Estonia's presidential election

The English page of ERR is running a 6 piece mini series on the global impact of the next Estonian president.  For those interested here are the links:

The introduction is here:

A profile on Mailis reps here

Profile of Eiki Nestor here

Profile of Siim Kallas here

Profile of Allar Jõks here

Profile of Marina Kaljurand here

Profile of Mart Helme here

Concluding interview here

To arm or not to arm?

What should the West do about the ongoing conflict in Ukraine?  Many of the arguments in the Western media have not made it to the Estonian media.  Here is a review of the arguments:

To arm:

• Ben Judah's piece in the New York Times places the battle for Ukraine in black and white terms with defeat for the West not an option.
• Alexander Motyl in Foreign Affairs argues that Putin's actions is a threat to the West's democracy, security and stability and should be seen as a war against Europe. 
• Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott argue that Ukraine needs help from the West.

Not to arm:

• John Mearsheimer argues in the New York Times that Ukraine is not a strategic interest for the West but is for Putin.  That means his commitment to achieving his aims will result in a high escalation.

• Jeremy Shapiro offers a rebuttal to Pifer and Talbott.

• I argued along similar lines in a Delfi piece, that escalation

 One last piece by Anne Applebaum deserves mentioning, it goes beyond the current question of arming and speculates on long term strategy. 

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. 

NATO's future and Estonia

Recently NATO Secretary General Rasmussen (who visited Tallinn University in 2011) mentioned Estonia in his speech on NATO's future.  You can read the speech here. I am a bit more skeptical of the benefit of NATO for Estonia than most, however Rasmussen said something that is noteworthy.  My main concern is that NATO is not capable of defending Estonia from its greatest security concerns.  These are new soft security problems like cyber and energy security as well as other problems that stem from problems in society.  For a longer discussion on this topic in Estonia please see the latest issue of Acta Politica Estica. 
Rasmussen mentions three goals of NATO going forward:

1. maintain robust defense and deterrence
2. reaffirm the bond between Europe and North America and rebalance our relationship.
3. Bolster global perspective and remain ready to work with parters to protect values

Of these three the first one is of most importance to Estonia.  How can NATO provide a robust defense against a cohesive society, cyber and energy security?  Currently they can't, and this is a problem for Estonia.  On a positive note, Rasmussen mentions that in his opinion NATO's next step (one of them at least) should be to "consider how [NATO] could assist Allies who come under cyber attack".  As to date, NATO has been more concerned with securing NATO systems from cyber threats, along with establishing international norms.  While helpful, it is of limited value to Estonia.  If NATO carries through with Rasmussen's hope to provide real assistance for Estonia's cyber defenses, it could change the dynamics of NATO's future.  States will stand only so long with NATO if their own interests are not being met.

Secretary Rasmussen, well done on a nice speech and for seeing the problems and solutions for NATO.  As always, it is easy to say but hard to do.  We'll be following the developments in NATO from Estonia carefully, and wishing you luck. Both of our futures depend on it.

Peace in the Middle East

With all the problems going on in Egypt and Syria the news that Israel and Palestine will start up peace talks again probably went unnoticed by many.  Most likely they didn't miss out on much.  Noam Chomsky has a very interesting take on the entire situation here.  For anyone who is not familiar with Noam Chomsky I highly recommend reading.  He has a way in explaining situations from a critical angle different from the standard narrative we are often times used to. 

Moldova

There have been two good articles on Moldova this week.  You can read them here and here. Since 2009 Moldova has had a pro-European government and has been making reforms to integrate with Europe.  Those plans have been put on hold due to political instability, a reoccurring problem for Moldova.  As the first article points out, Moldova is still stuck in the middle between the EU and Russia.  When Moldova will become more politically stable and when they will finally gravitate towards the EU or Russia is anyone's guess, but it would not surprise me if we had this same conversation in 10 years.

Kes on President Putin?

 

Väga hea artikkel President Putinist on kättesaadav Foreign Policy'st.  Seal on väljatoonud 6 omanduses mis kirjeldavad Putinit: statist, history man, survivalist, outsider, free marketer, ja case officer. 

2013

The European Council on Foreign Relations recently came out with an article predicting the top 10 trends for Europe in 2013.  You can read their article here.  Below is a short summary of what they said. 

1. The single market unravels
2. "Small" States lead the EU's foreign policy
3. The end of technocracy
4. The British debate over Europe becomes less toxic
5. Syria as the playground for proxy conflicts
6. Political vs. Religious Islam
7. Putin's increasingly ungovernable Russia
8. Security in the Maghreb becomes a real issue
9. China 3.0 meets Chinese leadership 1.5
10. Will post-American Europe fail to grow up or discover strategy?

