The G 20, comprising the twenty nations which account for some ninety-five percent of the global GDP, is meeting this weekend in Washington, D.C. at the invitation of George W. Bush. The topic is the current global financial contraction.
Nothing much will happen. There will be no big news. The conflab will not take up French President Sarkozy's hyperbolic notion of a "second Bretton Woods," a redrafting of the international financial system. As has already been shown in the European Union, countries will protect their own financial systems first, even at the expense of others. This means words will fill the air. Reporters will file copy. Promises will be made. Shakes and grins will be exchanged by all hands for the benefit of cameras and the "folks back in Buncomb County."
Translated, this means the G-20 meeting will be a load of bunk. Hyped bunk.
The League of the High Minded led by UN SecGen Ban Ki-moon and the capo of the UN's Millennium Development Campaign, Salil Shetty, want the G-20, and more to the point, the G-8, to do a lot more than palaver earnestly and grin for the cameras. These two worthies as well as their equally High Minded supporters want the G-20 nations, or at least the G-8 group, or at the worst the G-7 (that's the G-8 less Russia), to spend a lot of money.
Salil Shetty, showing a rare ability to totally lack a grip on reality, avers that there is no lack of money among the developed nations. He proves his point by noting that the governments of the G-7 and even some of the "emerging" economies such as that of China had no difficulty producing torrents of cash to bail out their crashing banks and other financial institutions.
He concludes that these governments lack the political will to cough up the bucks needed to achieve the Utopian goals set in 2000 for the Millennium Development Campaign. Shetty goes on to argue that if these miserly, self-centered rich countries don't spew out the streams of cash thought to be needed to achieve the grand anti-poverty scheme, all hell will break loose.
Shetty paints a dystopian view of a world absent the successful achievement of the Millennium Goals which out does the bad acid trip visions of the Apocalypse set out by somebody named John. There will be wars beyond count. Disease will run rampant not only in the impoverished areas but everywhere. Presumably wolves would be heard howling in the rubble of a civilization brought down by the selfish greed of countries such as the US which did not pony up the lousy mite of seven tenths of one percent of the GDP.
Ban Ki-moon was not given to the bleak, second rate sci-fi picture of the world in flames. His letter to the jefes of the G-8 was far more restrained. It was no less demanding of urgent, expensive action on the part of the developed nations. The UN SecGen exhorted the rich of the world to "stand in solidarity" with the poorest people of our planet.
(The Geek always chuckles when a "statesman" shows his age by dredging up from the Vault of Treasured Cliches some ancient commie-type motto. In this case it was "to stand in solidarity." The Geek remembers hearing or reading that verbal excretion hundreds, if not thousands, of times back in the Sixties--and not always from foreign sources.)
It's time do something that the Clinton Administration and oh, so many others failed to do back in the glory days of Y2K (and subsequently.) It's time to get a grip.
As a matter of ethics, or if you are religiously inclined, morality, the notion of the prosperous economies giving 0.7% percent of their GDPs to the UN to dole out through a host of programs run by both governmental and non-governmental entities so that extreme poverty might be cut in half by 2015 is completely unobjectionable.
Along with the other components of the Millennium Development Goals, it is even laudatory. Eliminating poverty, enhancing basic education, empowering women, reducing disease, lowering child and maternal mortality, making the world safe for the color green are all worthwhile causes. The Geek can cheer those who would undertake the tasks, rise to the challenge and similar trite, hackneyed cliches.
The attempt by the League of the High Minded, which includes President-elect Obama, to cozen and coerce the citizens of the wealthy countries of the world to accept an involuntary transfer of money from their national economies to the UN and through that entity to a host of governmental bodies and NGOs is neither laudable nor appropriate. The attempt to sell the Utopian ideals embodied in the Millennium Goals as a matter of self-interest and national security on the part of the developed countries is both intellectually and historically dishonest.
The record of foreign aid in terms of its authentic accomplishments, its benefits to either the quality of life for the citizens of recipient nations or the legitimate, definable national and strategic interests of the donor is spotty--at the very best. More often than not, the aid has assisted only intermediaries such as NGOs and bureaucracies, portions of the donor nations' economies, and the personal wealth of members of the recipient nations' elites.
Foreign aid, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how generous has, with very few exceptions, skewed the economies of the recipients, sapped the internal problem solving capacities of the recipients, fostered long-term dependence on foreign assistance, caused crises of rising expectations, and spread corruption. The Law of Unintended Consequences applies with singular vigor when wealth is transferred for lofty or for basely self-interested reasons.
Since to be successful all foreign policy must begin with a realistic appreciation of national and strategic interests and a clear-eyed understanding of the policy's interlocutor, it is necessary to ask two fundamental questions.
What national security or strategic interest does the US have at stake in any particular impoverished society and its (typically) inept, corrupt and barely legitimate country? To put it another way: Does it really matter to the present and future security and prosperity of the US and its citizens if a country, say the Democratic Republic of Congo, energetically disassembles in a welter of blood and body parts?
The second question is equally blunt. Will the aid have a real, positive and long term beneficial effect upon the recipient society? Given the contextual realities of geography, climate, demographics and history, will the aid that seems so beneficial turn out to be such over time?
To zero in on one component of the Millennium Goals: Long term would it be good or bad to lower child mortality in a society which already exceeds the carrying capacity of the territory it occupies? Or, to take another of the Millennium Goals: If a country actually has no viable economic reason to exist, just how does one go about developing it? With what? For what end?
Not wanting to seem to be a model of the flinty-eyed, cold-hearted realpolitiker, the Geek has a modest proposal to make. Ask every American family if it would like to donate 0.7 percent of its "GDP" (pre-tax income) to be transferred via the UN and its subsidiaries including NGO's and national governments alike. For those which reply in the affirmative, provide a means for automatic deduction from paycheck or bank account.
Of course honesty would require that that the families be informed that the UN, were it to be a private entity, would be subject to prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act. The same proviso must be entered regarding a number of NGO's to say nothing of recipient governments.
Honesty and fairness (both qualities high on the list of virtues espoused by the League of the High Minded) would also require a disclaimer not unlike those found on ads for new stock issues. It might read something like this: "History shows that most, if not all wealth transfers of this nature have failed in their purpose and brought about adverse consequences."
Bet Ban Ki-moon and Salil Shetty won't go along with this way of doing business. Realism and High Mindedness don't play well with each other.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Tests For A New President--West Africa
The big noise from the Continent of Collapsing States of late has focused on the East of Africa. The Jolly Pirates of Somalia, and their landlocked kinsmen, the woman killers of the Shabab, have gotten more than a little MSM coverage. Recently, the recrudescence of active war between the Looting, Pillaging, Raping and Killing National Force of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Tutsi "Freedom Fighters"of General Nkunda have occasioned much spilling of ink, wringing of UN and EU hands, and generation of photogenic refugee streams on the ground.
Meanwhile, on the other side of Africa, trajectories of both long standing and relatively recent origin are pointing to the emergence of another set of interlocking problems. For a single reason which will shortly become apparent, the United States will not be able to sit back, twiddle its thumbs, and hope somebody does something so that we don't have to.
At the center of the vortex sits Nigeria, flush with some 37 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and over five trillion cubic meters of natural gas. Nigeria also has a population of more than a 146 million who enjoy(?) a life expectancy of only forty-five or so years, a low per capita income, massive maldistribution of wealth, and sectarian violence pitting the majority Muslims (fifty percent of the folks) against the slightly less numerous Christians.
The sectarian killing comes on top of the long festering tribal hatreds. (For those of you who have reached a "certain age" think back to Biafra. It was all the rage forty or so years ago.) Endemic violence has joined with endemic disease and a precarious balance on the knife edge between enough to eat and starvation. In short, all four horsemen of the apocalypse are riding high and hard.
The schwerpunkt of the coming crisis in Nigeria is the delta of the Niger river. That delta is home to much of the Nigerian oil industry, particularly the tanker loading terminals. Thus, it is the primary point of departure of the oil, which provides 20 percent of the country's GDP, 95 percent of its foreign exchange earnings, and roughly 80 percent of the government's budget.
The delta is also home turf for MEND, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta. This insurgent group gives armed expression to very legitimate, completely organic political, economic, and social grievances. MEND has shown itself to be competent, well armed, and possessed of a keen eye for the media spectacular. The seizure of off-shore platforms, loading facilities and associated supply boats replete with kidnappings and "non-negotiable" demands.
The impact of MEND has been to significantly slow and even stop the shipment of oil from the Niger delta. It has also served to discourage further foreign investment or even the repair of aging facilities. It follows that MEND has hurt the already less than well emplaced government, which is struggling so far without great success to overcome the long wretched years of grossly corrupt and utterly incompetent military rule which ended not quite a decade ago.
"So what?" You ask.
The so what is this. The US is the largest export partner of Nigeria. We receive over fifty percent of Nigeria's exports. And, buddy, we ain't buying that much cocoa and rubber. We are buying that much oil. While the exports have fallen from their previous average level of 2.1 million barrels per day, the Nigerians still provide nearly a fifth of US oil imports.
The current downward trend of oil prices will hurt Nigeria. Without an increase in production, the country will not have the foreign exchange necessary to support its massive requirement for imported food. Heck, the Nigerian government might even have to postpone its ambitions to enter the space race in order to feed the people. To say nothing of meeting other basic needs such as infrastructure improvements.
As if the flaky situation in Nigeria were not sufficient to rate a high place in the contingency plans of the incoming US administration, the affairs of two other neighboring countries must be factored in.
The worse off of the two is Chad. You might remember Chad from a couple of decades ago when it fought a semi-comic, semi-tragic war with Libya. Back then, Chad, which is about three times the size of California, was best known as a place with nothing but miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.
Enter oil. Chad has oil. Not a lot compared with Nigeria, but a still respectable 1.5 to 2 billion barrels. A consortium headed by ExxonMobil has sunk nearly four gigabucks into developing the oilfields in the south. These went on line in 2003.
Since the completion of a 650 mile pipeline to the Limboh terminal in Cameroon, approximately 225,000 barrels per day have been exported. This amount can be increased perhaps enough to make up some of the shortfall from Nigeria. The US is the destination for some 85 percent of the flow.
The government of Chad is controlled by a minority group. In addition, it is a government which, shall we say, lacks transparency. It is also a government which is excessively economical with the truth.
