Hang In There

I’m presently piggy-backing on a neighbour’s wireless signal. It’s such a finnicky and slow connection I dare not even take the time to insert a funny picture or post any commentary.

Just saying hi – and remember, I’ll be back in no time.

Your correspondent from this hellish world of communications-technology barbarity,
M

Stay Put

Nothing worse than getting some momentum going then losing one’s footing.

I’ve recently moved to a new residence and my cable and internet provider has signalled, in various and several ways, its cavalier disregard for my journalistic endeavours.

At the very latest, we’ll be back at full speed in three weeks.

Keep Checking Regularly!

Best,

M

Gordon Brown on Russia

Gordon Brown offers a firm but calm response to the Georgian problem, as reported at the BBC:

Mr Brown said: “When Russia has a grievance over an issue such as South Ossetia, it should act multilaterally by consent rather than unilaterally by force.”

He went on: “My message to Russia is simple. If you want to be welcome at the top table of organisations such as the G8, OECD and WTO, you must accept that with rights come responsibilities.

“We want Russia to be a good partner in the G8 and other organisations, but it cannot pick and choose which rules to adhere to.

… and a little further down:

“And, in the light of Russian actions, the EU should review – root and branch – our relationship with Russia.”

He added: “We are also reflecting on the Nato response. We must re-evaluate the alliance’s relationship with Russia, and intensify our support to Georgia and others who may face Russian aggression.”

Mr Brown also said the summit “must add urgency to the work on Europe’s energy agenda”.

“We must more rapidly build relationships with other producers of oil and gas,” Mr Brown said.

_______________

No grandstanding and no hyperbole. Just a clear resolve to preserve the norms of the international order. The British Ministry deserve credit for their composure throughout the recent turmoil.

And we should welcome France’s leadership on the issue as well. President Sarkozy has done a good job lowering tensions and taking the lead on the West’s diplomatic response to the Russo-Georgian skirmish.
_______________

Perhaps Russia’s bellicosity will breathe new life into the Western alliance.

It’s so crazy it just might work.

On Palin

Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska)

_______________

Analysis

Pros

• She’ll help McCain appeal to “disenfranchised” Clinton Democrats. Probably in a big way.
• She’ll re-enforce McCain’s maverick image, being a corruption-fighter, an outsider, etc., etc…
• She’ll energise the conservative base of the GOP.
• Every time the Democrats question her experience, Republicans can remind Americans that she has at least as much professional political experience than Obama. She’s actually *run* something.

Cons

• Whilst she’s got as much professional political experience than the top of the Democratic ticket, Obama is at least an intellectual heavyweight. As a constitutional law professor as the University of Chicago, no one doubts his commitment to law and government as an intellectual and moral practice. That’s not nothing, even though it’s perfectly fair for Republicans to play the ‘Not Ready’ card.
• Her selection as the Republican no. 2 just doesn’t pass the smell test. Something happens to J-Mac and it’s President Palin? Come, now. There is just no evidence she’s got the character, wisdom or experience to be Commander in Chief.

_______________

This is a great political choice that changes the game, helps McCain reclaim his brand, ends the Democratic Convention coverage and makes life much harder for the Opposition.

But in a very simple and profound way, it may also be an irresponsible choice.

_______________

We’re talking about Rome, here. And we’re talking about the brand new governor of Alaska.

Meet Number Two

Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska)

_______________

No, seriously.

Bio here.

Commentary later.

Sacrifice Medal

Canada's New Honour: The Sacrifice Medal

According to the CBC:

OTTAWA – The Governor General has announced the creation of a new medal equivalent to the U.S. Purple Heart.

The Sacrifice Medal will be awarded to military personnel, members of allied forces or Canadian civilians working under the authority of the Canadian Forces who suffered wounds or death caused by hostile action, on or after Oct. 7, 2001.

…

The silver circular medal is 36 millimetres across, has a claw at the top of it in the form of the Royal Crown, and is attached to a straight slotted bar under a red, black and white ribbon.

There’s a profile of the Queen on one side wearing a crown of maple leaves and snow flakes, and an image from the Vimy Memorial on the other side with the word “Sacrifice.”

Until now, Canadian soldiers wounded in action received “wound stripes” to be worn on the forearm of their uniforms.

_______________

First of all, the new medal looks sharp and weaves together important elements of Canadian nationalism.

There is a legitimate question, though, as to whether it is prudent to so acutely distinguish, via the honours system, between soldiers who’ve been wounded and those who haven’t. An infantryman who suffers wounds in the defence of Her Majesty’s interests in Afghanistan is no more brave than his mate who, fighting from the same position, suffered no such physical wound.

Just an observation.

Oh Puhleeze

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (h/t: Nearabroad.wordpress.com)

Uncle Vlad’s at it again.

Here’s NYT:

MOSCOW — As Russia struggled to rally international support for its military action in Georgia, Vladimir V. Putin, the country’s paramount leader, lashed out at the United States on Thursday, contending that the White House may have orchestrated the conflict to benefit one of the candidates in the American presidential election.

…

“The suspicion would arise that someone in the United States created this conflict on purpose to stir up the situation and to create an advantage for one of the candidates in the competitive race for the presidency in the United States,” Mr. Putin said in an interview with CNN.

He added, “They needed a small victorious war.”
_______________

_______________

McCain Veep Watch

Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA, ret'd)

Well, it’s not Pawlenty.

As I said before, I think Romney’s the guy. He’s polished, capable, bright and has presidential bearing. Of all the names that have made their way onto the Republican VP short-list, Romney’s the one I’d trust most with the presidency.
_______________

UPDATE: Check out McCain’s campaign website. Is it just me, or does it look atrocious? Why is it blue – isn’t that colour already spoken for? And what’s with the “Reform, Prosperity, Peace” bit? It’s been done.

