OBAMA REELECTION CONFIRMS SHIFT IN US STRATEGIC CULTURE (IRSEM)

The reelection of Barack Obama confirms a shift in American strategic culture and has served to highlight deep and meaningful demographic and ideological transformations in the American electorate and in its foreign political preferences.

SACEUR ADM. STAVRIDIS IN PARIS: EUROPE, NATO'S 21ST CENTURY SECURITY CHALLENGES

In a discussion held in Paris yesterday evening, the SACEUR, Admiral James Stavridis, laid out his 21st Century vision for European security, citing the principal challenges facing the European space (more broadly, NATO) and emphasizing possibility therein for Alliance members to pool resources, ideas and money to innovate solutions.

The list of challenges largely echoes the political imperatives set forth by Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Daalder during their own recent visits to Paris and demonstrates the coherence in the Administration’s line on its policy priorities. The real challenges evoked by Admiral Stavridis can also be read as a wish list, a call to action even, of ways that the US would like to see Europe increase its leadership vis-à-vis the transatlantic relationship.

Beyond the list of challenges cited below, the Admiral vividly advocated that Europe get on board to forge meaningful strategic cooperation with Russia including eventual missile defense, to increase Euro-American manufacturing and industrial ties in the construction of defense materials, and to carve out a more significant role for Turkey in order to maximize its potentially prodigious geopolitical ramifications for the West (but stopped short of calling for EU membership).

Key Challenges:

-Demography: especially the decline in Europe’s population
-Afghanistan: progress is steady, but new avenues of cooperation are essential (public-private partnerships) as is increased focus on civilians (literacy, education initiatives) and better communication with populations
-Ballistic Missiles: many of which are in attack range of the EU
-Terrorism: ultimately a law enforcement issue to be supported by military competences; highlighted point that terrorism poses direct threat to EU soil
-Narcotics: high human costs (deaths, addiction, trafficking of persons) as well as robust financing source for terrorism and corruption
-Flow of Illegal Immigrants: vulnerability to the entry of persons with weapons (possibly nuclear)
-Pirates
-Cybersecurity: special need to protect finance and transportation structures
-Natural Disasters and rapid response capability
-Managing Public Perception of NATO’s actions in the world

Passing mention was also made to Energy Security, more specifically to water, as the Admiral advocated for markets to handle resource management and for governments to manage the related infrastructure issues.

- Amy Greene

GATES MEMO LEAK: US LACKS EFFECTIVE IRAN POLICY

The New York Times reports Sunday on a leaked January 2010 classified memo, authored by Secretary of Defense Gates for NSA Jones issuing a "stark warning" that the United States [wa]s not adequately prepared" in the face of a nuclear-ambitious Iran.

Among Gates's primary concerns:

- What US response should Iran assemble all elements necessary to create a nuclear weapon without actually continuing on to actually assemble a usable bomb.

- Need "new thinking" about how to contain Iran if it chooses to produce a bomb, and how to prevent Iran's state-sponsored terrorist groups from gaining access to the same.

- Discussion of secret operations against Iran and how to best manage Gulf alliances.

Though the administration insists that Gates' memo did not provoke a dramatic shift in its ongoing efforts to devise policy, it does signal the difficulty in both generating new non-military responses and in breaking with Bush-era continuity. Despite the tonal shift and an effort to engage Tehran, Obama has found it difficult to generate global enthusiasm for a new round of sanctions just as Iran allowed his deadline for negotiations to lapse in late 2009.

UPDATE: CNN reports on Gates' response.

- Amy Greene

AIPAC 2010: NO END TO THE IMPASSE

Hillary Clinton's speech to the 2010 meeting of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in Washington on March 22 was, with few exceptions, a conciliatory exercise that did little to chafe the Israel lobby and even less reassure skeptics of the US's role in brokering a viable peace. Without defining any concrete next steps, Clinton nonetheless affirmed her personal support of the Jewish state and described America's commitment to it as “rock solid, unwavering, enduring and forever.”

Here are some highlights from Clinton's speech to AIPAC:
- Explicit nod to the broad regional implications of Israel's refusal to change policies, including several mentions to the legitimate right of Palestinian people to thrive in freedom and peace.

