John Podhoretz has done an excellent job in trying to provide some clarity on the immigration debate by understanding that what is the “immigration debates” is actually three different, but overlapping debates:

There are really three immigration debates. There is the cultural debate, there is the economic debate, and there is the security debate. (Emphasis StrategyUnit’s) On matters of culture, I believe as everybody else here does that our immigration policy makes no sense if it is not directed at the process of turning non-Americans into Americans through the instruction of English, knowledge of civics and American history, and helping to instill a sense of pride and commitment to the country.

On economic matters, I agree that if immigrants are not of net benefit to the country, it makes no sense for us to allow newcomers to do harm in this way — and here, in my opinion, the case made by restrictionists is by far the weakest. On security matters, an uncontrolled border is clearly unacceptable, and a panoply of measures, including a border fence, is more than called for.

As for dealing with the illegals already here, there’s a sense in which this debate has been radicalized to such an extent that the Right won’t be satisfied with a policy that does not explicitly advocate expulsion — all other policies being dubbed “amnesty” and therefore illegitimate — while the Left refuses to consider any policy other than special-treatment affirmative-action line-jumping legalization. In other words, there is nothing our politicians can do, absolutely nothing, to satisfy the activists — because neither extreme will be reflected in any kind of law or policy that emerges even from a Washington energized to deal with them. (link)

All discussions on immigration must be careful to not freely mesh-up these differing strands (intertwined as they may be at times) – cultural, economic and security spheres.

Immigration – An International Issue
While the US debates and (hopefully) finds its own path towards intelligently reforming the process of immigration – from Europe to Africa. Note also how these select news items below (by no means representative or exhaustive) can under the issues of security, culture and economic.

Botswana (Via AfricanFiles):
” Zimbabweans are fleeing their politically and economically troubled nation in large numbers. The relatively prosperous Botswanans resent this influx as a threat to their livelihoods, especially the possibility of the spread of foot and mouth disease to their cattle, their second largest earner after diamonds. The electrified fence Botswana is building along the border is viewed by one group as a barrier against animals; it is considered an insult to humans by the other.”

Spain – (Jamestown Foundation, 04 May 2006):
“Spanish security officials continue to worry that members of al-Qaeda will take advantage of the clandestine immigration pipeline route by inserting terrorists to make their way to either the enclaves or to the Spanish mainland. To this regard, the Directorate General of National police recently advertised 357 posts for anti-terrorist officers to monitor potential Islamists in areas where the presence of Muslim immigrants is well known, such as Melilla, Ceuta, Granada, Malaga and Alicante.”

Belgium (Via Brussels Report, 11 May 2006):
“The crisis between the Catholic Church and the government is escalating in Belgium. So far over 30 Belgian churches have been occupied by illegal immigrants or so-called “sans papiers” (“people without papers” [=staying permits]). The latest church taken over by squatters is the Saint Susanna Church in the Brussels borough of Schaarbeek, where a group of thirty women with small children have installed themselves. They were invited in by the local parish priest.”

Conclusion
Immigration is an issue that is not going away. Any historian will tell you that the migration of people has been a fact of human history well before the development of states and of nations. It is simply that globalization has accelerated the course of human migration as compared to decades pasts.

Understanding how to deal with immigration – from the cultural, economic, and security perspectives – will be an important factor in the success of many states, be it those in Europe, United States to Botswana to Japan.

A state built as an anti-immigration fortress will fail in its isolation, but an open door policy may bring more change than a state and its society can be able and willing to handle. As with all things, it is through the middle we will find the answer. I hope that the leaders – in political circles and activist groups – in the US will understand this.

Summary
In a move echoing Nixon’s trip to China, India and the US have announced a groundbreaking nuclear deal, which many have warned as “Nuclear Madness” helping to accelerate dangerous nuclear proliferation. “Unsettling” this thought is, the reality is that nuclear proliferation cannot be stopped, so the US must well to play the nuclear card when it can. The hope is that this deal is the beginning of growing closer ties between the two world’s leading and largest democracies, which includes the recognition of a new Core power into the fold of the Core states.

The great challenge is for the Post-Bush Administration to carry on with increasing US ties with India for the Bush Administration and the one after to resist temptations to make India a bulwark against China. India is too confident, important and practical to be a pawn for the US; hopefully, the US will not only recognize that, but can see India as a way for bringing more stability to the South Asia and its neighboring region and expanding the Core. India should not play any role in competing against China, but rather help bring China in to the Core as a responsible and productive partner.

Click here for further analysis including sections on:
- Nuclear Fears
- Risking Nuclear Issues for New Realities
- India and the Anglosphere? And What about China?

Related Past Postings:

1. Needed in Asia: Security and Energy Cooperation”
2. Year of Chinese-Indian Friendship…on Oil?
3. Getting India Right : Recreating the Anglosphere

Nuclear Fears
The grand deal between India and the US on India’s nuclear program was seen as a major concession by the US to India (at what many say, a high cost), as the Economist (March 02) reports:

Details of the final separation plan have yet to be made public. It is understood to list as civilian 14 out of 22 reactors, accounting for some 65% of india’s nuclear-power capacity. India will have the right to choose how to classify any future reactors. In return for assurances about the supply of nuclear fuel, it has accepted that once it has put a nuclear facility under international safeguards, it will not be able to withdraw it. These arrangements—giving India far more leeway than America had been demanding—may not be enough to enable Mr Bush to fulfil his offer to amend American laws and persuade other countries to change international rules which prevent nuclear trade with states that do not accept full safeguards.

Many fear that the weakening of the NPT and nuclear proliferation will be the prime consequence of the nuclear deal, especially considering questions on India’s nuclear weapons ambitions. The Economist notes that India has arguing against any agreement that would cap their ability to rapidly produce plutonium (fast-breeder reactor), raising fear of India’s nuclear ambitions especially when it initially stated that it would produce only enough to deter as a defensive weapon. Bob Herbert of NY Time, expresses such fears, when he calls the US-India nuclear deal “Nuclear Madness”

Additionally, there’s the question of the difference between India and Iran (despite that fact has signed the NPT, and India has not signed the NPT). Indeed, this Monday, the US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns stated that “while Tehran was trying to extricate itself from the obligations to the IAEA, India was moving towards it. ‘India is the responsible one, Iran is the irresponsible one,’ he said.”

