Welcome to the Era of the Light Footprint

The «light footprint» that is Barack Obama’s doctrine in foreign policy originated as Donald Rumsfeld’s doctrine in military policy. Rumsfeld was undone by contradiction between his ends and his means: in Iraq, he sought to attain big ends with small means, disastrously insisting after «shock and awe» a light, nimble American force advantaged by technology would suffice for assisting Iraqis in political transformation of their country. This was Rumsfeld’s «revolution in the military affairs». President Obama has accepted Rumsfeld’s ideal of American military: «strategic guidance document» issued by Pentagon year ago declares, in italics, «whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives» (source: Leon Wieseltier – New Republic, U.S. – 29/01/2013)  

But Barack Obama modified Rumsfeld’s vision in two ways. The first was that he eliminated the contradiction between the means and the ends by shrinking the ends to fit the means. The second was that he extended the principle of shrinkage from military policy to foreign policy. This is Barack Obama’s revolution in international affairs. When that document was released, its revisions in the scale and the mission of the American military were interpreted as inexorable effect of the fiscal crisis, but that is not the whole story. Obama is acting also in the name of a strategic concept. It is an old, cold concept. Obama’s loftiness has provided cover for the ascendancy of «realism», which is not always the same as realism, as the consequences of our abdication in Syria will eventually demonstrate. Obama-Rumsfeld lineage is only one of the ironies of the new foreign policy consensus. There is also bizarre enthusiasm of progressives for the amoral likes of Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. And richest of all is their sudden reverence for Chuck Hagel, whom none of them admired, rightly not, when he was in the Senate. (No, he is not an anti-Semite. Congratulations.)

The most egregious aspect of the celebration of Hagel is the belief his Purple Hearts validate his withdrawalist inclinations. Since experienced war, he hates war. «I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can,» Eisenhower once remarked. Why, then, does John McCain’s bravery in Vietnam not validate his interventionist inclinations? Truth is nobody loves war, and that you do not have to have witnessed war to hate war, and that war (or the use of force) is sometimes just and necessary. The merit of a view owes nothing to the biography of the individual who holds it, even if it confers a certain pathos. A chest full of medals hardly denotes a brain full of truths. Chuck Hagel’s optimism about diplomacy with Iran and Hamas, his opposition to sanctions, his recoil from humanitarian interventions, we will soon see if these opinions are correct, when Eisenhower, I mean Hagel, is confirmed, and executes (as the business people say) on Obama’s diminishment of America’s ambition in and for the world. Our detached president is detaching us. One of the essential elements of the new consensus in foreign policy is the belief in the primacy of domestic policy. Before America asserts itself abroad, it is universally agreed, we must put our house in order. («The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than thirty cities,» Eisenhower declared in famous speech in 1953). Of course history never provides such a «before». There is no temporary suspension of crises and duties in which we may refresh ourselves. Like individuals, nations exist in many realms simultaneously. Obama is right about «nation-building at home,» but his implication that therefore we are exempt from assisting in building of nations abroad, that fiscally speaking it is them or us, is momentously wrong. Even in our current woes, societies and movements in trouble look to us. And yet almost every conversation about our diplomacy now turns into conversation about our economy. This is sophisticated thinking at its most simplistic. The causal relationship between our fiscal condition and our place in world is not as neat as economicists say. There are many ways to reduce defense spending, each of them represents not an incontestable budget number but a contestable strategic vision; anyway the defense budget is hardly what threatens the government’s solvency.

