Update on Base Politics in Okinawa and Jeju Island

Looks like there's some demand for a strategic review of the current Futenma relocation plan led by Senate Armed Service committee members Carl Levin, John McCain and Jim Webb. I'm guessing Tokyo is too preoccupied with the Fukushima aftermath to really deal with base issues, much less pay for expensive relocation costs to Guam. Of course, the US is looking to cut costs in defense spending.

Meanwhile the anti-base network has been spreading the word about the construction of a naval base on Jeju Island. My understanding is that it's a South Korean naval base. Activists claim that the base is intended to serve U.S. military purposes. The base would allow U.S. carriers and ships to port, and possibly house Aegis destroyers which would obviously support joint command operatives but to say it's a U.S. base is incorrect (although it's useful to frame it as such).

Military Means to Political Ends: Memories of Clausewitz

Two articles in last Sunday's Post shed light on the problems facing the Obama Adminstration's stated political end in Libya - the departure of Moammar Gaddafi. I hadn't seen Carl von Clausewitz's (the famous 19th century German military strategist) name evoked in a long time, but Gideon Rose raises the key message of Clausewitz: The central strategic challenge of any war is how to use military means to achieve political ends. Rose gets bonus points for also throwing in "the fog of war."

Many commentators have pointed out the mismatch between Obama's military strategy to enforce a no fly-zone and his ultimate desire to see Gaddaffi go. The result will likely be mission creep - even if NATO rather than the U.S. ends up leading this campaign. As Rose quotes, "By intervening to help one side in a civil war, it is now embroiled in Libya’s political future to a vastly greater extent than it was two weeks ago." Moreover, Dan Byman questions the efficacy of the no fly zone, using Iraq in the 1990s as an apt analogy.

This is the sentiment of other commentators such as Fareed Zakaria. You can throw me in with the skeptics about the efficacy of the current policy towards Libya. The best outcome is perhaps putting enough pressure on Gaddaffi to agree to a cease fire and negotiate some poltiical settlement for transition before NATO has to rely on ground troops or supply the rebels with arms.

For international (and perhaps domestic) reputational reasons, there was probably no way Obama could have not responded. So a middle ground approach may have been the best poltical solution on Obama's part.

On a side note, I wonder how a pacifist would respond to the humanitarian crisis in Libya?

Egypt and Middle East Protests Chronology

What comes next for Egypt after Mubarak? Looks like even protest movements themselves are unclear. A new constitution and reforms are in the works, but there's a lot of uncertainty about which political forces will actually lead the new Egypt.

Several news sources are doing a terrific job chronicling the unrest in the region. It's like having your own RA!

New York Times: Arab World Uprisings
Washington Post: Middle East and North Africa in turmoil
BBC: Middle East protests: Country by country

Chinese Global Order?

I gave a talk at a panel on U.S.-China relations organized by one of our graduate students. Hats off to our graduate students for putting together an informative panel with a delicious spread. Unfortunately, attendance was low and 75% of the food remained untouched. I restrained myself from hoarding (For full disclosure, I left with an extra sandwich and cookie).

Anyway, I offered three insights in my portion of the presentation:
1) A brief overview of U.S.-China relations and the shift in U.S. rhetoric towards China acting as a "responsible player" in 2005 to an "irresponsible competitor" in 2010.
2) Reasons to be skeptical about China replacing the U.S. as a regional or global leader anytime soon.
3) U.S.-China relations and North Korea.
I'll just mention a few things about point #2. Given China's enormous size and population, it's inevitable that China will surpass the U.S. in several categories we consider as part of a nation's power portfolio (i.e. size of economy). Does this mean that China will overtake the U.S.?

It depends on what we mean by overtake. Although China may rival the U.S. in terms of capabilities, it's far less clear if China will overtake the U.S. as a global or even regional leader. The real question we should be asking ourselves is whether China has what it takes to be a global leader. Here are four questions worth raising:

1. Do other nations trust China (or at least trust China more than the US)?
2. Is China willing to provide both public and private goods?
3. Do other states perceive China as a legitimate global leader?
4. Do other states aspire to follow the ideals, values, and political ideology of China?

A key issue is determining how China's rising capabilites are linked to non-material factors like status, trust, and legitimacy which say more about global leadership than a countries rising capabilities.