Risking Nuclear Issues for New Realities
While everyone has been concentrating on the nuclear consequences, especially on nuclear proliferation vis-à-vis Iran and North Korea, a wider dimension is required than the limited view of nuclear weapons.

As William Langewiesche of the Atlantic has pointed out proliferation is at the “Point of No Return”, so any analysis on the Indian nuclear deal must understand that the risk of proliferation is not as great when measured against getting building a relationship with a major New Core power.

The Economist does rightfully warns that are “there are plenty of opportunities for the world’s richest democracy and its largest to cement their friendship. Helping India to hone its nuclear skills is hardly a good place to start.” However, its misses the point that China, Russia and Japan can also offer India business deals and even coordination on hydrocarbon energy policy, but blessings on a nuclear program is something only the United States can do at this time.

If the US can reach out to India by addressing its security needs – especially difficult considering India’s energy dealing and stance on Iran and on US relationship with Pakistan – the US can then take the next steps of furthering and sealing economic ties, helping solidify India’s place in the Core and in the Anglosphere. Indeed, beyond helping India both modernize and normalize its nuclear energy program, what else does the US offer that China, Japan and Russia cannot readily offer as well?

Security has to be the foundation of a US-India and eventually an Anglosphere alliance, economics and energy will help solidify it.

India and the Anglosphere, but what about China?
Stephen Green of VodkaPundit is a little too eager when he announces “Welcome to the Anglosphere, India” last Thursday, a single deal wont make an Anglosphere with India a fait compli. But, its a great step indeed.

A number of pundits have commented on India as a potential counterweight against China. This is seen not only by folks in the US but Australia, Indonesia, Japan and others. But this is a false a dangerous hope.

Firstly, China is not a threat as long as it can become ever more integrated with the Old and New Core in the economics. An embraced China is less of a threat than an encircled stubborn China.

Secondly, India (like China) are too much of pragmatist and confident to acquiesce itself as a pawn in Washington’s game. India is recognizing its place in the world as a major partner and will pursue its interests as it sees fit, even if it means friction with the US.

The Bush Administration risked nuclear proliferation and the NPT to bring closer ties with India, recognizing that a new world paradigm is shaping up. Hopefully, the Bush Administration and one after take the next step to not only strengthen ties with India but also reach out to China.

On Slate Magazine today, Francis Fukayama’s “Europe vs. Radical Islam” takes to tasks the rash of “decline of Europe, raise of Eurabia” books that have been hitting American shelves lately, specifically “The West’s Last Chance” by Tony Blankley and “While Europe Slept” by Bruce Bawer. However, Fukayama focuses on the most extreme and perhaps even founder of the “decline of the West” crowd: Pat Buchanan’s “Decline of the West”.

Oddly and disappointingly, Fukayama skips over Bat Ye’or “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis “, though he mentions the word. Its a shame because Eurabia is probably the most credible of all four books that addresses the subject with the fullest sense of reason and moderation with no wild scenerios like the type Blankey represents. Why this major omission?

Regardless, I believe Fukayama goes to the heart of the issue of Muslims in Europe and shifts the question on the need for Europeans to redefine what it means to be British, French, Germany…what it means to be European:

The problem that most Europeans face today is that they don’t have a vision of the kinds of positive cultural values their societies stand for and should promote, other than endless tolerance and moral relativism. What each European society needs is to invent an open form of national identity similar to the American creed, an identity that is accessible to newcomers regardless of ethnicity or religion. This was the idea behind Bassam Tibi’s concept of Leitkultur (guiding or reference culture), the notion that the European Enlightenment gave rise to a distinct and positive universalist culture based on the dignity of the individual. Muslims coming to Europe would be minimally expected to accept this perspective as their own. The German Christian Democrats timidly endorsed a version of this five years ago, only to retreat in the face of charges of racism and anti-immigrant prejudice from the left. Interest in a “demokratische Leitkultur” has been revived in the wake of recent events, however, and a vigorous debate has opened up over how to define it. There will be many missteps along the way: The state of Baden-Württemberg, for example, recently introduced a test that would require the respondent to support gay marriage as a condition for citizenship, something deliberately designed to exclude Muslims.

Time is getting short to address these questions. Europeans should have started a discussion about how to integrate their Muslim minorities a generation ago, before the winds of radical Islamism had started to blow. The cartoon controversy, while beginning with a commendable European desire to assert basic liberal values, may constitute a Rubicon that will be very hard to re-cross. We should be alarmed at the scope of the problem, but prudent in responding to it, since escalating cultural conflict throughout the Continent will bring us closer to a showdown between Islamists and secularists that will increasingly look like a clash of civilizations.

Fukayama nails on the head that Europe needs to find out what being European means before they began a process of incorporating other groups into their societies. The threat of a “Clash of Civlizations” in Europe is very real but fortunately has not fully materialized yet. Time is running short, but that doesnt mean its too late.

While the need for a security forum is apparent to all players involved, the specific issue that should help bring a security forum into fruitarian is Energy Security. The need for energy security coordination in a region highly dependent on imported oil is well overdue.

Indeed, even in the OSCE, the current chairman has called for a conference for all OSCE members to discuss the need for better coordination on energy security matters. It is time for the even more imported energy dependent nations of Asia to do the same and much more.

Introduction
Many pundits have been talking about the Asian Century; indeed, the Economist recently ended its special report” article on India with “Tomorrow belongs to Asia”. Asia has been roaring ahead in economics, technology, science and beginning to match such might with political and military power. Yet, there lacks an mechanism to discussion security issues and more importantly coordinate on energy issues

Asia is home to many of the biggest importer of oil, such as China (40%), India (70%), South Korea (~100%) and Japan (~100%), who are also additionally major players in the world economy. Taken into account that some experts have claimed Peak Oil has already passed (December 16, 2006), we see the dire need for such states, many with rapidly growing economies, to take energy security extremely seriously.

Setting-Up Energy Cooperation
As StrategyUnit has mentioned, China and India has already made some steps into energy cooperation, but there is a need for a more formal network towards regional security and coordination in energy security. An organization similar to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is in order to coordinately, share and develop market strategies that benefit all the players in the region, including Russia and the United States. Cooperation/coordination on energy-conservation, diversification of energy types and sources and transportation of energy resources are key areas deserving attention by all states in the region.

A forum that would enable cooperation, coordination and (at least) discussion on energy matters would also lessen the occurence of fierce competiton of energy resources that could lead to unnecessary friction and strain among the Asian states.

