direct elimination of the crime problem. As a byproduct of the declining ability of the cartels to export to the United States, the existing domestic supply routes that have been established (which smuggle marijuana within the U.S. once it has crossed the border) would wither and die. This would eliminate a further source of revenue for the cartels and decrease the possibility of “spillover violence” in the U.S. Additionally, better security in the long term will ensure a more robust Mexican economy with higher GDP growth, which will entice more Mexican workers to seek jobs in their own country rather than in the U.S., thus alleviating strain on the American labor market and border patrol.

It is therefore clear that the federal legalization of marijuana would yield sizeable benefits in both the United States and Mexico.

Unfortunately, the recent debate in California over Proposition 19 focused only on the domestic aspects of the legalization of marijuana, and as this article shows, one of the most important impacts it would have is on U.S.-Mexican relations. It is plainly in America’s best interests to help Mexico combat the narcotics gangs, as well as our responsibility to the extent that U.S. demand is the reason for their existence. As it stands, the rule of law in Mexico is not strong enough to withstand the economic hurricane of U.S. drug demand, and if we do not radically alter our strategies, the rule of law in our southern neighbor may be blown away. Afp Dillon may be reached at dillons@princeton.edu

5

US Foreign Policy

Wind turbines generate rewnewable energy at a wind farm in Palm Springs, California. Photo from Flickr.

American Clean Energy Policy Surviving in a Heated Environment

I

n recent years, the emerging U.S. clean energy industry has faced increasing pressure from foreign competitors. This competition has taken its toll; the U.S. has fallen behind its rivals in the export of goods and services related to wind, solar, and battery power. A Senate report commissioned to examine the issue reveals that the U.S. clean tech industry had exports totaling $7.7 billion from 2004 to 2008, while China exported $22.7 billion and Germany $19.6 billion. To rise to the challenge posed by this competition, the U.S. must pursue an aggressive trade liberalization policy to open foreign markets to U.S. clean tech exports. Moreover, the U.S. should take steps to ensure that other nations will likewise uphold free trade

6

Kristie Liao ‘14 principles in their trading practices.

International economic trade talks currently or soon to be underway afford valuable opportunities for the U.S. to pursue a trade liberalization policy that will help to create new markets for its products. One such opportunity will be the Doha round of World Trade Organization (WTO) talks, led by members of the European Union, the U.S., and Japan as well as rapidly developing countries like China, India, and Brazil. Though the most recent round collapsed in 2008 over agricultural trade issues between the U.S., India, and China, negotiations over environmental goods and services may help to facilitate future talks. WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy has already expressed the hope that environ-

American Foreign Policy

mental goods and services will serve as the basis for future negotiation; when discussions resume, the U.S. should take the lead in utilizing green goods and services as a catalyst for cooperation.

The U.S. should also seek to strengthen and establish new free trade agreements (FTAs) with international economic partners. In the long run, competitive market conditions are the only way to promote economic innovation and growth. Strengthened FTAs would increase U.S. access to foreign markets, as well as generate competition by eliminating tariffs and quotas on U.S. manufacturing exports. Opportunities for the U.S. to create new FTAs with other nations abound, as agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea are each very close to completion. A trade agreement with South Korea holds particular potential, and President Obama has announced that he and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak are working towards a deal worth tens of billions of dollars in U.S. exports. The U.S. should forge ahead with negotiations and also seek to expand pending FTAs to include the export of clean energy goods and

services.

In alignment with the goal of free trade, the U.S. should take firm action to ensure a level global playing field for its renewable industries. In September 2010, the United Steelworkers industrial labor union filed a detailed trade complaint with the U.S. government, alleging that China unfairly subsidized the export of its own clean-energy products, fostered the forced transfer of technology, discriminated against foreign firms, and demonstrated preferences in contract bidding processes. China has been vocal in its protest of the U.S. trade complaint, countering that the U.S. has pursued similar practices domestically.

While parallels may appear to exist between Chinese and U.S. practices of subsidization, the WTO has established a framework of rules that are tougher on the direct subsidization of exports than on the subsidization of research and development or technology deployment.

The White House, which acknowledges that the U.S. has subsidized research in clean tech, notes that it has not subsidized the export of these technologies, unlike China.

Moving forward, the Obama administration needs to proceed with firm yet strategic diplomacy that will preserve its already strained relationship with China. It is no secret that China possesses the upper hand in many aspects of international trade; advantages such as its large currency reserves, especially of U.S. debt, give China strategic leverage in tempering U.S. foreign policy. Given existing long-term tensions over China’s currency deflation, the straightforward response for the U.S. would be to file a complaint with the WTO or to engage in direct talks with Chinese officials. While tempting, direct confrontation is not the ideal policy, not least because it is likely to be ineffective. A more tactful policy approach would help to forward broader U.S. goals of global trade liberalization.

In this instance, working to create a more liberal global economy may be the wisest approach. The U.S. should seek stronger economic integration with China’s regional trading partners and neighbors to induce China to play by the free-trade rulebook. President Obama has already made strides in this area, embarking on a November trip to India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan,

US Foreign Policy

with the goal of spurring trade talks. On this trip, President Obama announced the end of bans on the export of certain technologies to India. Measures such as these, as well as increased U.S. economic

“In alignment with the goal of free trade, the U.S. should take firm action to ensure a level global playing field for its renewable industries.” integration in economic organizations and forums such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, will not only further open foreign markets in the region but also serve to build rapport between the U.S. and Asian nations. In building economic coherence between the U.S. and China’s regional trade partners, the U.S. will gain allies in trade who may also play a vocal role in advocating for China to adopt free trade practices.

A second, more indirect approach to stiffen U.S. policy towards China would

be to strengthen the military regional alliances the U.S. shares with Japan and South Korea. When the U.S. pursued a stronger alliance with Japan in the 1990s, the additional pressure this alliance placed on China pushed the nation to build up its economic trade relations with East Asian neighbors so as to ward off U.S. encroachment. This policy approach has in part produced the recent dramatic economic success of China. In the current situation, the strengthening of U.S. military presence in East Asia may encourage Chinese officials to seek to defuse tensions with trading partners in East Asia and abroad by pursuing fairer trade practices.

As the U.S. contemplates its future in renewable energy, it will need to rely on its economic partners to help build an open market for its exports. To address current trade disputes with China, the U.S. must strengthen its economic relationships, and perhaps even military alliances, with China’s regional trade partners in order to place pressure on China both locally and from afar. In the interest of the future health of U.S. clean tech industries, policymakers must take bold, strategic action to ensure greater global trade liberalization. Afp

Kristie may be reached at klfour@princeton.edu

Solar panels. Photo from Flickr.

