Analyzing the rumor that Kim Jong-Un might not be North Korea's next designated "Dear Leader" "Brilliant Comrade" after all, Brian Fung speculates that Pyongyang's internal political dynamics might just be responding to the pressure of UN sanctions.
Without reading too much into it, the announcement raises a handful of questions. One: does this mean UN sanctions are having an effect? Jong-Un's close association with the North Korean military could be a liability at a time when the regime's funds have been frozen overseas, and its cargo ships are under surveillance. Picking a less militant leader could prompt the UN Security Council to loosen the sanctions, or lift them entirely.
I'd like to believe it, but I'm not sold. What last month's missile tests seemed to indicate was that North Korea's military hardliners were making their presence felt, responding to questions of Kim Jong Il's choice of successor with an emphatic "we're still the ones in control." And while I wouldn't preclude the possibility of North Korea's leaders amping up their rhetoric to the outside world as a way to conceal any possible internal moderation, threats of a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation" don't exactly befit a state that wants to move away from a political system dominated by the military.
This is not to say that the UN sanctions aren't working. As Brian's FP colleague James Downie wrote yesterday, the North Korean ship that a U.S. destroyer has been tracking -- and that may or may not have been carrying banned nuclear materials -- abruptly turned around. This could indeed have been an elaborate North Korean ruse, as James suggests, but, as some of Barack Obama's more hawkish detractors would be far too quick to note, counting on the carefully measured U.S. president to launch a precipitous military strike seems a rather ill-considered gambit. More likely, I'd wager, that North Korea didn't feel so comfortable moving its cargo about with a U.S. destroyer breathing down its neck.
(image from flickr user jonprc under a Creative Commons license)
Greg Scoblete at RealClearWorld highlights the following from a speech on foreign policy from Mitt Romney that, to use Greg's rather charitable words, "doesn't add up." Comparing the U.S. military to that of Russia and China, Romney makes this claim:
And then consider all the things we expect from our military that they do not expect from theirs. We respond to humanitarian crises, protect world shipping and energy lanes, deter terrorism, prevent genocide, and lead peace-keeping missions. [emphasis mine]
I'm finding it hard to recall American troops rushing in to prevent genocide in Rwanda or Darfur...and a quick check of the numbers reveals that the United States currently contributes a whopping 96 personnel (75 of whom are police, and only 10 of whom are troops) to the 90,000-plus involved in UN peacekeeping missions around the world . Not exactly leading the way. Russia, by the way, has contributed almost four times that many, and China has contributed over 2,000 personnel. Though at least the U.S. is on track to pay its full bill for peacekeeping this time around...
(image of a Chinese peacekeeper -- a particularly musically inclined one -- in DR Congo, from UN Photo)
Late last week, President Obama submitted his 2009 Supplemental Funding request to congress. Included was $836 million for UN Peacekeeping. This is helpful, because the FY 2009 omnibus left an almost $800 million shortfall in what the United States owes UN Peacekeeping. The request for UN Peacekeeping in the Supplemental covers that shortfall, plus a portion of backlogged U.S. debt to UN Peacekeeping.
UN Foundation honcho, Senator Tim Wirth is pleased:
"The UN Foundation commends President Obama for his request to Congress for $836 million for United Nations peacekeeping as part of the FY 2009 Supplemental Funding request. The U.S. supported the creation of all of these peacekeeping missions, which are vital to U.S. national security interests, and now we must pay our share of the bill.
“We are pleased to see the Obama Administration reinforce its commitment to working with the UN to help meet the transnational challenges of the 21st century. We urge the Congress to move forward with this vital funding, which will help restore the United States to good financial standing at the United Nations and show that great nations pay their bills.”
What's interesting to note here is that funding for UN Peacekeeping can directly support efforts to combat piracy in the Indian Ocean. Here's why: Later this week, the Secretary General is due to send a report to the Security Council that outlines the UN's options for dealing with the crisis of governance and security in Somalia. Specifically, the report will sketch out the feasibility of mounting a UN Peacekeeping mission in Somalia. Chances are, the Secretary General will recommend against a peacekeeping mission because the conditions on the ground are not conducive to a successful mission. (Rather, the Secretary General will likely recommend stepped-up support for the small African Union Mission in Somalia, AMISOM). Still, if the Security Council does authorize some sort of peacekeeping mission to Somalia, the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations says that a mission would require the following to succeed:
The Department of Peacekeeping Operations estimates that, subject to the fine- tuning of specific tasks through the integrated mission planning process and an assessment on the ground, some 22,500 troops would be needed to operate in five brigade-sized sectors throughout southern and central Somalia. The starting point would be Mogadishu, where the force headquarters and two brigades would be deployed, comprising a composite brigade with one mechanized, one infantry and one marine battalion to secure the seaports and airports and provide key point protection; and a homogeneous brigade, consisting of three infantry battalions and three mechanized companies, as a rapid reaction force. An additional mechanized battalion would act as the theatre reserve. Four sectors will be supported by an aviation element comprising utility and attack helicopters. All five sectors would require combat and construction engineers.