The ASEAN, APEC and the East Asian Summit are either not effective enough or does not includes Russia, the United States and India. The participating states in the Six-Party talks (North Korea excluded) along with India should be the initial members in this security organization. Having all states from Burma to the Philippines would prove too unwieldy.

Conclusion
Will such an organization ever appear? In the short-term, there appears to be no major players willing to publicly support such a move, but the India-China cooperation is a sign that in the medium-long term momentum may build as it will become obvious that regional energy cooperation is to the benefit of all.

The one issue fo the United States is Iran, as any talk of energy security would invovle China and India’s energy dealings with Iran. But, ultimately, the US cannot let this one issue (albiet a major issue) lock itself out from having any positive influence in contributing to the energy and security discussions of the growing powers in Asia.

Back in January, StrategyUnit posted the article “Iran Crisis: Another War for Oil, Bourse and the US Dollar?” on the scheduled March opening of Iranian oil exchange (bourse), which is based on euros rather than US dollars:

This has fueled (no pun intended) speculation of the real cause of the Iranian crisis. The Iraq War has been criticized as a “War for Oil”. And now, as a second act, there are folks from Daily Kos to Asia Times saying the same of the Iran Crisis. The most aggressive promoter of this view appears to be from Krassimir Petrov.

Indeed, DailyKos writters has also been furthering the Iranian Bourse conspiracy:

“Of course most of the saber-rattling is over Iran’s nuclear program and the word “bourse” is never mentioned. But the IAEA has consistently stated that Iran is in full compliance with its regulations and the conditions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That doesn’t negate Iran’s political alignment and support for terrorism, but their nuclear energy program is hardly the threat it’s made out to be.

Only time will tell whether regime change is in the cards for Iran, especially at the hands of the United States. But the Fed’s quiet decision to no longer print the M3 is definitely quite ominous.”

Yet, interestingly recently (Feb 24) a writter on DailyKos, Jerome a Paris, writes to counter the other DailyKos writters:

“Crazy scenarios involving Iran’s purported attempts to create an oil bourse to start selling oil in euros make the rounds regularly, and even get recommended with alacrity on DKos.

These things WILL NOT HAPPEN, and we have, as a supposedly reality-based community, to focus on real issues and not imaginary ones.

So let me explain why an Iranian oil bourse will not work for the foreseeable future. I hope that this diary can be used as a handy reference when this crops up again in the future.
…
So, say that Iran decides to sell its oil in euros. Fine. Both the Iranians and their clients will determine the price for the transaction in dollars, on one of the established markets, and will trade these dollars for euros for the actual payment operation. It will give banks active on the forex markets a little bit of income, but will change nothing to how oil is traded.
…
So please, let’s stop the fantaisies, or the conspiracy theories about a switch to euros or a new bourse. If any transaction, whether by Saddam, the Iranians or anyone else is expressed in euros, it is purely cosmetic. The underlying market is in dollars, and will remain that way.

We are badly undermining the credibility of the site by recommending silly scaremongering stories on that topic.”

Indeed. Read the whole thing here.

Congrats to Jerome a Paris and DailyKos for keeping the balance.

There has been discussion that just as Great Britain gracefully passed its world power status to the United States, the United States must look to do the same with India or else face decline in the face of a raising China. But something else that needs as much mentioning is the geopolitical significance of India, being so close to the Middle East and Central Asia (something that the map on the left I hope conveys). It is also India geography that makes it an attractive ally and partner for the United States and the West.

India has moved beyond its former position as “neutral” and leading the non-aligned movement of the Cold War. Today, we see India as a growing high-tech, financial services and biotech powerhouse; and, while India is modernizing its economy like China, it is taking an open and democratic route. And just as US has its roots in the UK, so does India in many ways (beyond colonialism). Indeed, it belongs every bit as much as the Anglosphere, as the other principal members of the Anlgosphere (US, UK, Australia).

In the February-March issue of PolicyReview, Parag Khanna and C. Raja Mohan’s “Getting India Right” outlines a very comprehensive view of the geopolitical history and direction of the Indian state. Its a length article, but worth the read.

Indeed, in order to grow and survive, the United States and the West needs an ally and partner in the New Core, India is that state.

Taking a look at “Getting India Right”
Khanna and Mohan go through the usual argument for why India is an essential and undervalued partner for the United States: 1) Share democratic values, which the PM had recently emphasized; 2) US wants stability in Central Asia and The Middle East, the backyard of India; and 3) India has the ability to engage and limit China.

However, what I would like to share on Khanna and Mohan are some important concepts that should attain wider circulation:

1. The Indian Strategy – Neo-Curzonia, Multi-Alignment
Excerpt:

While there is no guarantee that India will become more allied or aligned, there has been a continuous trajectory toward a diplomatic posture which is perhaps best described as “neo-Curzonian,” after the British imperial viceroy and player of the “Great Game” Lord George Curzon. Ironically, India’s neo-Curzonian worldview is the logical heir to one of the nation’s strategic ur-texts, Kautilya’s fourth-century B.C. Arthashastras, which locates India at the nucleus of concentric rings of potential friends and foes. A neo-Curzonian foreign policy is premised on the logic of Indian centrality, permitting multidirectional engagement — or “multi-alignment” — with all major powers and seeking access and leverage from East Africa to Pacific Asia. Such a forward foreign policy emphasizes the revival of commercial cooperation; building institutional, physical and political links with neighboring regions to circumvent buffer states; developing energy supplies and assets; and pursuing multistate defense agreements and contracts. Today, India has recovered this 360-degree vision, looking west to boost investment from Europe and the Persian Gulf, north to secure stable energy supplies from Central Asia (including Iran), and east for partnerships and free trade agreements with South Korea and Australia. It engages actively in regional fora such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (saarc) and the Association of South East Asian Nations (asean) while not shying away from potential strategic competition with neighbors such as Pakistan and China. Furthermore, it has transitioned from demanding respect on the basis of its nuclear status to proving greatness on the basis of its political and economic accomplishments.

