{"id":746,"date":"2010-09-13T08:16:01","date_gmt":"2010-09-13T15:16:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/?p=746"},"modified":"2010-09-13T08:19:16","modified_gmt":"2010-09-13T15:19:16","slug":"report-on-global-security-review-conference-in-geneva-hughhewitt-com-09-13-10","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/wordpress\/2010\/09\/13\/report-on-global-security-review-conference-in-geneva-hughhewitt-com-09-13-10\/","title":{"rendered":"Report on Global Security Review Conference in Geneva | HughHewitt.com | 09.13.10"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Every September since 2002, the International Institute for Strategic Studies has held, in Geneva, Switzerland, what it calls a Global Strategic Review. \u00a0This year\u2019s meeting finished on Sunday.<\/p>\n<p>The IISS is a London-based equivalent to the U.S.\u2019s Council on Foreign Relations \u2013 an establishment-oriented think tank on global security. \u00a0The weekend conference typically draws current and former diplomats, military officers, intelligence analysts, and journalists from around the world. For me, three speakers stood out: British Defense Secretary Liam Fox, Russian senator Mikhail Margelov, and Henry Kissinger. \u00a0Here are my notes on what each said:<\/p>\n<p>Liam Fox, U.K. Defense Secretary:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Fox\u2019s topic was Afghanistan.      \u00a0On the anniversary of the 9\/11 attacks, he eloquently argued that      the burning towers were the face of failure in the fight against terror.<\/li>\n<li>We are not in Afghanistan, he      said, to build schools and conduct social work. We (the British and by      extension the U.S.) are there, because it is in our vital national      interests.<\/li>\n<li>A defeat of NATO forces would      reenergize a disheartened and decimated al Qaeda, as well as destabilize      Pakistan.<\/li>\n<li>Fox said that we could start to      look to withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2015. In questioning he added that      the public would not accept an open-ended commitment, but that any      withdrawal date had to be far enough in the future to discourage hostile      groups from trying wait out coalition forces. \u00a0This timetable      obviously put him at odds with the Obama administration. But he didn\u2019t      acknowledge or even hint at the tension, and no one pressed him on it.<\/li>\n<li>Instead, he acknowledged that      NATO had made mistakes in Afghanistan over the last decade. \u00a0But he      added that walking away was no option. \u00a0We need to fix the mistakes      and finish the job.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Mikhail Margelov, Russian senator, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Explaining how Russia sees the      world, Margelov said that Russia is not the USSR. The Soviet Union was an      empire, as was the czarist regime that preceded it. \u00a0We are building      a nation state, he said. \u00a0And to do that we need friendly or neutral      neighbors.<\/li>\n<li>What do we have? \u00a0Iran has      been shooting at Russian fishermen on the Caspian Sea. \u00a0North Korea      has fired missiles on trajectories that appear meant to threaten Russia.<\/li>\n<li>In this world, he said, I am      tired of resetting Russia-U.S. relations. \u00a0We need boring, regular,      stable relations.<\/li>\n<li>In questioning he noted that      both sides are having trouble ratifying the new START agreement.      \u00a0\u00a0In the Russian parliament, the communist faction has blocked      it. \u00a0A sore point in relations that opponents are playing on is the      Jackson-Vanik amendment. \u00a0Passed by Congress in 1974, it was intended      to help Jews leave the Soviet Union. \u00a0Now with no Soviet Union and an      agreement between Russia and Israel that has opened unimpeded traffic both      ways, Congress is keeping it in place, he said, \u201cto keep chickens from      leaving Russia.\u201d \u00a0In other words, it has become an excuse for U.S.      protectionism.<\/li>\n<li>Finally, returning to Iran he      added, we have no illusions about Iran and no hidden agendas.      \u00a0Playing politics in the Orient is chess, not rugby. \u00a0And we      have extensive experience with oriental politics.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Henry Kissinger:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>China and India are engaged in      strategic analyses of national interest similar to those of the 19th      century European players, Kissinger said.<\/li>\n<li>Collective security is hard in      such a system, particularly in areas such as nuclear proliferation.<\/li>\n<li>China and Russia cannot want a      nuclear North Korea or Iran. \u00a0But neither is in a position to      confront its rogue neighbors, so nothing happens.<\/li>\n<li>The international system is      devolving into power blocks similar to 18th and 19th century Europe.      \u00a0Historian Niles Ferguson has written of a world in which the U.S      gradually recedes to be replaced by no one.<\/li>\n<li>This must not happen, Kissinger      insisted. \u00a0The U.S. is the indispensable global leader, even if it is      no longer the sole leader. \u00a0The task of diplomacy is to find ways to      accommodate new forces with minimal suffering, in other words without a      general war.<\/li>\n<li>For example, in Afghanistan, he      said, we must incorporate into U.S. and NATO security analysis the fact      that a terrorist Afghan state is untenable for China, India, and Iran.      \u00a0All three have more vital interests in the country than does the      U.S.<\/li>\n<li>The U.S. presence in the region      is tolerated, because all understand that we do not seek a permanent      Afghan role.<\/li>\n<li>A conference among the U.S.,      U.K. and these neighboring countries could produce an Afghanistan similar      to Belgium of the 1800s. \u00a0Belgium was a strategically located country      whose neutrality all bordering countries took a role in enforcing.      \u00a0For a century, all recognized that otherwise it could become a      flashpoint for general conflict.<\/li>\n<li>Regarding China, it is very      much like Germany before World War I, an emergent power with a capacity      catastrophically to disrupt the international system.<\/li>\n<li>How the U.S. and China manage      their relationship is the key to all other issues. Both have huge internal      debates about cooperation versus more confrontational stances. \u00a0In      both, Kissinger asserted, those favoring cooperation are winning out at      the moment.<\/li>\n<li>On the other hand, in answering      audience questions after his talk, Kissinger turned to the South China Sea      and noted that freedom of navigation is a fundamental American principal.      \u00a0He then added that Europe has never recovered from the world wars.      Nothing like that conflict, he concluded, must be allowed to happen      between China and the U.S.<\/li>\n<li>Also in Q&amp;A, Kissinger      sketched out a world after Iran obtained nuclear weapons. Numerous other      countries would follow suit, he thought. \u00a0Small-scale nuclear      conflicts would become a feature of a transformed international system.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Every September since 2002, the International Institute for Strategic Studies has held, in Geneva, Switzerland, what it calls a Global Strategic Review. \u00a0This year\u2019s meeting finished on Sunday. The IISS is a London-based equivalent to the U.S.\u2019s Council on Foreign Relations \u2013 an establishment-oriented think tank on global security. \u00a0The weekend conference typically draws current [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[12],"class_list":["post-746","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-global-issues","tag-hugh-hewitt"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/746","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=746"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/746\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":748,"href":"https:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/746\/revisions\/748"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=746"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=746"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.clarkjudge.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=746"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}