A prime example of this economy of truthfulness is found in the record of Chad's president, Idress Deby. President Deby swore to the World Bank and IMF that his government would institute a "share the wealth" program. Some of the oil revenues were to go to assorted social programs benefiting the people of southern Chad.
Instead the money went to security needs such as new weapons for the army. When first called to account for this, Deby responded by demanding a new agreement with the World Bank leaving out the pesky requirement to spend the money on trivia such as the people of Chad who have a low median income, a short life expectancy, an absence of medical care and educational facilities, and a surplus of frustration.
The then president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, agreed so that Deby would not carry out his threat to close the taps feeding the pipeline. The justification offered by Deby and accepted by Wolfowitz among others was the spreading conflict in Darfur and the threat of armed attack from Sudan
Deby proved himself another champion of democracy when he engineered the removal of limits upon his term in office. He has also proven himself a master of counterinsurgency by seeing the renewal of guerrilla attacks last year and a near overrunning of the capital earlier this year.
The guerrillas have popular support and have been shaking hands with al-Qaeda, which group has become increasingly active in both North Africa and the Sahel. Given that over half of Chad's ten million people are Muslim, this development has potential ramifications of importance.
Security at the oil fields is light. The pipeline cannot be secured against attack. As events in Sudan have shown in recent weeks, kidnapping of foreign technicians is a very viable option for even quite small groups of anti-government orientation.
Despite Deby's threat to close the Big Valve on the pipeline which caused Wolfie to quake in his upmarket boots, any hiccup in the flow of oil (and dollars) would cause seismic shaking in the Chadian government. A shaky Chad could become a collapsing Chad quickly.
Picture a failed state perched between Libya and Sudan, Niger and the Central African Republic. Ain't a pretty picture, is it?
The third country in the mix is Cameroon. While Cameroon itself has been quite stable by African standards, it is vulnerable to spill over from either or both Nigeria and Chad. Cameroon has made a few, hesitant, even microscopic steps in the general direction of democracy but remains under an authoritarian regime headed by Paul Biya. Biya has been running the show for twenty-six years now and shows no sign of being eager to retire.
Cameroon has a decent agricultural base and a modest oil patch. These have provided much of the reason for the country's stability. But, there are some very real problems there. Unemployment is running at or above thirty percent. Altogether forty-eight percent of the population lives below the local poverty line. Wealth is quite unevenly distributed with the top decile disposing of over thirty percent and the lowest decile less than three.
With the transfer of the Bakassi peninsula from Nigeria to Cameroon, the possibility of developing more oil reserves exists. This possibility is of lesser importance than the development of the oil terminal at the end of the Chad pipeline. Overall, much of the recent appearance of stability in Cameroon has been dependent upon the high price for coffee, cocoa and oil. The government's share of the revenue stream has underwritten social and economic development programs catering to the aspirations and needs of selected portions of the population.
With prices headed down for some time to come, the Cameroon government will find it difficult to either placate disaffected portions of the public or provide for security forces. President Biya has expressed concern (alarm would be more accurate) over recent "pirate" raids on Cameroonian targets both afloat and on shore. Cameroon along with Nigeria has asked the UN for the establishment of an anti-piracy patrol in the Niger delta and adjacent international waters.
All three countries are inherently less than stable. All, Nigeria in particular, have past histories of internal conflict. All three have significant social and economic problems which could be capitalised upon easily by anti-government movements. Two of the three have majority Muslim populations which have experienced significant penetration by Islamist ideology.
The mix of factors now including a decline in world market prices for basic commodities is one of real explosive potential. Golly, what a great time to be the brand new, quite inexperienced POTUS.
Better start thinking about problems like the one outlined here, POTUS to be, before they become above the fold stories in the WaPo and NYT.
Meanwhile, on the other side of Africa, trajectories of both long standing and relatively recent origin are pointing to the emergence of another set of interlocking problems. For a single reason which will shortly become apparent, the United States will not be able to sit back, twiddle its thumbs, and hope somebody does something so that we don't have to.
At the center of the vortex sits Nigeria, flush with some 37 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and over five trillion cubic meters of natural gas. Nigeria also has a population of more than a 146 million who enjoy(?) a life expectancy of only forty-five or so years, a low per capita income, massive maldistribution of wealth, and sectarian violence pitting the majority Muslims (fifty percent of the folks) against the slightly less numerous Christians.
The sectarian killing comes on top of the long festering tribal hatreds. (For those of you who have reached a "certain age" think back to Biafra. It was all the rage forty or so years ago.) Endemic violence has joined with endemic disease and a precarious balance on the knife edge between enough to eat and starvation. In short, all four horsemen of the apocalypse are riding high and hard.
The schwerpunkt of the coming crisis in Nigeria is the delta of the Niger river. That delta is home to much of the Nigerian oil industry, particularly the tanker loading terminals. Thus, it is the primary point of departure of the oil, which provides 20 percent of the country's GDP, 95 percent of its foreign exchange earnings, and roughly 80 percent of the government's budget.
The delta is also home turf for MEND, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta. This insurgent group gives armed expression to very legitimate, completely organic political, economic, and social grievances. MEND has shown itself to be competent, well armed, and possessed of a keen eye for the media spectacular. The seizure of off-shore platforms, loading facilities and associated supply boats replete with kidnappings and "non-negotiable" demands.
The impact of MEND has been to significantly slow and even stop the shipment of oil from the Niger delta. It has also served to discourage further foreign investment or even the repair of aging facilities. It follows that MEND has hurt the already less than well emplaced government, which is struggling so far without great success to overcome the long wretched years of grossly corrupt and utterly incompetent military rule which ended not quite a decade ago.
"So what?" You ask.
The so what is this. The US is the largest export partner of Nigeria. We receive over fifty percent of Nigeria's exports. And, buddy, we ain't buying that much cocoa and rubber. We are buying that much oil. While the exports have fallen from their previous average level of 2.1 million barrels per day, the Nigerians still provide nearly a fifth of US oil imports.
The current downward trend of oil prices will hurt Nigeria. Without an increase in production, the country will not have the foreign exchange necessary to support its massive requirement for imported food. Heck, the Nigerian government might even have to postpone its ambitions to enter the space race in order to feed the people. To say nothing of meeting other basic needs such as infrastructure improvements.
As if the flaky situation in Nigeria were not sufficient to rate a high place in the contingency plans of the incoming US administration, the affairs of two other neighboring countries must be factored in.
The worse off of the two is Chad. You might remember Chad from a couple of decades ago when it fought a semi-comic, semi-tragic war with Libya. Back then, Chad, which is about three times the size of California, was best known as a place with nothing but miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.
Enter oil. Chad has oil. Not a lot compared with Nigeria, but a still respectable 1.5 to 2 billion barrels. A consortium headed by ExxonMobil has sunk nearly four gigabucks into developing the oilfields in the south. These went on line in 2003.
Since the completion of a 650 mile pipeline to the Limboh terminal in Cameroon, approximately 225,000 barrels per day have been exported. This amount can be increased perhaps enough to make up some of the shortfall from Nigeria. The US is the destination for some 85 percent of the flow.
The government of Chad is controlled by a minority group. In addition, it is a government which, shall we say, lacks transparency. It is also a government which is excessively economical with the truth.
A prime example of this economy of truthfulness is found in the record of Chad's president, Idress Deby. President Deby swore to the World Bank and IMF that his government would institute a "share the wealth" program. Some of the oil revenues were to go to assorted social programs benefiting the people of southern Chad.
Instead the money went to security needs such as new weapons for the army. When first called to account for this, Deby responded by demanding a new agreement with the World Bank leaving out the pesky requirement to spend the money on trivia such as the people of Chad who have a low median income, a short life expectancy, an absence of medical care and educational facilities, and a surplus of frustration.
The then president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, agreed so that Deby would not carry out his threat to close the taps feeding the pipeline. The justification offered by Deby and accepted by Wolfowitz among others was the spreading conflict in Darfur and the threat of armed attack from Sudan
Deby proved himself another champion of democracy when he engineered the removal of limits upon his term in office. He has also proven himself a master of counterinsurgency by seeing the renewal of guerrilla attacks last year and a near overrunning of the capital earlier this year.
The guerrillas have popular support and have been shaking hands with al-Qaeda, which group has become increasingly active in both North Africa and the Sahel. Given that over half of Chad's ten million people are Muslim, this development has potential ramifications of importance.
Security at the oil fields is light. The pipeline cannot be secured against attack. As events in Sudan have shown in recent weeks, kidnapping of foreign technicians is a very viable option for even quite small groups of anti-government orientation.
Despite Deby's threat to close the Big Valve on the pipeline which caused Wolfie to quake in his upmarket boots, any hiccup in the flow of oil (and dollars) would cause seismic shaking in the Chadian government. A shaky Chad could become a collapsing Chad quickly.
Picture a failed state perched between Libya and Sudan, Niger and the Central African Republic. Ain't a pretty picture, is it?
The third country in the mix is Cameroon. While Cameroon itself has been quite stable by African standards, it is vulnerable to spill over from either or both Nigeria and Chad. Cameroon has made a few, hesitant, even microscopic steps in the general direction of democracy but remains under an authoritarian regime headed by Paul Biya. Biya has been running the show for twenty-six years now and shows no sign of being eager to retire.
Cameroon has a decent agricultural base and a modest oil patch. These have provided much of the reason for the country's stability. But, there are some very real problems there. Unemployment is running at or above thirty percent. Altogether forty-eight percent of the population lives below the local poverty line. Wealth is quite unevenly distributed with the top decile disposing of over thirty percent and the lowest decile less than three.
With the transfer of the Bakassi peninsula from Nigeria to Cameroon, the possibility of developing more oil reserves exists. This possibility is of lesser importance than the development of the oil terminal at the end of the Chad pipeline. Overall, much of the recent appearance of stability in Cameroon has been dependent upon the high price for coffee, cocoa and oil. The government's share of the revenue stream has underwritten social and economic development programs catering to the aspirations and needs of selected portions of the population.
With prices headed down for some time to come, the Cameroon government will find it difficult to either placate disaffected portions of the public or provide for security forces. President Biya has expressed concern (alarm would be more accurate) over recent "pirate" raids on Cameroonian targets both afloat and on shore. Cameroon along with Nigeria has asked the UN for the establishment of an anti-piracy patrol in the Niger delta and adjacent international waters.