November 2010

7

Asia

Two For One U.S.-India Relations and Global Warming

L

ast December, at the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the United States and other wealthy nations pledged increased aid to developing countries to help tackle environmental issues in the developing world. The wealthier nations collectively agreed to raise $30 billion between 2010 and 2012 in support of developing nations, which are at the greatest risk of flooding, drought, disease outbreaks, and other catastrophes caused by climate change. They further pledged to raise $100 billion by 2020 and to establish the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to help such nations adapt to climate challenges through measures such as build-

Cara Eckholm ‘14

ing dikes and helping farmers plant different crops to adjust to changing season patterns.

Perhaps more importantly, the climate fund money will also be used to mitigate or curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Since the conference, the Obama administration has made plans to “fast-track” the fulfillment of its financial obligations as determined in Copenhagen by requesting $1.9 billion in international climate funds from Congress.

While the Copenhagen conference produced clear answers as to how much member nations are expected to donate in climate aid, it did not make explicit precisely which nations would be benefitting from the aid.

As the wealthier nations begin to determine The Taj Mahal in Agra, India. Photo from Flickr.

8

American Foreign Policy

where aid will be distributed, it is clear that it is in the United States’ interest to direct climate change mitigation aid towards India.

In the past, environmental aid has been directed toward major emerging nations – namely, China, India and Brazil – in large part because these nations have enough political and economic clout to demand the attention of donors in the developed world.

These nations also possess the infrastructure necessary to navigate the complex application process required to access aid. The global aid group Oxfam found that over the past ten years, one-third of the international money aimed at climate programs went to these three nations, while the world’s poorest 49 countries received just one-eighth.

Moreover, even among these three emerging economies aid is not distributed equally: the majority of the money from the United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism, for example, goes to projects in China.

To effectively reduce future greenhouse gas emissions, mitigation aid from developed countries like the United States must continue to flow to major developing nations like China, India, and Brazil, rather than to

the world’s poorest countries. The emerging economic giants have seen the greatest rise in emissions over the past 20 years. Since they are large, industrializing nations, their future emissions will have a greater effect on global warming than the undersized emissions from poorer countries.

But why does the United States favor China over India and Brazil in terms of environmental aid? The United States should direct more of its aid towards environmental projects in India. If invested in India, this aid will not only produce global environmental benefits but also further the United States’ strategic interests. Although investing in renewable energy in China will have roughly the same global, climactic effect as investing in Indian energy projects, investment in India is strategically better for the U.S. Over the past ten years, China has become an economic powerhouse, a fact that has greatly increased its political clout. China’s economic superiority and continued growth gives it more leisure to pursue its foreign policy initiatives. This has led to an asymmetry.

It is in the interest of the United States that India, a democratic ally, keep pace with China, a Communist dictatorship pursuing an aggressive foreign policy. As a populous Asian nation with a well-educated upper middle class, India serves as a counterweight to China’s increasing dominance in the region. Unlike China, India has vibrant and open political debate and is rarely criticized for its human rights record. Investment in India will strengthen the allegiance between the U.S. and this important regional ally.

India is also strategically located. Sharing a border with Pakistan, India is a gateway to the Middle East, and has cooperated with the U.S. in the past on counterterrorism efforts. During his November visit to India, President Obama went as far as to endorse India’s bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, hoping to elevate the nation of over a billion people to “its rightful place in the world.” But Obama also reaffirmed the importance of Indian cooperation in counterterrorism efforts, and the two nations agreed to launch new joint projects in Africa and Afghanistan.

While U.S.-Indian relations are already friendly, further U.S. investment in the nation will serve to bolster existing ties. Strategic investment in Indian green technology will not only mitigate global CO2 emissions, but such investment will also enrich Indian development efforts. India is desperately poor: an astonishing 400 million Indians do

Asia

not have regular access to electricity. According to the CIA World Factbook, 25 percent of Indians live below their poverty line while the same is true of only 3 percent of Chinese. China no longer needs aid, while India still does. The donation of such aid would not only stimulate the Indian economy and counter Chinese economic dominance, but also set India on a path toward lower carbon emissions.

Despite high initial investment costs, renewable energy can be profitable. Carbonemitting technologies are not sustainable, since fossil fuel resources will eventually run out. Renewable sources of energy are starting to play an increasingly important role in global energy markets. Future demand for renewable power must grow as our collective non-renewable sources become further depleted. Even oil-rich nations like the United Arab Emirates have come to this realization and have started to invest in green technology: the nation’s capital, Abu Dhabi, is revamping its infrastructure to become a “zero carbon” city. In 2009, researchers at Trent University published a paper in the International Journal of Applied Econometrics and Quantitative Studies showing that higher economic development is associated with more environmental aid. If we want to stimulate the Indian economy, investments in green projects in India are the way to go.

At present, China dominates the production of components necessary for the construction of renewable energy facilities. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Chinese manufacturers, who have the ability to price their products as much as 20 percent cheaper than their European counterparts, have taken over more than 43 percent of the global solar panel market in the last six years. Stimulating India’s economy through green investments would temper China’s ascendancy in this area and decrease the United States’ reliance on one nation — China — for its renewable energy needs.

If the United States manages to direct climate aid towards India, it will strengthen ties with a rising world power that will help bolster the economic interests of all involved. Afp

Cara may be reached at ceckholm@princeton.edu

November 2010

AFP Quiz Multiple Choice Monthly Benjamin Cogan ‘12 1. The US government recently asked YouTube to take down videos of which anti-American leader? a. Omar Bakri Muhammad b. Osama bin Laden c. Anwar Al-Awlaki d. Mullah Mohammed Omar 2. President Obama recently pledged to support which country’s bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council? a. Brazil b. Japan c. Germany d. India 3. Myanmar recently released which long-held political prisoner? a. Su Su Nway b. Aung San Suu Kyi c. Min Ko Naing d. Zaw Htet Ko Ko 4. Despite strong protests from French unions and student groups, the Parlement Français recently raised the official retirement age in France from what to what? a. 60 to 62 b. 62 to 64 c. 64 to 66 d. 66 to 68 5. Which country’s prime minister recently called for a confidence vote to determine if his coalition still maintained enough support in the legislature to govern? a. Italy b. Hungary c. Poland d. Canada

Answers on page 17

9

A: Human rights activist Liu

Xiaobo of CHINA receives the Nobel Prize, prompting a strong pushback from Beijing, which warned other countries not to attend the award ceremony.

B:

IRELAND veers closer towards bankruptcy as investors’ concerns over its national debt and sluggish growth roil bond markets, prompting talks of another European bailout.

G: A ruling by the NICARAGUAN H: The U.S. offers to remove

Supreme Court paves the road for President Daniel Ortega to run for a third term. The former Sandinista revolutionary is a key left-leaning leader in the region.

