Despite every news agency in America talking about Charlie Sheen, riots and revolutions are still going on in the Middle East. Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, Iran, and Iraq have all seen major protests while Libya is in the middle of a civil war. While, as I said in my last post, no one can predict what will happen it is safe to say that no country in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, is immune to this wave of rebellion. How it takes shape I don’t know but the Arab world will be a different place and the United States must react accordingly. Here’s what we should do.

Stop Uncritical Support to Israel

It is foolish to think that American unequivocal support of Israel does not hurt the United States in the Arab world. Because the U.S. has Israel’s back no matter what it does, every action Israel takes makes us look bad in the Arab world. Our unfailing support just gives more ammunition to extremists and creates anti-American sentiment. Israel can do what it wants, we just don’t have to support it.

Remember I did say “uncritical support”. Israel is still an ally of the United States but just because someone is your friend does not mean you can’t tell them that they are behaving like an idiot. Actually because you are friends, you should be the one to do it.

Get out of the Peace Process

Every President since Carter has worked on “Peace in the Middle East” and every one of them has failed. It just isn’t working. Both the Israeli and Palestinian governments do not seem ready to take any real steps to solving this problem. So the United States should let them go and say, “When you two are ready to actually work this out, we will be here. Until then don’t bother us.” Too many Administrations have wasted too much time and money trying to solve one else’s problem.

Stop Aid to “Pro-American” Governments

Financially supporting abusive governments because they are “pro-American” has always come to bite the U.S. in the end. During the Cold War the United States supported Pinochet in Chile and other 3^rd world dictators because they were anti-communist and pro-American. Did this help us? No, it created resent in those countries and harmed long term American interests. Sadly, after the Cold War we did not learn. Case in point: Mubarak’s Egypt was one of the largest recipients of U.S. aid during his 30 year regime. Rather than make us safer it has only made the United States more hated. The American government will still need to work with dictatorial nations but it shouldn’t give them money. This goes for Pakistan too.

Disengage from Oil Rich Monarchies

It’s sad that one of the United States chief allies in the region is also the least free. Saudi Arabia and other oil rich monarchies may seem stable but their foundations are not strong. Before long the massive and mostly unemployed young population will no longer be happy being bought off with oil money. (This hasn’t stopped the different Kings and Emirs from giving it out though). When this time comes, the United States doesn’t want to be snugly in bed with the wrong side. Disowning these nations is not possible under the present circumstance but we can move away from them. Maybe a few less arms deals and a little more pressure to modernize. How close do we want to be a country that still has public executions?

Begin work to remove dependency on oil

Notice I did not say foreign oil. The United States needs to find a new energy source. A source that is not produced by corrupt, often hostile, countries. That’s where our time and resources should be spent. Until we can get off oil the United States cannot act with a rational mind in the Middle East. For more take a look at this past blog. http://dc3.posterous.com/oil-378

 

This is just the short version. Actually policy would need to be tailored in to each country and situation.

I don’t have much faith that any of this will come to past. Despite his claims during the campaign, Obama has been a pretty standard President when it comes to foreign policy. With an aggressive and reactionary Congress, I don’t think that will change anytime soon.

As always comments are encouraged.

The world scene has been busy since last time I wrote one of these blogs.  Let’s just try to get u to speed.

 

By now it is clear that the Obama Administration’s main foreign policy challenge for 2011 will be dealing with the Middle East’s changing political landscape. While no one knows exactly how the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions will play out or how far they will spread, it is certain the Middle East will be a different place and the United States must react accordingly.

 

This much is known but where does the United States go from here? The Obama Administration is already off to a good start in Egypt by staying aloof enough to not outright support the overthrow of a longtime ally while at the same time encouraging Egyptians to exercise their rights. Now that a military interim government is in charge, the Administration can use military aid that it used to supply to Mubarak as a stick to ensure that control is transferred to a civilian government after the upcoming elections. This will be a delicate game as the administration will want to prod the military enough to secure orderly change will occur but not so much that it appears the United States is in control.

