Author: Jared Fallon

Belarus’ official title is the “Republic of Belarus”, however the CIA Worldfactbook displays a note unique only to this small Eastern European country: “republic in name, although in fact a dictatorship.” Belarus received its independence from the Soviet Union on August 25, 1991, but since then has retained…cozy, relations with Russia. This little country of nearly 10 million is currently being squeezed into a situation that will cause it to turn towards other powers in the attempt of keeping surprisingly high growth rates. How will the US react to an increasingly frustrated country that’s slowly drifting away from Moscow?

Background

Belarus’s first 4 years of independence can be characterized by swift, broad reforms looking to shape a new country based on a defeated population. Like so many in Eastern Europe, the average person was looking to have more “Western concerns”, rather than worrying over communism, state-oriented supply targets, and bread line-type difficulties. Yet in 1994 President (dictator) Alexander Lukashenko reverted back to the old days of Belarus with the time-tested promise of economic recovery. Since then, widespread government price setting, management and regulation has taken place, and in more recent years, private company acquirement has been seen across the board. The interesting factor is that despite economic reversions back to time’s past, Belarusians have seen GDP growth rates as high as 7%, although high inflation has never-the-less been prominent. How is this possible? One answer: Putin’s Russia.

Belarus has been fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of Russian generosity, marked with heavily discounted natural resources and the re-exportation of Russian petro at significantly higher market prices. For a small country still moving towards increased government control, Belarus has had it made. However, in recent times Russia has been seen attempting an…unique approach. While still maintaining the need for NATO-countering missile defense build-up partnerships with Belarus, Russia has decided to require that 85% of Belarusian profits on re-exported oil must be shared with the Kremlin. To make matters worse, by 2011 the Belarusians will need to get used to paying natural gas prices at the world market cost, an increase of over 50%. With the two largest drivers of the ill foreign investment-receiving Belarus economy, where does Belarus have left to turn?

Recent European developments

As overall Russian momentum has decreased within the country, the European Union has been moving in. A decision in August of 2008 declared the EU-imposed travel ban on Belarusian public officials (including the president himself) has officially been lifted – a significant development for which President Lukashenko expectedly expressed strong support of. “All impediments to dialogue have been lifted. The main thing is we can now talk without an iron curtain.” Many analysts predict the recent move with be more than conductive to the opening of the Republic of Belarus out of economic desperation, matched with the newfound government official encouragement. How will the US react?

Pending proposals: the United State’s approach

The US will take any position that will allow itself to gain more former Soviet Union members on its side- even at a time when financial markets have taken a downturn. Former Russian President and current Prime Minister (czar) Vladimir Putin was given the title of the “prime minister of the Russian-Belarus alliance” as of May 2008, matched with clear developments that Putin has no intention of decreasing influence within the region. In terms of foreign policy approach, paired with decreasing European sway (NATO vs. EU), any actions taken on the part of Putin are largely viewed as an East-West conflict, reflecting attitudes as old Cold War era. To view the 6 pending Federal legislation, follow this link.

Highlights of the proposals are largely shaped by the US’ stance on the treatment of ethnic minorities of Belarus. Mark Kirk’s H.R.5152 aims to authorize assistance for such groups in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in the attempt to promote democracy and approach aspirations all too frequently ignored by the former Stalin state, quickly turning a cold shoulder or merely claiming ignorance for the atrocities that displaced millions of people. Overall, the bill is shallow and ill-conceived, allowing only 3 pages of explanation to throw $125 million dollars to a problem with very little restrictions or specific approach. The saving grace for H.R.5152 is found on page 2, allowing $25 million specifically for national broadcasting of the proposed foreign aid benefits to the countries’ citizens. Belarusians’ state-dictated broadcasting program remains one of the largest divisions for US-Belarus relations.

Lukashenko’s state-ran Belarusian broadcasting HQ, pictured left

The last proposal truly worth viewing is H.R.571 – a broad, sweeping plan to increase tariffs on products of any US-recognized non-market economy – ranging from Laos to North Korea to Belarus – a proposal that will most likely see more individual measures taken with the recent democrat’s sweep. As with Iran, Obama largely believes that the only two options that should be taken when dealing with seemingly difficult regimes is to greatly increase dialogue and to impose sanctions or tariffs on countries, in an old-fashioned attempt to squeeze desired action among the general public.

The situation with Belarus is quickly developing and should prove to have more desperate measures taken on behalf of the Belarusian government in the attempt of retaining any measure of economic growth. Europe will most likely see the widespread opening of markets with the “Republic”, and sooner or later Belarus will have to find a much more effective way to attractive foreign (not Russian) investment within the country. For Europe’s last dictatorship, decisions will have to be made between Prime Minister Putin’s sway and Western ideologies. As Russia continues to flex its muscles around the world, Belarus will prove to be a very significant example to the world as to the expected strength of Moscow vs. the US. The messages that will be sent to the world will most likely prove to be as impactful as the United State’s efforts in turning former Axis allies (Germany and Japan) into democracy experiments – strengthening America’s sway around the world. Belarus is quickly approaching a marked time of needed reform, it will prove to be most interesting to track what will happen to Europe’s last dictatorship.