2. India – The Anchor in the Middle East, Central Asia and East Asia
Excerpt:

Historically, the U.S. has viewed the Middle East and Pacific Rim theaters as separate policy realms, with India falling in between and viewed through the exclusive prism of South Asian politics. But India lies at the crossroads of Asia, a factor which was at the heart of British policy towards the East. Only after the Second World War and the partition of the Subcontinent was India’s position weakened, a shift accentuated by India’s socialist and inward-looking policies. Yet as India’s weight grows in the international system, it can become a strong anchor in support of America’s ambition to pursue a liberal order across Eurasia. Indeed, if the U.S. should welcome the emergence of any one Asian power, it should be India, which shares America’s concern over the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, sub-state nuclear proliferation, and China’s ambitions. Furthermore, each Indian election entrenches its status and credibility as the world’s largest democracy, and its growing economic clout and diaspora presence in the U.S. are tying the two societies on opposite sides of the world together as never before. Indeed, there is not a single area in which India’s rise threatens America’s interests.

3. India’s Economy and Demographics v. China’s
Khanna and Mohan both speak of India’s advantages over China, despite China being in the spot light at the moment. China may have the “industrial revolution” in terms of manufacturing, but India is conquering the “information revolution” in the important new service-sector industries. A similar vain was mentioned in Foreign Policy’s “India Outsmarts China” piece, they outline India’s lead in the “knowledge workers” area:IT, financial services, biotech, medical services, etc. See an excerpt of “India Outsmarts China” here.

Another of India’s advantage is its population. India’s population is expected to be reaching its work-force peak in 2015, around the same China’s is expected to shrink and India “may even provide surplus labor to an aging China”. As Khanna and Mohan notes, “India is aging gracefully while China is heading towards an unprecedented challenge of getting old before it gets rich.”.

4. US-India – Building Closer Ties: Immigration and Economic Integretion
Excerpt:

India’s quest to go global has not only reached the United States; in many ways it originates here. Numbering almost two million, Indian-Americans are now the wealthiest ethnic minority in the country, boasting a median income of $60,000 and 200,000 millionaires. Fifteen percent of Silicon Valley start-ups have been launched by Indians, many of them first-generation immigrants who have chosen to make the U.S. their home….Given the Indian diaspora’s contributions to American economic and cultural life, the more than 50 percent decrease in h1-b visas for Indian professionals has been extremely disturbing to Indians in both countries, and the 25 percent drop in mba applicants from India is similarly worrying. If the U.S. does not allow Indian nationals to become Indian-Americans — in a demonstration of American pride, many prefer this term to be de-hyphenated as well — it ignores the Asia Foundation’s advice that the Bush administration should “continue to take advantage of Indian-Americans as a bridge” between Washington and New Delhi.

Towards the end of the Cold War in 1989, the Pentagon commissioned the Rand Corporation’s George Tanham to report on India’s strategic thinking; he famously concluded that there was none. This is no longer the case. India is beginning to rediscover the enduring elements of its own traditional geopolitical thinking and actively considering partnership with America, if only to advance its own interests. Within a constellation of shifting regional alliances among major states and powers such as the U.S., eu, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, China, South Korea, and Japan, India’s relevance to the future of international power balances is assured. India’s strategic canvas is broadening, as is its thinking in the military, economic, diplomatic, and cultural realms. America’s trade with China will eclipse that which it has with India for years to come, but democratic India is sure to be a more reliable partner.

Better relations, however, create rising expectations. As American and Indian interests naturally come into closer alignment, both countries must recognize that their noisy democracies will examine every minute detail in the agreements that the two governments negotiate. Preventing these noises from overwhelming the long-awaited strategic signals of greater engagement will be the most difficult challenge that Washington and Delhi have to overcome.

Conclusion and Final Comments
As mentioned earlier and throughout this blog, the US and the West must reach out beyond its current base to find new partners in the New Core, such as Brazil, India, China etc. However, there are unique qualities about India that make it an ideal candidate as the first New Core member to be fully embraced by the US.

India dynamic knowledge economy and democratic values (which it has increasingly identified as part of its foreign policy orientation) is something the United States must encourage and integrate with. India is not just a large state, but also represents ~20% of humanity.

On the realpoltik side, India is in a geopolitically important area of the world, in the crossroad of Eurasia and the shipping-lanes that carry Middle East oil and near the energy rich area of Central Asia. For the US, India is too important to ignore – we must embrace her or lose her to a geopolitical orientation contrary to our interests.

US and India does have disagreements over the issue of a Iran-Pakistan-India energy pipeline that is an essential part of India’s energy security goals. And also, there is the recent announcement of the India-China Energy Partnership. The Iranian pipeline runs contrary to US goals of isolating Iran. How the US handles this issue, as well as its cooperation with Pakistan, will be a test of how viable a US-Indian partnership is.

India is eager to find partnerships where it can, but it’s up to the US to find a way to nurture a true deeper relationship that goes beyond an partnership of convenience. Let’s hope that the US (especially under the future Post-Bush administration) has the vision and finesse to help lead the way.

Contrarian Views
In “Is India a Menance to the West?“, Samizdata posted a counterpoint with India (under strong Hindu nationalism) being the potential enemy further down the line. He quotes Immanuel Wallenstein, who stated:

Was then the new Indo-U.S. joint statement a victory for U.S. diplomacy? In it, the U.S. for the very first time legitimated India’s role as a nuclear power, by promising India that it “will work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it realizes its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security.” This of course undermined enormously the already weak position of the U.S. in opposing Iranian nuclear ambitions, since what India has received from the U.S. is precisely what Iran has been claiming is its right, “full civil nuclear energy.”

And in return, what did the U.S. get? – a promise “to combat terrorism relentlessly.” Since India was already doing this, it wasn’t very much. Meanwhile, India is maintaining its close relations with Iran and Russia, and even (on paper) a strategic alliance with China. More importantly, India is proceeding with Project Seabird, aimed at turning it into the major military power in the Indian Ocean. This does not make the Chinese too happy, to be sure, but it shouldn’t make the U.S. too happy either, since at the moment, it is the U.S. that is the major military power in the Indian Ocean.

Introduction to the US Dollars/Oil Bourse Conspiracy

Iran is scheduled in March to launch an oil exchange with the currency used for transaction being Euros as opposed to US dollars, such as in the two main oil bourse, International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) in London and the NYTMEX in New York.

This has fueled (no pun intended) speculation of the real cause of the Iranian crisis. The Iraq War has been criticized as a “War for Oil”. And now, as a second act, there are folks from Daily Kos to Asia Times saying the same of the Iran Crisis. The most aggressive promoter of this view appears to be from Krassimir Petrov:

The economic essence of this [post Bretton Woods] arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars.
…
The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006.

Prior to the Iraq War, Saddam Hussein switched the currency of choice for oil transaction from US dollars to Euros. Many saw the Iraq War as a conspiracy to stop and discourage the currency switch as the motivation for the Iraq War and are now predicting the same for Iran nuclear crisis. Indeed, a quick Google search will present a whole list of sites supporting this view.

Economists Rebuttal

Both economists Tyler Cowen and James Hamilton, in their respective blogs, counter such claims of a US collapse as simplistic view of economics.

Here below are excerpts from James Hamilton’s view on the Bourse issue:

On Dollar Assets and Oil Transactions

[Even] if the oil were purchased with dollars drawn on a U.S. bank, there is no reason at all that the seller needs to retain the proceeds in that form. Those selling oil could convert those dollars back to euros or Japanese yen or whatever their hearts desired, and likewise could convert euros obtained through sales on an Iranian bourse back into dollars, if they wished. What ultimately determines the demand for dollars is not the unit of account for the transaction, but rather the desired asset holdings of those who are accumulating the wealth.

On “US Dollars ‘Backed by Oil’”

And the notion that the U.S. dollar is currently “backed by oil” is so nonsensical that it is difficult even to fathom what that phrase is intended to convey….[If] you surrender dollars on any given day in January 2006, how much oil are you going to get back? It varies literally by the minute, and the rate at which dollars get exchanged for oil has nothing to do with the promises made by any government and everything to do with market fluctuations in supply and demand.

Conclusion
As the date draws closer to March 2006, we should expect the Iranian Oil Bourse conspiracy to grow even louder and to gain an increasingly foothold in the imagination of the many. However, both Tyler Cowen and James Hamilton seemed to have taken a very clear counter against such claims as simplistic and implausible.

On the true nature of the Iran crisis, it is difficult to tell. StrategyUnit last post attempt to unravel this enigma in the context of Iraq, but StratFor’s analysis seems to be the most accurate (or at least plausible) so far:

If the Iranians are seen as getting too close to a weapon, either the United States or Israel will take them out, and there is an outside chance that the facilities could not be taken out with a high degree of assurance unless nukes are used. In the past, our view was that the Iranians would move carefully in using the nukes to gain leverage against the United States. That is no longer clear. Their focus now seems to be not on their traditional diplomacy, but on a more radical, intra-Islamic diplomacy. That means that they might welcome a (survivable) attack by Israel or the United States. It would burnish Iran’s credentials as the true martyr and fighter of Islam.

Meanwhile, the Iranians appear to be reaching out to the Sunnis on a number of levels. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of a radical Shiite group in Iraq with ties to Iran, visited Saudi Arabia recently. There are contacts between radical Shia and Sunnis in Lebanon as well. The Iranians appear to be engaged in an attempt to create the kind of coalition in the Muslim world that al Qaeda failed to create. From Tehran’s point of view, if they get a deliverable nuclear device, that’s great — but if they are attacked by Israel or the United States, that’s not a bad outcome either.

In short, the diplomacy that Iran practiced from the beginning of the Iraq-Iran war until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be ended. Iran is making a play for ownership of revolutionary Islamism on behalf of itself and the Shia. Thus, Tehran will continue to make provocative moves, while hoping to avoid counterstrikes. On the other hand, if there are counterstrikes, the Iranians will probably be able to live with that as well.

(Source: George Friedman , Iran’s Redefined Strategy”, Strategic Forcasting: Geopolitical Intelligence Report, 17 January 2006.)
Emphasis Mine.

Declining birthrates in places like Europe, Japan and Russia and increasing immigration in once homogenous states (like France) is becoming an issue of mainstream discussion. Just last week (January 04 & 05), the WSJ and the Economist both ran articles on the issue of demographics, commenting on the opposite ends but equally faulty premises. One seeing immigration and demographics change as signaling the decline of the West (WSJ) and the other tends to underplay the challenge of declining birthrate and changing demographics (Economist).

The impact of changing demographics are analyzed through the New Republic’s piece on the Netherlands, on the effects of Muslim immigration and the socio-political upheaval (a turn to the Right) it has caused in a state stereotyped as an uber-liberal country.

The challenge facing Netherlands (and other countries) is a major one: it is the challenge of successfully transitioning from a nation-state to a market-state. Indeed, Philip Bobbitt has already foresaw such issues in his seminal work The Shield of Achilles:

“Whereas the nation-state based its legitimacy on a promise to better the material well-being of the nation, the market-state promises to maximize the opportunity of each individual citizen…The current conflict is one of several possible wars of the market-states as they seek to open up societies to trade in commerce, ideas, and immigration which excite hostility in those groups that want to use law to enforce religious or ethnic orthodoxy.” (Emphasis mine)

The Economist Optimist versus WSJ “Death of the West”

Economist: The Market Will Solve Everything

Here’s an except from the Economist (Jan 5th 2006), Incredible shrinking countries:

The crucial question is therefore what the effect of demographic decline is on the growth of GDP per person. The bad news is that this looks likely to slow because working-age populations will decline more rapidly than overall populations. Yet this need not happen. Productivity growth may keep up growth in GDP per person: as labour becomes scarcer, and pressure to introduce new technologies to boost workers’ efficiency increases, so the productivity of labour may rise faster. Anyway, retirement ages can be lifted to increase the supply of labour even when the population is declining.

The Economist seems to completely ignore the host of issues surrounding population decline: 1) Solvency on Social Welfare; 2) How to fashion smart immigration policies; 3) Deep socio-cultural questions of what it means to be a nation with a shrinking population; 4) Potential geopolitical consequences (think “emptying Russia v. China”); and so on.

The fact that the article completely ignores the pressure for immigration to solve labor shortage and the difficulty many countries face integrating immigrants is dismaying. Indeed, last Wednesday the U.S. Chamber of Commerce mentioned:

“The United States faces a severe worker shortage in the near future, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said Wednesday in advocating better education for Americans and changes in immigration law to allow in more foreign workers.”

Additionally, the Economist blindly places its faith on the Market to produce “new technologies”, but many states do not have an effective market, the ability to invest in new technologies or lack of good governance.

Mark Steyn at WSJ: The Muslim Horde is Coming!

And here’s a bizarrely alarmist opinion piece on WSJ by Mark Steyn, “It’s The Demography, Stupid“:

The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they’re flying planes into buildings for they’re likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock ‘em over?

The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction… A society that has no children has no future.

Mark Steyn paints the picture of a great Muslims Horde overrunning the West, probably starting with Europe. He seems to fear some growing tide of “non-natives” taking over “our land” with their “different” values. This is the stuff of “Bill the Butcher” from “Gangs of New York“.

The Challenge in Netherlands

It would be foolish not to say that the French Riots of 2005 has put some currency in Steyn thinking. Indeed, such problems even exist in Netherlands, a country seen by many as a liberal ideal. Many have turned reactionary right in the face of Muslim immigration. As noted in TNR, Holland has the “second-largest per capita Muslim population in the European Union, after France.” And with comes with the fear like that of Pim Fortuyn, the seemingly paradoxical fear against Muslims immigrants because of the perception that they will undermine Holland’s liberal culture:

And, in June 2004, a study showed that 86 percent of Dutch natives felt threatened by Holland’s Muslim population–this while only 33 percent acknowledged knowing anything about them other than what they saw on television or in the streets.

Reading the entire TNR piece is a must, but it suffice to say here that especially since Fortuyn and Van Gogh murders, Netherlands has seen its political landscape shifting to the right, especially regarding immigration, Islam and terrorism. Related to this is a recent flight of Dutch natives to Anglo states like Canada and New Zealand. A slew of new laws on terrorism and immigration have made Netherlands from required “social orientation” classes for immigrants to government surveillance of most forms of communications.

All of this, along with the French Riots, sounds like the fulfillment of Mark Steyn views, but suffers from the inability to see any alternative future. What the French Riots and the situation in Netherlands represents is the challenge of adjusting to new realities. Europe and other places like Japan need immigrants to sustain the labor force. The Economist is correct that the focus should be on “growth in GDP per person”, but it obvious that there will be labor shortage in certain industries. For example, U.S. agriculture is heavily dependent on Mexican migrants. Most Americans would shun such backbreaking labour.

Declining birthrates of “natives”, increasing immigration and changing demographics bring up several important issues to a State:

1. Immigration: what type of immigrations do they want? What policies can encourage such immigrants to come?
2. National Identity: How do states like those in Europe build a national society beyond the idea of shared history and ethnicity?
3. Integration: Related to National Identity is “how to integrate and define the relationship of immigrants?”
4. Effects on the Socialist Economy: Labour practices in places like France make it difficult to fire employees, which also make it difficult to get hired unless a person has special connections – something recent immigrants are at a disadvantage for.
5. Solvency of Welfare System: Declining population (esp. lost of potential high income earners) put stress on the Welfare system that needs to be adjusted.

In essence, its becoming all about the market-state. What policies should the government take to help maximize

Conclusion
Changing demographics (like changing climate) will become a bigger problem and challenge for many states than the “Global War on Terrorism”. But we cannot approach the demographic challenge by placing full faith on the Market, or turn xenophobic in our fear of some “Muslim Horde” (or the “Yellow Horde” if you are Russian).

Many of these issues listed above are not only about building a multinational state but part of a larger conflict and larger evolutionary step towards a market-state.

I cannot comment too much on Japan, China or Russia’s demographic challenge, but for Europe it is ultimately the next generation of Europeans, those who have no recollection of what it was like to be German or French before all the changes of the Maastrict Treaty, that will lead Europe to a market-state system.

Just last week (January 04 & 05), the WSJ and the Economist both ran articles on the issue of demographics, commenting on the opposite ends but equally faulty premises. One seeing immigration and demographics change as signaling the decline of the West (WSJ) and the other tends to underplay the challenge of declining birthrate and changing demographics (Economist).

The impact of changing demographics are analyzed through the New Republic’s piece on the Netherlands, on the effects of Muslim immigration and the socio-political upheaval (a turn to the Right) it has caused in a state stereotyped as an uber-liberal country.

The challenge facing Netherlands is a major one: it is the challenge of successfully transitioning from a nation-state to a market-state or to maintaining an ethnic-based nation-state idenity while risking demographically imploding. Indeed, Philip Bobbitt has already forsaw such issues in his seminal work The Shield of Achilles:

“The current conflict is one of several possible wars of the market-states as they seek to open up societies to trade in commerce, ideas, and immigration which excite hostility in those groups that want to use law to enforce religious or ethnic orthodoxy.”

Economist Optimist versus WSJ “Death of the West”

Economist: The Market Will Solve Everything

Here’s an except from the Economist (Jan 5th 2006), Incredible shrinking countries:

The crucial question is therefore what the effect of demographic decline is on the growth of GDP per person. The bad news is that this looks likely to slow because working-age populations will decline more rapidly than overall populations. Yet this need not happen. Productivity growth may keep up growth in GDP per person: as labour becomes scarcer, and pressure to introduce new technologies to boost workers’ efficiency increases, so the productivity of labour may rise faster. Anyway, retirement ages can be lifted to increase the supply of labour even when the population is declining.

The Economist seems to completely ignore the host of issues surrounding population decline: 1) Solvency on Social Welfare; 2) How to handle immediate needs on military manpower; 3) How to fashion smart immigration policies; 4) Deep socio-cultural questions of what it means to be a nation with a shrinking population; 5) Potential geopolitical consequences (think “emptying Russia v. China”); and so on.

The fact that the article completely ignores the pressure for immigration to solve labor shortage and the difficulty many countries face integrating immigrants is dismaying.

Indeed, last Wednesday the U.S. Chamber of Commerce mentioned:

“The United States faces a severe worker shortage in the near future, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said Wednesday in advocating better education for Americans and changes in immigration law to allow in more foreign workers.”

Additionally, the Economist blindly places its faith on the Market to produce “new technologies”, but markets in many states can be far from functioning and may not be effective enough to allow the needed technological innovation. And some states may not be able invest in these new technology for a lack of good governance or a host of other reasons.

Mark Steyn at WSJ: The Muslim Horde is Coming!

And here’s a bizarrely alarmist opinion piece on WSJ by Mark Steyn, “It’s The Demography, Stupid“:

The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they’re flying planes into buildings for they’re likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock ‘em over?

The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction… A society that has no children has no future.

Mark Steyn paints the picture of a great Muslims horde overrunning the West, probably starting with Europe. He seems to fear some growing tide of “non-natives” taking over “our land” with their “different” values. This is the stuff of “Bill the Butcher” from “Gangs of New York“.