 

Regardless of the fact that the new Egyptian government will probably be less pro-Israel and pro-American then the Mubarak regime, the United States must recognize whatever government the Egyptians elect in six months’ time. This goes with the assumption that the election will be free and fair. Recognition is critical for three reasons. The first and foremost reason is that, by recognizing the new government, the United States will have more influence. The new Egyptian government will be more receptive to the wishes of a friendly US than a hostile one. Aid could be offered to the new government as an incentive to remain on friendly terms with Israel. The second reason is that immediate recognition would send a powerful message to the Islamic world. That message would be that the United States stands by its principles not just its vital interests. The negative perception of the US in the Islamic world is a major contributing factor to terrorism. While this gesture alone is not enough to change that perception it is step in that direction. The third reason is that recognition and engagement with Egypt from the beginning lessens the chance of confrontation with Israel. Israel, justifiably, is nervous that changes in Egypt could lead to another war. By bringing in Israeli diplomats from the beginning, Egypt and Israel could avoid increased tensions. The current administration would make an excellent arbiter for such a situation.

 

While the plan outlined above proceeds along a fairly straight line, it would be naïve the think that it would work that way in reality.  It is vital that the Obama Administration remains engaged throughout the process. There will be ups and downs, advances and retreats, but it is too important of an issue to become sidetracked or give into political pressures.

 

Now the rest of the Middle East is another matter. No one, not from the left or right, informed or ignorant knows what will happen next. Neither do I but it is time to seriously rethink American interests and goals in the region. In my next post I will lay out my guidelines for the future of the United States relationship with the Middle East. Stay tuned!

I haven’t written in a while and for that I am sorry. I hope to get back into the routine of writing these blogs and hopefully all of you will get into the habit of reading them. With the insanity of the 2010 midterms, it is necessary to write about this election.

First off, I am so glad it’s over.  Every time my wife turned on the TV (I gave up watching television years ago) she was bombarded with attack ads, sometimes 3 or 4 in a row. We live in northern Delaware and had to endure ads from Pennsylvania and New Jersey candidates as well as our own. And they were mostly attack ads this year. These ads paint such a nasty picture of the opposing candidate that I have expected to see one that said (insert local candidate here) was the Devil and that he ate babies wrapped in American flags while sending jobs in China.

There was no escape. Signs cluttered the side of every road. Again in Delaware it was particularly bad. The whole nation was watching as Tea Partier/professional campaigner Christine O’Donnell squared off against the boring and unfortunately named County Executor Chris Coons. Every magazine was filled with articles about the Tea Party and the Republicans’ comeback. I love politics but had enough.

The midterms are over and the Republicans have taken the House, won some more seats in the Senate, and sweep many state level elections. The only vote that surprised me was Californians rejecting Prop 19 to legalize marijuana. Maybe they were too stoned to make to the vote. That being said I have some advice for the three groups now in Congress.

 

A Word to the Tea Party

Enough of the slogans. Governing is more complicated than “taxes bad, big government bad”. Bring forth some real ideas. Healthcare is broken and has been long before Obama passed his reform. Figure out a way to fix it. Same with the banks. You are right to be angry with them but American needs solutions, not fury. Find a new way. Right now you are a balloon; full of hot air but empty inside.

The Economist has it right in this article: http://www.economist.com/node/16321546

 

A Word to Republicans

Your number one goal should not be to make Obama a one-term president. Act like adults and do your job: govern. Who the President is doesn’t really matter. In the end you are both after the same goal or at least should be. Yes, the deficit is a problem but when the United States is facing the worst economy since the Great Depression, deficit isn’t the number one concern. Bush ran record deficits and I didn’t hear anything about it then from Republicans. Find a way out of this recession, then let’s talk about deficits.

Oh, and if you want to talk about how we are at war, act like it: You can’t wage two modern wars and cut taxes. That creates deficits. One thing or the other needs to give.

 

A Word to Democrats

Grow some backbone. I haven’t been happy with everything you’ve done but you have something. Act like. Get on message and talk about it. Every democrat should be saying how the stimulus and the bailout saved the economy from collapse. Sure, those measures were far from prefect but they did help. Work with the Republicans. Your job is the same as theirs: make this country better. I don’t even know what your policies are because you seem afraid of them. The US needs leadership and leadership means taking responsibility. So do it.

 

Last weekend, I went to the Rally to Restore Reason and/or Fear. I was there for the Reason myself. It was an amazing event. Jon Stewart’s speech was one of the best I have heard in years. He emphasizes why the United States will endure and why we can be proud. What a world we will in that a comedian is who look to for reason. Enjoy.

