More troops, less trouble?

In his speech on Tuesday at the  West Point Academy, President Obama unveiled his new concept for dealing with ongoing 8-year war in Afghanistan. The strategy did not surprise most of the commentators, primarily due to earlier signals from the Pentagon, Congress, and lastly a  sole situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which allowed a rather rational presumption that the key pre-decision postulates will be addressed.

Domestic implications

Obama’s speech ended a long period of the review process, where administration officials under National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones put together a new strategic concept. The shape of the new strategy proves undoubtedly that one of the primary concerns was the need of a broad domestic compromise. President  Obama has been under a formidable pressure during the last couple of weeks from both sides of the political spectrum in Congress, the military establishment, and voices within his own administration stating the necessity for increasing the  American presence – a concept he never firmly supported, if at all. The influential winners therefore appear to be the military establishment, Secretary of Defence, and Republican Congressmen who were strong advocates of amplifying the American effort. Other  viewpoints have not been however entirely isolated, which clearly signifies administration’s intention to give every voice of criticism a sort of quid pro quo. President’s plan involved:

• an 18-month timeline + involving the international community – to pacify opposition within his own party opposing any increase in troop levels.

• a strong emphasis on necessity to curb corruption within the Afghan government - a bow towards powerful Democrats, such as the Speaker of the House of Representatives – Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry – Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee, and others who stressed the need to press the Afghan government.
• stressing the importance of Pakistani involvement in the war emphasis on Pakistan appeared in formerly publicized plan envisioned  by Vice President Joe Biden.

Despite the aforementioned concessions, there’s a tough battle ahead of the administration in Congress for this $30 billion conceptual colossus, due Republican opposition towards the timeline, which is under heavy fire as being  a reckless step, emboldening Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, placing the Afghan population in danger of dealing with the insurgency on their own.

International Implications

Conceptual approach of the renewed American effort in Afghanistan allows a quiet optimism. The President strongly highlighted the US stance on its presence as an aid, not an occupation, and promised future partnership with the Afghan nation, rather than patronizing and making it a client state. American surge  presumably might contribute to stabilizing the situation, especially within the southern provinces, where the situation in recent weeks has been disturbing both to international forces and civilian population.Nevertheless, any military offensive ought to be applied  with  subsequent civilian measures supported by the international community to secure the results – a truism, which the President largely omitted in his speech by not delivering any tangible examples on to how to introduce these measures. Expanding the American effort, despite wide criticism cannot be assessed entirely as a mistake. Stakes are high, and those involve not only US security, a regional stability in face of  insubordinate Iran, but the NATO alliance, for which the involvement in Afghanistan remains a crucial test in efforts to redefine its entity in a post-Cold War global architecture.

Obama implicitly urged the Karzai government, that changes must be made in order to increase the credibility of the Afghan authorities. President declared a support for the Afghan administration, but only for those who build, not destroy, critically addressing the results of the elections as fraudulent. Furthermore, the renewed approach has been fixed by the 18-month timeline . Afghan government will be under significant pressure to implement policies curbing corruption and increasing popular support, for the foreign presence cannot, and will not last forever. President’s statement denied acceptance for the possibility of further wasting of  international aid by the Karzai administration. Although a time-frame  to commence the withdrawal has been introduced,the results of Congressional mission of Secretary Clinton ang Gates to calm the opposition revealed the fact that July 2011 is not definite. Secretary Gates announced the evaluation of the situation and eventual changes in policy approximately by December 2010. The time-line provides necessary pressure for the Afghan authorities to start taking matters in their own hands, and addresses the population giving a clear message that the American interest lays in a secure Afghanistan, not in eternal territorial occupation. Primary task of the new 30,000 troops is to reverse the Taliban momentum, ensure proper and rapid training of Afghan military and police , and along with International forces engaging in efforts resembling those in Iraq – transferring the responsibility to Afghan forces province by province.

In addition, the matter of Pakistani involvement in the war was strongly emphasized by the President, who declared support for Pakistan’s efforts, and acknowledged the importance of the offensive launched by the military in South Waziristan, which can be interpreted as a hand extended towards the Pakistani public, infuriated by recent drone attacks causing heavy civilian casualties, along with a debate on whether the covert operations violate Pakistan’s sovereignty. Despite these positive, calming messages, Obama implicitly warned Pakistan, that American support is conditional and depends on the willingness to conduct the war along with the US and international forces. The strategy outlined at West Point places a strong emphasis on Al Qaeda’s safe havens beyond the Afghan border, and requires increased efforts to deny the terrorists their control of those territories. There are voices within the Pakistan’s officials and public, who criticize this approach as unjust – placing too much of a responsibility on Pakistani military offensive, and defining the partnership as conditional. Whether the US stance will prove to be effective remains unclear, however strong message to Pakistani officials had to be given – at least due to the elusive involvement of the intelligence in the terrorist activity, and further, to send a strong message, that America seeks cooperation, due to the mutual interest of the US and Pakistan in creating and sustaining security in those regions.