10

SUDAN from its list of state sponsors of terrorism if it carries out and abides by a referendum offering independent nationhood for the South, which has long clashed with Khartoum’s policies.

American Foreign Policy

C:

The 2010 Commonwealth Games take place in New Dehli, with remarkably few problems after a scandal-plagued run-up threatened to embarrass INDIA on the international stage.

I:

The revelation of continuing mass rapes in THE CONGO sparks renewed criticism of the U.N. peacekeeping effort there, which has failed to bring even basic order to the war-torn nation.

D:

RUSSIA stirs up long-dormant tensions with JAPAN as President Dmitri Medvedev visits the contested Kurile Islands, which RUSSIA seized from the Eastern power after World War II.

J: IRAQ finally agrees to a basic

power-sharing agreement for its government, though the celebratory moment is marred when Ayad Allawi, head of the prominent Iraqiya bloc, temporarily walks out of the negotiations.

E: The trapped miners from CHILE F: Former President Nestor Kirchare finally rescued, with the live telecast of the heartwarming event reportedly drawing over one billion viewers across the world.

K:

MYANMAR frees Nobel Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, a symbol of the country’s prodemocracy movement, setting up a likely confrontation with the ruling military junta.

November 2010

ner of ARGENTINA dies of a heart attack, changing the dynamic of next year’s presidential race, which many observers thought he would enter.

L:

NIGERIA announces a steppedup military campaign against militants in the Niger River delta who have harassed foreign workers and multinational oil companies for years.

11

Europe

Fiscal Austerity in Britain Too Much, Too Fast

F

or Britain, this year has brought a series of tumultuous changes both political and economic. In May, David Cameron and the Conservatives succeeded in ousting the Labour party from power for the first time in thirteen years. Eventually, the Conservatives formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, allowing Prime Minister Cameron and his administration to enact sweeping economic reforms. Cameron, along with Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has embraced fiscal austerity as a necessary component of economic recovery. The current financial environment, however, is not conducive to budget balancing – such fiscal austerity in the midst of a recession would be both ill-timed and unnecessarily harsh for the British people.

Currently, Britain faces a budget deficit that is 11 percent of its GDP, slightly greater than that of the United States.

Much like the U.S., Britain accumulated much of its debt as a result of the housing and investment bubble that collapsed in 2008, the recession, and associated government stimulus spending. For conservatives, the resulting record deficit presents a ripe political opportunity to cut spending and lower the deficits. The Tories, then, are citing the budget deficit as to the primary reason to downsize the welfare state, claiming that there is no alternative to such cuts. On October 20th, Chancellor Osborne unveiled his ambitious plan to eliminate the budget deficit by 2014-2015. This goal would require budget cuts to the tune of around £81 billion, thus rapidly increasing the pace of fiscal retrenchment. Most of these cuts would entail reductions in public services and welfare spending coupled with an increase of 2.5 percent in the value added tax (VAT).

Unfortunately, the implications of such intensified fiscal austerity could be disastrous for the British economy. To

12

Rohan Bhargava ‘14 begin, the cut in public spending would result in a loss of 490,000 public sector jobs, the equivalent of three million jobs in the United States, representing nearly 8 percent of the total government workforce. The Justice Department and the Foreign Office are two of the many major government agencies that will lose a substantial portion of their workforce.

Such unprecedented cuts in vital govern-

“...the magnitude of these changes must be kept in perspective- in trying to completely eliminate the deficit in four short years, Osborne risks risks chronic economic stagnation.”

ment agencies will end up harming the British people even further. To make matters worse, economists have predicted that the budget reductions could translate to the loss of as many as half a million jobs in the private sector. Given that the unemployment rate is already at 8 percent, Britain cannot afford another shock to the labor market. Advocates of fiscal austerity have claimed that deficit cutting instills confidence in businesses and customers by demonstrating the government’s proactivity in economic matters.

In a recent report, however, the International Monetary Fund asserts that this

American Foreign Policy

claim is, in fact, a myth. It explains that trying to balance a budget in the short term in the face of falling inflation and high unemployment could lead to further economic depression, which would then, ironically, scare off more business.

Proponents of fiscal austerity point to Britain’s recent economic upswing – its economy grew at a rate of .8 percent during the last quarter, twice as much as was predicted. This, they claim, is an indication that a stimulus is no longer needed and fiscal realignment can commence.

However, upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the economic fundamentals for long-term growth are just not there. Although GDP expansion was spread throughout the manufacturing, construction, and service sectors, much of the recent growth was in temporary sectors. In addition, the data for this past quarter was skewed by shoppers increasing their volume of purchases in anticipation of the VAT increase in January. Commercial and residential construction, growing in large part due to the government stimulus, will stall with the enactment of fiscal austerity, depressing the growth rate even further.

A report published by the IMF concluded that countries have underestimated the contractionary ramifications of fiscal tightening. The report suggested that a cut in the amount of 1 percent of the GDP in the fiscal budget could reduce GDP growth by .5 percent and increase unemployment by .33 percent within a two-year time frame. The plan advocated

by Osborne calls for reduction of government spending by approximately 6 percent of the GDP, translating into an increase in unemployment by 2 percent and a decrease in the growth rate by 3 percent. All of these indicators point to a single idea – that enacting such stringent fiscal austerity during a time of fragile economic recovery would be disastrous for both people and the economy.

It is equally important to understand the macroeconomic failings of the austerity measures in terms of stability and demand. Traditionally, fiscal tightening has been accompanied by cuts in interest rates, strong export demand, and currency devaluation. Britain, as it currently stands, cannot adopt the standard paradigm. Artificially depressing the pound is out of the question, and export demand has been flagging for the past

few months. Interest rates are already at their lowest level in more than fifty years; it is impossible to lower them any further. In essence, the British government is betting that a forced decrease in public sector growth will be made up by a vibrant private sector. If the past few months are any indication, however, the private sector is still reeling from the effects of the financial crisis, and regardless of the astronomically low interest rates, investment does not seem to be picking up enough to offset the impact of large governmental budget reductions.

To be sure, Britain will eventually have to balance its budget through tax increases and spending cuts; the operative word is ‘eventually.’ The current economic climate is not conducive to such draconian fiscal tightening; such actions could prove calamitous for the country.

Jeffrey Sachs, a noted economist, provides a few suggestions for Britain to regain economic strength. First, Osborne must set aside short-term budget balancing and focus on achieving a manageable debt to GDP ratio in the next decade or

Europe

so. In addition, the government must enact long-term transformations by promoting exports and revitalizing energy and transportation infrastructure. Finally, productivity-enhancing structural reforms to reduce household debt and combat entrenched joblessness are a necessity. These reforms should focus on changing the debt structure of mortgages, many of which are now worth more than the original outstanding loan.

