Foreign Policy In Focus

Cross-posted from OtherWords.

Washington's talking about cutting the military budget. Whoopee.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently revealed plans to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Pentagon's budget in the next decade, with possibly more reductions on the way.

We're going to have fewer soldiers, fewer warplanes and ships, and not so many missiles. We'll cut back a bit on nuclear weapons. If Congress buys this plan, the Pentagon's $530 billion-a-year base budget, which excludes extras like the wars we're actually fighting, would shrink to a mere $472 billion by 2013. Double whoopee.

Not everyone is happy with the plan. Critics say that so piddling a sum as $472 billion would leave us naked to our enemies. We wouldn't even be able to fight two wars at a time, they say.

To which Panetta replies, maybe not. But we'll be able to fight one major war and have enough strength left over to "spoil" a second enemy's malign intentions elsewhere. Half a whoopee.

I've always been suspicious of the two-war strategy. To me, it's like having a two-car garage. You may not really need two cars, but if you have a two-car garage, chances are you'll own two cars sooner or later. One-and-a-half wars are plenty. If we have more enemies than that, let them take a number and form a line.

Visit OtherWords to read Donald Kaul's column in its entirety.

Do yourself a favor: listen to Mike Daisey’s amazing story from This American Life about visiting the factory in China that makes our iPhones, iPads, and a huge percentage of all the other electronic crap we use on a daily basis. It will change the way you look at the world.

I know that I’m late in plugging this; Daisey’s piece originally aired on the radio on January 6 and (as we will see below) has since attracted a ton of attention. But the story deserves all of it and more. There’s no way to do the tale justice in a brief write-up. Suffice it to say, the story is vividly delivered and full of remarkable, often counterintuitive insights. As just one example, after stepping out of the plant (which employs a jaw-dropping 430,000 workers, according to the This American Life piece) Daisey reflects:

"When I leave the factory, as I can feel myself being rewritten from the inside out, the way I see everything is starting to change. I keep thinking, how often do we wish more things were handmade? Oh, we talk about that all the time, don’t we? 'I wish it was like the old days. I wish things had that human touch.' But that’s not true. There are more handmade things now than there have ever been in the history of the world.

"Everything is handmade. I know. I have been there. I have seen the workers laying in parts thinner than human hair. One after another after another. Everything is handmade."

Not only is the story a marvelous piece of narrative journalism, it has already made a big impact—the kind of impact that we usually wait for after an excellent exposé comes out, and then wait some more... and then keep waiting until despair sets in. In this case, as Daisey reports on his Facebook page:

"In its first week the episode was the most downloaded in This American Life’s history. The internet exploded, and the story went everywhere—I received over a thousand emails in just a few days; the response was overwhelming.

"That same week news broke that hundreds of Foxconn workers had a stand-off that lasted two days, where they were all threatening mass suicide by throwing themselves off the roof of the plant over their working conditions. (Details here.)

"This is at Foxconn, a company which Apple’s own 2011 Supplier Responsibility Report said was completely up to code, and which Apple applauded for their efforts. This is the company about which Steve Jobs said the employees enjoyed a virtual paradise of movie theaters, swimming pools, and luxury.

"A week after our show was broadcast, Apple made an abrupt announcement. After years of stonewalling and silence, they released the full list of their suppliers, and agreed to outside, independent monitoring of working conditions in the factories they use. It is not everything, but it is a small step down the right road. (Details here.)....

"I’ve received a number of emails from Apple employees who have told me they believe that hearing this story on This American Life, a program many Apple employees listen to with their families and their children, created 'a morale situation' that finally compelled Apple to begin to do the right thing."

All this is unusual to say the least. Subsequent to Daisey’s radio story, the New York Times launched a series of much-read, much-discussed articles in what it is calling its “iEconomy” series. The stories revealed that “Last year, [Apple] earned over $400,000 in profit per employee, more than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google.” Such profits, not surprisingly, were built on a firm foundation of exploitation:

"Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple’s products, and the company’s suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors. More troubling, the groups say, is some suppliers’ disregard for workers’ health."

