Cisco, Peace, Capitalism, etc.

Wow, I can't believe it's more than a year since my last post!  I've moved to Krakow, Poland and into a new job (well, still Commercial Finance and still Cisco, only different business).  Anyway, just wanted to post a link to a great, and actually inspiring article (and inspiring is not a word I use lightly).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardbehar/2013/07/24/peace-through-profits-a-private-sector-detente-is-drawing-israelis-palestinians-closer/

There aren't many articles that combine the themes of peace between Israelis and Palestinians with both Capitalist-approach-to-peace and Cisco-as-a-world-saviour themes.  Yey capitalism!  Yey Cisco!

I'm such a cheerleader...

Let North Korea Keep Its Nukes

There's a great article in the current edition of Foreign Policy by Andrei Lankov, available here, making a strong point regarding the weak case of the US, and by extension any other powers that care about the issue, with regards North Korean nuclear disarmament. The article shows basically how the negotiations around the issue basically involve the US giving food and energy aid (the latter in the form of light-water nuclear reactors and fuel) in return for, well, not much--a slowdown of nuclear development by North Korea. What the article does not discuss is the possible negative ramifications of such a move, which I've been wondering about.

If the US went ahead and disengaged from the talks, shutting off the US aid and essentially ignoring the issue, this would send an unintended message of indifference to South Korea and Japan, and of course to North Korea. While this would save US Aid dollars and save diplomatic resources, my gut feeling is that this would spark further sabre-rattling and attention seeking from North Korea. This could be deadly enough without them having to use the nukes for the US to be pulled back to the table, but could probably not be deadly enough for the US to become militarily engaged due to the close proximity of South Korea, and North Korea's artillery. This is probably the strongest reason to stay engaged , perhaps by committing just enough to the process to avoid such aggression while not giving the regime enough to keep itself going too well.

The second unintended message would be to other states considering pushing for nukes. Even without holding hostage a friendly nation like South Korea, one only has to consider Iran to think how this could have consequences beyond the Korean peninsular. Such a move could give Iran and other states further confidence in being able to develop, and keep, nukes. Still, this would not be such an important issue, given that the hands of the US (or Israel) will not be tied from such a move in North Korea. The Syrian option will still be on the table where possible. (I believe it is not possible in Iran as their program is more dispersed, better hidden and buried largely beyond easy bombing, but that's a whole other subject.)

The third non-discussed part is the actual strategic consequence of North Korea's nukes. I would actually see this as the least concerning aspect of the proposal, given that North Korea's artillery are already strong enough to deter any military actions against the state there. Their missile program does add further concern by putting Japan and possibly even the USA's West coast within range, however North Korea would have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by actually using such a weapon in such a way. In addition, their long-range missiles (the Taep'o Dong-2) probably cannot reach that far and likely have extremely poor accuracy, so risk of long-range damage is low while the risk of military retribution by the US would be large. More to the point, North Korea would gain nothing by trying such things.

Just my 2c...

Think Again: War

Here's a good article in the current edition of Foreign Policy. Nice to read something positive for a change! I only wish I had more time to read such things!

Small update

I was just drawn back to my old blog by some spam on a post, and thought I might as well post an update, the first in more than a year. I've moved job in the last few weeks and am now working as a Deal Manager for Commercial Finance, still for Cisco and still in Emerging Markets. It's a nice move.

Still in Prague, still dancing, DJ-ing and doing yoga now to boot! I've also been studying photography a bit - you can see those photos I put online at www.picasaweb.com/rickphillipsuk. They're mostly for the groups of people I was with (runners and yogics).

There's lots happening worldwide, of course, but I haven't been paying too close attention...