The reforms would allow for a more efficient allocation of capital, boosting investment. All of these propositions are echoed by the IMF, which concluded that in the long run, these structural reforms yield a much stronger positive effect than short term fiscal tightening.

Certainly, some fiscal readjustment, especially in welfare (unemployment and retirement benefits) is not a bad thing.

However, the magnitude of these changes must be kept in perspective – in trying to completely eliminate the deficit in four short years, Osborne risks chronic economic stagnation. The Economist and the IMF have reported that Britain

has underestimated the huge risk budget consolidation poses to domestic demand, actions that could halve the predicted growth rate. Indeed, The Economist points out that “they are at the risk of both overdoing and mismanaging short-term fiscal austerity.” The dangers of stagnated growth and weak domestic demand far outweigh the dangers of short-term budget deficits. Cuts can be made, but on a much smaller scale than what has currently been proposed.

Thirteen years ago, Japan prematurely embraced fiscal austerity. The result was depressed growth rates and weak demand whose effects debilitate the private sector to this day. Britain is poised for disaster, ready to head down the same path as Japan. Hopefully, Chancellor Osborne will come to his senses before he resigns the British economy to several more years - or decades - of turmoil. Afp Rohan may be reached at rohanb@princeton.edu

The Palace of Westminster, meeting place for both Houses of Parliament, alight at dusk. Photo from Flickr.

November 2010

13

Europe

eas such as justice and environmental protection.

At a certain time during Chancellor Merkel’s tenure, the relationship between our countries was clouded by an unusually aggressive stance towards Liechtenstein by the incumbent German Finance Minister. The discussions were on a specific incident - the criminal sale of data to the German authorities by a Liechtenstein citizen - which was the basis for a broad campaign against “tax evaders” by German authorities. With the above-mentioned policy change the dispute eased to a large extent. It has been possible to arrive at an agreement on tax-related data, and a double taxation agreement is set to be concluded in the near future. We are looking forward to continuing the regularly excellent relationship with Germany.

Frick addressing the 64th session of the U.N. General Assembly. Photo from Flickr.

Interview with Aurelia Frick Current Foreign Minister of Liechtenstein Conducted by Ben Cogan ‘12 and Tara Lewis ‘11

Q

There has been significant controversy concerning Liechtenstein’s banking system, with some calling the nation a haven for tax evaders. How does Liechtenstein balance protecting the secrecy of bank clients with its interest in eliminating tax crime?

A

It is necessary to differentiate between tax offenses which represent a “minor offense” and are collectively known as “tax evasion,” and tax offenses which are collectively known as “tax fraud,” considered criminal offenses under Liechtenstein law and pursued appropriately by our courts. In the case of tax fraud offences, we have been assisting foreign countries in the enforcement of related laws for many years. With the so-called “Liechtenstein Declaration” of March 2009 Liechtenstein recognised the standards set out by the OECD for the exchange of information related to tax evasion with foreign tax authori-

14

ties upon request (i.e. such information is not provided automatically). Any third-party state can now sign a bilateral agreement with Liechtenstein on the exchange of tax-related information. Only specific requests for specific information on a specific person are covered by these agreements.

Q

Liechtenstein has historical and cultural ties to Germany. As foreign minister, could you talk about your relationship with Angela Merkel’s government?

A

Liechtenstein has had an excellent relationship with Germany for many decades. As the question suggests, that relationship is founded on a common language and a similar culturalgeographical position in the European landscape. It is reflected in a wide range of joint initiatives carried out by the two countries and a close cooperation in ar-

American Foreign Policy

Q

Liechtenstein is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) but not the European Union (EU). What is the relationship between Liechtenstein and the EU and why has the country not joined the EU?

A

Liechtenstein has now been a member of the EEA for 15 years, and that membership has proved to be an especially suitable model for Liechtenstein’s integration into Europe, especially given the size of the country. Its EEA status entitles Liechtenstein to pursue and benefit from all four “freedoms” – freedom of persons, freedom of goods, freedom of capital and freedom of services – and this in turn makes Liechtenstein an outstanding environment for both residents and businesses. Liechtenstein is obliged to grant those same freedoms to other EEA member states, which include all 27 EU countries and not just Liechtenstein, Iceland, and Norway. The EEA does not, however, include political cooperation, which is restricted to EU countries, nor cooperation on tax-related issues. The latter requires the adoption of other legal instruments, for example the Schengen Agreement or the Anti-Fraud Agreement. Liechtenstein has already given the green light to both agreements, while EU ratification is still outstanding.

Given the advanced level of Liechtenstein’s integration into Europe, an EU membership is currently not discussed

in Liechtenstein. For its part, the EU has never made a statement on the way in which it would handle accession requests from small states.

Q

The monarchy of Liechtenstein has significant amounts of power, even the constitutional authority to veto (almost) any law. How is Liechtenstein’s government consistent with representative democracy?

A

Liechtenstein is a constitutional, hereditary monarchy on a democratic and parliamentary basis. The power of State is embodied in the Reigning Prince and the People and is exercised by them in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution (article 2 of the Constitution of 1921). The Constitution stresses that the head of state (the Prince), the government, and the parliament are to work together in adopting laws. The right of Liechtenstein citizens to request a referendum and to introduce a bill is comparable to the one of Swiss citizens.

Though it is true that every law and significant element of foreign policy requires approval from the head of state, it is nevertheless extremely rare that the Prince exercises his power of veto. The contents of new laws are agreed with him well in advance. This situation is comparable to countries that have a president as their head of state – just think of the level of power and status given to the President of the United States. The only significant difference is that Liechtenstein’s head of state is not elected, but defined by the right of succession – the so-called “House law” – of the Liechtenstein Royal Family. The citizens of Liechtenstein passed the country’s constitution by a significant majority, and under specific circumstances, the constitution even allows for the removal of the head of state on the initiative of the people. Afp

Europe

In Context Compiled by Jake Nebel ‘13

“The time has come to reduce military operations. The time has come to reduce the presence, of you know, boots in Afghanistan.”

President Hamid Karzai, quoted in the Washington Post

“You don’t fight and conduct wars that way. You win, and then you leave. And that’s what we’ve done in Iraq.”

Senator John McCain, on NBC’s “Meet the Press”

“Here we are going with a process in which we give up all the land of Israel but the other issues still exist.”

Silvan Shalom, Israeli minister of regional cooperation, to Israel Radio

“Many people called teachers and many places called schools were in fact not.”