At the end of his radio story, Daisey does a fine job of standing up to defenders of sweatshops who portray exploitative factories as a legitimate stepping-stone on the path to economic development. It’s a silly debate. Advocates are not talking about Chinese workers receiving U.S.-level wages. They are talking about basic health and safety protections, basic standards for child labor and working hours, basic rights to organize—human rights that can and should be held inviolable.

Last week, I wrote a complaint about columnist Thomas Friedman who, after reading the first Times article in the series, expressed admiring wonder at the speed and flexibility of Chinese manufacturing—while neglecting to voice one iota of concern for workers’ rights. That was before I had heard the This American Life story, so I was taking Friedman to task just on the basis of the reporting in the Times. But do this: listen to Daisey’s interviews with workers who have been discarded at age twenty-six, their nervous systems damaged by toxins or their hands no longer useable due to repetitive stress. Then read Friedman’s column—with its gee-whiz awe at corporate globalization’s splendid efficiency—and tell me that this guy doesn’t look like a slimeball.

Mark Engler is a senior analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus and author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (Nation Books, 2008). He can be reached via the website Democracy Uprising. 

Some are comparing the glimpses of freedom's daylight in Burma to F.W. De Klerk handing over South Africa to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress. Leave us not be too hasty. The Associated Press reports:

Pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi has postponed a trip to central Myanmar because she could not obtain permission to hold a political gathering at a football stadium there, a party official said Thursday. … The law requires that applications be made at least seven days in advance. Ohn Kyaing [a spokesman for Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy] said the NLD asked football authorities for use of the stadium, but the football federation said Mandalay's Election Commission must first approve the request. However, the Election Commission said the NLD needed to obtain permission from the football federation first.

Whichever organization fears the wrath of the generals more:

The failure to receive Election Commission permission strikes a sour note in the reconciliation process under the reforms of the elected but military-backed government of President Thein Sein.

Meanwhile Burma activist Maung Zarni of the London School of Economics writes (not online):

Despite the unfolding hysteria and hyperbolistic characterization of Burma today as "on the verge of great transformation", I remain unpersuaded that the country is on the road towards democratization. … Those who rule the country now are the same guys who have ruled the country for the past 20 years. … Yes, people change. Belligerent generals can become "reconcilers." [But there] is no moment of political awakening in the ruling quarter.

In fact, writes Zarni

Unlike de Klerk and his Afrikana [sic] colleagues in South Africa, the same old bunch of generals and ex-generals who are in power in Naypyidaw have not modified the political system in any appreciable or significant ways. The Afrikanas decided to DISMANTLE  apartheid in South Africa … and let Mandela and his ANC comrades to run the show, in exchange for safeguards of life, liberty and property of the White minority.

Does anybody see "the generals and ex-generals doing that?" Zarni asks. By which he means:

… dismantle the military-run parliament, retire military men, ex- or in-service, from all line ministries, stop issuing unwritten orders to the judiciary, and withdraw from the civil administration from the village level -- in exchange for their ill-gotten billions, millions, and above and underground resources? Don't hold your breath.

Their plan, Zarni writes:

… through the soft-spoken President Thein Sein -- the Burmese have a term for this type of operator -- "Kyaung Chi", meaning soft cat shit which looks and feels soft, but equally stinky and potent, it attempted to turn 'that woman' [Suu Kyi, of course] into a tool to get US sanctions that block any type of World Bank/ADB and IMF 'assistance' to Burma. 

Or as Simon Roughneen reports at the Irrawaddy:

Behind the scenes, an 11-man National Defense and Security Council (NDSC) is said to be exercising real control, leaving President Thein Sein as the moderate-sounding front man attempting to launder the reputation of a cabal of military strongmen nationalists, who want Western sanctions lifted and to reduce the influence of an increasingly powerful China on their country.

Meanwhile, writes Zarni:

… it's clear without serious and genuine change, the Lady isn't going to give them a blank check. So, the regime is going to be less inclined to continue playing 'nice nice' with the Lady.

Thus the denial of the stadium permit.

The primary U.S. thermonuclear weapon is designated B61. When we hear the modifier thermonuclear, aka H-bomb, we think end of the world.  But this bomb, delivered by bombers and fighters, as opposed to missiles, can function as either an intermediate "strategic" -- blow up a specific part of the world -- or "tactical" -- just the battlefield -- nuclear weapon.