Mubarak Steps Down

I never did post a blog about the wave of demonstrations in the Middle East as I promised. Probably for the better since I saved myself embarrassment from making wrong predictions! Last week I predicted (to myself) that the government would make several concessions to protesters. This would result in the co-optation of some elites (yes), a split between opposition radical and moderates (sort of) with a call for some gradual transition to power in preparation for the Sept. elections (yes). But I also predicted that the movement would lose steam following co-optation of movement leaders. I certainly didn't expect Mubarak to step down, especially with the backing of the military. In short, the current cycle of protest would wane with movement fatigue and perhaps resume again in time for September elections - the next opportunity for political mobilization.

Of course, I was proven wrong. Mubarak stepped down earlier today. It's unclear what will come next or how the political void will be filled. I suppose there will be some transitional coalition with the military playing a key role in the transition (should the military choose to give up power).

It really has be an amazing 18 days and a true cause for celebration for Egyptians longing for greater freedoms. However, always the skeptic that I am, I am not sure whether Egyptians can finally claim they are on a path towards true democracy. Three reasons why I cast a (small) pall over an otherwise exuberant day for many (but certainly not all) Egyptians.

1. The military could reestablish authoritarian rule in the name of stability/security.

2. Something worse than the Mubarak regime could also step into power. Think back to the Wiemar Republic and the rise of the Nazi Party, or the 1979 Iranian Revolution. So who might fill this void? I'm skeptical about the Muslim Brotherhood seizing power - and political participation of the Brotherhood is not the same as...say the Taliban. But what about a group of corrupt oligarchs, or inefficient rulers taking hold of power?

Update: A department staff member with family in Egypt states the Muslim Brotherhood commands more support than officially acnknowledged. So perhaps there has been more "quiet support" for the Brotherhood all these years. Will this support now rise to the surface?

3. Who are the people occupying Tahrir Square? Media reports indicate a lot of youths, strong middle class representation, and ordinary Egyptians. But I also remember reading about Mubarak having a lot of support from the poor. And outside of Cairo, how many people support the immediate removal of Mubarak?

Don't get me wrong. Egypt is moving in the right direction and the protests have opened the door for political change and greater freedom. But should the door be flung wide open?

Social Media

Yes, I'll eventually get to writing about all the protests in the Middle East but I wanted to write a post on this piece from Foreign Affairs on the political power of social media.
As Clay Shirky notes, much hype has been made about the potential power of twitter, facebook, and other social media outlets to topple regimes. Shirky believes the U.S. government's support of internet freedom is misguided. Currently, the U.S. takes an "instrumental approach" to internet freedom: preventing states from blocking access to sites like google or twitter or promoting internet freedom in support of immediate causes.

Rather than looking at social media from a myopic, short-term, country specific point of view, we need to understand that the "potential of social media lies mainly in their support of civil society and the public sphere." At this point, I was pleasantly surprised to find a reference to Jurgen Habermas on the pages of what is otherwise known as a policy-wonkish journal. Clearly, Shirky believes any positive change (read democratization) must follow the development of a strong public sphere. This is where social media's promise lies: in its ability to shape and strengthen the public sphere and civil society. Social media provides new outlets for citizens to air new ideas, discourse, and public debate.

So here's the punch line from Shirky, "The environmental view (as opposed to the instrumental view) assumes that little political change happens without the dissemination and adoption of ideas and opinions in the public sphere. Access to information is far less important, politically, than access to conversation...Social media increases shared awareness (the ability of each member of a group to not only understand the situation at hand but also understand that everyone else does, too) by propagating messages through social networks."

I agree that the effects of social media are more significant in the long-term. But just like the printing press, newspaper, telephone, and radio, activists have seized on new technology to expand mobilization resources and develop new repetoires of contention. And perhaps most importantly, social media faciliates in real-time the transnational diffusion of protests. Twitter and cell phones will never bring down a regime. But it can certainly facilitate the coordination of activists during mobilization and help rally international support.

Revolution, Revolts, and US Foreign Policy

Do protests send signals to Washington policymakers, shaping US foreign policy. What are the int'l effects of protests? A theme which I'll certainly revisit since I'm teaching a course on this topic now.