As shown above, the new concept for involvement consists of myriad ideas introduced by domestic voices with opposite positions, and incompletely addresses main issues troubling the international coalition trying to deal with terrorism in the region. While the strategy allows a limited optimism, it might as well be a failure if not implemented cautiously. The administration must provide a clear outline of a civilian approach to Afghan security, which is a critical factor in a country that has not been conquered since Alexander the Great. Afghan  people must start to feel more secure, but also need to receive a sustainable basis like schools, infrastructure, prospects of stabilization in their national economy- elements critical to ensure the beginning of a  steady development and prosperity. Increasing military effort does not guarantee success in those areas, therefore does not guarantee any success at all . War in Afghanistan, as a global war on terrorism will not succeed without soft-power measures and nation-building. President’s total neglect of this critical aspect in his speech, proves that the administration has still a lot of conceptual work to do, leaving this strategy somewhat still in-draft. Nevertheless, whether or not the key elements of this new vision will prove to be effective, is to be determined after the first stages of implementation.

A Frozen Treasure Chest – Cold War in the North Pole?

The global warming rapidly emerges a serious threat to both environmental and global security. Its impact primarily focuses on the Arctic area though intertwined with it high temperatures as well as gradual melting of the ice will consequently affect all of the world – that however will not occur solely in this very dimension, for the slowly disappearing ice is nowadays somewhat resembling a theatre curtain – it turns the attention of regional states and non-state actors towards – what used to remain underneath it for centuries and now slowly  is being revealed.

In 2004, United States Geological Survey indicated a vast amount (around 1/3) of the world’s total resources of oil and gas to be located under the icy waters of the Arctic Ocean. In the era of consequently rising oil prices that affect every single economy in the world, this opens a broad margin of possibilities towards diversifying energy resources, which if successful, will lead to decreasing the dependency on Middle Eastern oil resources and thereby boosting the investment and economic growth of any country to conduct diversification of its energy sources. Recent statistics highlight a potential existence of an estimated 400 billion oil barrels in the seabed, while 233 billion have already been discovered – a number constantly increasing since the first calculation several years ago – a number that signifies tremendous riches, something that can turn a most peacefully acting state into a violent belligerent.

The international law is a system of regulations, which in this case provides a set of measures defining state’s sovereignty over varying sectors of waters that surround its coast. According to the Law of the Sea, each state apart from 12 nautical mines of his territorial waters has a right to undertake expeditions, drilling and generally to acquire benefits from areas as far as 200 nautical miles, which are referred to as Exclusive Economic Zone of a state. This implies several consequences. The most important relates to the variety of contenders, which as of today includes Russia, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the United States.

The race for resource primacy has already begun. There are certain facts that prove tensions are gradually rising to the dangerous tipping point:

· In Norway and Denmark coastal regions experience unprecedented rate of investment and both internal (young population migrating from other parts of the state) and external interest that focuses on that region.

· Last year Russian submarine dived into Arctic seabed to symbolically plant a Russian flag after already claiming 460,000 square miles – an indication that Russia will be a tough player in this competition.

· In response to Russia’s actions, Canada launched a series of maneuvers in the Arctic involving vessels equipped with icebreakers, submarines and 700 soldiers.

· In May 2008, U.S. Army engaged in the series of exercises under a codename “Northern Edge” in Alaska.

· In August, a U.S. ship launched its journey to the Arctic to determine the extent of continental shelf north of Alaska and examine the seabed.

· In September Russian President Dmitri Medvedev delivered a speech at the Security Council stating his willingness to define seabed borders in the Arctic (his alleged unilateral position on this matter was later denied by Russian authorities)

Prudent analysis of the facts may indicate a certain level of disturbance for those facts certainly do not assure peaceful trend of developments in future. The principal threat that could emerge from analyzing the aforementioned is the position of Russia in contrast with the aspirations of the United States. struggling to decrease its dependency on foreign oil. Russian government has profoundly stated its insistence on claiming vast areas that include the North Pole, and previously demonstrated urgency as well as symbolic flag planting does not allow a positive prognosis in terms of a possible reluctance of Russian authorities to resign from some of the postulates. Russia’s new government as well as its predecessors with same respect have delivered many messages reminding the international community that Russia is capable and willing to act assertively in defense of its national interests with little regard to international law and overall reaction of the international community (as Georgian conflict also indicates). How the situation will develop on Russia’s behalf is unknown, however history of recent events and political use of resources by Russian authorities, provides empirical evidence that its position in future negotiations if they will be undertaken – may be firm if not aggressive.

