Ratified: End of The Year

For this "ratified' I decided to wrap up the end of the year by talking about what I got right and what I got wrong, and present a few awards.

Right 

1. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) Repeal: I said that if this was passed, Obama would be able to rally his liberal base.  I was unsure when he would do it, but he did it his approval has gone up a little and he has made his liberal base a little happier.

2. Inner-Fighting Between Establishment and Tea Party GOP:  The establishment Republican Party, the McConnell's and Boehner's of the world basically re-branded themselves as the Tea Party to win in November.  Now, as a result, specific establishment Republicans irritated the Tea Party by passing the Bush tax cuts and have more government spending.  A war that I think will continue in 2012 between these two groups.

3. Common Ground: I said that the Tea Party and liberal Democrats must find common ground on foreign policy.  They did with cutting defense spending.  The Tea Party wants to cut spending generally and Democrats want to cut defense spending specifically.  Barney Frank and Ron Paul both lead the charge on this topic.

Wrong

1. Israel-Palestine Talks: I thought that President Obama was perfect for this because he was very slow and pragmatic with negotiation.  I also said getting past the settlements would be a big hurdle.  Unfortunately, the talks faded.  Obama did not use his strengths and neither side really conceded, so they fell apart.

2. Iran Sanctions:  The sanctions targeted at Iran's oil and gas sector and the Revolutionary Guard actually worked.  I did not talk about this too much during the summer, but I thought that these sanctions would work like all others.  Suddenly, Iran is wanting to start talking with the U.S. again and cutting subsidies on oil and gas to make money.  The sanctions are actually hurting the economy.

3. Joe Sestak Bribe:  When President Obama's administration offered Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania a possible job in the administration in exchange for not taking on Arlen Specter for the Democratic nomination, I thought for sure this was going to be a scandal to rock the administration.  It turned not to be nothing, but a short two day story and nothing came of it.

Awards

1. Democrat of the Year is Nancy Pelosi: Whether you like or loathe Nancy Pelosi, you must admit that she can get votes.  Her training as the House Whip gave her the training to line up for votes.  She passed a Healthcare Bill, originally with a public option and then got the votes to pass the Senate version.  Additionally, she passed a cap-and-trade bill, a financial regulation bill, the repeal of DADT, and all while taking a beating from the Republican establishment.  Not bad!

2. Republican of the Year is Scott Brown:  Honestly, if would have told me Scott Brown, the most hated by the Democrats for winning Ted Kennedy's seat, would vote like an independent I would not have believed you.  Surprisingly, he voted for the financial regulation bill, the START Treaty, and DADT, plus others.  I said he has taken John McCain's place as the newest maverick in the senate. 

3. World Leaders of the Year are David Cameron and Nick Clegg: These two were the odd couple.  After David Cameron's Tories, conservatives in Britain, defeated Gordon Brown's Labour Party, the liberal party, he claimed a new victory for the conservative movement not seen since Margaret Thatcher's time.  Unfortunately, he did not have the votes to win have direct majority, so he had to pair up with Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats to form team.  This year they were able to cut the deficit by slashing various programs, cutting 8% of defense spending.  I wish Republicans and Democrats worked more like these two. 

Here are my links for today: 

1. My first thought was about finding a narrative

2. Changing history is the hardest foreign policy tool for the U.S. 

3. Find out about the world next year

I've enjoyed blogging in 2010.  Have a Happy New Year!!!!  See you in 2011!

CFR.org - The World Next Year: 2011

CFR.org - The World Next Year: 2011

Changing History

After reading John Mearsheimer's compelling take on U.S. foreign policy, what I noticed was how the U.S. follows a specific track and stays with it despite the consequences.  More importantly, the U.S. since the end of the Cold War has perceived itself as the global police officer.  That means there were two tracks for the U.S. to follow and keep the world in line.  First, it could use selective engagement in conflicts.  Meaning, the U.S. could pre-empt attacks and enemies before they rose.  Essentially, this is the containment doctrine of the Cold War, just repackaged.  Second, the U.S. could purse offshore balancing.  Instead of trying to solve all the world's problems, the U.S. would pick a country in that region to police it for us.  India and Japan do this in Asia, the U.S. has used Cuba, Haiti, and Panama to watch Latin America.  Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel could be considered the watchdogs of the U.S.  It is like a neighborhood watch strategy to solve world problems.

Historically, the U.S. has used both doctrines to guide its foreign policy agenda.  Both also have their flaws, but Mearsheimer concludes offshore balancing is probably better.  The next task for Mearsheimer is to pick the motives for U.S. foreign policy.  I have identified two this week, American Exceptionalism and economic interests.  Security is another disguise for American foreign policy.  The pre-emptive attacks on Iraq are great examples of stopping terrorism before it strikes the U.S.  Fair enough, the U.S. wants to attack the problem at its source.  It is similar to the domestic strategy of going into the inner-city and changing their family value system to prevent poverty, missing all the other causes.  This analogy works perfectly with to describe why it is so complicated to go into a country and change its governmental structure.  Instituting a new government is one thing, but getting people to trust it and developing political parties for that system is quite another.