All three countries are inherently less than stable. All, Nigeria in particular, have past histories of internal conflict. All three have significant social and economic problems which could be capitalised upon easily by anti-government movements. Two of the three have majority Muslim populations which have experienced significant penetration by Islamist ideology.
The mix of factors now including a decline in world market prices for basic commodities is one of real explosive potential. Golly, what a great time to be the brand new, quite inexperienced POTUS.
Better start thinking about problems like the one outlined here, POTUS to be, before they become above the fold stories in the WaPo and NYT.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The United Nations--It's Time For A Change
From time to time the United Nations has been a useful fig leaf covering American policy genitalia. That was the case back in 1950 when North Korea invaded the South and fortuitously the veto-wielding Soviet Union was absent in a snit over the who-will-represent-China problem. Forty years later the UN served the same modesty-protecting role when the US resolved that war and war alone would both restore Kuwait to the ranks of independent states and take Saddam Hussein down a few pegs.
Sporadically the UN has been a fine propaganda forum for the US. Certainly this was the case during the Kennedy Administration when the US scored many, many points against the Soviet Union. We replayed that game during the Reagan years with a greatly diminished audience. Times had changes so there were not that many hearts and minds in need of winning. And, the "virtuous" Americans had been shown often wearing, if not black at least very grey hats.
Other than those occasional benefits the UN General Assembly and Security Council have been venues for Yankee bashing contests. As the decades rolled along, as more and more "nation-states" were admitted to the organization the Great Game of Kicking Uncle Sam became more popular and much more of a full-contact sport.
The Geek was not given to embracing the Kick-The-Ungrateful-Bunch-Out notions of such statesmen as the late Senator Jesse Helms. A slender case could be made for contending that the UN did somewhat less harm than good. The fact that the US paid a disproportionate share of both the organization's operating expenses (currently 22%) and peacekeeping budget (currently 25%) as a form of noblesse oblige.
In short the Geek saw the UN, or at least the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Secretariat rather as one might see the dotty uncle at the family reunion--annoying, even highly irritating, but ultimately far more foolish than harmful.
Not any more. Not for some years. To make a confession: The Geek has rather admired the cavalier fashion in which George W. Bush and his jolly crew of neocon ninnies have ignored the UN, rejected a slew of zany UN proposals (most of which were greatly beloved by the High Minded here and abroad) and generally speaking flipped the bird at the Hudson River Folly.
The UN has earned the Geek's disapprobation not because so many of its members engage in the Kick Uncle Sam game. Nor has the Geek's attitude shifted from one of wary bemusement to one of frank hostility because of the financial burden imposed on the United States. None of the usual, superficial reasons for viewing the UN negatively apply.
The reason is actually quite simple. The UN is no longer worthy of the thoughtful respect and consideration which it once may have merited.
The UN has become a vast, bloated assemblage of over 190 countries, many of them without an authentic reason for existence, but rather accidents of geography, demography and colonial pretensions of past centuries. Many of the member states today do not share any basic structure of values with the United States, or the countries called the "West." Many are authoritarian. Some are infected with the zeal of dogma, either secular or religious. There are more than a few which are both.
Quite a few of the UN's enormous membership are anti-democratic. They are opposed to the basic freedoms and rights which characterise a decent regard for humanity. More than a handful of these UN members are despotic, corrupt, repressive, and ambitious to a fault. They are, in short, an unedifying pastiche of the worst features of the social/political/economic landscape.
Overall the collection of bad actors represented in the Hudson River Folly is such that it would be legitimate to ask of countries ranging worldwide from Norway to New Zealand, "What's a nice nation like you doing in a dive like this?"
There is another reason for thinking ill of the UN. It does not work. It is ultimately doomed to being chronically ineffectual. As a mechanism for bloviaton it is unsurpassed. As an instrument for promoting the collective interests of the human race it is a failure.
(The Geek feels the High Minded ginning themselves up for a fast burn through the tropopause.)
There is a justification for this harsh assessment. The UN was founded upon a set of ideals--not ideas, but ideals--which were marginally tenable sixty plus years ago when the organisation established itself in San Francisco. (A venue justly famed as the home of the vigilantes, the beatniks and the Summer of Love among its long line of zany and colorful human creations.)
The ideals underlying the creation of the UN have slipped over the edge to total irrelevance with the proliferation of pretenders to statehood now littering its membership roster.
The ideals foundered on a reef of reality. Here it is. Get a grip on it. Any state, which is to say any government, hopeful of prolonging its existence works on narrow, self-defined self-interest. Self-interest should--must--be understood to include not only the material considerations of territorial integrity and economic sufficiency but also the values on which the government rests whether these arose organically from the soil of historical experience or exploded from some ideology.
Authoritarian, ideologically driven governments are (or, to err on the side of accuracy, historically have been) inherently insecure. Insecure governments are the least likely to accept, let alone operate by the ideals of mutuality and cooperation which resided at the center of the creation of the UN from the framework of the wartime United Nations.
To put it bluntly but not inaccurately, such states are driven to approach any form of multilateral entity with a totally what's-in-it-for-me mentality. No genuine form of collaboration for a common good is possible with actors possessed of such a worldview. Indeed, it is impossible even to gain consensual agreement on what a "common good" might be.
The concept of the commonweal can only exist among individuals (be they humans or states) sharing a common set of values and a common understanding of fundamental precepts and basic principles. There is little, if any, set of commonalities present today in the UN General Assembly or even the comparatively speaking miniature Security Council.
Nor, the experience of recent years demonstrates convincingly, is it possible to fabricate an artifact of commonality from the raw materials of such supposedly "global" problems as pollution, anthropogenic climate change, agricultural shortfalls, and economic collapse. Most assuredly we humans are not, as bumper sticker understandings of international politics hold, "passengers on spaceship Earth."
Pace the High Minded among us, but the best course of action for the United States, the course of action which will do both us and the world the most good is to closely, critically and realistically examine what best suits our self-understood, self-defined national and strategic interests both today and into the future. Realism as to what the US needs to see in the world in order to not only survive but to flourish will lead to the best outcome for Americans, and, arguably the world as a whole.
As an illustration, consider this wording from Senate Bill 2433, the Global Poverty Act which has already been passed by the House with the guidance of vice-president-elect Joe Biden and having as its chief Senate sponsor president-elect Obama.
Here is the critical question. It is a question which must be answered fully and honestly before e United States commits itself to joining with others through the UN in seeking the achievement of these ends.
Are these goals, each of which is worthy, in and of themselves an American national or strategic interest? Yes, gaining these ends, or any of them, would be nice. But is the achievement of all or any addressing an authentic American national interest? Strategic interest?
Achieving the UN articulated Millennium Development Goals--or any of them--would be nice. Would make us feel good.
Ask yourself this: Does a nation continue to exist, to thrive on a politics of feeling good or acting realistically? Ask yourself: Do feeling good and the realistic pursuit of national interest overlap much, or at all?
On the answers much depends. Our collective present and future depend on them.
Sporadically the UN has been a fine propaganda forum for the US. Certainly this was the case during the Kennedy Administration when the US scored many, many points against the Soviet Union. We replayed that game during the Reagan years with a greatly diminished audience. Times had changes so there were not that many hearts and minds in need of winning. And, the "virtuous" Americans had been shown often wearing, if not black at least very grey hats.
Other than those occasional benefits the UN General Assembly and Security Council have been venues for Yankee bashing contests. As the decades rolled along, as more and more "nation-states" were admitted to the organization the Great Game of Kicking Uncle Sam became more popular and much more of a full-contact sport.
The Geek was not given to embracing the Kick-The-Ungrateful-Bunch-Out notions of such statesmen as the late Senator Jesse Helms. A slender case could be made for contending that the UN did somewhat less harm than good. The fact that the US paid a disproportionate share of both the organization's operating expenses (currently 22%) and peacekeeping budget (currently 25%) as a form of noblesse oblige.
In short the Geek saw the UN, or at least the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Secretariat rather as one might see the dotty uncle at the family reunion--annoying, even highly irritating, but ultimately far more foolish than harmful.
Not any more. Not for some years. To make a confession: The Geek has rather admired the cavalier fashion in which George W. Bush and his jolly crew of neocon ninnies have ignored the UN, rejected a slew of zany UN proposals (most of which were greatly beloved by the High Minded here and abroad) and generally speaking flipped the bird at the Hudson River Folly.
The UN has earned the Geek's disapprobation not because so many of its members engage in the Kick Uncle Sam game. Nor has the Geek's attitude shifted from one of wary bemusement to one of frank hostility because of the financial burden imposed on the United States. None of the usual, superficial reasons for viewing the UN negatively apply.
The reason is actually quite simple. The UN is no longer worthy of the thoughtful respect and consideration which it once may have merited.
The UN has become a vast, bloated assemblage of over 190 countries, many of them without an authentic reason for existence, but rather accidents of geography, demography and colonial pretensions of past centuries. Many of the member states today do not share any basic structure of values with the United States, or the countries called the "West." Many are authoritarian. Some are infected with the zeal of dogma, either secular or religious. There are more than a few which are both.
Quite a few of the UN's enormous membership are anti-democratic. They are opposed to the basic freedoms and rights which characterise a decent regard for humanity. More than a handful of these UN members are despotic, corrupt, repressive, and ambitious to a fault. They are, in short, an unedifying pastiche of the worst features of the social/political/economic landscape.
Overall the collection of bad actors represented in the Hudson River Folly is such that it would be legitimate to ask of countries ranging worldwide from Norway to New Zealand, "What's a nice nation like you doing in a dive like this?"
There is another reason for thinking ill of the UN. It does not work. It is ultimately doomed to being chronically ineffectual. As a mechanism for bloviaton it is unsurpassed. As an instrument for promoting the collective interests of the human race it is a failure.
(The Geek feels the High Minded ginning themselves up for a fast burn through the tropopause.)
There is a justification for this harsh assessment. The UN was founded upon a set of ideals--not ideas, but ideals--which were marginally tenable sixty plus years ago when the organisation established itself in San Francisco. (A venue justly famed as the home of the vigilantes, the beatniks and the Summer of Love among its long line of zany and colorful human creations.)
The ideals underlying the creation of the UN have slipped over the edge to total irrelevance with the proliferation of pretenders to statehood now littering its membership roster.
The ideals foundered on a reef of reality. Here it is. Get a grip on it. Any state, which is to say any government, hopeful of prolonging its existence works on narrow, self-defined self-interest. Self-interest should--must--be understood to include not only the material considerations of territorial integrity and economic sufficiency but also the values on which the government rests whether these arose organically from the soil of historical experience or exploded from some ideology.