Case Study in Netherlands

It would be foolish not to say that the French Riots of 2005 has put some currency in Steyn thinking. Indeed, in Netherlands – the bastion of all things liberal – the we see this problem most acutely. As noted in TNR, Holland has the “second-largest per capita Muslim population in the European Union, after France.” And with comes with the fear like that of Pim Fortuyn, the seemingly paradoxal fear against Muslims immigrants because of the perception that they will undermine Holland’s liberal culture:

And, in June 2004, a study showed that 86 percent of Dutch natives felt threatened by Holland’s Muslim population–this while only 33 percent acknowledged knowing anything about them other than what they saw on television or in the streets.

Reading the entire TNR piece is a must, but it suffice to say here that especially since Fontuyn (sp) and Van Gogh murders, Netherlands has seen its political landscape shifting to the right, especially regarding immigration, Islam and terrorism. Related to this is a recent fligh of Dutch natives to Anglo states like Canada and New Zealand. A slew of new laws on terrorism and immigration have made Netherlands from required “social orientation” classes for immigrants to government surveillance of most forms of communications.

All of this sounds, along with the French Riots, sounds like the fullfillment of Mark Steyn views, but Steyn fault is his inability to see no alternative future. The American transformation to a multinational state (or rather a “United States”) is what the Netherlands should look closely at. Ethnic strife is not the only possible future, but policies in Europe and elsewhere must change.

What the French Riots and the situation in Netherlands represents is the challenge of adjusting to new realities. Europe and other places like Japan need immigrants to sustain the labor force. Economist is correct that the focus should be on “growth in GDP per person”, but it obvious that there will be labor shortage in certain industries. Take for example, U.S. agriculture is heavily dependent on Mexican migrants. Most Americans would shun such backbreaking labour.

Declining birthrates of “natives”, increasing immigration and changing demographics brings up several important issues to a State:

1. Immigration: what type of immigrations do they want? What policies can encourage such immigrants to come?
2. National Identity: How do states like those in Europe build a national society beyond the idea of shared history and ethnicity?
3. Integration: Related to National Identity, is how to integreate and define the relationship of immigrants?
4. Effects on the Socialist Economy: Labour practices in places like France make it difficult to fire employees, which also make it difficult to get hired unless a person has special connections – something recent immigrants are at a disadvantage for.
5. Solvency of Welfare System: Declining population (esp. lost of potential high income earners) put stress on the Welfare system that needs to be adjusted.

Conclusion
Changing demographics (like changing climate) will become a bigger problem and challenge for many states than the “Global War on Terrorism”. But we cannot approach the demographic challenge by placing full faith on the Market, or turn xenophobic in our fear of some “Muslim Horde” (or the “Yellow Horde” if you are Russian).

Many of these issues listed above are not only about building a multinational state but part of a larger conflict and larger evolutionary step towards a market-state. States will need to adjust to the economic and security challenges of declining birthrates with proper polices on immigration and integration being an essential part of that adjustment.

The Premise
In the formulation of my own conceptual framework for understanding GWOT, I submit the following general premises:
1. The need to look beyond the traditional levels of analysis of international relations – personal, state and system level – and to take account local and transnational social cleavages.
2. Instability today is principally caused by the lack of “global connectivity” in certain counties and societies, resulting in local and regional crises and conflicts.
3. Variants of Salafi-Jihadi/Pan-Islamism have conflated these crises and conflicts as a global conflict against Islam and the Ummah by the “Other.”

Of course, there will alway be outlier cases, but the premises serves to cover the vast majority of situations relating to GWOT.

Thomas Barnett v. Samuel Huntington

There is no current theory or framework that can easily match with these premises. However, we can build this framework by synthesizing Barnett and Huntington. Below is a mini-review of their concepts and some of their shortfalls when taken alone.

Thomas Barnett declares that the amount of global “connectivity” in the world defines security issues in the international environment. It is the amount of connectivity a state possesses – in the transnational flow of trade, media, finances, information, culture et cetera – that distinguish between a peaceful, integrated “Core” state and a hostile or unstable “Gap” state. As Barnett states, the “new world must be defined by where globalization has truly taken root [the Core] and where it has not [the Gap].”(1) In short, the level of strategic regional and global security is directly linked to the level of globalization. This is no difference.

While Thomas Barnett presents a long term “big picture” framework for understanding the source of instability in the world, it cannot alone fully describe the nature of GWOT. It does not explain why certain peoples in certain regions are engaging in a confrontation against the members of the Core. In other words, if the international security environment is defined by those in the Gap and those in the Core, why were the majority of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia, and not shamans from Indonesia or Orthodox Christians from Belarus?

The essential variables that need to be added to Barnett’s framework are those of religious and ultimately of socio-cultural factors.

While Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” goes to the extreme in treating cultural regions as nearly monolithic political blocks (that is, civilizations), Huntington does well in thrusting cultural, religious, social, and historical as variables in the calculus that influences the foreign policy orientations of states and non-state organizations. Indeed, Huntington must be acknowledged as prescient in declaring the revival of religions, particularly non-Western religions, as remerging as an important cultural and political force in the world.(2)

Huntington-Barnett with a Social Level of Analysis: Gap Societies?
I agree with Barnett on the instability of regions lacking “global connectivity” and Huntington’s emphasis on cultural and religions as important variables in international politics and his concept of “civilization faultlines.” Barnett’s builds a framework for understanding all global and local conflicts in the long term. Huntington emphasizes culture as the central factor.

Barnett and Huntington’s frameworks are not mutually exclusive and this paper builds on their scholarship and research to explain the nature of this war. Both Huntington and Barnett rely on system – Civilization vs. Civilization, Core vs. Gap – and state level of analysis, where does one place non-state groups like Al-Qaeda, Al Takfir Wal Hijra, Hizb ut-Tahrir and including their support structures and sympathizers? Additionally, how we explain the presence of such groups in the Core states of Western Europe or within the Western Civilization?

An elegant solution to this problem is applying social cleavages as another level of analysis complementing the state and system level of analysis. Organizations like Al-Qaeda to Hizb ut-Tahrir are not just “terrorist groups” or “Islamist extremist,” but groups that represent a worldwide social movement that transcend nation-states, Core or Gap states or civilization blocks. Thus, there is a need to focus on different social groups inside Core and Gap states that are disconnected from the larger society and how they related to other states and societies globally.

Towards a More Total Concept of Warfare
Beyond abandoning the Western concept of state-to-state warfare, this is conflict where the enemy employs a new “combined arms” strategy beyond the traditional means of Western warfare and follows John Robb’s “Global Guerilla” on the more tactical and operational level.