Both of these motives have guided history.  The actions of selective engagement and offshore balancing combined with the motives of American Exceptionalism, economic interests, and security interests provide a framework for looking at foreign policy over the last 10 years.  Most troubling are the motives and our wrong guessing.  No one likes to be wrong, especially nations making foreign policy. Its these methods that anger those we try to conquer.  For instance, why did Al-Qaeda attack the U.S. on 9/11.  The reason given was "they hate us for our freedoms," not quite.  Specific policies advocated by the U.S. such as supporting Israel, having troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, the coup in 1953 to put the Shah in power in Iran, and support for dictators in Egypt and Pakistan sometimes anger people.  These are what anger terrorists, not jealousy.

So, instead of reforming our own foreign policy attitudes we assume erroneously the wrong reason.  The problem is admitting to the people that we were wrong.  That requires redefining our history, not an easy task.  Changing our attitudes about history will be the start to redefining our foreign policy.  If your motives change, so do your strategies and that could help the U.S. in the long-term.

Photo Credit: Google Images

Morning Memo: Friday, December 31

Good Morning!

1 day until 2011 and all is forgiven

Top Topics:

Civil War Possible In Ivory Coast

U.S. And Venezuela Ambassador Spat

U.S. Calls For Burma/Myanmar to Release All Political Prisoners To Begin Dialog

White House Recess Appointments Cause Stir

Iraqi Civilian Deaths Decease and Afghanistan Civilian Deaths Increase

New Natural Gas Field Found Off the Coast Of Israel

10 Senators To Watch On Energy Legislation

Protests In Bolivia Over Fuel Price Hikes

Figures of Note:





Opinions of Note:

Edward Schumacher on a U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Bill That Did Not Make It Through The Senate

Michael Gerson and Christopher Hitchens Presenting View On Henry Kissinger's Comments

My First Thought: Find A Narrative

If I were President Obama, I would take the advice of Jonathon Alter, the author of the book The Promise, and make a New Year's Resolution to have a narrative that explains what he did.  Obama's problem is not that he cannot solve problems, it that he can't present a coherent narrative to the American people.  Baffling as it might sound for a president whose rhetorical style surpasses even the greatest speakers, the president has not told the American people why he did what he did.  Why did he tackle healthcare first?  Why was repealing DADT important?  Why was ratifying START necessary?  Why did he pass a tax deal?  All of these are tough questions that the president has not answered.  I wish he would just have an oval office speech explaining why he took these actions.

Substantively, this was the most productive congress in decades.  Democrats should have steamrolled Republicans during the November election, but because they did not have a coherent narrative to sell their accomplishments Republicans took the reigns and defined their accomplishments for them.  To bad Republicans defined the accomplishments as a socialist takeover of the U.S., not the most flattering way to portray an agenda.  Ronald Reagan is a man who I admire, not because I agreed with his politics or his policies, but he had the ability to woo crowds and inspire the American people.  He was called the "Great Communicator" for a reason.  "Morning In America" was a great slogan to describe the times.  Obama needs some Reagan magic.  Not that Obama should mimic Reagan's style, but Obama should find his own.  His professorial presentation helps him explain dire situations.  I want Professor Obama back.  Without a narrative, Obama could bring down unemployment, capture Osama bin Laden, bring about world peace, and even save the U.S. education system and he will lose November 2012.  He still has time, but he better find it quickly, for 2011 will soon run out and 2012 will be here soon enough.

Photo Credit: CTV

Ratified

As we countdown to the new year and contemplate what we did not accomplish this year, read what I ratified today:

1. My first thought was about cultural relativism making democracy and development success harder
2. Some of the top policy fights between Democrats and Republicans in 2011
3. China's trade deficit with the U.S. decreases and its Mexico trade increases
4. How the U.S. can fix its infrastructure for growth
5. 2011 could be the year for Russia's WTO bid

Russia's WTO Bid

The main drive behind Russia wanting to the U.S. to ratify the new START Treaty was a subtle argument of helping Russia eventually join the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2011.  Russia has been negotiating to join the WTO for 17 years.  It takes an average of 6 years for an application to be processed for a nation to join this powerful trade organization. The ebb and flow of political interests, business interests, and general arrogance have prevented Russia from joining.

Let's start with the political reasons.  Vladimir Putin, the former president and current prime minister of Russia, has halted the various negotiations a few times.  Putin would always talk about joining during his election campaigns, but it was clear that he was a bit disingenuous.  In 2004, Putin won his second and last term as president.  His political party also won a majority in the Duma, Russian Parliament.  He had used the WTO as campaign rhetoric and a bipartisan bargaining chip.  Since he had a majority, it was an unnecessary reform.  Other international tangles prevented Russia from joining the WTO as well.  First, Georgia is a member.  Georgia has veto power and can refuse the entry of new applicants.  After Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, it became quite clear that Russia might be done for.  Second, Russia has been a bit hard-headed with trade negotiations.  The rules state that for a country to be admitted into the WTO, they must be involved with other bilateral or multilateral trade agreements.  Eventually, Russia decided to work with the E.U., but not after some debate.