Europe's time to shine

The recent French intervention in Mali has brought up the topic of US-European relations again.  When will the US team with Europe to intervene and when will Europe be left to itself?  Here is an interesting article addressing these questions.  Obama's foreign policy strategy can be summed up like this: if others can do the job then we won't.  It will be interesting to see how Europe adapts to the new US strategy. The Economist has another interesting article about France's president and the Mali intervention, things could be looking up for President Hollande Read and judge for yourselves.

Team Obama

 

Team Obama 2.0 is starting to take shape, things look good so far.  Susan Rice has withdrawn her candidacy for secretary of state to replace Hillary Clinton.  This that leaves Senator John Kerry as the top man for the job.  Kerry brings a wealth of experience to the job and is seen as being a loyal soldier for Obama.  Rumor has it that former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel will be nominated for Secretary of Defense for the outgoing Leon Panetta.  If true, and if they pass the confirmation process, they would bring a experience and more importantly good ideas to Obama's foreign policy team.  For an overview on what their impact will be you can read this article from the Washington Post.  Realists and those weary of the Neocon foreign policy of the Bush era are happy at the appointments.  Stephen Walt recently blogged giving the top five reasons why Chuck Hagel would make a good secretary of defense.  In the Washington Post article, Christopher Preble, the author of "the power problem" and a supporter of a more modest US foreign policy, said the following about Chuck Hagel "I expect that Hagel will generally advise against sending U.S. troops on quixotic nation-building missions". For those weary of long wars this can be taken by most as good news.

As the Washington Post article notes, there are plenty of issues for Obama to deal with in his second term: Iran's nuclear ambitions, rising China, the Syrian civil war, a shrinking defense budget, unrest in the Middle East, and the global financial crisis.  I think they will make a good impact on Cuban issues and on Israel-Palestine issues.  Both Kerry and Hagel favor more moderate positions on Cuba.  They also could convince Obama to pressure Israel into meaningful compromise that could lead to progress in the peace talks.

While there are many obstacles ahead that could prevent Obama from a successful second term (not saying that the first was successful), the formation of Obama's second term foreign policy term is certainly a step in the right direction. 

Korras nagu Norras

Daniel Drezner writes an interesting blog entry on China-Norway relations.  Norway's choices for Nobel peace prizes have been interesting to say the least. Obama and the EU being the most interesting in recent years, it was Norway's 2010 Nobel peace prize choice that set China off.  Drezner doesn't agree with China's criticism of Norway and concludes that despite the nasty words from Beijing, kõik on korras nagu Norras.

Four more years

 

Obama won the election and that means he will be the President for four more years.  What does this mean for his foreign policy?  On the one hand this means stability in US policies towards Afghanistan, the Middle East and Russia.  On the other hand there will be major changes in Obama's foreign policy team and there are reports that now the election is over Obama is reconsidering some of his foreign policy strategies.  Over the next few months Obama will be focused on budget issues, the so called financial cliff, but early next year pay attention to foreign policy.  Issues like Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, and more will be making headlines.  For an article on the impact of secretary of state click here. For an update of the reset with Russia (by the way, I think Putin is very happy that Romney did not win) click here.

Election time

 

The US presidential election is almost here.  It is still too close to call.  This is certainly one of the more exciting elections in recent memory.  As you know, the US presidential system is a bit quirky, if you would like to read more about it you can read what I wrote in Delfi here.  Currently the candidates are making their closing statements on why they should be chosen.  You can read an op-ed on CNN.com by Romney here, and by Obama here.  If you want to know what foreign policy challanges the President will be facing over the next four years you can read a recent blog entry by Stephen Walt here. Enjoy the election!

Mitt's flawed strategy

US presidential elections are always fun to watch.  While I am not an expert on campaign strategy, I can't help but be amazed at Mitt Romney's continual focus on foreign policy.  In a recent article it talked about how the Romney team views foreign policy as a key part of their platform.  There are really two major risks (and flaws) to this strategy.  1. It makes for an unfocused message.  People are asking what does Mitt Romney stand for?  What would a Mitt Romney president do?  When Mitt is talking about everything people tend to remember nothing.  In this type of election Mitt should laser focus only on the economy, which is Obama's weakness and his strength.  2. Obama's foreign policy strategy is impossible to attack from the right.  This is not the primaries anymore, Mitt needs to understand that Americans are not excited about another war in the middle east and Americans are not excited to spend obscene amounts of money to counter Russia or China.  In the last 20 years the only real threat to America has proved to be terrorism, which has turned out to be Obama's strong spot.  Obama has actually been very aggressive towards Iran and Al Qaeda.  To attack him from the right would be this argument:  we need military intervention in Syria, we need air strikes against Iran, we need to increase spending on defense and we need to stay in Afghanistan until the Taliban (now in Pakistan) is defeated.  This is certainly popular with a portion of the population and sounds nice in a primary election, but this won't win in a general election.  Romney's best chance would be to ignore foreign policy (hard to do with the recent embassy attacks, but necessary) and focus on economic growth, jobs, and the national debt.  As long as Romney continues to focus on foreign policy he will see his poll  numbers dropping.