U.S. Foreign Policy

By Ian Bremmer and Willis Sparks

To mark 60 years in charge, China's Communist Party threw a lavish party last week, a triumphalist pageant with enough military hardware on parade to fill the nightmares of would-be "dragon slayers" for years to come. It was a reminder that China has developed advanced fighter aircraft, military satellites, the Dong Feng 21 missile (also known as the "aircraft carrier killer"), and has been working toward production of a first aircraft carrier of its own -- an asset that would enable China to project naval power further from its shores than ever before. As if the visuals weren't enough, the celebration included a 2,000-member military marching band.

So will China one day pose the 21st century equivalent of a Soviet-scale military challenge to America's geopolitical dominance? That's unlikely. China wants to extend its influence throughout East Asia, protect the commercial traffic that provides the oil, gas, metals, and minerals that feed China's growing economic appetite, and project national pride. It will one day pose a broader military threat than it does now, but its economy has grown so quickly and its living standards have improved so dramatically over the past two decades that it's hard to imagine the kind of catastrophic, game-changing event that would push its leadership to upend a profitable status quo and confront American leadership outside Asia. China's leaders know their government won't be ready anytime soon to bear a superpower's burdens. Their primary goal is to bolster their political control by generating prosperity for the Chinese people. Why would it allow anything short of the most dire and immediate threat to its territorial integrity to ignite a military conflict that would sever its web of commercial ties with countries all over the world -- and, in particular, with its three largest trading partners: the European Union, the United States, and Japan?

Beijing's primary military concern is the risk of a direct or proxy conflict with the United States over Taiwan. But the Chinese leadership knows that no U.S. government will support a Taiwanese bid for independence, and why should China invade the island when it can co-opt most of Taiwan's business elite with privileged access to investment opportunities on the mainland? Globalization has been good to China's Communist Party, and wars are bad for business.

Certainly, China has ambitious military modernization plans. With 2.3 million soldiers under arms, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is already by far the world's largest. It has reportedly invested considerable time, effort, and money in cyber-warfare technology. Its total military budget probably doubled between 2003 and 2009 to about $70 billion. But that's still only about 12 percent of what the United States now spends on its military each year -- and an even smaller percentage if supplementary U.S. spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is included.

The problem for U.S. policymakers over the next several years is not that the unipolar world order will give way to a multipolar but to a non-polar system. In other words, it's not that America has company on the global stage but that it must continue to carry so much weight on its own-and at a time when pressing problems at home will limit the American public's appetite for ambitious foreign-policy commitments.

Over the past 20 years, U.S. analysts have scanned the horizon in expectation of potential challengers to America's great power advantages. The European Union was already struggling to manage the latest round of expansion before the financial crisis gave EU leaders another reason to avoid potentially onerous new commitments abroad. Russia's leaders may be unhappy with the geopolitical status quo, particularly when it comes to the balance of power within several former Soviet republics. But they're far too preoccupied at the moment with the protection of domestic markets, banks, and companies from the worst effects of the financial crisis to embark on any long-term plan to build a threat to U.S. power outside its immediate neighborhood. India has market reform issues to manage and security worries flowing across the border from Pakistan. Within the Western hemisphere, Brazil appears to have no grander near-term aspirations than to promote stability in Latin America, jumpstart an economic recovery, find new ways to profit from its recent oil discovery, and to play a broader leadership role among developing states.

It's not a challenge for dominance, but a growing vacuum of power that should worry Washington. The more important questions for the next decade are: Who will take the lead on building a new global financial architecture that reflects 21st century realities? Who will take the lead on multilateral efforts to address climate change? Who will create a new (and more credible) nonproliferation regime? Who will provide momentum behind Middle East Peace talks? Who will provide the leadership to ensure that G20 summits don't simply turn into G8-style photo opportunities with a wider angle lens?

Feng Li/Getty Images

By Willis Sparks and Geoff Porter

As the world focuses on the diplomatic tug of war over Iran's nuclear program, Israel lives with the worrying hum of all those centrifuges spinning just a thousand miles to the east. Yet, Benjamin Netanyahu's government knows that if Israel launches airstrikes, there's a limit to how much damage can be done and how long Iran's progress can be delayed. It therefore has to persuade the Obama administration -- and anyone else who might help slow Iran's march -- to see the risks from Iran as Israel sees them.

It helped that Iran recently revealed the existence of an undeclared nuclear site near the city of Qom. At the very least, that revelation of Iranian dishonesty might have made it a little more difficult for Beijing and Moscow to justify continued resistance to sanctions. Yet, Israel remained quiet. Suddenly it appeared Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and National Security Advisor Uzi Arad might have a wind at their backs. Though they'd like the wind to blow a bit more steadily and to get them to their destination quicker, they can't risk the rhetoric that might label them as blowhards.

