Charlie Wilson, the quiet Congressional backer of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet War who recently passed away, is known primarily for his work in Afghanistan, popularized through the recent film Charlie Wilson’s War. What is not well known is that, before backing the Mujahadeen, Wilson was a strong supporter of the right-wing government of Nicaragua, President Anastasio “Tachito” Somoza.

The Somoza family ruled Nicaragua from the 1930s until the late 1970s, and Tachito Somoza was effectively leader of the country from 1967. Wilson was a strong supporter of the right-wing Somoza, and felt that his strong anti-Communist regime was being undermined by Jimmy Carter’s wishy-washy human rights-focused foreign policy. In trying to cajoul President Carter into supporting Somoza, he fought in the House appropriations committee, and at one point threatened to wreck President Carter’s Panama Canal Treaty if the U.S. did not resume supporting Somoza.

Wilson’s admiration for Somoza was unaffected by his offer of a large cash bribe to Wilson the first time they met in person (which were unnecessary—Wilson was a true believer). And when Wilson set up a meeting between Somoza and an allegedly former CIA operative, in a small party where the booze-was flowing freely, Somoza was initially delighted at the offer of a 1000-man squad of ex-CIA operatives to fight on Somoza’s behalf. But in a drunken stupor, Somoza made the mistake of fondling Tina Simons, a secretary of Wilson who was also his girlfriend at the time. (It was not Wilson but Somoza’s mistress Dinorah, who was present at the meeting, who went into a rage and ripped Somoza from Tina.) The fiasco embarrassed Somoza, who then lost interest in the squad when he heard about the price tag of US$100 million. Wilson was so embarressed by the situation, and in his awkward attempt to hijack US foreign policy after word of the meeting leaked out, that he abandoned his support for Somoza.

The aftermath? Somoza was ousted and exiled to Paraguay where he was assassinated. Nicaragua fell to a revolution led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front, and President Reagan later authorized the CIA to support the remnants of Somoza’s National Guard, the “contrarrevolucionarios” that became known as the Contras. And Tina Simons ended up testifying against the alleged CIA operative and disappeared into the witness protection program.

Charlie Wilson was embarressed and disgraced by the Somoza fiasco, which left people thinking he was reckless and had terrible judgment. But failure is the mother of success. Wilson learned from this experience: who he should work with in the US government, what was realistic, who he should trust, and the avenues of influence and barriers to success that faced him as he sat in Congress. It was this experience that taught him what to do when going solo on US foreign policy. And that was what lead to Charlie Wilson’s War.

I’ve wrote several times here that Obama’s foreign policy scares me, and Robert D. Kaplan said something along the same lines on several occasions. And as a safe Democratic state votes for a Republican in the election to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy, pundits are buzzing as to what this means with regard to health care and the economy. Yet a few people are looking at foreign policy, and the conclusion by Walter Russel Mead, writing the cover story in FP, is that Obama must fix his split personality.

Like Carter in the 1970s, Obama comes from the old-fashioned Jeffersonian wing of the Democratic Party, and the strategic goal of his foreign policy is to reduce America’s costs and risks overseas by limiting U.S. commitments wherever possible. He’s a believer in the notion that the United States can best spread democracy and support peace by becoming an example of democracy at home and moderation abroad. More than this, Jeffersonians such as Obama think oversize commitments abroad undermine American democracy at home. Large military budgets divert resources from pressing domestic needs; close association with corrupt and tyrannical foreign regimes involves the United States in dirty and cynical alliances; the swelling national-security state threatens civil liberties and leads to powerful pro-war, pro-engagement lobbies among corporations nourished on grossly swollen federal defense budgets.

While Bush argued that the only possible response to the 9/11 attacks was to deepen America’s military and political commitments in the Middle East, Obama initially sought to enhance America’s security by reducing those commitments and toning down aspects of U.S. Middle East policy, such as support for Israel, that foment hostility and suspicion in the region. He seeks to pull U.S. power back from the borderlands of Russia, reducing the risk of conflict with Moscow. In Latin America, he has so far behaved with scrupulous caution and, clearly, is hoping to normalize relations with Cuba while avoiding collisions with the “Bolivarian” states of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

As Obama is pledging to make the world a more peaceful, safer place and being friends with everyone, it’s worth remembering that Carter came into the White House promising to end the Cold War. Four years later, he was supporting the resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, increasing the defense budget, and laying the groundwork for an expanded U.S. presence in the Middle East.

