On Tuesday, South Korea launched its first rocket but failed to put the satellite in its planned orbit. Russia helped build the rocket after the United States refused due to worries that a regional arms race could take off. “With all its neighbors – China, Japan and North Korea – pursuing space programs, South Korea has been eager to have its own.”

South Korea and its northern neighbor are not the only ones with ambitions to reach space and contend with the well-established programs. Contenders in the new global space race also include Iran and Brazil. Russia has successfully put the most payloads into orbit in the last decade with the US close behind. China now launches more rockets than Europe and Japan and India send up less than five a year on average.

Images from The Economist and Jason Lee for Foreign Policy.

Putin: "Maybe he's right about Iran…" Gates: "I sure am."

Today US Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced in a Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittee hearing that Russia has come around to share the same feelings as the US about the urgency of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program.  Gates explained that in a previous meeting with the then-president and now current Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader had pulled out an intelligence map that put Iranian nuclear weapons capacity in a range that could hit Europe and much of Russia at 2020.  It seems that Russia has come back and conceded that it now believes the weapons threat is greater due to increased and revised intelligence.

According to Gates, Putin had:

“basically dismissed the idea that the Iranians would have a missile that would have the range to reach much of western Europe and much of Russia before 2020 or so.  And he showed me a map that his intelligence guys had prepared. I told him he needed a new intelligence service.”

So, in Gates’ book, Moscow is coming closer to Washington over the issue of nuclear threats than it has before.  Given North Korea’s very real nuclear threat, this closeness is called for.  The main question as it effects US-Russia relations is if it will help any in the renegotiation of the START 1 Treaty which is set to expire at the end of this year.  Obama and Medvedev are to meet in Russia July 6-8 and many analysts are pinning hopes on that meeting to bring about a conclusive result for START.  Gates is of a similar mind.  He expects the July meeting to bring about not just a development on START, but also to forge nuclear defense/proliferation partnerships across the board, specifically in the Czech Republic and Poland where the US began planning an eastern European defense shield under the Bush Administration.

Could the missile shield that was so coveted and defended by Washington just a year ago now become a joint project between Russia and the US?  Such a shift would be unexpected and miraculous to say the least.  However, given the Obama Administration’s apparent conciliatory agenda in addition to Russia’s economic desperation (see my colleague Roger Scher’s observation on Russia’s tenuous situation vis-à-vis the other BRIC nations), and Iran’s rising star and burgeoning nuclear technology, such a partnership might not be so far off.  Of course, a host of complications could be involved here, such as pipeline politics, NATO security issues, EU politics and agenda, satellite coordination, WTO negotiations and partnerships/deals to support the war in Afghanistan.

In any case, the Obama administration has remained silent on whether or not it would continue to develop the eastern European missile defense shield if Russia decides not to partner with it in some way.  Since it was proposed and allegedly conceived as a protection for western nations against an Iranian nuclear threat, I don’t think it will go away any time soon.  It remains to be seen if any negotiations with the Iranian government over its nuclear program will take place (Obama has given Iran until the end of 2009 to participate in these talks).  And Friday’s elections might have a large impact on just how much Tehran is willing to participate in international conciliation.

Photo Credit: BBC.

President Obama meets Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki Source: AFP

President Eisenhower and Nikita Krushchev (and Nixon) Source: PBS

President Obama said back at the end of February that all U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2011, with most out by August 2010.  His policy is to pull out of Iraq and take American power instead to Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to root out Al Qaeda and do some nation-building there.  There will be ramifications of this policy shift.   One risk, highlighted by those on the right and in a weekend New York Times article, is that the successes of the surge, namely the build-up of the Sunni Awakening Councils that took back Sunni strongholds from Al Qaeda, could be reversed. 

The Shiite-dominated Iraqi government has allegedly ramped up arrests of Awakening leaders, while U.S. forces stand by.   President Obama’s policy could leave the Iraqis to slug it out, as perhaps they should.  But, nonetheless, let us be clear on what the ramifications of this policy shift might be:  increased bloodshed and instability in Iraq; Shiite dominance in a sizable power so close to Iran and the Gulf; and, possibly a resurgence of Al Qaeda in the Sunni areas.

