« Political Paralysis: what would Jesus do? | David Seaton's Blog | How I learned to love the bomb »
With Iran, the USA is playing into the hands of China and Russia
The Three Musketeers
In the final analysis, the new UN Security Council resolution passed on Thursday calling for an end to nuclear proliferation did not name Iran - despite robust canvassing by the US and Britain - and that was because Russia and China wouldn't allow that to happen. Also, the resolution stopped well short of authorizing forced inspections of countries believed to be developing weapons. M K Bhadrakumar - Asia Times
(Brazilian VP) Jose Alencar, who also served as defense minister from 2004 to 2006, said in an interview with journalists from several Brazilian news media that his country does not have a program to develop nuclear weapons, but should: "We have to advance on that." "The nuclear weapon, used as an instrument of deterrence, is of great importance for a country that has 15,000 kilometers of border to the west and a territorial sea" where oil reserves have been found, Alencar said. Associated Press
Venezuela's science and technology minister said his country is working with Russia to detect deposits of uranium but withdrew an earlier denial that the country was also working with Iran. Associated Press
Let me cut directly to the chase, right to the bottom line:
In the "third world" -- which is a nice way of saying "former European (read "white") colonies", -- Britain, France and the USA have always been considered the great imperialist powers. And during the Cold War Soviet Russia and Communist China were considered the "anti-imperialist" powers.
With the collapse of "really existing socialism" and the advent of globalization it is interesting to note that this description remains valid.
During the Cold War this anti imperialist reputation gained much influence for China and Russia and many leaders and intellectuals of third world or "non-aligned" countries, with no desire to import the Soviet or Mao Tse Tung's version of socialism into their countries, found both countries useful counterweights to the USA, Britain and France in their struggle to maintain some semblance of their national sovereignty.
What was least attractive about Communism (especially in the Soviet case) for the former "western" colonies, bent on defending their newly won sovereignty, was the idea that "really existing socialism" was a "global" movement, international, and which subordinated its allies, like colonies, to "The Motherland of Socialism", with its capital in Moscow.
These former "western" colonies, with their history of exploitation and subordination, tend to be equally suspicious of a global movement, which we could call "Really Existing Globalization", that subordinates its allies, like colonies, to "The Motherland of Capitalism"... with its capital in Washington.
The end of the Cold War brought China and Russia into the world economic system... which means they can play both games simultaneously: they can buy and sell advanced weapon systems, cars, electronics and assorted bric-a-brac all over the world and at the same time refresh their Cold War street cred as defenders of the national sovereignty of the west's (read white people's) former colonies, where most of the world's natural resources are, (that's why they were colonies in the first place).
America's invasion of Iraq, while it simultaneously pussyfoots around the much more tyrannical and grotesque, but atomic bomb armed, North Korea, has made it clear to everyone that the only reliable guarantor of national sovereignty is the atomic bomb.
The atom bomb means the end of gunboat diplomacy.
Naturally, many citizens of the third world see that the "west's" urgency in keeping Iran from having an atomic weapon, like Israel's, Pakistan's and India's, is simply in order to dominate Iran more comfortably. The United States, Britain and France, from this point of view, have a lot to lose if more countries get the atomic bomb, it would mean the end of globalization as a western controlled power system, as it would no longer be possible for the "western" powers to continue to bend the former colonies to their will. using military force... or at least many of these countries might have reason to believe or to hope so.
So finally, just by dragging their feet on sanctioning Iran and continuing to sell that country weapons and to buy their oil, Russia and China are building up much good will and influence in the countries who produce the commodities that the developed world transforms.
I can imagine some readers saying, "Oh it's all different now, because Barack Obama's father came from Kenya and he's black". To those readers I would say that the president of the United States is the president of the United States, no matter if he is black, white, yellow or green. If anyone in the third world ever thought that President Obama would not behave as his office and the economy of his country, or the interests of those who paid for his campaign oblige him to, they will soon learn differently.
Advertisement
David,
Assuming you are right, what's the solution?
September 28, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say there was a solution?
We invented the damn thing, we used the damn thing and we are stuck with the damn thing. This is called paying Karma and according to the Hindus the only thing that can mitigate karma is divine grace... do you really think we deserve divine grace?
September 28, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Davine grace ?? Us ??...surely you jest.
September 28, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No you didn't, hence my question.
Yet more to the point there is always a solution. It can be a great, good, bad or horrible solution, but there is a solution. Some solutions take a full 180 and sacrifice while other only require a minor course correction that is hardly noticed until you arrive someplace completely different.
September 28, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that that there's always a solution- to certain classes of problems. If we're doing something stupid, we can find better policies. If we're Belgium, we can enlarge our territories by creating Conradian dystopias in Africa- but, we can't, couldn't, take ourselves outside the path of the Schlieffen Plan. That is an 'existential problem.'