 

Why everyone talking about China and ignoring India? Both have populations over 1 billion, GDP growth rates over 8 percent, and are playing larger roles in global affairs. So why is India not talked about in the same way that China is? It might be because India is complicated and messy democracy while China seems like a unified and driven country. Or that India is a new comer to the global market. Or possible it could be that there are no “Made in India” tags on nearly every product Americans purchase.  Whatever the reason people should pay more attention to India because between the two, 20 or 30 years down the road, that’s the one I bet will be more successful.

India is behind China, for now.

Even though I believe India will come out on top, it still has a long way to go before it catches up to China. Currently, China’s GDP is 4 times larger than India. (It should be noted that despite all the talk about China as the next super power, U.S. GDP is more than 3 times larger then China.) While China’s infrastructure is rapidly improving, India’s is awful. Companies in India have backup generators and water purifiers because the government can’t be trusted to provide them. Daily power outages are the normal.  Most rural roads are unpaved and urban roads are plagued by some of the worst traffic in the world.

This is tip of iceberg of development problems India has, which includes massive official corruption, low literacy, populism, and a Maoist insurgency. That doesn’t paint a very appalling picture of India. But it misses the main point.

What India has that China doesn’t.

Despite all its problems, India is a country of innovators while China is not. No matter what the gains can be made in cheap manufacturing without innovation, as of right now China cannot become an advanced development economy.

No one in the world wants Chinese products. People want cheap products. It doesn’t matter if they are made in China or anywhere else. Take the iPod, which is produced in China. It wasn’t designed there. It was designed in the United States then sent to China to be built. The iPod wouldn’t change at all if it was produced somewhere else. Same with a myriad of other products. As China becomes more expensive to do business in (and it will) manufacturing will leave and the country will not have much to offer.

In its current authoritative state, China can’t be an innovator. Its economic growth is top down rather than bottom up. This kind of growth works in the earlier stages of economy but not latter on. Innovation does not come from the top down. It also only works when the government makes wise decisions. The present Chinese government is making smart choices, but what would happen if another Mao took power? There would be no way to stop his excesses.

India, meanwhile, has a messy democracy that a friend of mine told me that even India watchers have a hard time following. But while the government is weak, the private companies are strong. Political freedom has allowed economic freedom.

India is introducing innovative and interesting products such as the Tata Nano, a $2000 car. And not a bad car from what I have seen. But that isn’t the only cheap innovative product being produced. A technical institute created a prototype for a $35 laptop and water filter that costs less than a dollar. According to a recent Economist article Indian companies are creating new business models as well.

I liked India’s chances more because, in the long run, democracies, even imperfect ones like India, have the flexibility to grow and adapt in ways that authoritative countries like China cannot. Don’t listen to pundits who say that China’s autocratic ways give it an edge (I’m looking at you, Thomas Friedman). It may seem like that now but in the end, China won’t be able to make that jump to an advanced economy without falling apart, but India will be fine. 

Today I would like to answer some questions and comments made on this blog over the past few posts. But first I have to address something that has bothering me.

Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right

I make it a point to listen to conservative talk radio at times to get a better understanding of what people are thinking. I'd listen to liberal talk radio if such a thing existed. Usually this is one I am not interested in what NPR is reporting on (for example: a documentary on why there are so few female rappers.) In my random listenings, I have noticed a disturbing trend comparing the United States to Saudi Arabia. Sean Hannity, in particular, seems fixed on the idea Muslims should not be able to build a mosque (its not a mosque but that isn't the point) since Christians can't build a church in Mecca. Why should we be tolerant, when the Saudi government persecutes Christians and burns Bibles?

Apparently, Mr. Hannity was never taught that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the Saudi Arabia is backwards and repressive does not mean the United States should be as well. Instead, the fact that a mosque can be built near Ground Zero shows how U.S. is a much better country then Saudi Arabia (an apology to my Saudi friends, I dislike your government, not its people). For someone who always talks about freedom, I don't understand why Sean Hannity would want the U.S. to behave like one of the least free places in the world. Religious freedom is a hallmark of our society. Let's not forget that.

Now to some other questions.

How much authority does Medvedev have?

Not a lot really. President Medvedev is just the progressive figurehead of a regressive government. Putin and those loyal to him are really what matters. Russian power structures have broken down to a more Soviet model where influence is more important then the official offices. Putin setup the current apparatus so that apparatus is loyal to him. It's sad. As I wrote before, I would love to see Medvedev's acts match up with his words but given current situation, I'm not holding my breath.

