Peter Lavelle

Untimely Thoughts

back to bloglist

Peter Lavelle's blog

Entries
13 November, 2009, 23:37
Medvedev as “our kind of guy”
01 November, 2009, 21:51
Obama’s foreign policy – “business as usual”

Over the past 10 months I considered myself as a holdout. I said we must give the new American administration a chance to demonstrate that Washington had shed its neocon convictions and policies. Well, I have to say I have had enough. The verdict is in – it is “business as usual” in Washington. America’s foreign policy is not about change when it comes to substance – only the tone is different.

I like to think I am a patient person (most people who know me would probably disagree). I had hoped for a new American approach toward Russia. It hasn’t really happened. Operation “re-set button” was a public relations ploy – and a cheap one at that. Nothing has really changed. When Hillary Clinton was in Moscow she couldn’t refrain from the usual Washington lecturing on how it was a pity Russians aren’t like Americans – as if America is a beacon of human rights with Gitmo still open and “processing” suspects.

Nonetheless, Russian-US relations are slowly on the mend. Moscow is helping Washington to understand something called pragmatism. Washington needs Russia’s help when dealing with Afghanistan, Iran, the Middle East, North Korea, non-proliferation of nuclear technologies and a host of other issues. But please tell me – when, how and where does Russia lecture the US about foreign policy? It doesn’t – Russia is only interested resolving global problems and not lecturing anyone. The Obama administration is still in need of a hearing aid!

Read more

While visiting the Middle East, Clinton said Israel’s “new” stance regarding the building of settlements in the West Bank was “unprecedented.” Seriously, I lost my lunch all over my keyboard when reading these words. The fact is Obama has again caved in, and caved in badly. Obama, for a very short interval, had the chance to say and do something very different from traditional American foreign policy in the Middle East. Instead the new president folded and what could have been a meaningful peace process folded as well. Israel needs only a few more months to complete its colonization of the West Bank to make the possibility of a Palestinian state a very real impossibility. Clinton’s words will have horrific consequences.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is now Washington’s man by default – this is more than a pity, it is a catastrophe. The main opposition candidate in the run-off election after the tainted first round in August, Abdullah Abdullah, has pulled out. It has always been a fool’s errand to make Afghanistan into a democracy of any sort. Abdullah Abdullah is no saint, mind you. He too wants to court Washington using the democracy card, and again with no thought about what the Afghan people think. The Taliban and their Pakistani friends must be having a great laugh. Washington continues to fight a war it can never win and everyone involved except the Americans and NATO know this.

I find all this quite amusing in a bizarre way. The Pakistanis say they are fighting the “bad” Taliban in Pakistan, while making deals with their “good” Taliban. (The “good” Taliban are groups that Islamabad supports in the hope of dominating Afghanistan).

On the Afghan side, the US appears only want to fight Al Qaeda and not the Afghan Taliban. Well, isn’t that convenient. The “bad” Pakistani Taliban can go to Afghanistan for rest and recreation without worrying about the Americans and NATO (which has no stomach for a fight anyway). All of this would be amusing if it weren’t so dangerously wrongheaded.

It is obvious that the Obama administration has not learned from the Bush people. America’s global empire, I guess, has nothing to do with the party of power in Washington. Obama’s words are only words and will do nothing to stop the utter decline of the empire. Obama is not leading on anything on the world stage, it is only playing out a lost cause. I suppose it was naive to think otherwise.

Show comments (34)
triste

04 November, 2009, 16:22

The Rise and Fall of the Western Empires ! Why don't you have a series of programmes on the fall of the Western so called Empires ! It is happening now and they cannot stop it. They do not know how . Re- starting the debit system call credit in the west once more ...Pathetic ! Triste in Trieste


Gene Hopkins

04 November, 2009, 16:17

Peter,

I will be going to the Vancouver Winter Olympics. It will be difficult for me to root against Evgeni Malkin when he plays for Team Russia in hockey. Young Evgeni (same name as me) lives in my hometown of Pittsburgh and he was instrumental in the Penguins winning the NHL Stanley Cup. He is loved in Pittsburgh and people there call him Geno. My niece (a house cleaner) was thrilled to meet him when she was hired as part of a team to clean his house. She is happily married, no worries.