Authoritarian, ideologically driven governments are (or, to err on the side of accuracy, historically have been) inherently insecure. Insecure governments are the least likely to accept, let alone operate by the ideals of mutuality and cooperation which resided at the center of the creation of the UN from the framework of the wartime United Nations.
To put it bluntly but not inaccurately, such states are driven to approach any form of multilateral entity with a totally what's-in-it-for-me mentality. No genuine form of collaboration for a common good is possible with actors possessed of such a worldview. Indeed, it is impossible even to gain consensual agreement on what a "common good" might be.
The concept of the commonweal can only exist among individuals (be they humans or states) sharing a common set of values and a common understanding of fundamental precepts and basic principles. There is little, if any, set of commonalities present today in the UN General Assembly or even the comparatively speaking miniature Security Council.
Nor, the experience of recent years demonstrates convincingly, is it possible to fabricate an artifact of commonality from the raw materials of such supposedly "global" problems as pollution, anthropogenic climate change, agricultural shortfalls, and economic collapse. Most assuredly we humans are not, as bumper sticker understandings of international politics hold, "passengers on spaceship Earth."
Pace the High Minded among us, but the best course of action for the United States, the course of action which will do both us and the world the most good is to closely, critically and realistically examine what best suits our self-understood, self-defined national and strategic interests both today and into the future. Realism as to what the US needs to see in the world in order to not only survive but to flourish will lead to the best outcome for Americans, and, arguably the world as a whole.
As an illustration, consider this wording from Senate Bill 2433, the Global Poverty Act which has already been passed by the House with the guidance of vice-president-elect Joe Biden and having as its chief Senate sponsor president-elect Obama.
poverty reduction will take place along with the other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals, including eradicating extreme hunger and reducing hunger and malnutrition, achieving universal education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, ensuring environmental sustainability, and achieving significant improvement in the lives of at least 100,000,000 slum dwellers.These are a series of laudable ambitions. Worthy and lofty goals.
Here is the critical question. It is a question which must be answered fully and honestly before e United States commits itself to joining with others through the UN in seeking the achievement of these ends.
Are these goals, each of which is worthy, in and of themselves an American national or strategic interest? Yes, gaining these ends, or any of them, would be nice. But is the achievement of all or any addressing an authentic American national interest? Strategic interest?
Achieving the UN articulated Millennium Development Goals--or any of them--would be nice. Would make us feel good.
Ask yourself this: Does a nation continue to exist, to thrive on a politics of feeling good or acting realistically? Ask yourself: Do feeling good and the realistic pursuit of national interest overlap much, or at all?
On the answers much depends. Our collective present and future depend on them.
And, Now! The World's Champion Hypocrite!
The competition for the title of Master Hypocrite of the Globe is tough. Leaders of more than a few countries have been in the running. That includes George W. Bush. Even with the welter of worthy claimants, it isn't hard for the Geek to make a choice.
And the winner is?
The winner, the Master Hypocrite of the Globe, is King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Actually, to rate the latest occupant of the Wahabbist throne as a mere hypocrite is to do him a disservice. The king is really a flat-out, pedal-to-the-metal liar. His carefully orchestrated charm offensive of religious tolerance, which extends from its beginning at a highly touted international conference on religious tolerance in Spain last summer to its current main event in a special session of the UN General Assembly, is an exercise in duplicity unrivaled in recent decades.
Backed by the Muslim World League and the fifty-six members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Master Hypocrite is pursuing the goal of achieving an international convention criminalizing "blasphemy" throughout the world. The OIC (whose members constitute over twenty-five percent of the General Assembly) has been pushing long, hard and relentlessly for an international regime prohibiting all attacks or questions of whatsoever nature directed at Islam.
The fellow-travelling Muslim World League sought the same end along with King Abdullah in Spain. The widely reported conference issued a final statement which seems harmless, even high-minded, calling, as it did, for the promotion of respect for the religions of the world and "preventing the derision of what people consider sacred."
This statement, when taken with the assorted proposals emerging from the OIC and the threats delivered by Pakistani delegations and diplomats to the European Union and various of its members, points clearly in one direction. The direction is that of exporting the same climate of religious intolerance and repression endemic to Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Muslim dominated states to all the nations of the Earth.
King Abdullah is lying when he speaks of or seemingly supports religious diversity, mutual respect and acceptance. He is, after all, the King of the Land of the Two Mosques. As such, he must live according to the dictates and requirements, strictures and exhortations of the Quran. As anyone who has read that book can readily attest, the words passed through the Prophet in no way encourage either diversity of belief or the acceptance of those who believe other than the Message and the Messenger require.
In short, the present campaign of the OIC, the Muslim World League and King Abdullah to isolate Islam from any questions or perceived "attacks" while preserving the sacred obligation of the same entities to disparage, marginalise, prohibit and even kill not only adherents of religions other than Islam but also Muslims that someone, somehow, accuses of apostasy, is the latest high-profile example of the uniquely Islamic approach to negotiation.
That was a long sentence, Geek. You better unpack it.
Look at it this way, partner. The negotiation process as normally understood in the West is one of bargaining, of give-and-take, of compromise until finally an agreement acceptable to all parties emerges.
Right, Geek, that's, as they say, self-evident.
OK. In the days of the Cold War some wag or another characterised the Communist style of negotiation as, "What's mine is mine; what's your's is negotiable." A close examination of the processes by which any number of agreements were achieved between the US and assorted Communist states shows the aphorism to be too true to be funny.
Come on, Geek, cut to the chase. The Islamic approach.
Simple. It's an approach mandated by the Prophet and the Message. Here it is. Get a grip on it. "What's mine is mine. What's yours now will be mine later."
But, wait one, Geek! There are a bunch of international agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Any infringement on free speech no matter what the reason or goal would violate at least some of them. And, the OIC countries including Saudi Arabia are signatories to these. Right?
Right. It's necessary to look at the small print. There is an old diplomatic convention observed by all countries including the US which allows for a state to adhere to an international convention but to state "reservations" regarding the degree and nature of its compliance. It is rather like the use of "signing statements" by American presidents.
Each of the Muslim dominated states have entered reservations regarding each and every convention to which it has adhered. To make the story short and simple but not over-simplified, Muslim states limit compliance to the requirements of sharia. In most cases this reservation has the effect of cancelling any and all obligations under the convention or treaty.
A convention on the rights of women? Sure. As long as we do it according to the overarching requirements of religious law, of sharia.
A convention outlawing slavery? Sure. As long as we do it according to the overarching requirements of religious law, of sharia.
An agreement on prohibiting "derision" of religion? Sure. As long as we do it according to the overarching requirements of religious law, of sharia.
You in the West with your emphasis on respecting the dignity of beliefs and believers wouldn't want us to compromise our basic religious principles, would you? After all, if you insisted on us attenuating the power of our beliefs, you would be insisting that your principles and world views and your understanding of life are superior. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?
King Abdullah, the Muslim World League, the OIC are betting they can trap the West. They are betting that the flood of lofty words regarding religious beliefs and the necessity of respecting those despite any slight erosion of something as abstract as "freedom of speech" will slip through the UN supported by non-Muslim regimes which are authoritarian.
Beyond that, these agenda driven masters of hypocrisy and tergiversation are betting that the governments and political elites of the West, of the US in particular, have so lost sight of their undergirding principles that the new restrictions will be accepted in silence. They are wagering that the West's chattering classes are so fuzzy of mental focus and short of historical consciousness that they will sell out their heritage for something far more worthless than the biblical "mess of pottage."
The King, the Muslim World League, the OIC might be right. The Geek can hear the Deep Thinkers and Profound Feelers of the US saying, "It's only a small thing. Respect is so important. And, religion is not worth fighting over."
Tell that to a Muslim.
And the winner is?
The winner, the Master Hypocrite of the Globe, is King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Actually, to rate the latest occupant of the Wahabbist throne as a mere hypocrite is to do him a disservice. The king is really a flat-out, pedal-to-the-metal liar. His carefully orchestrated charm offensive of religious tolerance, which extends from its beginning at a highly touted international conference on religious tolerance in Spain last summer to its current main event in a special session of the UN General Assembly, is an exercise in duplicity unrivaled in recent decades.
Backed by the Muslim World League and the fifty-six members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Master Hypocrite is pursuing the goal of achieving an international convention criminalizing "blasphemy" throughout the world. The OIC (whose members constitute over twenty-five percent of the General Assembly) has been pushing long, hard and relentlessly for an international regime prohibiting all attacks or questions of whatsoever nature directed at Islam.
The fellow-travelling Muslim World League sought the same end along with King Abdullah in Spain. The widely reported conference issued a final statement which seems harmless, even high-minded, calling, as it did, for the promotion of respect for the religions of the world and "preventing the derision of what people consider sacred."
This statement, when taken with the assorted proposals emerging from the OIC and the threats delivered by Pakistani delegations and diplomats to the European Union and various of its members, points clearly in one direction. The direction is that of exporting the same climate of religious intolerance and repression endemic to Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Muslim dominated states to all the nations of the Earth.
King Abdullah is lying when he speaks of or seemingly supports religious diversity, mutual respect and acceptance. He is, after all, the King of the Land of the Two Mosques. As such, he must live according to the dictates and requirements, strictures and exhortations of the Quran. As anyone who has read that book can readily attest, the words passed through the Prophet in no way encourage either diversity of belief or the acceptance of those who believe other than the Message and the Messenger require.
In short, the present campaign of the OIC, the Muslim World League and King Abdullah to isolate Islam from any questions or perceived "attacks" while preserving the sacred obligation of the same entities to disparage, marginalise, prohibit and even kill not only adherents of religions other than Islam but also Muslims that someone, somehow, accuses of apostasy, is the latest high-profile example of the uniquely Islamic approach to negotiation.
That was a long sentence, Geek. You better unpack it.
Look at it this way, partner. The negotiation process as normally understood in the West is one of bargaining, of give-and-take, of compromise until finally an agreement acceptable to all parties emerges.
Right, Geek, that's, as they say, self-evident.
OK. In the days of the Cold War some wag or another characterised the Communist style of negotiation as, "What's mine is mine; what's your's is negotiable." A close examination of the processes by which any number of agreements were achieved between the US and assorted Communist states shows the aphorism to be too true to be funny.