Education may be the key to fixing Russia.

That may be part of it but only a global energy shift can cause a change in government in Russia. The system there, as rotten as it is, will hold together as long as Russia is not forced to make serious changes. Right now oil and mineral wealth is sufficient to keep Russia going as is. If petroleum and natural gas cease to be the primary energy sources as they are now, then some real change is possible. Russia is a country with such great potential. Maybe though education could help a new generation learn that not everything should be subservient to the state.

You had a double standard in your Wikileaks blog by both forgiving accidental deaths of Afghans by the military and condemning Wikileaks for putting Afghans in danger.

There isn't an easy answer to this one. Accidents happen in war. Efforts can be made to limit accidents but they cannot be eliminated. The only way to ensure that no accidents occur is to leave the country completely. Personally, I think this the way to go but I don't get to make that call. Accidents are unavoidable but what Wikileaks did by releasing the names of Afghans that help the NATO forces was avoidable. The documents would have lost none of their power by removing the names. It comes down to what can and cannot be controlled.

Bush's greatest foreign policy success may have been India but he will never get credit for it.

Very true. Despite his many faults, I think Bush had a number of foreign policy successes that he isn't given credit for. India has more then its fair share of problems but I would rather see the U.S. grow closer to it then to China. Another of Bush's successes is he was the first U.S. President to talk about a two state solution in the Middle East and that's a step in the right direction.

How can we avoid regularly recurring into a society of xenophobes?

We can't. We can work to lessen their impact and violence of their xenophobia but its not possible to destroy it completely. In every society, there is an Us and Them. Who is Us and who is Them will change but those two groups will always exist. People fear losing their culture and identity. Sometimes they fear an influx of immigrants but more often then not its change in ideas that's feared. People in the Islamic world fear that Western ideas are corrupting their society, while people in the West fear the numbers of Muslims will change their society in unacceptable ways. This mentality is not limited to ethnic or religious groups. I have both liberal and conservative friends and each things the other is dangerous and will destroy America. It's human nature. We fear what we do not know.

You are silly saying the Right is trying for a comeback. Politicians are risk adverse won't do anything rash and cause unnecessary controversy. Also, who on Right is engaging in anti-Islamic sentiment now?

What I said was a bit silly. The Right isn't trying for a comeback, it is in the middle of one. The Democrats have failed and the conservatives are going after them. Being anti-Islamic is not a rash (politically) thing to do in this climate. It's part of the general “Us and Them” mentality that is going on right now. The Left is hardly off the hook for this. I've read too many articles in more liberal publications, like Salon and Slate, that like to emphasis how “white” the Tea Party is. There is usually an condescending tone to these articles that is a bit insulting especially since the authors are usually white themselves.

The main agitators of anti-Islamic sentiment now are Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Newt Gingrich. The way these people are presenting Community Center near ground zero and its founder, Iman Feisel Abdul Raufm is terrible. I also find it a bit suspicious that Fox News had him on as a respectable person before they decided to make a big issue.

I feel I might get some flak for saying bad things about Fox News. In truth, I dislike all cable news. None of them talk about the issues or do real journalism and I have found my life generally better but ignoring them.

Tomorrow is the 9^th anniversary of the the September 11^th attacks. It's hard to believe it has been that long. The attacks were a defining moment for my generation. Just as older Americans can tell you exactly what they were doing when Kennedy was shot, everyone above the age of 4 on September 11^th, 2001 can tell you what they were doing.

I remember it like it was yesterday. I had just graduated from high school the previous spring and had started college. It was my day off from classes and I was starting up a video game to play before I studied. While the game was loading I turned on the news. On TV, I saw the video of the first plane hitting the tower. I was certain it was just some terrible accident. Then, maybe 2 minutes later, I watched the second plane hit the towers. I clearly remember saying “that's no accident.” My game was forgotten and I spent the day, like much of the country, watching TV and just trying to make sense of it. I was also waiting by the phone because I was sure that the Army would not wait for January to call me for training. They didn't call but I was certain that my life would not be the same. I'm interested to hear what other people were doing when they heard what happened. Leave your story in the comment section.

Even though it has been 9 years ago now, it might as well have been last week given all the noise and controversy that has occurred lately.

Anti-Islamic sentiment. Why now?

I don't rightly know. Did people suddenly wake up and remember that there was a war going on? No but some people did wake up and realize that fear is an excellent political motivator. The political right is trying to comeback from a crushing defeat in 2008 and fear of a fanatical enemy is one of their tools to drum up support.

