Obama and Mugabe
Now this one I wasn’t even going to ask for, not yet, because it’s so early and there’s so much to do – but here it is anyway.
President Obama wants a fresh approach to toppling Robert Mugabe and is discussing with aides an unprecedented, US-led diplomatic push to get tough new UN sanctions imposed against the Zimbabwe regime.
They will have to put pressure on Russia and China to (at least) abstain from vetoing sanctions – but perhaps that’s not an insuperable obstacle now. Good luck.
Brilliant. Free the people, feed the people, and retrovirals for the people.
Human rights trials for Mugabe and his cronies would be a great idea.
Yeah. I’m really a little staggered. This was on my wish list but I did think I would have to be patient.
Mugabe out out out.
I second that emotion.out out out!
It will be interesting to know what they think they can offer China and Russia to make this deal. The spokesman in the article claims they have ‘leverage’ over Russia, and, obviously, Putin is looking weaker with the economic downturn, but I still can’t see what this leverage can be and why it wasn’t availab;e to the previous administration. Any ideas?
One thing the President can offer Russia is a bit of backtracking on the rather mad scheme to place a US missile shield over western and central Europe. Strange, is it not, that the US was quite prepared, under Kennedy, to precipitate nuclear war because of a few missiles in Cuba, but did not expect Russia to respond to the threat to missiles in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Georgia, etc. etc. So, actually, President Obama has quite a lot to offer the Russians, I should have thought.
That is not ‘leverage’ Eric, it is a willingness to capitulate. I don’t think Obama would want to start his relationship with Russia with what can only be regarded by Putin as a sign of wekness.
The US has not based nuclear warheads in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria or Georgia, though, so your analogy doesn’t really stand up.
If those countries want to be part of a US defensive network, though, it really is none of Russia’s business, and I really don’t think the US is really going to have its military commitments dictated to it by a tinpot generalissimo in a country with an economy the size of Holland and Belgium combined. Nor should it.
I think it’s leverage, and it’s been in the works for some time. I don’t think it would be a show of weakness. It might even show good sense. Perhaps it is time to treat Russia as a possible friend, instead of a threat. I recall that systems of treaties played a large role in precipitating the Great War. They still have that potential. And since the US is already deeply involved in the Gulf and central Asia, I should have thought that the US already poses a significant threat to Russian interests. It is not altogether clear to me, either, that a forward deployment of US missiles (though not already carried out, it has been mooted and threatened for some time) is actually strategically useful. And since it is something largely cooked up during the disastrous years of the Bush presidency, it warrants a second look.
However, since I have already suggesed, on another thread on this site, that you show every sign of trolling, I don’t think this is a conversation that I want to bother continuing.
“Perhaps it is time to treat Russia as a possible friend, instead of a threat”
Friends don’t make friends freeze in winter.
Yes, OB, I know, but, of course, the religious are not given to understatement!
Sorry, OB. That note got in the wrong thread. But you know where it belongs!
Eric, what do you mean? I am so understatedly religious, so humble, I expect to see the deity in person very soon!
“I think it’s leverage, and it’s been in the works for some time.”
Capitualting to the demand of a foreign power is ‘leverage’? Only in the sense that the holder of a rensom has leverage over aa kidnaapper.
“I don’t think it would be a show of weakness.”
But Putin almost certainly would.
“Perhaps it is time to treat Russia as a possible friend, instead of a threat.”
In what way has the US failed to treat Russia as a friend? If you mean that it is in some way hostile not to allow the border countries of Eastern Europe to be held within Russia’s sphere of influence, I think that is a peculiarly cock-eyed view. If it is held by the Obama admin, then we will be seeing a returnm to Kissingerian realism in foreign affairs, not usually something associated with ‘progressives’.
“And since the US is already deeply involved in the Gulf and central Asia, I should have thought that the US already poses a significant threat to Russian interests.”
The US poses no threat to any of Russia’s legitimate interests. If Russia wants to exp[and its boirders (as we have good reason to think it does), the US is a threat, but that is not a legitimate interest.
“It is not altogether clear to me, either, that a forward deployment of US missiles (though not already carried out, it has been mooted and threatened for some time) is actually strategically useful.”
It may not be, but it is not up to Russia to decide.
You see, John, this is why I think you are a Troll.
You asked a question: What leverage does Obama have? And your response to my suggestion is: that would be capitulation.
I cannot see that it is strategically useful to forward deply missiles, and you respond, ‘it’s not up to Russia to decide.’ I never suggested it was. But it’s still leverage.
I suggest that the US is deeply involved in the Gulf and central Asia, Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. After all, Afghanistan and Iran together comprised the playground for the Great Game in th 19th century, and everyone who has played it has come to a sticky end. Russia could tell NATO about that. But you respond that ‘the US is not a threat to Russia.’
Well, good. Not a threat. Do you think the Russians feel that way? In what way is that even an intelligible response to what I said?
In what way has the US failed to treat Russia as a friend? By treating it as a threat, and actively seeking to enlist bordering nations to join NATO.
But we can have this tit for tat for ages, and be no closer to answering questions. The thread was about Mugabe, after all, and the question was what does the US have to bargain with? And the answer is, well, lots of things, whether they want to use them as bargaining counters or not. But we’re not going to settle international affairs right here, nor are we going to read Obama’s mind. He might be more rational than you.
And that’s what’s trollish about you, reasoned and cool as you may sound. You will always have some bit of repartee. It might not a very good piece, but you’ll have it. just as you had for OB in several other threads, and around and around the mulberry bush we’ll go.
Now, I’ve given you more than a nibble, but from my point of view this conversation is closed. I haven’t really taken the bait.
No, John Meredith, you’re not going to be allowed to move in and take over.
OB, I have no interest in ‘moving in’ or ‘taking over’. I comment on here for brief spells every few months or so (I read the blog more often). But when people address me directly , I am inclined to respond. If people like Eric were less quick to start hurling insults, this would look less like a squabble and we could just talk like adults. Maybe you should have a few words in that direction. But if you want me not to, absent myself, I will. You only need say.
That should be: But if you want me to absent myself, I will. You only need say.
No, not really – but I don’t want these great long comments, either, especially ones that are off-topic.
And frankly you did start the hijacking process. This post pretty obviously wasn’t about Russia.
Sorry – I’m fussy about comments. That’s probably irksome, but I’m determined not to let N&C end up like Harry’s Place.
Hence deletion of very long off-topic comment.
A blog is a little bit like a dinner party or a seminar where people are discussing some intellectual topic.
It’s not enough just to say something intelligent. If you want to participate (in the sense of joining the group process), you have to follow the rhythm and direction of the discussion, adapt yourself to the other participants. Otherwise, even if you don’t intend to troll, you might look like a troll.
“Sorry – I’m fussy about comments. That’s probably irksome, but I’m determined not to let N&C end up like Harry’s Place.”
Fair enough, but I did not change the topic of the thread, I was on-topic with the question about leverage and the diplomatic options available to Obama and later was simply responded to other commenters. The deleted comment was mostly quoting from the previous commenter, offering a response and objecting to the abusive ad hominems of Eric, which seem not to be considered outwith the spirit of the site, or even to be off-topic, strangely.
I shall leave you alone for a bit now, though, so that the dust can settle.