Mohamed Fall, UNICEF education chief in Haiti, on Haitian education before the earthquake

“Democracy is when people keep a government in check. To achieve democracy we need to create a network, not just in our country but around the world. I will try to do that. If you do nothing, you get nothing.”

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s pro-democracy leader

“It’s episode 125 of the soap opera. We’re waiting for episode 126.”

Cécile Duflot, leader of France’s Green Party, on President Nicolas Sarkozy’s new cabinet

“It’s indecent to suggest that things will change. The policies will still be those of Nicolas Sarkozy.”

Jean-Marc Ayrault, Socialist legislator in France

“It was amazing to watch, this mama grizzly - brown bear, really protecting her cubs and saying, you know, nobody’s going to mess with my cubs.”

Sarah Palin, on a fishing expedition, expressing awe at the sight of two bears fighting

Ben and Tara may be reached at bcogan@princeton.edu and taral@princeton.edu

“Second, China’s response to the trawler incident is, I’m sorry to say, further evidence that the world’s newest economic superpower isn’t prepared to assume the responsibilities that go with that status.”

Paul Krugman, writing about China’s rare earth controversy Sources: New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press.

November 2010

15

Military Policy

Malware?

Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber Warfare

I

magine nation-state X. It is a small country, a cultural and religious misfit among the dozens of larger nations that surround it. Despite its size, X has amassed a disproportionately large military force to protect itself from potential threats from its unstable neighbors – one of which, Y, is a controversial theocracy that openly opposes the existence of X. Y is known to be developing nuclear technology, a prospect that clearly threatens X. Fearing that Y will develop weaponry capabilities, X develops a piece of malware – surreptitious software designed to interfere with another computer’s normal functions – to infect computers in Y’s nuclear plants and delay its production of nuclear technology. Computers in Y and other nations around the world are temporarily crippled by the sophisticated contagion of X’s malware.

Years ago, such a crisis would have seemed to be an excerpt from a preposterous piece of science fiction kitsch, grounded in fanciful perceptions of computer capabilities.

Last month, however, the inevitable occurred – a piece of malware, Stuxnet, demonstrated that such futuristic fantasies have already become reality.

It is not hard to guess that X is Israel and that its suspected aggressor, Y, is Iran, set within a turbulent Middle East. Although roughly 62,000 computers in Iran were recently attacked by “the most complex piece of malware in the history of computing,” it cannot be confirmed that the engineer of the malware was Israel. According to Graham Cluley, a computer security expert at the British firm Sophos, it is “very hard to prove 100 percent who created a piece of malware, unless you are able to gather evidence from the computer they created it on.”

16

Michael Becker ‘14 Still, Ralph Langner, a computer scientist at Langner Communications, points out that “because the development requires much more resources than any … hacker group could afford,” Stuxnet must have been constructed by a wealthy and resourceful government with “insider information” concerning the computers targeted. The list of governments with the motive and the capa-

“...national governments to multinational corporations, could potentially use Stuxnet as a platform to build and launch their own malware. Such tactics could ultimately become commonplace methods of espionage and sabotage from state and non-state actors alike.”

bility is not very long.

Identity of the perpetrator aside, this incident raises an important possibility – that such malware should in fact

American Foreign Policy

be used to sabotage malevolent nations’ facilities when international sanctions and other methods of warning fail to suffice. A more professionally designed malware program, under careful management, could serve as an excellent last resort to prevent violent actions from aggressor states, as well as threatened states who might take preemptive military actions.

How advanced could this malicious software be, and how do its capabilities inform the perpetrators’ motivation behind its production? Sean McGurk, the head of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, demonstrates that the Stuxnet virus can be contained in a single “blue rubberclad swivel-style USB thumb drive.”

This virus could, he explains, infiltrate any software that uses Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, or SCADA. Most automated plants, including oil refineries, food production facilities, and nuclear reactors, use such software and are thus susceptible to the virus.

Once planted in these computers, Stuxnet can modify the programs’ functions while remaining hidden, rendering any changes invisible.

Given that over 60 percent of the computers infected by Stuxnet were located in Iran, it is plausible that the virus’ engineers had targeted the nuclear facilities at Bushehr and Natanz, which, according to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, its president, are being used strictly for civilian energy purposes. Siemens AG, the German control systems conglomerate that built the Bushehr facility for the Shah of Iran in the 1970s, has confirmed the Iranian government’s claim that no significant harm was inf licted upon the facilities. Although no permanent damage was done, Alan Bentley of Lumension said that the Bushehr plant “was not working properly for months.” Stuxnet’s perpetrator had therefore been successful in disabling the epicenter of Iranian nuclear innovation.

According to computer security experts, the Stuxnet virus is under control and no longer poses a threat. The question that remains in its wake, however, is whether such cyberwarfare ought to become an accepted tool in the arsenal of warring states.

Indeed, other potential aggressors, from national governments to multina-

tional corporations, could potentially use Stuxnet as a platform to build and launch their own malware. Such tactics could ultimately become commonplace methods of espionage and sabotage from state and non-state actors alike.

Given its insidious ease and speed in “infecting� computers on a global scale, cyber sabotage is often decried as dangerous and cowardly. But the Stuxnet incident also opens a provocative angle: if the malware is used to reduce the aggressive capabilities of a government that is internationally recognized as structurally backwards, defiant, and malevolent in its policy, then non-militaristic means of sabotage such as Stuxnet should perhaps be applauded for their ability to temporarily cripple their military potential.

With the advent of governmentfunded malware, aggressive or defiant nations could be neutralized without violence when diplomacy has failed.

North Korea, a nation that has f lagrantly defied international sanctions

Middle Policy

and diplomatic agreements, could be paralyzed with advanced malware. This would bypass the violence and almost certain loss of life associated with military force.

Naturally, such an approach remains contentious, and this must be addressed at both the national and international levels. Leaders must weigh carefully the implications of such a frighteningly effective method of preventive action.

Governments should work together on joint regulations, which could be modeled after nuclear disarmament treaties.

Domestically, America should improve its cyber security to ensure that it is not susceptible to sabotage from abroad or within. Bugs must be ironed out of any malware to prevent civilian computers from being accidentally attacked.

Despite these difficulties, we should consider the potential peaceful efficiency afforded by cyber sabotage. Imagine a world in which defiant and malicious military actions can be stopped before

they have begun. Warfare fought by lifeless computers with viruses may ultimately prove to be better for us all than war fought by young men and women with guns. Afp Michael may be reached at mjbecker@princeton.edu

AFP Quiz Answers Multiple Choice Monthly 1. C 2. D 3. B 4. A 5. A

An American information systems technician uses the intrusion detection system, which protects the unclassified shipboard network from attack, to monitor unclassified network activity from the automated data processing workspace aboard the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Ronald Reagan. Photo from Wikimedia Commons.

