From: Eastern Europe; To: America

An Open Letter to the Obama Administration from Central and Eastern Europe

A couple dozen Eastern European leaders and intellectuals send a plea to President Obama not to forget them as he focuses on relations with Russia and the issues of the Middle East. I wanted to post this here because it doesn't seem to be a story that has gotten much attention (a Google News search shows the NY Times picked it up, but only online, and the Economist included a short piece).

There are certainly many good points here. The countries these people represent sought entrance into NATO, and have become some of its staunchest members, both in thought and deed. This has brought benefits to both the countries and the alliance, and has opened the door to further expansion (although the same results there might be debatable). The fact that they are questioning the strength of NATO says something about not only the American NATO policy, but also the NATO policy of the other older members of the alliance.

Certainly, a lot of their concerns stem from the resurgence of Russian foreign policy, and the decision of the Obama administration not to challenge that resurgence directly, just yet. But it might also come from a realization that other members came to at various times in the past: that NATO doesn't always give back as much as you put in. That's not to say that NATO hasn't and doesn't provide much to its member countries; otherwise, most of them would have left long ago. But what it does mean is that many members have found that they can get just as much out of the alliance even if they don't give as much. This result is not just in terms of military contributions, but also in terms of commitment and attitude. It's possible to say that France learned this lesson best in the 1960s, when it withdrew from the military structure, but still benefited from the collective defense of the Treaty, as well as from the American nuclear umbrella.

I think that the United States, as well as the established members of the alliance, should worry that the Eastern European members might choose to draw away from their commitment to NATO. Not that they might disengage from the alliance, but that they might see some free-riding as a better alternative than full commitment (something I think the authors allude to in their discussion of the next generation of leaders in their countries). The next-door threat of an aggressive Russia might dampen some of that shift, but it might also lead them to refocus on in-area issues rather than the out-of-area issues that are becoming more important to NATO.

As NATO enters its new Strategic Concept process, it should look at ways to engage the newest members, many of whom weren't members when the alliance crafted the last Strategic Concept in 1999. Perhaps the Council should form a sub-committee composed of the European members, which can provide them a direct and focused voice into the process, allowing some of their interests into the next Strategic Concept. This may not be much, if it's even possible, but it would address some of the concerns this open letter raises.

ht to Paul Wells

Class Dismissed

[Still waiting facebook....]

A short film documenting what's at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Class Dismissed in Swat Valley

A Real Wrestler

[Still waiting for facebook to get me back on.]

A little WWF nostalgia, before seeing how The Wrestler does at the Oscars tonight.

Tito Santana - A Real Wrestler

The Uncler w/ Uncle Sam and Alyssa Milano

[Again, a substitute-post-for-facebook-share]

I think this works on just about every level:

The Uncler w/ Uncle Sam and Alyssa Milano from FOD Team

The Uncler w/ Uncle Sam and Alyssa Milano from Funny or Die

Zakaria: The Canadian Solution

I'm posting this to my blog, since I can't post it directly to facebook at the moment. Hopefully it still imports to my profile as a note (*fingers crossed*)

I think Zakaria is looking at Canada through somewhat rose-colored glasses. While the government has been in surplus for years, the current economic climate has driven it into deficit, and there's little chance that will change for at least a couple of years. Plus, the main drivers of economic growth the past few years - oil and gas out West and East, cars and manufacturing in the centre - have slowed down as the world recession digs in. That said, unemployment is still relatively low, the recession in Canada is projected to end later this year, and the banking and credit markets are solid. So the main point still holds.

Zakaria: The Canadian Solution

What's the Secretary of State?

Can Hillary Clinton succeed as Obama's secretary of state? - Shmuel Rosner

I've been making the argument against putting a politician in as Secretary of State, and I think Rosner does a good job along those lines.

"It has been a very long time since an active politician was able to overcome his ambition and become a truly effective secretary of state. The last to make the switch successfully was Cordell Hull, back in 1933, but Hull never returned to politics....
In these days of celebrity culture, it's easy to forget that the most successful secretaries of the era were either knowledgeable experts (Henry Kissinger), experienced practitioners (James Baker), or both (Marshall, Dean Acheson)."

I think it's also worth pointing out that Hull became Secretary of State with a particular goal in mind: to decrease international trade barriers and push the country, and the world, towards free trade.

(Anti-)Intellectual politics

One of the better arguments for why McCain should not win the election: McCain represents a party of anti-intellectual extremists. The only problem with the column, it doesn't actually make the argument about the anti-intellectual extremists.
Why I can't vote for John McCain. - By Anne Applebaum