U.S. in the World: Foreign Policy in the 21st Century

Caution with Klare

By the end of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet I had become slightly disenchanted and skeptical with Michael Klare.  By the end of his talk after his screening of Blood and Oil I was appalled that he was able to tote the credentials on his resume.

Klare seems to be an effective academic researcher (he taught a Political Research and Writing class at Hampshire) and is able to weave these historical facts in an interesting and engaging way- as proven by Blood and Oil and in the historical pieces in RPSP.  However, being able to regurgitate facts and being able to use those facts to construct a plausible and well-argued hypothesis are two completely separate skills.  I don't think Klare has the ability to do the latter. 

For those of you who were not at the Blood and Oil screening, I asked Klare, based on his book and an earlier statement in the evening about the urgency of an emergence of a leader in alternative energy resources, if it might not be a better idea to think about collaborating with Japan instead of China- a thought echoed by some in attendance today.  Klare asserted that China was the answer because of three points:

• Our self destructive competitiveness with China, which includes military policy
• The fact that we need to "pull China from the arms of Russia"
• China's leading coal usage

I said that I agreed with him on those points but that it was a little unrealistic to think that we could dictate China's coal use- we are right up there with coal consumption and we have decided to use India as a nuke warehouse for use of intimidation against China, so that may harbor some bad feelings- and that, again, would it not be more realistic to partner with an ally, like Japan, who has the technological capabilities and energy challenges as well, to develop better technologies and then sell them to the Chinese.  To this Klare retorted "what you say is realistic, but if we don't do what I say, the world will end."  (that's not an absolute direct quote but close enough so that you can get the gist) 

...to that I say, if you cannot effectively argue and defend your point in a mature and responsible manner then you should not publish it.

Today when someone pointedly asked why he thought China would collaborate with us over Russia he said he had three points:

• Russia has proven "fickle" with its collaborative dealings (in RPSP he discussed Russia pitting China and Japan against each other in promises of a pipeline from Serbia)
• the cost of competing with the US over energy (if they were collaborating with Russia they wouldn't need to compete because Russia would supply them with energy, right????)
• and his third point was lost to us all because he never made it.

I am all for being enthusiastic and passionate about an issue, but I think there is an extreme danger in posturing oneself, in an academic and authoritative guise, for solving a crisis with an implausible solution.  This is my opinion, but I think that time may be better spent constructing creative solutions that can work within the geopolitical framework of reality.

Klare also seemed unable to answer simple questions regarding biofuel development and projected alternative energy research money in our current economic state.  He said that Obama's energy plan was better than McCain but didn't articulate a single aspect of it. 

Again, all of this is just my opinion.  I think that this was an effective exercise in questioning "experts" and not taking academic books at face value.  I commend Mr. Klare for his passion but deny him respect in his ability to come up with actionable policy solutions.

The Economist gives the World a Vote

An interesting exercise by The Economist will show (based on a relatively small sample size) how our Presidential Election would play out if the world could vote through a global electoral college... http://adage.com/article?article_id=131208

The Non-proliferation Debacle Makes Me Want To Build A Shelter

I don't know about anyone else, but today's talk about the scary, bleak and seemingly inevitable fate of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty gave me chills- beyond the normal ones that come from the room being too cold. 

The US is the leader in undermining the NPT.  With the damage done in the last two decades on this issue I doubt that any amount of diplomacy will recreate or inspire the global trust that worldwide non-proliferation requires.  It is in every country's best interest for international nuclear disarmament.  However, when countries, like the US, create policies that are counteractive, we take more than three steps back.  The NPT will only work when we can trust each other- working on the basic principal that it is globally mutually beneficial.  The US has blatantly and unabashedly violated and exploited that trust.  When we will learn to work within international law and treaties in the best interest of everyone?  (and stop pointing fingers at Iran when it's counterproductive and we are doing far worse)

Since the cynic in me distrusts the power of diplomacy on this issue I wonder what sort of re-framing can be done moving forward.  Mr. Mian explained that the high-enriched uranium that is used in nuclear weapons can be diluted to create low-enriched uranium that can be used for nuclear energy- plutonium can also be processed likewise to create energy.  I wonder if as our resource crisis escalates, can begin global disarmarment in the framework of energy creation?  I understand that this may not be beneficial for Russia and some Middle Eastern countries, but for China, the US, UK, etc., this may be able to shape an energy policy that would lend itself to a new sort of global treaty for more responsible use of nuclear materials and re-use of exsisting weaponry.