Georgia, Russia

It's been a long while since my last post, and I wanted to write something about this since it kicked-off two weeks ago. That would have been one long rant against the idiocy of Saakashvili's underestimation of Russia and its response, and against Russia's backing of 'near-abroad' enclaves, including South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Trans-Dniester. Moreover, I'm on vacation and didn't fancy putting in the hours of reading, preparation and hyperlinking needed to produce the kind of analysis I used to. Still, if you want to bring yourself up to speed on the basics of what happened and what's motivating the Russians and Georgians, here are a few links:

First, an excellent CS Monitor overview on the conflict, giving both side's perspectives and motives. To that we can add an earlier analysis Russia's wider gains.

Second, a good IHT article including indicators of Russia's current intents, including possibly gaining an economic stranglehold on Georgia via checkpoints on it's main highway and port. That suggestion is backed by news articles by CNN and Reuters.

Finally, those of you wondering what the effect on international relations between Russia and the rest of the world will be, here are some reassurances from the CS Monitor.

OK - back to my vacation. I don't know when I'll next have the inclination and time to post, so bye for now.

More Nukes

Hi all - a brace of issues for your attention.

Firstly, an article by M. D. Nalapat alleging China's proliferation of nuclear arms to states including Myanmar and Bangladesh, as well as Pakistan and North Korea. Worrying stuff, but I still have the rather quaint and naive belief that nukes are a defensive weapon at best. They're no good for invading a country or trying to rob someone, and nuclear-backed belligerence is both hard to believe and hard to pull off; the first country to take international security to such depths would be cast out by its friends and neighbours. No country would want such a danger anywhere around, either from the threat of fallout from that state's nuclear attacks, or from the attacks against it. So a more nuclear world doesn't bring us close enough to Armageddon that I really start worrying. But I digress...

Secondly, Iran. We have a worrying situation, with hawks in the US and, oddly enough, France, looking for trouble to fix by talking tough in public (can't remember that one working often).

The issue of Iran's nuclear program has been up in front of the UN Security Council, which came up with little of substance about it, and President Ahmadinejad, not one to shy away from controversy, visited the US for some highly publicised engagements. That, unsurprisingly, didn't help. Iran is emboldened not by its weapons, which probably won't exist for at least another 10 years (see past blog entries), but by the international inability to do anything about its rather blatant program. It's strengthening its friendship with Russia while mocking the seeming inability of the US, currently mired in Iraq, to follow up on Iran's nuclear grandstanding. The Bush administration is talking of compromise, while drawing attention to its willingness to defend Israel (which President Ahmadinejad has spoken of wanting wiped off the map). France, meanwhile, is continuing the tough talk, this time with worries about the scale of the Iranian program (more centrifuges), while the Iranians have been demanding explanations.

So a lot to think about there, and a lot to hint at inaction: a lack of consensus at the UN, powerful friends (Russia and China), military over-stretching and still a lot of time before any Iran gets their nukes. And beyond that, the question of whether a nuclear Iran would be the day of reckoning the doom-mongers seem to think: much as Ahmadinejad would like Israel off the map, he wouldn't risk the destruction of Tehran for that aim (whether done by enabling terrorists or otherwise). Even if he wanted to it's highly unlikely the Iranian military and senior government would actually let him; don't forget that Jerusalem is holy for Muslims too, and that they wouldn't like the deaths of Palestinians on their hands.

Anyway - I'm digressing again. The main threat here, and one I take more seriously than any threat from Iran, is the threat to Iran. I know I've just written how unlikely that is, but the main danger is that the question of HOW an attack on Iran could be done would replace the question of IF it should be done. The US military will, at some point, be asked for suggestions, if it hasn't already. So the first credible plan from the US, along the lines of a hit-and-run, might actually be put to the test: all the questions about whether that's wise would be dropped in favour of showing the world that the US isn't impotent after all, and bringing Iran down a notch. That's the main danger, from my perspective.

Besides the international politics, all's well. At the weekend I'm back to Mseno, this time with a small group of tango dancers. And tomorrow's the milonga at the Jam Cafe - I'm back as DJ this month (Jan took last month). Work's hard, but still interesting.

Cannonball Adderley 6tet - Jazz 625 - Come Suday

Enjoy!