Gene H., San Francisco


Gene Hopkins

04 November, 2009, 15:23

Peter,

I would not lie to you. Democracy has truly hatched in Russia. I read a recent article on RT where the communist party was disputing the results of an election. That is proof. a party out of power can protest against the party in power, WITHOUT FEAR. It is a new day.

Gene H., San Francisco


Gene Hopkins

04 November, 2009, 09:13

Peter,

Let's raise your blog to a NEW LEVEL. I publicly challenge German Chancellor Angela Merkel to publicly tell Obama, "take your troops and weapons, and go home. Thanks for all the help, but you have overstayed your welcome". Let's see what happens. C'mon Angela, the ball is in your court.

Gene H., San Francisco


Kierkegaard

04 November, 2009, 09:13

How come you offer no analysis of Russian foreign policy, just critiques of Western foreign policy? Isn't this blog supposed to be "Russia Today," not "America Today"?


Gene Hopkins

04 November, 2009, 08:52

By the way Mr. Lavelle,

If German Chancellor Angela Merkel tells Obama that she wants U.S. troops and weapons out of Germany, it will happen. It is up to her and the German people. It is a new day in American foreign policy. That is why the Republicans are so angry.

Gene H., San Francisco


Gene Hopkins

04 November, 2009, 08:35

Peter,

This message is for you. Please do not give up yet on Obama. He is running into incredible opposition here in the U.S. Some Republican neocons even went so far as to call for his arrest and deportation. They said he was born in Kenya and is not a U.S. citizen. They call him "nigger" and even worse things. I am part of his "base" that Bianca speaks of. He has not even been in office a year. He has cancelled the F-22 Raptor jet. He said it is a Cold War weapon that is not useful in today's world. He has pissed a lot people off, not me.

Gene H.


Gene Hopkins

04 November, 2009, 08:26

Peter,

Bianca is amazingly smart. Here is a little more chatter to Madam Bianca:

ALBANY, N.Y. - Democrat Bill Owens has captured the special election for a New York congressional seat that became a fight over the identity of the Republican Party.
Owens defeated Conservative Doug Hoffman and Republican Dierdre Scozzafava in the heavily Republican 23rd Congressional District in rural northern New York state. Scozzafava abruptly withdrew Saturday and supported Owens.
Hoffman has conceded the race.
The race has been getting national attention, with some calling it a referendum on President Barack Obama and others saying it could help Republicans focus their message to attract more people to the party

Gene H., San Francisco


Gene Hopkins

04 November, 2009, 08:06

To Bianca,

Unfortunately, the Republican won the race for governor in Virginia. I do not see this as a referendum on Obama. The way I see it, the Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds ran a stupid campaign. He focused on the wrong topics and did not inspire people. Viva Obama.

Gene H.,
A San Francisco Democrat
(some people use that label as a slur)


Ari Rusila

03 November, 2009, 19:35

After Afghanistans fraudulent elections President Obamas future politics in failing state is still foggy. The same can be said about EUs position. So Obama is waiting more options for McChrystal plan. The options so far have been bribing Taliban, using mostly drones, reconciliation with Taliban, sending aid instead of troops and of course send less troops than requested.
The quote above is from letter of Taliban leader Mullah Omar to Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit on 19th September 2009. The letter indicated a shift in Talibans general policy and approach towards neighboring countries, the US and Europe.In the same tone, he assured China, India and Russia that the Taliban is going to play positive role in establishing peace and stability in the region.

One does not need to like about Taliban nor accept their ideology, but one should agree that they more or less represent their country. So if they concentrate – as indicated in last letter of Mullah Omar to SCO – Afghanistans inner policy without affection towards terror export to foreign countries why not give them change.