In the case of this blog, there seems to be a tension between the 'problem' posited by the title- that we're playing into China and Russia's hands- and several distinct theses advanced, "the atom bomb is the end of gunboat diplomacy," "the former Communist countries get to exploit Cold War cred without Communist burdens, while we don't,"and "the West has more to lose from nuke proliferation than China and Russia do."
Nothing about playing into their hands, though. These are not mistakes we're making- they're existential claims, whether true or false.
September 28, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, crap, there ya go stickin' a pin in my hope-balloon. I really thought that there might be some alliances in the offing that were uh...sane, and productive, and that Obama really knows that any military strikes against Iran would have disastrous global repercussions.
As far as Russia and China selling weapons to Iran, I thought there was plenty of evidence that US shell companies still are, and have been, all throughout the Bush presidency.
On rutabaga's post on same, there was info about Netenyahu inside Russia for a week, but I don't even know what that means.
Remember the Wgs who said that there is only one real solution to the problem of steroid use in baseball? REQUIRE EVERY PLAYER TO JUICE; end of problem.
Maybe it's time to REQUIRE every nation to have DA BOMB. National sovereignty galore!!
Snark aside, if the deck reshuffles a little, isn't it possible that Obama knows this is about to be the era of post-American-Exceptionalism, and he really might want to offer nations some choices on who they become, notwithsatanding some pretty Unholy Alliances they had formed in the past?
Oh, god, just shoot me now...
September 28, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
These "Non-Aligned" nations will keep what ever government they have - however oppressive it might be - simply because it is not aligned with or like that of the "imperialistic west" (read white Anglo Saxon protestant).
And as long as we behave and are viewed as the imperialistic powers, this will remain the case.
C
PS: Good post by the way.
September 28, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought that the Obama, Brown, and Sarkozy body language was interesting. Brown stood about a foot from Obama, while Sarkozy was about a meter away on the other side.
News stories in "The Hindu" of India indicate no support for Obama's position on Iran. Neither India nor Pakistan have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
September 28, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, a lot of Real Americans think Liz Cheney has the answer to that:
“We can’t win if we don’t fight,” Ms. Cheney said, noting that she was taught that lesson years before “by a great American, my dad, Dick Cheney.”
...By speech’s end, the crowd was standing, and the former vice president’s daughter was being mobbed for photos and hounded to run for office.
September 28, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ohhhh, she's been running for months! That's what her "save my daddy's legacy tour" was about.
I swear to god, cheney was in my dream last night.
("Zo. Would choo like to talk more about ziss?")
("NO.")
September 28, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The BOMB is an insurance policy for the third world. Note how well treated Pakistan and India are? Each have the BOMB and the means to deliver it. But both are not what one would consider to be cultural centers or the Riviera of their region. Any country possessing one earns the mutual respect of others in The Club. And that's why it's so important to have one - respect. Think how much more difficult it would have been for Bu$h to invade Iraq if Saddamm really did have the BOMB. A country with the BOMB is treated much different that one without. It's all about perception. What can happen if the wrong people get their hands on a device is never thought of or considered and that's the real danger. The Taliban overthrowing the government in Pakistan is a real threat no one ever considered before Bu$h invaded Afghanistan and pushed the Taliban out, but failed to curb their ambitions. What will happen if the Taliban gains control over Pakistan? We have no idea where they hide their nukes nor how many they have. Too bad Bu$h and the republicans didn't have a clue about what they were doing otherwise they might have been a little more thoughtful about containing the Taliban in Afghanistan and keeping them from escaping into Pakistan.
September 28, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was Al Queda that is migrating into Pakistan. The Taliban in Afghanistan are rather incorporated into life there, no?
September 28, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy - The Taliban and Al Qaeda are sufficiently allied that Taliban domination of Afghanistan would strengthen Al Qaeda in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and create a threat of Al Qaeda access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons. It's not necessary to eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, and probably not possible, but it's critically important to prevent them from gaining uncontested control.
September 28, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought some of the critiques of our policy on Afghanistan (steve Clemmons, et.al.) concerned the idea that presently Taliban and Al queda have been conflated, when actually it isn't so. The theory was that the conflation of the two muddies the mission (opacity is their friend?) and that there should be more clarity. I also thought that Obama's recent comments about shifting the focus onto Pakistan and the border regions was clarifying the differences.
Thank you for answering, fred.
September 28, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The AP reports today:
The Taliban has a strong presence in western Pakistan and have brutally forced their concept of Islam on the local inhabitants. And they're gaining influence and power, and the Pakistani army has trouble not only fighting them, but keeping their soldiers front joining them. It's a slippery slope. We may win the war in Afghanistan, but lose an ally in the process and their nuke arsenal too.
