American Exceptionalism turns Universalism then What?

Samuel P Huntington’s epos from 2004 Who Are We? is an interesting read even for Europeans. The Jews have claimed that they are God’s chosen people, which of course have irritated quite a few,  but if 300m Americans claim the same thing this must be considered preposterous, or? After the fall of the Soviet Union Francis Fukuyama, a student of Huntington, wrote a book called The End of History and the Last Man. We had, according to Fukuyama reached a point where liberal democracy was the Universal remedy for world politics. With the rise of China, without God and democracy, we have seen that East Asia can create prosperity as well. That leaves the Western Civilization divided: Europe, the cradle of Western Civilization and the Scientific Revolution, which could also be called exceptional, and the New World now led by Obama, the first Pacific President, no longer universal.

The attitude to the economy and the respective solutions to the financial crisis is different between the US and Europe. The US want to stimulate and Europe choses austerity. The welfare state is more developed in the EU. The US population is growing whereas the European countries are contracting relatively speaking. Immigration takes place in both with the US filling up with Mexicans and Asians and Europe with Africans and Muslims. The US is highly religious whereas Europe is more secular. Americans work harder than the Europeans, at least more hours per year, and are genetically from adventurous, more risk prone, Europeans. Americans have involved themselves more in world security and have a significantly larger military force. Since World War II the Americans have excelled in science and technology but the Europeans are catching up.  I will always work for maintaining good relations between the US and Europe but have seen during the last years that they are distancing themselves from each other more and more.

There is, however, one big difference: America is the United States of America but the EU can’t make up its mind about federalizing. When I started out in Political Science a few years ago, I thought the United States of Europe was a good idea. I thought English as a second language for all EU states was commendable and would keep a common culture alive trans-Atlantically. Then I realized that this was unattainable due to public nationalism. The European debt crisis gives Europe a push in the United States of Europe direction. How strong this push is going to be is an obvious question? Greeks are out demonstrating for World War II money from Germany so tensions have evolved to a malign degree.

The Davos Men or economic transnationals, that Huntington discusses, live in a global world already where they have less nationalism to start with but they might not actually need the Western Civilization either because they do a lot of business in Japan, India and China as well. However, they might just have to start thinking about getting the public with them a little considering for example the Occupy Wall Street movement. In this sense I am very Huntingtonian. They used to say there is more trans-Atlantically that we have in common than separating us. I still think this is true. The lesser evil is probably to keep the EU together, despite democracy deficit, to develop this market as a global competitor. We are going to need people around us that do business our way and that continue developing science as we started. In this way southern immigration into our civilization becomes a good thing that maintains the Western world in an amiable relationship with this world.

Differences between the US and Germany?

I have been told that in the US a person that has suffered a bancruptcy can get a second chance but that in Germany such a person is lost forever. It occurred to me that this difference might stem from the Hegelian master and slave problem. A person is not a man if he has not lived through a death challenge. If he does not dare the challenge he becomes as slave. The bancrupt person died, so to speak.

What is not clear is if the nowadays risk-averse Germans, which can be seen in the differences between Germany and the US on the economy and on military matters, on nuclear power, are truly Hegelian or not. A death challenge to become a serious person is a rather silly adventure. Modern education would be meaningless since an educational endproduct would not be useful without a risk to vanish. Hegel spoke before public education though.

One category of functionary in the modern society, the soldier, firefighter and police, could of course be selected on Hegel's basis. I guess we know today that the percentage of humans that qualify in this category is rather small. Smaller in Europe than in the US, apparently.

The US and Germany seems to have less and less to say to each other. When Angela Merkel was over the last time and gave a speech before Congress she irritated the hosts by pushing for greenery. Now recently they took a stand against nuclear everything. The economy, Middle East policy, Libya.

So, while the Swedes sit and watch their BBC productions on TV, do they become more German or Anglo-American? I don't see any polls on these issues. Why are we afraid of discussing this? There was a recent poll on a higher interest for Swedes to join NATO but this is not a discriminatory between Germany and Anglo-America. The German-US split might break NATO. That is probably why Obama gave Angela Merkel the Medal of Freedom, the highest honor that can be given a civilian.

What happens if the US pulls out of NATO?

The US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave a talk recently that has been commented today by Gideon Rachman on his FT.com column. Jan Kallberg also writes on his blog about the change in US preferences "after" the war on terrorism. Kallberg says that nuclear weapons are going to make a comeback.

What we observe now is a US that might lower their defense costs a bit and a Europe that is substantially lowering theirs. China is significantly increasing their costs yearly. This obviously reflects how these different power centers view the global risks and the projection of global power. Although I think that the difference in risk taking within NATO is more severe than the actual amounts the countries are contributing, I am not sure why the European countries downplay military risks in this fashion when the economically booming China is thinking otherwise. China is apparently not content with economical weaponry.