November 2010

17

Middle East

President Barack Obama and Turkish President Abdullah Gül. Photo from Flickr.

All Quiet on the Western Front Turkey’s Changing Role on the World Stage

S

ince its founding in 1923, the Turkish Republic has largely aligned itself with the West. A NATO member since 1952, the nation served as a lynchpin in American Cold War and Middle East policy.

Turkey still provides essential logistical support to American forces in the Afghan and Iraq Wars by allowing American aid and cargo to pass through the country.

Recent developments, however, indicate that the country’s foreign policy has begun to shift away from the West as Turkey strengthens its relationships with rogue regimes, such as Syria and Iran. While there are many reasons for this realignment, one of the most pressing has been the lethargic pace of talks regarding Turkish accession into the European Union (EU). To counter these trends, European leaders need American backing in re-engaging Turkey and offering incentives to remain allied with the West, for a Turkish realignment would detrimentally affect the dynam-

18

George Maliha ‘13 ics of the region.

The unsustainable status quo between Turkey and the EU could drive Turkey away from the American-European alliance. Although initially promising, the Turkish bid for full EU membership has become mired in controversy. The Union’s two most powerful members, France and Germany, have expressed reservations over full Turkish membership, fearing a f lood of impoverished workers into Europe from Turkey. The Turkish occupation of Cyprus, in addition, places Turkey in conf lict with several other EU members, including Greece. In fact, the conf lict over Cyprus has already stalled negotiations on several of the 35 chapters that Turkey and EU states must agree upon before accession.

Public support for the EU in Turkey is also highly volatile and closely tracks domestic developments. Commitment to joining the EU has waned under the currently ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), and other foreign

American Foreign Policy

policy interests, those in the Middle East, have taken priority. Before negotiations completely collapse, both Turkey and the West must agree to change course.

The EU agreement, however, may be difficult. The Turkish have compromised on policies to appease the European Union, but some of these “reforms” have allowed AKP to consolidate its power over the government. For instance, while recently-passed constitutional amendments bar gender discrimination, AKP also pressed through a judicial reorganization that expands the size of the nation’s highest constitutional court — allowing the government to pack the courts with pro-AKP judges.

As the courts have represented AKP’s main opposition (the constitutional court considered banning the party several years ago), AKP has cemented its power in the country. Unchecked, the government is free to depart from Turkey’s traditional foreign policy goals, drawing the nation ever closer to Syria and Iran.

If ties do not strengthen, Turkey’s increasing engagement with rogue regimes will damage American, European, and Israeli interests. A harbinger of the potential consequences of this shift can be seen in the recent Gaza f lotilla incident. Historically, Turkey has maintained peaceful and relatively cooperative relations with Israel. The nations, in fact, have provided each other mutual assistance in the past: Israel has supplied arms to the Turkish military, the two countries have engaged in joint military exercises, and Turkey helped mediate Israeli-Syrian peace talks in 2008.

In the aftermath of the f lotilla incident, however, relations have sunk to an historic low. Investigations have found that one of the boats was purchased with the assistance of the AKP-controlled Istanbul municipality, and AKP Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been increasingly critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Turkey also canceled Israel’s participation in new multinational military exercises due to concerns that Israel might be training for a strike against Iran.

On the other hand, Turkish-Iranian relations seem stronger than ever. By means of its nonpermanent seat on the

UN Security Council, Turkey has attempted to undercut U.S. efforts to impose sanctions on Iran, weakening the international response to the Iranian nuclear program. The recently scuttled Turkish-Brazilian deal that would have allowed Iran to obtain enriched uranium in return for some of its less refined nuclear material would have legitimized Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons as well as further damaged American and European efforts to halt Iranian nuclear armament. Such a drastic shift in Turkish foreign policy underpins the nation’s increasing sense of estrangement with Europe and the West, with potentially devastating consequences.

A Turkish realignment would also affect American interests in the Middle East. NATO’s Incirlik Air Base in Southeast Turkey is a strategic regional location. U.S. forces have used this asset to supply American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the base also served as a staging ground for the evacuations of Americans during the Israel-Hezbollah War of 2006. In recent years, however, Turkey has increased restrictions on use of the base, for example denying American forces transit through the base during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Turkey’s continued alignment with Syria or Iran is expected to make such restrictions more common, depriving the U.S. of a necessary tool

Middle East

to supply forces in the Middle East and project U.S. power in the region.

A further cause for concern for the United States and Europe is Turkey’s strengthening relationship with China. Recently, the two nations performed joint air force maneuvers, worrying NATO members that China might gain access to their military strategies.

“If ties do not strengthen, Turkey’s increasing engagement with rogue regimes will damage American, European, and Israeli interests.”

In October, both nations announced a new bilateral partnership that would triple trade by 2015 and double it again by 2020. As China has been reluctant to support American policies in North Ko-

Protesters display the Turkish flag alongside the flags of Palestine and Hamas. Photo from Flickr.

rea and the Middle East, Turkey might soon become a less helpful ally to the United States in the region if it increasingly cooperates with Beijing.

But how can the United States and Europe forestall a Turkish shift? One of the first, and by far the easiest, steps that the EU could take is to suspend accession talks. These negotiations have simply raised tensions among EU members and provided AKP political pretext to attack the secular Turkish military and judiciary under the guise of constitutional reforms. However, in economics and finance, both groups share common interests. The EU has effectively integrated the European continent—and Turkey’s four largest trading partners are in the EU. Creating a broader customs or tariff union (only a limited agreement between the two groups has existed since 1996) with Turkey would be an effective foreign policy tool and open new markets in the region. Indeed, as Europe seeks to reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas resources, Turkey provides an effective route for a pipeline to the Caucasus nations. Such economic developments, importantly, will stabilize the country’s foreign policy, providing the Turkish government an incentive to join in isolating rogue regimes, such as Iran and Syria, which threaten the economic interests of the U.S., Europe, and Israel.

Turkey has always been caught between the East and the West. Its role as a bridge between the two regions has and will continue to grant the nation importance in international relations. It is essential, then, that Turkey remains a firm Western ally. For the nation’s interests to remain aligned with those of the U.S., Europe, and Israel, efforts must be made to further integrate Turkey into the European and Western community. Economic engagement and coordination represent an essential first step to promoting Turkish welfare and protecting Western interests in the Middle East.

Afp

George may be reached at gmaliha@princeton.edu

November 2010

19

Middle East

Female member of Yemen’s Counter Terrorism Unit seen during military training at CSF headquarters in Sanaa, Yemen. Photo by Ammar Abd Rabbo on Flickr.