Nuclear weapons are scary and like global warming can/will affect every person on this planet.  We cannot continue in this inevitably deadly game of hypothetical bombing.

Looking Forward to the Debates

There are so many issues that the new executive office will face.  As a citizen I want to know as much information as I can about the possible candidates that will fill the position, before I cast my vote.  I was e-mailed this link regarding the 2 candidates, and besides being fun, I was surprised at some of the results I ended up having.  I hope all enjoy it as much as I did.   I would love to know if anyone was surprised by your own results...

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/MatchoMatic/fullpage?id=5542139

the national security frame

In thinking about our discussion on placing issues such as immigration and HIV/AIDS within a national security frame, I pulled some of George Lakoff's books off my shelf because I think he does an exceptional job of framing progressive issues in a way that really capture our core values.  Lakoff does not define security as a conservative frame, he simply points out that "security" can mean something very different to progressives than it does to conservatives.  Conservatives' view of national security, he writes in his book Thinking Points, is, "It's a scary world.  Fanatics wish us harm.  We must respond with every means available to us, including torture and indefinite imprisonment without trial for those we suspect of acting against us.  We must take the fight to the enemy regardless of the cost of lives, dollars, strained alliances, and our international reputation.  Military force is our greatest weapon."  Lakoff puts the progressive frame or perspective in these terms: "Terrorism is an international problem; we can fight it more effectively in partnership with other nations than by going it alone.  We should fight terrorism with tools for fighting international organized crime, rather than the military.  Moreover, we must recognize that our long-term security is also threatened by climate destabilization and pollution, by our dependence on foreign energy, by the growing gap between rich and poor, and by our faltering public education system."  He does not include health or HIV/AIDS in that last list, but I think it is among these other issues of education and poverty.  Of course, this leads to a closer examination of issues such as education and the energy efficiency.  If our dependence on oil influences U.S. foreign policy with countries in the Middle East, where terrorism is also a concern, isn't energy efficiency or investing in alternative energy a national security concern?  And for the same reasons that HIV/AIDS is a matter of security, isn't education as well?

American Exceptionalism and International Law

In an article posted today on NYTimes.com there is a discussion of the dynamic between United States judicial influence and the greater global international law system.  Whether it is an unintended consequence of the Bush Administration's foreign policy decisions or of globalization it seems that there has been a sharp decline in recent years of foreign courts citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. 

The article was inconclusive as to what the root cause was, however, more interesting to me was the debate on whether the U.S. Supreme Court should cite foreign court decisions in Supreme Court cases.  This discussion of legal jingoism included the descending American judicial influence and the rise of influence from more moderate countries such as Canada and New Zealand.

“In part, their influence may spring from the simple fact they are not American,” Dean Slaughter wrote in a 2005 essay, “which renders their reasoning more politically palatable to domestic audience in an era of extraordinary U.S. military, political, economic and cultural power and accompanying resentments.”

While more liberal folk noted that looking at international law could add to more robust rulings, conservatives seem to balk at the mere idea of consulting non-American precedents.

“Foreign law, you can find anything you want,” Chief Justice Roberts said. “Looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends.”

Roberts may be right, given that there are many corrupt courts globally, however, I think that there could be clearly established guidelines on which courts meet the acceptable standards to be considered.  To rule out leading court decisions in Western Europe and Canada seems a little arrogant.

Professor Calabresi concluded that the Supreme Court should be wary of citing foreign law in most constitutional cases precisely because the United States is exceptional.  “Like it or not,” he wrote, “Americans really are a special people with a special ideology that sets us apart from all the other peoples.”  