Kallberg argues that what is going to become important is the actual military capability. If the European countries cannot even keep up a fight in Libya for a few weeks, as Gates pointed out, there is no capability. So if NATO falls, Europe will be dangerously alone. A country like Sweden would have problems paying for the benefit of being under the US nuclear umbrella and in practice be without defense. I hate to bring this up in this apparently risk-free era but I simply do not trust Russia.

Tony Blair pointed out the other day that the EU for the sake of power should join the US to defend Western values. He also said that he advocated for an elected EU president to minimize the democratic deficit, although he did not see this as realizable but spoke of it as a goal. The president he discussed should not be above the national heads of states in this case. I think it is statesman-like to speak up for the West in light of the above discussion. It is highly reasonable.

However, reasonable or not it does not seem to reflect what is happening even if the EU could need common views on common problems these days of debt problems and polarity in the future of an ever closer union. Proponents against military matching with the US probably say that we can't do much in Libya or Syria anyhow. The fact remains though that a country that crash Iraq in a matter of days has a different leverage on events given a unified West that is not divided on itself.

Returning to the reason for why Europe does not spend much on military defense, it may be very difficult to invade EU with soldiers. However, if nuclear weapons will be in vogue a country like Iran would want to get some and can thus threaten the EU with severe damage, something the EU might have to act upon. If European countries run out of munitions after a few weeks, it would seem like a coordinated raid to eliminate a nuclear threat from Iran would be highly hypothetical?

The trans-Atlantic alliance?

The ft.com ran an article about Robert Gates, the US secretary of defence, on Friday. Gates claimed that NATO alliance was at risk. The reason was the bad performance of allies in Libya. It is the old problem having some people doing the light work and others doing the hard work and the difference in how much resources they spend per capita.

I reread the book Of Paradise and Power by Robert Kagan from 2003 for the occasion. Henry Kissinger said of this book: "Though in the past we have often disagreed, I consider this essay one of those seminal treatises without which any discussion of European-American relations would be incomplete and which will shape the discussion for years to come".

Kagan says the following: "One of the things that most clearly divides Europeans and Americans today is a philosophical, even metaphysical disagreement over where exactly mankind stands on the continuum between the laws of the jungle and the laws of reason. Americans do not believe we are as close to the realization of the Kantian dream as do Europeans."

Furthermore, Kagan does not think the Europeans want to strive for a unified "West". So what have happened since 2003? Well, Obama turned out to be very popular in Europe compared to Bush but this does not seem to have bridged the difference in how Europeans and Americans view their security. The Arab Spring, however, in my humble opinion, should make the Europeans more willing to view things the American way.

The Global Position?

I see that some people claim that they are global liberals or that Sweden is a global country. Is this an escape from the real people "verklighetens folk"? I must admit I feel a little guilty myself but the question is what such a stratification does to a country. The global postion is a little fuzzy.

As I noted before, the Libya debacle is a case in point. Swedes and Danes share the same base in Italy but do not do the same job and Germany is not doing anything. This is examples of different penetration of the stratification problem.

As a global liberal it is necessary to take a strand for helping the so called rebels in Libya which means you get in trouble supporting Germany's new anti-nuclear line as the path forward for Europe especially when you get 40% of your electricity from nuclear power. Again it is possible to escape as a global liberal with global values but such values are theoretical. They don't exist in reality in a country. I wonder if calling Sweden a global country is not the same as declaring it neutral in all conflicts and keeping one's options open? Saying that we do what the EU does is not true either. We are not even part of the euro-zone.

Then again how homogenous is the global position. Is it the position of global peace? Or the position of global finance? Is it the defunct G20? Jeffrey D. Sachs suggested the world should be divided into self-sustaining regions instead of a G20 mechanism where the regions take care of economical and security questions. Our region would then be the Nordic countries. Some 25m people. Since Norway is not part of the EU and Sweden and Finland not part of NATO we are not even ready to take care of our immediate environment.

With our language education we are part of the Anglo-American culture domain. But apart from security issues, Great Britain and the US are not so close anymore. Germany just took a path that seemed unpalatable for Sweden and thus an ever closer Union does not look potentially good right now, which is what is necessary to save the Euro. You see, neutrality politics becomes tempting again.

Where is the future forming right now? 1523 when Gustaf Vasa got financial help from Lübeck to take back Stokholm from the Danes and then help to organize Sweden saw a development where Holland slowly took over control from Lübeck and thus formed the Western civilization with England during the 16th and 17th centuries. Sweden became on their own then from their benefactor, independence, but did not get part of the real action until later. Are we doing the same mistake today?

The absolute basis for a foreign policy?

It is with deep worries that I read of the Red-Green change in their foreign policy and it is my sincere hope that the Allians wins the election in September. Based on the information in the media I have discussed the prospects in Afghanistan thoroughly, which might have sounded critical at times, but in the end I back Obama's ambitions for other reasons.

If you want to build a foreign policy, I guess you start out by defining what countries you want to be specially friendly to. People in Sweden seem to be very fast in complaining on the US but they don't dare to say anything negative about Germany or Russia. Especially Germany.

When the trans-Atlantic balance is wobbly and Germany challenged the US after the financial crisis, people in Sweden have become even more German. This might have resulted in the shift in Red-Green policy. I have a feeling that the Germanophilia is nothing you talk about, for old historic carefulness reasons sake, which make the policy close in on the old neutrality nerves and kum-ba-yah peace movement instead.

Being for a development of the Club Baltic does not have to mean becoming anti-American. For me anti-Americanism equals being against human progress. The political, scientific and cultural leadership that emanates from across the Atlantic is worth admiring. It is possible to criticize America for this and that but as a country go out and demand that they should change their security doctrine is utterly wrong.

It has become old fashion to bring up the fact that American security thinking has kept Europe in general and Sweden in particular out of trouble from the brutal Soviet Union expansionist rule over the years. Russia is brushing off Stalin as a strongman that conquered Nazi Germany and has reinstated the public worship of armory in motion on that old Red Square. Red from blood of some 40m victims of Stalin's executions.

American scientists have lately made progress in understanding how life is maintained and it should be remembered that Stalin's Soviet Union threw modern biology and genetics in the vast paper bin via Lysenko's ideas. The only science that flourished in the Soviet Union was that of the weapons industry and space, which is closely linked to missile development. I don't see life develop in Russia of today and as I have said it would be a great disappointment if Club Baltic development led to reprisals against human progress.

Yes, it is possible to become a monk and say that there should be peace on Earth. From a global perspective this is however not possible. The bad guys would take over the business. We see this taking place in failing states such as Somalia, North Korea, Afghanistan and God forbid Pakistan. It is necessary to stand tall against such threats. Sweden seems to confront a more important election than I originally thought it would. The difference between an anti-American Sweden and a Sweden that would move too fast into the sustainable society versus a more sensible and balanced Sweden is grand.

Ukraine-Russia relations

Ukraine and Russia: A normal day's debate in Kiev The Economist: "And extending the stay of the Russian fleet is backed by some 60% of Ukrainians."

Apparently the brawl at the Ukraine parliament the other day was a hangover from the unfair election, since the majority of Ukrainians don't mind keeping the Russian Sebastopol base. It might be more interesting to ask the Russian taxpayers whether they like the marriage or not? The gas subsidy is derived from removing the export duty from Gazprom.

Marrying Ukraine and Russia might be strategic in terms of securing the food potential of Ukraine once called the food store of the Soviet Union. The attitude from the West now seem to be favorable for the marriage when the economics of not having the burden of Ukraine is important rather than the political domain speak. The Obama administration is in principle letting Russia in on their old turf without fussing for potential gains in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Europe is more on their own now since they did not help out so much yonder?

The Obama doctrine is getting clearer. He is not sentimental at all as evident with Europe and Israel. Friendship is redefined. It is super pragmatic. As I pointed out once before, the slow but sure disappearance of the US from Europe has thrown Europe into a crisis of identity that is now enforced by the economic problems of southern Europe together with a prestige fight with the US about whether or not the Euro zone was a good idea. Europe's attitude towards the US was a little too harsh during the financial crisis perhaps.

What is interesting, however, is how Russia in reality views Europe. In his speech on Victory Day May 9th, 2007, when the Red Army beat Nazi Germany, Vladimir Putin said: "It is all the more important that we remember this today, because these threats are not becoming fewer but are only transforming and changing their appearance. These new threats, just as during the Third Reich, show the same contempt for human life and the same aspiration to establish an exclusive dictate over the world". A New York Times article at this point was a trifle paranoiac and suggested Putin talked about the US, but maybe he was talking about the EU and Germany? Maybe he fears economic rather than military threats?

Putin has also said that the fall of the Soviet Union was the worst catastrophe of the century. In the above speech he said: "Victory Day not only unites the people of Russia but also united our neighbors in the Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States". In other words 20m people did not die in vain, a sacrifice so large that is possible to question its reasonableness. This is all becoming more of a reality now and personally I am ready to question the wisdom of the earlier alienation from the US on its pursuit for freedom in far away places. As you make your bed, so you must lie on it.

