Quick Hits, WTF Edition
Joshua Foust on Jan 21 2008 at 4:48 pm | Filed under: Foreign affairs
For the record: I got the Final Cut Edition of Blade Runner. I really liked the movie beforehand, but this is simply one of the most extraordinary sci-fi movies ever made. I cannot recommend it enough. Plus, remember those light-up umbrellas everyone in the super-rainy LA carried around? Yeah, someone makes those. Cool.
- The most important unknown battle of World War II—between the USSR and Japan along the Mongolian border in 1939.
- Steppe Magazine ran an article by neweurasia.net’s Ben Paarmann on blogging in Central Asia. Both Nathan and I are quoted in the piece, discussing the rise of blogs in the region and in my case the growing development of local blogs in Afghanistan. It’s a neat look into the rise of citizen’s media in one of the most under-reported, yet vitally important, regions of the planet.
- Another under-reported trend the last year was the crippling rise in food prices. This was partially driven by the growing U.S. focus on ethanol fuels, but also by several failed crops. It has been particularly acute in Tajikistan, but apparently also in Pakistan. It is interesting to see the “Feudal Lords” implicated in Pakistan’s food crisis—think failed Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto—and that the elite anger over Musharraf’s autocracy might spill over into popular anger against his highly ineffective (in so many ways) government. But hey, only the liberal media hates Uncle Pervy, right?
- Interestingly, 40 years ago a U.S. diplomat was warning that close collaboration with Pakistan’s military would be “our greatest blunder. How disturbingly prescient. And how annoying these voices of caution were ignored in the blind zeal to “bleed” the Soviets, among other short-term regional concerns. This is my worry behind arming the NWFP tribes: short term decisions with no long-term framework.
- Moises Naím begs America to come back as the only effective instrument of combating anarchy. The key bit: “the America that the world wants back is not the one that preemptively invades potential enemies, bullies allies, or disdains international law… The demand is for an America that enforces the rules that facilitate international commerce and works effectively to stabilize an accident-prone global economy.” The current field of presidential contenders leaves me unhappy about the prospect of this return.
21 Responses to “Quick Hits, WTF Edition”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
Ditto!!! Got it for Christmas, and liked the cleaned up version, as much, if not more so than the original, and the directors cut (both of which I own.)
“The most important unknown battle of World War II—between the USSR and Japan along the Mongolian border in 1939.”
Great piece. The war in Asia, except where the US was directly involved, is very poorly covered and understood.
I can’t get the last link to load. I’ll be happy if I’m wrong but doesn’t “enforces the rules that facilitate international commerce” mean “blood for oil” and could “stabilize an accident-prone global economy” possibly mean “give us free money when we screw up?”
Actually, I think that’s diplo-speak for “follow the dictates of the UN and it’s various unelected brethren (WTO, IMF).” What you speak of is the end result of such policies.
Synova - the link is fine, but sometimes FP.com can be laggy. To answer your questions: no, and no. “Enforce rules that facilitate international commerce” really means a) abiding by standard rules and practices (such as WTO rulings on subsidies, something Bush hasn’t good about), and b) not actively undermining free trade, which would be aimed at Congress’ disappointing swing, in both parties, toward protectionism—whether it be online gambling, cotton, steel, lingerie, or shrimp. Far from “the dictates of the UN,” which does very little to regulate international commerce compared to the US-run World Bank or European-run IMF, it is about adhering to the same principles we demand of other, smaller countries. You could also call it “not being raging hypocrites.”
“Stabilize an accident-prone global economy” refers, in part, to the steps the U.S. took during the 1997 Asian financial crisis, when we bought up several billions dollars of Yen to try to arrest Japan’s slide into bankruptcy. That kind of a crisis doesn’t feel so isolated today, when a weak dollar and soaring national debt (amongst many nations) threatens another major readjustment. Having a stabilizing economy in such a situation is vital to avoiding a 1930’s-style collapse.
Oh! And all that sarcasm about how much we hate the UN and multilateralism and international cooperation and—oh yeah—the very financial system we designed? Yeah, that doesn’t factor much into a sober look at both how vital other countries are to our well-being, and how counterproductive the “f*ck the world” mentality of the last seven years has damaged that. It is an important point because—Norman “What’s a Kurd” Podhoretz notwithstanding—the U.S. cannot, in fact, go it alone.
Heh. Tell that to Paul Wolfowitz.
When it comes to things like “Congress’ disappointing swing, in both parties, toward protectionism—whether it be online gambling, cotton, steel, lingerie, or shrimp” that’s probably true, but interestingly enough it is always a rather one-sided admonishment to America (viz. Doha).
“We”? And note to self: sarcasm=hate. Got it.