Business interests in Russia also compound the problem.  Russia wants higher tariffs on products it knows are inferior to western products, such as cars.  Many American cars have better environmental standards to the Russian cars, making it very difficult for Russia to compete.  Poor intellectual property right laws in Russia also hurt the big bear's chances.  Russia also mostly exports oil and gas, which makes it a bit unnecessary to join a union with only a few products.  I should add that foreign direct investment (FDI) would also increase, opening new markets for Russia.

General arrogance is another problem.  Russia is the only member of the G20 that is not member of the WTO.  Russia might feel like an outside second class citizen if it jointed.  Since the time of the Soviet Union, Russia sees itself as above the fray and a bit of a rogue in international politics.  Joining the WTO might upset that balance.

Many advantages exist for Russia to join.  As I mentioned, FDI would increase.  Improved relations with the E.U. and U.S. also pervade the conversation.  Not to mention, Russia is one of the largest countries, and economies in the world, so it would be foolish for it not to join this prestigious club.  Finally, Russia could bring lawsuits before the WTO, especially anti-dumping lawsuits against the E.U.  It was a big deal when China joined the WTO several years ago, it would be a good idea for Russia to join as well.

Photo Credit: Google Images

The Case For Infrastructure Investment

A common clarion call made to those who want to make America great again is to strengthen the U.S. infrastructure for better productivity in the future.  Bernard Schwartz of the Council on Foreign Relations provides some evidence about shoring up infrastructure and a way to pay for it:

From 1950 to 1970, the country devoted 3 percent of GDP annually to spending on public infrastructure. Since 1980, it has spent well less than 2 percent, resulting in a huge accumulated shortfall of needed investment. Not surprisingly, a variety of infrastructure bottlenecks -- traffic-choked roads, crumbling water systems, clogged ports, an antiquated air transportation system, an inadequate passenger and freight rail system, and an unreliable electrical grid -- are now impeding economic growth. The Department of Transportation, for example, reports that freight bottlenecks cost the U.S. economy $200 billion a year.

Even in the area of information technology, the United States trails other economies in the deployment of essential infrastructure, ranking sixteenth in the world in broadband penetration, according to the International Telecommunications Union. Perhaps even more worrying, there is growing evidence that uncertainties about the reliability of energy, water, and transportation systems are discouraging investment in some parts of the country, hindering new business investment and job creation.

Correcting this infrastructure investment deficit is critical to increasing U.S. competitiveness. Public infrastructure investment makes private investment more competitive globally by eliminating bottlenecks and by lowering the cost of transportation, electricity, and other core business expenses. It is also essential to the development of new growth industries. Many of the new growth sectors of the economy in energy, agriculture, and clean technology require major new or improved infrastructure. Finally, it is estimated that for every billion dollars of investment in infrastructure as many as thirty thousand direct and indirect jobs may be generated.

Some will argue that with already large deficits, we cannot afford a major infrastructure investment program. That is shortsighted. Such a program can easily be financed at today's historically low interest rates. By leveraging private capital through the bond market and through a national infrastructure bank, an investment over five years of $150 billion of public and private funds could produce a nearly $1 trillion infrastructure program. As is the case with any bank, loan repayment funds would be recycled into additional projects. Most important, it should be emphasized that this would be an investment program that would entail real investment in our future as opposed to support for current consumption. Unlike ordinary government operating expenditures, infrastructure investment increases tax revenues and creates new wealth, thus paying for itself over time as a result of increased productivity, stronger growth, and increased tax receipts.

All the Arms Control, Russia, and Pakistan Talk You Can Handle

Does China Rule The World?

With China's continued dominance of the raw materials market and its continuing control of U.S. debt, two stories stick out as important in regards to the awakening dragon.  First, U.S. and China trade deficits have decreased.  According to the Wall Street Journal:

The Commerce Department earlier this month said the U.S. current account deficit widened 3.2% to $127.2 billion in the third quarter, reflecting rising imports of consumer goods. Most of the current account balance is made up of trade in goods and services, but the broad measure of U.S. international transactions also includes transfer payments and investment income.

The U.S. deficit — and surpluses in China, Germany and other countries — has been a source of friction in international relations and a cause of concern as the U.S. only slowly emerges from a recession.

Feldstein said that while international negotiations have not resulted in any real commitments to shrink current account imbalances, progress will come as Americans save more, the federal budget deficit narrows, the dollar declines in value and China invests more domestically.

Feldstein imagines the U.S. national saving rate rising by 2% of gross domestic product and budget deficits declining to 3% of GDP from 8%, producing a combined saving rise of 7% of GDP.

The second story from the same WSJ blog is China's continuing trade in Mexico.  It reports:

 While Mexico and China seem very different, the economists point out a number of similarities. On the positive side, the two nations focused on foreign trade as a growth engine and they eased central government control of the economy. On the negative side, their financial systems are inefficient, their non-tradable industries (communications, transportation and the like) lack competition; and their rigid labor rules discourage employers from adding full-time workers.

