Avuncular American

Ill Winds From the East: Caucasus War & Energy Dependence

This blog already covers a wide range of subjects, and I don't want to stretch my analytical powers too thin by trying to comment on the South Ossetian situation.  Rather, I'd like to draw a parallel between America's flailing Mideast stance and the West's efforts to "do something!" in the face of the Russian vs. Georgian, ex-superpower vs. truncated statelet firefight in the Caucasus tinderbox.  Actually, Helena Cobban of "Just World News" says it best:

The "west" is hopelessly over-stretched, what with all its current commitments of troops in Iraq, a crisis-ridden Afghanistan, and (still) in the Balkans. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was most likely relying to a great extent on the NATO forces pulling his chestnuts out of the Ossetian fire if they should start to burn there. But NATO is in absolutely no position to do that. All the US could do to give him any concrete help was to gather up and return to his country the 2,000 Georgian troops who had previously part of their occupation coalition in Iraq. That airlift is happening right now. But it will do little to affect the balance on the ground in the Caucasus, while it will certainly cause considerable disruptions to the US project in Iraq.

Does anyone doubt that when NATO next addresses the matter of Georgian membership, already-hesitant NATO members will point out that - had Georgia gotten NATO membership as President George W. Bush wanted last April - it would be an Article V (an attack against a member state is an attack against all) NATO war with Russia that would be breaking out right now.  I just hope those American airlift planes ferrying Georgian troops home from Iraq don't have any run-ins with the Russian aviation now controlling Georgian skies.

It's not just the US that is in an uncomfortable position.  Europe, in particular the EU under the current French presidency, feels the need to "do something!" and has sent Foreign Minister and inventor of "humanitarian intervention" Bernard Kouchner on a peace-making mission.  Already, Russians and their allies have called attention to parallels between interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo (okay for the West) and Russian muscle-flexing in its Caucasus sphere of influence among its former satellite states.

Here's the link between America's Achilles heel in the Persian Gulf and Europe's weak spot on its Eastern borders: dependence on energy imports from, respectively, authoritarian Arab oil-rich regimes and a resurgent Russian natural gas monopoly.  What is Europe going to do? Stop exporting champagne to Russia's nouveau riche mafia?  Is General Motors going to stop selling Hummers to Saudi Arabia if it doesn't democratize?

To consider how things might have been otherwise, here's Thomas Friedman ("Flush With Energy") from Sunday's New York Times:

Unlike America, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. In 1973, said [Danish Minister of Climate and Energy Connie] Hedegaard, “we got 99 percent of our energy from the Middle East. Today it is zero.”

Part of Denmark's solution has been wind energy. Friedman says: "Denmark today gets nearly 20 percent of its electricity from wind. America? About 1 percent."

France, under President Nicolas Sarkozy, has taken a number of steps towards securing more energy independence, or at least diversification.  France leads the world in nuclear energy electricity generation, though recent leaks might give leaders pause on expanding this sector.  Sarkozy's "Mediterranean Union" cannot have been launched without a thought to securing alternative North African natural gas supplies in light of the heavy Russian hand on its gas export spigot.

So what in the world was France's Conseil d'Etat (a kind of supreme court on constitutional matters) thinking when it essentially threw a monkey wrench into France's growing collection of high-tech windmills, which dot the high ground in Brittany (click on photo) and other windy areas? It decision on a "technicality" last week essentially ends wind power's privileged position, where small producers were guaranteed purchase of their output by the national utility, EDF.  Hopefully the Sarkozy environmental and energy czars will remedy the situation, which is not without its eco-strategic significance: every kilowatt produced by somebody's windmill is a kilowatt that does not rely on Russia's largess.

How about wind and US energy dependence (I won't say "independence," since my native country is so, so very far from that happy situation)? Read Thomas Friedman and weep: "Ditlev Engel, the president of Vestas — Denmark’s and the world’s biggest wind turbine company — told me that he simply can’t understand how the U.S. Congress could have just failed to extend the production tax credits for wind development in America.

Why should you care?

“We’ve had 35 new competitors coming out of China in the last 18 months,” said Engel, “and not one out of the U.S.”

Energy independence starts now, not tomorrow, and has a direct link to strategic influence.  Dependence, on the other hand, means that strategic options are limited by where the fuel for your fighter jets comes from.  Putting your money, so to speak, where your mouth is.  Otherwise, it's just dangerous bloviating, Mr. Vice President.