But now there's talk of a diplomatic breakthrough. Following talks in Geneva with negotiators from the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, and Germany, Iran has signed on to a tentative "interim agreement" to accept a U.S.-Russian proposal (that has been on the table for more than a year) to ship much of its low enriched uranium outside the country for reprocessing. Ensuring that this uranium is processed outside the country would help verify that it's used for civilian, not military, purposes. And then over the weekend, Iran ostensibly agreed to allow IAEA inspectors into the Qom facility on Oct. 25.

This leaves the Israeli government in a bind. First, because the details have yet to be worked out and Iran could renounce a completed agreement at any time, Israel can't take much comfort from it. Second, the fact that others treat it as a potential diplomatic breakthrough makes it even less likely than before that Israel could justify military strikes or that the US can persuade Russia and (especially) China to support sanctions tough enough to make any difference in Iran's strategic planning.

Israel has no faith that the potential for diplomatic détente between Iran and the US and EU is anything more than an Iranian stalling tactic, buying Tehran more time to speed toward the nuclear finish line. Likewise, Israel doesn't believe that sanctions -- no matter how tough they are -- will back Iran down. For Israel, diplomacy and sanctions are merely different forms of delay, but Netanyahu has little choice but to wait them out.

He'll be waiting for some time. First, diplomacy has to run its course. Following the tentative agreement in Geneva and the announcement that Iran will allow inspection of its Qom facility, the diplomatic track seems to be gaining momentum. Once that momentum slows and stalemate resumes, sanctions will be debated and some of them will be implemented. That won't happen before spring 2010 at the earliest.

In the meantime, Israel has little choice but to sit on its hands. Netanyahu knows that strikes on Iran's nuclear sites during delicate negotiations would inflict much more damage to Israel's international reputation -- and its relations with Washington, in particular -- than to Iran's nuclear program. Nothing brings this home more clearly than the U.N. Human Rights Council's report investigating Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip in 2008-09, which came very close to launching a legal process within the UN that could have produced a referral to the U.N. Security Council -- and possibly a war crimes tribunal. That's not going to happen, but it underscored already shifting international attitudes toward Israel.

Former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz has said 2010 would be the year of sanctions. His government was hoping for a year of action. Instead, Israel will wait.

Willis Sparks is Global Macro Analyst and Geoff Porter is Middle East & Africa Director at Eurasia Group. 

Alex Wong/Getty Images

by Ian Bremmer

In Afghanistan, even the good news isn't so good. The country managed to hold a presidential election in August, but there aren't many people inside or outside the country who considered it free and fair. It looks increasingly like Hamid Karzai will win without a second round, but his legitimacy will remain under a very large, very dark cloud. He'll face open revolt from Tajiks in the north, who overwhelmingly opposed his candidacy. And as evidenced by the significant recent expansion of terrorist bombings in Afghanistan's major cities and the assassination last week of the country's second-ranking intelligence officer, it will even become harder to secure Kabul. No one should have much confidence that a second round would do much to restore Karzai's credibility.

In addition, military operations against the Taliban inside Pakistan achieved some actual success this summer, but that has probably pushed some militants across the border into Afghanistan to harass coalition forces there. U.S. casualties have increased, though that's not surprising given the more aggressive operations of larger numbers of US troops. But last week's U.S. bombing on a Taliban target, which killed dozens of civilians, is just the latest in a series of setbacks for coalition military operations.

More worrisome: It's becoming increasingly clear that Afghanistan won't be able to stand on its own anytime soon. U.S. military officials report that the training of Afghan soldiers is well behind schedule. For the next two or three years, with coalition forces at their present levels, Afghan troops won't be nearly strong enough to maintain even the current level of security, let alone make any meaningful contribution to an aggressive counterinsurgency effort.

Inside Afghanistan, more locals than ever want the US out, whatever the cost. There's also dwindling support for the war in the United States, as the American media increasingly turns its attention from an economy beginning to improve toward the growing death toll in Afghanistan.

Within the Obama foreign-policy team, there looks to be a growing divergence of opinion on what to do next. There appears to be an internal consensus that the current strategy isn't working. But senior officials appear more divided on whether to "go long" or "go home." In the go long group, those who want more troops and more resources because "failure isn't an option," we see Secretary Clinton, envoy Richard Holbrooke, most of the generals on the ground, and most Republicans in Congress. In the go home camp, those who want to pull troops out before things get much worse, are Vice President Biden, most of Obama's political team, and a growing number of senior Democrats. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates appears to have grown much more skeptical.