America’s Land of Opportunity Supporting Yemen’s Fight Against Terrorism

E

ven in its tenth year, the War on Terror still engages the American military and monopolizes the attention of our intelligence community. The attempted airplane bomb plot discovered on October 29 emphasizes the continued threat.

Evidence suggests that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), an offshoot of Osama bin Laden’s organization with a strong presence in Yemen, is responsible for the failed attack. Recently, the CIA has been conducting a targeted bombing campaign in Yemen, which some have called a “secret war.”

Yemen faces a range of internal problems that hamper its own ability to fight AQAP. Given the challenges posed by AQAP and the Yemeni government’s

20

Collin Berger ‘14 struggles to control it, the United States should focus its efforts on uniting Yemenis against AQAP and increasing cooperation with the Yemeni military and intelligence agencies.

AQAP is an elusive terrorist organization that poses a significant threat to America and its interests. While never under the direct control of bin Laden or the al-Qaeda parent organization, the current AQAP traces its roots to two regional Al Qaeda affiliated groups that launched such attacks as that against the U.S.S. Cole, suicide bombings at a Western housing compound, and the 2008 assault on the American embassy in Yemen. These groups merged in 2009 with the intention of establishing a new Islamic caliphate in the Arabian Penin-

American Foreign Policy

sula by overthrowing the Saudi and Yemeni governments and forcing Western nations from the region. Intelligence agencies also claim that the group was responsible for the failed “underwear bomber” suicide plot on a Detroitbound plane last Christmas.

The organization’s leaders recruit experienced fighters from Saudi, Yemeni, Somali, Afghan, Iraqi, and Pakistani cells. Although experts and intelligence agencies know the names of several of the group’s most prominent members, including an American national, they have not published information on how large the group is or how far its influence is known to extend. Estimates range from dozens to hundreds, demonstrating that the group’s full potential is still unknown. The Yemeni government, however, is poorly equipped and cannot easily restrain AQAP. The nation’s economy is the poorest in the Middle East per capita and dependent on its dwindling oil supplies. Since Yemen’s 1990 unification, President Ali Abdullah Saleh has struggled to exert influence beyond the major cities. As

part of this effort, Saleh has not only fought AQAP but also countered separatists and rebels that have spread the government’s meager resources thin and obscured AQAP’s actions amid widespread violence. Much of Yemen’s territory, especially in the mountains and desert, is virtually autonomous tribal areas that oppose heavy government involvement. While most of these tribes reject AQAP, experts like Gregory Johnsen of Princeton University hold that some tolerate AQAP and allow it to build bases in their territory. This sympathy is greater in areas with other antigovernment movements. Additionally, the Saudi-Yemeni border is extremely porous, allowing AQAP members to attack targets in both nations. As Saudi forces have prevented terrorist groups from forming in its territory, AQAP’s situation parallels the Taliban’s use of uncontrolled Pakistani tribal regions as bases from which to attack Afghan targets. The parts of the country Saleh’s government does control are often corrupt and ineffective, especially as Saleh appoints family members to political positions and seems focused on consolidating his family’s power.

American success in Yemen has been limited. The War on Terror’s early years saw initial gains against AQAP as the United States helped train and support Yemeni forces and launched Yemeni-approved missile strikes. Utilizing what President Obama’s top counterterrorism expert referred to as a “scalpel” rather than a “hammer,” the United States has increased its involvement in Yemen since 2009 through covert action, cruise missiles, and drone attacks that fall under the CIA’s, rather than the military’s, command. Both American and Yemeni officials say these operations occur with the Yemeni government’s approval. Despite successfully hitting several AQAP targets, the campaign’s impact is questionable partially due to Yemenis’ suspicion about Saleh’s motives and concern over American intervention. There have also been reports of civilian casualties, earning condemnation from human rights groups and sparking tribal conflicts. Considering the bomb plot uncovered October 29, it appears that this effort has so far failed to decisively undermine AQAP’s strength, and the CIA must reevaluate

Middle East

its approach.

The U.S. should strengthen the Yemeni government’s influence. A top priority should be unifying the tribal regions against AQAP. To do this, America should set up discussions between Saleh and his nation’s tribal leaders so that they can reach policy compromises and convince the tribal leaders that AQAP is a mutual enemy. To cement tribal loyalties in the current push against AQAP, America and Yemen should follow the tribal motto “My state is anyone who fills my pocket with money”: the U.S.

“Given the challenges posed by AQAP and the Yemeni government’s struggles to control it, the United States should focus its efforts on uniting Yemenis against AQAP and increasing cooperation with the Yemeni military and intelligence agencies. ”

should give Saleh the financial backing he would need to buy tribal loyalty. This might be expensive, but current estimates expect U.S. military aid to approach the enormous sum of $1.2 billion in the next five years anyway.

Buying tribes’ loyalty would not be a long-term solution, nor would it ensure that tribes remain loyal, but expanding support for the Yemeni government would limit where AQAP could operate and allow American and Yemeni forces to concentrate their energies on smaller areas.

Focusing American resources on

November 2010

intelligence gathering is also a critical step. The U.S. should bolster its intelligence network in Yemen and work to strengthen cooperation with Yemeni intelligence resources. This would render covert operations more effective, reducing civilian and unintended casualties.

Cooperating with Yemeni authorities would also assure that Saleh and his government play an integral role in long-term stability. While increasing the number of intelligence-gathering resources, though, the U.S. should not follow what some State Department officials propose and give the Yemeni army a cache of expensive weaponry.

Given the number of weapons proposed, the Yemeni government’s corruption could allow insurgents to acquire some of these weapons. There is also the possibility of government misuse, as the Yemeni government could use resources intended for fighting AQAP to fight other insurgent groups or suppress political dissent.

Yemen presents a new front in the War on Terror and a new opportunity to improve on what lessons the U.S. has already learned. In a political climate where troop deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq has led to public outcry and where the current administration campaigned on an anti-war platform, the operations in Yemen can signify a new strategy in which intelligence-gathering and cooperation with an existing society replace the alternate focus on military efforts, troop number, and nation building. Fully embracing this new approach by winning tribal support and improving intelligence networks will change how the U.S. fights the war and will replace the hammer with the scalpel. By focusing on practical measures, policymakers can use Yemen as a turning point in the War on Terror. Afp

Collin may be reached at cmberger@princeton.edu

21

US Foreign Policy

Mark Rudd delivering a speech. Photo from Wikicommons.

Interview with Mark Rudd Former Member of Weather Underground in association with The Alliance of Collegiate Editors

M

ark Rudd was a leader of the Weather Underground movement, a radical left organization that advocated, sometimes violently, the overthrow of the United States government. The movement, which began in 1969, was especially hostile to the U.S. war in Vietnam and, over the course of five years, bombed numerous targets, most in Washington, DC, in “retaliation” for the war. For his crimes, Rudd spent approximately one year in prison.