Come on, Geek, cut to the chase. The Islamic approach.
Simple. It's an approach mandated by the Prophet and the Message. Here it is. Get a grip on it. "What's mine is mine. What's yours now will be mine later."
But, wait one, Geek! There are a bunch of international agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Any infringement on free speech no matter what the reason or goal would violate at least some of them. And, the OIC countries including Saudi Arabia are signatories to these. Right?
Right. It's necessary to look at the small print. There is an old diplomatic convention observed by all countries including the US which allows for a state to adhere to an international convention but to state "reservations" regarding the degree and nature of its compliance. It is rather like the use of "signing statements" by American presidents.
Each of the Muslim dominated states have entered reservations regarding each and every convention to which it has adhered. To make the story short and simple but not over-simplified, Muslim states limit compliance to the requirements of sharia. In most cases this reservation has the effect of cancelling any and all obligations under the convention or treaty.
A convention on the rights of women? Sure. As long as we do it according to the overarching requirements of religious law, of sharia.
A convention outlawing slavery? Sure. As long as we do it according to the overarching requirements of religious law, of sharia.
An agreement on prohibiting "derision" of religion? Sure. As long as we do it according to the overarching requirements of religious law, of sharia.
You in the West with your emphasis on respecting the dignity of beliefs and believers wouldn't want us to compromise our basic religious principles, would you? After all, if you insisted on us attenuating the power of our beliefs, you would be insisting that your principles and world views and your understanding of life are superior. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?
King Abdullah, the Muslim World League, the OIC are betting they can trap the West. They are betting that the flood of lofty words regarding religious beliefs and the necessity of respecting those despite any slight erosion of something as abstract as "freedom of speech" will slip through the UN supported by non-Muslim regimes which are authoritarian.
Beyond that, these agenda driven masters of hypocrisy and tergiversation are betting that the governments and political elites of the West, of the US in particular, have so lost sight of their undergirding principles that the new restrictions will be accepted in silence. They are wagering that the West's chattering classes are so fuzzy of mental focus and short of historical consciousness that they will sell out their heritage for something far more worthless than the biblical "mess of pottage."
The King, the Muslim World League, the OIC might be right. The Geek can hear the Deep Thinkers and Profound Feelers of the US saying, "It's only a small thing. Respect is so important. And, religion is not worth fighting over."
Tell that to a Muslim.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Move Aside, G-7--The Big Posse Is Taking Over
BRIC and the rest of the Group of 20 have decided that the industrialised nations of the Group of 7 aren't doing a good enough job of mismanaging the global financial system. So, they want to move on in.
"Wait one, Geek! What's this BRIC thing?"
The acronym stands for the following countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China. These are the biggest of the so-called "emerging economies." They believe they are very, very important to the health and stability of the global financial system.
The new posse had a meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil a couple of days ago. At the meeting last Friday, which preceded a conference of the finance ministers and central bankers from the G-20 nations, the president of Brazil blamed the current financial meltdown and its consequence, a global recession, on the G-7 states.
Well, golly, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, you must be a combination of Allen Greenspan and Sherlock Holmes to have figured that out. It seems about as difficult as determining that a heart attack starts with the heart.
And, whether President Lula likes it or not, the countries of the G-7 are the economic heart of the planet. That reality governs whether you look at the global economy from the perspective of Beijing, or Moscow, or East Clearfahrt, North Dakota.
An equally unpleasant reality is that the United States sits at the very center of the Earth's economic heart. This is true whether one looks at consumption and all the global activity that liberal bete noir creates or finance and all that implies in the movement for good or ill of capital, risks and jobs.
The Brazilian president and his confreres want, even demand, a greater role for the emerging economies of BRIC and the other G-20 members as well as the lesser developed countries in the creation and running of a new international financial structure. In Lula's words "a new, more open and inclusive governance."
Right. The Geek agrees. It's a nice idea. Utopian even. But, the Geek wonders, just who is going to participate in this more open and inclusive system?
Obviously, the lads from BRIC believe they should play a major role. OK. Why not?
If the Geek remembers correctly, back in the 1930s and even in the 1950s there were economists predicting that Brazil along with Argentina would rival or even surpass the US economically by the end of the 20th Century. What happened? To compress a long and dreary history punctuated from time to time with blood, both states careened from Statism of the Left to Statism of the Right. This lurching in a drunkard's walk search for prosperity had the wondrous effect of retarding both countries.
The Russian experience with open and inclusive markets is, if one feels charitably inclined, minimal. The Russians have shown over the course of the past century that they are equally inept at operating command economies, a wide-open frontier market, and the new, improved Putin-directed hemi-demi-semi capitalist system. There is no doubt that the Kremlin input to a new global system would be more to the perceived advantage of Russia than the rest of the world.
The same may be said of China. The Chinese Miracle of Growth has been predicated upon the rampant exploitation of labor, wholesale destruction of the environment and promotion of greed on a level which would (almost) shame the famed Robber Barons of the US more than a century ago. Furthermore, the Chinese Miracle of Growth would not have happened without the ill-advised giveaway brokered by President Clinton around ten years ago. The Chinese neo-mandarinate has copious skills focused with laser intensity on the promotion of Chinese strategic interests. Trade and finance are like guns and warships--instruments of national power. Period.
While India has torn itself away (in part) from its long love affair with Left Statism, its current growth is predicated upon a small sector of overall economic activity with the result that the distribution of wealth in the country is even more deformed (if such could be possible) than it is in the United States. India has a large population of very poorly paid individuals for whom the government still believes it has a responsibility. Wealth transfers (both internal and from external sources) of a very major nature will be necessary in the short- and mid-term if the needs of this economically marginal majority are to be met--and, Indian political stability not more impaired than it already has been.
President Lula averred that the IMF agrees with the crucial nature of the developing countries to the world economy by quoting a statement by the Fund's president to the effect that seventy-five percent of the global economic growth will be seen in the developing world. Duh. Percentages are a sleazy game to play. The IMF chief and Lula both know that very small absolute changes become very large percentage shifts when the starting point is low.
Don't get the idea that the Geek is a cheerleader for the fad of the past twenty years--globalization--let alone the dictatorial thuggery engaged in by the IMF and World Bank in promoting the interlocking agendas of globalization and privatization. He is not. The human costs of these handmaidens of change have been high, too high. The impact of privatization and the movement of capital across borders, particularly as enforced by the World Bank and IMF, has been huge, and largely negative. The Law of Unintended Consequences was invoked as seen by the election of such as Chavez and Morales.
The same Law may be invoked again--soon. And, not to the advantage of the US and other members of the G-7. The negatives of globalization and privatization have rested too hard on the lesser developed countries of the world. The benefits have accrued too exclusively to the G-7 and (much as the governments would deny it) BRIC countries as well.
The uniquely Western tendency toward recurrent waves of guilt over success and prosperity as well as the drive to "fairness" and "equality" which break the surface of Western thought so often and so strongly make most of the G-7 countries ripe for acceptance of the argument put forth at the BRIC meeting. The message? It's time for a change.
The Geek agrees that change is necessary. But, it must not be a "change" dictated by debtor nations, or the ambitious and far from altruistic BRICers. Any movement by the US toward embracing necessary changes in the international finance system must be made in the same way as conservative foreign policy generally.
Proceed from a realistic understanding of national and strategic interests of the United States, first and foremost; understand the historical context driving the actions of all the actors; go with a course of action which meets American needs and interests at the lowest realistic loss to others.
Anything else will bring the invariable Law of Unintended Consequences into play again.
"Wait one, Geek! What's this BRIC thing?"
The acronym stands for the following countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China. These are the biggest of the so-called "emerging economies." They believe they are very, very important to the health and stability of the global financial system.
The new posse had a meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil a couple of days ago. At the meeting last Friday, which preceded a conference of the finance ministers and central bankers from the G-20 nations, the president of Brazil blamed the current financial meltdown and its consequence, a global recession, on the G-7 states.
Well, golly, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, you must be a combination of Allen Greenspan and Sherlock Holmes to have figured that out. It seems about as difficult as determining that a heart attack starts with the heart.
And, whether President Lula likes it or not, the countries of the G-7 are the economic heart of the planet. That reality governs whether you look at the global economy from the perspective of Beijing, or Moscow, or East Clearfahrt, North Dakota.
An equally unpleasant reality is that the United States sits at the very center of the Earth's economic heart. This is true whether one looks at consumption and all the global activity that liberal bete noir creates or finance and all that implies in the movement for good or ill of capital, risks and jobs.
The Brazilian president and his confreres want, even demand, a greater role for the emerging economies of BRIC and the other G-20 members as well as the lesser developed countries in the creation and running of a new international financial structure. In Lula's words "a new, more open and inclusive governance."
Right. The Geek agrees. It's a nice idea. Utopian even. But, the Geek wonders, just who is going to participate in this more open and inclusive system?
Obviously, the lads from BRIC believe they should play a major role. OK. Why not?
If the Geek remembers correctly, back in the 1930s and even in the 1950s there were economists predicting that Brazil along with Argentina would rival or even surpass the US economically by the end of the 20th Century. What happened? To compress a long and dreary history punctuated from time to time with blood, both states careened from Statism of the Left to Statism of the Right. This lurching in a drunkard's walk search for prosperity had the wondrous effect of retarding both countries.
The Russian experience with open and inclusive markets is, if one feels charitably inclined, minimal. The Russians have shown over the course of the past century that they are equally inept at operating command economies, a wide-open frontier market, and the new, improved Putin-directed hemi-demi-semi capitalist system. There is no doubt that the Kremlin input to a new global system would be more to the perceived advantage of Russia than the rest of the world.
The same may be said of China. The Chinese Miracle of Growth has been predicated upon the rampant exploitation of labor, wholesale destruction of the environment and promotion of greed on a level which would (almost) shame the famed Robber Barons of the US more than a century ago. Furthermore, the Chinese Miracle of Growth would not have happened without the ill-advised giveaway brokered by President Clinton around ten years ago. The Chinese neo-mandarinate has copious skills focused with laser intensity on the promotion of Chinese strategic interests. Trade and finance are like guns and warships--instruments of national power. Period.
While India has torn itself away (in part) from its long love affair with Left Statism, its current growth is predicated upon a small sector of overall economic activity with the result that the distribution of wealth in the country is even more deformed (if such could be possible) than it is in the United States. India has a large population of very poorly paid individuals for whom the government still believes it has a responsibility. Wealth transfers (both internal and from external sources) of a very major nature will be necessary in the short- and mid-term if the needs of this economically marginal majority are to be met--and, Indian political stability not more impaired than it already has been.