What seems to remain now is to establish a working economic relationship with Russia as Putin tries to repair what he can from his greatest catastrophe.

The Afghanistan problem

Nej till kriget Ledare Aftonbladet: "Sammanblandningen mellan USA:s krig mot terrorismen och FN:s Isaf-styrka, som ska bidra med säkerhet och utbilda afghansk polis och militär och möjliggöra humanitära insatser, är djupt problematisk. Att FN-styrkan dessutom leds av Nato och av en amerikansk general gör inte saken bättre."

Aftonbladet, the newspaper that accused Israel of killing Palestinians and stealing their organs, claims that there is a problem because civilian mores are mixed up with America's war against terrorism in Afghanistan. However, we are not just fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan we are also fighting Iran. Like the US was doing and are doing in Iraq. Iran has chosen to wage a clandestine war against all West's interests in the region. They support Hamas and Hizbollah. They have infiltrated Iraq and they train, lodge and equip fighters that aid the Taliban. Even if they have not formally attacked another country they are expansive and thusly want to propagate their revolution.

Much of the fighting morale for the Taliban is probably coming from the knowledge that Iran supports them. Michael Rubin a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and lectures at the Naval Postgraduate School and at Johns Hopkins University writes and article which elaborates the case for a regime change in Iran. I have earlier thought that the only way forward was a non-sanction approach on Iran but I have reassessed this position to surgical sanctions engineered for targeting only the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Robert Gates, the American Defence Secretary, recently brought up the problem of how to approach the situation Iran's nuclear program is causing. What is new with Rubin's approach is that he rules out bombing which is thought to only irritate and anger those positive to the West that are the prerequisite for a regime change. It is indeed problematic with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and with their attitude they have caused a terrible situation in the Middle East. It would be very good if a new government in Iran would decide to not develop nuclear weapons.

Afghanistan might be insignificant when it comes to commerce but it is situated in an important area where the interests of the US, Russia and China meet. Kyrgyzstan is apparently starting to feel the pressure as well. It harbors both Russian and American bases and the actions of Russia as of late indicates that Russians what the American base shut. Public relations wise Russia is doing terribly well recently in Europe. President Medvedev's deft flight to Krakow through the Icelandic ashes when European chiefs of state huddled in cars and cessnas certainly impressed. However, when push comes to showe they are probably friends of the Islamic Republic to whom they sell important air defence systems that protects them against potential Western assaults. As the development of Central Asia proceeds by Russia and China, Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan are a way to the sea half ways as India also have taken note of since they have entered into Afghanistan with quite some funds.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, recently exclaimed that he'd join the Taliban if not so and so but at the same time he says he needs funds for his security forces until 2014. As long as Iran keeps up their covert operations, the war in Afghanistan can drag on for quite some time. Sweden should definitely stay and support the US together with other NATO forces and the purchase of American helicopters to support our troops is well seen. It is my belief that Afghans are better off in the West than in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. A stable Afghanistan is also going to have positive effects on security in Pakistan.

The Brussels Forum

Europeans Woo U.S., Promising Relevance - NYTimes.com: "American officials and European experts largely see European national leaders as focused on their own debates about Greece and the debt crisis afflicting the group of countries that use the euro, divided over China and Russia and tired of Afghanistan. Europe is seen just now as not a problem for the United States, but not much help, either."

R. Nicholas Burns, a former senior American official and Ambassador to NATO, now Professor at Harvard Kennedy School of Government, says "Europeans should be our natural ally, if we can get together on the Middle East, Russia and China. But we can't seem to find that strategic consensus. NATO itself is faltering".

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish PM and now Secretary General of NATO, insists that "the burden of fighting in Afghanistan was shared by Europe. Non-American forces represented 40% of troops there and took 40% of the causalities." Burns said the Europeans did not seem to invest so much in defence, the "capability gap", and that they mostly stayed out from the serious fighting in Afghanistan.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, director of policy at the US State Department, said "is how much we measure the relationship in terms of what we do together in the world in stead of how much we focus on Europe."

I guess this is the question: is Europe ready to take on the world or is it navel gazing. Rasmussen says that NATO is at a low in the US today and that the low defence spending in Europe is risking the concept. If we want to be a global player we would have to invest more. Europe in the mean time is the largest contributor of aid.

I have discussed this earlier in the blog whether or not it is possible to do different things of the total for the US and the EU. It gets complicated if there is asymmetry in terms of risking lives. Right now there seems to be a problem. However, if national leaders promise relevance as the title of the New York Times article is suggesting, the question is if they have their populations behind them? Europeans seems to think they will be left alone in peace. We can always hope.