 

Posthumous Blogging: The Orwell Diaries Start Saturday 9 August

This post is in the realm of a public service announcement: the good people of the Orwell Prize, the Orwell Trust, Political Quarterly, and the Media Standards Trust will start publishing George Orwell's diary, 70 years day for day, starting tomorrow. Check it out here. This is their concept:

‘When one reads any strongly individual piece of writing, one has the impression of seeing a face somewhere behind the page’, wrote George Orwell, in his 1939 essay on Charles Dickens. From 9th August 2008, you will be able to gather your own impression of Orwell’s face from reading his most strongly individual piece of writing: his diaries. The Orwell Prize is delighted to announce that, to mark the 70th anniversary of the diaries, each diary entry will be published on this blog exactly seventy years after it was written, allowing you to follow Orwell’s recuperation in Morocco, his return to the UK, and his opinions on the descent of Europe into war in real time. The diaries end in 1942, three years into the conflict.

I'm so enjoying Graham Greene's "Collected Essays" from the same period that I think I'm going to be a regular reader of Orwell's "blog."

Update 10 August: the first entry on 9 August did not disappoint, though Orwell's entry was on snakes, not civil wars.  According to a very nice article in The Telegraph, "George Orwell Would Have Blogged," Allan Massie shows that Orwell's eye for detail included an infinite array of subjects:

He delighted in trivia: "C, of my section of the Home Guard, a poulterer by trade but at present dealing in meat of all kinds, yesterday bought 20 zebras which are being sold off by the zoo. Only for dog-meat, presumably, not human consumption. It seems rather a waste" (April 24, 1941)

Glad to see that even during the Blitz the stiff upper lip allowed such niceties for doggies.  Massie reminds us that "the diaries have already been published in the 20-volume Complete Works, edited by Peter Davison, while excerpts from his wartime diary were included in the four-volume Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters, edited by Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus, first published by Secker & Warburg in 1968, and then by Penguin two years later."  For those who like to read in bed or along a gurgling stream, this might be a better bet.

Choosing Popes & Presidents: The White Smoke

No cardinals of color need apply

Rome 2005: it’s the election of the successor to John Paul II. The highly popular Polish-born Karol Jozef Wojtyla had reigned for a quarter century, and his death and funeral in 2005 set world media records. In 1978, JP II’s selection had come at a traumatic time for the Church: his predecessor John Paul I had died after only 33 days as Pope. In 1978, the College of Cardinals’ white smoke – the traditional signal from the Vatican chimney telling the world they’ve reached agreement on who will be the next Pope – heralded the choice of the first non-Italian in centuries. In 2005, was the Church now ready for a non-European to replace him?

Not the Church of the College of Cardinals. Their selection of another European kept the Vatican firmly in the hands of the hierarchy of white Europeans when the world’s Catholics were increasingly Latin American, African, and Asian. Whatever you think of the current Pope Benedict XVI, there is little question that he is (a) white; (b) European; (c) extremely conservative. Hell, he had even directed American Catholics to vote for born-again incumbent George W. Bush (or to not vote for pro-choice Catholic John Kerry) in 2004.

Amidst speculation over a number of cardinals-of-color from Brazil to Nigeria as potential popes, in 2005 the College of Cardinals, for reasons known mainly to themselves (rewarding a leading Vatican vicar, keeping the Pope-ship in the “family,” innate conservatism – just wild guesses, since they don’t have to justify a thing), chose a man who had mainly lived in the Vatican. Given life spans these days, the world might have to wait a good ten or fifteen years until it again has a chance to see if the CoC will dare enlarge its gene pool of candidates.

Can Americans hurdle their own color barriers?

‘Nuff said on the selection of popes. How about that major preoccupation of Americans for the last couple of years, the election of the successor to George W. Bush? Should it be John McCain, who thinks that economically, things are just fine, and that it’s silly to want better gas mileage? Or Barack Obama, who some people can’t believe is as American as McCain? In fact, he may be even more American than McCain, since Obama was born in the United States, while McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. I won’t hold it against him – both my kids were born overseas while I was working at US embassies, and both have US citizenship at least as good as... Governor Schwarzenegger’s.

But we all know that for many people, such matters as pronounce-ability of name, skin tone, normal guy-ness, etc. are all important in determining their vote come November. Even if such gut reactions have absolutely no relation to those voters’ economic and other interests. As in the archetypical blue collar Reagan Democrat who voted for Bush over Gore and Kerry because he thought Bush was a “nice guy." No matter that Bush opposes almost everything that made life better for earlier generations of blue-collar workers: freedom to organize for better working conditions and wages; progressive taxation to fund education for wide swathes of Americans; regulation of industry to prevent the excesses of capitalism (see sub-prime crisis) from killing the golden goose.

So that’s my question: will Americans, through their vote this fall, make the Electoral College any more color-blind than the College of Cardinals? If Barack Obama’s name, color, diet, waist-size make enough Americans uncomfortable, does that mean that the country’s default position is a 70-something man whose major claim to our allegiance is that he was a prisoner of war four decades ago? But whose physical attributes are the equivalent of comfort food for American political appetites?