Obama’s reasonably good speech last night notwithstanding, the “Country First’ theme was much better.

UPDATE II: Uh-oh.

UPDATE III: According to the BBC, it’s Palin.

More on the Russian Resurgence

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev

The Economist, anti-climactically, has a great write-up on the on-going Russian problem.

In particular, the article talks about the likely outcome of Russia recognising Abkhazia and S. Ossettia as independent states:

Russia likes to draw parallels with Kosovo—a state carved out of Serbia as a result of Western military intervention. But the parallel is superficial. Few embassies will open in South Ossetia (which, following the ethnic cleansing of its Georgian population, has a population little bigger than that of Liechtenstein). Close Russian allies such as Belarus and Tajikistan will be keen to put on a show of support. Others may be more chary of recognising Russian puppet states as independent countries. Moldova and Azerbaijan, for example, have headaches with similar entities, Transdniestria and Nagorno-Karabakh. Like South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they are the result of ethnic flare-ups in the dying days of the Soviet Union. Russian allies farther afield, such as Venezuela and Cuba, may be tempted to join in the humiliation of the West.

As Matt reminded us yesterday over at Foreign Policy Watch, the similarity between recognising Kosovo and recognising these break-away regions may indeed be “superficial” as The Economist claims. But distinctions between these scenarios matters less than the fact that it’s happening at all. Far less. Politics is politics, and now both sides have fodder.
_______________

The article’s second major theme deals with Russia’s willingness to buck the West:

… for now, criticism of the Kremlin’s actions in Georgia seems to be fuelling the Russian leadership’s determination to do more of the same. Public opinion seems strongly behind the muscular new foreign policy, seeing it as a sign that Russia has recovered from the weakness of the 1990s. Russia seems not to care that Western countries are now threatening to block its membership of the World Trade Organisation.

Indeed, Russia feels it can easily withstand Western displeasure. Soaring oil and gas prices have put nearly $600 billion in its hard-currency reserves. Many Russians reckon that in the end the big European countries that matter will decide that they care more about trade ties and reliable energy supplies than they do about Georgia. On the evidence so far, that assessment may be correct.

This is certainly likely, if not cast in stone.
_______________

This whole kerfuffle begs international affairs watchers to challenge some of the underlying assumptions in the younger Bush’s foreign policy. All the talk about democracy and human rights binds American prestige to all democracies, whatever their strategic importance or irrelevance. Did President Bush (or, let’s be honest, most of the rest of us) really consider what the US would have to do in order to match its rhetoric in the event of great power tinkering in sovereign states?

Therein lies the problem of the Bush Doctrine. It is not realism; it is wild-eyed idealism, and it is only under-written by hard power to the extent Americans are willing to go to war for countries like Georgia.

For that matter, should America be willing to go to war over Georgia? I imagine a lot of us are struggling with that question right now. But let us at least admit that the answer is not self-evident. Georgia is not virginally pure in all that’s gone on. It was Georgia that altered the status quo.
_______________

Which brings us to GOP presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) comments that “today, we are all Georgians.” He’s been assailed over this by lots of armchair foreign ministers, so I’ll refrain from passing judgement.

Regardless of my sincere admiration for Senator McCain, he, like Obama, seems torn in several different directions on foreign policy. Is he a neo-conservative or a realist? For that matter, is it evidently true that his views are informed by an ideological commitment? Is his tendency to escalate conflicts an expression of sound strategic planning as opposed to nationalist zeal?

Though I intuitively trust McCain on foreign policy, and his visceral instincts resonate with me, the ambiguity remains a bit troubling.

More Fall Election Speculation

Her Majesty's First Minister, Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper

Interesting piece in G&M.

Tory insiders Tom Flanagan and Bob Plamondon offer competing perspectives on Harperite strategery.

Here’s Flanagan’s view:

“I don’t think Harper has to be thinking about a majority at all,” Mr. Flanagan said in an interview.

“Strategically, this is sort of a prolonged war of attrition.”

As Mr. Flanagan sees it, the first major battle in this incremental war occurred in 2004, when Mr. Harper managed to reduce Paul Martin’s Liberals to a minority. In the second clash in 2006, Mr. Harper won his own Conservative minority.

The third skirmish, which Mr. Harper appears set to launch next week, likely won’t kill what Mr. Flanagan jokingly refers to as “the evil empire.” But, if the Tories can win a few more seats at the Liberals’ expense — an outcome Mr. Flanagan considers realistic given Mr. Harper’s superior campaign skills and the Tories’ fatter war chest — he predicted that would be enough to throw the Grits into a long-term tailspin that could eventually lead to their demise.

Essentially, Flanagan thinks that, per usual, Stephen Harper’s “playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers”, to steal an Andrew Coyne-ism. The long term goal is to bring down the Liberal Party of Canada, replacing them as this country’ default governing party.
_______________

And here’s Plamondon’s view:

As plausible as the various theories on what’s motivating Mr. Harper may be, Tory insider Bob Plamondon suspects only one thing would push Mr. Harper “over the edge” into an election: the prospect of winning a majority.

“I suspect that there’s some pretty strong or in-depth party polls that are riding by riding, that are persuading him that his chances are pretty good right now,” said Mr. Plamondon, author of a soon-to-be-released book chronicling the successes and failures of the Conservative party since Confederation.

“There may be some inner confidence that they can move those numbers closer to a majority.”

Plamondon is apparently of the view that Harper genuinely thinks he can pull off a majority win.
_______________

Flanagan’s take seems a bit more plausible to me. I generally agree with the view that another Conservative minority, especially if it is buoyed by even modest electoral gains, would really throw the Grits into a tailspin.