September 28, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Afghanistan is so critical, why don't China, Russia and India fight with us as all three are only a pick-up truck and a few tank refills away from the scary bad guys who want nuclear weapons?
I think it is time to pull back to and secure the cities and let Karzai and his corrupt government handle the countryside.
September 28, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gooooooooood question. The $64 one.
September 28, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karzai's government (much less his military) do not and cannot control the countryside. And it is western troops that are holding the cities.
Have you never heard of Karzai being derided as "mayor of Kabul?"
September 28, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we should gather all the Afghans into "strategic hamlets?"
September 28, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Russia and China are doing their part by keeping a lid on Islamic radicals in the northern Caucasus and Xinjiang / Greater Tibet respectively. They have also worked with the Central Asian states through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to frustrate the ambitions of the CIA, MI6, Pakistani ISI, and Saudia Arabians to destabilize those states through Islamic radicalism.
The Indians have provided some assistance, especially to the Tajik, Uzbek, and other minority ethnic groups in the North of Afghanistan. However, that gets Islamabad very upset, and it has to be done very carefully.
September 28, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The list of "destabilizers" you've got there deserves more notice than it will get.
September 28, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it goes back to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter, and Ronnie Reagan, who thought using fellow believers to combat Godless atheists would be a fine idea. Never mind that they were Salafists, Deobandists, and Wahhabists. All "people of the book" you know.
September 28, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make several salient points here David,I do not know how to disagree with any of them. This thought came to me some time ago, I just dismissed it out of hand.
I mean the idea makes me nauseous--but it does seem to be a logical conclusion.
Iran has decided to go nutso. Is it doing so in order to quell its own domestic problems?
I do not see any happy endings here.
September 28, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have to remember DD that the only reason nuclear weapons have not been used since WWII is not because of any moral or ethical beliefs on the part of the "powers that be". If that were the case, we would not have been in Vietnam, the Balkans or anywhere else killing 10s of thousands of people.
No...it's is because unlike conventional warfare, where the rich and powerful can have sanctuary while instigating and funding the war - with a nuclear war there is no sanctuary for them or anyone else.
In fact the centers of wealth and power would be among the first targets to be hit.
With non-aligned and third world countries nuclear armed, as David has pointed out, gunboat imperialism gets halted rather quickly.
C
September 28, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say, these nuclear weapons do not sound half bad.
September 28, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think my whole (boomer) generation owe our lives to the atomic bomb... Without the bomb we would have gone to war with the USSR for sure. If we measure the conventional weapons of that period, what the Americans used in Vietnam and the Soviets used in Afghanistan and compare them with what was used in WWII (compare the M1 to the M16), millions of us would have died (probably me included) on both sides.
September 28, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
whoa! that never occurred to me, but you hit it top dead center!
Bin Laden isn't interested in military targets...he's after softer civilian targets - banks. Especially the ones that control the flow of cash throughout the world - twin towers.
That makes complete sense now. Military targets are reinforced, but civilian sectors haven't an ounce of armor plating to protect them. We saw what can happen when a jet airliner full of fuel impacts a free standing stationary object. Just think what would have happen if they had gotten their hands on a small tactical nuke and planted it on the roof instead. Everything vaporized without a trace. Nothing salvageable for many years.
The underlying theme is, there will be no such thing as a safe haven anymore if a non-aligned or third world country become nuclear armed.
September 28, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a nice marxist perspective with a small m.
The military industrial complex makes soooooooooooo much money fighting 'conventional' wars. But if I am a rogue nation, one who despises the oligarchy of nations headed by the US that controls the planet, I know I am going to lose a conventional war or, at least see my country destroyed like Vietnam or Iraq. So why not give the world the finger and just fire a few off for old time's sake.
That was and is my fear with North Korea. It was pointed out on cable that achmadinijad (fk sp) is not really in charge. (Always thought he looked a lot like Gonzo really)
At any rate, I really had not looked at this...not in the way you propose C.
September 29, 2009 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad most Americans don't understand how we are perceived by other nations as imperialists (since we are imperialists). I think most Americans are still wrapped up in the idea that everyone should love us because of what we did in WWII. Good post David!
September 28, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to give you the Knightly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe site, given to all of you from all of me. I mean there have been so many great lines today--check out comments on my blog and Miguel's for instance. But yours is so succinct and rings with such truth. hahahahahaha
I was watching part of Borat--I can only take it in short segments--and in one scene he gets up and gives a speech somewhere in the south or southwest at some rodeo and he gets the crowd calling first for freedom, and liberty...then hate the terrorists, then kill the terrorists...then kill all muslims...all in about four minutes. And I think its the real deal. In other words not staged. The crowd is actually calling for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. Amazing. Makes teabaggers seem quite tame.
