How Much Change Is Too Much?

Prague is a wonderfully romantic city. It is a place where one feels free to pursue ideals. It is, in fact, a place where ideals propelled people to make a genuine challenge to the Soviet Union. Not once in 1968 but again twenty years ago.

Perhaps it is the mood and history of Prague which inclined President Obama to have his speech writers craft a fine paean to ideals. And, in the process stick the president's fingers into an electric socket.

The more idealistic and, paradoxically perhaps, less difficulty producing portion of the president's speech dealt with the need to end nuclear proliferation and, ultimately, eliminate the current nuclear weapons stockpiles. Obama was appropriately conservative about a time line for the eradication of nukes from the world, saying, "It may not occur in my lifetime."

The speech served to confirm the earlier reports that Russia and the US would proceed to negotiate a reduction of nuclear charges to 1,500 each. This would constitute a necessary first step to achieving the finite deterrent level of roughly five hundred warheads each. As noted in an earlier post MAD would continue to exist giving an appropriate "comfort level" to two nations which will never be "friends" but will continue to be (using a delightfully ambiguous Vietnamese term) "partners in struggle."

President Obama called for the US to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Doing such would not harm US interests. Improvements in the US weapons would not require testing of the physics packages. Whether or not the CNTBT would then be ratified by China, India, Pakistan, Israel or Iran is open to question. Further it should be noted that decoupled underground tests of low yield devices are not susceptible to definitive detection since the Earth is a restless place with seismic shocks occurring as a form of geological background noise.

The North Koreans flipped the bird in the general direction of the "international community" (whatever that might be) with their launch of a prototype ICBM. This act calls into serious question the relevance of international agreements as it did Security Council resolutions. It's fine to talk of "breaking the rules" as the president did, but it also irrelevant.

There is no credible means of enforcing the will of the Security Council or the "international community" (which the Geek takes to be the equivalent of the bumper sticker, "We are all passengers on spaceship Earth") against the Hermit Kingdom of the North. As has been argued in previous posts, economic sanctions will not prove any more efficacious in the future than they have in the past. War is not an option. Only bribery might work. And, Pyongyang is unlikely to stay bribed for long. For Dear Leader and company, blackmail is an unending enterprise.

Unfortunately President Obama and his speech writers demonstrated a lamentable ignorance of historical reality when the Nice Young Man From Chicago beat his breast on behalf of the US. He averred that the US had a "moral responsibility" to take the lead in seeking total nuclear disarmament. He linked this alleged "moral" load to the US having employed two nuclear bombs against Japan in World War II.

Morality is not involved either then or now. There is and never has been any requirement for the US to enter a mea culpa in its nuclear usage. A nation at war has the goal of ending the war as quickly as possible at the lowest cost in friendly lives compatible with its political demands. The bombings of two Japanese cities accomplished this goal. (And, saved Japanese as well as American lives in the process.)

It is in American national and strategic interest to lower the levels of nuclear weapons extant today. It is in our national and strategic interests to end proliferation. To control nuclear materials so as to prevent their drifting into the hands of rogue states and non-state actors. These are matters of realpolitick. Morality has nothing to do with it.

There is no objection to using moral terms to cover the naked flesh of national interest. But, (as usual here is the big "but") it is critical that morality not become the engine of policy. As we should have learned from the disaster of Woodrow Wilson's moral based approach to foreign affairs, the adoption of the high moral tone is the road to failure. Similarly, the moral stance adopted by the US in its assorted "non-recognition" moves directed against the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, Iran and Cuba dragged failure in their train.

Perhaps it was morality more than ideals which caused President Obama to stick his wet fingers into a particularly dangerous electric socket. At the European Union meeting in Prague Obama told the assembly, "The United States and Europe must approach Muslims as our firends, neighbors and partners in fighting injustice, intolerance and violence, forging a relationship based on mutual respect and mutual interests."

Nothing wrong with those words. Glittering generalities are a politician's stock in trade. Then the president bore down on a specific. "Moving forward toward Turkish membership in the EU would be an important signal of your commitment to this agenda and ensure that we continue to anchor Turkey firmly in Europe."

Nothing like sticking your face in a fan, is there, Mr President? Turkish membership in the EU is not a popular concept in France or Germany.

Nicholas Sarkozy, perhaps regretting the Gallic bouquets he had verbally heaved at Obama earlier in Strasbourg, was quick to respond. He stated on French TV, "I have always been opposed to this entry." In case there was any doubt in anyone's mind, he added,"I still am and I think I can say that the immense majority of member states shares the position of France."

Sarkozy was quick to toss some rhetorical flowers in the general direction of Ankara. He called Turkey an ally and stated it would remain what it has been, "a privledged partner." But, not a member of the EU.

Angela Merkel, German PM, took a similarly dim view of President Obama's advice. Being German she used fewer words. They were, however, Teuton-blunt. "It's clear there are different opinions." In other word, "Butt out, buster."

The US is concerned that Turkey will drift further and further into the Islamist camp. There is good reason for any such apprehension given the background of the ruling party and the growth of Islamism among the hinterland dwellers of Turkey. Beyond that, Turkey is an important energy nexus. The importance of Turkey in this role will grow in the near- to mid-term.

These reasons along with the potential of Turkey as an intermediary in Mideastern affairs as well as Central Asian gives the US powerful reasons to wish Turkey to be tied closer to the West through EU membership. It is in our national and strategic interests that this occur.

The critical question is not if Turkey's joining the EU is in American interests. That is a given. Is it in the national and strategic interests of the European states? That is the question. The US, as PM Merkel suggested, is not in a position to answer that question. Sarkozy took a more robust line. EU membership for Turkey is not in French national interest.

Sarko is probably correct in assessing that France is not alone in its rejectionist stance. Certainly other countries have reasons to keep Turkey out of the EU. There are many, but one remains the hippo in the bedroom.

That issue is immigration. EU rules provide for unrestricted movement between member states. Turkey as a member would be an open door for uncontrollable immigration of Muslims. The demographic, cultural and political effects of a Muslim "Open Door" are unpredicable as to scale but predictable as to effect. The effect would be negative.

Admittedly the multi-culti oh-so-sensitive elites of Europe do not want to openly acknowledge that Muslim populations in European cities have already caused social, cultural and political frictions which do not bode well for the structural integrity of these societies and polities in the future. The unemployment which has accompanied the present economic situation has provided a degree of cover in that one can oppose immigration now on the basis of protecting jobs.

The pleasant economic cover and concealment will not last forever. Looking ahead, the politically articulate elite of the EU member states have to decide if they really, really believe that their societies and political structures will survive a large, very large influx of Muslims through the Gates of Ankara. This elite has to decide how much change and how much rapid change the nations of Europe can accept and survive. They have to decide how much they want to see the far right of European politics empowered by the flood of Muslims.

The American president can afford to be High Minded and Lofty Thinking about Turkey, the EU and migration. It is, after all, not in our backyard.

It would be good if some blunt, bold European head of state would ask President Obama the following questions. "If NAFTA had provided for free migration between the US and Mexico, would the American Senate have approved it? The American president signed it? Would you?"