From my point of view the future strategy towards Afghanistan – if the aim is to get some sustainability – should be based on two principles:

* Bottom-up principle, where the actions, development plans and administration are made starting from local, village level; not from high flown programmes made in Brussels or Washington.

* Integrated approach where security, economy, local participation/commitment and administration are not separate sectors.

My conclusion is that the core question is not in or out. I would see the word with as best practice for future relations between U.S./EU and Afghanistan. The local stakeholder may or may not accept cooperation with foreigners but it is their choice as it is choice for U.S./EU to participate and invest to Afghanistans development plans or not.
More about topic one may find from my article "Afghanistan - to be or not?" - http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/afghanistan-%e2%80%93-to-be-or-not/


Jay Cee

03 November, 2009, 09:54

Peter, I'am a little surprised over your dissappointment. Dissappointment is just a result of overexpectation. And I cannot believe you could expect from Mr. Obama anything different in terms of deeds than from Mr. Bush Jr. (words don't count for deeds). And, btw, "Change" does not mean a change to the better - I cannot believe that so many people believed this man is either promissing or going to bring a change to the better. Further, change also means small coins and this is the part of Obama agenda that no one can claim he is underperforming. With the crisis unfolding, many will be left with change only (for a change).

Obama is not even playing out a lost cause. He is just a litterate mascot walking around the globe and reading from the reading machine. I'm only wondering what will be on that reading machine one year from now.


Kierkegaard

03 November, 2009, 08:06

Two questions.

1. Has Russia's foreign policy changed since Medvedev was selected president?

2. How long will Sergei Lavrov's reign at the foreign ministry last?


Bianca

03 November, 2009, 05:00

I understand the feeling. A month ago I attended a political gathering in Virginia for the Democratic hopeful in the Gubernatorial election. Most people present were die-hard Obama campaigners. While waiting for the candidate, the chit-chat around the room revealed a deep despair with Obama foreign policy. In fact, most blamed this disappointment for the lukewarm support for the Democratic candidate. As he is expecting to loose, most people are readily blaming Obama's young administration and its foreign policy on the near total absence of young enthusiasts supporting Mr. Deeds. The support of the "old" base is not enough without the army of the new voters that have delivered a win for Obama in Virginia.

So, what is going on? There is not just the continued erosion of US standing in the world to contend with, but also a real danger to loose many a local election, including the most important Congressional elections next year.

I would like people not to forget the manner in which Obama came to power. The empire-based ruling elite in both Democratic and Republican Parties were alarmed at the possibility of Obama winning. It was clear that he could beat any Republican candidate. So the only "man" left standing was a woman, Hillary Clinton. Most will remember very well that, in spite of Obama's win in primaries, Clinton was not conceding. She was ready to take the fight to the Convention on the grounds of botched up primaries in Michigan and Florida. She backed off only after a deal was cut. We were not privied to the deal, but after the elections, things got pretty clear. Hillary Clinton got full reign in State Department, with the assurances that she can alone make staff decisions. While Gates remained the head of Defense.

But Obama is good at not hitting his head against concrete walls. He can only succeed by letting Hillary be Hillary, and make all the mistakes. And it is not just Hillary. Her ardent supporters in neocon circles, are just as eager to use this window of opportunity to accomplish as much as possible. They all know that Obama is likely to wait until the end of his first term, before making any moves to change the State Department. Because if he did, Hillary will run against him in primaries, and take the Democratic Party into chaos. To the empire-Democrats, this is not so wrongheaded. Many of them would prefer to see Republicans win, so they can go back to their cozy bi-partisan collaboration on all imperial fronts. And enjoy their predictable, cozy relationship with the military projects for their districts --- before the "Obama experiment".

Obama on the other hand, risks to loose his base. He needs a miracle. He heeds to figure out how to tap into the anti-imperial sentiment on the left AND right, link imperial projects with the rapidly worsening situation for the disillusioned middle class. If he does not succeed in linking the cost of adventures to the economy, middle class is likely to go back to voting Republican. Obama just does not have the luxury to be seen as floundering and indecisive.

But to do that, he will have to constrain Hillary and her circles.