In short, Afghanistan is becoming Obama's first lasting foreign-policy crisis. A major terrorist attack somewhere in the world carried out by militants trained in Afghanistan could shift international public opinion toward greater engagement. Short of that, U.S. public opposition to the war will likely grow steadily over the coming year, bringing the issue to a head just in time for U.S. midterm elections and driving a wedge between members of the president's own party.

MANPREET ROMANA/AFP/Getty Images

By Eurasia Group analyst Sean West

Earlier this month, the G8+5, the world's leading industrial states plus some other important developing states, committed to finishing the Doha Round of trade talks by the end of 2010. U.S. and Chinese officials paid lip service to finishing Doha this week during the inaugural bilateral "Strategic and Economic Dialogue." World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy will likely cite both announcements as cause for celebration. Healthy skepticism is in order.

Overblown fears of oncoming protectionism were all the rage just weeks ago. But as Ian Bremmer wrote in this space back in March, the financial crisis need not trigger as many new trade barriers as some feared. Still, the global liberalization envisioned by a completed Doha Round by the end of next year is likely a bridge too far.

Pledges aside, there's not much reason to be optimistic that a deal can be concluded in the near future. Personality conflicts may have receded, as both Susan Schwab and Kamal Nath -- who banged heads last year -- no longer represent the United States and India respectively. But domestic conditions in the wake of the financial crisis won't help much with trade liberalization. While there's ample reason to be skeptical that neither China nor the EU are any more ready conclude an agreement than in the past, all other countries can play wait-and-see unless and until the United States shows serious leadership.

Obama has yet to lay out a clear strategy for the Doha Round. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has said several times that the United States considers Doha completion as critical, but there's no evidence yet that he'll have the political support he needs to set policy and to bargain. Comments from Obama himself on Doha have been ambiguous at best, warning of an "imbalance" in potential trade-offs on the table in current negotiations. It's also not yet clear how much political capital Obama will put at risk at a moment when he needs the support of organized labor for a host of other domestic priorities. And in a nod to agricultural interests, he allowed his budget proposal to cut farm subsidies -- a critical sticking point in the Doha negotiations -- to die on arrival.

Real movement on trade policy remains on hold until the president explains publicly how trade policy fits into his administration's broader agenda -- a speech he might give in advance of the September G20 meeting in Pittsburgh. But he'll have to use that speech to persuade an anxious American public -- and many trade skeptical US lawmakers -- that trade deals can spur growth without killing jobs. Obama has an advantage. His history suggests that he believes in the benefits of trade, and in a Nixon-goes-to-China way, he can spend political capital earned on the campaign trail to bring trade-wary Democrats along with his initiatives. But he has so far provided no indication that he's ready to accept the political risks that come with the push needed to get Doha done within 18 months.

RABIH MOGHRABI/AFP/Getty Images

By Ian Bremmer

The international conflict over North Korea's nuclear program has been locked in stalemate for years. The United States and Japan fear that Pyongyang will sell nuclear weapons and material to rogue regimes and/or terrorist groups or stumble its way into a shooting war. China and South Korea worry that North Korea will collapse, flooding Chinese border regions with sick and starving refugees and leaving South Korea with a reunification project that will cost a fortune and last a generation. This problem has allowed Kim Jong Il to periodically saber-rattle his way into fresh supplies of cash, food, and fuel. It's all been entirely predictable.

But the Dear Leader's illness has changed the game. His government has been unusually belligerent lately, even by North Korean standards. Following the latest missile tests, they haven't made new demands for talks or aid and insist they will not return to six-party talks until others at the table accept North Korea as a nuclear state. Its government has since sentenced two US journalists to 12 years of hard labor for "hostilities against the Korean nation and illegal entry." Especially provocative have been a series of cyber-attacks on US and South Korean government websites, which officials in both countries believe originated from North Korea. This more reckless North Korean behavior suggests that senior civilian and military officials, increasingly unsure how the coming power transition will go, are trying to secure some extra room for maneuver.

For the moment, North Korean actions are aimed at an internal, not an international, audience. That makes their actions less predictable -- and increases the risk of accidental confrontation.

The Obama administration, aware that bad things happen when all sides are in escalation mode at the same time, has stepped back from the tougher rhetoric of weeks past. There's been little mention of sanctions. For the imprisoned journalists, Secretary of State Clinton is now asking for mercy rather than demanding justice.