These days I’m reading bits from my yellowed copy of novelist Graham Greene’s Collected Essays. Greene, the convert to Catholicism who specialized in tortured consciences, chose to write about several popes, including John XXIII, who acceded to the Papacy at the ripe age of 77 (“everyone was convinced that I would be a provisional and transitional Pope”). Is that the kind of subconscious reasoning that goes into some people’s evaluation of McCain? A transition to what? A one-term extension of Bush? (and who would want more of that?) Two terms and McCain’s into his eighties – even Ronald Reagan, the oldest man elected President, was “only” 78 when he finished his second term.

God knows that whoever is elected in November will have to face monumental problems: extraction from Iraq; an economic crisis that has echoes of 1929; crash program to avert climate disaster; ditto for American infrastructure, so it doesn’t crash on the citizenry, etc. etc. Maybe we should question why in their right minds Obama and McCain want to take this list on, but they do. So what do Americans want: the “comfort” of a McCain who might look like Uncle John but whose temper in times of crisis has military leaders a bit concerned? Or a Barack Obama, whose international standing could bring America back into a true leadership position among nations?

Here’s hoping that Americans will be able to do better than the College of Cardinals, and choose a man who is all about the future, and who “looks like America.” Not the America of the Vietnam era, but melting pot America that is the current reality. An America – under a melting pot President – that would be a part of the world rather than apart from it.

3 Months Away: Uncounted and Untold Voting Horrors?

About half of all voters will use machines unlike the ones they used in the last presidential election.

Ian Urbina, “Influx of Voters Expected to Test New Technology,” NYT July 21, 2008 (emphasis added)

Picture it: Election Day November 4, thousands of polling stations nationwide with their brand new machines, millions of people lined up to cast their vote for... the wrong guy.  Or should I say the candidate preferred by (a) the company that installed the “private, trade secret” software; (b) the secretary of state in your previously Red but possibly swing state; (c) the ABB (Anybody But Barack) crowd?  Even if the precinct volunteers include computer whizzes, I challenge them to work out the kinks in the untested (in the real world) machines so that everyone who’s lined up will be able to vote before closing time.

If you doubt that the nation that made “American” and “democracy” almost synonymous is capable of muffing yet another election, then perhaps you should watch David Earnhardt’s film “Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections.”  I am way overdue writing about a showing of the film in June by Democrats Abroad Belgium, when the euphoria (for the Obama crowd) and the disappointment (of the Clinton camp) of the then just-ended primary race was tempered by the realities shown in Earnhardt’s film.  Check out the film’s official site, along with its regularly updated blog.  There are plenty of links and issue papers, along with clips from the film.

I hesitate before damning new technology, especially since the Democrats Abroad Global Primary – where we voted online – was such a success.  I started voting (in Pennsylvania) when the state still used booths with levers (I’m glad to see that New York State still does), and voted as an absentee Florida voter for years, carefully ensuring that my chads were not hanging.  But even before watching Uncounted, any sentient voter with a smidgen of sincerity would admit to not really entrusting the machines which record choices on who gets to run the United States (or represent them in Congress, or run their school board) to the same kind of geeks who imbed porn in kids’ computer games.

Computers can do the damnedest things...  Or, I should say, the people who program them.  How about this one: somebody I only know vaguely “invites” me to a McCain gathering in Pennsylvania.  I guess he didn’t know that I am a lifelong Democrat, and have openly blogged for Obama.  Anyway, the McCain invitation had the usual “accept,” and “decline” boxes, and I chose the latter, given my political leanings and geographic location (wrong continent).  Lo and behold, the next screen showed me as accepting, confirmed some days later with directions to the event in Lancaster PA.  I can just see it now in November – clicking Obama and getting confirmation of my vote for... McCain.  It’s called “vote flipping” when it happens on election day, and it’s in Uncounted.

So, as Bela Lugosi said, “Bevare!”  Bevare! of the people who want to make voting so painless that they say paper trails are a pain.  Bevare! of county commissioners so in thrall to Diebold that they oust a Republican conservative whistle blower who shines a bright light on voting machine “security flaws.”  Good thing the OSCE – the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the people who advise countries like Moldova on democratization – is again sending observers to the US in November.

Things should be fine, as long as the foreigners stick to pre-selected “designated sites.”  So if your precinct isn’t one that lucks out and gets an OSCE delegation, you’ll just have to keep your eyes peeled for hanky-panky.  Hard to do when it all happens inside the hard drive.

American Ambassadors In The Image Of Their President

"The success of the Bush-Cheney administration will depend on the quality appointees we choose to join us to lead this nation in the years ahead.  I will look for people who are willing to work hard to do what is best for America, who examine the facts and do what is right whether or not it is popular.   I will look for people from across the country and from every walk of life.   I welcome all who are ready for this great challenge to apply."