The economists argue that despite the handicaps, developing nations can make big leaps in growth as they catch up with countries like the U.S. Mexico made its big leap forward in growth from 1953 to 1981; China has been making its move since around 1980. Mexico’s GDP per-capita is now about twice China’s, according to the International Monetary Fund.

Once that catch-up period is over, however, the countries need to continue to reform institutions and policies to produce a well-functioning government an efficient financial system and a steady increase in knowledge so it can continue to grow smartly. Few countries manage that transition, which leaves them well behind the U.S. and Europe.

The Biggest Domestic Fights For 2011

The Hill revealed the top domestic fights that Republicans and Democrats will be facing in 2011.  Of course, repealing the healthcare law will be the top of the GOP's to-do list, but many others will also be tackled.  In March, their will be a fight over raising the debt ceiling and extending funding for the government, which could produce another government shutdown showdown.  Net Neutrality and deficit spending will also top the list of fights.  Some of these battles will be fought between Democrats and Republicans, but others like raising the debt ceiling will be pin establishment Republicans against Tea Party Republicans.  Russell Berman's article is worth reading in full:

President Obama and Republicans taking over the House are girding for a series of showdowns set to begin almost immediately after Congress resumes next week.

At stake is not only the direction of government over the next two years, but whether it will function at all. The last Congress failed to approve a single appropriations bill, and funding for the government dries up the first week of March.

Lawmakers and the White House are set for serious budget negotiations that will begin immediately after the president’s State of the Union address. 

Fights over healthcare, spending and the national debt could result in grand bargains like the tax-cut deal Obama struck with Republicans, or they could lead to a government shutdown, as when President Clinton went toe to toe with the GOP in 1995.

Emerging fights over environmental and Internet regulation also loom, as do scuffles over troop levels in Afghanistan, national security policies and GOP-led investigations of the Obama administration.

Here is a look at five Obama-GOP showdowns to watch in 2011:

HEALTHCARE FUNDING

Republicans leaders in the House have pledged to hold an up-or-down vote to repeal the healthcare law President Obama signed last year.

Once passed, however, this bill will be dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Instead, the GOP is expected to try to withhold funding for the new law in the budget, hoping to impede its implementation.

Continue Reading Here... 

Photo Credit: Dave Manuel 

The Vatican's Own Version Of Detente

There is no question that Pope John Paul II helped, along with Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Margaret Thatcher, bring down the iron curtain that surrounded Eastern Europe.  His policy was to stand firm against communism and denounce it as a threat to the free world.  Before that strategy though, the popes exercised another strategy called Ostpolitik described in this Wall Street Journal piece:

Before John Paul, the Vatican's dominant diplomatic strategy was Ostpolitik, which tipped toward constant engagement with the status quo. Karol Wojtyla, like many dissidents who emerged in these years, had lived with the daily reality of the communist system. John Paul pushed Vatican policy toward a public, unapologetic claim for individual freedom. On his final trip to Poland, John Paul openly asserted his support for Lech Walesa's "Solidarnosc" reformers.

Similar to the detente strategy echoed by the Nixon administration, Ostpolitik used a firm stance on communism with engagement.  Instead of showing superior strength through military might, because the Vatican obviously did not have the military capabilities of the Soviets, it possessed spiritual strength as way for fighting the "evil empire" to quote Reagan.

A Little Political Humor Always Helps

Cartoon From Slate

Morning Memo: Thursday, December 30

Good Morning!

2 days until 2011, just one step closer to 2012

Top Topics:

Refugees Flee Ivory Coast By The Thousands

South Korea Interested In Wanting To Return To Six Party Talks With North

India Tightened Trade Control Against Iran

Palestinian Officials Threaten A Resolution In The U.N. Calling Israel's Settlements "Illegal"

Putin Shows Support For START Treaty

Possible Deal To Keep Pakistan Government In Tact

George Clooney and Google Plan To Launch Satellite That Watches Sudan Vote

China Cracks Down On Spending

Economic Protests Continue In Tunisia

Figures of Note:





Opinions of Note:

Mikhail Gorbachev on The U.S. Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Next

Jagdish Bhagwati on The Cultural Ideas Of Corruption

My First Thought: Its All Relative

The biggest problem the U.S. had with promoting democracy in the developing world was how it misread the culture.  Indeed, it is one thing to invade a country, it is another to go ahead and try to set up a government in that nation.  In fact, one of the reasons, ironically, for not toppling Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War was that U.S. intelligence said it would be hard to stabilize the country after getting rid of the leader.  Yet, the U.S. military would do it about 10 years later.  The problem with democracy and development is that cultural relativism gets in the way of establishing a good system.  The essay above by Bhagwati notes how measuring "corruption" varies from culture to culture.  With some countries, not sharing the wealth with your neighbors is considered corrupt or reading an invisible teleprompter.  Standards set up by western international study organizations like Transparency International do not notice these subtle differences, nor does the American public.