Russia joining NATO?

The Dutch retreat - The Globe and Mail: "A military alliance without a clear common enemy, or a clear goal, becomes almost impossible to maintain. NATO is still dominated by the U.S., and European allies still fall in line, if only just to keep the alliance going – and in the hope of exerting some influence on the only remaining superpower. This means Europeans participate in U.S.-initiated military adventures, even though national or European interests in doing so are far from clear"

Well, this thoughtful suggestion from Ian Buruma is probably on many a European mind. Spiegel ONLINE today provides a possible development for NATO. Some influential defence people argue for letting Russia join NATO. Today is also the day Sweden has begun having bilateral meetings with Russia. Something makes me think that the article in question is rather about a possible bilateral defence union for Russia and Germany.

With their energy needs, Germany has been approaching Russia for some time now. When former chancellors engage in Gasprom, people tend to get the general idea. Russia has been talking about a new security arrangement for Europe which the US recently described as unnecessary waste of time. However, the experts tries to motivate Russia with the notion that it needs defence against up and coming Asian powers.

The German experts brings up the problem of Russia needing to conform to NATO values. I guess it is possible to ask if Turkey has conformed or deviated during its time in NATO as a possible comparison. Carl Bildt reports from Russia today on his blog and is pleased with what he saw. The situation from the devious Georgian invasion has healed remarkably fast. Georgia has become a small problem and getting Sochi ready for the next Winter Olympics is probably more important.

The large question is of course, and I have discussed it before, is for Russia to decide whether they are European or Asian. There is a border in Yekatherineburg and the question is if Russia wants to have one foot in each door. As it has been relayed in the available press during the last years, it appears that Germany is more willing to accommodate Russia than the US. There are obvious benefits of solving the political problems of the Eastern European states that were former parts of the Soviet Union at the same time. Russia remains wary of the recent NATO advancement as long as they would not be members themselves.

However, as much as a federal politically united Europe would be a good thing if it worked, a Russia joined with Europe with its fundamental differences is for me a fairytale. A Russia joined with a Republican US is of course an impossibility. It is therefore my initial feeling was that the German experts in their article rather wants to feel out the European interest for a German-Russian axis. Who knows, France might also be interested since they have begun sales of weapons to Russia.

NATO unity threatened by defense budget and equipment shortfalls | World | Deutsche Welle | 03.03.2010

NATO unity threatened by defense budget and equipment shortfalls World Deutsche Welle 03.03.2010: "US Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused European countries of failing to provide enough weapons and equipment to NATO's missions in Afghanistan and around the world last week, saying that there had been too much demilitarization since the end of the Cold War and that Europe's contribution to underfunded defense budgets is undermining NATO's shared security goals."

An even greater problem for NATO must be the asymmetry of risk to soldiers lives.

Brazil is also against sactions for Iran

Soured Over Policy, Latin American Leaders Await Sessions With Clinton - NYTimes.com: "Brazil, which holds a rotating seat on the Security Council, has said it opposes further sanctions. It recently moved to expand its ties with the Islamic government in Tehran and has been a vocal advocate for engagement over isolation."

Brazil is doing more business with China than with the US at this point and this is a circumstance than would strenghten China's resolve to not vouch for stronger sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council.

Carl Bildt was visiting Brazil not long ago. He did not talk about it in his blog but one of his errands must have been the potential sale of JAS Gripen. The French seems to be best positioned with their Raphale. I guess it is of some importance where Brazil turns for their military aviation. France might be more independent of the US than Sweden, ponders perhaps Brazil? Personally I think we should fly the same as the Norwegians and enter NATO. However, we live in strange times. Some voices begin to sing the end of NATO.

Afghanistan: a future?

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor - The Taliban and Reconciliation - NYTimes.com: "1) The coalition surge and the expansion of Afghan forces must change the balance of power against the insurgents, confronting them with prospects for defeat; 2) The Karzai government must become more effective; 3) A regional solution must be found for South Asia to induce Pakistan to stop allowing its territory to be used as a sanctuary by the Taliban; and 4) The Obama administration must change the regional perception that it intends to begin disengaging from Afghanistan after 18 months."

The former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, now with CSIS, talks about the four points necessary for success and reconciliation and integration in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, according to the same, only the first is being pursued. As before, the mission is a tall order. The article points out that the main problem right now is that the Taliban is not on a losing streak.

Nils Horner, the excellent Asia correspondent for SR, had arranged an interview with a senior Taliban leader that lives in Kabul who interestingly said that the Taliban was not against the education of women. They had just not had the proper resources to deal with this question? If this is true, it might be a very important step forward for future reconciliation, should the conditions permit. This question is probably very important for the public support of the NATO mission in Sweden. Upon the recent death of the two officers and their interpreter support for the Swedish mission has increased.

