Iraq: Worse than Vietnam? Posted by Michael Signer

News was made at the Security and Peace Institute conference that Suzanne, Lorelei, Heather, Mort, and I all attended earlier this week in NYC when Mark Malloch Brown pleaded for more U.S. attention to the United Nations, and John Bolton fired a rhetorical bunker-buster at the speech.  Lorelei wrote about Brown's speech here, and Suzanne wrote about Bolton's response here and Brown's speech here.

As stunning and surprising as this kerfuffle was, I have to say that, reflecting on the conference over the last several days, I have come away with a different primary memory, one that was just as haunting as Bolton's weird rage:  former Clinton U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's dark statement that Iraq is "worse than Vietnam."

When Making Falafel Gets You Killed Posted by Shadi Hamid

Apparently, Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq are trying to ban…you guessed it - falafel. I wish I was joking. Not only that, but falafel vendors have been killed for refusing to stop….selling falafels. When some friends and I first took a look at the article, we thought it was a clever piece of satire, then we realized that it was actually true. Even by Middle Eastern standards, this is a new low for extremists.

Several vendors of the popular deep-fried chickpea sandwich were told they had just two weeks to change their profession or face death. And indeed, several vendors where shot and killed simply for selling falafel sandwiches. The logic offered by the religious zealots - if there is any - in imposing this inane diktat on the people is that there were no falafels in the time of the Prophet Mohammed.

According to the fundamentalists’ religious logic, you’d have to ban pizza, cheeseburgers, and cappuccinos too, not to mention cars, the internet, CDs, electricity, and...well...ice. They're working on that too, it seems.

Another group of traders to have felt the Islamists' wrath is Baghdad's ice merchants, who sell large chunks of ice for storing food and chilling drinks...

Then there's this:

"Two weeks ago, he came back home saying that he had been threatened by the terrorists," said his brother Gassan, 32. "My mother begged him to quit the job, but he laughed. He thought it was impossible they would kill him. But they came back two days later and shot him dead, along with three other ice sellers nearby."

Speaking Truth to (super)Power Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Given John Bolton's purple-faced comments about Malloch Brown's podium rumpus at the Power and Superpower conference (see Suzanne's post below) you'd almost think that Malloch Brown said something really offensive--like the organization was so worthless that it could  lose 10 stories and nobody would notice! 

Bolton's threatening response are the words of a bully. He's like those kids in junior high who would steal your lunch money--and still beat you up. At least where I went to junior high (in Farmington, New Mexico) the shocking behavior got old, the fear got tiresome and underneath the smiles and cafeteria banter, everyone loathed the bullies, suspected every motive and tried hard not to be assigned to their homework team.

Brown was just pointing out the obvious political angle (something that very few of the SPI conference speakers did, unfortunately) That our self-centeredness over the past five years has cost us lots of political capital with our friends and handed us years of damage control with our challengers.  It appears that we not only need better intelligence from our national security agencies, we need more emotional intelligence from our political appointees.  Re-cap on Emotional Intelligence: Relationships are vital for life achievement. Understanding and relating well with others is often more important than run of the mill smarts because self-awareness and the ability to build lasting meaningful relationships are fundamental keys to success.  All the public diplomacy gimmicks and flackery in the world will never overcome this basic fact. 

The administration's squandered political capital is splattered all over the place these days.

Bolton Goes Ballistic Over UN Official's Remarks Posted by Suzanne Nossel

As a jaded ex-officer of the US Mission to the UN, I found (in my live blogging of the speech, made at a conference held yesterday by Democracy Arsenal's sponsor, the Security and Peace Institute, can be found here) the comments made by Deputy UN Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown to be a bit blunt, a bit one-sided, but largely reflective of the attitude that the UN and most of its membership have toward the US these days, and thus not shocking in the least.  His viewpoint, in some key respects, dovetailed with the critique that progressives make of this Administration's failure to use the UN effectively to advance American policy goals.

