Weekend Reading (Even Though the Weekend is Half Over)....

I know, I know - it's already Saturday night and I'm just putting out my weekend reading recommendations.  Sorry. I have been out of town and just catching up now on my blogging. I've just picked up two books for the weekend and am looking forward to reading both of them them.  First, I grabbed a copy of  Deng-Xiaoping and the Transformation of China by Ezra Vogel.  It is, as they say, a hefty tome (928 pages) and I suspect I'll need the better part of the week to get through it (if I'm lucky being the slow reader that I am).  But Vogel has done such outstanding work on modern China over his long and distinguished career that it seems to be a very valuable read and important contribution to understanding how China has gotten where it is today.  This may be one of Vogel's finest works and although I am only about 100 pages into it, it is very impressive in its breath and sweep of history and of the man.

It can very much be argued that Deng was the man who propelled China into modernity and away from the nightmare of the Cultural Revolution and the Cult of Mao (it seems centuries ago now, doesn't it when you stop and look at China today).   He will always have on his hands the crushing oppression of Tianamen Square -- an action that will live in infamy.  A complex man with a very unique background (having lived and been educated in Paris for most of the 1920's), this book looks like a very interesting reevaluation of his life and times.

The other book I grabbed (onto my Kindle) is Tom Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum's analysis of the future of the United States entitled That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back.  The title says it all -- the authors argue (who is there to argue back?) that the United States has fallen behind the rest of the world in our competitive capabilities.  I recently read Mandelbaum's other recent book and one of our first weekend-reading recommendations (The Frugal-Superpower: Americas Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era) and found it enlightening and right on the mark.  Both Friedman from his many columns and Mandelbaum understand the United States has spent far beyond its means, lost sight of the extraordinarily fast-changing global marketplace and somehow lost our competitive edge. My suspicion is their book will essentially launch a boomlet of similar books, especially as we get closer to the 2012 presidential elections.

If any of you read either of these books, I am eager to hear your thoughts on them.  Hope you find these recommendations helpful!

Putting a Leash on the Drones?

We have never fully understood the ongoing debate amongst a certain set of lawyers and foreign policy experts over the use of drones against terrorists both on the Afghan-Pakistan region and more recently in other failed states and regions such as the successful drone strike against Anwar Al-Awlaqi.  

It appears the Obama Administration is becoming increasingly sensitive to these debates and questions regarding the US's extraterritorial rights to strike at these groups as they plan and prepare to strike the US or our interests around the world.  The US government has for the past decade relied on he congressionally approved Authorization for Use of Military Force (passed by Congress in late September 2001 immediately following the 9/11 attacks) and, more broadly, on the basic international law of self-defense.  All of these factors and reasons were reiterated by US Counter-Terrorism head John Brennan  Harvard Law School this past September 16th.

The latest proof of this wavering by the Obama Administration was reported today by David Ignatius who writes a more careful, thoughtful approach is being adopted.  One of the key reasons for this?

"This calibrated approach has reassured key U.S. allies, such as Britain, that have large Muslim immigrant populations and were worried about the blow-back from U.S. campaigns against al-Qaeda affiliates. “There was concern that it was a blanket approach,” concedes the U.S. official."

So, to be clear: Because we are worried about large Muslim immigrant populations getting angry over our taking an aggressive approach toward terrorism in their home countries we are pulling back on drone strikes?  If this is the case, then we have lost.  We have lost the war, we have lost "the West" and most of all, lost our sanity.  It is widely believed these people have come to the West for opportunity and to escape the very terror and chaos we are fighting.  If they are angered by our defense policies, then they should leave -- or we should not let them into our nations.  The once mighty UK seems to be lost now to the West -- drowned in their silly multi-culturalism, materialism, complete turn from faith and heritage.  Victoria's England has now become Londonistan's England - bowed and bent to meet the demands of their non-assimilating populations.


The US must recognize this tragedy and resist with all its might against following down this trail of stagnation and capitulation.  And it must continue fighting aggressively against terrorism wherever it may be found.  As we learned in the Cold War, there is no "containment" of ideas or ideals.  It was the vision of Ronald Reagan to radiate the virtues of freedom and human rights to the Eastern Bloc along with the determination to build a military capable of striking anywhere, anytime in defense of these ideals that ultimately thawed and transformed those labor camp nations into the prosperous, free countries we are allied with today. 

There is no containment of Islamic radicalism.  And there should be no containment of our drone policy to salve the feelings of hostile populations within our borders of our allies. Or we will all become like England.