The situation seems to be even more alerting, when we examine capabilities of Russia and the U.S. – the two nations to most probably divide spoils of the North Pole. At first glance, Russia seems to be in a better position. Russia’s military potential is definitely in decline, United States spends a half of the worlds military spending, therefore in terms of military capability, it cannot be equivalent to America’s power. However, what we are experiencing right now is prologue to a race for potential resources, which does not imply ordinary military rivalry, and therefore provides Russia with relative advantage. How? This can be asserted from simple estimation and comparison of the number of icebreaker vessels, which currently are essential to undertake expeditions to investigate the seabed. Russia as of now is in possession of 19 of such vessels, 8 with nuclear engines, while the U.S. Navy can operate only on 4 such vessels with conventional power supply – to be more specific Finland and Canada own 6 and 7 icebreakers respectively. The U.S. government identified this issue as disturbing, a couple of years ago, pressing for more funds to reform its capability to conduct research in the Arctic, though the developments of 9/11 and further President Bush’s war against terror, not to mention Iraq, financially undermined any possibility to gradually to match Russia’s potential in this field. This implies the advantage Russian navy has over the U.S. in investigating currently melting ‘frozen treasure chest’. Other important factor that affects current U.S. position is the problem with ratification by the U.S. Senate of the Convention of the Law of the Sea. The international law provides time to countries interested in claims in the Arctic Ocean who ratified the treaty until 2009 to estimate their claims; the U.S. without ratifying the treaty is a worse position. Question with respect to probability of this conflict being unwinded cannot be answered directly. States involved in the region do not demonstrate any aggresive behavior or do not threaten each other. As of today, it is hard to imagine Russian military to conduct any acts of aggression towards the most prominent military in the world nor against European countries that aspire to take part in the division of the North Pole area. Norway and Denmark are both members of NATO – an arguement strong enough to a expect strong consideration of any hostile decision aimed at these states from Russia. Nevertheless, it is probable that the eventual conflict will not include states with coastal lines but others, also interested in new oil resources, such as rising China or India. Everything is yet to be determined, however it is safe to admit this area of the globe is a constantly ticking bomb, that could errupt into explosion if not properly managed by regulations.

Luckily, as tensions gradually rise among the states with Arctic coastlines, the U.N. tries to control slowly rising ‘oil rush’ within the area. Countries with vital interest in this field held a summit at Greenland in May this year and agreed that it should be the United Nations and above all, the international law to determine who governs what. The U.N. conference covering that issue however is scheduled to be held in 2020, which provided recent developments as well as emerging interest of oil-hungry nations (China and India particularly) might be too late before the contenders lose their temper and turn into hostile conduct towards eacg other.

What could be done? Analysts point out the obvious – diplomacy. United States as the principal world leader and foremost due to its disadvantage in the region should engage in diplomatic talks with contending states to find a common ground, which will not be an easy feat, especially with respect to assertive Russia.  It is in the vital interest of the United States to avoid any unequal share of spoils within the region. Resource prevailence will not change the status quo in terms of America’s standing, though certainly will decrease the gap between the powers, and thus make the global situation more tense. As a matter of fact,the conflict in the region does not seem to be a lucrative option for any of the sides, due to emerging trade outposts along the coastlines, which pump development into areas that were scarcely inhabited a decade ago – primarily in Norway and Canada. American diplomats to promote establishing new rules could turn to their European counterparts, especially those with Arctic coastlines but also to other European oil-importing nations for support to incline Russia and other states into creating an organization that would resemble current-day OPEC – of course with different external policy aspects. Collective response either at a group or a UN level is the only safe resolution to this security challenge. Any unilateral action, as Russia’s conduct has recently proved only increases concern among other nations, and could lead to easily volatile competition. However, this as of now is pure futurology. The situation and its symptoms are not yet severe, though require prudent actions – Current events indicate that the emergence of any serious confrontation is unlikely, especially after reconsideration of Medvedev’s statements and the Greenland conference resulting in shifting decisions towards the United Nations. Nevertheless, this particular détente without precarious diplomacy and engaging all contenders collectively to find a solution may be easily dissolved and turn into new dangerous conflict that could possess the capacity to affect the entire northern hemisphere.