But if North Korea really is moving into political succession mode as Kim Jong Il's health heads downhill, those who will be left behind are making a much-faster-than-planned move to shore up support for his recently designated successor, third son Kim Jong Un. It will be easier for them to maintain national unity at a time when the country stands on the brink of war.

Until the North Korean leadership feels confident enough to return to the established patterns of negotiation and extortion, its actions will remain much more difficult to predict. That problem, in turns, elevates the risk of miscalculation -- and a confrontation that no one wants.

AUM JUNG-SEOK/AFP/Getty Images

By Ian Bremmer

Some want to see the US and China form a comprehensive political and economic partnership, an alliance of pragmatism that provides workable solutions to key international problems: the global economic slowdown, climate change, collective security, and other issues. Those who make this argument ignore the reality that China remains a developing country with serious internal challenges ahead. This will sharply limit the Chinese leadership's eagerness for taking on new international burdens, however triumphalist their rhetoric becomes.

More to the point, U.S. and Chinese advantages are not as complementary as some think. An America that is gradually losing much of its economic advantage over fast-emerging states will continue to take on much of the geopolitical heavy lifting --on nonproliferation, on the Middle East peace process, on the challenge of quelling militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, on Iraqi stability, on risks that Iran will destabilize the region, on piracy, and plenty of other issues. The U.S. military and U.S. taxpayer will begin to feel even more over-extended, and the electorate will challenge U.S. policymakers to justify America's global security presence.

Beijing may soon announce that China is building its first aircraft carrier. That will set off alarm bells in the American media, but it's really much ado about not much. China's navy is focused on protecting Asian shipping lanes. Building one carrier isn't the same as assembling a complete carrier battle group. The United States has 11 such groups. In other words, for all the talk about China's future blue water navy, Beijing will not be able to project a global naval presence for decades to come.

Yet, though the United States will maintain its military dominance for the foreseeable future, China will feel that it's doing more than its share in the provision of public goods on the geo-economic side. In particular, the Chinese will be expected to buy U.S. Treasuries as Americans inflate away the value of those assets. That's why high-level Chinese officials have been talking up the idea of a new reserve currency.

With this obvious mutual dependence, can't Washington and Beijing form a mutually profitable partnership? The United States makes the world safe for Chinese commerce while, in the interest of global economic stability, China continues to subsidize U.S. spending?

Don't bet on it. Here's why:

The economic downturn will move domestic constituencies in both countries to complain about their share of burdens and dismiss much of the value provided by the other side. Populist-minded U.S. political officials will get in front of this public anger to avoid being swallowed up by it. Not so long ago, the Chinese leadership could simply have shrugged off this problem on their side. But an increasingly active Chinese blogosphere and a more assertive local press can, without directly challenging the Party's right to rule, help drive public demand for action that the government can't afford to ignore.

But here's the bigger problem: Those on the U.S. side providing the geopolitical leadership (mainly in the Pentagon) and those on the Chinese side managing foreign economic policy don't speak the same institutional language. Their values, their worldviews, and their vocabularies are entirely different. There is not enough common ground on which these two institutions can forge a partnership.

That's why the U.S. and Chinese governments are likely to find themselves increasingly at odds over the next several years --and why hopes for a G2 solution to a wide range of transnational problems are likely to be dashed.

Jed Jacobsohn/Getty Images

By Eurasia Group analysts Geoff Porter and Willis Sparks

The new Israeli government has wasted no time in confirming its hawkish reputation on both Iran's nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Blunt comments from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman signal a risky road ahead -- and an increasingly uneasy relationship between the U.S. and Israeli governments.

Netanyahu entered office with a warning: If the U.S. administration does not lead the charge in halting Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israel may decide that it has no choice but to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. And his new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the hard-line Yisrael Beiteinu party, has argued that Israel is not bound to abide by understandings reached between the previous Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. He added that Israelis should perhaps prepare for war rather than peace.

Whether he is truly prepared to give the order to target Iran's nuclear facilities any time soon, Netanyahu's comments on Iran represent an effort to influence the Obama administration's approach to Iran, one that has begun with a call from Washington for a more constructive relationship with Tehran. The new Israeli prime minister wants to ensure that the Obama administration keeps its pledges to block Iran's nuclear program at the top of its agenda -- that it understands Israel can't afford to allow negotiations with Iran to drag on indefinitely. Israel will deliver that message again in June with a civil defense exercise that simulates multiple missile strikes on Israeli territory.  Israel will also probably try to weaken Iran's regional proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah -- particularly if a U.S.-led diplomatic track makes airstrikes on Iran less feasible.