And will the economicists, actuarial doves, become interventionists if we finally balance the budget? Of course not: they have other grounds-ideological, moral, historical, for their love of the light footprint. (In the matter of Israel, incidentally, light-footprintists demand a heavy touch, another irony, or a hypocrisy?) I do not understand all this good conscience about the weakening of America’s influence in the world, since I regard America’s influence as generally a blessing for the world. I am not referring only to export of our technology and our culture. If United States does not determine to assist democratic struggles around the world, then those struggles will suffer, even fail. We cannot save societies do not wish to save themselves, but we can significantly affect the likelihood of their emancipations. The dictator in Iran and dictator in Syria enjoy diplomatic protection and logistical support of Putin, a strong-footprint man; but from Obama their valiant opponents get only complexity, passivity, and loquacity. (New f-word in Washington, the one that it is impolite to utter, is «freedom».) And what will our Asian «pivot» be worth, in the way of preparing for the full emergence of Chinese hegemon, if it, too, is a light footprint? Is smaller really better or safer? We are about to wane. We have elected to wane. Good luck to us. One day history will surprise us, shame on us for being surprised. «There is no alternative to peace,» said Eisenhower, who presided over an era of complacence. Alas, the world is lousy with people and powers who think otherwise. It may be the dumbest thing ever said by a soldier.

La otra elección

Cuánta falta nos hace la innovación en política. Mientras miles de emprendedores han irrumpido en los ámbitos más diversos de la economía, dando origen a una nueva clase empresarial, el acceso a la política parece estar vedado a quien no cuenta con el visto bueno de una vieja guardia, que lleva al menos una década atrincherada en el poder. El resultado es un preocupante distanciamiento entre políticos y votantes. La mitad o más de los electores no se sienten identificados con las principales agrupaciones políticas. De hecho, la confianza ciudadana en los partidos políticos prácticamente ha desaparecido (6%), en caso instituciones clave como el Congreso, no supera el 10%. No debiera sorprender que la gran mayoría de los electores, 7 millones, 59,1% del padrón electoral, no haya votado en últimas elecciones municipales. El mensaje está claro: no se sienten representados por una elite política que consideran distante, autorreferente, hermética, más interesada en sus propios problemas que en los grandes retos país y peligrosamente cercana a Don Dinero y a Doña Lobby. La elección presidencial de 2013 tampoco termina de entusiasmar a este nuevo Chile, ya que por ahora se perfila como una elección entre más de lo mismo (versión chilena del candidato presidencial que era “destapado” por el PRI meses antes de elecciones mexicanas, cuya victoria se daba por descontada) y alternativas que no terminan de convencer al electorado. El silencio absoluto de presunta ganadora armoniza perfectamente con la renuencia de sus principales rivales a discutir con franqueza los problemas que preocupan a votantes y plantear respuestas lógicas a éstos, por controversiales que resulten. Es hora atrevernos democratizar nuestra democracia, rompiendo esta peligrosa dinámica que tiene a los votantes «ni ahí con la política» y que corroe la legitimidad de nuestras instituciones republicanas. El viejo Chile de las elites excluyentes, que aún subsiste en nuestra dinámica política, es un peligroso statu quo que debemos dejar atrás. Por esa razón nos ha parecido necesario promover la iniciativa http://www.yoquieroserpresidente.cl, que está organizando una primaria online abierta a todos los chilenos. Objetivo es definir un candidato presidencial proponga soluciones innovadoras y efectivas a los problemas que nos preocupan, entre ellos educación, seguridad, energía y medioambiente, la concentración del poder económico y la protección a consumidores y deudores contra abusos de todo tipo. Esta primaria, cuyo lema es «Tu turno, tu revolución», estará abierta tanto a los candidatos actuales de cualquier signo político (si se atreven a competir en cancha pareja) como a los nuevos aspirantes a liderar el país (…..)

Link: http://www.quepasa.cl/articulo/opinion—posteos/2013/01/20-11010-9-la-otra-eleccion.shtml

