Power & Super Power: Live-Blog I Posted by Michael Signer

I'm sitting now in the super-fancy conference room of the Jumeirah Essex House, a recently renamed hotel on Central Park South in NYC, where the Security Peace Institute is holding a conference called "Power & Super Power: Global Leadership in the 21st Century." The conference, John Podesta just told us, aims to assay the state of progressives on security at a time of widespread recognition of the disasters of the neoconservative experiment.

Madeline Albright is the keynote speaker, and she just started speaking. Her topic is globalization and its attendant risks. She outlines seven principles to guide American foreign policy going forward.

First, we have to be smarter. "Seemingly transparent situations can have devilishly complicated roots." She's arguing that our leaders need both unilateral and multilateral options.

Her second principle: "At times, force will be the only and best option, and not just as a last resort." But it's a "blunt instrument, and there are many problems it cannot solve."

Her third principle: we have to blend realism and idealism. She sees herself as a practical idealist, or an idealistic pragmatist. What'st eh difference?

Fourth, world affairs has ceased to be a zero-sum game.

Fifth, our leaders must take into account the role religion plays in the world. In fighting terror, we need to call on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.

Sixth, we must persist in our support for democracy. She's worried that a new conventional wisdom will emerge that Islamic states aren't ready for democracy, which will in turn leave us nowhere to turn but dictatorships. We need to be steadfast in working out democracy, while "keeping a rein on our expectations." We need to basically just accept that Arab democracies will do much we don't agree wtih. If Arab democracy develops, it will be to advance Arab interests based on an Arab view of history. And it won't lead to loving policies toward Israel.

Finally, there is a growing list of countries who are generally skeptical of international law and universal human rights regimes, including China, Russia, North Korea, and Sudan. America cannot be hostile toward international norms -- it's directly contrary to two centuries of American history and our interests. The US didn't even run for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council recently, which was applauded by dictators worldwide. "The result will be a world governed not by international law, but by no law at all."

She wants to "issue a clarion call for militant moderation." She wants "moderation with a swagger," and recalls Harry Truman as an example. His decisiveness and wisdom were based on confidence and ambition. Most importantly (in my view), America was exceptional because it was determined to create a world where rules had real meaning.

In response to a question about whether Harry Truman is a good parallel -- because he was operating in a time of greater moderation and great bipartisanship -- Albright says that we need to find issues where the left and the right can work together. She recently chaired a conference on international issues with Senator Sam Brownback, for instance, and believes that both sides can find more common ground than we think.

Comments

[TruthandConsequences]

We need to wake up to the fact that at this rate humanity is committing slow suicide. If most of our shorelines (and civilization) are underwater in 2100, none of this geopolitik will matter. We need to form a global compact soon to reverse the damage we are wreaking to our atmosphere or we risk anarchy and chaos on a scale no technology can help.

[jenny]

Can I share some resources with you?