Similarly, democracy does not work in all countries because political parties divide differently than along ideology.  Sometimes parties split along ethnic or religious lines, making for a very hostile and dangerous political system.  Serbia divided its government this way, part of the reason for ethnic identification during its genocide.  Western models do not adhere to these models.  Yet changing the conception of pluralistic democracy is quite difficult.  With every culture having a different definition of corruption, democracy, and development this is much easier said than done.  Even in the western context, democracy and political identity are not analogous.  Think of the differences between parliamentary democracy and U.S. democracy or the differences between a conservative and liberal party across Europe and the U.S.   Many conservative parties in Europe are much more liberal than our own Democratic Party in the U.S.  Overcoming these differences is difficult.  Without a clear definition that takes different cultures into account, measuring the success of democracy and development will yield futile.

Photo Credit: Reuters

Ratified

Much of today was captured in YouTube videos, but nonetheless it was still very interesting.  Here's what I ratified today:

1. My first thought was about Hu Jintao's upcoming visit to the White House
2. Noam Chomsky provides the self-interested view on American foreign policy
3. Why I think "American Exceptionalism" is a bit disingenuous
4. New international news: Belarus, Ivory Coast, and North Korea
5. How Wikileaks changed journalism
6. Thought experiment: what narrative defines American foreign policy best?

Think About The Narrative

I have presented two ideas about how foreign policy is viewed.  First is the "American Exceptionalism" view that the U.S. is guided by the principles of bringing democracy to the world because we are a great example of that model.  Second is the more cynical view that economic interests guide foreign policy with "American Exceptionalism" being the disguise for a self-interested nation.

This debate was also discussed by journalist Peter Beinart and columnist David Brooks a few months ago at a think tank event.  They present both these narratives in very telling ways.  Instead of me lecturing about these two ideas, I want people to watch the debate and post comments about the narrative you think American foreign policy presents?  Their is no right answer to this question. It should be a very stimulating conversation.

Wikileaks And Journalism

In International News

With this segment, I want to highlight what is happening around the world and how the U.S. is responding.

Belarus

What Happened: Alyaksandr Lukashenka is the current President of Belarus and was the winner of what most call a fraudulent election in December.  He won 80% of the vote, which most say is improbable.  He is often called the last dictator of Europe.  He is also a former Soviet Union "thug" as the Economist describes him.  Many activists wish for him to step down, as a result he has started to crack down and jail them.  At one event, guards pummeled around 30,00 activists and 600 have been jailed.  Despite pleas from the international community, he refuses to step down as the president.  He even appointed a Prime Minister yesterday to show his strength.  Additionally, Russia and other Eastern European Nations could be seeing this as a testing ground for how far they can act in rigging elections.  Even though Lukashenka is not a Russia fan, Russia is definitely looking at this country to see how far the limits can be stretched. 


U.S. and International Response: Hillary Clinton released a joint statement with the EU condemning the actions.  The U.S. and the EU have also not formally recognized the elections.  Both have also called for the release of the activists taken prisoner by Lukashenka.  Also, the U.S. is calling for a reform of the election system in Belarus.  


Ivory Coast


What Happened: An election was held on November 28 where the incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo was defeated by his opponent Alassane Ouattara.  Ouattara won with 54.1% of the vote.  Despite the loss, Gbagbo has refused to step down as the leader of the country.  The next election for the Ivory coast is in 2015.  A civil war occurred in the country between the North and the South in 2002-2003.  Many speculate that a civil war could break out again.  Gbagbo has support the military.  He also was a fighter for multiparty election in the 1980s and 1990s, so now the tides have turned. Ouattro and his entrouage are being held up in a hotel surrounded by Gbagbo's guards.  Cocoa is also a big export for Ivory Coast and prices have dropped precipitiously since the crisis. 


U.S. and International Response: Along with the AU, EU, and UN, the U.S. has called for Gbagbo to respect the results and step down.  The AU has suspended the Ivory Coast.  The EU and US have also imposed travel restrictions on citizens to the country.  Sanctions have been discussed, but no action has been taken on the matter.  Rumors are circulating that on a trip to the US embassy in Ivory Coast 10 men tried an attempted coup, sponsored by the US, to overthrow Gbagbo.  The State Department is denying that claim. 


North Korea


What Happened: North Korea has become more belligerent lately, mostly in its actions rather than its rhetoric.  Almost a month ago, North Korea fired on Yeonpyeong Island in the Yellow Sea killing 2 marines, this prompted South Korea to retaliate.  Since that time, North Korea has asked the U.S. if they will restart the Six Party Talks, a set of talks initiated in in 2005 and stopped in 2008 to keep North Korea from continuing its nuclear program.  The U.S. refuses to return to the talks if North Korea offers because the U.S. believes it feeds their bad actions.  The motive behind the attack on South Korea is uncertain, but most likely it was a for Kim Jong Il's son, King Jong-Un, to trumpet his presence as a military leader. 


U.S. and International Response:  As I stated, the U.S. refuses to come back o the talks under the North's terms, but South Korea might be willing to continue the talks.  China is being the intermediary between the U.S. and the North at the current moment.  The South sees the starting of the talks as sign of good tidings to the North. 