Más América en la UE

La primera cumbre entre la Unión Europea (UE) y la bisoña Comunidad Estados Latinoamericanos-Caribeños (CELAC) ha dejado en Chile sabor agridulce: de insuficiencia y de expectativas. Insuficiencia porque gran asunto que dividía, articulación de una real seguridad jurídica para inversiones europeas que evite la cada vez más frecuente cadena de expropiaciones y nacionalizaciones, acabó en un resultado escaso. El ambiguo compromiso latinoamericano se limitó a destacar la importancia de un “marco normativo estable y transparente”. Y quedó equilibrado con “el reconocimiento del derecho soberano de los Estados a regular”, guiño a operaciones proteccionistas de algunos Gobiernos populistas. Pero se trata de la primera cumbre que los europeos celebran con la CELAC, y habrá pues que mantener la esperanza de que las sucesivas sean más provechosas. Porque en la nueva agrupación regional están todos los países americanos (salvo EEUU, Canadá); porque con ocasión de la misma se han producido varios foros interés para medios de comunicación y empresas; porque América Latina es un subcontinente emergente que puede relanzar unas añejas relaciones comerciales y productivas. Conviene a las dos partes tratarse a nivel bloques regionales, procurando que la creciente presencia de otros, como China, no reduzca sus lazos, ni retraiga la presencia europea ni inhiba la ambición americana. El papel de España como gozne entre las dos áreas, inaugurado con la aproximación UE-Mercosur en 1994, atraviesa un momento renqueante por razones obvias. Lo que no impide mantener vivas las llamas de la influencia política y de la cooperación empresarial, en ambos sentidos, también susceptible de un relanzamiento con complicidad de otros socios. Estas cumbres interesan asimismo por acuerdos bilaterales que facilitan (como, en esta ocasión, el germano-boliviano para la energía eólica). El futuro de la CELAC como bloque en un continente tan dinámico es una incógnita. Mucho dependerá de si se logra una visión supranacional que minimice pulsiones nacionalistas. Y si la desafortunada designación como segundo presidente, por turno y por un año, del único líder no electo, Raúl Castro, diluye o no la apuesta democratizadora e integradora que estuvo en su nacimiento. Ojalá que no. (Fuente: Editorial – El Pais.com – 29/01/2013)

Chaos and Lawlessness Grow After Days of Unrest in Egypt

Police fired indiscriminately into streets outside their besieged station, a group of protesters arrived with a crate of gasoline bombs, and others cheered a masked man on a motorcycle who arrived with a Kalashnikov. The growing chaos along vital canal zone showed little sign of abating on Monday as President Mohamed Morsi called out the army to try to regain control of three cities along the Suez Canal whose growing lawlessness is testing integrity of Egyptian state. In Port Said, street battles reached a bloody new peak with a death toll over three days of at least 45, with at least five more protesters killed by bullet wounds, hospital officials said. Morsi had already declared monthlong state of emergency here and other canal towns of Suez and Ismailia, applying a law that virtually eliminates due process protections against abuse by police. Angry crowds burned tires and hurled rocks at the police. And the police, with little training and less credibility, hunkered down behind barrages of tear gas, birdshot and occasional bullets. The sense that the state was unraveling may have been strongest here in Port Said, where demonstrators have proclaimed their city an independent nation. But in recent days, unrest has risen in towns across country and Cairo as well. In the capital on Monday, a mob of protesters managed to steal an armored police vehicle, drive it to Tahrir Square and make it a bonfire. After 2 years of torturous transition, Egyptians have watched with growing anxiety as the erosion of the public trust in government and a persistent security vacuum have fostered new temptation resort to violence to resolve disputes, said Michael Hanna, researcher at New York-based Century Foundation who is now in Cairo. “There is a clear political crisis that has eroded the moral authority of the state”. And the spectacular evaporation of government’s authority here in Port Said has put that crisis on vivid display, most conspicuously in rejection of Mr. Morsi’s declarations of the curfew and state of emergency. As in Suez and Ismailia, thousands of residents of Port Said poured into the streets in defiance just as a 9 p.m. curfew was set to begin. Bursts of gunfire echoed through the city for the next hours, and from 9 to 11 p.m. hospital officials raised the death count to seven from two. When 2 armored personnel carriers approached a funeral Monday morning for some of the seven protesters killed the day before, a stone-throwing mob of thousands quickly chased them away. And within a few hours, demonstrators had resumed their siege of a nearby police station, burning tires to create a smoke screen to hide behind amid tear gas and gunfire. Many in the city said they saw no alternative but to continue to stay in streets. They complained hated security police remained unchanged, unaccountable, even after Mubarak was ousted 2 years ago (…..)

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/world/middleeast/egypt-protests-cairo-port-said.html