For nearly 9 years anti-Islamic sentiment in the U.S. seemed in check. For all his faults, President George W. Bush repeatedly stressed that the War on Terror was not a War against Islam. And the political right went along with it. After 9/11, I expected there to be a rash of acts against mosques and Muslims in the U.S. Apart from a few isolated incidents, things remained calm. It made me proud to be an American, proud that we did not associate an entire faith with the evil actions of a few.

But things seemed to have changed. I hear too many right-wing political pundits going on about evil Muslims. It started with accusations that the President himself was a Muslim and has on only intensive from there.

The Ground Zero Mosque

The number one target for this new anti-Islamic sentiment is the Ground Zero Mosque. First off, even the title of this place is a misnomer. It is not at Ground Zero, and it is not a mosque. It's 2 blocks away in an old Burlington Coat Factory and its a community center. If building was going to be exactly as the name says I would be against it. Not because its a mosque but because the best thing to do with Ground Zero is build a new bigger building in its place. That would show al-Qaeda that the United States does not back down. But instead people in this country are wasting time on a meaningless, politically motivated debate. If you don't believe that this debate is purely political watch this clip.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-16-2010/mosque-erade

Maybe one day people will realize that it is not that hard to check facts. Consistency is nice.

The community center is not a big deal. If Americans want to stay safe from homegrown terrorists, the U.S. should continue to do what it does best: integrating people and making them part of American culture. That is one of the reason that the American Islamic population is much less radical then the ones in Germany, France, and Britain.

Qur’an Burning in Florida

This is so stupid that part of me doesn't even want to write about it. There are so many reasons be against this and not one reason to be for it. From a purely practical point of view, burning Qu'rans is stupid because it would put American troops in danger. More than any other, that kind of action would push many moderate Muslims into the arms of extremists.

On a completely personal note, I find the idea of burning any book repugnant. For one it makes me think of Nazi rallies and I'm don't think anyone really want to be associated with that. And two, I love books. I love books so much that if I see one in the trash I want to dig out. It feels like knowledge is being destroyed. It just sickens me. Unless it is a book by a celebrity. Destroying those increases collective human knowledge.  

I can't go a week it seems without someone on the news talking about China's great success, or how China is over taking the United States in everything, etc. Some people are worse then others about this (I'm looking at you, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times), but the general opinion anymore is that China will be next world power and the United States is on the way out.

The general opinion is wrong. True, China has been very successful in building up its economy over the past 30 years but it won't last forever. The country faces many daunting problems that the China boosters seem to ignore.

“China boosters” is a term I picked up from my stepbrother and I think perfectly describes this group. They are people who, for whatever reason, talk endlessly about what China is doing right and how it will be the next great power. Often times the boosters only the briefest of lip service to China's problems. Again I'm looking at you, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times.

Flashback to the 1980s: Some things don't change

A lot of what is said about China now was said in the 1980s about Japan. It was called The School of American Declinism then. Even though my main concerns in the 1980s were Transformers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (I was a kid, what did you expect?), I remember hearing how the Japanese were beating the United States at everything and that it won't be long before Japan become the world economic leader with the US living in its shadow. Movies like Gungho and Rising Sun are prime examples of this zeitgeist.

The Problem

Jump forward to 2010 and Japan has been in the grip of recession for over 15 years. No one talks about Japan over taking the United States anymore. But history has an annoying habit of repeating itself. Not only did Americans worry about Japan then as they worry about China now, Japan and China suffer from two of the same problems: over reliance on exports for growth and an undervalued currency.

This two issues often go hand in hand. As Japan did before it, China undervalues it currency to increase its exports and expand its economy. Logic is simple: if the yuan, China's currency, is worth less then dollar then it is cheaper to make more goods in China and ship them to the United States. Also it makes American goods prohibitively expensive in China. It means less access to goods for locals because it is more profitable to make goods for export rather then domestic consumption. Hyper growth without currency growth leads to inflation. Already this can be seen in Beijing, Shanghai, and other major cities in China where housing prices are raising faster then people's ability to pay for them. Interesting isn't it how property prices always involved with economic problems? But that's a topic for another blog.