- Unequivocal US support for two-state solution according to 1967 lines, stop to settlement-building, and normalization of Israel's regional relations including with Syria. Affirmed Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist organizations" while calling for sanctions that "bite" against an Iran with unrelenting nuclear ambitions.

- Argued that untenability of status quo obliges Israel to change course: demographic reality does not favor Israel; technological advances make more difficult the task of protecting Israel's security through military means alone; and the status quo fuels violent extremist ideology that ultimately jeopardizes peace/security and fuels peace rejectionists' ambitions.

Following Clinton's speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Secretary Clinton then with Vice President Biden. Whatever was said during these sessions, Israeli leaders were not persuaded to change the status quo that Clinton decried in her remarks. For that same evening, before the same conference, Netanyahu categorically refused to stop construction of settlements and insisted that Jerusalem belongs to Israel. This following the "insult" of announcing new settlements during the recent visit of Biden, a staunch long-time advocate for Israel.

Netanyahu's rebuke of the US appears driven by a motivation to resist any push-back from President Obama (however mild it has now proven to be) with the hope of making him a one-term president in order to demonstrate that no US politician can stand firm against Israel nor derail its chosen policies and still remain politically viable. This is an interesting gamble given recent poll results showing Israeli public opinion favoring Obama and showing less enthusiasm for Netanyahu and his Likud party.

The US pays a tremendous amount in annual bilateral aid to be treated as such. More disappointing still is the prospect that the administration lacks the strategic vision and political courage necessary to move beyond lukewarm declarations and to apply effective pressure in the face of opposition in order to yield meaningful results.

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are expected to meet behind closed doors at the White House on Tuesday, March 23.

- Amy Greene

OBAMA AND GATES: (IN)COMPATIBLE IDEAS ABOUT NUCLEAR SECURITY?

Josh Gerstein at Politico published an account of President Obama's and Secretary Gates's contradictory stances over the development of new nuclear weapons. Obama wants significant reductions in pursuit of a zero-nuke world, whereas Gates has long advocated for sufficient investments to modernize US arsenals. For Gates, re-engineering and modifying current stocks is essential to national security - but at a certain point, and in light of the testing moratorium, old weapons eventually become unreliable and need to be refurbished.

Biden's recent speech on the future of America's nuclear security could then be viewed as a nod to Gates - the unprecedented funding of nuclear technology labs would thus be viewed as a compromise between Obama's refusal to incorporate new nuclear weapons into the 2011 budget and Gates's position on the need to have the most up-to-date and sophisticated mastery of the technological landscape. And the huge influx of funding to the Pentagon would certainly cause no offense.

Ultimately, Gates wants to ensure that US security needs are met through the proper upkeep, updating, and judicious development of nuclear weaponry. He said in September 2009: “We have no desire for new capabilities. That's a red herring. [...] This is about modernizing and keeping safe a capability that everyone acknowledges we will have to have for some considerable period into the future.”

Whether or not Gates himself is satisfied with the emerging administration posture, arms control advocates wonder if the proposed 2011 nuclear lab funding increases could lead to building new nuclear weapons down the road. According to Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund, "“That’s a very fair concern,” Cirincione said. “People will be taking a very close look at what the posture review says about the Life Extension Program for exactly this reason."

- Amy Greene

BIDEN @ NDU: MAJOR NUCLEAR SECURITY SPEECH

On February 18, 2010 Vice President Biden addressed the National Defense University in Washington, DC in the presence of Secretaries Gates (Defense) and Chu (Energy) and Undersecretary Ellen Tauscher.

The remarks were given following the recent release of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review and Ballistic Missile Defense Review.

Biden's aim was to convince the American political Left and Right - and the world - that the administration's recent decision to heavily fund nuclear laboratories is both credible and coherent with its ambitious nonproliferation discourse.

What to Note:
1. The administration views new states proliferation as "the greatest threat facing America," one that could provoke regional destabilization and arms races. In order to stave of its own need to use nuclear and allow for deep reductions in the future, Washington seeks to combine the full range and power of its conventional warheads with adaptive missile defense while still pursuing Obama's Prague Agenda.