China or the United States? China Demands Neighbors Choose Their Friend

In yesterday's Financial Times, Gideon Rachman has a superb column outlining the great challenge of Asia Pacific today: Do you ally yourself with China or the United States?  Rachman sites a recent editorial in People's Daily that fired a shot across the bow of a number of AsiaPac countries currently militarily allied with the United States, calling them out for  “think(ing) as long as they can balance China with the help of US military power, they are free to do whatever they want."

South China Sea (map courtesy of Financial Times)

Rachman sites a recent statement by Japan and the Philippines which pledged to enhance maritime security measures and cooperation, especially in the resource-rich South China Sea - an area which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cited in a statement earlier this year as an area of " national interest" to the US (much to the annoyance of Beijing).


The significance of China's statement -- which, being published in the People's Daily must be considered official policy -- is Beijing is willing to take greater advantage of the US's economic weakness and challenge the US for supremacy in greater Asia Pacific.  The irony of all this is, of course, the fact that China's purchasing of US Treasury bonds and notes effectively is funding the development and operations of the US military - a fact not lost on Beijing.

The larger question going forward is does Washington - the Obama Administration and to a lesser degree, Congress -- understand the enormous geopolitical shift that is in play here with Bejing's challenge, our fiscal crisis dragging on and the wavering confidence our allies in the region have in the US's commitment to them?

Bluntly speaking, we do not think so.  Aside from Secretary Clinton's statement and the consistent statements and actions from the Pacific Fleet, the White House and Congress seem to pay little or no attention to the region or the implications of China's intentions and statements.  We would have expected to hear at least some reference to all this in the current congressional debate over punitive China currency legislation.  But we are not.

With more than one third of all shipping globally traversing through the South China Sea, it is easy to see why China has their own security concerns to tend to.  But that does not excuse essentially threatening their neighbors into submission or demanding they decide who they will be friends with - the US or them - going forward.  If the Chinese want to be constructive -- and more importantly, show their leadership in AsiaPac -- then they should launch a new, fresh set of multi-national negotiations to reach a diplomatic resolution to the Sea.  Otherwise, they are herding the region down a path that will not end well for anyone.

Weekend Reading: Confidence-Men:Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President

Ron Suskind's Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President is one of the more insightful and disturbing books to date on the inner-workings of the Obama White House. An important note right up front:  For whatever hairbrained reason, this White House's Communications shop gave Ron Suskind massive access to staff and to President Obama himself.  A bad idea that comes back to bitterly bite the Obama Administration.

As I read Suskind's book, I found myself wondering what every foreign minister must be thinking of this White House.  If they got their hands on this book, then they are going to be secretly smiling that this President and this White House are disorganized, immature rubes.  It is a wonder there have not been more foreign policy blow-ups.  I should stop here and just let you read the book for yourself.  Would be very interested in hearing your reactions.

The PRI's Grand Hope and the Future of US-Mexican Drug Interdiction Policy

The Atlantic Magazine has a fascinating profile on Enrique Peña Nieto, the governor of the State of Mexico.  First elected to the governorship in 2005, Peña Nieto has almost single handedly revived the hopes of the  Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) to regain the presidency which they lost in 2000 after 70 years in power.

Mexican Governor Peña Nieto

Peña Nieto,  beyond his good looks and being married to a beautiful Mexican television star, is riding the wave of anger and fear among the Mexican populace over the seemingly never-ending bloody drug wars.   The PRI, according to the Atlantic piece, has sought to cut deals with the drug lords in the past to keep the violence down and order in place.  Reading that little nugget immediately begs the question:  Is this Peña Nieto's policy, too? 

Observing the Obama Administration's Latin America policy -- and the US's relationship with Mexico in the wake of the Wikileaks disclosures which damanged ties at a critical time -- one has to ask what sort of relationship do we have with Peña Nieto?  Do we seek to develop, foster and build relations with the up and coming leadership in Mexico such as Peña Nieto?

The Drug Wars are in fact one of the more dangerous threats to US borders today.  Violence is under reported and treated as simply criminal outbursts - a mistake as it has led to significant sovereign instability in Mexico as well violence all along the US-Mexican border.

In a report released this week by the US Justice Department's National Drug Threat Assessment, Mexican drug cartels have expanded the scope of their U.S. operations over 300 percent in two years, from operating in at least 230 cities in 2008 to more than 1,000 cities in 2010.  The US has just installed a highly competent ambassador in Tony Wayne to Mexico but there is no way we can expect one man and his staff to deal with this situation and develop close working relationships with Peña Nieto and his peers.