Author: Jared Fallon

Despite the fact that the term “trade” sounds extremely vague when compared to “nuclear proliferation” the impacts of trade to the extent that Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba have been conducting show significant developments on the part of the veiled trio. The amount of trade agreements and overall activity between the three nations has stepped up considerably over the past few years, with strange coincidences (?) of coordinated activity with Russia (such as Russia deploying ships to Hugo’s coast with nuclear technologies possibly for change right before the US signed a NPT-violating treaty with India).

The newest trade alliances and bilateral trade agreements include the increasing relations and activity with the Iran-Cuba joint Economic, Scientific, and Technical Cooperation Commission. The last major economic agreement was signed between the 2 countries in 2006 and helped pave the way for the surge in recent trade activity. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency in 2007 Iran and Cuba set up a joint shipping company known as the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL). IRISL had the original goal of allowing Venezuela to access Iranian commodities such as construction and agriculture machinery and Cuba to purchase Iranian transport wagons. The IRISL was matched with a reportedly $200 million loan from Iran to Cuba. Again, we see unity between the trio.  In August of 2007 Iranian Deputy Commerce Minister Mehdi Ghazanfari reportedly signed two protocols of trade with Cuba and Venezuela, decreasing overall tariffs aiming, among other things, to increase the already $60 million in Iranian exports to Venezuela. The statistics on Cuba are a little bit harder to locate.

2007 would continue to be a busy year for major developments that should have made US headlines much easier than they did. Months later Chavez established standard civilian airline flights with Venezuela and “designated sponsors”, which include Syria and not surprisingly, Iran. In Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s bill to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity”, Iran is referenced a surprisingly 24 times within the 45 page bill that only references 2 middle eastern countries (the only other country was Syria, mentioned only once). The move was largely seen by US Defense officials as a more convenient, much more blatant way for Iran to utilize the potential use its close relationship with Venezuela to “…facilitate the smuggling of people, drugs, and weapons into the Western Hemisphere through terrorist proxy groups.”

The more you look into the affairs the easier it is to find American-based justification for bills such as Ros-Lehtinen’s when considering how much control the US has positioned itself to have in many parts of the world after World War II. These include many agreements shielded largely under military agreements such as NATO and the economic agreements the US found itself in eastern Asia with countries that eventually became some of the countries’ largest trade partners, including South Korea and Japan. In a more current foreign policy spotlight, as President Bush continues to preach democracy and capitalism as vehicles for freedom and unrestricted markets around the world (even to the point of imposing force), the US has not been successful in decreasing the narcotics and illicit drug trade that is often paired with terrorist lingo on the news.

“A 2007 Drug Enforcement Administration report linked nearly half of foreign terrorist organizations around the world today to narcotics trade, underscoring the fact that the fight against terrorism must also include a corresponding fight against illicit drugs.” Similar reports point towards coordination in the arms trade between the 3 nations, sighting that in May 2008, the Department of State, for the third year in a row, that Venezuela has violated the Arms Export Control Act and thereby criticized for not cooperating with the United State’s antiterrorism efforts.

When reviewing the other most significant developments that have taken place as of 2008 it is clear that the true concern with the agreements between the three nations lie in the topic of coordinated terrorism advancements. Most have had seemingly unusual coincidences(?) with trade, such as the 07 establishment of civilian airline flights, but will be covered in detail in part 3 of the Veiled Trio series. Regardless of your own opinions, there is one thing cannot be ignored: the sheer amount of developments and agreements that have been taking place between the three nations over the past three years. 

Russia. No other country in recent past has had so many confirmed near-nuclear experiences, discolored alliances, and bitterly cold disputes with the United States. Many signs are clear that Russia wants its reemerging global presence to be known to all – while the United States is increasingly receiving pressure to slow down its rapid military spending habits and hegemonic pursuits. Many critics believe that since 2007 Russia announced its newest military doctrine the page has finally turned for the two rivals. Russia’s stance on NATO’s eastward expansion and the US’ presence in the region has never changed, viewing the moves as “reckless”, “dangerous”, and “not unnoticed.” Russia’s 07 doctrine outlines what its commanders should be preparing for if the nation were to get into war. This of course, coupled with Russia’s recent and worrisome Venezuelan agreements should have Americans questioning McCain’s and Obama’s plans for US-Russian relations.

In a consistent manner with most of the world Obama, in general, is seen with much higher favorability than his Republican opponent. The general perception that we hear is based on McCain’s warnings of “dangers posed by a revanchist Russia” and a sense of urgency to increase political pressures on the quickly strengthening Moscow. It is clear enough that the Arizona Senator’s plans for Russia will not be viewed favorably by both Putin and Medvedev. In addition, more recent comments from Palin in reference to Russia make it clear that no matter how foreign policy will be decided Russia will not appreciate the Republican Party. But what about Barack Obama? Despite the general American perception that Obama would be much more…tender, on Russia the reality is that no matter who wins November’s election affairs between the US and Russia can, and will become much, much more intense. How much more intense should be at the forefront of the respective countries’ citizens, and the rest of the world for that matter.

Senator Obama so far has played his overall stance on Russia down, allowing criticism to be directed at the Republican Party. But yet the facts point to a much more hard-line policy that leaves Moscow unsettled. Instead of Obama criticizing Bush’s lack of hard-line actions towards Russia Obama stated that the President “…proceeded to neglect our relationship with Russia at a time when Putin was strangling any opposition in the country when he was consolidating power.” As the conflict between Georgia and Russian heightened Obama cited Russia has having no possible justification for the attacks, explaining further that Russia should not move towards a “regression to conflicts of the past”, ignoring the recent developments that NATO has taken closer and closer to Russia’s borders. Each of these developments received sharp criticism by most Russians in political circles. Shortly afterwards, one of Obama’s foreign policy advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, compared Putin to Hitler – a risky move against a Prime Minister that continues to hold great sway over the country and its affairs. Furthermore, Stanford University Professor and Obama’s senior advisor on Russia, Michael McFaul, is viewed by Russian political officials as being “consistently harsh on political developments in Russia.”

