David L. Arnett is a 31-year veteran of the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Information Agency.

Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic

In the realm of foreign affairs, many issues will appear to be the same in 2007: the threat of global terrorism, the struggle in Iraq, tension in the Middle East, global warming, international drug trafficking, the spread of infectious diseases, the U.S trade deficit, etc.

The most pressing issues, however, and the ones most likely to plunge the world into crisis in the next year or two are interconnected:

● the spread of nuclear weapons;

● the ambitions of Russia and China; and

● the competition for energy resources.

A cloud over Putin

Vladimir Putin operates in a country with no history of democracy, and he himself is a product of the KGB. Put simply, Putin does not regard self-determination and independence in the same way that we do.

Many suspect Russian involvement in the severe poisoning of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and the fatal poisoning of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko in London, among other similar events.

Ironically, at a time when Russian covert actions are beginning to emerge publicly, its open drive to control the energy resources of Europe and Eurasia remains almost completely invisible to the American public. Through official contracts and massive pipelines carrying oil and natural gas into Europe, as well as almost complete control of the natural gas from Turkmenistan, Russia has been inexorably positioning itself as the primary guardian of energy flows into Europe.

The strategic threat posed by such guardianship was underlined in red when Russia suddenly cut off the natural gas flowing into Ukraine in 2005 as a blatant means of applying pressure on President Yushchenko. The Russian energy firm Gazprom is now threatening to cut off natural gas supplies to Georgia and Belarus unless they agree to much higher prices in 2007.

The United States has tried with only moderate success to prevent the future effectiveness of such blackmail by steering away from both Russia and Iran some of the pipelines designed to carry massive new oil and gas supplies from the Caspian Sea region into Europe.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been behaving with unusual bravado over the last several months, repeatedly stating that "Zionist" Israel will soon be wiped off the map. Having lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about its nuclear program for more than 20 years and failing repeatedly to stop its program of uranium enrichment despite exhaustive and fruitless negotiations with overly optimistic Europeans, Iran now finally faces sanctions from the United Nations.

Russia has been providing nuclear power and missile technology to Iran, and it has consistently refused to back tough U.N. sanctions against Iran, even though the U.N. Security Council finally approved milder sanctions unanimously on Dec. 23.

If Russia does not change course and agree to more comprehensive sanctions later, despite the overwhelming indications that Iran is striving mightily to produce nuclear weapons, it will be clear that it has made a separate agreement to protect Iran — and its own investments.

It will also be clear that Iran, the world's primary supporter of international terrorism by means of its own oil wealth, will succeed in becoming a nuclear power and that Tel Aviv will become its No. 1 target. Unfortunately, this is not the stuff of spy novels or science fiction but cold reality.

Therefore, the first genuine crisis of 2007 will occur if Russia definitively refuses to agree to more serious sanctions.

Is our nation ready for that eventuality? Is there a bipartisan consensus for alternative action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including the option of military intervention, or should we simply accept the possibility of the obliteration of Tel Aviv and nuclear war in the Middle East and hope that Ahmadinejad is not serious?

North Korean nightmare

The other nuclear hot spot is North Korea, an economic basket case and Orwellian nightmare that would implode immediately if it were not propped up by China, which imports raw materials from North Korea and fears the waves of refugees that would flow into China if the country were to collapse. North Korea returned to the six-power talks (including Russia) on nuclear disarmament on Dec. 18 amid informed speculation that China had cut off its oil supplies earlier to encourage just such a development, but the talks adjourned without result on Dec. 22.

Like Iran, North Korea simply lied about its ongoing nuclear research and enrichment program until 2003, despite the signing of the Agreed Framework with the United States in 1994. It finally conducted its first nuclear test on Oct. 9.

A nuclear North Korea that has already fired missiles over Japan is an unacceptable threat to the Japanese, who have been capable of producing nuclear weapons for decades but have been restrained by their own constitution and memories of WWII from doing so. The North Korean nuclear test has forced Japan to re-examine its position on nuclear weapons — and China to think hard about such weapons in the hands of its ancient rival.

South Korea is also perfectly capable of producing such weapons if necessary. China also has no interest in the destabilization at its own border that will arise inevitably with the presence of nuclear weapons in North Korea.

However, the second crisis of 2007 will occur if China does not genuinely apply the pressure on North Korea that is essential to ensure that it negotiates in good faith. In that case, there will be no stopping further nuclear proliferation in Asia, and the possibilities for disaster inherent in the unpredictable mind of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il will grow exponentially.

Oil and gas crunch

Instead of "follow the money," the rule in foreign affairs has become "follow the energy." The huge economic growth of China (and India) requires ever greater access to oil and natural gas. China is already active in securing such supplies in Central Asia and around the world.

Russia is deliberately acquiring the means to apply both economic and political pressure on Europe by controlling its supplies of natural gas and oil.

Europe's view of Israel and the Middle East is already colored by its need for Arab oil. Islamic terrorism has sprung directly from the oil wealth of the Middle East, whether we speak of Osama bin Laden, Iran or Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who idolizes Fidel Castro and admires Iran, is already using his country's oil wealth to promote his anti-American ideology internationally. Globalization proceeds apace with an unending need for fossil fuels. Global warming is increasing. And the United States remains a profligate consumer of energy and the paymaster for many of its own enemies.

In sum, there will be unavoidable foreign affairs problems for the United States in 2007. Most, however, will be symptoms — even Iraq and international terrorism — of unresolved larger issues: nuclear proliferation, uncertain relations with Russia and China, and energy dependence.

All three require bipartisan cooperation in Washington, vigorous international diplomacy, and a genuine vision for the world that includes drastic cutbacks in the need for fossil fuels, particularly in the United States.

The American people can demand no less as we look to an uncertain future.