Iraq

All hell has broken loose in Iraq (again).  Radical militants are taking territory at a breathtaking speed and everyone is blaming everyone.  Whose fault is it, Obama's, Bush's, Blairs', Maliki's?  Difficult to say.  For any of you wondering why and how Iraq is still a hell hole in 2014 see this link for a 53 step breakdown that explains it all.  Happy summer reading, be glad you live in Estonia. 

Putin's tactics in Ukraine, folly or success?

Much has been made of Russia's new war strategies in Ukraine.  The New York Times does a great job of explaining Russia's new war tactics.  Another piece highlights the wisdom of Obama's reserved policy towards Russia's aggression in Ukraine. 

The tragedy of Ukraine

With the fate of Crimea sealed, we can now begin to think about the long term implications this has for the rest of Ukraine.  It is currently unknown how far Putin will go.  There is still a large Russian military buildup on the border of Eastern Ukraine and Putin has supported destabilization efforts within Eastern Ukraine.  One can only hope that Putin will be content with his Crimea land grab and most assume that his desire is not to invade the rest of Ukraine, but to increase control and influence. What is next for Ukraine? Significant steps have already been taken to help Ukraine integrate with the West. The EU recently signed an association agreement with Ukraine, lowering trade barriers worth some 500 million a year, and has already offered 15 billion USD in aid.  Now that the IMF has signed off on an 18 billion dollar loan program, Ukraine has secured some 27 billion, mostly over the next two years.  Negotiations are ongoing on ways in which the EU can help strengthen Ukraine's energy security.  These are only the first steps of a long and painful integration process. Most likely this is a process that will be difficult to complete Ukraine will not be able to complete.  

There are two potential stumbling blocks to Ukraine’s western integration. The first is the willingness of the West to integrate Ukraine.  Ukrainian officials are happy to receive the 27 billion in aid, even though it is not quite the 35 billion they were aiming for.  Ordinary citizens will be less happy.  Like Greece, the loans will have a negative impact on growth in the short term.  The vast majority of these loans are for the next two years, after which another large bailout will be needed to keep their economy going.  Will the West have the political will and the economic strength to offer the loans?  With Euro skepticism at an all-time high there will be a limit to what the EU can offer Ukraine in terms political integration. The Eurozone’s continued troubles mean that there will also be limits to the EU’s ability and desire to financially assist Ukraine beyond the two year deal.

The second and more challenging stumbling block to Ukraine’s Western integration is the desire of Ukrainians to integrate in the face of harsh reforms.  The IMF loan also meant a steep reduction in gas subsidies.  This coupled with higher gas prices from Russia will mean that consumers will be paying at least 50% more for gas.  In 2014 the economy will decrease anywhere from 3-5% of GDP with 12-14 percent inflation.  It could be worse depending on whether Russia imposes any economic sanctions in addition to raising the price of gas.  Eastern Ukraine has the most to lose from the economic reforms.  Eastern Ukraine’s exports are oriented to the Russian market, and heavy industry is more dependent on Russian gas. Together this would make many industries non-competitive in European markets.  Closing down noncompetitive industries would increase unemployment, furthering the plight of citizens in the East.

Ukraine’s demographics suggest that the population’s ability to stomach difficult reforms will be limited.  Despite the loss of 2.3 million mostly Russian voters in the Crimea, millions of Russian speakers still reside in Eastern Ukraine.  This means that elections could still be competitive in the future between a pro-Western and a pro-Russian candidate.   While a Western candidate will certainly win the elections in May, it is only a matter of time when a majority of citizens tire of the reforms.  It could be as soon as the upcoming winter when millions are unable to pay their heating bill.  With no long term prospect of EU membership and more harsh austerity in the short term many will wonder if there is a better way forward.  When they do Putin will be waiting with another aid deal and an offer to decrease the price of gas.  Just as the Orange revolution came to an end in 2010 with the election of Yanukovych, Ukraine’s attempts to integration with the West will not end before they are finished.  When or how that happens remains to be seen.  One thing that is sure is that as long as great powers are playing a geopolitical game Ukraine will forever be stuck in the middle.

Thoughts on Ukraine

Where to start on Ukraine?  I thought I would list some of the better articles I have read on the issue recently.  Basically comes down to this being Putin's last stand.

Here is an article encouraging the US to use energy as a weapon, namely to begin exporting crude oil and Liquefied natural gas.  This would increase the energy security of US allies in Europe and make a dent in Russian profits. It will take another 3 years at best before we see any changes, and probably another 5 before a meaningful impact happens but once it happens Putin's power will decrease significantly. 

Daniel Treisman is one of my favorite Russian experts, here is his piece on Putin.  In an interesting comparison to Putin's 2004 Ukrain strategy, he basically states that this isn't the smartest move by Putin.  It would have been better to let the new Ukrainian regime self implode.  Before the crisis the EU was not willing to offer the loans or support that would have been needed to keep the Ukrainian economy going.  While Putin's Ukraine policy will increase his domestic support in the short term it will hurt his standings in the long term.

Dmitri Trenin enables us to understand the Russian perspective on the crisis.  While Trenin's predicting doesn't have the best track record, his ability to describe the Russian perspective to a Western audience is second to none.  

For an analysis of the succession argument in Crimea take a look at this piece from the Washington post.   This piece does a great job of putting things into perspective.  When does a population have the right to succeed?  How does this situation relate to the Kosovo situation? 

Interesting articles this week

There were two interesting articles this week that I want to highlight here.  First, a great piece on the politics of sporting mega events, specifically the Olympics.  Another article gives an overview of the economic future of the BRICS, which doesn't look so bright in 2014. 

