A few fascinating paragraphs from a New Atlanticist piece on Qatar, the “new Dubai.”

The emir and his government chief, strategic thinker Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani, who is both prime minister and foreign minister, and the national security staff see all their many accomplishments in dire peril should Israel decide to bomb Iran. From Iran’s nearest missile batteries to Qatar’s LNG port at Ras Laffan is only 100 miles.

“Two missiles on LNG loading docks as a supertanker takes on a full load,” said one ranking Western diplomat and Qatar “is out of business.” So Qatar endeavors to maintain “cordial” relations with what is perceived to be a military regime now in power in Tehran. Its Northfield cornucopia abuts, even overlaps, with Iran’s claim.

– de Borchgrave, Arnaud.  “Is Qatar the New Dubai?” New Atlanticist, 5 March 2010.

This holds true for most Persian Gulf nations, their core economic assets are within easy reach of Iranian military forces.  Unless America is prepared to deploy a considerable number of assets to defend allied economies up and down the Gulf, this is one reason why Israeli air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities are simply never going to happen.

The other interesting angle is also one of unintended consequences:

There was also an emerging consensus that Iran had welcomed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and that Iranian officials in the Gulf were privately rooting for George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. One Iranian official was quoted as saying, “America got rid of our worst enemy and turned Iraq over to Iranian influence.”

On balance, I believe getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a net positive, for both American and Iraqi peoples.  Getting rid of Saddam so that Iran would emerge as the dominant regional power was probably not what the Bush Administration (nor its opponents) ever had in mind, though.

“the unfortunate fatherland should not be erased to the end”

The Roman Bridge Abutment On The South Side Of The River, originally uploaded by TyB.

Britain appears to be agog that President Obama has not explicitly backed their country’s claim to the Falkland Islands in its never-ending territorial dispute with Argentina.

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue

…“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times. “The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

– Whithhell, Giles.  “US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute.” The Times (of London), 25 February 2010.

Even the left-wing Manchester Guardian is aghast that the United States is not backing its historic ally:

Washington’s neutral policy and its failure to uphold automatically the right to self-determination is fuelling the already widespread suspicion that Obama’s America has more respect for its enemies than its friends.

…If the dispute became serious, [British] diplomats are certain that Obama would back Britain, and most Latin American governments would quietly applaud him.

I am sure they are right, but I am equally sure that Obama’s critics are not all wrong however much they overdo it. There will not be a second Falklands war this year because the Argentinians know we would defeat them. But if not over the Falklands then on some other crisis, Obama will have to make up his mind whether he wants to be a liberal president or to follow the worst rather than the best traditions of neoconservatism and hold that basic principles can always be sacrificed for the sake of a usually deluded view of the American national interest.

– Cohen, Nick.  “Obama should back our claim to the Falklands.” Manchester Guardian, 28 February 2010.

South American nations are falling into line behind Argentina, of course, and this—combined with studious US neutrality—has upset the British.

I cannot say that I am overly surprised, though.  This president has demonstrated clearly, from his first few meetings (or lack thereof) with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, that Britain (and Europe) are yesterday’s news, worth little thought and expenditure of energy.  It should likewise be obvious to observers of United States foreign policy and defence that isolationist sentiment has risen, as it has historically whenever the American economy enters a prolonged period of contraction.

Given that the United States has issued its Honorian rescript and told the foederati to look to their own defence, one wonders why the tribes of Europe refuse to do so.

I am not an apologist for the president’s foreign policy, but there is admittedly a certain logic in re-orienting US relations so that its energies get spent primarily in its own hemisphere and in Asia, where future superpowers are developing.  Historical ties aside, this picture does not look good for Europe.  It is a continent awash in economic, financial and social troubles, unable to come to grips with home-grown radicalism, and unwilling to adequately fund its own defensive forces.  At the very least, it does not appear logical to tie America’s fortunes to that of its slowly drowning European cousins.

The real problem arises because in previous eras, America’s isolationism was underwritten by the existence of the British Empire, which continued to expend its treasure and resources keeping sea lanes open and international trade flowing, maintaining national borders of competing regional states, and so on.  Today’s American empire is itself isolationist, and a world without a global superpower ensuring security of trade and stability of borders is a recipe for increasingly predatory behaviour amongst rival nation-states.

Still, this is the world to which the Obama Adminstration has set its course, and it has not been delinquent in signalling such to its many allies and client states.  Is it the fault of the president that no one seems to take him seriously in this regard?  Or is it the fault of those who receive the message, but cannot quite bring themselves to believe its contents?

It is time for Britain, and Europe at large, to understand that they really are on their own, however unpalatable that might seem.  America’s focus has shifted elsewhere.  You must look to yourselves for your own defence.

Imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers, c.1965 (Stefan Landsberger's Chinese Propaganda pages)

There’s nothing wrong with a nation’s uniformed officers musing about possible moves and counter-moves against strategic competitors.  Nor is there anything instantly objectionable about an industry lobbying its national government to take action against the objectionable policies of a major trading partner.  Even the best of friends may, at some point, end up in a bitter war of words or trade (cf. Canada, softwood lumber).

But in China, where industrial titans can also be uniformed officers in the PLA, those off-the-cuff, thinking-out-loud musings seem a lot less innocent.  Especially when it is coming from the men responsible for developing the PLA’s senior leadership.

The calls for broad retaliation over the planned U.S. weapons sales to the disputed island [Taiwan] came from officers at China’s National Defence University and Academy of Military Sciences, interviewed by Outlook Weekly, a Chinese-language magazine published by the official Xinhua news agency.

The interviews with Major Generals Zhu Chenghu and Luo Yuan and Senior Colonel Ke Chunqiao appeared in the issue published on Monday.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) plays no role in setting policy for China’s foreign exchange holdings. Officials in charge of that area have given no sign of any moves to sell U.S. Treasury bonds over the weapons sales, a move that could alarm markets and damage the value of China’s own holdings.

While far from representing fixed government policy, the open demands for retaliation by the PLA officers underscored the domestic pressures on Beijing to deliver on its threats to punish the Obama administration over the arms sales.

“Our retaliation should not be restricted to merely military matters, and we should adopt a strategic package of counter-punches covering politics, military affairs, diplomacy and economics to treat both the symptoms and root cause of this disease,” said Luo Yuan, a researcher at the Academy of Military Sciences.

“Just like two people rowing a boat, if the United States first throws the strokes into chaos, then so must we.”

Luo said Beijing could “attack by oblique means and stealthy feints” to make its point in Washington.

“For example, we could sanction them using economic means, such as dumping some U.S. government bonds,” Luo said.

– Buckley, Chris.  “China PLA officers urge economic punch against U.S.“  Reuters | US, 9 February 2010.

China is free to pursue its own national interest, of course, but it’s hard to see how the interests of an autocratic corporatist state can long coincide with those of a mature democracy.  One might even say that it is hard to imagine how tighter integration of the Chinese and American economies will lead to anything other than increased conflict.  It is not as if both nations are headed in the same direction, reaching for the same goals.  One is a young lion, anxious to test his growing strength and expand the horizons of his autonomy; the other is an old lion, struggling to maintain the fading status quo.  They will inevitably end up in conflict; one can only hope that it does not become a contest of arms.

Thus it is probably also a good time to remind our southern neighbours of this:

There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

– Washington, George.  Farewell Address, 19 September 1796.