2. The role of nuclear weapons laboratories is key to Obama's overall strategy. The decision was made to boost funding for nuclear labs to $7 billion, up by more than a half of a billion dollars and amounting to a $5 billion increase over 5 years. The objective? To manage and guarantee the US arsenal without testing -- safekeeping today means easier dismantling tomorrow; r&d for new means of proliferation helps to track and monitor those seeking such advances.

3. The US seeks to implement its ambitious nonproliferation goals by rallying international consensus and bolstering the nonproliferation regime's cornerstone initiatives (NPT, CTBT, START, United Nations).

4. America is serious about pushing a fissile material ban, despite numerous past setbacks, and will vigorously aim to ratify the CTBT.

5. The Obama administration has an agenda heavy with nonproliferation action: the coming release of the US Nuclear Posture Review, ongoing START follow-up negotiations, April 2010 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, NPT Review Conference in May 2010.

While the promise to maintain America's military supremacy through conventional weaponry/missile defense may satisfy some, how will it persuade others to forgo their existing nuclear stocks or efforts to access nuclear when the alternative is the US's unmitigated conventional artillery? For certain nations with no conceivable recourse to even the milder register of American military might, how will this declaration by Biden incentivize them to step away from their current nuclear holdings or ambitions?

- Amy Greene

Click for Full Transcript of Biden's Speech (White House)

HILLARY CLINTON IN PARIS: MAJOR ADDRESS ON EUROPEAN SECURITY

This afternoon, January 29, Secretary Clinton delivered a major address on European Security in conjunction with the US Embassy and IRSEM, the Ministry of Defense's strategic studies think tank (Institut de Recherche Stratégique de l'Ecole Militaire).

While emphasizing the need for collective European-American responses to delicately interlaced global challenges, Clinton voiced her support for the Lisbon Treaty, Europe's decision-making autonomy, and praised Europe as a model of transformative power. Though she did mention areas for improvement (need for democratization in certain zones, increased economic opportunity, revamped arms control regime and updated EU/North American institutions fit to manage new problems) and new frontiers for collaboration (cyberterror, terrorism, climate change, energy security).

While assuring the audience that the US's security is anchored in Europe ("Much of what we hope to achieve globally depends on our European partners") based largely on shared, universal values, Clinton asserted the six core principles guiding America's views on European security:

1. Sovereignty of All States to choose allies, provide for their defense, and define boundaries while rejecting claims to spheres of influence.

2. Indivisibility of European Security - there is one Europe with the US as its partner, and sometimes Russia too. It is time to move beyond false divisions (ie: NATO v. non-NATO, EU v; non-EU, etc.) in order to meet common goals.

3. Unwavering Commitment to Article V of NATO - the US will use missile defense to protect all NATO territory. The US is working to engage Moscow to convince it of the stake Russia holds in the presence of nearby missile defense.

4. Practicing Transparency in Dealing with Europe - global threats demand more open exchanges between militaries (info, exercises, site visits). The US supports a revived CFE Treaty for a modern security framework that limits deployment, reinforces territorial integrity, and meets new challenges.

5. Commitment to Non-Proliferation through support of existing treaties, negotiation of new nuclear posture, press other nations to reduce their arsenals and secure stocks.

6. Support Democratization Efforts in order to nourish free expression, encourage development, and end abuses like human trafficking. In this context, the US strongly supports strengthening the OSCE.

Other central topics raised by Clinton:
- Russia: engagement to meet challenges like Iran, climate change, energy security, and non-proliferation.
- China: use a mix of existing institutions to work with Beijing. Key elements: promote military transparency, convince them to sanction Iran, include them in strategic moves like the North Korea talks
- NATO Enlargement: Clinton voiced support for ongoing NATO enlargement plans with Eastern European nations. When this author asked about including non-Western nations who meet membership criteria, Clinton opposed stretching NATO's geography but cited NATO/ISAF as an example of successful cross-hemisphere cooperation that could be applied to other issues like cyberterror.

Click HERE for full text, taken from the State Department.

- Amy Greene