The next three months will represent a period of heightened risk ahead of Iran's presidential elections on June 12. In addition to the Israeli warnings, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could face a tough challenge from Mir Hossein Mousavi, a popular former prime minister who has criticized Ahmadinejad's mismanagement of an economy plagued by high inflation and gasoline rationing. Aggressive Israeli rhetoric could provide Ahmadinejad an opportunity to provoke an international crisis to rally Iranians to his government -- and to boost his position in the polls.

If Netanyahu's comments were predictable, Lieberman's were much stronger than expected. Though consistent with his previous positions on the Palestinians, Lieberman's statements offered a sharp contrast with Netanyahu's recent pledge that his government would work to ensure continuity on the Palestinian issue from the previous government to his own.

It's no surprise that the choice of Avigdor Lieberman will add an element of friction in US-Israeli relations, but his assertion that Israel is not bound by commitments made during the U.S.-brokered Annapolis negotiations will cause some serious heartburn in Washington. The Obama administration believes that a visible commitment to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will restore U.S. credibility across the Middle East and help it advance its diplomatic agenda in other countries. Lieberman's comments will make the Obama administration's goal that much harder to achieve for as long as this new Israeli government remains in power.

By Ian Bremmer

In the Pakistani city of Lahore on Tuesday, a dozen gunmen attacked a bus carrying members of Sri Lanka's cricket team, killing six policemen and a driver and injuring several of the athletes. Press accounts of the assault suggest a level of coordination similar to that used by the Pakistan-based militants who killed 173 people at several sites in Mumbai in September. Across Pakistan, suicide bombers killed two people in 2005, six in 2006, 56 in 2007, and 61 in 2008. Suicide attackers killed more people in Pakistan last year than in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

There are two important reasons why the threat of global terrorism is growing. The first is long-term and structural. The second is more directly tied to the global financial crisis. Both have everything to do with what's happening in Pakistan.

First, a report released in December from the U.S. Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation, and Terrorism hints at both sets of problems. The report notes an increasing supply of nuclear technology and material around the world and warns that "without greater urgency and decisive action by the world community, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013."

Destructive (and potentially destructive) technologies are now more accessible than at any time in history for small groups and even individuals. This will dramatically increase the baseline threat of disruptive violence from non-state actors over time. It's not just biological and nuclear material. GPS tracking devices help pirates operating off Somalia's coast venture further from shore and undertake increasingly ambitious attacks on private and commercial vessels.

Second, it's unlikely that we'll see the "greater urgency and decisive action by the world community" called for in the report. For the moment, political leaders around the world are too busy wrestling with the effects of the global financial crisis on their domestic economies (and their political standing) to coordinate action against such a diffuse threat.

But there's another reason why the financial crisis heightens the risk of global terrorism. Militants thrive in places where no one is fully in charge. The global recession threatens to create more such places.

No matter how cohesive and determined a terrorist organization, it needs a supportive environment in which to flourish. That means a location that provides a steady stream of funds and recruits and the support (or at least acceptance) of the local population. Much of the counter-terrorist success we've seen in Iraq's al Anbar province over the past two years is a direct result of an increased willingness of local Iraqis to help the Iraqi army and US troops oust the militants operating there. In part, that's because the area's tribal leaders have their own incentives (including payment in cash and weaponry) for cooperating with occupation forces. But it's also because foreign militants have alienated the locals.

The security deterioration of the past year in Pakistan and Afghanistan reflects exactly the opposite phenomenon. In the region along both sides of their shared border, local tribal leaders have yet to express much interest in helping Pakistani and NATO soldiers target local or foreign militants. For those with the power to either protect or betray the senior al-Qaeda leaders believed to be hiding in the region, NATO and Pakistani authorities have yet to find either sweet enough carrots or sharp enough sticks to shift allegiances.  

The slowdown threatens to slow the progress of a number of developing countries. Most states don't provide ground as fertile for militancy as places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen. But as more people lose their jobs, their homes, and opportunities for prosperity -- in emerging market countries or even within minority communities inside developed states -- it becomes easier for local militants to find volunteers. 

This is why the growing risk of attack from suicide bombers and well-trained gunmen in Pakistan creates risks that extend beyond South Asia. This is a country that is home to lawless regions where local and international militants thrive, nuclear weapons and material, a history of nuclear smuggling, a cash-starved government, and a deteriorating economy. Pakistan is far from the only country in which terrorism threatens to spill across borders. But there's a reason why the security threats flowing back and forth across the Afghan-Pakistani border rank so highly on Eurasia Group's list of top political risks for 2009 -- and why they remain near the top of the Obama administration's security agenda.

AAMIR QURESHI/GETTYIMAGES