A step back for the mission was given the other day when the future support from the Netherlands was jeopardized by the fall of their government. The two major parties in a coalition the center-right Christian Democrats and Labour could not agree. In Sweden the Social Democrats are divided and if the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating we might find ourselves in a situation like that in the Netherlands. Apparently the region where they are situated, Uruzgan, neighboring Helmand, is one of the best controlled and was to serve as an example for others. The Netherlands have lost 21 of their 2,000 troops. Furthermore, the Uruzgan province suffered the death of 30 civilians in a recent NATO attack.

The fourth point of Khalilzad above is particularly difficult to satisfy since President Obama promised the beginning of removal of troops in July 2011. This would mean that Afghan troops would be able to replace NATO troops something that has been questioned in articles in the New York Times recently. However, there has recently been the capture of two Taliban heads in Pakistan which might mean that point three is in progress. It seems, however, that the military action against Talibans in Pakistan that begun lately have fizzled.

What is Sweden doing in Afghanistan?

Are we fighting in Afghanistan? It rather seems like we are getting executed by suicide candidates and blown to pieces by mines. My thoughts are with the recently unfortunate soldiers and their interpreter. McChrystal's new strategy of mingling with the people will apparently be met by these suicide missions. What happened had apparently happened quite often in the southern areas and around Kabul.

Most people I hear say that we are in Afghanistan to build the country and to give it stability. The idea of being a support agency rather than a force eradicating extremists have been the European line most of the time. Obama said during his campaign that he was out to catch Osama bin Laden. The German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle now says that people can rely on the EU but do not need to fear the EU. That could mean openended support for Afghanistan.

This idea contrasts the new American line where Obama and McChrystal seem to say that we will give the Afghans and their army one more chance, after this ridiculous election, to stand up for stability and prosperity in their country. However, if they don't demonstrate this intent they are out of there. Obama said he'd rather build his own country.

However, the fact that Swedish soldiers are beginning to die makes the mission, as it is seen in the eyes of people, more problematic. It is one thing to die for your country and for its security but another to die for the Afghans. In my humble opinion people should not die in development missions.

While people are pondering the 'What are we doing there' question, the least we can do is to reinforce the troops as requested no when they probably are going to get more heat from the southern activities than before. It looks like we are not any more alone in our little corner of Afghanistan but rather becoming part of the whole mission there. This is important because a high officer in the Swedish army was interviewed in Studio Ett, the radio program in P1, and he seemed not particularly willing to state clearly whether he was subordinated to the US or to the Germans.

NATO, EU and UN?

”Svensk alliansfrihet ett tomt skal” - sr.se: "– Nato är inte längre en västorganisation. Vi har tio nya medlemmar som tillhör Östeuropa, hela organisationen har glidit geografiskt österut, det är inte en USA-styrd organisation längre, säger professor Ove Bring."

Bring also says, in April 2008, that NATO now is very similar to the EU and the UN. The NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen says that he wants to make a cultural revolution in NATO. He wants the organization to collaborate more with external powers like China, India, Pakistan and Russia. Russia is displeased over this development since it entails plans on further expansion of NATO. Is he trying to create a competitor to the UN Security Council?

However, Madeleine Albright, the 72 years old, born in Czech Republic, former US State Department Secretary, who work in a think tank that will present the result of a reorganization of NATO in November this year, says that the Soviet Union was an enemy of NATO but Russia isn't. This work is performed partly because there is falling support for NATO in 21 member countries of the 27 EU countries. Coordination of the two organizations that seem worlds apart is of essence.

Gunnar Hökmark writes in his blog that the so called Eastern Partnership that Sweden and Poland have launched is the way forward for Europe. It would be interesting to know how this partnership relates to NATO and the UN? Apparently there is some discontent from Germany and France that membership in the partnership could be regarded as a stepping stone to NATO. Personally I am quite weary about all expansion plans. The EU have plenty of problems in the Balkans and for example Greece that make introspection more appropriate.

Helene Cooper and Nicholas Kulish at The New York Times report that Russia is displeased and have probably influenced Kyrgyzstan to prevent the US from using a very important base for the Afghanistan war on their soil. Joe Biden's speech in Munich was highly anticipated because of its potential to reveal the Obama administration's security doctrine. It seems like they will leave the door ajar for discussion on missile defence with Russia. Missile defence is thus a sensitive topic. The seemingly bargaining chip defence-against-missiles-from-Iran is retained.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not Russia is European and obviously the country has been influenced historically by Europe. However, being a country adjacent to Europe with missiles directed to it and recent aggressions in Georgia indicates that Russia is alone, all eleven time zones of it. It does not take much imagination to see that the problem of defending this large lowly populated area full of raw materials situated between two giant economical poles makes the Russians show its teeth the day before the new security Davos conference, and say that they ultimately would defend their territory with nuclear weapons.