American Exceptionalism Should Come Out Of The Closet

Often I mock the term "American Exceptionalism" because it is used with a denial attitude towards historical context.  Not entirely false as a description of the U.S.  Certainly the bill of rights was an exceptional piece of work and the separation of powers was the first of its kind.  Domestically, the term appears to be a perfect fit.  It is on foreign policy that I despise the phrase's usage.  The ideas that Noam Chomsky espouses provide a better context for why this term is not proper for foreign policy.

There are two primary schools of thought in regards to how American foreign policy is created.  The first school believes that the U.S. intervenes for humanitarian reasons.  Providing Iraq a stable democracy would be a great example of this humanitarian reason.  Most neo-conservatives take this view.  The second school believes foreign policy is guided by economic interests.  Invading Iraq for the oil fields is classic example of this motif in action.  Furthermore, the second school, where Chomsky falls, would believe that "American Exceptionalism" in terms of foreign policy is just a cover for more sinister economic gains rather than helping another nation.

Certainly both schools have very valid points and a one-size theory does not fit all foreign policy scenarios.  Attacking Afghanistan cannot be explained by the second view, for instance, but the U.S. intervention in Latin America has been historically motivated by economic interests.  I find myself caught between these two views.  I think the U.S. does engage in foreign policy endeavors to serve its own interests, but I also think that presidents, congressman, and State Department officials do sincerely believe that the U.S. can do good in the world.  However, what I question is presenting that narrative of "American Exceptionalism" when there are obvious faults in the story.

For instance, why does it matter if Iraq is a democracy or not?  That actually has little bearing on U.S. interests in the region, but having access to its vast oil fields and having an American military base in the Middle East is a pretty good reason.  Not to be cynical, but to believe that democracy promotion is the real agenda presents a bit of a naive picture.  I want the U.S. to be force for good in the world, but using "American Exceptionalism" to mask more nefarious reasons is a bit problematic.  It might be a good narrative to make the American people feel all warm inside that the U.S. is protecting the world, but it is usually far from true.  Maybe for New Year's "American Exceptionalism" can come out of the closet to present its true form of economic gratification.  It certainly would make me feel better.

Photo Credit: American Enterprise Institute

Noam Chomsky Talks Foreign Policy

Noam Chomsky has been the class interpreter of U.S. foreign policy.  He is always fun to listen to, especially in the morning:

Morning Memo: Wednesday, December 29

Good Morning!

3 days until 2011, and the world still waits for peace

Top Topics:

Ivory Coast President Threatens To Sever Ties To Those Who Support Ouatarra

Israel Could Restart Peace Talks With Interim Agreement

Belarus President Appoints New Prime Minister After Disputed Election

Ballots Delivered For Upcoming Sudan Vote

China Calls On Vatican To Help Heal Divide

Pakistan's Government On Verge Of Collapse

U.S. Drug Administration Stretching Limits Internationally

Former Venezuelan President Dies

Figures of Note:

CNN Polls:  According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday, 78 percent of Democrats questioned in the poll say they want to see Obama at the top of their party's ticket in 2012, with only 19 percent saying they would prefer someone else as the Democratic presidential nominee. The 19 percent figure is the lowest figure since March, when the question was first asked.


And: In the battle for the GOP presidential nomination, the survey suggests Palin may have some work to do if she throws her hat in the ring. Only 49 percent of Republicans say that they are likely to support Sen. John McCain's running mate in 2008 for the Republican nomination in 2012.





Opinions of Note: 


Joschka Fischer on Obama's Israel-Palestine Policy 


Anne Applebaum on Hungary's Media Control


My First Thought: When Mr. Hu Goes to Washington


I have been blogging a lot lately about the upcoming foreign policy endeavors of President Obama.  Sudan's  election January 8th, withdrawing from Afghanistan in July, finding ways to restart the Israel-Palestine peace talks, budget cuts for the foreign aid, and congress coming back to session on January 5th.  Today on the news, I learned that President Hu Jintao of China will be visiting the U.S. for an official state visit.  The visit will take place on January 19.  It will certainly be the biggest event in foreign policy for the President after the Sudan referendum.  Maybe a New Year's Resolution for the president will be to finally get tough with the Chinese leader.  Incrementalism might be the style of this president, but it might be better to take a different approach with the leader of the Asian giant.  Currency manipulation, the necessary helper on North Korea, and the largest buyer of U.S. debt are all issues that should stick out in the president's mind as he begins to meet with China's leader. 


This meeting will primarily focus on economic cooperation.  Currency manipulation should be the top of the docket in that meeting.  For months, the president has discussed the problem, even hinting at it in the big G20 summit last month.  Now, he needs to act.  Force China to up the value of its currency to make its exports more expensive to put the country on an even playing field with the U.S.  Will this anger China? Maybe, but they will get over it.  Unless this burden is met, then the U.S. will not be as competitive with China.  Plus, it could hurt China in the long term because they will be stuck with the dollar as their main currency of choice.  North Korea should be next.  China has been pretty helpful to make sure that the Kim regime does not destroy the world, but the latest provocation of South Korea during the Thanksgiving holiday might be leaving room for some negotiation.  The U.S. wants the North to return to the Six Party Talks on nuclear weapons, but on its terms.  Only China can be the middleman to relay the message back to North Korea in pursuit of that meeting.  Finally, I would like to see some talk of G-2.  I know this idea is not popular, for various reasons, but having both countries in an exclusive club could help prevent suspicions of each other's actions later.  I know it probably will not happen, but talking about it is not a bad idea.  Two great powers discussing these topics will be at least a step in the right direction. 