Provided by the White House.

A rough draft of this post was accidentally published before it was final. Sorry for the confusion.

Since Obama took office, he has taken a very different policy standpoint on four major countries that have poor relations with the US —North Korea, Iran, Burma, and Venezuela. Obama has offered to wipe the slate clean—end sanctions, begin friendly talks, shake hands in public, whatever the thug in power wants. While it’s naturally too early to draw final conclusions, the initial result of Obama’s “sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy” (whatever that means) has been just as much a failure as a student of International Relations 101 would expect. Peace through strength is still important, and human nature still applies in the 21st century.

The liberal blog Firedoglake has mocked conservative criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy by ironically writing that “only Republicans can shake hands with dictators.” This cheap joke is great for a blog, or for the short attention span of the mass media, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. Nixon made his career on being a fierce anti-communist but was the president who opened relations with Communist China; Reagan only made a raprochment with the USSR after it selected a leader who wanted to defrost relations with the US. Yet another big difference between Nixon shaking hands with Mao and Obama shaking hands with Chavez is that in the case of the former, a new era in bilateral relations had already been created behind the scenes. In the case of the later, it was a peculiar gamble that only became a PR opportunity for an anti-democratic thug. Obama should remember the old Vulcan saying quoted by Spock in Star Trek VI: “Only Nixon could go to China.”

Obama is no Nixon.

Let’s have a quick review of how relations with the four rogue nations have changed after four months of Obama’s “sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy.”

• North Korea: Pyongyang has become more prickly and unpredictable as ever, launching rockets and testing its second nuclear device, and has refused to return to six party talks.

• Burma: Obama is moving towards engagement of the Myanmar junta and even proposed stopping sanctions, which has been met in response by the show trial of the country’s democratically elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

• Venezuela: Nationalization of industries continues, Obama’s handshake with the thug of Caracas continues to be a great publicity move for Chavez, but this still doesn’t stop Venezuela’s president from criticizing Obama at every chance he gets.

• Iran: Iran is the only glimmer of positive news, although perhaps mostly because a presidential election looms on the horizon, and even those inside the cabinet are making friendly noises in Obama’s direction. That being said, the country has still firmly denied that it will give up its nuclear program, and even writers at Time wonder if Obama is dragging us along a path that will result in war with Iran.

This is all componded by the irony that as Obama gets chummy with America’s foes, he’s speaking being tough on Israel to oppose any expansion of Israeli settlements. Someone’s forgotten the many failures of Jimmy Carter.

The evidence speaks for itself. And I think the dictator-hugging, it will continue in this general direction. Which is why I’ve written on several occasions that Obama’s foreign policy scares me.

UPDATE: Thanks to Eddie for this one—turns out that it isn’t just the Israelis, but the British as well, who are getting snubbed by Obama.

Both Chirol and Eddie wrote several years ago that the US should declare victory in the war on terrorism and move on. Britain ultimately took this policy choice and dropped the “bumper sticker” policy slogan. The U.S. under G.W. Bush did not.

But a policy change has come with the Obama administration, so says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

Clinton also acknowledged that administration officials have stopped calling the fight against al-Qaeda “the global war on terror,” the preferred phraseology of the Bush administration.

“The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself obviously,” she said, adding that there had been no formal policy directive to do so. “It’s just not being used,” she said.

Clinton is the highest level administration official to acknowledge the shift but she did not give a reason for the change. Many Democrats have contended that the “war on terror” label was too broad, potentially enlisting the United States in a war with any militant group; the president’s new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy says it has the central aim of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaeda.

Following on this post of last month, I’ll give JPY500 to anyone who can tell me what this recent statement by the Yukio Hatoyama, Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Japan, means:

We want to move away from U.S. dependency to a more equal alliance… We are only looking for an equal relationship, which we believe the U.S. also prefers.

DPJ supporter Tobias Harris believes this is not an anti-US statement, and I think he’s probably right. He also thinks that the Obama administration will create a post-Clinton/Bush Japan alliance that is focused solely on joint security declarations. But then we had this gem from DPJ leader Ozawa

If Japan is prepared to take care on its own issues that are relevant to itself, then there is no need for the United States to forward deploy to such an extent in Japan.

