Zcom_simple

Joe Biden and the Myth of Foreign Policy Experience



Source: The Nation

Change Text Size a- | A+


The conventional wisdom is that with a new cold war looming and global conflicts upon us, Barack Obama needed a Vice-President with foreign policy experience. Most establishment pundits buy the view that Joe Biden provides it.

 

But on one of the key issues relating to US-Russian relations, Biden has been wrong. He has been a fervent champion of NATO expansion, a bipartisan policy whose disastrous consequences we witnessed in the recent and ongoing Russia-Georgia conflict. It is a policy that has done more to damage US-Russian relations than almost any other policy between the two countries.

 

When Biden traveled to Tbilisi during the conflict in August--presumably to flex and highlight his foreign policy credentials for the Obama campaign--he presumably told Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili of his support for that country's early admission to NATO. (The New York Times reports that the conflict did in fact boost Biden's veep prospects.) What does this say about Biden's foreign policy judgment that he would immediately reward Saakashvili's reckless behavior with a promise of early admission to NATO?

 

Doesn't Biden understand that in backing Georgian admission he would be going against NATO tradition not to admit countries with outstanding territorial conflicts? Or that NATO admission would be opposed by many leading NATO allies? And that it would almost certainly forfeit any prospect of Russian cooperation on a range of issues--if not bring about Russian counter- measures. Does extending such a promise mean that Biden, along with John McCain, is prepared to take the US to war on behalf of Georgia? Biden's bombast may have given him satisfaction--and appealed to Saakashvili, a man who precipitated the bloodshed with his US-trained military's attack on South Ossetia on the night of August 7-- but was it the calibrated response we seek in an experienced foreign policy leader who understands importance of reducing, not heightening,  geopolitical tensions?

 

As Ronald Steel reminds us in a judicious and must-read op-ed piece in Sunday's New York Times, "The first essential step for the leader of the Western alliance is to tone down the bombast and restore a dialogue with Russia....Second, we should shelve loose talk about bringing either Ukraine or Georgia into NATO--at least until we are willing to invite Russia itself."  As Steel reminds us, "NATO is essentially still a cold-war military pact seeking a new identity that it has not yet found. Admitting these two former Soviet Republics would be interpreted by Moscow as anti-Russian provocation -- and rightly so. And even if it didn't provoke a new Cold War, it would create serious tensions within NATO itself."

 

Before the consensus emerges that Biden adds "foreign expertise to ticket," as the New York Times's headline this morning declared, shouldn't we reflect on the nature and quality of expertise and experience?  Good judgment, informed experience and valuable expertise would guide leaders to rethink policies like NATO expansion that have jeopardized our national security and damaged US-Russian relations.

583016

Putin\'s Thoughts on Republicans

By Cooper, Curtis at Aug 30, 2008 14:48 PM

Interestingly, despite Joe Biden\'s record of support for NATO expansion and isolating Russia, Russia\'s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin surmised that the Georgian incursion into South Ossetia was at the instigation of Republican operatives seeking advantage in the election season.  Here are excerpts from a recent interview Putin did with Matthew Chance of CNN:

Matthew Chance: You\'ve always enjoyed over your period as president of Russia, and still now, a very close personal relationship with the U.S. President George W. Bush. Do you think that his failure to restrain the Georgian forces on this occasion has damaged that relationship?

Vladimir Putin: This has certainly done damage to our relations, above all government-to-government relations.

But it is not just a matter of the U.S. administration being unable to restrain the Georgian leadership from this criminal action; the U.S. side had in effect armed and trained the Georgian army.

Why spend many years in difficult negotiations to find comprehensive compromise solutions to inter-ethnic conflicts? It is easier to arm one of the parties and push it to kill the other and have it done with. What an easy solution, apparently. In fact, however, that is not always the case.

I have some other thoughts, too. What I am going to say is hypothetical, just some suppositions, and will take time to properly sort out. But I think there is food for thought here.

Even during the years of the Cold War, the intense confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States, we always avoided any direct clash between our civilians and, most certainly, between our military.

We have serious reasons to believe that there were U.S. citizens right in the combat zone. If that is the case, if that is confirmed, it is very bad. It is very dangerous; it is misguided policy

But, if that is so, these events could also have a U.S. domestic politics dimension.

If my suppositions are confirmed, then there are grounds to suspect that some people in the United States created this conflict deliberately in order to aggravate the situation and create a competitive advantage for one of the candidates for the U.S. presidency. And if that is the case, this is nothing but the use of the called administrative resource in domestic politics, in the worst possible way, one that leads to bloodshed.

Matthew Chance: These are quite astounding claims, but just to be clear, Mr. Prime Minister, are you suggesting that there were U.S. operatives on the ground assisting Georgian forces, perhaps even provoking a conflict in order to give a presidential candidate in the United States some kind of talking point?

Vladimir Putin: Let me explain.

Matthew Chance: And if you are suggesting that, what evidence do you have?

Vladimir Putin: I have said to you that if the presence of U.S. citizens in the zone of hostilities is confirmed, it would mean only one thing: that they could be there only at the direct instruction of their leaders. And if that is so, it means that in the combat zone there are U.S. citizens who are fulfilling their duties there. They can only do that under orders from their superiors, not on their own initiative.

Ordinary specialists, even if they train military personnel, must do it in training centers or on training grounds rather than in a combat zone.

I repeat: This requires further confirmation. I am quoting to you the reports of our military. Of course, I will seek further evidence from them.

Why are you surprised at my hypothesis, after all? There are problems in the Middle East; reconciliation there is elusive. In Afghanistan, things are not getting any better; what is more, the Taliban have launched a fall offensive, and dozens of NATO servicemen are being killed.

In Iraq, after the euphoria of the first victories, there are problems everywhere, and the number of those killed has reached 4,000.

There are problems in the economy, as we know only too well. There are financial problems, the mortgage crisis. Even we are concerned about it, and we want it to end soon, but it is there.

A little victorious war is needed. And if it doesn\'t work, then one can lay the blame on us, use us to create an enemy image, and against the backdrop of this kind of jingoism once again rally the country around certain political forces.

I am surprised that you are surprised at what I\'m saying. It\'s as clear as day.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Putin\'s Thoughts on Republicans

By Gd_carroll48, Grant at Aug 30, 2008 17:58 PM

Totally agree with his supposition that the \'evil american empire\' is behind this unnecessary provocative act to destabilise this region and pour scorn on Russia\'s \'territorial claims\'.There is a coarse saying but it is quite true: bs baffles brains!

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

583016

Re: Re: Putin\'s Thoughts on Republicans

By Cooper, Curtis at Sep 01, 2008 05:41 AM

Given Biden\'s support for NATO expansion, Putin is adopting a \"lesser of two evils\" stance in the US election.

Reply this comment

Loading_border