Photo Credit: The Guardian

Ratified

All the world's a stage, and sometimes the play of international relations is full of depression rather than happiness.  Celebrating successes is quite important.  So, without further interruptions, here is what I ratified today:

1. My first thought was about budget cuts
2. Gordon Brown has a good idea about fixing the world economy
3. Basel III could solve the global banking crisis, but who would enforce it?
4. Religion does not cause conflict, secular sources do
5. Some arguments about defense never die

Same Old Cold War Argument

Daniel Drezner of Foreign Policy makes a great observation, the argument posed by the right on national defense not being strong enough is the same damn argument they make every time.  He posts:

OK, apparently the Wall Street Journal now has a policy to publish an op-ed every quarter asserting that:

1)  U.S. defense spending is woefully inadequate compared to the Cold War era;

2)  Those advocating further defense cuts are advocating taking the United States back to the 1930's; and

3)  Today's threat environment is really, really bad. 

Continue Reading Here..

To put this in a broader perspective, the recent new START debate was focused on a similar premise: "If we reduce our nuclear arsenals then we are vulnerable to attack by [insert enemy here]."  They will then predict that the U.S. will be completely defenseless during an attack, which is never proven correct.  I think this point more explains our politicians inability get off talking points than actually debate the merits of national defense.

Secular Sources Cause Conflict, Not Religious Ones!

In the last video I posted, the speaker outlined how using a human connection by doing events that promoted cultural awareness we could have greater unity in the international system.  This Kumbaya argument only works if you think religion is the sole source of conflict.  Certainly, religion and ethnic differences can exacerbate conflicts, but they are not the root cause of the problem.

Almost every conflict, whether in Africa, the Middle East, or even in Europe was caused by a source outside the religious and ethnic context.  The Israel-Palestine conflict is caused by a land dispute.  Sudan's genocide was caused by a water and resource shortage the escalated into a religious conflict.  World War II was caused by Hitler's incessant need to grab land in Europe.  See a pattern?  "Ethnic" tension is often a disguise for other sources.  It also presents an easy narrative for the media to follow.  North versus South, Muslim versus Christian, Catholic versus Protestant, Sunni versus Shi'ite, etc, are all nice pretty narratives that the media can use to explain a conflict.

If you are not convinced by that logic, try this.  The U.S. is considered to be the most diverse country on earth.  If this premise of "ethnic" conflict were true, people would just start fighting anyone who disagreed with their political or religious views.  Republicans and Democrats would be fighting in the streets if this were the case.  As entertaining as it might be to see John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi fight in a duel, this idea is preposterous.  Ethnicity acts as a nationalistic disguise for conflict and as a way to form an identity, but it does not start conflict.

I do agree with the speaker that better cultural understanding is necessary for cultural tolerance, but his real point should be that secular connectiveness is much stronger.  His point regarding the EU as the reason for Europe not having another major war is right because the economies are inner-connected.  Meaning, if one economy crashes, others go down with it.  Having unity in economics makes sense to stop conflict, but it does not solve the problem of land grabs and resource scarcity.  Unless those problems are solved, then it will be very difficult to create world peace.  Not even the longest "Abraham Walk" will solve the problem.

Photo Credit: Google Images

Key To Peace: Connectiveness

William Ury offers a very interesting look at how international negotiation can be accomplished through simple cultural connections.

ICC As An Example Of Implementation

To better illustrate my point about international organizations not having the enforcement mechanisms necessary to solve problems, look no further than to the International Criminal Court (ICC).  This is the court that allows for countries to prosecute leaders who commit terrible atrocities, similar to the Hague.  For a little history, the ICC was established in 1998 in an effort to streamline the prosecution process.  It is separate from the U.N.  The trick with the ICC is that countries must vote to be a part of the organization.  120 countries belong to the court.  The U.S. does not.

So, if a case is brought against a U.S. leader for war crimes, the U.S. does not have to comply.  Even a member state that belongs to the court does not have to comply with the arrest warrant.  Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir is supposed to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but he has not been turned over by Sudan or any other nation.  So, he just sits comfortably as the president of his country.  Kenya wants to leave the ICC, and its parliament just issued a decry to withdraw from the court.  It's prime minister has not acted on the measure.