But to both the New York Times and, far more so, to US Amb to the UN John Bolton, the comments were far different:  unprecedented in their harshness toward a UN member state.  Here's what Bolton had to say on the matter today:                                                                  
                                                                        
Ambassador John R. Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Remarks at the Security Council Stakeout                                       
New York City                                                                  
June 7, 2006                                                                  
                                                                        
REPORTER: Ambassador, could I get a few comments about, especially about Mr.   
Brown's comments about my station?                                             
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, on that speech, this is a very, very grave mistake by
the Deputy Secretary General. We are in the process of an enormous effort to   
achieve substantial reform at the United Nations. And it's a difficult effort,
but it's an effort that we feel very strongly about. And to have the Deputy   
Secretary General criticize the United States in such a manner, can only do   
grave harm to the United Nations. Even though the target of the speech was the
United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations. And even worse 
was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people. That    
fundamentally and very sadly, this was a criticism of the American people, not
the American government, by an international civil servant, it's just         
illegitimate. So we've thought about this a good deal and we didn't respond to
it yesterday evening when we got a copy of the speech. But what we think the   
only way at this point to mitigate the damage to the United Nations is that the
Secretary General Kofi Annan, we think has to personally and publicly repudiate
this speech at the earliest possible opportunity. Because otherwise I fear the
consequences, not just for the reform effort, but for the organization as a   
whole. I spoke to the Secretary General this morning. I said I've known you   
since 1989, and I'm telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior UN      
official that I have seen in that entire time. That's why the only hope I think
is that the Secretary General comes to the rescue of the organization and      
repudiates the speech.                                                         
                                                                        
REPORTER: Did you also call for Mr. Brown's resignation?                      
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I've said what I have to say on that subject for now.      
                                                                        
REPORTER: What do you mean, "come to the rescue? What could the United States 
do next if he does not repudiate the speech?                                  
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I am concerned at this point at the very wounding effect   
that this criticism of the United States will have in our efforts to achieve   
reform. And this isn't the first time the Deputy Secretary General has done   
this recently. He gave an interview a few weeks ago that criticized the United
States and the other major contributors. This is very serious. This is very   
serious.                                                                      
                                                                        
REPORTER: What was Mr. Annan's reaction to your suggestion that he repudiate   
the speech?                                                                   
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I'll leave him to speak. Hopefully he would address this by
the noon briefing. If it's his opinion that he supports what the Deputy       
Secretary General said, I hope it's not, but if it is then he should say so   
forthrightly. My hope is that he looks at the potential adverse effect that   
these intemperate remarks would have on the organization and repudiate it. I   
think that would be the cleanest, safest thing for the organization.          
                                                                        
REPORTER: What's the response been in Washington to this? Has there been any, 
Capitol Hill and in the White House?                                          
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: In the time since the speech was given I've heard a lot that
disturbs me and it's one reason that I called the Secretary General this      
morning and believe that the only way to mitigate the damage is to repudiate   
the speech.                                                                   
                                                                        
REPORTER: To what extent to you take some of these comments personally in terms
of what he seems to be implying by the style you bring to this, or create      
suspicion ?                                                                   
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I don't take any of it personally.                         
                                                                        
REPORTER: This could be interpreted by some in this institution as a US attempt
to silence its critics. How would you address that criticism?                  
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: The organization is an organization of member governments. 
The Secretariat works for the member governments. So that when a member of the
Secretariat criticizes a member government, and as I said, criticizes the      
intelligence of the people of a member government, that's a very questionable 
activity. I think it's important to rescue the reform effort, to rescue the   
institution that Secretary General needs to make it clear that these remarks   
did not represent his opinion about the United States. Okay. Thank you very   
much. 

Annan refused Bolton's demand that he repudiate Malloch Brown's remarks.  Here's what I make of the thing:

- It's true that Malloch Brown's comments may have been close to the line for an international civil servant, though I don't think there should be a ban on UN officials speaking difficult truths to Member States.  Malloch Brown was not focused on insulting America or Americans, but on begging for more US engagement and involvement to make the UN work.

- Calling the remarks the "worst mistake by a senior UN official" since 1989 is an insult to the memory many thousands who died in Rwanda and Bosnia due to far more serious mistakes by UN officials.      

- Bolton's fit of fury will likely only call attention to the substance of Malloch Brown's remarks (excerpted here) about how isolated and mistrusted the US now is at the UN, and how ineffective the Bush Administration's policies have been.  UN-bashers will blame the messenger, but the American people are more sophisticated than that.  They  will understand readily how his message ties into the problems they are witnessing daily as a result of our unilateralist and misguided foreign policy.                                             

                                     

British Muslims Want Islamic Law...in Britain (but at least their women are attractive) Posted by Shadi Hamid

I must say I'm a bit troubled by this poll which indicates, among other things, that 40% of British Muslims want Islamic law to be implemented in….ummm….Britain. This particular survey is a few months old but as relevant as ever in light of heightening tensions in Europe over Muslim immigrants. This is bad news. More troubling is the fact that 20% of respondents sympathize with the “feelings and motives” of the terrorists who killed 52 of their countrymen on July 7, 2006. I guess the positive part is that 99% thought the 7/7 attacks were “wrong.” What a relief. Isn’t it strange that we’ve reached the point where “good news” is when Muslims agree that slaughtering people in cold blood is wrong? The moral compass of British Muslims, one suspects, is not in the best of shape. It may even be upside down (or was it knocked over?). 

At least the Blair government is responding constructively, reaching out to the Muslim community, strengthening moderate voices, and encouraging Muslims to play a greater role in mainstream political life. (Then you have the French way of dealing with minorities which is, shall we say, a bit less post-enlightenment). 

The Brits certainly have their work cut out for them in a country where so despicable a personage as Yvonne Ridley is relatively mainstream and even popular among Muslims. You may recall that this is the same woman who was captured by the Taliban in 2001 and then suffered from a rather acute case of Stockholm Syndrome. Once a journalist for the Sunday Express, she is currently Britain’s resident terror apologist. Yes, in case you didn't know, she hates her country. Not surprisingly, she has allied herself with the infamous George Galloway, who Hitchens thankfully dispensed with several months ago. In common, Ridley/Galloway have an irritating way with words. Ridley’s prose style is a study in colloquialism, coarseness, and self-caricature. Not only does she openly sympathize with terrorist attacks against innocents but has managed to write the the closest thing I've ever seen to a pro-Zarqawi missive.

Enough of Yvonne Ridley. I now turn my attention to someone more worthy of attention - Miss England 2005. Her name is Hammasa Kohistani (she is ravishing, by the way). As a Muslim and as someone who fled the Taliban regime when she was a young girl, her victory holds special significance for those working for integration. Britain is quite unique in this regard - there are some British Muslims who are quite well-assimilated (there are Muslims in the House of Commons and the House of Lords) but then are those (and their numbers seem to be growing) who appear intent on recreating a mythical Islamic state in Liverpool, where, God knows, they'd probably ban the Beatles. Now that would be blasphemy.

A Question for Readers - quick replies please! Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Joseph Cirincione - up on the podium - wants to know your view:  Have North Korea and Iran made more progress on the development of their nuclear programs over the last six years, or during the period prior to 2001?  In other words, have US policies during the Bush Administration set back or fostered the momentum of nuclear proliferation?

Please give us your views!

Proliferation Panel Posted by Suzanne Nossel

A proliferation panel is underway.  The Egyptian Ambassador to the UN is arguing that you cannot solve the Iranian nuclear problem without solving the Israeli nuclear problem.  He's also pointing out the problem of the Administration's nuclear deal with India.

Joseph Cirincione, CAP's new head of National Security is up next.  He's a passionate and forceful speaker.  He's lambasting the fact that we're neglecting the nuclear threat and blames the breakdown of threat-assessment and the shameful blaming of the Iraq fiasco on intelligence analysts.

He argues that Iran is a serious threat, yet not our most serious threat, which is Iraq.  He thinks North Korea, which already has enough nuclear material to make weapons, is a more proximate theat, and that Pakistan may be next on the list, but barely even makes the Administration's threat matrix because there's no political constituency driving it.

He urges abandoning the phrase Weapons of Mass Destruction.  I agree - chem, bio and nuclear weapons require totally different responses, and the term WMD confuses them.  He supports the Ambassador on a nuclear-free Middle East.  The NPT is on the verge of collapse because of this Administration.  But he's confident all this can be turned around.  We have programs that work:  we've already secured more than 50% of the loose nukes in the fmr Soviet Union.

More on Malloch Brown Posted by Suzanne Nossel

So I asked him whether any US candidate or policy-maker could advocate unequivocal support for the UN, given that the tensions at the organization are so fundamental.  The impasses with the G77 come not just because of pique against the Bush Administration's policies, but because the UN is the primary forum where a very fundamental tension between the superpower and all the others gets played out.  This was also true during the Clinton years.

His response was essentially that all he's asking is a return to Clinton-era policies - a better relationship but not necessarily a great one.  If so, take-it-or-leave-it demands, periodic sidestepping of the UN, sporadic non-payment of dues, conditionality etc. may all be part of the package.   So his expectations are not as high - or unrealistic - as it originally sounded.

The US and the UN - Mark Malloch Brown Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Mark Malloch Brown is sometimes mentioned as a dark horse candidate to succeed in Annan in the event that all else fails and there's no consensus on an Asian candidate.  He's speaking now.  He's said he's gonna talk about the grievous consequences of America's failure to properly engage with the UN.  But he's preaching to the choir here.