In traditional military usage, the term “combined arms” is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as “The full integration and application of two or more arms or elements of one Military Service into an operation”(3) -such as the integrated and coordinated use of infantry, tank, precision bombers, and reconnaissance under one unified command. As war on the social level against the states and other societies, we see “combined arms” taking not only a purely military dimension but the integration of a full spectrum of human concerns – political issues, social issues, cultural issues, religious issues, etc – under the banner of a unifying ideology. In this case, this ideology is religious in nature.

GWOT as a Radical, Global and Muslim Social Movement
The use of social, cultural and religious issues as important dimensions of the war has it roots in the religious nature of this war – that is, religious as defined by the enemy. Stemming from its roots from Islam, Salafi-Jihadist share the tradition of embracing religion as a totality inseparable from any social sphere. In contrasts with the Peace of Westphalia that helped brought about the separation of the Christian church away from the state in the West, Islam has kept itself as the sole truth for all totality – it applies to and encompasses all aspects of human activity. In the West, the Muslim Brotherhood was most famous in emphasizing this fact of Islam, with its statement of recognizing “Islam as a total system” and the “final arbiter of life in all of its categories.” The most famous quote by the Muslim Brotherhood was its founder’s, Hassan al-Banna, proclamation that “Islam is a faith and a ritual, a nation and a nationality, a religion and a state, spirit and deed, holy text and sword.”(4) Indeed, other Muslim scholars, such as Sayyid Qutb, have criticized the West for its corruption of Christianity with its “schizophrenic” separation between the secular and the sacred, between church and state.(5) In contrasts to Christianity today, he declares Islam as a “system [that] extend into all aspects of life; it discusses all minor and major affairs of mankind.”(6)

Indeed, by actively uniting and linking all human activities to a single religious belief, it is easy to see how local conflicts affecting Muslims can be exploited to be seen as an attack on the entire global Muslim community – the Ummah. This combined with the concept of jihad al-asghar (lesser jihad) explains the confluence of local conflicts involving Muslims – Chechnya, Palestinian Issue, Moro in the Philippines – to being seen as a global conflict against Muslims.(7) And borrowing from John Robb, we see how quickly the conflict can become a social movement and a “Global Swarm”.

The relationship between social conflict and the fanatical organizations that exploit these conflicts are not only self-reinforcing, but help export and spread instability in the region and internationally (as illustrated above). In the primary link, each local conflict begins to be linked to a cause (Islamist jihad) and is transformed to being seen as one of many conflicts (reaching towards secondary linkage). This conflation of the socio-political and socio-economic issues with the Islamist movement reaches the point that, in some cases, it is difficult to distinguish between what are social problems and what is part of the war.

Conclusion
As this war is more of cross between an insurgency and a social movement, there maybe no clean cessation of violence in the near or distant future. And in this conflict, there will be no battlefield,s, but rather our adversaries will be attached as a Global Swarm as Global Guerillas.

If the U.S. and it allies achive victory (how can we even defien this?), there will be neither a ceremony on USS Missouri nor televised collapse of an “Evil Empire”. In the words of the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, “Some people see war and peace as a light switch. When the lights are off, it’s peacetime. When the lights go on, it’s wartime. I see more of a dimmer switch. We’ll see the intensity wax and wane, but there will always be some level of conflict going on.” (8) Let us hope that the United States and its allies dims that switch, least it will be a long hard slog.

—–
Sources
1. Barnett, Thomas P.M. “The Pentagon’s New Map.” Esquire. March 2003. (17 November 2003).
2. Samuel Huntington, Clash of Civilizations, (New York: Touchstone, 1997), 95-101.
3. United States of America. Defense Department. DOD Dictionary of Military and 3. Associated Terms, 30 November 2004, (04 September 2004).
4. Daniel Pipes, “Fundamentalist Muslims Between America and Russia”, Foreign Affairs, Summer 1986, Accessed Online: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/279 (04 February 2004).
5. Berman, Paul. Terror and Liberalism, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004), 89.
6. Sayyid Qutb, Social Justice in Islam, (New Jersey: Islamic Publications International, 2000), 32.
7. For a comparative to the Islamic concept of jihad al-asghar within the Abrahamic religions, see the Judaic concept of milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war) and the Christian concept of Just War as described in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.
8. No Author. “Changing and Fighting, Simultaneously”, 30 October, 2004, National Journal, Available at (03 January 2005).

As proposed by Malaysia and championed by China, the summit was conceived as a way for the 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to cooperate with China, Japan and South Korea — but not the United States — on security, social and economic problems. Many officials viewed it as a vehicle for Chinese leadership, making China the motor of an Asian bloc with a voice distinct from that of other Asia-Pacific groupings that include the United States.

Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea were some of the major nations invited to EAS. Russia was invited as well as an observer, making it all the more striking that the US wasnt.

Despite the growth in China’s clout in its region, the U.S. is still the de facto security guarantor of the region. While East Asia Summit, like ASEAN, will probably be mired by discord and inability to create concrete action, the fact that the U.S. is not part of the discussion in Kuala Lumpur is the ill-gotten fruit of our publicly voiced insecurity regarding China.

All this talk of China as the threat is driving China to play the game in Asia as zero-sum: its either the U.S. (pun intended) or China.

Given geography and culture, the East and South-East Asia is not the “natural” sphere of influence for the U.S. and we need to be reminded this. World War II gave our position in Asia, we should be careful not to squander it by driving China to carve its sphere and fight for influence at our expense.

Instead of containment in China, we should encourage tying China in to a mesh of pan-Asian institutions that will help China gain confidence in the region despite U.S. presence, while also constrain its range of maneuver.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Central Asia is a demonstration of China ability to create its own regional institutions as a tool to challenge the U.S. We need to build our own tool by putting China and the U.S. together in it.

Additionally, India is also looking to assert itself globally, we encourage and guide them on this process as partenrs, least they form their partnership with states that hold interests contrary to ours.

Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore was quoted as saying : “We have little choice but to construct a new architecture for East Asia…If East Asia does not coalesce, it will lose out to the Americas and Europe…The key question is not whether East Asia will integrate. It is how quickly and the form East Asian regionalism will assume.”

Indeed, Gok Chok Tong is correct and it is even more the reason the U.S. needs to be able to partipate in these dicussion (EAS specifically and the future of Asia in general). We cannot ignore a region as sizeable and vibrant as Asia.

Someone needs to ask why what’s going on in the State Department and why isnt President Bush at the EAS?