President Lula averred that the IMF agrees with the crucial nature of the developing countries to the world economy by quoting a statement by the Fund's president to the effect that seventy-five percent of the global economic growth will be seen in the developing world. Duh. Percentages are a sleazy game to play. The IMF chief and Lula both know that very small absolute changes become very large percentage shifts when the starting point is low.
Don't get the idea that the Geek is a cheerleader for the fad of the past twenty years--globalization--let alone the dictatorial thuggery engaged in by the IMF and World Bank in promoting the interlocking agendas of globalization and privatization. He is not. The human costs of these handmaidens of change have been high, too high. The impact of privatization and the movement of capital across borders, particularly as enforced by the World Bank and IMF, has been huge, and largely negative. The Law of Unintended Consequences was invoked as seen by the election of such as Chavez and Morales.
The same Law may be invoked again--soon. And, not to the advantage of the US and other members of the G-7. The negatives of globalization and privatization have rested too hard on the lesser developed countries of the world. The benefits have accrued too exclusively to the G-7 and (much as the governments would deny it) BRIC countries as well.
The uniquely Western tendency toward recurrent waves of guilt over success and prosperity as well as the drive to "fairness" and "equality" which break the surface of Western thought so often and so strongly make most of the G-7 countries ripe for acceptance of the argument put forth at the BRIC meeting. The message? It's time for a change.
The Geek agrees that change is necessary. But, it must not be a "change" dictated by debtor nations, or the ambitious and far from altruistic BRICers. Any movement by the US toward embracing necessary changes in the international finance system must be made in the same way as conservative foreign policy generally.
Proceed from a realistic understanding of national and strategic interests of the United States, first and foremost; understand the historical context driving the actions of all the actors; go with a course of action which meets American needs and interests at the lowest realistic loss to others.
Anything else will bring the invariable Law of Unintended Consequences into play again.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
The Quiet Debacle--Latin America And The US
George W. Bush and the neocon ninnies have manufactured a number of noisy foreign policy debacles around the world. Obscured by the noise elsewhere, the Deep Thinkers of the current administration have engineered yet another train wreck in the making.
This one covers a good chunk of the southern half of our hemisphere.
You know, the area we declared off-limits to those icky-poo Europeans with our long time axis mundi of foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine. The place Dan Quayle was referring to when he said he was sorry he hadn't studied Latin so he could talk to Latin Americans in their native tongue.
It seems that while we have been so busy changing regimes in the Mideast and Northwest Asia, there has been a bit of regime change in South America. In keeping with any number of pronouncements by presidents of both parties over the past twenty years or so, the regime changes in South America have been accomplished by more or less democratic processes. By definition, then, the elections and their outcomes are above reproach.
Beyond reproach perhaps but certainly not without danger to US interests both in the region and here at home.
Elections in Venezuela, Bolivia and Paraguay have brought to power regimes that have Yankee bashing as their chief stock-in-trade. The Geek has no problems with pulling the gringo's beard. It has long been a favorite activity everywhere south of the Rio Grande. Much of the time a little or even not so little kick in Uncle Sam's tush has been justified by the behavior of the Colossus of the North. However, the regimes in the three countries just listed are going far beyond the usual fun game of kick-the-Yanqui-in-the-ass.
The reason for this out-of-bounds call?
Simple. One word simple. Here's the word. Iran.
For those who have argued that the US could contain and deter Iran should the mullahocracy ever attain its goal of the "Mahdi bomb," there is something to be learned here. The lesson is short, blunt, unpleasant and convincing. The Iranians have already leaped over any conceivable line in the sand we might have thought of drawing. They are in a position to deter our deterrence.
You look confused. The Geek can see you scratching your chin as you think long and hard about the unlikely linkage of Islamist eschatologist mullahs and hard left LatAm socialists.
Yeah, the proposition does seem a bit odd at first sight. But, the politics of pariahdom make for the most intriguing of bedfellows. (And for those who might question the notion of secularist socialists being accepted by Islamists as allies because of religious considerations, put your minds at rest. There are no prohibitions of Muslim-infidel alliances of a temporary sort when such benefit the cause of Allah.)
While Hugo Chavez has occupied most of our (public) attention with his cozy embrace of the emissaries of Tehran, he is far from alone in the arena. Evo Morales, the one-time coke farmer turned politician has ordered that Iranians be allowed to travel to and from Bolivia without the necessity of a visa. This change of policy came in conjunction with an announcement that Iran was committed to assisting Bolivia in the development of the natural gas deposits in the restive eastern portion of the country.
The Geek viewed the ousting of the Drug Enforcement Administration's activities from Bolivia with equanimity. It was, from the Geek's understanding of Bolivian sensibilities, an action which was both long overdue and well-justified in the minds of many Bolivians both elite and hoi polloi. Accusing the American ambassador of mucking about in Bolivian internal affairs such as the recent election was likewise a non-event. Such accusations are both politics-as-usual and often quite true.
Facilitating the free movement of Iranians is completely different. Evo Morales, like his ideological elder brother, Hugo Chavez, has assured the al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as personnel from the Ministry of Intelligence and Security will have the capacity to come on in and pursue the Iranian agenda. (This agenda, it should be recalled, includes murderous acts such as the bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina fourteen years ago.)
The visa-free travel rights is complemented in the two countries by Iranian furnished Spanish language television programming to Bolivia and a direct air link between Tehran and Caracas via Damascus. Then there are the increasing financial and economic ties between the all-but-bankrupt mullahocracy and the twin laboratories in socialism Los Indios style.
Comes now Paraguay. This is a country which is normally well under the US radar since it is not a major player in the "War on Drugs." Paraguay's new president, Fernando Lugo Mendez, has been hailed in Iranian state controlled media as a fellow "enemy of the Great Satan."
"Why?" You ask.
Because President Mendez named a fellow named Alejandro Hamed Franco as the country's new Foreign Minister.
"So what?" You counter.
The "so what" is that Sr Franco is a well-known, long-time sympathiser, supporter and fund raiser of and for Hezbollah. Hezbollah, which is the big noise in Lebanon and past kicker of Israeli butt, is an Iranian proxy.
ForMin Franco is such a big supporter of Hezbollah and has been so indiscreet in his activities on behalf of the group that he is on the US State Department's "no visa" and "no fly" lists. This will make it hard for the Paraguayan foreign minister to attend sessions of the UN or meetings of the Organisation of American States at its Washington. D.C headquarters. (Unless, of course, the in-coming administration cuts Sr Franco a major bit of slack.)
Other countries throughout the region may choose to follow the example set by Venezuela, Bolivia and Paraguay. There would be reason for doing so. The US has shamefully but typically ignored South America for years. The focus has been on the Mideast, Africa, Asia while, except for the "War on Drugs" and counterinsurgency efforts in Columbia, the US has turned its back on the Southern portion of this hemisphere.
The "War on Drugs" has also served to alienate folks across the lands to our south. The Geek has never talked to a member of a South American military, diplomatic, intelligence or security component who has been favorably inclined to our "war" being waged on their land, on their citizens, on their economy. When pressed, all the Geek could do was shrug his shoulders and mutter some platitude about American morality and its impact on politics and policy.
The periodic harsh US rhetoric from both governmental personnel and assorted non-governmental entities regarding the inability of various South American governments to be sufficiently "green" in their policies and actions has done nothing to bring those south of the Rio closer together with us who live in the Land Up North. The same may be said regarding our sporadic bouts of seeming xenophobia aimed at those who speak Spanish. And, it may be said of the conditions which wrap themselves around "free trade" agreements and other matters of economic development or the perceived, negative impact of "globalization" and its handmaiden institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
In short, the US has made a complete and virtually inedible hash out of our policies toward Latin America for years now. While the current administration must carry a lot of the water for this very unpleasant reality, there are buckets enough to be borne by the Clinton Administration as well.
Socialism rode to power in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador in large measure on the back of globalization and the indifference shown by the United States to the human costs of this. Socialism and Islamism may not seem to be natural allies, but, as the old cliche has it, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Most assuredly it is time for change in this area of US policy. But, if the lamentable history of US relations with South America is any guide, it ain't coming.
That will be good for the Iranians.
And, very bad for us.
This one covers a good chunk of the southern half of our hemisphere.
You know, the area we declared off-limits to those icky-poo Europeans with our long time axis mundi of foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine. The place Dan Quayle was referring to when he said he was sorry he hadn't studied Latin so he could talk to Latin Americans in their native tongue.
It seems that while we have been so busy changing regimes in the Mideast and Northwest Asia, there has been a bit of regime change in South America. In keeping with any number of pronouncements by presidents of both parties over the past twenty years or so, the regime changes in South America have been accomplished by more or less democratic processes. By definition, then, the elections and their outcomes are above reproach.
Beyond reproach perhaps but certainly not without danger to US interests both in the region and here at home.
Elections in Venezuela, Bolivia and Paraguay have brought to power regimes that have Yankee bashing as their chief stock-in-trade. The Geek has no problems with pulling the gringo's beard. It has long been a favorite activity everywhere south of the Rio Grande. Much of the time a little or even not so little kick in Uncle Sam's tush has been justified by the behavior of the Colossus of the North. However, the regimes in the three countries just listed are going far beyond the usual fun game of kick-the-Yanqui-in-the-ass.
The reason for this out-of-bounds call?
Simple. One word simple. Here's the word. Iran.
For those who have argued that the US could contain and deter Iran should the mullahocracy ever attain its goal of the "Mahdi bomb," there is something to be learned here. The lesson is short, blunt, unpleasant and convincing. The Iranians have already leaped over any conceivable line in the sand we might have thought of drawing. They are in a position to deter our deterrence.
You look confused. The Geek can see you scratching your chin as you think long and hard about the unlikely linkage of Islamist eschatologist mullahs and hard left LatAm socialists.
Yeah, the proposition does seem a bit odd at first sight. But, the politics of pariahdom make for the most intriguing of bedfellows. (And for those who might question the notion of secularist socialists being accepted by Islamists as allies because of religious considerations, put your minds at rest. There are no prohibitions of Muslim-infidel alliances of a temporary sort when such benefit the cause of Allah.)