It seems odd that we feel like we can export things like democracy and judicial process without consulting best practices of others like us.  American jingoism undermines our global influence and as long as we continue to assert our "exceptionalism" we will continue to lose friends and credibility.

Can’t We All Just Get Along

Although my perspective in class today may have been staggeringly cynical, I wanted to express the hope for change that I believe I share with most of you.  While I deemed Nick’s idea of a “new tool” unrealistic, the existence of such revolutionary thought is exactly why we have something to hope for in this currently bleak economic climate.  The world needs “bleeding heart liberals” and “religious right republicans” to encourage students (young people) to push for change.  It is our duty as educated individuals to demand a new tool, a new way of thinking, a more reasonable frame, and support a candidate that is for real change.  I guess the point I was trying to make in class was more that change will not come easily, or quickly for that matter, but if we are dedicated to working within our current system to bring about the necessary policies/forces to create a sustainable difference, then yes, anything is possible, and it is up to us to make it happen; before ‘we enter a star trek era and all countries unite to fight Martians.’
 

The Data Deficit

Within the complex issues of national and international security discussed in this week's readings and class, the most troubling seemed to be the lack of appropriate, accurate, and reliable data. Without the evidence-based confidence of understanding the problem, it is unrealistic to attempt effective prescription of the best foreign policies our next President must adopt in order to establish security. However many challenges arise when attempting to compile accurate datasets and construct honest analyses.

I commend the efforts of the Human Security Report Project (HSRP), the Center for American Progress (CAP), and the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) for attempting to collect and use reliable data to make policy recommendations. However we cannot escape that, even in these cases, data could be biased by who is financing the collection and analysis efforts, and what political affiliations or motivations exist within the institutions.

Bias from funders or researchers may cause research to focus in a way that ignores relevant big picture information. Is HSRP interested in the full picture of conflict? I could not help but disagree with the HSRP observation of "radical improvement in sub-Saharan Africa's security climate" based on my experience with and study of the impact of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. They do not consider that the impact of more young men dying from HIV/AIDS - the soldiers and promoters of conflict - is only now being made evident, and is a driver of decrease in conflict.  There were 1.5 million AIDS deaths in sub-Saharan Africa in just the year 2007, a count that overpowers the 3,500 reported battle-deaths from state-based and non-state armed conflicts in the region in 2006. [And AIDS deaths, like battle-deaths, are often unreported or misreported.] Not necessarily a “driver of decreased conflict” to celebrate. 

HSRP claims, without cited authority, that "Five years is long enough to detect trends", but I question that assumption when it comes to the enormous impact of HIV/AIDS, which after decades of death on the continent is only now showing results on military and economic infrastructure. It seems clear to me to link HIV/AIDS to conflict in the region, but AIDS goes unmentioned here and in other reports, perhaps because funders or researchers needed to maintain a strict focus on terrorism. As a result we have an incomplete data set, of sorts.

Yet even when fully formed data sets are available, this still may not solve the problem of producing good policy. I would argue that it is difficult for an average American to really understand the implications of complex datasets and definition; I am reminded of campus protests that emerged last year when NYU President John Sexton refused to make our NYU budget public, partly on grounds that the student protesters demanding transparency wouldn't be able to decipher the document’s intricacies and may take wrong assumptions from the numbers.  Therefore, we need more independent sources of data analysis – not funded or researched by partisan actors - to allow the American public understanding of and access to foreign policy issues.

As for the 08’ Election, data on foreign policy can be manipulated by candidates to create a mindset that will secure votes. [I note that McCain does not have a Foreign Policy section of his website and Obama’s is clearly found under the “Issues” menu.] McCain's communication of security threats to the people is fueled by instilling fear – do you recall the strategic short film at the RNC linking 9/11 to terrorism that “began in Iran" thus implicating Iran instead of Osama?  As irancoverage.com declares, it was a “conflating of all Muslim movements, in which McCain frequently engages” and “just another Big Lie”.  Moreso, the film enraged many who felt it exploited the deaths of 9/11 victims...but as evident by the applause, galvanized many at the Convention.