One such opportunity has already arrived. Hillary's and Holbrooke strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan may be in serious trouble.

To quote the best analyst on Asian affairs, M. K. Bhadrakumar, " Karzai calculated that Abdullah had already inflicted the maximum damage possible by lending his services to the president's Western detractors. Karzai also knows that he will continue to enjoy strong support from within the major non-Pashtun groups as long as his partnership with erstwhile mujaheddin leaders Mohammad Fahim, Karim Khalili, Ismail Khan, Rashid Dostum and Mohammad Mohaqiq remains intact.

The real political game in great Afghan style is now all set to begin. The shadow boxing is over. At the center stage of the political theater stands Karzai. He has turned the table squarely on the Western powers, but he will not easily forget the sustained attempts over the past year and more to ridicule him and pull him down. There has been some attrition. The attacks on him and his family members have at times been on very personal terms and they hurt deeply. Afghans are unused to such Western-style muckraking in the name of democracy."

Translate, Hillary and his geopolitical guru, Hollbrooke lost. In Pakistan, Hillary's performance was below expectations. She came to lecture, completely forgetting what Pakistan is going through. She completely lost out of sight that Pakistan was kept relatively safe from Afghanistan's spillover until the new untested leadership, consisting of exiles, accepted uncritically US leadership in conducting the war on its territory. Millions of refugees, thousands of dead, and revenge bombings all over the country --- are direct results. Instead of understanding, and expressions of gratitude --- for this blind adherence to US wishes --- she retorted that Pakistani leadership knows where Al-Qaeda is hiding, but is not having the political will to prosecute the fight! This is a cookie cutter formula from beating up on Serbia for not knowing were a war criminal may be hiding! In both cases, this serves not the goal of finding Ratko Mladic, or Osama Bin Laden --- but a convenient bat to bang the skulls of Serbs or Pakistanis when they stop listening to the orders.

But the formula may no longer work, and Hillary does not know the difference between a small land-locked Serbia, and Pakistan, a potentially important key regional power.

And after the announcement of Abdullah's withdrawal, neocons have expressed the fear that the expansion into Central Asia now seems in question. Now we are getting at the crux of the problem!!!

Furthermore, to cite again the same author, "Washington must take serious note that the response to the New York Times report (on Karzai's brothers involvement with CIA and drugs) has come from none other than the Afghan Minister of Counter-Narcotics, General Khodaidad. The minister has brought into public debate Afghanistan's best-kept secret: the role of foreign troops in drug trafficking.

It was one thing to be dismissive when the former director general of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), General Hamil Gul, alleged that American military aircraft were being used for drug trafficking in Afghanistan. It might also have been expedient to simply ignore the issue when well-informed Russian sources made media comments that US troops were doing roaring business in drug trafficking in Afghanistan running into hundreds of millions of dollars. But Khodaidad is a highly trained professional who knows what he is talking about.

The Indians know him, and so do the Russians. Khodaidad passed out from the prestigious Indian Military Academy in Dehra Dun and was a product of the famous Fronze Military Academy in Moscow. He had a proven record in the communist government in Kabul as a highly decorated general; he led crack paratrooper brigades in the war in the early 1980s and he served as the army commander in the crucial Kunduz and Takhar front line facing Ahmad Shah Massoud of the Northern Alliance. Britain, where he lived in exile for a decade, knows him too.

Therefore, when Khodaidad said on Sunday that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contingents from the US, Britain and Canada are "taxing" the production of opium in the regions under their control, he carried a stern warning on behalf of Karazi. It is a simple, direct message: don't throw stones while sitting in a glass cage. "

This is not only the message. This is a war. With UN report on drugs painting a horrific picture of drugs coming from Afghanistan, and the human toll to Central Asia, Russia, China and beyond. Many of these countries have been restrained in their public condemnation, as the politics of drug trade involves the occupying forces.

The withdrawal of the candidate Abdullah Abdullah is a watershed event. He has come to the conclusion that he must hedge his bets. He will continue to rally his minuscule base, and lecture Afghans on democracy and transparency. But he will also try to get back to ingratiate himself with the proudly non-transparent ways of the old --- before he becomes an odd man out.