He calls Annan the UN's best SYG ever, but its his boss.   He's saying that the UN's ability to carry out critical functions is being undermined by the lack of US leadership, using the human rights council as an example.  I'm gonna move my seat in the hope of challenging him with a question when he's done.  This is all true, but beside the point.  Yes, we need to figure out how to rebuild a consensus around the UN, but that process will require addressing some of the organizations' limitations.

He argues that the UN's role is a secret in middle America because of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's disinformation campaigns.  That's true, but its been true for years despite efforts by organizations like the UN Foundation and UN Association to address the ignorance and publicize the UN's important contributions.  What we need is creative and new ideas for how to turn this around, not more ranting about why American perceptions of the UN aren't what they should be.

He's acknowledging that the Group of 77 developing countries have opposed vital reforms to, for example, give the SYG the authority to properly manage the UN, for example by being able to hire and fire and shift around posts to meet priorities.  I hope he doesn't attribute their recalcitrance wholly to resentment toward the U.S. . . . yup, he just did.  He argues they oppose reasonable proposals just because we back them.  But there's more to it.  Those obsolete posts are filled by country-nationals who often have their home missions in thrall.

He's calling for no more take-it-or-leave-it demands by the US.  Yet often take-it-or-leave-it is all that works.  It was Holbrooke's approach to getting an agreement on US dues to the UN paid.

The Use of Force Panel Posted by Suzanne Nossel

This should be where the rubber meets the road.  Richard Holbrooke, Joschka Fischer, Michele Flournoy and Larry Korb are on the podium, a panel chaired by John Ruggie.  So far we've had a case for "strategic redeployment" out of Iraq from Larry Korb, and a critique of the Bush Admin's definition of preemptive war by Michele Flournoy. 

Ruggie asks Holbrooke what the next President ought to do on Iraq, assuming he's handed the problem as Bush seems to intend:   

Holbrooke highlights Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan as a collective morass in which our position is deteriorating in every individual country.  Says we unaccountably outsourced our Iran policy for five years to other countries, rather than talking directly.  Last week's half-measure deserves very light applause.  Afghanistan is a deteriorating disaster - the Administration says he's too pessimistic but based on his trips there there's no basis for optimism.

He and our own Mort Halperin now agree that Iraq is worse than Vietnam both in its consequences and the policy challenge posed by the need to extricate.  Neither thought they would ever say that about any foreign policy quandary.  It's astonishing that with 1000 days left Bush is already saying he plans to hand this to his successor - its a guaranteed 2000+ more casualties.  Plus our international standing will only continue to wane.

Administration's dilemma is whether to draw down troops for political reasons or increase troops for strategic reasons.  Says Haditha reflects a climate of permissiveness throughout the power structure - the marines there don't know the name Alberto Gonzalez but got the message.  He deeply regrets giving the Admin qualified support on Iraq.  The most prescient statement on Iraq was Al Gore's speech in 2002 at the Commonwealth Club in San Fran.  Well worth a re-read.

If Bush buck-passes as is his stated intent, it now looks like the 2008 election may be a referendum on Iraq.  In office, a new president will have to end the war to have a hope of reelection in 2012.

So what to do??  Many good ideas have been put forward.  Korb's Strategic Redeployment.  Gelb and Biden's Partition Plan.  Talk of a regional forum or internationalizing the conflict are just rhetoric.  We need to talk about things we can do, not what we dream others could or should do.  (He didn't say this, but this is the import and I agree).

We need to get rid of Rumsfeld, as when McNamara was replaced by Clark Clifford to start to turn the tide.

Fischer's up.  America is indispensible.  He says it not because he wants it to be so, but having witnessed it.  If we give up our traditional role in the world, it will be a disaster.  We all but invented international law, international organizations.  He cannot imagine a peaceful world without these instruments - - this is the most rousing defense of American exceptionalism to be sounded this morning.  But its being made by a foreigner.

Asking permission to momentarily defend the neocons, he does think we need to work to modernize the Middle East and tackle the structures that stand in the way of that.  That said, the place to start was not Iraq (Palestine would be my guess).

Power and Superpower: For Those Keeping Score Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Later addition:  Holbrooke made an even more relevant point of realism, that talking about the Arab League, training Iraqis and international conferences on their own are "just rhetoric.  it's not gonna happen"  -- in the context of suggesting we have to think seriously about either CAP's strategic redeployment plan or the Biden-Gelb soft partition plan.

Richard Holbrooke just said that he "regrets having given the Administration my qualified support" by supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein.  I hadn't seen him say so, but perhaps h has and I missed it.