General Raymond T. Odierno, America’s top commander in Iraq and a key architect of the surge, weighed in on the issue and with his opinion of President Obama this weekend on John King’s State of the Union:

“He’s our commander-in-chief,” Odierno said.  “As our commander-in-chief, we take direction from him.”  He added:  “He’s very attentive. He listens. He’s incredibly intelligent. He talks through the issues. . . .He makes a decision and then we execute those decisions and that’s all you can expect out of your commander-in-chief. And I’ve been very pleased with the interaction that I’ve been able to have with him.”

In a New York Times column this weekend, Jean Edward Smith argues that President Obama, in handling Iraq, should take a page from President Eisenhower’s decision to end the war in Korea in 1953.  Eisenhower, in spite of the hawks in his own party, decided to negotiate an armistice at the 38^th Parallel with the communist adversary.  With 150,000 U.S. war dead, America and the West would reap no gain, nor the flip side, inflict no punishment on the communist aggressor.

Just like Obama did in Iraq last week, Ike went to Korea and had a look for himself and decided it was a stalemate.  When South Korean President Rhee tried to derail the talks with the north, Ike threatened to pull out of Korea entirely, which would have left Rhee to face the communist onslaught himself.  U.S. troops, though reduced in recent years, remain in Korea to this day.

The parallel that Smith makes between Ike and Obama is not compelling.  What the Obama administration plans for Iraq is more akin to the threat Ike made to Rhee (to pull all U.S. troops out) than it is to the Korea policy followed by successive administrations since 1953.  That is, to maintain a U.S. troop presence to help secure South Korea from aggression.  Smith makes a good point that only Ike, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in World War II, could have pushed through such an armistice in Korea.  Had Truman tried this, he might have been impeached.  While President Obama doesn’t have the military stature that Ike had, his Iraq policy is broadly popular.

Ike and Truman both sought a measured response in Korea.  They both sought to contain the extension of communism without triggering a world war with China and the Soviet Union.  MacArthur and others on the Republican right wanted to take the war to the Chinese. (Ike’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles even said the Chinese required “one hell of a licking.”)  Kissinger has argued that the best scenario for U.S. interests would have been something in between what Ike and Truman sought and what the right wing aspired to.  He has argued that U.S. forces should have moved, early in the war, not to the border with China at the Yalu River, which MacArthur did, triggering a massive Chinese response, but to one hundred miles south of that, at the “narrow neck” of the Korean peninsula, a defensible position where the country would have been nearly reunified, with 90% of the population and the capital of the north behind allied lines.  This way the U.S. would still have avoided threatening China, but would have secured a non-communist reunification of Korea.  We wouldn’t have this pesky nuclear arms mess with North Korea today.  But there are no sure bets in war and peace: there is no certainty that the Chinese would have tolerated even Kissinger’s scenario.

Perhaps President Obama should endeavor to find Kissinger’s middle ground in decisions on where to apply U.S. military power.  Reap the maximum advantage without threatening the major powers.  Easy to write, much harder to do.  That’s why I blog…

0. United States President Barack Obama called for a “world without nuclear weapons” in a speech last weekend in Prague. A peacenik ideal or calculated political move? Both.

Hours after North Korea fired a rocket over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean, President Obama outlined his vision for a nuclear-free world. Getting to zero may be impossible and Obama admitted that “this goal will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime.” But the rhetoric and visible efforts help in preventing nuclear proliferation.

Concrete steps to reduce existing arsenals will provide greater legitimacy in negotiations with potential nuclear powers. Obama committed to discussing a new arms control treaty with Russia and resubmitting the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty to Congress. The Senate rejected the treaty in 1999.

These moves may strengthen the anti-proliferation regime. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty relies on official nuclear powers credibly moving towards disarmament in order to restrain others from pursuing atomic bombs.

Pierre Goldschmidt, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, recently wrote that “repeated violations of the Nonproliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards have been met with ambiguous and inconsistent responses from the international community, creating the impression that states can pursue nuclear weapons programs without meaningful consequences.” Obama agrees. “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something,” he said.