Belarus’ geographic centralization allows the country of 10 million to retain particular strategic advantages – many times to Russia’s benefit

Author: Jared Fallon

“Regardless of whose property the natural resources and in particular the mineral resources might be, the state has the right to regulate the process of their development and use.” -Vladimir Putin

Current Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin realized Russia’s vast political influence potential in regards to energy long before the topic became widely discussed among the general public. Hailing from Leningrad State University Law with a strong emphasis in international affairs, Putin quickly discovered the role increasing energy demand matched with decreasing supplies will have on the future of the world’s major affairs and global markets. Some of the precedents for action Putin set forth in regards to Russia’s political affairs and Gazprom that are already beginning to show fruition. Russia now seeks to create an OPEC-like natural gas organization, an effort that would secure the world’s #1 natural gas supplier as the #1 natural gas  player immediately and deep into the foreseeable future.

Official announcements came shortly after current President (and former Chairman of Gazprom’s board of directors) Dmitry Medvedev hosted OPEC’s Secretary-General last week, securing plans for the Kremlin to coordinate oil efforts with the oil monopoly. The group would most likely include the owners of roughly 55% percent of the world’s known natural gas reserves – Russia, Iran, and Qatar – and may include coordination with countries such as Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, and Venezuela. Plans are expected to be finalized as early as November 18. These efforts are not new. According to Russian news sources the idea had been introduced long ago by no other than Mr. Putin himself.

Putin, pictured sporting his Judo gi in Japan, has been getting ready to kick ass outside the ring. This time his focus is in the area of natural gas and international monopolies. 

Back in 2007 Vladimir was quoted saying “A gas OPEC is an interesting idea. We will think about it” – shortly after denying western accusations of Russia’s use of energy as a lever to attain international political sway. The idea of the world’s second greatest oil reserve owner coordinating with OPEC is frightening enough, but to have a new international coalition outlet for the Kremlin’s natural gas might is even more chilling. This is especially true when considering Putin’s international law-justifying stance on such issues: “Russia’s modern foreign policy is based on the principles of pragmatism, predictability and the supremacy of international law.”

The situation becomes more significant when realizing Putin’s deeper, less rosy stance on such topics. “…the basic strategic tasks for the natural resource bloc involve achieving the transition to a rational combination of administrative and economic methods of government regulation in the sphere of resource exploitation”. The US will undoubtedly be frustrated in its world affairs if Russia begins to step up its natural gas exploitation beyond simply making threats of cutting off pipelines to Eastern Europe. If (and when?) a “gas OPEC” is created confrontation (diplomatic or otherwise) will eventually have to take place.

Presently, the US already has several pending proposals to hold various OPEC counties to laws such as the Sherman Act (S.2976), criticizing lack of competition as a basis. Other proposals go one step further (H.R.6074), seeking to amend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to “make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal,”. This stance will simply not be enough if America does in fact choose to extend the same line of thinking to Russian natural gas partnership activity, a Kremlin-admitted cornerstone to the rebuilding of the former Soviet’s crumbled economy. When money calls and natural gas is the realistic translation of both that and heavy international influence, the US will need more than a federal law to change Putin’s (and Medvedev’s ) mind. 

Current President Dmitry Medvedev (pictured left) with former President Vladimir Putin back in 2000. Putin served two terms, endorsed Gazprom Exec Medvedev, and then re-emerged on the political scene as Russia’s Prime Minister.

“In terms of a general conclusion it follows that existing socio-economic conditions, and also the strategy for Russia’s exit from the deep crisis and restoration of her former power on a qualitatively new basis demonstrate that conditions in the natural resource complex remain the most important factor in the state’s near-term development.”– Vladimir Putin 

Author: Jared Fallon

Concerns originally unique only during the Cold War are being renewed among rising Russian activity with its prime South American ally. Russia has again stepped up its presence as a significant player in the region by announcing a new $1 billion military loan package, improved oil trade agreements, and a November commitment for joint military exercises, paired with an expected 1,000 troops and 4 warships with Venezuela. These statements were released only days after Moscow declared its plans to upgrade its nuclear tactics, military efficiency, new concepts for artillery and a new space defense system by 2020. Russia continues to make its presence as a major player known and clearly is telling the world it is ready to once again balance the United State’s global presence.

The degree of reaction from the US is still being determined. With current financial crisis distractions looming this is not the only affair the US has showed a slow response time with. There thus far has not been very much activity on Chavez’s developing relationships with Cuba, Iran and China – the latter reporting a plan to assist Venezuela put a communications satellite in action by the end of the year. Thus far the only major concern publicized outside of Condoleezza Rice’s predictable press releases is Thaddeus G. McCotter’s (R-MI) H.R.1510 “Considering the Russian military deployments in the Western Hemisphere as reckless, provocative, and in violation of the Monroe Doctrine.” McCotter’s hegemonic proposal should be of no surprise when considering his faithful support for US intentions in the War in Iraq.

The interesting point of his plan is whether or not such an antiqued foreign security policy will provide strong enough grounds for the US to take action. The 1823 Monroe Doctrine was initially proposed in order to prevent European countries from taking newly established independent countries as new colonies, thereby aiding in stability within the American region. More recently it has been applied to Russian affairs in Latin America during the Cold War (sound familiar?), the Iran-Contra affair, and various other challenges with El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

Will Russia’s recent announcements spark US interest of creating a new doctrine – one that seeks to address multilateral agreements within Latin and South American countries (its failing backyard region) and Europe? Will Russia continue to pursue military efforts on the border of America at any cost? If a new policy were to be proposed the US would have a very hard time defending its stance on its lack of appreciation for Russian/Venezuelan involvement. Yet, the US needs to adapt its Latin and South American strategies and get more of a grip on reality. Somehow it is extremely unlikely that a doctrine from 185 years ago is going to make any significant strides for America’s policy towards Russia and our southern neighbors. 

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).