Huh? You mean the last seven years in which we seen foreign aid dollars bloom?
And who says we have to go it alone? Those of us criticizing the concept of the UN and other un-elected bodies having control over American policy-making aren’t advocating isolationism. The point is not to harm our own economy in the process of helping others. Of course we want other countries to have healthy economies — they represent new customers and suppliers. But neither the UN, WTO, IMF, WB or any other un-elected body is going to make that happen, since their diagnosis is almost always along the lines of “American consumerism bad; American give-aways good.”
Paul Wolfiwitz was a dumb choice to run the World Bank, given how much the rest of the world did not trust him. It shouldn’t be surprising pretty much everyone at the World Bank hated him and wanted him gone—especially considering his involvement in Iraq (which, let us remember, seriously damaged our relations with much of the world). I did not agree with his ouster, as it was contrived and not convincing, but his unpopularity was pretty much a given—and further evidence of Bush’s “f*ck the world” attitude.
And focusing in on France for scuttling Doha is short sighted. The U.S. has been uncompromising as well—in particular, about our horrendous agri-subsidies (just like the French!), and did I mention the way groups like the gambling lobby controls major swaths of our trade policy? Also, the CFIF doesn’t have much of a focus on foreign policy considering its mission statement, but you’d think they’d be just as interested in the role our own farm lobby plays in undermining global commerce as they are in bashing France.
No no no, using “hate” was sarcastic.
And you should be more aware than most that “foreign aid dollars” has nothing to do with our attitude toward the world (and 2004? There are surely more recent articles about how the vast majority of our “foreign aid dollars” have disappeared down the Iraq rabbit hole). For starters, foreign aid dropped sharply in the 1990’s—under Clinton, of all people—and the recent rebound hasn’t even come close to making up the difference.
Then there’s the tricky issue of comparing an attitude that is pro-liberal free trade and pro-cooperation versus the use of foreign aid as a tool of coercion.
Even so, the amount of foreign aid we contribute—in total, including private contributions—as a percentage of our GDP is not super terrific, though it’s not bad (15th globally, in terms of an overall percentage of income).
But that misses the point. From your last paragraph, I have to assume you’re not very familiar with the most recent WTO rulings against the U.S., which were all against harsh protectionist policies enacted by President Bush. They not only hurt our economy by introducing inefficiencies that grow worse with time—which addresses one part of your argument—they actively undermine the smaller countries we claim we want to help through better trade policies. Like Mali.
Here’s another example: the government pledged about $350 million in Tsunami relief to South Asia in early 2005, but that paled to the $1.8 billion collected in tariffs on Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia in 2004.
As good neo-libertarian-minded folks, can’t we all agree that protectionism does not, in fact, advance or even protect our economy? We are always better off with more foreign trade, rather than less—even if politically connected industries suffer shrinkages. In fact, everyone is better off with freer trade—us, and especially them.
Our own pig-headed policies hurt us, and hurt everyone else, but so long as we spite the “unelected bodies” that point out how dreadfully unfair it is we’re golden? I don’t get it. We’re not better off on the track Bush has taken us down, and the longer we delay in behaving like mature adults on the global scene, the more difficult it will be to have constructive relationships with the countries whose cooperation we need to thrive.
Josh: We largely agree here. I simply tried to explain what the diplo-speak meant in answer to Synova’s question, which answer you seem to agree with (even if you don’t like my shortened list of alphabet organizations).
As I stated above, my problem with following Moises Naím’s suggestion is not an endorsement of our protectionist policies (of which I am well aware, and some of the most damaging of which you helpfully point out), but instead a healthy fear of rule by unelected bodies that do not have our best interests in mind.
The patchouli sporting crowd who continually attempt to disrupt trade talks and policy sessions (such as at the IMF in Seattle) are right to challenge those bodies, even if they’ll never understand why.
“The most important unknown battle of World War II—between the USSR and Japan along the Mongolian border in 1939.”
I once had a link to an excellent article that presented an in depth analysis of the battle. So sorry, can’t find it now.
Later on the Japanese fought the Soviets again, with perhaps even less success. The Soviets were one of the spectors that probably helped the Japanese decide on surrender.
But throughout the Pacific, the Japanese failed when facing modern land forces. Their naval forces were very good, but in a land battle they had to dig in or hide in the jungle.
I agree, to a large degree as well. I guess what I might be perceiving is the non-realization of the need for multilateral, inclusive organizations. It is not practical to conduct foreign affairs on a bi-lateral, or even coalition-of-the-willing basis. Compromise forms the basic principle of international relations, and we’ve been unwilling to accept that the last 10 years or so (yes, I include Bill Clinton in that as well, since the bombing of Kosovo was done outside a UN mandate and also angered many of our allies and trapped us into a “unwinnable quagmire” :-)).