This all costs money. Not as much money as indefinitely patrolling the Indian Ocean, but money nonetheless. American funding of UN Peacekeeping makes contingencies like this possible.
Photo: Flickr
Passing a $3.5 trillion budget in the midst of a recession is no small feat, and so perhaps legislators can be forgiven for trying to make a few cuts here and there to the proposal that President Obama had put in front of them. At least one such proposed cut, though -- Senator Kent Conrad's attempt to strip over $4 billion in funding for international affairs -- would have so undermined U.S. interests that the Senate did away with it in a "voice vote," since it wasn't even close enough to count.
On Tuesday afternoon, an amendment proposed by Senators Kerry and Lugar passed overwhelmingly, restoring international affairs funding that will pay for causes like diplomacy, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance. As the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Kerry and Lugar know a thing or two about why supporting these initiatives is so important.
Part of the reason is to rehabilitate America's relationship with the rest of the world. By paying for more foreign service officers, by investing in the world's collective fight against climate change, and by demonstrating that foreign affairs are not simply an afterthought in American politics, the new U.S. Congress can strongly back President Obama's renewed commitment to improving relations and reinvigorating U.S. leadership. Senator Kerry's words bear repetition: "We cannot try to be a world leader on the cheap."
Another reason for the need to increase foreign affairs funding, though, is purely pragmatic. By enhancing our diplomatic presence, we make it less likely to need to resort to the military. By increasing foreign aid, we make it less likely that the poor will turn to radical actors using aid as bait. And by pooling our anti-terrorism resources with other countries', we make it less likely that terrorists will be able to go around ad hoc, unilateral defenses. These kinds of arguments comprised the bulk of Senator Kerry's floor statement on Tuesday:
And it is clear to all that meeting these global challenges will require far more than our military: it will require a strengthened commitment to diplomacy and development.
To put this as simply and bluntly as possible, that’s why passing a robust foreign affairs budget is a matter not just of America’s world leadership, but also of our national security.
And America just got a little bit $4 billion safer.
(image from flickr user cliff1066 under a Creative Commons license)
They're right -- America is an "indispensable nation." What's disturbing about this critique is the suggestion that, by engaging in more multilateral efforts, by emphasizing diplomacy over confrontation, the United States is somehow "demoting" its role. Foreign affairs is not a zero-sum game -- just the opposite, in fact. By enhancing relationships and improving cooperation between countries, everybody wins; America's role -- not as bully, but as leading partner -- is validated, its alliances are strengthened, and its objectives are more easily achieved. In my eyes, this is a promotion of America's role in the world. As for the "emerging bipartisan consensus" that Senor alludes to, I'm not exactly sure what government he is observing. The Obama Administration actually plans on increasing the defense budget (and Republicans are certainly on board for this as well), and the President's Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy being unveiled this morning certainly does not curtail current U.S. presence in the former. And again, the beauty of a more open foreign policy is that the United States can both replace saber-rattling with Russia with rapprochement and retain good relations with its democratic neighbors. A good foreign policy think tank from the minority is a very healthy part of American democracy; hopefully FPI will begin by contesting policies that actually exist. (image from flickr user Ian Haycox under a Creative Commons license)"We believe America is the indispensable nation, as President Clinton said," Senor, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Foreign Policy. "And we believe it's the exactly wrong time to demote America's role in the world. And we are seeing an emerging bipartisan consensus on a range of issues from cutting the defense budget to a minimalist approach in Afghanistan to the importance of currying favor with the Russian government at the expense of democratic allies Ukraine and Georgia. We think there needs to be consensus on the other side of these issues." [emphasis mine]
Colum Lynch reports in today's Post about the architectural... standoffishness...of the U.S. mission to the UN being built across from UN headquarters. The tenor of the piece has it mostly right -- constructing a hulking, windowless concrete tower does not seem the best way to signal a new openness with the rest of the world. And while protecting staff from the threat of a terrorist attack is certaintly necessary, I'm a little confused about what's going on inside the building:
The windowless floors at the base of the building will be filled with computers and other high-tech equipment that cannot be described to the public.Equipment so high-tech that it cannot even be described? Imposing concrete walls or not, if this is the kind of stuff we're using in our mission to the UN, I can't help but be impressed.
And then consider all the things we expect from our military that they do not expect from theirs. We respond to humanitarian crises, protect world shipping and energy lanes, deter terrorism, prevent genocide, and lead peace-keeping missions. [emphasis mine]