Power and Superpower: The Leach Critique Posted by Heather Hurlburt

So I'll take an opposite view from Suzanne -- Leach said quite a few things that many Democrats, and nearly all Republicans, are either afraid to say or not thinking hard enough about.  A sampling:

North Korea  a  call for direct talks that would lead to a peace deal and the opening of liaison offices.

Iran  a critique of our long-term unwillingness to engage with Iran, and the implication that our choices were partially responsible for replacing Khatemi with Ahmedinajad -- "is that effective?"  Also the point that Iran can obtain a nuclear weapons "under almost any circumstances" whether we bomb or not.

Cuba  a little side excursion from Iran to call our Cuba policy "the least effective foreign policy in US history."

Priorities  "is the greatest issue we face not one of war and peace but disease control?"

What is reality?  when a Republican member of Congress makes you feel as if you're engaging in a chemically-assisted late night discussion, you know something interesting is happening.  Leach's point was that "no one has questioned whether [neo-cons'] realism is unrealistic and deeply un-American."  (Of course, plenty of people have, but they aren't Republicans...)

Nb.  I haven't included Iraq only because I have seen Leach's call for withdrawal before.

Leach Redux Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Everyone's now saying Leach's speech was actually full of surprises.  I think its still all in the R-factor (see below), but maybe I'm too jaded and have heard it all too many times.  He did say our Cuba policy was a flat-out disaster, which is indeed not nothing.

Jim Leach's Up Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Congressman Jim Leach (R-Iowa) is up now.  There are not many Republicans who would come to address a gathering like this one.  He's talking about action and reaction - when we talk about crusades, axes of evil and shock and awe should we not expect others to react commensurately. 

He's making the pt that you cannot understand events without looking at them through many different eyes (this insight was the premise of my husband's book, Nixon's Shadow, which looked at Nixon through the eyes of various groups - the press, his Orange County base, historians, etc.). 

Now he's onto the nub issue:  whither American exceptionalism post-Bush?  Oops, he just called that a digression but I sure hope he digresses back to it.

He's calling for a visit by a Presidential Envoy to N. Korea - the message should be an approach designed to elicit a negotiating commitment to achieve a peace treaty and an attitudinal change.  A peace conference would be convened, followed by a resumption of the 6-party talks.  As the strong party, he's saying we need to be generous in dealing with lesser power.  We need to loosen preconditions, including for Iran in that our current position requires complete capitulation as a precondition for opening talks.

He says Washington is underestimating the following WRT Iran:  1) Hizbollah which is more powerful/effective than al Qaeda; 2) The fact that a military strike would not necessarily block them from gaining a nuclear weapon, either by creating, stealing or buying it.

Now he's onto the War Powers Act (I am not sure I quite see the unifying thread here, other than a string of critiques of Administration policy).  He's saying there's a theory of the War Powers Act that expands rather than constrains (through Congressional oversight) executive power, in that the President can act before the deadline for a Congressional resolution.  He's saying the Iranians ought bear this in mind (OK, there is a thread).  He's pointing out that just 1 person makes decisions that affect everyone (nothing new here).

Now Iraq.  He's asking why we've remained now that Iraq has a democracy?  Yet if we argue for leaving, the Admin will say we've forced them out.  He's asking what if there's a tipping pt where our troop presence becomes destabilizing, and that maybe we've passed it.  Can't we use their democracy as grounds to get out.  This kinda smacks of decent interval, in that an Iraq incapable of appointing an Interior or Security Minister won't hold together for long.  "But its a democracy right now!" we would proclaim and hightail out of there.  Not much of a figleaf.  Doubt it works politically.  Maybe better own up to the idea that, if we believe it, our presence is no longer helping.

Now global health.  The usual mantra about how we neglect it and issues like AIDS warrant greater priority.

Realism - meaning unilateralism - is unrealistic and unAmerican.  Uh huh.

Many fine points, but the most notable thing here remains the "R" in Jim Leach R-Iowa.  And even that's less surprising than it would have been a couple of years ago.

Actual Strength -- Live-Blogging III Posted by Michael Signer

Ted Sorensen gets up to introduce Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, and while Sorensen is physically shaky and a little slow to get up on the podium, his mind and speech are as sharp and steady as the podium itself. A couple of select lines from a short intro that has the audience rolling in the aisles.

"Don't worry about my vision -- I've got more than the President of the United States."

"There are more formers here than on a Jack Abramoff witness list."

And then Sorensen moves into a quieter, more contemplative section, talking about the need for insurgent, liberal, independent Republicans along the lines of John Norris of Nebraska (outlined by JFK in Profiles of Courage), and presented today by Leach -- who Sorensen says is basically the only example of a liberal Republican left in the House.