When a country refuses to compromise, it is seem as belligerent. Unfortunately, belligerent countries don’t fare well in ideational wars like the one against Islamism.
Great piece on Pakistan.
Thanks Josh.
Sorry, not to mean that you wrote it, but that link was very handy-dandy and what-not…
“The demand is for an America that rallies other nations prone to sitting on the fence while international crises are boiling out of control;”
What the above sentence means is?
The demand is not for an America that bullies it’s allies, but *rallies* them.
The demand is not for an America that preemptively attacks potential enemies but one who “comes up with innovative international initiatives to tackle the great global challenges of the day, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and violent Islamist fundamentalism.”
And then, rather than bully allies into cooperating with those “innovative international initiatives” America is supposed to rally other nations “prone to sitting on the fence while international crises are boiling out of control” into getting off their duff… since the fact of crises boiling out of control isn’t enough to get them to do that.
What if “compromise” and “multilateralism” means doing nothing at all while the fence sitters are picking their noses?
I’m not saying that America makes the right foreign policy decisions or which decisions are right and which ones have been big mistakes. It’s just that what I see in this article (now that I can read it) is wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Wanting the US to take the “leadership” role and somehow take responsibility but without stepping on any toes or offending the fence sitters by putting pressure on them, and solving nuclear proliferation problems without making a stink about enforcing inspections or sanctions… because that’s just belligerent.
I don’t see any mention of the US’s trade policies, but I will look again.
Synova, are you saying it is impossible to adopt a leadership stance without being belligerent and dictatorial? Good leaders inspire followers, and literally CAN rally people to go along with their ideas. Bad leaders abuse their dominant position to force others into toeing the line. I’d prefer us behave like good leaders, capable of persuasion rather than middle fingers.
I’m saying that “bully” and “rally” are often the same thing looked at from different points of view.
Like those personality quizzes where people are asked to pick terms that describe themselves and everyone picks “assertive” and no one picks “aggressive.”
“It is not practical to conduct foreign affairs on a bi-lateral, or even coalition-of-the-willing basis.”
Coalition of the un-willing? Countries are either *willing* or they’re nudged into doing what they don’t want to do. How does one persuade a nation to do something that they don’t want to do? If they don’t want to do it, most likely it’s because they don’t perceive it as being in their national (or personal, if it’s that sort of government) best interest.
Persuasion is wonderful. I’m not even suggesting that we should bully (or rally) the unwilling into going along if persuasion doesn’t work. You persuade whom you can persuade… and you go with it. Which might not be multilateral enough for all observers.
“…a growing number of foreign leaders are feeling that “someone had better do something, fast.” And very often, the only nation that has the will and means to “do something” is the United States.”
In some situations it may be that we really are the only nation with the means to “do something”. But the will? That’s leadership, I suppose, but it’s also extreme moral failing to look to someone else to provide the “will” and then blame them for not making you feel as if you were courted in a pretty enough manner.
Moisés Naím describes fence sitters in the face of boiling crisis and suggests that America take responsibility for them. Perhaps you could suggest how to do this without making those fence sitters in the face of boiling crisis feel like they’ve been bullied.
My feeling is that no matter how *nice* we are, it won’t be nice enough.
So we shouldn’t even try? That’s not a very serious argument. What is your alternative?
I think that we should do what’s right. As best we can. I think we should respect the sovereignty of nations as best as we can. I think that we should be respectful of other nations.
I’m not talking about not trying, if by trying you mean that we should try to involve other nations and do our best to work together with them.
If you mean “try to get other nations to like us” well, in that case “shouldn’t even try” is probably close to what I’m suggesting.
“do the right thing”
“respect the sovereignty of nations”
“respectful”
These are all loaded terms, with a range of meaning, that are subject to deep abuses by people with opposite intentions—including both parties, to a more or less equal extent. “Shouldn’t even try” to garner goodwill tends to undermine them all. You don’t think the international perception of America matters?
I’m out for the rest of the evening. I do find the subject very interesting.
I think that the international perception of America matters, I just don’t think it’s entirely in our control. In personal relationships we’d consider someone who took responsibility for everyone else’s reactions and emotions to need a serious lesson in setting boundaries.
Exactly, but that is also used to avoid responsibility for your own actions. When you’re a jerk, it’s not everyone else’s fault for hating you. There are obvious examples of truculent countries—Kim Jong-il and Hugo Chavez among them—where perception will never change. Others, such as Iran, France, China, and India (even Russia)—countries which do matter and can exercise an effective veto over U.S. actions—can be charmed or courted or made into friends… as evidenced by how their behavior and stances toward us change depending on our policies and attitudes. That’s the part I’m talking about.