President George W. Bush, "Appointments," White House Website

A few weeks ago, Diplopundit – who does a nice job of tracking developments at the US State Department – provided a comment-free but nevertheless eloquent list (actually, two lists) of recent Bush nominees for European ambassadorial posts.  What, you might ask, is the President doing, sending off to Congress the names of individuals who will have to – in less than six months – submit their resignations to a new president, whether he is Obama or McCain?

Strange as it seems, this is pretty standard presidential practice, lame duck or not.  For the professionals among them, Foreign Service Officers who are ambassadors have tours of duty, though more elastic (“at the pleasure of the President”) than your standard two or three year tour for regular FS staff.  For the amateurs – that is, the political appointees – those who gave generously in the 2000 campaign had to make way for those who gave even more generously in the 2004 election.  As Pat Kushlis recently noted in WhirledView, some European capitals have seen upwards of five different Bush appointees (in Helsinki, all but one a political crony/donor) in the last 7 1/2 years.  Finnish heads must be spinning.

For those Pioneers and Rangers (“bundling” respectively in excess of $100,000 or $200,000 in campaign contributions), no need to go through the tiresome procedures outlined on the White House website: “Fill out the application form provided below and submit it electronically...”  We know who you are, Jack (it’s amazing that Abramoff never got his ambassadorship, before he was found out carrying his lobbying a mite too far).  And how about “Kenny Boy” Lay, Bush’s biggest 2000 donor?  He should have put in for Ambassador to the Bahamas before Enron went down in flames.

In Diplopundit’s lists of recent ambassadorial nominees, it’s fun to play “spot the professional” (actually Diplopundit tells us who the Foreign Service Officers are in the second post).  Click on the PDF links to read their Congressional testimony.  To a person, the FSOs display in depth knowledge of the country in which they hope to represent the United States.  They stress the country, its regional context, its relations with the US – but are almost mum about their personal qualifications; they appear to take those as understood.  The amateurs – sorry, the political appointees – grasp for references to overseas trips taken decades ago, company affiliates in said country, etc. – but slaver at the chance to praise the President for having the sense to nominate them, given their eminent qualifications...

Early in the George W. Bush Administration, I was the Chargé d’Affaires or acting American ambassador in a small European country.  Attending a conference of American ambassadors to European countries who are members of NATO and the EU, I was one of a handful of career FSOs present.  The political appointees - the host and a large majority of the ambassadors to “nice” countries - knew why they were there.  “To the man who put us all here, President George W. Bush,” said our host as he raised his glass.  Since I wasn’t there thanks to him, but was only a lucky “holdover” while the Pioneer Placement Program was sending a happy lobbyist my way, I sheepishly raised my glass out of habit.

Lobbyists, pharmaceutical executives, Bush cousins and family retainers – those are the American ambassadors in the image of their President who Ambassador Barbara Bodine (a retired FSO who served her entire career in un-fun places in the Middle East; thanks to FS blogger LifeAfterJerusalem for pointing her out) had in mind when she lambasted the “selling of ambassadorships” in Politico.

Without parallel in the industrialized world, the United States continues to raffle off to well-heeled political donors ambassadorships to many of our most strategically important allies, as well as to some of the cushiest spots on earth. The U.S. ended the sale of military commissions over 100 years ago; it is inconceivable today that we would sell off military commands. We should not sell off diplomatic commands — the last vestige of the 19th-century spoils system.

Indeed.  Now the question is, what would an Obama or a McCain Administration do?  McCain, despite his “Maverick” press persona, strikes me as a pretty standard-issue Republican of the kind that would not think twice about appointing ‘ole buddies to choice spots like Paris, Rome, or London.

But it is Barack Obama, the change agent, who will have to prove whether he can keep his word.  Long ago in the Democratic primary campaign, he pledged not to take lobbyist contributions.  Fine, that would appear to rule out distributing ambassadorships to that same category.  As Barbara Bodine points out, there are certainly exceptional cases where a political appointee is at least as qualified as a career professional.  Lifelong Japan expert Edwin O. Reischauer to Tokyo in the Sixties, or my old boss at NATO in the Nineties, national security expert Robert E. Hunter – there will always be slots for just the right non-career appointee.  But making a habit out of it?  Asks Bodine:

How do you explain to a student or any aspirant to the Foreign Service that, while the U.S. government expects that level of commitment, no matter how well and how long you serve, it is likely that a political donor with little relevant experience will end up with the top job of your profession?

Senator Obama has an excellent “stable” of foreign policy advisors, and I have no doubt that several of them will fill policy positions in a future Obama administration.  But please try to hold the line at the US border, Senator Obama.  Kenya, Indonesia, but also Germany and Ireland, deserve professionals.  Change is due in a number of areas, after the excesses of the past eight years.  How about professional American ambassadors – as the rule for Obama Administration envoys – for a change?