Power and Super-Power: Globalization: What Would You Do? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Four interesting answers to the question of what policy change the panelists would institute were they in charge:

Bob Kuttner:  institute controls on global capital and broaden our int'l trade organizations to consider social issues as well.

Lael Brainard:  Change domestically.  Make our workforce secure and prepared to manage a world in which the global workforce grows 70 percent, with the vast majority of those folks earning astonishingly low wages.  Only then can we manage any kind of global leadership on these issues. 

Kemal Devis:  We need a high-level leadership forum that functions better and has broader global legitimacy than the G-8 -- need a forum that brings in some large and small developing countries but can still make decisions.

Carol Browner:  Start a domestic initiative to fight climate change -- including mandatory targets and a trading regime -- and then use that success and legitimacy to regain the international role we began when our scientists brought global warming to the world's attention.

Whatever you think of these ideas, they'll give you something to chew on for a bit -- while we listen to Jim Leach.

Economics, Trade, and Leadership -- Live-Blogging II Posted by Michael Signer

Highlights from a heavy-hitting panel titled, "Prosperity and the Global Economy: Rules and Caveats in Trade and Aid," moderated by Dan Tarullo, a professor at Georgetown and a Senior Fellow at CAP.

The Environment Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Carol Browner's up.  I have to say I've been thinking a lot more about the environment since seeing Gore's movie about a week ago.  We've actually re-started recycling at home after some lapsed time.   If you haven't seen it yet, do.

She's saying the way to restart our environmental policy is to start a serious program at home on emissions in particular.  States and cities are starting to act.  She's saying this will drive the business community nuts because standards will differ across the country and they will ultimately demand a national standard.  This comes before trying for an international Kyoto II.  We won't have credibility until we take serious steps at home. 

I completely agree with this - - I think a key question (on which I have a forthcoming article) is how we create a foundation for legitimacy to enable us to meet all sorts of goals like strengthening multilateral forums, non-pro regimes, etc.

Kemal Dervis on the podium Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Last night at dinner a group of foundation people and journalists were saying Dervis could emerge as a potential successor to Kofi Annan as UN Secretary General (SYG).  As he speaks, let's see if he meets these criteria.

He's pointing out that a lot of development aid is directed with military or political purposes - rather than true developmental goals - in mind, and then judged to be a failure.  If you correct for this and look only at aid channeled with development objectives in mind, the results look much more positive.  There's a paper by Nancy Birdsall and Stewart Patrick on this topic posted at www.securitypeace.org that is worth checking out.

Seventy-percent of US aid is "tied" whereas other donors have moved much more quickly to untied aid, which is demonstrated to be more effective.  Eighty percent of people now live in countries where income inequality is rising (US and China top the list). 

He thinks there may be another opportunity to revive multilateralism on development because the limits of the unilateral approach are being exposed.  The US HAS to be the leader, he says (this bodes well along one of my criteria).  He acknowledges that as a superpower under some conditions we will have to behave differently (an important acknowledgement for a potential SYG).

He references the need for the US to "submit" its disputes to international institutions, quoting JFK on the word "submits."  We set up the rules-based system and must abide by it.

We have tiny states with the legal right of soveriegnty.  It's good to hear him acknowledge it, because it is problematic in forums like the UN for a Nauru and Kiribati to share the same rights as a US, India or China.  He's talking about weighted voting -- this may kill his prospects at the UN.  He's saying that consensus-based rules are a recipe for paralysis and you need some kind of weighted voting to make progress.  This will be anathema to much of the developing world, mostly small and powerless countries that love the UN for the very fact that, in the General Assembly, it treats them as formally equal to the great powers.

The next SYG?  I dunno.  He's articulate, thoughtful, passionate, evinces some understanding and sympathy toward the US position and is not afraid to challenge some orthodoxies. 

The Emperor Has No Clothes Award Posted by Heather Hurlburt

goes to Lael Brainard, global economic policy whiz at Brookings.  I've always thought Lael was one of the most impressive people in Washington, and she just came out and put something so wonderfully bluntly:

Let's admit that competitive liberalization has failed.  APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) is basically dead, the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) is not doing so well, Doha is on life-support.

What this means for you non-trade wonks is that we've given up on the idea that we can be an engine for trade moving forward regionally all over the world -- and have moved to a bilateral modeel of moving trade forward only as and when it suits us.  Sound like other areas of policy?