Cheaters and possible cheats – North Korea, Iran, Syria and others – often refuse to consider necessary and more stringent requirements. It will be “impossible to curtail nuclear-weapons proliferation without serious progress towards nuclear disarmament.” For more, check out the Carnegie report, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate, edited by George Perkovich and James Acton.

Don’t, however, expect the United States to give up its deterrent as long as the number of nuclear arms is greater than zero. Obama also emphasized:

“Make no mistake, as long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary and guarantee that defense to our allies.”

Graphic from the BBC.

It’s no secret that North Korea and China are close.  Of all Pyongyang’s neighbors, it has the most intricate and rosy relationship with Beijing.  Today Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao welcomed North Korean Prime Minister Kim Yong-Il (not to be confused with Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il) to Beijing.  The two men held a very cordial conversation dotted by formal ceremonies and pleasantries.  Wen was not afraid to discuss North Korea’s nuclear program either that has been a thorn in the side of the 6-Party Talks for the past several weeks as Pyongyang plans to launch an alleged satellite into space in early April (most western analysts believe the launch to be an ICBM).  China has used its typical politically correct and slightly removed language to express its concern to North Korea:

“At present, the situation on the Korean peninsula is rather complicated with an increasing number of uncertain factors,” foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters Tuesday. “We express concern over this.”  Read more here.

“Concern” is a lot more tempered than Japans threats to blow North Korea’s missiles out of the sky or the US’ insistence that Pyongyang halt its program.  China’s tact is continuing to make it the necessary element in the 6-party talks and other diplomatic endeavors with North Korea.

Photo Credit: AFP.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking about her upcoming trip to Asia. Credit: Mario Tama, Getty Images

American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is headed to Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and China this week for a series of talks aimed at strengthening ties across the Pacific Ocean.  Clinton has outlined that her priorities for her trip include:

• A more “rigorous and persistent commitment and engagement” with allies in Asia
• Working with Asian powers to confront the financial crisis
• Preventing nuclear proliferation in Asia (i.e. North Korea)
• Cooperating with China to combat climate change, potentially with a “climate pact” that would seek out common economic goals for both Washington and Beijing

Many experts and media sources have pointed out that Clinton’s first trip in her new job is significant because it seeks out “rising Asia” and the need for the US to engage it.  And, Clinton’s visit to ascendant China will be, naturally, the centerpiece of her diplomatic tour.  Perhaps the Chinese news source Xinhua has said it most clearly, describing China as an “essential partner” for the US.  Howard LaFranchi in the Christian Science Monitor also writes a compelling analysis of the US’ key relationship with “rising Asia”, highlighting Indonesia in particular.

Clinton’s trip will come on the heels of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s return from visits to the Middle East and Africa.

Chinese President Hu Jintao and Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade. Credit: AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell

The past few years have seen increased Chinese economic involvement in Africa, particularly in the form of investments and infrastructure projects.  China has come under fire for what some call “ethics-blind aid”, ignoring the policies and politics of nations it engages with for trade, seeking only to capitalize on plentiful natural resources and business opportunities.  2008 alone saw China’s total FDI in Africa at $107 billion.

Hu’s visit to resource-poor nations this time, including Senegal, Tanzania, Mauritius and Mali, attempts to dispel this accusation.  Hu has pledged $90 million to Senegal for infrastructure projects and $74.9 million for a Sino-Malian “Friendship Bridge”, all as part of a campaign to improve China’s image as a responsible global player willing to dole out aid for aid’s sake.  The Africa trip, however, follows Hu’s visit to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).  In Saudi, Hu pledged to build a $1.8 billion monorail in Mecca for Hajj pilgrims, hardly unrelated to China’s energy security and increasing dependence on Saudi oil.

Secretary of State Clinton and her boss, President Barack Obama, will be keenly aware of China’s continuing influence in the Middle East and Africa.  Clinton’s visit to Beijing this week will be a key indicator of how the US and China will navigate their complex relationship during the months to come.

Check out the FPA’s China blog here: chinatrade.foreignpolicyblogs.com.