China's consumption is just far too low and the rest of the world does not have enough investment capital to make up for it. The growth is simply not sustainable in its current form. Right now China grows because it is a cheap place to make things. But no one really wants Chinese goods. Think about it. Are Chinese produced goods famous for their quality like German products such as the BMW? Or their innovation as American products like the iPod? No, China is the place that things are made not where they are created. The creation of the products is the mark of an advanced economy. China is just not there and won't be for some time.

The Center Cannot Hold

The most erroneous belief of the China boosters is that the government is Beijing is far-thinking (unlike their America counterparts in Washington) and have a far reaching plan for China's advancement. In reality, the Chinese government is just as shortsighted as every other government in the world. Their main concern is staying in power. What's ironic is that their strategy for staying in power is actually what will delegitimize them in the future.

The Chinese government is walking on the blade of knife. If prosperity falters then China will not be able to absorb the influx of people from the country creating millions of unemployed. The Communist government stays in power not because of the strength in its founding ideals, people have stopped believing in communism years ago, but because it brought prosperity and power back to China. If the prosperity ends the Chinese people will question why they are forced to obey a bunch of bureaucrats in Beijing.

On the side of the knife, if prosperity continues the emerging middle class will start to chaff under the totalitarian and heavy handed rule of the Communist Party. They will start to want a hand in the governing of their own affairs and the Communist Party will not be keen to give any power away. Chaos will result as the two force begin to fight with each other.

Either way the situation in China is not sustainable. Before too long the country will slip on the knife one way of the other or, most likely, slip both ways at once. Even if things fall apart in China, it will still be a major player in the world. Let's just acknowledge that its spectacular rise cannot go on forever.

Check out this article as well. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/19/china_s_japanese_future?page=0,0

Hello readers,I am currently on vacation so there will not be a new blog this week, just as there was none last week. To make up for it there should be two next week and then I will return to the Friday routine. If there is any topic you wish me to write about leave a comment about it after this blog. See you soon.

A few weeks ago I started following Dmitri Medvedev, the Russian President, on Twitter. His tweets have been insightful and interesting, especially in comparison to other world leaders. Barak Obama's are always to the point and politically oriented. Medvedev, on the other hand, sounds like a politican but also seems like a regular guy. One tweet will talk about the need for economic improvement and the next will be observations on the landscape around Toronto. If there you are interested in reading some of his tweets yourself here is the link: http://twitter.com/KremlinRussia_E

Unfortunately, his tweets make me sad because it seems he has a lot of good ideas for Russia but I just don't see them happening there. Medvedev and many Russians want their country to move forward but until they truly face and reform the most pressing issues Russia will remain economically backwards and its influence continue to decrease. I don't think there is enough will for reform.

There are countless examples of Russia's failures but I want to focus on two examples that show how the Russian government just misses the point.

Russian Foreign Policy to its immediate neighbors

There is a lot to talk about here. I could write how then-President Putin is suspected of having a hand in the poisoning of 2004 Ukrainian opposition candidate Victor Yushenko. Or there is also the fact that Russia refers to former Soviet states as its “sphere of influence”, a term that was common during late 19^th and early 20^th century colonialism and the Cold War. But instead, I want to focus on the Russia's relationship to Georgia.

There is really no reason that Russia and Georgia shouldn't be closer. Both countries are Orthodox Christian and there have been close cultural and economic ties between the two for hundreds of years. Instead there has been great animosity between the them since the fall of the Soviet Union.

It would take pages and pages of text to explain the causes of the war between Georgia and Russia 2 years ago but what it amounts to is Russia using force to show that it is still in charge of that region. Officially aim of the war was to free South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgian tyranny. Yet that makes very little sense. If Russia cared about freeing South Ossetia it would let North Ossetia (a part of Russia) join with its Southern half to make one country.? Rather this was a war to tell Georgia, and by extension other former Soviet states, that Russia would not allow them to become too close Europe and the United States.

This epitomize Russian foreign policy. Why use a gentle poke when you could use a fist? Russia could have a great deal of soft power in the former Communist world with the weight of its economy and cultural ties. Instead it feels the need to bully those around it. This is not the actions of a respectable member of the international community. Its the actions of a local thug who has the biggest gun.

Medvedev has not been quite as harsh as Putin was but there is no major difference.

Economic Policy

Lately Russian leaders, including Medvedev, have been paying a lot of lip service to economic modernization. They want Russia to become a world leader in information and bio technologies. As well they should. Russia has a strong educational and intellectual culture with an emphasis hard sciences and mathematics.