VIPs at Tallinn University

This week there were some awesome guest speakers at Tallinn University.  Tallinn University is located right in between the foreign ministry and the presidential palace.  Often dignitaries add a stop at Tallinn University while they are on the way.  Other universities in Estonia are a bit too far and don't get as many awesome visits, at least it seems that way. 

 

 On Friday the US ambassador Jeffrey Levine came to visit our Comparative Foreign Policy class.  US foreign policy was part of the curriculum.  The ambassador was great and the students loved the visit.  He gave some really good insight into US foreign policy, as he has been a career diplomat.  I especially liked some of the things he said about the US intelligence community.  He said that the US does not use data for anything malicious, no economic espionage for example.  When US allies come to the US for help they don't ask where the intelligence came from, they are just happy to have the help.  This was the situation with Estonia some years ago when Estonian citizens were kidnapped in Lebanon.  The visit was scheduled for earlier in the semester but was postponed due to the government shutdown.  I'm glad that the ambassador took the time to come to our class! 

On Saturday the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon came to visit Tallinn University!  It wasn't an open lecture, but I was lucky to find out about it and register before the spots filled up.  He was very nice and kind, saying good things about Estonia and sharing a nice message about reducing global poverty and dealing with climate change.

America’s democracy on the ropes

The US government shutdown highlights the democratic shortcomings in America’s political system.  Blame has been cast on many from fringe members of the Republican Party to America’s presidential system itself.  While things likely won’t get any better soon, some small changes can save American democracy in the long run.

Much more important than the economic impact from the  shutdown is what it means for American democracy.  There are two principles that deserve mention.  In a recent opinion piece inthe Washington Post, Anne Applebaum argued that the Republican party is endangering American democracy by refusing to fund the government because they do not like Obamacare.  Abblebaum mentions that Obamacare was passed by both bodies of Congress, signed into law by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court.  The Republicans are not only willing to shut down the government in an attempt to defund Obamacare, but are placing their opposition to Obamacare above the legitimacy of America’s democratic institutions and processes.  A related principle was highlighted by Matthew Yglesias in a recent article in Slate, where he highlights the work of the late political scientist Juan Linz.  Linz argues that the presidential system itself is flawed, that there is no democratic mechanism to resolve disputes between the legislative and presidential branches.  In this light, it is not the Republicans who are the problem but the system itself.  It is designed to breed conflict that is difficult to resolve. Linz focusses on the problems that Latin American countries have had with presidential systems and the good fortunes of parliamentary systems in Europe where the executive and legislative branches are unified in a coalition.  

Does the current crisis really mean a democracy deficit in America?  The answer is yes, but it won’t always have to be this way.  The current crisis could only be the tip of the iceberg.  While cooler heads prevailed and the default crisis was averted, it was only a temporary fix.  Bad precedent is being set on many levels.  

 Aside from tearing up the constitution and switching to a parliamentary system (which has its own shortcomings) what changes can be made to prevent this type of suicidal conflict between executive and legislative branches again?

Three small but significant reforms need to be implemented.  Limiting gerrymandering, eliminating caucuses, and having term limits will be enough to prevent suicidal conflicts between the executive and legislative branches in the future.  While many are dismayed at the Tea party Republicans, they should be reminded that their actions are rational.  They are doing what their constituents want them to do.  Many Republicans are forced into extreme measures because if they make pragmatic decisions they will lose a primary election to someone who is willing to take extreme measures.  Bob Bennett’s 2010 senate primary loss in Utah is an example of that.  This has happened in part, due to gerrymandering where congressional districts are drawn to maintain party power.  While the majority of America is very much purple, gerrymandering has turned congressional districts into bright red and bright blue districts where extreme candidates are able to come to power.  This is a problem that will never be completely solved, but if gerrymandering can be reduced the impact would be significant.  While gerrymandering is a problem, it is not as big a problem as some have claimed.  The USA is naturally divided into politically different districts.  Urban and rural districts are very different and gerrymandering will not change the effects of urban sprawl and urban decay.  This is why the next two items also need to be addressed.

Second, caucuses need to be eliminated.  A caucus is different from an open primary vote, in that members need to be physically present at the entire caucus to cast their vote.  This is in essence democracy by meeting.  This increases the amount of commitment for those wishing to participate.  In a caucus they have to plan on attending a multi hour meeting with a public vote where as a typical primary vote is just that, a vote which can take 5 min and be done in secret.  This means that party activists and extremists are more likely to participate than moderates.  In Utah where Bob Bennett was ousted for Mike Lee, it was a caucus system that enabled it.  

Third, term limits should be passed into law both at the senate and house levels.  Having some of the members not up for reelection would be healthy for the political climate.  Politicians who do not have to worry about reelection would then worry about what is best for the country and about being on the right side of history.  They would be more willing to take moderate stances as they would be buffered from interest groups, party leaders, and the sways of public opinion.

These changes are small, but will be difficult to implement.  Few politicians will be willing to support term limits, as it would mean their own exit from politics.  The caucus and primary system, along with the drawing of congressional districts is done at the state level and would have to have 50 states pass reforms, a rather unlikely feat.  A better solution would be to have the federal government take over these responsibilities, this would be hard to accomplish given the current political climate. 

America is in the midst of a serious crisis.  The democratic institutions have failed to ensure a functioning government for the second time in 20 years.  A default crisis is at hand.  The legitimacy of the legislative process has now been rejected by the Republican Party, a very worrisome precedent.  This has caused some to blame the Republican Party while others to blame the presidential system the US has.  In reality, the truth lies in the middle.  Fortunately, small but important changes can produce significant improvements in American democracy.  If America can reduce the impact of gerrymandering, eliminate caucuses, and pass term limits this will hopefully be the last time democracy fails in America.