Yet it is realistic, logical, and understandable that a candidate will purport a view that will win more votes, whether or not the view is based on truth and whether of not (s)he intends to pursue that strategy once in office. But there is a damaging trickle down effect of such campaigning strategy: what if you convince the American public of a false image of the world, in scaring them into voting for you? What if you convince the public that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, even if your intelligence and data are unreliable and you are not actually sure if they do, and then they vote for a war they may not want?

 Just as tragically, Obama advocates a strategy of "aggressive diplomacy" (resembling the “strategic leadership” described in detail in the CNAS report) which may well be the most effective approach. Yet it has scared voters away who feel that international ‘partnerships’ with Iran or North Korea are a naïve approach and will decrease our American power edge. If voters cannot feel secure under the potentially most secure plan, because they are not convinced by an evidence based approach, it will never be put into action.

We must be more humble in admitting what we do not yet know, but not allow the unknown to paralyze us into apathy or inaction.

In my experience, I see that UNAIDS produces annual Reports describing the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, and everyone from international institutions to think tanks to NGOs and individuals, use this data as truth and fact, as the variables in their regressions, as the basis of analysis. Yet the dataset is frustratingly incomplete - both due to a failure of certain governments to conduct surveys and collect data, and a failure of the UN and US to pressure nationals to do so. For most of the Middle East region, the UN has zero data on the pandemic, though reports from the ground indicate a growing problem, for example, with drug users in Afghanistan. 

There are also changing methodologies - most recently the UN adopted a new method of calculating AIDS mortality and prevalence and published an 'updated' dataset for 2007. As a researcher I struggle - is my work of value now that the 2007 data was determined under different terms than the 1999 – 2005 data? How must I adjust? What if the “authority” on the data has not yet corrected all past data for the new methodology? Will my results mean anything?

Such worries do not mean that we should halt all HIV/AIDS research until the best data becomes available. Rater, on HIV/AIDS or security or various foreign policy issues, we must be specific about what we do and do not know, and invest in truly independent organizations who collect data and suggest policy changes based not on a political affiliation or recruitment of votes, but rather on pure interest in the topic at hand and a desire to effectively fill the data deficit!

Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy

What’s the difference between Sarah Palin and a foreign policy student?

Passports (and probably lipstick as well).  Ok, so Governor Palin has a passport now, but I’m guessing most posters to this blog posed for a passport picture far before our 40th birthdays. It’s been said we’ve entered into the “silly season” of this campaign, and while I’m happy to ignore tabloid quality pregnancy buzz, it is pretty serious business to me if the possible United States Commander in Chief  has the experience to navigate our nation in these complicated times.

I’ve tried to keep an open mind about all of this, but watching Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson did not leave me feeling optimistic. As she fumbled over her views of the Bush Doctrine and touted her view of Russia from Alaska, I was struck by the unbelievable hubris she displayed, despite her claims otherwise. Granted, any person who puts themselves in the presidential arena must possess a certain amount of confidence, but Palin’s naive confidence in an area of such complicated importance is frightening.  As the next few months of interviews and debates unfold, let’s hope that voters can look beyond the gossip and rumors to the substance, or lack thereof, beneath.

A preview of Obama's Foreign Policy...Under GWBush?

Two recent pieces, one in a recent issue of Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria (What Bush Got Right) and Dan Eggen's piece in today's Washington Post , Bush's Overseas Policies Begin Resembling Obama's, offer a view that Bush's second term has been marked by a noticeable shift towards a more realist approach to foreign policy, and away from the more neoconservative approach and tone that characterized the first term. The upshot is that an Obama presidency would not represent as marked a shift in actual policies from the present (although presumably the tone, and certain the international reception, would likely vary) and McCain represents more of a return to Bush Term 1 than an actual continuation of current Bush policy. Thoughts?