McFaul is not only considered “Obama’s top Russia strategist” by Russian political officials, but is known for his sharp criticism of the Kremlin – especially in the area of foreign affairs. McFaul is deeply respected in the US for his council on Russian affairs and democratic policies around the globe but ironically shares many of the same views as McCain. Whether or not you believe Obama would take drastic measures on Russia, his political party affiliation must be taken into account as well. Despite the fact that Republicans are proving themselves to be extremely talented at long, drawn out wars, Democrats are not all as hug-friendly as Clinton was. The three biggest conflicts that shaped the 20^th century as we know it were all initially overseen by democrats. Woodrow Wilson and World War I, Franklin Roosevelt and World War II, and Harry Truman and the Cold War. Another interesting dimension is to remember Obama’s 6^th longest serving Senator in US history, Joe Biden. Biden’s subtle but strong criticism of Russia’s recent conflict with Georgia should not go unnoticed simply because he isn’t as obnoxious about the Alaskan Governor with no US-Russian relations experience.

If Obama does indeed take the presidency escalating urgency for improved affairs with Russia will not be as rosy as most Americans like to believe. Setting aside whether or not Obama follows in the footsteps of Democrats past, as Russia continues to show its reemerging presence time will only tell the degree to which the US will need to respond. The interesting factor is that it Russia will most likely not be able to tell the difference between McCain and Obama, which partially explains Russia’s latest bold military moves so close to Election Day. The lack of US foreign policy flexibility will prove to be a drastic problem for America as Russia gets back on its feet and starts running. Russia is simply becoming too great of a power with too many strings attached around the globe for the US to continue along its same lines of action. Sooner or later, as the US non-so-allies continue to strengthen relations with Russia, there will be a tipping point for change. We simply cannot remain on the same tedious tight rope we are balancing on right now. Either way, when examining Obama and McCain’s stances on Russia it becomes abundantly clear that Americans simply do not have much of a choice for this election unless something changes significantly within the next month. For further examination of these views, look up Obama’s most recent actions towards Russia or Google his support of NATO expansion and development.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Regrettably America remains ignorant concerning international affairs. We are so focused on our American lives that sometimes we tend to forget about the increasingly globalized world. Unfortunately, the media doesn’t always give us the full picture or even a much needed background of an issue we may all be unfamiliar with. Due to this, I wonder how many Americans actually know the details of the recent Russia-Georgia conflict. Or, perhaps an even more compelling question, where in the world Georgia is even located? No, I am not speaking about that lovely state on the East Coast. Let’s broaden our horizons, shall we?

Georgia is a small nation in South Western Asia, bordering the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia. One might say this small nation has been a thorn in Russia’s side. What has triggered the recent crisis? A series of clashes between Georgia and South Ossetia had prompted Georgian forces to react with force, launching attacks on August 7th. Georgia kept its grip on the capitol city of Tskhinvali for part of the next day. Russia reacted with bombing raids over the province and other targets throughout Georgia. It is unclear whether Russian forces entered before or after the attacks. On one hand, Georgia claims they attacked due to intelligence that a large procession of Russian amour was making its way to South Ossetia. Russia, on the other hand, maintains that they were only acting to defend Russian citizens in the area as well as Russian peacekeepers. Many civilians have escaped the South Ossetia area and traversed into the Russian Republic of North Ossetia. More than half or South Ossetia’s 70,000 citizens are said to have taken Moscow’s offer of Russian citizenship. Until recently, Russia said it appreciated Georgia’s territorial integrity. It was only looking out for Russian citizens. Putin announced it was unlikely for a South Ossetia-Georgia reunion.

The South Ossetia and Abkhazia areas both represent important territorial regions. In South Ossetia, there are crucial pipelines that carry oil and gas, while Abkhazia has some key tourist areas and important ports. South Ossetia fought for independence in 1991-92. It usually runs its own affairs. On August, 26, 2008, the Russian president announced it recognized S. Ossetia’s independence. The Ossetians are a distinct ethnic group, initially from the Russian plains south of the Don River. In the 13th century, they were forced southwards by Mongol incursions into the Caucus Mountains, settling along the Georgian border. The South Ossetians would love to reunite with their counterparts in North Ossetia. Georgia rejects the notion.

In recent years, Georgia has become a close ally to the United States. In recent years Georgian troops have worked closely with American troops in Iraq. The U.S, in turn, has helped train and arm the Georgian Army. Furthermore, the United States support Georgia’s goal of becoming a member of NATO. Recently, a resolution by the U.S Congress has been introduced concerning Georgian membership. H.CON.RES.409 supports awarding membership to Georgia and Ukraine in the December 2008 meeting. Congress believes that the expansion of NATO will bring more effectiveness. Also, Congress recently introduced the bill, H.R. 6851, which would provide assistance to Georgia with recovery. Both the United States and Europe have condemned the move for independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. According to NATO, the Russian declaration violated numerous U.N Security Council resolutions that Russia had initially supported.

The fight for independence and the widespread recognition of that independence is no stranger to America. As I am not an authority on the subject, I cannot say that the events in Georgia were right or wrong. Nevertheless, I will leave you with some food for thought. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “…it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . .” (Declaration of Independence, 1776).