http://www.foreignpolicy.com
Whenever Taiwan holds an election, Beijing puts on a show of military might to demonstrate that, one way or another, Taiwan will remain part of China. Prior to Taiwan’s first direct presidential election in 1996, China lobbed missiles that landed within 50 miles of Taiwan’s coast. Last March, four days before the Taiwanese elections, China carried out a naval exercise off the coast of Taiwan—its largest-ever joint military exercise with a foreign power. Who was China’s partner in intimidation? France. Also in 2004, the French government began lobbying the European Union (EU) to lift the arms embargo placed on China after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. So, what explains France’s newfound fraternité with China? France clearly sees China as a counterbalance to the U.S. “hyperpower”; French President Jacques Chirac says that France and China’s “global partnership” is “founded first of all on a common vision of the world—a multipolar world.” France is also keen to gain from the economic action in China and believes that lifting the arms embargo would allow its defense contractors to win lucrative contracts from the Chinese military. Small surprise that in 2004 the French celebrated “The Year of China in France.”
The European Parliament made headlines when it rejected Italian politician Rocco Buttiglione for the post of EU justice commissioner due to his strict Catholic views on social issues such as abortion. But amid this culture war, a far more important development received scant attention: The replacement of Latvian Ingrida Udre as taxation commissioner. The parliament took exception to her belief in the benefits of low taxation and tax competition between member states and raised concerns over alleged financial irregularities in her past. Her replacement? Hungarian socialist—and former Communist—Laszlo Kovacs, who favors the “creation of a common consolidated corporate taxation base.” His appointment is sure to spark tensions between Brussels and Europe’s low-tax economies, such as Britain and Ireland, and strengthen the hand of countries that want to raise corporate taxes throughout the EU.
When trouble flared in the Iraqi town of Mosul in late November, the only Iraqi troops that U.S. forces trusted to help restore order were Kurdish, according to reports in the BBC and the New York Times. With strong memories of their suffering under Saddam Hussein, the Kurds feel far less conflicted than Iraq’s Arabs about joining the United States to fight remnants of the Baathist regime. Yet, U.S. reliance on the Kurds to police ethnically mixed towns such as Mosul could exacerbate tensions in Iraq. Juan Cole, a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan, fears a “backlash against the Kurds” among Shiite and Sunni Iraqis in the near future.
On July 19, 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin fired the army’s chief of staff, Gen. Anatoly Kvashnin, and replaced him with Yuri Baluyevsky, a general who is more supportive of Putin’s long-running—and so far unsuccessful—struggle to reform the military. Since becoming president, Putin has sought to purge the Russian military of its Cold War mindset and retool it for counterinsurgency operations. The military establishment, however, has resisted change, and it still maintains a war-fighting capability oriented toward fighting NATO, as opposed to militants within Russia’s own borders. And, despite Putin’s call for an end to the draft in 2001, it still exists, and conscripts will continue serving in Chechnya until 2006. Until Putin can push his reforms through, Russia will likely have little success in defeating insurgencies in secessionist regions such as Chechnya. The ineptitude of elite military units during the Beslan hostage crisis in September 2004—when 80 percent of the hostages were killed or wounded during the storming of a school held by Chechen militants—reveals just how much work still needs to be done.
“The politics are stable, the economy is developing, and the leaders are thinking seriously about economic reform.” This was Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei’s assessment of North Korea after his visit in September. Yes, you did read that right: North Korea. The country, whose economic collapse has been anticipated for more than a decade, embarked on a series of economic reforms—including the introduction of privately run farmers markets in 2002—that appear to be bearing fruit. Last year, North Korea recorded its highest level of merchandise imports since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And in November, the United Nations reported the country had its best harvest in a decade. Foreign businesses such as DHL have begun to invest in the Hermit Kingdom. There are even reports of a supermarket opening in the near future. North Korea isn’t about to become the next Asian Tiger, but those who are counting on an economic meltdown to avert a nuclear standoff had better start contemplating a Plan B.
The Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review of January 2002 emphasizes the need to develop bunker busters to enhance the ability to eliminate underground military or nuclear facilities (such as those found in Iran and North Korea). According to the White House, such low-yield nuclear weapons would give the United States greater flexibility in eliminating targets without massive fallout. Critics saw the development of this new class of nuclear warheads as an obstacle to convincing other nations to abandon their nuclear weapons programs. Last November, the opponents of the new nukes got their wish when the U.S. Congress eliminated funding for research into the missile warheads. But if administration backers are correct, the funding cut may have emboldened rogue regimes to simply hide their weapons underground to evade U.S. air power and deprived Washington of a crucial weapon in its arsenal against the remaining members of the “axis of evil.”
Although the Boston Red Sox undid their curse in dramatic fashion, the West African country of Chad is quietly trying to undo the “oil curse” that plagues many developing countries. Chad became an oil exporter and in July received its first $38 million in oil revenues. Oil resources routinely fuel government corruption and civil conflict and undermine economic development. But, as part of a deal with the World Bank, which helped fund the pipeline that transfers the Chadian oil to market, 80 percent of the oil revenue will be spent on health, education, and infrastructure for its mostly poor population, and 10 percent will be invested for future generations. The government’s expenditures will face the scrutiny of a watchdog committee that includes individuals from civil society and government, and most of the money will be held by the World Bank in a London account to preempt graft. The arrangement may not work out—one nongovernmental organization already complained that the oversight board receives inadequate resources. But if it does, it could be a powerful model for other countries who are rich in resources and poor in everything else.
When Libya gave up nuclear weapons in late 2003, some pundits claimed that the U.S.-led war in Iraq changed Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s mind, while others hailed the breakthrough as a product of patient “carrot and stick” diplomacy. But in 2004 it became clear that another Qaddafi might be calling the shots: Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, Muammar’s second son. The 32-year-old actively lobbied his father to end Libya’s standoff with the West, give up weapons of mass destruction, and open the country’s economy. “They both want to keep the country in the family, and Seif wants Libya to be a normal country—no more funding terrorism, developing nuclear weapons, or being isolated economically,” says John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org. In March 2004, Seif publicly chastised Arab governments for badmouthing the Bush administration’s Greater Middle East Initiative to promote democracy, saying “instead of shouting and criticizing the American initiative, you have to bring democracy to your countries.” He also said Libyan Jews who were persecuted decades ago are entitled to compensation and urged them to return to Libya; his father later echoed the proposal. Seif insists that he is not preparing to take over the reins from his father, but he has clearly carved out a significant role. In March 2004, he told reporters that British Prime Minister Tony Blair would soon visit Libya; only later did London confirm. He conducted the negotiations over weapons of mass destruction with British and U.S. intelligence, and he arranged to have members of the U.S. Congress visit Libya in January 2004.
Around 800,000 U.S. military troops have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001. On top of being overstretched, the general health of the military may be deteriorating. More than 9,300 servicemen and women have been wounded, and there have been more than 14,400 Army medical evacuations in Iraq. At 7 to 1, the ratio of wounded to dead is the highest of any conflict in recent memory; in Vietnam, it was around 3 to 1. Wounded soldiers today have a much better chance of surviving than in the past—improved medical technology and body armor enable soldiers to endure injuries that would have killed them in previous wars. Priceless lives are saved, but the human cost of debilitating injuries and the financial cost of treatment and rehabilitation may loom large in years to come. Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, calculates that if a 24-year-old married male soldier with one child were to develop post-traumatic stress disorder—a condition that, together with depression and anxiety, afflicts about 1 in 6 soldiers returning from Iraq, according to the New England Journal of Medicine—he or she could receive compensation payments of more than $2,400 per month for the rest of his or her life.