Ukraine is having their election today and the question is where the country is heading after the fact. Hökmark says that it is moving towards Russia. What I have heard is that Julia Tymoshenko has been an avid visitor in Moscow and is perhaps still the preferred candidate from the Western standpoint. After all she was a front figure in the Orange revolution. However, Viktor Yanukovich got more votes in the first election and was Moscow's original man. The finance crisis in the West have made the old Russian connection more palatable. Many Ukrainians probably ask themselves where do we belong these days and the eastern industrialized Ukraine is decidedly Yanukovich and Russian, including the Crimea. A NATO membership might split the country in half and might not be what the majority of the Ukrainians want?

The Trans-Atlantic Alliance--an update

Remarks on the Future of European Security: "Some have looked at the continent even now and seen Western and Eastern Europe, old and new Europe, NATO and non-NATO Europe, EU and non-EU Europe. The reality is that there are not many Europes; there is only one Europe. And it is a Europe that includes the United States as its partner. And it is a Europe that includes Russia."

Well, the only problem with this view is that it is the Elite view and that people that answer questions for the Eubarometer poll don't want to share the foreign policy of the US. I definitely think Europe and the US should intimately deal with security problems. I believe Sweden should be in Afghanistan as long as ISAF and NATO are there. As I have said earlier, however, I'm not sure military personnel should be in Afghanistan because they might cause more problems than they solve.

Hillary Clinton also stresses that the idea of Russia to discuss new security treaties for Europe is a bad and cumbersome idea and that the existing institutions OECD and the NATO-Russia Council instead should be reinforced.

The first question Ms Clinton got after her speech at the École militaire in Paris was about the coordination and integration of NATO and the EU. She said among other things that: "But as I said in my remarks, they [EU and NATO] are no longer separated. It is hard to say that security is only about what it was when NATO was formed, and the EU has no role to play in security issues".

You might remember the comment by the polish MEP in charge of NATO-EU relations the other day that claimed the EU and NATO were in different worlds. I'm not sure what might clarify this issue but it is probably necessary for the majority of Europeans to begin appreciating the future vitality of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance.

Neutrality--EU--NATO?

EUobserver / Nato strategy to look at EU relations, says Albright: "Polish centre-right MEP Jacek Saryusz Wolski, in charge of EU-Nato relations, said he was struck how the two institutions were working in 'totally separate worlds,' despite having the same concerns and roughly the same armies and citizens, on the European side"

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright leads an expert panel that tries to coordinate the EU and NATO in these times of slashed military budgets. The above comment is interesting in the wake of the London Conference on Afghanistan. Maybe it is "verklighetens folk", or the common man, and the World Elite.

I learned from the radio-debate between Mona Sahlin and Fredrik Reinfeldt in the program Studio Ett the other day that Sahlin is going to go back to the neutrality politics if the Social Democrats win in September. To my content I heard today that the large difference between the two voting blocks have almost equalized so we might not have to see the entire country end up as world common men.

According to a listing performed by the SOM Institute in Sweden our country's security is considered very important by about 70% of the population. This is not a parameter among the most important one's but no one in the press reacted to the question of neutrality in the aftermath of the debate. Health, Freedom and a World in Peace are all more important factors. Instead the press discuss the evil a 100 burkas may do to the Swedes. It is interesting because the symbolism of the burka must in reality be related to national security. If I have understood this correctly, we can't really be neutral and be members of the EU.

There was recently a yearly debate in Sälen Sweden, the congress Folk och Försvar, where the question voiced by MEP Wolski above was not really ventilated. In my humble opinion Sweden has to take the debate between neutrality, the EU and NATO in order to organize a defence policy. Which world do we want to live in? If any conclusion could be drawn from this, we apparently want to live in Europe in Peace but do not view terrorism external to the EU as a problem but fear it from within the EU.

Fredrik Reinfeldt appears to want to live in the EU world with collaboration with NATO when possible. This is probably the most realistic option given the results in the EUbarometer poll where it is clear that some 80% of EU citizens don't want to share foreign policy with the US.