But here Russia stands in its own way. Rather then foster an open society and business environment that would allow its brightest to flourish, Russian leaders have a different plan. They want to create a special community to develop advance technologies where there researchers will be give clear directives from the government. What's worse is that the Russian government wants one of the oligarchs to run the program. The only thing the oligarchs are good at is getting off government connections and manipulating banks.

Russian governments from the Tsarist time, to the Soviet, and into today like to solve problems from the top down. That approach may work when developing weapons but its an ineffective way to build modern consumer technologies. Think about it. Building a nuclear weapon is a much simpler and concrete goal then building IT to compete with Microsoft. Google, and Apple. A nuclear weapon is what it is without much variation while information technology needs to be able to adapt to constant changes. It simply does not work from a top down structure.

This is why Medvedev's tweets make me sad. His ideas are good but he either cannot or will not make the necessary changes to bring them to fluoridation. When he tweets that he is going to release government control on businesses, fight corruption, and legally break up the oligarchs then I will be happy. That will start Russia on the road to prosperity and stablity.

This is an interesting article I would like to share. http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/07/free_speech_russia I found the art work described as tasteless and terrible but not criminal. Remember democracy is the right to bad taste.

As always post comments, disagreements, and questions and I will do my best to answer them.

I am running a bit behind on my latest blog on Russia (it is surprising how much work this can be) so I thought I would answer some questions and comments people have posted.

I did some checking and Obama has actually kept or is working on most of the promises he made during the campaign.

True. President Obama has worked hard to keep many of promises and I think that he would have kept more if the Republicans had not been so difficult and the Democrats so spineless. What I think has people many Obama supporters disappointed is that Obama doesn't seem very different then previous president and that many of his biggest goals have been compromised, stalled, or have been messy. Healthcare is the most obvious example of this. When he was elected, I expected some change but not much. Love it or hate it not that much has really changed under Obama despite what the Tea Party would have you believe.

Even though I am disappointed with Obama, I don't envy his position.

Neither do I, even though I want his job one day. He came to office in a time of crisis with a financial meltdown, the worst recession in 60 years, two wars, and rising immigration problems. It's a difficult time and I expect that it will take a toll on him. Look back at pictures of Bush and Clinton when they began their presidencies and when they left office. The office aged those men more then 8 years should. It is a tough job, no doubt about it, but I would still like to see more aggressive action on Obama's part, especially in foreign policy.

I don't think lifting sanctions will make a shred of difference. The North Korean government will simply say that the Great Leader has provided for his people yet again.

Yeah, that's what will probably happen, in the short term. But opening North Korea up will bring in forces that its government won't be able to control. Let us say there was a greater opening between North and South Korea. The huge wage difference would make North Korea an attractive place for South Korean companies. North Korea would love the influx of capital that South Korean investment would provide. Unlike the U.S. investing in Mexico or China, there is no language barrier in Korea. Ideas from the South would filter North. Information follows like a river. If its blocked, it will simply flow around the obstacle and find another. This can already be seen with the influx of bootlegged South Korean media into North Korea.

North Korea and its leadership are not rational. We can't expect them to act logically.

Absolutely true. Kim Jung-il is not rational at all and I don't trust him. He may be insane but he is not suicidal. The average North Korean may not know that their country can't support an invasion into South Korea but the leadership certainly knows it. There are two reasons I believe this. First of all, if North Korea really could conquer South Korea, it would have already. Its best chance was during the Korean War. Then North Korea was more modern and industrialized of the two parts. Now South Korea is an economic powerhouse and North Korea a basket case that exists on handouts from China. The second reason I am certain North Korea leadership will not invade, despite its insanity, is that they don't want to lose their privileged positions. Why would they risk everything for unlikely victory?

We should end sanctions against Cuba.

I am in total agreement with that. Sanctions against Cuba are stupid and outdated. The Cold War is over and the U.S. won. This policy still exists because of the lack of political will to change it and the loud protests of Cuban-Americans in southern Florida. There is not doubt that opening of trade relations with Cuba would be better for both the U.S. and Cuba. The communist government would not be able to remain in power as it has for 40 years and the lives of average Cubans would improve. The effect on the U.S would be far less dramatic but we would be able to get some good Cuban cigars, which, for me, would be reason enough.

As always please leave any comments you have. If you have an questions or topics you would like me to write a blog on, let me know.