In overall terms, Afghanistan's neighboring countries (except Pakistan, perhaps, to an extent) will find Karzai's new team easy to work with. The new set-up will include personalities who have been known for long years to Moscow, Tehran, Tashkent and Dushanbe. The emergence of such a team in Kabul will be reassuring for these regional capitals.

The big question is how the Taliban will view the Afghan political developments. A complex picture is indeed emerging. The US is inching closer to discussing a modus vivendi with the Taliban, and Karzai has partners who have dealings with the Taliban. (Ironically, Wali Karzai is one such skilled politician who is deeply immersed in Taliban folklore.) It will not be surprising if a political accommodation is reached with the powerful Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the very near future.

If Hekmatyar chooses politics over war, a major hurdle will also have been crossed in isolating the intransigent (irreconcilable) elements within the Taliban - the so-called Quetta shura (council) and the Haqqani network.

Pakistan, and by the inference US, may not be pleased to have an Afghan reconciliation happen on Afghan terms. Interestingly --- the ISI chief sought an audience with the Saudi king in Riyadh on Saturday.

But, it is Turkey that is taking over ISAF rotating command.


Michael Hockney

02 November, 2009, 15:52

Business as usual....indeed.

There is a children's story we all know; the boy who cried wolf. Eventually what happens is that the child is ignored because people have heard the same garbage and seen the same tantrums to the point that the utterings bear no acknowledgement.

Perhaps Soper-power politics have reached this point, the world is experiencing a power shift and the question is do we need to take notice of what the US says in quite the way we did in the past. my feeling is Washington still thinks it has the respect and the moral high ground to "lead" the world; of course it no longer has after the corruptions of G.W.Bush. Two terms of that administration killed fifty years of respect and diplomacy and it is very hard to see how president Obama can forward any perception change unless the World sees radical change.

Hilary Clinton understands modern Russia with the intellectual resources of a cold war reaganite painted in a soft font for a PR reset with the ever present proddings from military lobbyists and the god-fearing neo consevatives (even though she is a democrat). She would prefer to see Russia in pieces, broken up into manageable bite size democratic chunks. This is what every US administration really wants to see.The evidence has been there for years. This is why the cold war news misinformation machine is still in full gear. To convince Americans ( and Brits too, UK press is appallingly Russophobic) that Russia is run by evil people and that Russia is not a part of the civilized world.

There will be no substantive change from the US. There cannot be. It remains a desperate oil hungry nation and it will do whatever it wants to secure energy supplies. The UN clearly can be ignored. Georgia, Caspian Sea, khazakstan etc.... The struggle for resources are our future wars. Water and Oil. Canada, Russia and other resource rich countries need smart defensive strategies to protect what they have.

How long can one ignore the siren


20 October, 2009, 08:45
Hillary’s lecture tour
About author

Peter Lavelle is the host of RT's week in review programme In Context, and was the anchor of the commentary series IMHO (In my humble opinion). And RT viewers can expect to find Peter in the news studio commenting on breaking events. This includes live press conferences and when decision makers meet anywhere in the world.

Peter Lavelle has extensive experience in academia and the world of business. He did his doctoral studies at the University of California in Eastern European and Russian studies. He has lived in Eastern Europe and Russia for a better part of the last 25 years. During that time he was a lecturer at the University of Warsaw, a market researcher for Colgate-Palmolive, an investment analyst for a number of respected brokerage firms, including Russia’s Alfa Bank.

In the realm of media, Peter Lavelle is widely published. He has written for Asia Times Online, Moscow Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, United Press International, In the National Interest, and Current History – to mention only a few.

Peter enjoys reading, films, long walks through Moscow, and caring for his two dogs. Viewers are invited to read his daily blog, below.

Peter Lavelle also has an Internet discussion group on Russia:

http://groups.google.com/group/Untimely_Thoughts_An_Expert_Discussion_Group_on_Russia