September 29, 2009 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm trying to figure what the problem is here. There either has to be a global, verifiable reduction in nuclear weapons or nations like Iran will continue to seek, and eventually obtain them.
I suppose there's a slightly greater chance that nuclear weapons are more likely to be used if there are more of them. But the worries about Iran having a small nuclear arsenal seems widly overblown. Not to mention that it will render the Likudniks irrelevant, which makes me lean towards hoping Iran does get the bomb.
September 28, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah...and this is the whole point. "The Bomb" is seen by smaller nations are their only "trump card" against the larger more powerful ones. So to expect any of them to willingly give up getting one is at best wishful thinking.
C
September 28, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So to expect any of them to willingly give up getting one is at best wishful thinking."
Of course, we could try clear firm statements of nonaggression as long as certain conditions were met.
But what's the good of having the most massive military in the world if you can't bully second-tier nations with impunity?
September 28, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why they want the Islam bomb - you have to think twice before you swagger in and push them around.
September 28, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is an Islamic bomb already. It is in Pakistan.
However, Pakistan is Sunni. Iran wants to have a Shiite bomb.
September 28, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soon it may be the Taliban Bomb. They're poised to overrun Islamabad - there was fierce fighting close to the capital this past summer. And they own the western provinces bordering Afghanistan.
September 29, 2009 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush administration deliberately and recklessly burst the non-proliferation bubble in 2002-2003.
First, the "Axis of Evil" speech put every little state on notice that regime change wasn't going to stop with Afghanistan. And the United States was arbitarily and unilaterally going to set the criteria for who did or did not fall.
Second, the White House mused publicly about maybe using tactical nukes against Saddam's supposedly well-hidden and deeply bunkered WMDs.
So much for Non-Proliferation Treaty's sham pretense that, in exchange for other signatories' agreement not to seek the bomb, the Big Five would work (gradually, of course) toward a nuclear arms-free world. 9/11, you see, had changed everything.
Smaller states got the message. Every one that can is now going to seek "break-out capacity."
If we're lucky, an updated NPT can be crafted that freezes programs at that point. But I doubt it.
The big powers pretend otherwise, but adherence to the NPT is voluntary, and despite their rivalries the third world is united in hating Security Council bullying. A lot of them are secretly rooting for Iran in its standoff.
September 28, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. Once the bubble is burst, you can't unburst it.
And that was the most important bubble of all...
September 28, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, if only Bush hadn't been president for the past 8 years...Iran would have been much more reasonable. Ahmadinejad was a reasonable man before Bush became President. Remember how much nicer everything was back before Bush? everyone living in harmony, no wars, no greed, all those nice stock options and internet startups?
September 28, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone overlooks the obvious...Saddamm was the keystone that kept Iran in check. He didn't think twice about using chemical or biological weapons against the Iraqi shiite's who were akin to Iranians or in his war against Iran, and his nuke arsenal was convincingly thought to exist so Iran was very obedient and minded their manners. Once Bu$h took Sadamm out and revealed there was no nuke arsenal, there's been no one capable of controlling Iran's quest for nuclear supremacy in the Gulf.
If there's any blame to place, it goes to Bu$h and the republicans for screwing the pooch.
September 29, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I gather that's snark, John.
But Ahmadinejad was irrelevant before 2001; he only rose to power after Bush designated Iran a member of the Axis of Evil and chose to rebuff the Islamic republic's attempt to mend fences.
In the wake of 9/11, Iran had offered the U.S. its full co-operation (short of armed forces) in ousting Afghanistan's Taliban regime and crushing Al-Qa'ida. (For example, escape routes were offered for any downed American pilots.)
At a post-war international conference, Iran helped get the U.S. candidate, Hamid Karzai, accepted as Afghan president.
Even after the gratuitous "Axis of Evil" speech, Iran sought a rapprochement.
Reuters: "Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by (Condoleezza) Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran's most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 U.S. opening to China. Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but 'the administration rejected the overture.' " (Implausibly, Rice told Congress she never saw the diplomatic note.)
The Iranian letter offered to put all outstanding issues on the table -- including Mideast peace, terrorism and recognition of Israel. Rather than respond, the U.S. berated the Swiss government for even passing on Iran's proposals.
My point is not that Iran's leaders are good guys (they're acting in what they believe is their country's interests), but simply that -- for an implacable foe -- Iran sure has shown willingness to negotiate with the U.S.
At least it did up till 2003. Now it's a little bit wary of U.S. good faith after being burned a couple of times.
September 29, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bottom of the bottom line is that the only one to have ever used the atomic bomb on human beings (twice)was the USA (USA!USA!). It is amazing that after all these years that this fact still affects how people judge this question.
September 29, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink