Global Security | Normative Narratives

September 14, 2015
by bzupnick Leave a comment

Transparency Report: Europe’s Predictable and (Partly) Self-Inflicted Refugee Crisis

THOUSANDS SYRIAN REFUGEE

The European Refugee Crisis did not come out of nowhere. In fact, for anybody who follows international affairs, it is an inevitable result of a failure of leadership, shared responsibility, and vision in global security. For the past 70 years, America has been the guarantor of global security for countries seeking to promote democracy and human rights. For many decades this strategy either worked, or we lacked the communications technologies to know that it did not.

However, the decline of the inter-state war (thanks in large part to the economic interdependence and institutions engineered by America post-WWII) and rise of civil wars / non-state (terrorist) actors have led to much more protracted conflicts. The costs of modern warfare, exemplified by America’s “War on Terror”, have left America war-weary and financially strained–the era of “Team America, World Police” is over. This does not mean America should pull back from its extra-territorial human rights obligations, it means that countries that share our values must begin to pull their weight.

These sentiments were recently shared in a statement by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

“Let us also remember: the high number of refugees and migrants are a symptom of deeper problems – endless conflict, grave violations of human rights, tangible governance failures and harsh repression. The Syrian war, for example, has just been manifested on a roadside in the heart of Europe.”

Mr. Ban said that in addition to upholding responsibilities, the international community must also show greater determination in resolving conflicts and other problems that leave people little choice but to flee. Failing that, the numbers of those displaced – more than 40,000 per day – will only rise.

“This is a human tragedy that requires a determined collective political response. It is a crisis of solidarity, not a crisis of numbers,” the Secretary-General declared.

—

Thomas Friedman, who is by no means a war hawk, had a surprisingly hawkish outlook on the wars of the Middle East and their subsequent refugee crises in his most recent NYT Op-Ed:

Since World War II, U.S. foreign policy has focused on integrating more countries into a democratic, free-market world community built on the rule of law while seeking to deter those states that resist from destabilizing the rest. This is what we know how to do.

But, argues Michael Mandelbaum, author of the forthcoming “Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era”: “There is nothing in our experience that has prepared us for what is going on now: the meltdown of an increasing number of states all at the same time in a globalized world

Your heart aches for the Syrian refugees flocking to Europe. And Germany’s generosity in absorbing so many is amazing. We have a special obligation to Libyan and Iraqi refugees. But, with so many countries melting down, just absorbing more and more refugees is not sustainable.

If we’re honest, we have only two ways to halt this refugee flood, and we don’t want to choose either: build a wall and isolate these regions of disorder, or occupy them with boots on the ground, crush the bad guys and build a new order based on real citizenship, a vast project that would take two generations. We fool ourselves that there is a sustainable, easy third way: just keep taking more refugees or create “no-fly zones” here or there.

Will the ends, will the means. And right now no one wants to will the means, because all you win is a bill. So the world of disorder keeps spilling over into the world of order. And beware: The market, Mother Nature and Moore’s law are just revving their engines. You haven’t seen this play before, which is why we have some hard new thinking and hard choices ahead.

Obviously the first option–isolating these regions of disorder–is not really an option at all. Pursuing this option would lead to untold human suffering and stifle innovation, trade, and economic growth. Furthermore, these regions of disorder will not simply leave us alone, as evidenced by 9/11, the 2004 Madrid Train bombings, and more recent “lone wolf” terrorist attacks around the world.

One of the great challenges of the 21st century for the global community, therefore, is to establish a fair, equitable, and financially sustainable system for promoting economic development, “positive peace“, and conflict prevention. The UN Security Council must be reformed, in order to allow the “Responsibility to Protect” to fulfill it’s promise and respond to conflicts in a decisive and timely manner.

The Syrian civil war is a case-in-point of what happens when the international community is unwilling to dedicate the necessary resources to stemming a conflict before it gets out of control.

—

There are many considerations when assessing the true cost of war, aside from the obvious financial cost of intervention and casualties. Other less obvious costs include damage to the “host” country (physical damage, lost economic output, the cost of post-conflict reconstruction) and psychological and human development costs to civilians in the “host” country–surely war is not to be rushed into or taken lightly.

But despite all these costs, the use of force must remain as a deterrent; war might be costly for society as a whole, but it can still be very profitable for authoritarian governments and terrorist groups. Given Europe’s relative wealth and proximity to the Middle East / North Africa, it’s role in global security and defending human rights abroad has been feeble. Germany is leading the European campaign to house refugees, but as Friedman and Ban point out, treating the symptom and not the cause is not a sustainable solution.

The U.S. more than does it’s part in fighting these wars, but despite good intentions our track record is far from perfect–both intervention and non-intervention in past decades have had disastrous effects. When the U.S. military is the only show in town, “debates” on the proper course of action devolve into an echo-chamber of American ideas, and any ensuing missteps–be they to act or not to act–are amplified.

Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia will not defend democratic principles. India, while democratic, is inherently non-interventionist. Japan, for it’s part, is beginning to pivot towards playing a greater role in global security. However, when examining countries military capabilities and their ideologies, it is obvious that there is no substitute for Europe (led by Germany) playing a larger role in promoting democracy and human rights abroad, including through the use of force when necessary.

One would hope that the daily influx of thousands of conflict-driven refugees, in addition to a resurgent Russian military, would kick the Europe military machine into gear. Failure to do so does not promote peace or fiscal responsibility, it is a short-sighted and cowardly approach to governance, and one the world cannot afford.

February 9, 2015
by bzupnick Leave a comment

Conflict Watch: The End of Team America World Police (Part 7)

Obama’s Strategic Plan For National Security:

The latest installment of my ongoing series “The End of Team America, World Police” focuses on President Obama’s second and final National Security Strategy (full document can be found here):

“The question is never whether America should lead, but how we should lead,” Mr. Obama writes in an introduction to the document, a report that seems to mix legacy with strategy. In taking on terrorists, he argues that the United States should avoid the deployment of large ground forces like those sent more than a decade ago to Iraq and Afghanistan. In spreading democratic values, he says, America should fight corruption and reach out to young people.

“On all these fronts, America leads from a position of strength,” he writes. “But this does not mean we can or should attempt to dictate the trajectory of all unfolding events around the world. As powerful as we are and will remain, our resources and influence are not infinite. And in a complex world, many of the security problems we face do not lend themselves to quick and easy fixes.”

“There is this line of criticism that we are not leading, and it makes no sense,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. “Who built the effort against ISIL? Who organized the sanctions on Russia? Who put together the international approach on Ebola?”

The strategy lists eight top strategic risks to the United States, starting with a catastrophic attack at home but including threats like climate change, disruptions in the energy market and significant problems caused by weak or failing states.

Regardless of your opinion on how effectively the Obama administration has handled foreign affairs, it is hard to argue the United States is not leading from the front on major global issues. Yet it is important that our future leaders recognize, as President Obama has, the limits of both our government’s resources and our ability to sustain democratic revolutions through unilateral military intervention.

In a highly interconnected world, confronting global problems is in America’s economic and security interests (not to mention ethical considerations). This does not mean, however, that we should rush headlong into battle without carefully considering the probability of success and costs of alternative courses of action. There are other tools in America’s foreign policy toolkit–the other components of the D.I.M.E (diplomatic, intelligence, military, economic) framework–which should be considered before sending our military (and particularly ground troops) to war.

Military interventions are never quick, easy, or cheap. Even when successful, they leave a power void that must be carefully managed, lest that void be filled by ineffective leaders or extremist groups (or, as is often the case, both). When mismanaged, even the most well intended interventions can be counter-productive, fueling anti-Western propaganda and empowering the very ideologies we seek to destroy.

American tax dollars are a precious resource. Every dollar we spend abroad is a dollar we cannot use for nation building at home. The American government is solely responsible for managing America’s domestic affairs, but we have many allies who share the same ideologies and interests as us (and who should therefore more proportionately shoulder the cost of defending them).

—

A NATO By Any Other Name…:

NATO was established in recognition that global security was part of the “global commons” (and remains even more-so today). This brings us to recent comments on NATO’s future by outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel:

Hagel, making his final appearance at NATO as U.S. defense chief, said the alliance faced several challenges, including violent extremism on its southern rim, Russian aggression in Ukraine and training security forces in Afghanistan.

“I am very concerned by the suggestion that this alliance can choose to focus on only one of these areas as our top priority,” Hagel told a news conference. “And I worry about the potential for division between our northern and southern allies.”

“The alliance’s ability to meet all these challenges at once, to the east, to the south and out-of-area, is NATO’s charge for the future,” Hagel said.

“This is a time for unity, shared purpose and wise, long-term investments across the spectrum of military capability,” he added. “We must address all the challenges to this alliance, all together and all at once.”

Often times, one can speak most candidly when their tenure at a position is coming to an end. Those who oppose the ideals of NATO will not coordinate their attacks one at a time. In fact, knowledge that NATO resources are strained (due to say, simultaneous humanitarian crises, a wear weary American public, or underinvestment in the global security commons by the rest of the international community) is only likely to embolden our enemies. While NATO needs to be able to effectively counter more than one major threat at a time, this does not mean the American army alone needs that capacity.

As the world becomes “smaller”, the exclusively Northern Atlantic nature of NATO should be reconsidered. Two major democracies–India and Japan–are not members of NATO, limiting the groups ability to fulfill its goals. Furthermore, having regional actors involved in security operations helps builds legitimacy, underscoring the strategic importance of greater Indian and Japanese involvement.

President’s Obama and Modi recently met and discussed, among other things, defense cooperation. India must become a major partner in promoting peace and democracy in the Middle-East (particularly in coordinating the fights against the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban) even as it itself modernizes.

—

More Turkey Please:

An Op-Ed published in the NYT today by two Arab professors teaching at American Universities was very supportive of Turkey’s level of involvement in the Middle East:

There have been sharp disagreements over the 2013 coup in Egypt, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the need for intervention in Syria. Turkey’s critics have called into question its reliability as a NATO ally, including in the fight against the radical Wahhabi group known as the Islamic State.

But much of this concern is misguided. The ongoing crises in the Middle East have only underscored Turkey’s pivotal geostrategic position: It’s no surprise that Pope Francis, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain have visited Ankara in the past few months. And Turkey’s detractors, partly because they do not understand the sources of its new assertiveness, fail to see that its transformation actually serves America’s long-term interests.

The United States has long allowed client states like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel to pursue shortsighted goals in the Middle East. This has only brought despotism and strife. Washington’s failure to fully support the democratic government of Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt contributed to its collapse, and so to the instability and violence that have occurred there since. And it was President Obama’s cynical abandonment of the Syrian opposition during the first two years of the uprising against Mr. Assad that set the stage for the advent of the Islamic State.

To avoid any more such calamities, policy makers in Washington, and other Western capitals, should abandon their counterproductive approach: They should embrace Turkey’s growing, and positive, engagement in the Middle East.

I could not agree more.

But I do not think America’s leaders are opposed to Turkey asserting itself in the Middle-East. Indeed, as a primarily Muslim democracy and NATO member, it must play a large role in Obama’s plan of relying more heavily on regional partners in curtailing Islamic extremism.

I agree the Obama administration was wrong on Syria and Egypt, I am on the record saying as much. But in this case, two wrongs don’t make a right. Turkey cannot afford to play the moral high ground on these issues while the dogs of war bark at it’s door-step. Furthermore, Erdogan’s delayed and half-hearted support of the Kurdish peshmerga reeks of political calculus, not someone who considers ISIS a serious threat to regional stability.

So I am not exactly sure what these professors are talking about–they appear to be building a straw-man just to knock him down. I think it is pretty clear the Obama administration wants more Turkish involvement, including ground forces, in the fights against Assad and ISIS, not less.

—

Japan and Germany (Finally) Begin to Shed Their Post-WWII Identities:

Updating a previous blog about Japan and Germany shedding their post-WWII pacifist identities, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is pushing Japan to change it’s pacifist Constitution:

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has said that he wants to start the process of revising Japan’s Constitution as early as next year, a senior lawmaker in his party said Thursday, giving the clearest indication yet that the Japanese leader will seek to change a document that has undergirded the country’s postwar pacifism.

Mr. Abe told Hajime Funada, the leader of a group of Liberal Democratic Party lawmakers, on Wednesday that the best time to begin the difficult political task of amending the Constitution would be after elections for the upper house of Parliament, scheduled for the summer of 2016…

The Constitution, which also prohibits Japan from possessing the means of war, was written by American occupiers after World War II to prevent the defeated nation from ever again engaging in militarist expansion. The document proved so popular among Japan’s war-weary people that it has never been amended.

But Mr. Abe has seized on the murders of the Japanese hostages to make some of his strongest appeals yet for unshackling the nation’s military. Saying Japan was unable to save the hostages, he has called for easing restrictions on its purely defensive armed forces to allow them to conduct rescue missions, evacuations and other overseas operations to protect Japanese nationals.

The hostages, Kenji Goto, a journalist, and Haruna Yukawa, an adventurer, were beheaded a week apart by the Islamic State, a militant group in Syria and Iraq that had demanded a $200 million ransom for their release. The murders outraged and sickened Japan, which had seen itself as largely immune to the sort of violence faced by the United States and other nations that have been involved militarily in the Middle East. Since 1945, Japan has adhered to a peaceful brand of diplomacy that has seen it become a major donor of economic and humanitarian aid to the Middle East and elsewhere.

It remains unclear whether the shock of the killings will swing the Japanese public in favor of Mr. Abe’s harder line. Since the murders, opposition politicians have stepped up attacks on the prime minister, accusing him of provoking the Islamic State by allying Japan more closely with the United States-led efforts to destroy the militant group. Just days before the ransom demand appeared, Mr. Abe pledged $200 million in nonmilitary aid to countries in the region confronting the Islamic State.

However, on Thursday, the lower house of Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the killings and calling for increased coordination with the global community to combat terrorism.

—

Germany to Play a More Active Role in Global Security?:

Germany must ramp up defense spending starting in 2016 to ensure its military is able to take on a bigger role in crisis zones, according to two top lawmakers in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition.

Germany spends about 1.3 percent of gross domestic product on the military, short of the 2 percent level pledged informally by North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies.

Merkel’s spokesman has said no additional funding will come in the short term as the government struggles to hold on to its target of balancing the budget next year and with 2015 spending already largely negotiated.

Germany must engage in international missions “earlier, more decisively and more substantially,” Gauck told the Munich Security Conference on Jan. 31.

Fiscal responsibility is usually good, but like anything, overzealous attachment to an ideology can preclude pragmatic policy. Economics is context sensitive, and in the current context, Germany’s dedication to running a balanced budget has left holes in the Eurozone economy and the global security commons.

A large scale increase in German defense spending would bolster global security efforts (particularly in countering Russian aggression in former Soviet Republics), while simultaneously providing a partial answer to Europe’s economic stagnation (by “buying European“).

—

Please do not confuse my views with war-mongering or advocating for the military-industrial complex, I just recognize that there are bad actors in the world who only understand realpolitik. In order to provide room for the forces of human dignity and freedom to flourish, these bad actors must be marginalized.

July 15, 2014
by bzupnick 2 Comments

Conflict Watch: 70 Years After “D Day”, Time To Move Foward

World’s top 15 military spenders in 2013

List by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2013)^[1]

Rank	Country	Spending ($ Bn.)	% of GDP	World share (%)
	World total	1747.0	2.4	100
1	United States	640.0	3.8	36.6
2	People’s Republic of China^[a]	188.0	2.0	10.8
3	Russia^[a]	87.8	4.1	5.0
4	Saudi Arabia^[b]	67.0	9.3	3.8
5	France	61.2	2.2	3.5
6	United Kingdom	57.9	2.3	3.3
7	Germany^[a]	48.8	1.4	2.8
8	Japan	48.6	1.0	2.8

The Top 10 Providers of Assessed Contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping Operations in 2013 [A/67/224/Add.1] are:

United States (28.38%)
Japan (10.83%)
France (7.22%)
Germany (7.14%)
United Kingdom (6.68%)
China (6.64%)
Italy (4.45%)
Russian Federation (3.15%)
Canada (2.98%)
Spain (2.97%)

—

I like to think of myself as a pretty laid back guy. I don’t get worked up when people joke about stereotypes in a non-malicious way, because that’s what stereotypes are–a joke (in that they hold no value). I also believe the ability to laugh about things and engage self-deprecating humor are signs of maturity and progress.

As a Jewish American, there is one thing I cannot tolerate joking about–the Holocaust. There is a saying associated with the Holocaust–“never forget”–to both honor the victims and ensure such evil acts are never repeated. I’m sure other cultural groups have their “red-lines”, and these lines should be respected.

While we must never forget the Holocaust, we must also move on from the legacies of WWII; 70 years is a long time, and the world is a much different place. Germany and Japan no longer represent the “Axis of evil”; both of these countries have proven themselves committed to the institutions and norms that have made the second half of the 20th and 21st centuries the most progressive in the history of mankind.

Both of these countries have also benefited greatly from the global economic system put in place after WWII. Therefore, we must not only welcome but demand that Germany and Japan play a more active role in fostering the global security which allows this system to function.

—

Germany:

Anger at Washington mounted Wednesday with the disclosure that American intelligence agents were suspected of having recruited a second spy in Germany, this time linked to its Defense Ministry, prompting even robust allies of the United States to suggest that a fundamental reset was needed in one of the most important of trans-Atlantic partnerships.

“At some point, the ‘no comment’ will not be enough,” Norbert Röttgen, the committee’s head and an influential member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democratic Party, said in a telephone interview from Washington. “The U.S. must understand what psychological damage it is inflicting. I think that will be a difficult process.”

At the same time, Mr. Röttgen cautioned his German colleagues to appreciate that Berlin and Washington had profoundly differing views on the role of an intelligence service and should not let this difference permanently damage otherwise strong ties. Analysts have said that Germans have a far more restrictive view of how intelligence agencies should operate and what a fair target is.

Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a Social Democrat who after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks led an effort to tighten cooperation with American intelligence, seemed at a loss to understand why the United States would spy on Germany.

“We speak to each other all the time, and nobody makes a secret of their views,” he said in an interview published Wednesday by the newspaper Saarbrücker Zeitung. “The attempt to find out about Germany’s position is not just unseemly, it is unnecessary.”

Despite hurt feelings, “psychological damage”, and a degree of mistrust, US and Germany have vowed to continue cooperating in the name of global security:

The United States and Germany put a brave face on an escalating espionage dispute, stressing on Sunday the importance of their cooperation to solving several global crises but offering little indication they’ve fully mended ties.

After a meeting on the sidelines of nuclear talks in Vienna, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry each extolled the value of the two NATO allies’ work together on issues such as Iran and Israeli-Palestinian violence.

“Relations between Germany and the U.S. are necessary and indispensable, and that’s for both of our sides,” Steinmeier told reporters in German. Still, he acknowledged the recent “difficulties” and urged that relations “revive on the basis of trust and mutual respect.”

Relations between the U.S. and Germany have never been more important. With the number of humanitarian and security crises rising, and extremist threats posing a challenge to democracy and capitalism abroad, the German-U.S. relationship must be redefined.

The U.S. must focus it’s intelligence efforts on its real enemies, and stop acting like a global hegemon that must know everything about everyone at all times, friend or foe. We must learn to loosen our grip and trust our allies, especially ones as strong and stable as Germany.

Germany, for its part, must contribute a greater share to NATO and UN Peacekeeping operations. Many German’s see their World Cup victory as the beginning of an age of global prominence–I would argue Germany, as the strongest EU economy, has held this distinction for some time. Either way, Germany must assume the responsibilities that come with being a global power.

—

Japan:

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has disturbed many in Japan and increased anxiety in Asia by reinterpreting his country’s pacifist postwar Constitution so that the military can play a more assertive role than it has since World War II. While a shift in Japan’s military role was never going to be readily accepted by many, Mr. Abe’s nationalist politics makes this change even harder to swallow in a region that needs to reduce tension.

It is difficult to overstate the significance of what Mr. Abe has done. Since 1947, Japan’s Constitution, written and imposed by the American Army, has permitted the military, known as the Self-Defense Forces, to engage only in self-defense. That meant the large and technologically advanced armed forces was barred from “collective self-defense” — aiding friendly countries under attack — and thus was far more constrained than those of other nations.

With the reinterpretation, Japan’s military would still face restrictions on what it could do, but it would be allowed for the first time, for example, to help defend an American ship under attack, destroy a North Korean missile heading toward the United States or play a larger role in United Nations peacekeeping operations.

—

As I mentioned before, a large part of honoring those who perished in the Holocaust and WWII is making sure such deplorable acts are never repeated. As the world becomes more interconnected due to technological advances, people become more acutely aware of the gross human rights violations inflicted by terrorist organizations and totalitarian governments with relative impunity on a daily basis. While these acts may occur on a smaller scale than the Holocaust, they are nonetheless deplorable.

Security is a necessary precondition for both human and economic development. As the 3rd and 4th largest economies in the world respectively, Japan and Germany must contribute more than their current 2.8% of global military spending (they do perform better in terms of UN Peacekeeping contributions, but still do not do enough). To fully cast off their WWII legacies, Japan and Germany must take leadership roles alongside the U.S. in ensuring security and human rights are enjoyed by all.

As the U.S. (partially) winds down it’s disproportionate contributions towards global security, the “power void” must be filled by the rest of the international community, led by Germany and Japan. Thankfully, it seems that Germany and Japan are ready to make this transition. It is up to the rest of the international community to not only welcome this shift, but demand that it occurs to a scale that leads to real improvements to the world’s most vulnerable people.

As a Jewish American I will never forget the Holocaust. But I can forgive, so long as Germany and Japan take a more active role in defending innocent people through multilateral security pacts (such as NATO) and UN Peacekeeping operations.

October 23, 2013
by bzupnick 1 Comment

Conflict Watch: The End Of Team America World Police (Part 5)

Well, after no installments of “The End of Team America” for a few months, I now have back-to-back blogs on the “subject”. I don’t make the news people, I just analyze it! I suppose with the specter of a potential U.S. strike on Syria, unrest in Egypt, and complications with Iran, the timing wasn’t ripe to discuss winding down America’s military involvement around the world. However, this has always been a long term goal of the Obama administration; with Assad’s regime complying with international chemical weapons experts / “Geneva 2” peace talks in the works (I am personally skeptical the Syrian opposition will participate, which would derail these talks), Egyptian unrest seemingly subsiding (or festering under the surface?), and Iran entering the fold of international diplomacy with renewed optimism (but is it just a stalling tactic or a real attempt at change?), it seems that the tune of news outlets has shifted away from imminent U.S. military intervention back towards the long-term goal of winding down America’s role in global security measures. True none of these shifts represent concrete changes in their respective debates, but they do present an opening for a different focus by news outlets, at least for the time-being.

—

Original Article:

Germany called for closer military integration between groups of NATO countries on Tuesday as the alliance grappled with how to keep its defenses strong at a time of falling military spending.

Germany’s proposal, discussed by NATO defense ministers at a Brussels meeting, is that big NATO nations act as “framework nations” leading a cluster of smaller NATO allies.

These clusters of countries would jointly provide some military capabilities or develop new ones for the benefit of the whole alliance, with the lead nation coordinating their efforts.

The idea was welcomed by NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and by Britain but diplomats said some other countries, including France, had concerns about the proposal, fearing it could undermine countries’ sovereignty and lead to over-specialization.

“Does that lead to a kind of specialization which could be dangerous if some nations specialize only in certain types of mission and disengage from other missions?,” one diplomat said.

Some diplomats also worry that a cluster system could make it more difficult for NATO to use forces on operations because a parliament in one country could effectively veto military action by other nations in the cluster.

The United States has repeatedly voiced alarm about the growing gulf between U.S. military spending and capabilities and those of its European allies.

The German proposal would help share the cost of expensive military systems at a time when many NATO allies are slashing defense spending in response to the economic crisis.

Only four of the 28 NATO members – the United States, Britain, Greece and Estonia – met the alliance’s target of spending 2 percent of their economic output on defense in 2012.

—

As a block, the EU spends only 1.7% of it’s GDP on military expenditure. The U.S., by contrast, spends 4.7% of it’s GDP on military purposes. This unequal distribution of global security expenditure (39% of global military spending is by the U.S.) has placed an unfair burden on the American tax-payer, even as it has strengthened U.S. influence over global security decisions. The U.S. is expected to foot the bill of many multilateral security operations, which as led to roughly 1/4 of all Federal expenditures to go towards military purposes. This has constrained U.S. fiscal space, draining it’s economy of resources needed to reinvest in it’s future through social programs. The aggregate result has already begun to show in the form of increasing inequality and reduced social mobility.

It is not only in other countries best interest to reclaim some say in security matters, it is also in the U.S. best interest to have such a re-balancing take place. But absent other countries stepping up, the U.S. has no choice but to continue footing the bill, otherwise the “global security commons” would suffer. It appears that Germany now agrees with the U.S. and is taking the initial steps to more evenly distribute the burden of global security.

This plan certainly has snags, which are addressed in the article. Could more “specialized” NATO tie the hands of some of it’s smaller members, requiring an impossible consensus for military action? It is possible, although I would argue that states rarely make security decisions unilaterally (with the exception of the U.S., which would likely still retain it’s ability to act unilaterally in any foreseeable agreement). With each country having to take military intervention back to it’s legislature for a vote, having more votes ultimately complicates military action. I am sure that NATO members, headed by Germany and the U.S., will take necessary steps to streamline a more cooperative process, although admittedly I do not know what these steps would be at this time.

Germany was demilitarized after WWII, that was almost 70 years ago. Germany has, since that time, proven it has the political will, stability, and foresight to be a world power. It is time to allow Germany to become a true world power, by increasing its role in global security debates. I will be sure to keep my readers up to date on any news on this important proposition.

September 5, 2013
by bzupnick Leave a comment

G20 Kicks-Off Today, A Number of Hot-Topic Issues to be Discussed by World Leaders

G20 Russia 2013

From the international financial and monetary systems to international tax-evasion to armed conflicts, the worlds leaders are getting together to figure out how to minimize human rights violations and hold parties accountable for their violations.

The ultimate goal is to put in place global and national policies needed for sustainable human development in the 21st century–an ambitious goal indeed! Difficulty must not deter our normative visions for the future; as a global community we must attack these issues proactively and in a preventative nature whenever possible.

I urge the NN community to stay up-to-date on G20 related news. I will be sure to write a blog upon the conclusion of the G20 leaders summit.

May 23, 2013
by bzupnick 5 Comments

The (Real Beginning of the) End of Team America World Police Part 3(? 4? 5?, I’ve Lost Count…)

I started my narrative on this topic with a two-part political and economic analysis of current U.S. Defense Policy. I then wrote a piece on the true cost of the war on terror, and more recently a piece on how Europe’s shrinking military expenditure is hurting it’s credibility as a meaningful security partner to the United States. Current U.S. military policy has long been an issue affecting America’s fiscal space, constraining resources for social programs which compromise our future growth prospects and social mobility, thereby perpetuating rising inequality in America. At the heart of the matter is the uneven proportion of Global Security expenditure that America pays. Today, President Obama signaled he is of similar mind on the subject.

“Taken together, the president’s words and deeds added up to an effort to move the country away from the perpetual war on terrorism envisioned by his predecessor, George W. Bush, toward a more limited campaign against particular groups that would eventually be curtailed even if the threat of terrorism could never be eliminated.

‘Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.’

Mr. Obama rejected the notion of an expansive war on terrorism and instead articulated a narrower understanding of the mission for the United States. ‘Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America,’ he said.

‘Neither I, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror,’ Mr. Obama added. ‘We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do — what we must do — is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend.’”

“As our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion,” Mr. Obama said. “To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power — or risk abusing it.”

“The changes reflect a conclusion by the White House that the core of Al Qaeda has been decimated by years of strikes and the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. But in the speech, the president said that the threat had evolved in a complicated mosaic of dangers from affiliated groups and homegrown terrorists, like the bombers who attacked the Boston Marathon.”

As is to be expected, Republicans were critical of Obama’s realistic, transparent, straightforward and even-handed speech:

“Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, issued 10 questions to the president in reaction to previews of his speech. “Is it still your administration’s goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda?” he asked. “If you are scaling back the use of unmanned drones, which actions will you be taking as a substitute to ensure Al Qaeda’s defeat? Is it your view that if the U.S. is less aggressive in eliminating terrorists abroad, the threat of terrorist attacks will diminish on its own?”

Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, was sharper in reaction. ‘The president’s speech today will be viewed by terrorists as a victory,’ he said. ‘Rather than continuing successful counterterrorism activities, we are changing course with no clear operational benefit.'”

First to address Senator Chambliss, ~~are you sir a moron?~~ how could the winding down of the war on terror have “no clear operational benefit”? Does making a military mission less costly both in dollar terms and American lives have no effect on the operational benefit of The War on Terror? Not to mention the impact on public opinion of the U.S. abroad (which is directly related to terrorism). Or do you not consider the costs of an operation unless the money is going to those lazy “takers”? (i.e. any social program the G.O.P. will fight tooth and nail). If anything, we should have much sooner reconsidered the operational benefit of the War on Terror in the first place (which has been marginal at best, as highlighted by recent sectarian violence in Iraq).

Speaker Boehner’s questions are more substantive; I have actually grown to like Senator Boehner, I almost pity him for the impossible job he has of trying to legitimize the current cluster-fuck of ridiculous soundbites and indefensible policy advocacy that has come to define the G.O.P. I’m sure Mr. Boehner did not imagine his constituents would be so unrealistic and uncompromising that his time as House Speaker would be marked as a period of historically low congressional approval ratings.

But back to Congressman Boehner’s Questions. Questions 1 and 2 (“Is it still your administration’s goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda?” he asked. “If you are scaling back the use of unmanned drones, which actions will you be taking as a substitute to ensure Al Qaeda’s defeat?”) were already addressed by President Obama in his speech:

“But what we can do — what we must do — is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend.”

Obviously Al-Qaeda would be considered a “network that poses a direct danger to us”, probably the primary of such networks. One has to question whether John was not sleeping through the President’s speech with questions like those. And to expect a President to openly discuss his defense strategies, probably our most important national security secret, is not exactly proposing a reasonable question.

President Obama also alluded to the answer to Speaker Boehner’s 3rd question in that very same breath. Mr. Boehner asked, “Is it your view that if the U.S. is less aggressive in eliminating terrorists abroad, the threat of terrorist attacks will diminish on its own?”

The answer to that is, of course not. The President stated he planned to “make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold”, but what exactly does that mean? It could only mean putting more resources into preventative peace-building and diplomacy efforts, as I have advocated for here at NN.

Conflict resolution theory tells us that the majority of todays armed conflicts are “Protracted Social Conflicts”. This means that their roots are in human rights violations, which almost always involve inadequate service delivery and security being provided by a country’s government. In situations like this, conflict is likely to break out. When conflicts break out, there is no military to keep terrorist activities at bay (assuming the regime in power is not allied with extremist groups to begin with).

Terrorist groups seize onto this absence of government human rights “duty bearers” and begin to provide services and security themselves. People on the ground, having no other option other than living in extreme poverty and extreme discomfort, welcome these terrorists in with open arms. Terrorists are able to buy goodwill, gain footholds for their operations, and attract a new generation of young Jihadists.

The only way the President can prevent new terrorist groups from forming is to scale up the capacity of strong, democratic governments in developing countries around the world (or factions within countries that do not have democratic governments). If America undertakes this much more noble pursuit, we can build sustainable relationships that foster greater economic and security alliances, rather than destroying nations and then attempting to build them back up from scratch, which is costly in money, time, and lives.

We must remember that building these relationships is not easy. Transitions to democracy and a higher standard of living take time, and the process is not always linear. Vested interests will never give up easily, as they have so much to lose as society reaps the benefits of modernization, and more resources are invested into basic infrastructure as well as physical and human capital.

Though we face an uphill battle, we must never falter in our fight to promote peace, security, and mutually beneficial and environmentally sustainable economic relationships. Only through cooperation and coordination can the global community confront and overcome the issues we collectively face in the 21st century and beyond.

And we must always remember we are not alone in this fight. Our Allies around the world remain committed to the same vision as us. Institutions such as the UN, NATO, WB, IMF, WHO and countless other international, national, and regoinal institutions, alongside non-governmental organizations, charities, and civil society organizations join our ranks. The day when extreme poverty and human rights violations are no longer a threat is just beyond the horizon, and I look forward doing whatever I can to work towards that future.

March 23, 2013
by bzupnick Leave a comment

Conflict Watch: Two Very Different Approaches to Global Security

President Obama had a very productive trip to the Middle-East this week. Say what you will about Obama’s domestic policy (I for one like his ideas, and believe he inherited a terrible situation and has been handicapped by the ineptitude of the U.S. Congress, but that’s another matter entirely and not the topic of this blog), but Obama has certainly been a very effective President in terms of diplomatic relations.

One area of diplomacy that the Obama administration has not historically been very effective is the Middle-East. Obama muddle relations with Israel early in his presidency when he condemned Israeli housing development in dispute lands in the West Bank. The territory in question has been seen as vital to a potential two-state solution between Israel and Palestine—Israeli development undermines the ability to potentially return the land to Palestinians as part of a negotiated settlement.

But in his most recent trip, Obama made headway in the contentious geopolitical arena that is the Middle-East. He renewed calls for a two-state solution, calling on the younger generation of Israelis and Palestinians to pressure their governments for a peaceful resolution. It may be cliché to say “the youth is the future”, but it is also accurate, and seeing as any durable two-state solution is at least years (if not decades) away, calling on the youth is an appropriate measure.

Obama fell short of calling for Israel to halt construction in the disputed land. He did call the construction “inappropriate”, but stated that halting construction should not be a precondition for negotiations.

Obama also visited Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, as a two-state solution requires two willing negotiation partners. Obama’s visit with Abbas was mainly symbolic—showing the U.S. stands with the Palestinian Authority, and that the government has an alternative other than aligning itself with extremists groups. The closer ties the Palestinian Authority has with the U.S., the better the chances of a two-state solution. The closer the ties with extremist factions within Hamas, the less likely such a solution will occur.

—

Perhaps most notably was the restoration of full diplomatic ties between Israel and Turkey. Turkey and Israel had a history of close relations which stopped in 2010 after Israel boarded a Turkish ship attempting to bring supplies into disputed lands. The stand-off resulted in the deaths of 9 Turkish citizens and a suspension of diplomatic ties between Israel and Turkey.

Obama was able to convince Prime Minister Netanyahu to apologize and offer compensation to the families who lost loved ones in the dispute. The apology was accepted, and full diplomatic ties were restored.

Turkey is an important geopolitical ally of the U.S., as is Israel. It can only be beneficial for regional and global security to have these two important partners on the same page.

President Obama also visited Jordan, another regional ally. During this visit, he pledged further financial support to Jordan, who receives thousands of Syrian refugees a day as civil war continues to envelop the country. This is the latest measure by the Obama administration to diminish Assad’s prospects by strengthening regional opposition, while still officially keeping the U.S. out of armed conflict.

—

Contrasting Obama’s proactive foreign policy agenda was Xi Jinping’s (the new Chinese President) speech in Moscow. Xi stated:

“We must respect the right of each country in the world to independently choose its path of development and oppose interference in the internal affairs of other countries,”

These words mirrored a similar ideology of Vladimir Putin, Russia longtime President:

“Putin, who began a six-year term last May, has often criticized foreign interference in sovereign states.

Russia and China have resisted Western calls to pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over the two-year-old civil conflict that has killed more than 70,000 people.

They both criticized the NATO bombing that helped rebels overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 and stood together in the Security Council in votes on the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs.

Both China and Russia have bristled at U.S. and European criticism of their human rights records.

Putin said in a foreign policy decree issued at the start of his new term that Russia would counter attempts to use human rights as a pretext for interference, and his government has cracked down on foreign-funded non-governmental organizations.”

—

I have often condemned Chinese and Russian position of national sovereignty above all else. Surely national sovereignty is an important safeguard for good governments against malicious foreign intervention, but it should not be a tool for corrupt and disingenuous leaders to stay in power.

This is an unfortunate if not unexpected position for the Chinese President to take. Recent actions implied that Xi may be more open to protection of human rights, as evidenced by his call to support a higher standard of living for Chinese citizens over economic growth. After this most recent trip to Moscow, it appears Xi is taking 2 steps forward and 1 step back on human rights.

This position held by Russia and China also directly undermines the Responsibility To Protect initiative of the United Nations:

“The Responsibility to Protect has three “pillars”.

A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities;
The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility;
If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.^[3][4]”

R2P safeguards national sovereignty without compromising individual human rights. It states that it is the responsibility of a state to protect its citizen’s rights and in a case where a state cannot protect these rights, the international community will lend assistance.

In a case where the state refuses help or itself perpetuates human rights violations, the international community can impose sanctions and other means to deter such actions. As a last resort, the international community can use military intervention to stop “mass atrocities”.

—

It is not surprising that China and Russia fear an undermining of national sovereignty, as both nations have strong autocratic regimes (in practice, despite what formal democratic structures they may have).

However, China and Russia must abandon this slippery slope argument and realize there are different degrees of national sovereignty. The international community has no interest in interfering in Chinese and Russian affairs, but it does have an interest in intervening in state perpetuated human rights violations.

Not only are human rights violations deplorable on moral and ethical grounds, they also compromise regional and global security. Protracted Social Conflict theory places humanitarian grievances at the root of most of today’s armed conflicts—and this theory is overwhelmingly supported by both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Human rights violations lead to instability, which can create a breeding ground for terrorism. The inability to evoke R2P in Syria has led the opposition to be hijacked by extremist groups, confusing the legitimate humanitarian roots of the conflict with an opportunistic power grab. This has made assisting the Syrian opposition much more difficult than it otherwise could have been.

—

Ultimately, China and Russia have the same goals as the U.S. and Europe—prosperity and peace through an open international system. This is not the Cold War, where the two sides were so ideologically opposed that only one could survive (capitalism v. communism). Eventually, China and Russia will have to learn that in order to protect their interests, limits must be placed on national sovereignty.

A useful mechanism for checking national sovereignty already exists in R2P; the next great challenge will be getting China and Russia on board with this initiative.

Hopefully it does not take a large terrorist attack in Russia or China to open these countries eyes to the interrelation of human rights violations and global insecurity, but for the time being it seems that these two countries have (unsurprisingly) not changed their positions on national sovereignty and R2P.

January 23, 2013
by bzupnick 5 Comments

Economic Outlook: The End of Team America World Police (Part 2)

Yesterday, we examined the roots to what President Eisenhower referred to as the “military-industrial complex”. The U.S. has many legitimate reasons for maintaining a strong military; having said that, U.S. military expenditures are out of control. The U.S. spent $ 711 billion in 2012, that’s 41% of global military expenditures. The next closest countries are China at 143 billion (8.2%), Russia at 71.9 billion (4.1%). Let’s be clear here, when we talk about spending cuts for the military, we’re talking about shaving a few billion dollars off the bloated D.o.D. budget—under no proposed circumstances would the U.S. lose its prominence in global security issues. Clearly our allies need to pick up some of the slack in ensuring global security.

To clarify, some military spending goes to soldier benefits, which under no circumstances should be cut (retroactively). It would be a slap in the face to cut current veterans benefits, these people signed up and served our country under the belief they would get these benefits—they signed contracts with the U.S. government. However, veterans’ benefits accounted for only $127 billion in 2012, about 18% of the defense budget, so there is room to adjust the budget without reneging on promises already made to our service men and women.

When considered next to federal deficits, the case for cutting military spending is even stronger. Military expenditure accounted for 25% of federal spending in 2012. For comparisons sake, Education accounted for 3%, Health Care 23%, and Pensions (Social Security) 22%. It is absurd that the U.S., which is in no real threat of being invaded, spends 8 times as much on defense spending than on education on a yearly basis. If you ask me, the greatest threat to American prosperity is not terrorism or globalization; it is the systemic underinvestment in education.

The “War on Terror” has led America to rethink how we intervene in other countries, as it has been so costly:

“With enactment of the sixth FY2011 Continuing Resolution through March 18, 2011, (H.J.Res. 48/P.L. 112-6) Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security,reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This estimate assumes that the current CR level continues through the rest of the year and that agencies allocate reductions proportionately. Of this $1.283 trillion total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $806 billion (63%), OEF $444 billion (35%) and enhanced base security about $29 billion (2%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1/2%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD.”

“He [Obama] asks more detailed questions about how sending 100 troops, or 10,000, might influence long-term outcomes. Paraphrasing the president, one aide said he is more likely to ask, ‘So if we put troops into Syria to stabilize the chemical weapons, what can they accomplish in a year that they couldn’t accomplish in a week?’… ‘He has got to find the happy medium between not committing us to a decade-long ground war and choosing not to do anything,’ said Anne-Marie Slaughter, who was the head of the State Department’s policy planning operation for Mr. Obama’s first two years in office and has urged him to intervene more strongly in humanitarian disasters.”

I agree with Anne-Maria Slaughter, that part of smarter (D.I.M.E) intervention must involve shifting resources from the D.o.D. to the D.o.S. Both departments have the same mandate, to protect America’s interest abroad. However, more should be done in a preventative capacity. Protracted Social Conflict theory gives insights into future conflict zones; preventative action in these areas would save money and lives. Admittedly, there are instances where Defense must act instead of State (for instance, if fighting has already begun in a region), so it is essential to have both departments adequately funded. Currently the D.o.D. budget is more than 10x larger than the that of the D.o.S., some rebalancing is in order.

I would like to go back and highlight a quote from French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte I posted yesterday:

“It should be obvious, he said, that the United States has other priorities and is concentrating on Asia, and need not act everywhere. So if we are both independent and true allies of the United States we should be in a position to act when need be.”

The rest of the world is beginning to realize that it must take more of a collective role in global security. There is one last point I would like to make, which is addressed by Mr. Levitte; the future of military efforts in Asia.

There is little reason that we should refocus our military interventions in Asia. Yes, North Korea, Yemen, and a number of other Asian countries pose terror risks, but not immediate risks to America. The strongest nations in Asia; China, India, and Japan, are our allies. We should be able to count on them to ensure regional stability, with the U.S. offering logistical, financial, and intelligence assistance as necessary. I sincerely hope that Obama takes this opportunity, with European nations taking greater responsibility in Northern Africa and the Middle-East, and rising military expenditures in Asia, to reallocate D.o.D. spending to the D.o.S (and not to just shift defense spending from one region in the world to another). This shift may be politically unpopular, and some would inevitably call Obama “soft” on Asia / China / terrorists, but such action would ultimately be in America’s best interests

Obama has been a very friendly president toward the D.o.S., streamlining U.S. diplomatic efforts and scaling up the USAID budget. However, changes have so far been modest. Hopefully Obama uses his second term to make significant changes in U.S. foreign policy.

If our allies around the world help share in the cost of ensuring global security, the U.S. can focus more on domestic issues and preventative peacebuilding. This vision for the future is attainable, but far from guaranteed; it will take real political will and leadership to accomplish. Hopefully president Obama has what it takes to start America on this path.

January 22, 2013
by bzupnick 3 Comments

Conflict Watch: The End of Team America World Police (Part 1)

The United States has by far the largest military in the world. Tomorrow I will get into the numbers, so for now you’ll have to take this information on good faith. The American military has been a global force for good since WWI (and probably before that). The U.S. intervened on the side of democracy in both WWI and WWII, and was central in efforts to promote global coordination, cooperation, and mutually beneficial trade throughout the 20^th century (The League of Nations, U.N, N.A.T.O. G.A.T.T. W.T.O, I.M.F, W.B, the list goes on and on). The Marshall Plan, the large post WWII European reconstruction aid package, and the ensuing ideological standoff with the Soviet Union, further cemented America’s position as global defender of “Western values”.

The United States has carved out this position, as a global protector of modernization, democracy, and capitalism, for many reasons. The most pronounced reason relates to American values, at its base a humanitarian plea. However, there are also economic and national security reasons for promoting these values around the world. The rapid expansion of capitalism after The Cold War has led to unprecedented growth in the global economy. This growth is mutually beneficial; as poorer countries develop new markets for American exports open up.

This growth must be protected; there are still those who oppose the forces of modernization, either because it will take power away from the current elite, or because it is at odds with traditional / religious values, or perhaps because of a contentious colonial history. There is no shortage of reasons why other people do not like us (and if one does not exist you can count on someone to fabricate a reason). In order to protect ourselves, and in hopes of creating new trade partners and lifting the world’s most impoverished from the shackles of extreme poverty, the U.S. has invested trillions of dollars into this global vision (prompting Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the two comedic geniuses behind South Park, to create a satirical movie “Team America: World Police”, to highlight America’s prominence in foreign conflicts) . I have argued that resources should be shifted from a bloated D.o.D. to the D.o.S., and still hold strongly to this belief, but this is an ideological argument about the same agreed upon principle; As technology advances, and globalization progresses, the world will only become smaller and more interconnected. As a result, foreign policy (both America’s and other nation’s) will become even more important.

There has to be a rethinking of how the U.S. intervenes. Gone are the days of the classic “world war”; today’s most prominent conflict is the Protracted Social Conflict (PSC). U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, while “successful” in terms of ousting oppressive leaders, have been very costly. The U.S. can no longer afford to play the role of “Team America: World Police”. Arab Spring interventions have highlighted a shift from overt military action to covert operations. It is now common knowledge that nation rebuilding must be a part of military intervention, in order to ensure the power vacuum created is not filled by someone who is even less aligned with “Western interests”. The cost of ensuring global security and protecting the international trade system must be more evenly shared by the developed world.

It would be natural to start by analyzing French foreign policy, as they have been most directly involved in the current Northern Africa conflicts. However, I would like to first focus on Germany. Germany has come a long way from being defeated in two world wars and being divided by the Berlin wall. Due to economic responsibility and stability, Germany has become a world power (it is the most powerful country in the EU in economic terms). Germany has, ironically, benefited from having limited military power after WWII (imagine how different the U.S. economic picture would be with a more reasonable defense budget):

“After World War II, West German politicians rejected military force for any goal other than self-defense, and a strong pacifist streak developed in the public. The end of the cold war brought the beginning of a long period of halting change. Allies, particularly in the United States, have repeatedly called for Germany to take more responsibility and a larger share of the burden…’I don’t think it’s healthy for the future of Europe to give Germany this refuge where Germany handles the economy and doesn’t have to deal with the dirty stuff,’ Mr. Böhnke [head of the Berlin office of the European Council on Foreign Relations]”.

“’A country of our size,’ Mr. Köhler [former German president] said, ‘with its focus on exports and thus reliance on foreign trade, must be aware that military deployments are necessary in an emergency to protect our interests, for example, when it comes to trade routes, for example, when it comes to preventing regional instabilities that could negatively influence our trade, jobs and incomes.’”

It is time for Germany to step up to the plate and share the responsibilities of being a world power. France already has a large military, and sees a dynamic and pragmatic military as an essential component of global security:

“France has maintained its ability to send troops and equipment quickly to large parts of the globe, and it should soon overtake an austerity-minded Britain as the world’s fourth largest military spender, after the United States, China and Russia…The French are willing to intervene militarily, but on the basis of new conditions, which differ, French officials argue, from the old colonial habits and traditions known as ‘Françafrique.’”

“’We think it is absolutely necessary for other European countries to do what we do,’ Mr. Levitte said. ‘Otherwise there will be a kind of strategic irrelevance of Europe as a whole.’ It should be obvious, he said, that the United States has other priorities and is concentrating on Asia, and need not act everywhere. ‘So if we are both independent and true allies of the United States we should be in a position to act when need be.’”

French officials have also called for African troops (and Algerian troops specifically) to take a larger role in regional security affairs:

“France’s foreign minister told African leaders that ‘our African friends need to take the lead’ in a multilateral military intervention in Mali…’We must, as quickly as possible, furnish the logistical and financial means required by the Malian Army and Ecowas,’ he [Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius] said.”

Military intervention is costly, both in terms of human lives and monetary cost. Global security has an element of “the tragedy of the commons” to it; everyone benefits from security, so there are bound to be “free rider” issues when it comes to paying for global security operations. It has become obvious that America cannot afford to play world police anymore; we cannot support the military bill and still provide the services needed to grow America domestically without amassing large amounts of debt (which has also been called a national security threat; damned if you do intervene, damned if you don’t). It is time for the rest of the world to share in the cost of our collective freedom and prosperity.

Come back tomorrow for part 2 of “The End of Team America World Police”, when I will focus on military and humanitarian expenditures by country to further highlight the need for a more evenly shared approach to foreign intervention and global security.