Economics - Live Blogging Posted by Suzanne Nossel

  Lael Brainard argues that the Bush Admin is as unilateralist on trade as on everything else.  She's pointing out that while we've concluded a slew of bilateral trade agreements - Chile, Jordan, Singapore, etc. the multilateral initiatives - FTAA, DOHA, etc. are in tatters.  She says the temptation of the bilats is that we can pretty much get our way - if a Malaysia or Thailand won't play ball, they go to the back of the queue.  So its a kind of exceptionalism at work.

She's saying its unprecedented for a global hegemon to be a borrower to the degree we now are.   She pts out that much of what we've done in the development arena is also unilateralist - the creation of the Millennium Challenge Account was timed to win support for the Iraq invasion.

Tarullo is making the point that we have greater potential to include provisions like human rights, environmental and labor standards in bilateral agreements than in multilateral and - to Kuttner's point below - they have an advantage from that perspective.  She points out that we haven't tended to use our leverage to get human rights and labor standards so much as to cater to narrow corporate interests, like those of the pharma cos.

Power and Superpower: The Global Market is Outrunning the Nation-State Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I'm listening to a range of folks comment on the dilemmas of globalization -- kudos to CAP/SPI for putting as varied a group as trade whiz Dan Tarullo, economist Lael Brainard, left commentator Bob Kuttner, UNDP Secretary-General Kemal Devis and former head of EPA Carol Browner on the same panel.  That's the kind of breadth that progressives need to be bringing to discussions of globalization, and too often don't -- it's either trade wonks, or anti-trade activists, or enviros, or development experts...

But in fact the global market is hardly the only thing that has outrun the nation-state.  Military power has outrun the nation-state (see under:  terrorism).  Control of information has outrun the nation-state.  humanitarianism has outrun the nation-state.  Disease has outrun the nation-state.  Heck, nationalism has outrun the nation-state.

This is what's fundamentally wrong with the neo-cons' idea of how our super-power state can run the world.  But what is the model for thinking about this new world without surrendering either to something very Hobbesian OR goo-goo sounding world government?

Economic Policy on the Podium - Live Blogging Posted by Suzanne Nossel

OK, I'm now a little sheepish to discover that we don't have an economics topic heading created for this blog, but c'est la vie.  The first panel of the day is on economic policy.  Line up is former EPA commissioner Carol Browner, American Prospect founder Bob Kuttner, rising think tank/government star Lael Brainerd and UNDP head Kemal Dervis.  Moderator is Dan Tarullo of Georgetown and the Center for American Progress.

Kuttner is making the pt that the US is multilateral on trade, even when not so on so many other matters.  He makes the point that this serves the interest of elites.  The Bretton Woods process was not just intended to restart the global economy after WWII but also to construct an international system that would facilitate a mixed economy at home so that private capital would not push lowest common denominator tax, wage and regulatory policies.  The US delegated soveriegnty to GATT because we controlled it and it served our goals.

Now he says the principles underpinning the world trade system are actually working to undermine the mixed economy.  Before 1973 the distribution of global income was becoming more equal.  Now all labor/environmental/regulatory/debt relief protections are portrayed as distortions of trade when they are in fact designed to preserve diversified domestic economies.   People who try to raise this are disparaged as protectionists or shills for the oil companies.  When people say that the global market has outrun the nation-state, most people say this approvingly but they shouldn't because the nation state is the locus of democracy and global stability.

He says the next global financial crisis will be the hedge funds (I've thought this for a while - - nothing goes on forever).

This is an interesting point, and - to me - a new way of putting the ciritique of unbridled free trade.

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.

SPI Conference Live Blogging Posted by Suzanne Nossel

  I'm sitting in a packed room at the Essex House in Manhattan with several hundred former government officials, think tank leaders, policy wonks, academics, activists, money people and journalists gathered for a day of speeches, panels and conversation on a host of key foreign policy topics hosted by the Security and Peace Initiative.  The program is published here.  It's taken a few minutes to get online, so I won't give justice to the speech by Madeleine Albright underway right now.  But the energy in the room is palpable and I'll try to give you a flavor of the Q&A. 

Albright's saying its none to early to plan for how the next Administration will try to clean up the mess - restoring a balance so America is seen as neither timid or arrogant, but competent.  We should be neither isolationist nor imperial, but in the moderate mainstream.   She doesn't care if people think this sounds dull:  she wants militant moderation and moderation with swagger.  Truman is her example.  No permission slip and get garnered world support.

But is this a mantra the American people can get behind?  People can understand the need to return to moderation, but will it inspire them and does it need to?

First question is about religion.  She says we cannot and will not change the relationship between religion and state in Muslim societies and shouldn't try -- but should encourage their trying if they are so inclined.