Here also, we’ve got a quote that could have a dozen meanings. It was widely condemned by ruling LDP officials and even US diplomats, as it is believed to call for Japan to be more independent. But the same vague statement could also be seen as a conservative’s call for a less restrictive constitution regarding Japan’s limitations on having its own military. Which is it? And what would Ozawa and the DPJ actually do if their motley crew of socialists, right-wingers, and free market liberals actually came into power? The chances are increasingly likely that we’ll find out in a few short months.

The increasing likelihood that Iran will successfully acquire a nuclear weapon cannot be avoided. While this author does not predict with certainty that it will happen, nor believe the US and EU shouldn’t do everything in its power to stop it, it is a real possibility. Therefore, policy discussions should also begin to think about the potential implications of a nuclear Iran and consider how the US and others can mitigate the effects thereof.

North Korea has not yet set off a cascade of proliferation, largely because the potential new nuclear states are all US allies (South Korea, Japan, perhaps Taiwan). The same is not true of all the Middle East. In addition, states may react not only to Iran, but to their perceived reaction of others, i.e. Egypt reacting to Iran directly as well as to its belief Saudi Arabia will respond with its own program. Below is a regional map of what a nuclear Iran could lead to:

And to give readers something else to think about, the following countries are currently giving serious consideration to nuclear energy in the near term (within 10 years): Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Norway, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkey, Vietnam.

As if that were not troubling enough, the following countries have long term plans or studies underway: Algeria, Australia, Chile, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Libya, Malaysia, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.

This is not to say that all or even most will move forward. Nuclear energy (even for peaceful purposes) requires a massive financial investments in infrastructure, technology, training and more. Additionally, some states may decide against it at various states of their programs, as has happened many times in the past.

Therefore, in the event that Iran does indeed acquire a nuclear weapons capability, which we’ll define as the generally agreed perception that Iran does (whether or not it has tested), the United States and Europe need to think long and hard about instruments of state power which can be applied to prevent a cascade of nuclear weapons states and/or to ensure that peaceful nuclear energy (a legal right of every NPT signatory) stays peaceful and secure.

The past six months have made us think that the foreign policy action in 2009 will be seen along the Russia-Georgia border, in Gaza, or off the coast of Somalia. Yet it is Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan where we should see the biggest issues tackled and the biggest changes coming. Elections in Iran and Afghanistan are scheduled that could have a major impact on policy. Other events are already in motion that will make change inevitable. Here’s what we’re seeing.

IRAN
Obama has reached out to the former axis of evil with warm words about talking. For his part, hardline President Ahmadinejad has refused to deal with the US yet, and talked about the need for a US apology for past wrongs before there is any progress.

But now there is movement in Iran as we head into the June presidential election. Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s former reformist president, just announced he would stand as a candidate to try and deprive Ahmadinejad of a second term. Khatami, a 65-year-old reformist cleric, whose served two-terms from 1997 to 2005, retired from politics after he stepped down but saw no one step in to head the reformist faction. There is potential for real change, but any movement seems unlikely before the critical issue of who runs the country is decided. That means waiting another 5 months before anything happens—but expect changes after the election, on both the US and Iranian side.

AFGHANISTAN
Last February, when Joe Biden was a senator who had lost a primary run very badly, was visiting Afghanistan, he queried President Karzai in Afghanistan on the corruption, which Karzai brushed off and which led Biden to storm out of the room.

Today, Biden is the US vice president on a world tour speaking about how the new administration will run foreign policy, Obama has spoken of Karzai as unreliable and ineffective, Secretary of State Clinton said called Afghanistan a narco-state, and the Americans are bypassing Karzai to deal directly with the governors in the countryside. Karzai is unpopular at home, with polls suggesting that 85% of voters want to vote for “the other guy”—and there is an alection scheduled for August.

PAKISTAN
Pakistan is identified as the top priority for the new administration as a nuclear-armed country hurtling towards chaos, namely:

The security situation in Pakistan seems to deteriorate daily. Last week’s headlines, for instance, included: a bombing of a religious procession in the central town of Dera Ghazi Khan, which claimed at least 27 lives; government helicopter gunship attacks that killed 52 militants in the Khyber area of the tribal region; the kidnapping of a senior UN official by gunmen; and the beheading of a Polish engineer who was abducted five months ago. A videotape of the execution was released last night by his captors.