While Hugo Chavez has occupied most of our (public) attention with his cozy embrace of the emissaries of Tehran, he is far from alone in the arena. Evo Morales, the one-time coke farmer turned politician has ordered that Iranians be allowed to travel to and from Bolivia without the necessity of a visa. This change of policy came in conjunction with an announcement that Iran was committed to assisting Bolivia in the development of the natural gas deposits in the restive eastern portion of the country.
The Geek viewed the ousting of the Drug Enforcement Administration's activities from Bolivia with equanimity. It was, from the Geek's understanding of Bolivian sensibilities, an action which was both long overdue and well-justified in the minds of many Bolivians both elite and hoi polloi. Accusing the American ambassador of mucking about in Bolivian internal affairs such as the recent election was likewise a non-event. Such accusations are both politics-as-usual and often quite true.
Facilitating the free movement of Iranians is completely different. Evo Morales, like his ideological elder brother, Hugo Chavez, has assured the al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as personnel from the Ministry of Intelligence and Security will have the capacity to come on in and pursue the Iranian agenda. (This agenda, it should be recalled, includes murderous acts such as the bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina fourteen years ago.)
The visa-free travel rights is complemented in the two countries by Iranian furnished Spanish language television programming to Bolivia and a direct air link between Tehran and Caracas via Damascus. Then there are the increasing financial and economic ties between the all-but-bankrupt mullahocracy and the twin laboratories in socialism Los Indios style.
Comes now Paraguay. This is a country which is normally well under the US radar since it is not a major player in the "War on Drugs." Paraguay's new president, Fernando Lugo Mendez, has been hailed in Iranian state controlled media as a fellow "enemy of the Great Satan."
"Why?" You ask.
Because President Mendez named a fellow named Alejandro Hamed Franco as the country's new Foreign Minister.
"So what?" You counter.
The "so what" is that Sr Franco is a well-known, long-time sympathiser, supporter and fund raiser of and for Hezbollah. Hezbollah, which is the big noise in Lebanon and past kicker of Israeli butt, is an Iranian proxy.
ForMin Franco is such a big supporter of Hezbollah and has been so indiscreet in his activities on behalf of the group that he is on the US State Department's "no visa" and "no fly" lists. This will make it hard for the Paraguayan foreign minister to attend sessions of the UN or meetings of the Organisation of American States at its Washington. D.C headquarters. (Unless, of course, the in-coming administration cuts Sr Franco a major bit of slack.)
Other countries throughout the region may choose to follow the example set by Venezuela, Bolivia and Paraguay. There would be reason for doing so. The US has shamefully but typically ignored South America for years. The focus has been on the Mideast, Africa, Asia while, except for the "War on Drugs" and counterinsurgency efforts in Columbia, the US has turned its back on the Southern portion of this hemisphere.
The "War on Drugs" has also served to alienate folks across the lands to our south. The Geek has never talked to a member of a South American military, diplomatic, intelligence or security component who has been favorably inclined to our "war" being waged on their land, on their citizens, on their economy. When pressed, all the Geek could do was shrug his shoulders and mutter some platitude about American morality and its impact on politics and policy.
The periodic harsh US rhetoric from both governmental personnel and assorted non-governmental entities regarding the inability of various South American governments to be sufficiently "green" in their policies and actions has done nothing to bring those south of the Rio closer together with us who live in the Land Up North. The same may be said regarding our sporadic bouts of seeming xenophobia aimed at those who speak Spanish. And, it may be said of the conditions which wrap themselves around "free trade" agreements and other matters of economic development or the perceived, negative impact of "globalization" and its handmaiden institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
In short, the US has made a complete and virtually inedible hash out of our policies toward Latin America for years now. While the current administration must carry a lot of the water for this very unpleasant reality, there are buckets enough to be borne by the Clinton Administration as well.
Socialism rode to power in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador in large measure on the back of globalization and the indifference shown by the United States to the human costs of this. Socialism and Islamism may not seem to be natural allies, but, as the old cliche has it, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Most assuredly it is time for change in this area of US policy. But, if the lamentable history of US relations with South America is any guide, it ain't coming.
That will be good for the Iranians.
And, very bad for us.
A Small Problem of Definition
What is a "foreign policy conservative?" This question grows out of a conflab held by the usual suspects on the political Right the other day. One of the honchos opined that when "social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives" unite then victory is inevitable.
The Geek has no problem understanding what is meant by the terms "social" and "fiscal" conservative, but he cannot say the same about the final member of the Right Wing Trinity. The notion "foreign policy conservative" is too slippery a critter to grab on to easily or firmly.
The understanding of conservatism in foreign policy has changed--significantly--over the past century of so. In comparison the worldview of the "foreign policy liberal" has changed very little over the same period.
For a long, long while the touchstone of foreign policy conservatives was Washington's Farewell Address with its warnings against "entangling foreign alliances." Through the 19th and well into the 20th Century the policy of the United States eschewed alliances, sought freedom of maritime commerce, resisted foreign encroachment on the Western Hemisphere and pursued open trade unencumbered by trading blocs or akin restraints.
The often and much maligned "isolationists" of the Twenties, Thirties and very early Forties saw themselves as honoring the legacy of Washington, Adams and even Jefferson. The failure of the American entry into World War I to achieve any meaningful result brought both many leaders and much of the American people to support the "isolationist" stance, seeing it correctly as being true to the traditional and (arguably) successful foreign policy of the US.
World War II and the emergence of the Cold War in its immediate aftermath changed all that. Regardless of the best efforts of Robert Taft, Republican Senator from Ohio who was dubbed "Mr Republican" and a few others from the Midwest, the pre-war view of foreign policy conservatism was abandoned.
The end-all and be-all of American foreign policy became anti-Communism with the only meaningful distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" views being the expansiveness of the effort--with the conservatives being more expansive in their goals than the liberals. A secondary distinction between the liberal and conservative approaches was the understanding by each of the role to be played by international institutions. Generally the conservatives supported military alliances while the liberals--at least sporadically--favored the United Nations over the "pactomania" which marked the Truman and Eisenhower years.
Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the understanding of foreign policy conservative has morphed. The latest costume for the conservative in foreign affairs has been that of the neocon.
Neocons, to a much greater extent than any previous brand of foreign policy conservative, with the exception of a handful of fire breathing "roll back" types a half-century ago, are ready, willing and eager to use coercive diplomatic means to achieve desired ends. The neocons have shown themselves to be rarin' to go. Go unilaterally, go violently, go teleologically for the gold as described by their particularly militant ideology,
After over seven years pulling and hauling on the levers of power, the results have discredited the neocons. Even if some of their totems such as reflexive support for Israel have not been overthrown, the neocon lock on foreign policy conservatism has been broken.
This walk down History Boulevard leaves unanswered the question, "what is a foreign policy conservative" today?
The Ron Paul libertarian would respond that a true foreign policy conservative is one who uses Washington's Farewell Address as the basis for policy. No entangling alliances. Commerce with all. War with none (unless war is forced upon us.) Amity with all, or if not amity, at least correct, civil commercial relations.
The neocon would cling to his banner of distrusting international organisations, seeking alliances with the "like minded," supporting Israel without question and being prepared and ready to use force unilaterally. The neocon undoubtedly would argue that the ideological base of policy these past years was correct, but the implementation was wrong.
Well, the Geek acknowledges, those are two possible definitions. Neither is satisfying.
"OK, Geek," you challenge, "stand and deliver! You got something better?"
The Geek, never having been noted for his modesty, avers that he does. But, he is going to back into his definition by way of taking a quick look at the "foreign policy liberal."
The "liberal" view of foreign policy is an expression of the idealism resident in the turn of the 20th Century brand of Progressive Internationalism. It is rooted in part in Protestant Christian views of international morality and just war doctrine. In part it arises from the commercial dictates of a large, expanding and free market oriented economy.
The best exponent of the liberal 1.0 view is Woodrow Wilson. When World War I commenced, he challenged the American people to "be neutral in thought, word and deed." As the war continued and the Germans engaged in new and to American eyes "terroristic" means of war, President Wilson backed away from his extremely idealistic concept of neutrality.
Eventually, for a variety of reasons, Wilson resolved that he could not allow Germany to win the stalemated war. After having won re-election in 1916 as the man who "kept us out of war" and the man who was "too proud to fight," Wilson reversed his course.
In his view of the world and the role of war in human history, Wilson reflected the thinking of many Progressive Americans. War was the single biggest blight upon the human record. Two factors militated against war: democracy and a rule of law.
Without going into a critique of the historical accuracy of Wilson's belief, suffice it to note that the President saw two goals worth the sacrifice of American blood. One was the promotion of democracy in place of the monarchies ruling Germany and Austria-Hungary. The other was to use the peace conference which would ensue at war's end to establish an international rule of law through the creation of a league of nations dedicated to preserving peace (at least the peace between "civilized" countries.)
The League of Nations came a cropper. But, in its abject failure to keep the peace among "civilized" states, it provided the basis for the next go at the liberal ideal in foreign policy. That go is, of course, the United Nations.
The UN remains as a central feature of the "liberal" understanding of foreign policy. Thirty years or so ago the UN was joined by "human rights" as the core of the liberal 2.0 stance on foreign affairs. Increasingly US policy (to say nothing of its formulators and implementers) was judged by its fidelity to the promotion of international consensus and assurance of human rights.
The idea of human rights is inherently idealistic. It also emerges from the progressive agenda of a century ago with its roots in Protestant Christianity and the difficulties existing in a rapidly industialising and demographically changing American society.
Liberal foreign policy 2.x is now associated not only with international organisations exemplified by the UN and its various agencies and a concern with human rights but also by an emphasis on multi-culturalism and cultural relativism. These ideological additions are of recent origin but have an increasing potency with the American elite.
In summary, both the liberal and the conservative (particularly the neocon and anti-communist sorts) are fundamentally ideological in nature. That is to say that each has a view of the world which is simplified and to that extent unrealistic.
The key word is "unrealistic."
As the Geek looks at the sweep of history of foreign relations the critical distinguishing factor between success and failure in this arena is the degree of realism exhibited by a country's foreign policy establishment. In this context realism means an accurate appraisal of the country's interests both national and strategic as well as the threats to those interests and opportunities existing for their enhancement.
A realistic understanding of foreign policy not only takes the world as it is not as policy makers and decider guys might fear it to be or hope it might become. Similarly, the interests of the country both short- and long-term are accurately appreciated and factored in to the policy consideration and implementation. This means that the instruments of national power--both hard and soft--are understood as to their strengths and weaknesses, their potency as well as their limitations.