The B61 is what's known as a variable-yield bomb. First, it's not one weapon per se, but a category of weapons based on one design. Second, some of the B61s come equipped with a dial. Bet you didn't know that the destructive force of a nuclear bomb could be adjusted like an appliance. 

The six settings range from A to F. Wonder what those stand for. How about: A for anti-personnel, B for bad news, C for cataclysmic, D for death and destruction, E for end of life on earth as we know it, and F for fail as in epic?

The executive director of the Project for Government Oversight (POGO), Danielle Brian, has just written a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta pointing out that, in fact, it's U.S. taxpayers who are "bearing the increasing life extension costs of the approximately 200 B61 nuclear bombs deployed and stored in Europe."

The issue of whether or not one objects to nuclear weapons on principle aside for the moment, POGO questions the military value, the security, and the cost of the umbrella deterrence which we extend to Europe.

The effectiveness first: "The situation at the U.S. base in Incirlik, Turkey, is particularly problematic: Most of the" approximately 50 bombs "are for delivery by US aircraft," but requests to deploy a U.S. Air Force "wing there have been turned down by Turkey. … In a crisis, US aircraft from other bases would have to first deploy to Incirlik to pick up the weapons before they could be used. … Turkey’s F-16s … are not currently certified to carry out the mission of delivering nuclear weapons … In another example, Germany plans for its replacement fighter aircraft not to be nuclear capable. This could influence other countries to do the same—leaving the United States in a position where U.S." aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons would need to fly in from elsewhere.

Second, the security:

A 2008 report by a U.S. Air Force Blue Ribbon Review states that security at the host-nation locations is varied and often does not meet U.S. nuclear weapons protection standards. Physical facilities such as structures, fences, lights, and alarm systems are not well maintained. In addition, host-nation military personnel charged with the security mission are sometimes conscripts [with] almost no specialized training [whose] reliability is questionable due to deficiencies in host-nation screening processes.

Third, the cost: 

POGO has learned from government sources that, since POGO first raised the issue,  the total cost estimate for extending the life (called a life extension program, or LEP) of B61s has grown from approximately $4 billion to $5.2 billion. The cost for the B61s deployed in Europe alone has grown from approximately $1.6 billion to approximately $2.1 billion.

Ms. Brian concludes:

If U.S. and European leaders really believe these nuclear weapons can be useful as a deterrent or that they remain essential to maintaining the political ties that bind the Alliance, the European members must agree to bear an increased share of the costs for these weapons. The U.S. should not be responsible for continuing to pay the majority of the cost to maintain a nuclear weapons capability in European countries, particularly given our nation’s financial constraints.

Washington and the military tend to be impervious to existential questions about nuclear weapons and their morality. Demonstrating their exorbitant costs and their lack of usefulness* in specific situations is, arguably, the best technique for effecting arms control and disarmament.

*As Ward Wilson of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies has often eloquently argued, especially in his Nonproliferation Review article The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence. 

Cross-posted from the Arabist.

A UN Security Council resolution draft came into the hands of The Guardian yesterday, condemning the ongoing violence in Syria and calling for Assad’s regime to take all necessary steps to effect a cease-fire and pursue power-sharing arrangements with opposition groups within 15 days of the resolution’s passage.

So where will the international community go from here if, as in Libya, the leading opposition movement comes out firmly in favor of foreign intervention to establish, at the very least, a no-fly zone over northern Syria to establish a base area for refugees and anti-Assad fighters?

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- co-sponsor alongside the US of the "Arab Counterrevolution" in Bahrain -- is reportedly now pressing the US to take advantage of Syria's disorder to deal a death blow to Iran's Levantine pretensions. Qatar has been the most vocal in calling for Assad to step down, but Saudi Arabia is also making a lot of noise. The Syrian National Council even claims that the Saudis will be next to recognize them as Syria's legitimate government (the Saudis have not commented on this claim).

As the Financial Times notes, this would be a gamble for the Saudis. Opportunism over Syria could worsen tensions in the Persian Gulf. In trying to undermine Iran in Syria, Riyadh could end up helping to drive Tehran into a corner. As hostile as the Saudis have been towards Iran since the 1979 Revolution, they would prefer regime change in Tehran arrive without drawing the Kingdom into an international conflict.

Right now, Russia, with its UN Security Council veto, is the biggest obstacle to UN action on Syria. Given the way that Moscow and its former Caucasian republics have lurched from one separatist crisis to another since 1991, the Russian government is adamantly opposed to backing movements that would wrest Syria from its current orbit, either on humanitarian or strategic grounds. Russia's interests in Syria are dominated by the country's strategic location (bordering Iraq, Israel and NATO-member Turkey), the Tartus naval base, multibillion dollar natural gas investments, and arms sales.

Russia is now trying to mediate a compromise between Assad and opposition forces, though a spokesman from the SNC says his organization will not join in them. It was unlikely that they would, since the Russian Foreign Ministry has just stopped short of calling the SNC a pro-Western puppet government-in-waiting, and the SNC does not regard Russia as an "honest broker” (with good reason, of course).

The EU, or, specifically, the UK and France, seek to maintain their relevance as Mediterranean powers. Under Sarkozy, France has (when convenient) taken a more active human rights position among "Club Med" members. Libya provided the EU with an excellent opportunity to do just this, and while there is much heated debate going on in the European press on whether or not NATO (or the UN) should intervene directly, it is unlikely that they would pass on the opportunity to take action, not least because of their NATO security commitments. Notably, several anti-Assad groups, such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and Barada TV are based in London, and the biggest SNC boosters of all have been the British neocons of the Henry Jackson Society. For now, though, Paris and London are hedging their bets: Reuters reports that British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the resolution “does not call for military action and could not be used to authorize it,” and that “French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe described the idea of such intervention as a myth.”

“Myth,” Juppe says, but his office has been meeting with SNC members. And barely three weeks after NATO’s Secretary General said that “I would like to stress that NATO has no plans to intervene and we have not received any request," the armed forces of the US, UK and France were striking Libyan targets and enforcing a naval blockade, having quickly moved from calls for sending a “mission of enquiry” to the country to knocking out Qadhafi’s forces laying siege to Benghazi.

China is not as deeply committed to Syria and Russia is, but like Russia is disposed to balk at intervention on humanitarian grounds and concerned over how Assad's collapse would affect its ally, Iran. China, alongside Russia, vetoed a Security Council resolution last October on Syria. The main obstacle at this stage for the UN to pursue diplomatic efforts, though, is Russia, not China.

No military commitment has even been broached by a US official yet. The Obama Administration has made it clear that it wants Assad gone, and has convened a semi-secret policy group to discuss further steps that can be taken against his regime, though for now it appears this group is discussing sanctions, not special ops insertion. Going into the UN, Hilary Clinton said that “I know that some members here may be concerned that the Security Council is headed toward another Libya. … That is a false analogy. ”

But barring a palace coup among Assad’s security establishment, foreign military action would probably be necessary to tip the scales in the opposition’s favor at this stage. Unless convinced that by ousting Assad, they could retain overall control over the government by brokering an agreement with some members of the opposition, his Alawite coreligionists and family members would have little reason to surrender or defect unless faced with overwhelming military might -- which the “Free Syrian Army” cannot muster -- that would nullify their numerical and qualitative advantages. Absent a rain of ruin from the air, Assad merely has to call the West’s bluff and try to do as his late father and exiled uncle did between 1976 and 1982 against the Muslim Brotherhood.

Even with his army and air force’s advantages, though, the situation would be different than it was back then. The “Free Syrian Army” -- which is no army, according to Nir Rosen, but rather an inaccurate catch-all term to describe militias that have risen up to defend their communities over the past year -- will likely defy heavy-handed crackdowns due to its lack of unity. And, unlike in 1982 when Hama was surrounded and pulverized by Assad’s father, the whole world will be watching events unfold in Syria much more closely, this time through a lens provided by the Syrian opposition.

Important Washington organizations like WINEP and Brookings are taking careful note of their pronouncements, as are influential media sources in the Middle East such as Yedioth Ahronoth and Al Jazeera. Politicians and opinion leaders are paying attention to what the SNC has to say about Assad’s future and military intervention. Whether the Council will be able to push a seemingly hesitant NATO into taking military action remains to be seen.

Paul Mutter is a Fellow at Truthout and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.