Q

The Weather Underground was opposed to United States military involvement in Vietnam on the grounds that it constituted an imperialistic advance into Southeast Asia. The current conflict in Iraq has been criticized for similar offenses, and lately the Obama admin-

22

istration has come under fire, both for failing to fulfill a campaign promise to end the war and then for mishandling the withdrawal. Do you feel that these concerns, both about the administration and the similarities to Vietnam’s precedent, are justified, and if not, what do you feel were the forces behind the United States’ invasion of Iraq? Should we be as concerned about what this war indicates about the American mentality as you were about Vietnam?

A

Absolutely, we have to be concerned about our country’s militarism. There are many other ways to solve problems in the world, including the development of international law. The Europeans have been dealing with terrorism for years as a criminal matter, handled by police agencies. They don’t declare

American Foreign Policy

“war on terror” and invade countries, they go after the criminals. But our country’s foreign policy is based on the use of force. War is not only the means, it’s the goal. For decades, Noam Chomsky used to say that the goal of the United States is global domination. In the last decade he’s changed the formulation, now he says that the goal is global domination through the use of violence.

I could go on at length about this question because it’s probably my main motivation for the organizing work I do, having come of age during Vietnam and seen the absolute immorality and waste of our wars. I’ll just make two points, and then move on.

First, our economy is oriented toward the production of weapons and war-making capability. Oil, a major component of the economy, is a military necessity, incidentally. The largest part of the discretionary federal budget, 48 percent, goes to “defense,” including intelligence and nuclear weapons and paying for past wars.

(Source: War Resisters League, http://www. warresisters.org/files/FY2011piechart.pdf).

So the military and the defense industry are supremely powerful. Huge weapons systems costing billions are split up to subcontractors in every single congressional district. In our

debates over the cost of domestic human and social needs, such as health and education, the obvious solution would be to take money from the bloated and corrupt defense industry, yet the media never raises this point for discussion and politicians don’t dare. (Dennis Kucinich, one who does break the silence, is completely isolated, a pariah in Congress). One purpose of our periodic wars is to prove to the American people the need for this completely wasteful and unnecessary sacrifice, the “defense” budget. The goal of war is war. No wonder the American people are confused.

Second, there is a potential alternative to this war system which we’re seemingly trapped in: international law. Europe has processed the last two centuries of their miserable history to the point that they’re breaking down borders and establishing the legal framework to avoid war. The U.S. has gone in the opposite direction since 1945, seeking out wars. Most American people have never heard of the possibility of international law. A great source for this discussion is Jonathan Schell, “The Unconquerable World.” He believes, and I concur, that international law is the great challenge of the 21st century, your century. It can be used not only to avoid war and the waste entailed, but also to solve our environmental crises, such as global warming.

The simple fact that there’s so little debate and discussion in this country, especially in the media, concerning militarism and its alternatives, does indicate a problem with our “mentality,” as you suggest. We’re in complete denial, a totally irrational situation.

Concerning the current administration’s continuation of the wars, even before the election, President Obama and his advisers made a political decision not to challenge the power of the military and the corporations behind them, no matter what the desire of the American people for peace. (That desire does not have any organized political way to express itself). I like to believe that President Obama wants peace, unlike any of his predecessors, judging by his brilliant memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” but he’s trapped within this war system that controls the government and the media at every level. Unfortunately, he’s not only retained major officials from Bush’s neocon interventionist administration, such as Secretary of Defense Gates, but he’s excluded all non-militarists from his advisers. Things would have been different had our anti-war movement been larger and more politically significant, but it’s not. Politics matters ultimately. It’s up to us to build such a movement.

It’s a good learning experience, though: many

US Foreign Policy

of us were naive in believing that a president can change policy. Only a political mass movement can force such a thing. In short, power has not shifted, since there’s no organized peace party.

Q

Do you feel like the group was successful in any of its objectives or just a colossal failure?

“My friends and I were entranced by the heroism of Che Guevara and the Vietnamese and the Black Panthers and various people around the world who had taken up the gun to fight for freedom.”

A

Both Weatherman in SDS and the subsequent Weather Underground Organization failed in our strategy for building a movement. Guerilla warfare is just a plain stupid strategy. It will always fail in this country. It mostly failed abroad. What happened, in retrospect, was that we confused our own selfexpression for strategy. Also, most important, we wanted revolution, so we figured everyone else did, too. Wrong!

On the other hand, we did help to raise the issues of imperialism and militarism and showed an example of young people so committed to the cause of peace and justice that we were willing to risk our lives. That point seems to be coming back since 2003, when the Weather Underground documentary appeared. I’m hoping that contemplating the story may be of some use to helping to ignite a new mass movement. And also figuring out what to do and not to do.

Q

Why did you decide to pursue a violent disobedience despite the remarkable success of the non-violent protests that had taken

November 2010

place in the 60’s, such as the civil rights movement?

A

My friends and I were entranced by the heroism of Che Guevara and the Vietnamese and the Black Panthers and various people around the world who had taken up the gun to fight for freedom. We wanted to be like them. It was a losing strategy, in retrospect, but when you’re twenty years old you often choose wrong strategies, especially attractive heroic ones. As for nonviolent strategy, you’re right, it is one of the great contributions of the twentieth century to world history, and yet we underrated its achievements. “Black Power,” for example, as espoused by Malcolm X and others, seemed more radical in its tactics as well as its analysis than nonviolent integration. To us, nonviolence was “wimpy,” while “picking up the gun” had a virile, macho cachet. Twenty-year-old boys need to prove themselves. So did a few young women.

Vanguardism was also a way to avoid the long hard work of mass political organizing. I used to say in my public speeches, “organizing is another word for going slow.” What I forgot is that there’s no other way, you’ve got to “do the work.”

Q

Do you think that the Weather Underground movement was harmed by its affiliation with socialism and communism, potentially tainting its anti-war message?

A

By the time the Weather Underground emerged, we had already rejected “merely” the anti-war position in favor of the “revolutionary” position: we didn’t want to stop one war, we wanted to stop the system that gave us successive wars. In doing so, we harmed the more realistic, practical, and appropriate antiwar movement, by splitting it into two camps, one for nonviolence and ending the war, one for violent revolution. We did the work of the FBI for them.

We thought the alternative to militaristic capitalism was communism, a case of believing the fallacy that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Of course our ultra-radical position diminished any chances we had of building a mass political base among normal people. It was merely self-expression, not strategic politics. Afp Ben may be reached at bcogan@princeton.edu

23

Cutting Back?

AFP is free! www.afpprinceton.com