Second question is whether the climate is ripe for moderation - we're more polarized today than in Truman's era so is this realistic domestically?

Foreign Policy Frameworks are Bustin' Out All Over? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

A thousand flowers are officially blooming in the world of progressive visions of world affairs.  Peter Beinart's book is out, and his book-touring is in full swing; PPI's With All Our Might is still getting write-ups.  (Sorry no links; I am writing from dial-up land chez the in-laws.)  Wes Clark appears at the Daily Kos progressive web activist conference in Las Vegas; and John Kerry, Madeleine Albright, Dick Holbrooke and others sound off at the CAP/SPI annual conference in New York tomorrow.

Several of us will be posting from/about the SPI event; but I've been doing a little pre-conference thinking about what I'd like to hear.  My top five are below:

1.  A bigger vision for fixing the Middle East mess.  Enough of dates for Iraq pullouts; what would you do afterwards; what are America's larger aspirations and challenges in the region over the next few years, and what would you do about it?  How do the wretched little pieces fit together?

2.  A global energy policy.  Easy to say, harder to conceptualize.  But now that everyone has sounded off on the domestic side of energy, let's start talking about the connecting pieces.  The Middle East first, but what if anything can be done to stabilize Nigeria?  To calm the waters in Latin America?  To come to terms with Russia's kleptocratic brand of oil capitalism?  What about demand-side partnerships with China, India and Europe?  And what's a smart way to put ourselves back in front on global warming issues?

3.  Democracy.  Again, progressive wonks like us love to wring our hands about "reclaiming" democracy-promotion.  I'm watching to see how that's done.

4.  Globalization and trade.  Not to get on my Rust Belt hobbyhorse, but regular folks see the world through this prism as much as any other.  And we as a foreign policy establishment do tend to ignore it.

5.  Terrorism.  How do we conceptualize the challenge for people?  And what are we going to do about it?

Additions/subtractions/corrections and weeklong commentary to follow...

 

When Democracy and Liberalism Collide Posted by Shadi Hamid

We are liberals. As such, one presumes that we believe in not just democracy, but democracy of a distinctly liberal nature. Democracy, without liberalism, can lead to “mass praetorianism,” rule by decree, and a kind cynically constructed populism. One presumes that these are not good things and, for those Americans that were not sure, the last five years offer a rather fascinating window into democracy’s fragility once its liberal safeguards begin to erode, first slowly then with greater intensity. The fact that America has resisted the careful onslaught of the republican-dominated legislative, executive, and judicial branches is a testament to the strength of our founding institutions, their durability, and their unmistakable ability to adapt, however haltingly, to the most urgent of challenges.

Our preference for liberal democracy, however, is not one without inconsistency. It is often assumed that promoting democracy abroad is in keeping with our founding ideals. It of course is, but it is less tidy than it might otherwise appear. In the context of the Middle East, more democracy leads to less liberalism. In societies where the electorate is illiberal, their illiberalism will be reflected in the kind of leaders they elect. Not only that, these leaders will invariably be more “populist” and anti-American than the “pro-US” dictators which preceded them. This makes sense – democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the majority.

The rising levels of anti-Americanism, thus, complicate our efforts to promote democracy in the Arab world. The more anti-Americanism there is, the more promoting democracy abroad will bring to power people who don’t like us too much (i.e. Islamists). Arab democracy in 2006 will look different than it would have in the less contentious times of, say, Bill Clinton (whom Arabs have always had a soft spot for).

Abbas' Gamble Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is making a diligent attempt to personally rewrite the history of the next phase of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  Just 10 days ago Abbas was being dismissed as a figurehead who, by failing to rein in corruption and sustain a following among hardline Palestinian youths, had squandered the chance to lead the Fatah party toward permanent status talks with Israel. 

The five months since Hamas was elected have been a tense period for the Palestinian people, with thousands of hard-working government employees including teachers going without pay and major fuel shortages.  Israelis have cut off the flow of tax monies that they collect on behalf of the Palestinians, and the US and many other international donors are withholding relief monies previously supplied.

Abbas deserves a lot of credit for a smart scheme that just might cut through the impending crisis.   He has seized upon an 18-point plan (here's a loose English translation by the Jerusalem Post) developed by a group of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.  The package advocates a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders, reestablishes the PLO as Israel's negotiating partner, recognizes Israel's borders, and renounces violence within Israel proper.  The mastermind behind it is Marwan Barghouti, a charismatic and wildly popular Fatah leader whom I've written about before.   Here's an interview Barghouti gave on the document.