Complicating the task of realistic foreign policy formulation and implementation here in the United States is the necessity of considering the force of public opinion. The opinion and therefore the will of We the People is not simply a force to be manipulated by shrewd and carefully calculating spin meisters and their ilk. Neither is it a factor limited only to the chattering class or the members of the politically articulate elite.
As events both recent and ancient demonstrate, public opinion must be regarded, must be heeded but can become the uncontrollable 1,000 pound gorilla all too easily and quite unexpectedly. The realistic practitioner of foreign policy must be aware of the limits which public opinion and thus political will place upon him. He must, history demonstrates, neither fear it nor ignore it--and he stokes it at his peril.
Now for a definition. To the Geek's mind a "conservative" in foreign policy must first and foremost eschew ideology as firmly and absolutely as George Washington rejected "entangling foreign alliances." The conservative must understand to his core of being the accuracy of the old British statement that a country has neither lasting friends nor eternal enemies but possesses lasting interests. To which the Geek would append: and eternal values.
The conservative practitioner of foreign policy understands his country's interests and values and proceeds to defend and protect them where necessary and advance them where possible in a careful way giving due regard to the actualities of global politics, the realities of the internal dynamics of nations with which interaction is critical and the looming presence of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The appreciation of interests and context must be joined with an understanding of domestic opinion and will so that critical constituencies can be persuaded to support policy.
Finally, the "foreign policy conservative" never forgets that all the actors in the Great Global Game of foreign affairs have a history. A unique history which both constrains and focuses their individual view of the world, its threats and opportunities.
Nothing emerges from a historical vacuum. Nothing suddenly breaks upon the world's scene free of a past. The conservative knows this. Pays attention to it. To the genuine conservative the first intelligence document needed, perhaps the most important single essential element of information in the forming and executing of foreign policy, will always be a history book.
For good or for ill, the Geek doubts that the panjandrums of the Right who linked electoral success with the need to couple "social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives" understand that foundational reality. But, he doubts they understand the real nature of conservatism anyway.
The Geek has no problem understanding what is meant by the terms "social" and "fiscal" conservative, but he cannot say the same about the final member of the Right Wing Trinity. The notion "foreign policy conservative" is too slippery a critter to grab on to easily or firmly.
The understanding of conservatism in foreign policy has changed--significantly--over the past century of so. In comparison the worldview of the "foreign policy liberal" has changed very little over the same period.
For a long, long while the touchstone of foreign policy conservatives was Washington's Farewell Address with its warnings against "entangling foreign alliances." Through the 19th and well into the 20th Century the policy of the United States eschewed alliances, sought freedom of maritime commerce, resisted foreign encroachment on the Western Hemisphere and pursued open trade unencumbered by trading blocs or akin restraints.
The often and much maligned "isolationists" of the Twenties, Thirties and very early Forties saw themselves as honoring the legacy of Washington, Adams and even Jefferson. The failure of the American entry into World War I to achieve any meaningful result brought both many leaders and much of the American people to support the "isolationist" stance, seeing it correctly as being true to the traditional and (arguably) successful foreign policy of the US.
World War II and the emergence of the Cold War in its immediate aftermath changed all that. Regardless of the best efforts of Robert Taft, Republican Senator from Ohio who was dubbed "Mr Republican" and a few others from the Midwest, the pre-war view of foreign policy conservatism was abandoned.
The end-all and be-all of American foreign policy became anti-Communism with the only meaningful distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" views being the expansiveness of the effort--with the conservatives being more expansive in their goals than the liberals. A secondary distinction between the liberal and conservative approaches was the understanding by each of the role to be played by international institutions. Generally the conservatives supported military alliances while the liberals--at least sporadically--favored the United Nations over the "pactomania" which marked the Truman and Eisenhower years.
Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the understanding of foreign policy conservative has morphed. The latest costume for the conservative in foreign affairs has been that of the neocon.
Neocons, to a much greater extent than any previous brand of foreign policy conservative, with the exception of a handful of fire breathing "roll back" types a half-century ago, are ready, willing and eager to use coercive diplomatic means to achieve desired ends. The neocons have shown themselves to be rarin' to go. Go unilaterally, go violently, go teleologically for the gold as described by their particularly militant ideology,
After over seven years pulling and hauling on the levers of power, the results have discredited the neocons. Even if some of their totems such as reflexive support for Israel have not been overthrown, the neocon lock on foreign policy conservatism has been broken.
This walk down History Boulevard leaves unanswered the question, "what is a foreign policy conservative" today?
The Ron Paul libertarian would respond that a true foreign policy conservative is one who uses Washington's Farewell Address as the basis for policy. No entangling alliances. Commerce with all. War with none (unless war is forced upon us.) Amity with all, or if not amity, at least correct, civil commercial relations.
The neocon would cling to his banner of distrusting international organisations, seeking alliances with the "like minded," supporting Israel without question and being prepared and ready to use force unilaterally. The neocon undoubtedly would argue that the ideological base of policy these past years was correct, but the implementation was wrong.
Well, the Geek acknowledges, those are two possible definitions. Neither is satisfying.
"OK, Geek," you challenge, "stand and deliver! You got something better?"
The Geek, never having been noted for his modesty, avers that he does. But, he is going to back into his definition by way of taking a quick look at the "foreign policy liberal."
The "liberal" view of foreign policy is an expression of the idealism resident in the turn of the 20th Century brand of Progressive Internationalism. It is rooted in part in Protestant Christian views of international morality and just war doctrine. In part it arises from the commercial dictates of a large, expanding and free market oriented economy.
The best exponent of the liberal 1.0 view is Woodrow Wilson. When World War I commenced, he challenged the American people to "be neutral in thought, word and deed." As the war continued and the Germans engaged in new and to American eyes "terroristic" means of war, President Wilson backed away from his extremely idealistic concept of neutrality.
Eventually, for a variety of reasons, Wilson resolved that he could not allow Germany to win the stalemated war. After having won re-election in 1916 as the man who "kept us out of war" and the man who was "too proud to fight," Wilson reversed his course.
In his view of the world and the role of war in human history, Wilson reflected the thinking of many Progressive Americans. War was the single biggest blight upon the human record. Two factors militated against war: democracy and a rule of law.
Without going into a critique of the historical accuracy of Wilson's belief, suffice it to note that the President saw two goals worth the sacrifice of American blood. One was the promotion of democracy in place of the monarchies ruling Germany and Austria-Hungary. The other was to use the peace conference which would ensue at war's end to establish an international rule of law through the creation of a league of nations dedicated to preserving peace (at least the peace between "civilized" countries.)
The League of Nations came a cropper. But, in its abject failure to keep the peace among "civilized" states, it provided the basis for the next go at the liberal ideal in foreign policy. That go is, of course, the United Nations.
The UN remains as a central feature of the "liberal" understanding of foreign policy. Thirty years or so ago the UN was joined by "human rights" as the core of the liberal 2.0 stance on foreign affairs. Increasingly US policy (to say nothing of its formulators and implementers) was judged by its fidelity to the promotion of international consensus and assurance of human rights.
The idea of human rights is inherently idealistic. It also emerges from the progressive agenda of a century ago with its roots in Protestant Christianity and the difficulties existing in a rapidly industialising and demographically changing American society.
Liberal foreign policy 2.x is now associated not only with international organisations exemplified by the UN and its various agencies and a concern with human rights but also by an emphasis on multi-culturalism and cultural relativism. These ideological additions are of recent origin but have an increasing potency with the American elite.
In summary, both the liberal and the conservative (particularly the neocon and anti-communist sorts) are fundamentally ideological in nature. That is to say that each has a view of the world which is simplified and to that extent unrealistic.
The key word is "unrealistic."
As the Geek looks at the sweep of history of foreign relations the critical distinguishing factor between success and failure in this arena is the degree of realism exhibited by a country's foreign policy establishment. In this context realism means an accurate appraisal of the country's interests both national and strategic as well as the threats to those interests and opportunities existing for their enhancement.
A realistic understanding of foreign policy not only takes the world as it is not as policy makers and decider guys might fear it to be or hope it might become. Similarly, the interests of the country both short- and long-term are accurately appreciated and factored in to the policy consideration and implementation. This means that the instruments of national power--both hard and soft--are understood as to their strengths and weaknesses, their potency as well as their limitations.
Complicating the task of realistic foreign policy formulation and implementation here in the United States is the necessity of considering the force of public opinion. The opinion and therefore the will of We the People is not simply a force to be manipulated by shrewd and carefully calculating spin meisters and their ilk. Neither is it a factor limited only to the chattering class or the members of the politically articulate elite.
As events both recent and ancient demonstrate, public opinion must be regarded, must be heeded but can become the uncontrollable 1,000 pound gorilla all too easily and quite unexpectedly. The realistic practitioner of foreign policy must be aware of the limits which public opinion and thus political will place upon him. He must, history demonstrates, neither fear it nor ignore it--and he stokes it at his peril.
Now for a definition. To the Geek's mind a "conservative" in foreign policy must first and foremost eschew ideology as firmly and absolutely as George Washington rejected "entangling foreign alliances." The conservative must understand to his core of being the accuracy of the old British statement that a country has neither lasting friends nor eternal enemies but possesses lasting interests. To which the Geek would append: and eternal values.
The conservative practitioner of foreign policy understands his country's interests and values and proceeds to defend and protect them where necessary and advance them where possible in a careful way giving due regard to the actualities of global politics, the realities of the internal dynamics of nations with which interaction is critical and the looming presence of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The appreciation of interests and context must be joined with an understanding of domestic opinion and will so that critical constituencies can be persuaded to support policy.
Finally, the "foreign policy conservative" never forgets that all the actors in the Great Global Game of foreign affairs have a history. A unique history which both constrains and focuses their individual view of the world, its threats and opportunities.
Nothing emerges from a historical vacuum. Nothing suddenly breaks upon the world's scene free of a past. The conservative knows this. Pays attention to it. To the genuine conservative the first intelligence document needed, perhaps the most important single essential element of information in the forming and executing of foreign policy, will always be a history book.
For good or for ill, the Geek doubts that the panjandrums of the Right who linked electoral success with the need to couple "social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives" understand that foundational reality. But, he doubts they understand the real nature of conservatism anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)