Afghanistan goes to London

Alla Dessa Dagar: "Jag tillhörde dem som betonade betydelsen av ett rimligt parlamentsval nästa år – med de möjligheter till breddad bas dessa kan innebära – men som samtidigt inte är överförtjust över för många uttalanden om att vi skall börja dra tilbaka trupper 2011 och söka överenskommelser med talibanerna. Det var helt klart de politiska insatserna som sågs som avgörande i vår diskussion - även om säkerhetsinsatserna självfallet är mycket viktiga."

This is how Carl Bildt is describing what happened prior to the meeting, a select dinner yesterday night, on Afghanistan in London where some 70 countries participate today. It is Obama that in his State of the Union Address says he will begin withdraw troops in 2011 and Hamid Karzai that wants to talk to the Taliban.

David Miliband, Carl Bildt and Anders Fogh-Rasmussen deliver almost textbook-like schemes for how to move forward. A soldier like Stanley McChrystal, the American Commander, stuck on the ground, is a little more humble and cautious and verbalize that there might have been too much fighting at this point. He is leaning towards negotiations, perhaps with the aid of the reinforcements due. Robert Gates, the US Minister of Defence, doesn't think the Taliban are going to move an inch, however, before they start to loose. This might be a US Democrat-Republican split of opinion.

This is exactly the problem. The Taliban have increased the number of attacks on Western forces every year and control much of the country side outside Kabul where Karzai is supposed to rule. Some say he only commands his palace, however. Corruption is rife and the Americans have started dealing directly with the tribes as they did successfully in Iraq during the so called "surge". It is not going to work in Afghanistan though it is believed. However, it jeopardizes the hall mark strategy. That of increasing the troops of Karzai to take over security in the country, something that will take 5 to 10 years according to Karzai in London.

It seems to me that this summer will hold the answer for how to continue. Will the trend of every year increases of casualties be broken? In that case corruption just have to be reduced, which is more difficult. In the mean time al Qaida is in Yemen and elsewhere. It is very difficult to have politics in the forefront in a place ruled by tribal logic.

More money for defence?

Democracy in America The Economist: "...but it is a frequent assertion that European social spending is only made possible by implicit American subsidies on defence; so let's take a look at this claim".

This is a good starting point for the discussion about whether or not Sweden wants to spend more on defence. First it is necessary to discuss the relation between the EU and NATO and then the so called capabilities gap between the US and EU countries. As EU members we have to help neighbors according to the Lisbon Treaty. Of all the current articles on Swedish defence none of the experts have done this so far.

Democracy in America says that European countries should not increase their budgets to match that of the US. When the US commits 30,000 troops to Afghanistan the EU commits 7,000. That is less than half which is the difference in spending on defence. Furthermore, many countries in Afghanistan prefer to be in places where there is relatively lower risk. This is a perhaps even greater problem that causes a lot of friction. Should the Swedish troops regroup instead of Sweden pays more for defence?

The Eubarometer results provide a tentative answer to these questions. The European people does not want to have the same foreign policy as the US. I guess we just have to wait for the overall picture to be provided by Lady Ashton. Recent attacks by Chinese cyber warriors might indicate where money should be spent rather than on people in the conventional circuit? We have to protect our industries. The Chinese, however, might not want to alienate Europe and rather put a wedge between the Atlantic powers which would make it necessary to choose which side you are on?

So if someone says we should put some guys on Gotland to scare Putin, I would not be able to comment. But for more helicopters for the troops in Afghanistan, I would not have any problems.

Should Iran be bombed?

There is an ongoing Debate in The Economist about the notion that Iran's nuclear facilities should be bombed.

Economist Debates: Iran: Guest: "The question posed by the house captures perfectly the problem with the debate on Iran in the West. It embodies a decade-old approach to Iran that reduces this major country into a single variable problem, Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Every non-nuclear development is either viewed from the prism of the nuclear programme, or is simply ignored."

I recently commented on the idea of Trita Parsi that the Obama Doctrine might have caused the post-election Green Uprising in Iran. Today he weighs in on the issue of whether or not Iran should be bombed, an opinion advocated by The Economist, although 68% of people voting on the debate think this is not the way to go.

I agree with Parsi, bombing Iran would put an end to the democracy movement of Iran for good. It is of course interesting that a highly initiated crowd reading The Economist are reasonable on Iran despite the indoctrination of "The House". Parsi is, however, not proposing, like I do, that further approachment of Iran by removing sanctions should be tried. President Obama is, however, grateful to the Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan for keeping a door open to Tehran.

There is today also information that Turkey would possibly be able to negotiate with the Taliban for an "Afghanization" of the situation there. Recent words in the press on the membership deal between Turkey and the EU have indicated that Turkey is becoming distanced to this development. It would of course be interesting if an axis of European influence on these trouble spots could be mediated by Turkey. In this case Turkey would have found an important role for itself that would be highly appreciated by both sides.