A year ago democracy was restored after eight years of military rule but many believe the government is in a state of paralysis, as an unwieldy coalition and a cabinet of about 70 ministers jockey for position – ever wary of the army, which has ruled Pakistan for most of its existence. Government decision-making is concentrated in the hands of President Asif Zardari, creating a log-jam, critics say.

But behind the new democratic government, the cause of the Taliban uprising and its backing is opaque. Some blame the Indian intelligence agency (RAW) while others accuse Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence Agency ISI. Some even blame the CIA. And India wants questions answered also.

Prior to Obama being elected, I wrote that his foreign policy “scares me,” referring specifically to North Korea. Vice presidential candidate Biden said that Obama would be “tested” in his first year in office. Kaplan wrote that, if elected, Obama would have to send a message that, “I’m not Jimmy Carter or even Bill Clinton… I’m not the candidate who had a tepid response to the Russian invasion of Georgia.”

This is all relevant because over here in the Far East, there is intelligence that North Korea is on the brink of firing a ballistic missile, possibly towards Japan, and possibly towards the United States. The goal? Analysts say it is meant to intimidate conservative South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and grab the attention of President Obama.

Before the election, this was Obama’s stance on North Korea, according to CFR:

President-elect Obama advocates for developing an “international coalition” to handle nuclear North Korea, calls the Six-Party Talks “ad hoc,” and says he supports “sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy.” In a September 2008 presidential debate, Obama said a lack of diplomatic engagement with North Korea led the country to significantly increase its nuclear capacity, and said the Bush administration’s eventual reengagement with the regime led to “some progress.”

Within weeks of Pyongyang’s October 2006 nuclear test, Obama appeared on Meet the Press and said the United States had no leverage over North Korea because of Washington’s refusal to hold bilateral negotiations. He also clarified a passage from his book Audacity of Hope (in which he posed the question “Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma?”) and said he did not consider invading the communist country an option to resolving the nuclear issue.

In May 2005, Obama named North Korea as one of the “biggest proliferation challenges we currently face.” Obama has called for the strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea “that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.”

Obama said in September 2008 he believes the United States needs a missile defense system in part because of the nuclear threat North Korea poses.

Pyongyang knows exactly what it is doing. It knows the US watches its activities with spy satellites. It knows there are ROK and Japan intelligence units with sources in the country. It knows that Obama became president on an anti-Bush mandate. And it’s goal here is to act with its typical brinkmanship, and try to get something in exchange. In other words, Obama is being tested—just two weeks after his inauguration.

Marmot expects Pyongyang is trying to push Seoul out of the six party talks (relations between Pyongyang and Seoul are at present pretty darn bad) and push Obama into “bilateral mode.” All this will give Obama the chance to show the world what he means by “sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy.” I had no clue what he was talking about then, and am no closer to understanding how those rules would apply to this situation not that we have a hard fact pattern. And frankly, while I’m no sore loser, I still think McCain had it right.

When the Arabs conquered the Mediterranean, shutting off the flow of goods, money, people and security from Europe to North Africa and the Levant, the center of Western civilization moved northwards. As the synergy between mass communications, transportation and new technology empower the East, we see a lagging Asia catching up and the center of world power shifting, albeit slowly, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Both Thomas Barnett (who I hope to meet Tuesday!)and Robert Kaplan have discussed this trend and that the US is uniquely positioned to be a major player on both sides thanks to its geography.

The announcement that Secretary of State Clinton’s first trip will be to Asia instead of Europe is further evidence.

One interesting question is, assuming the center of global power (political, economic, military) does slowly shift to the Pacific, what will it mean for Oceania’s vast array of failing and ungoverned states? Will we see more interventions and peacekeeping missions? Will the US take the lead or may Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China or India. As traffic increases will instability on the many island states there lead to intervention, or can they be bypassed and isolated given their geographic location? Will they face increased pressure to democratize or to regulate their financial systems (e.g. lots of money laundering)? It would be an interesting topic for the boys at Pacific Empire (if they are still alive).