Both these examples give a sense of the weakness in regards to the ICC.  The court cannot enforce its arrest warrants and countries do not have to comply with the rulings.  Since there is no "world police" it is impossible to do any enforcement measures.  Sadly, this is the downfall of the U.N., the World Trade Organization (WTO), and Basel.  Without having an enforcement mechanism, policies cannot be acted upon and only recommendations can be made.  It is the difference between a think thank, like the Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the CATO Institute, just to name a few, and congress.  Congress can implement policies and enforce them.  Think tanks can only make recommendations and not pass laws.  Without enforcement, everything is just talk and no action.

Attack The Problem Globally

Gordon Brown's solution to the global financial crisis is to create a system that is structurally sound for the whole international community so this type of crash never happens again.  It sounds simple enough, but creating an international regulatory system for banks trading from shore-to-shore is much easier said than done.  It requires that politicians in their respective countries secede power over to the international regulatory firms, not something that protectionists sentiments allow in this crisis.  There is currently one agreement that is endorsed by the G20, a group of 20 nations that meet to solve international problems, and many finance ministers.  This plan is called Basel III.

The Basel Committee is a subsidiary of the Banks for International Settlements Organizations.  Basel was formed in 1974.  It does not hold any legally binding powers, but it does make recommendations for other international organizations to follow.  I should add that this is typical of most international organizations, they can make recommendations, but they cannot implement them.  Unfortunately, this is one of the downfalls of the international system.  The Basel Committee has come out with numerous recommendations about banks throughout the years, but after the current financial crisis it became important that people listen to their recommendations.

Their conclusions about the crisis were twofold.  First, banks did not have enough conservation capital to give out loans at a comfortable rate.  Second, banks were also giving out loans to people who did not have the money to pay back the loans.  Finally, international banks were not being watched carefully enough, so they engaged in the practice of betting that people would and would not pay back loans.  Essentially, they could not lose, until they lost.  The analogy I think is if people bet every year that the Washington Wizards were going to not win the NBA Championship, everyone will get rich quick.  Eventually though, the Wizards will win and the game will be over so everyone will go bust.  Banks did exactly the same thing with everyone else's money.

In an attempt to correct these mishaps, the Basel III Committee made specific recommendations that would tackle these problems.  Now, each country does have their own ability to control their own banks, but when banks trade in different countries they are not subject to the same regulations.  Hence their needs to be an international agreement to solve the problem.  Gordon Brown's solution is not the most popular one.  He wants to find ways to implement new regulations on international banks and hedge funds by calling an international meeting to solve the problem.  While I agree with Brown's assessment about this crisis being an international problem, his solutions already exist its just that the international community does not want to implement them.  The international community likes to endorse these solutions, but not put them into action.  It would be better if some binding agreement existed for these types of recommendations by supervisory boards.

One other way to look at why Brown's solution of having a meeting does not work is the complexity of the issue.  When Brown refers to the Great Depression era's meeting to solve the crisis, he is referring to the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944.  At that conference regulations were put in place, but organizations like the IMF and World Bank were created to regulate those changes, along with other domestic policies for every country to follow.  Unless new regulatory organizations are created to solve this problem talking about new rules and implementing them will be two different conversations.

Photo Credit: Google Images

Gordon Brown's Global Solution

The Former Prime Minister of Britain, and former Finance Minister, Gordon Brown explores an interesting and underrepresented point about the global financial crisis.  He believes it will take a global solution with global regulation to keep growth growing. I think he might be right.

It will not embed, so you can watch the video here.

A Little Political Humor Always Helps

Cartoon From Slate

Morning Memo: Tuesday, December 28

Good Morning!

4 days until 2011, maybe the economy will recover

Top Topics:

Ivory Coast General Strike For Leader To Step Down Attracts Little Attention

Israel Refuses To Apologize To Turkey Over May Flotilla Incident

South Korea Will "Relentlessly Respond" If Provoked By The North

Iran's Economy Struggling Amidst Sanctions And Subsidy Cuts

Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Next Debate For U.S. And Russia?

U.S. and Russian Relationship Quite Productive In 2010

Julian Assange To Publish Autobiography

Barney Frank Wants To Cut NATO And War Funding

Winter Storm Continues To Affect The Northeast

Figures of Note:





Opinions of Note:

Sean Kane on Iraq's Government

Charles MacCormack on Haiti's Development

My First Thought: Budget, Budget, Budget

When congress returns to its new session on January 5th, the excitement will be in the air.  Republicans will be back in power, in the house at least, fresh off their latest political victory.  On the other side, Democrats will feel somewhat reinvigorated after a very productive lame-duck session.  Now, the time begins when the Democrats and Republicans must face a crucial test over the budget.  Specifically, both sides must find places to cut.  Where can they cut? Foreign aid will be one place that they might start.  Foreign aid often gets the short end of the straw because it does not impact constituents to a particular congressman.  In so doing, they might ax particular programs that are useful for the State Department or USAID.  Foreign aid is less than 1% of the overall budget outlook, but it usually goes first on the chopping block.

The question must be asked, beyond cutting foreign aid, where else can cuts be made?  Projects that directly stimulate the economy should be off limits.  Entitlement programs, at least what is not necessary, would be a start.  Defense would be another category that can be cut.  Over the past few weeks, several deficit reduction plans have been created.  The President's Bipartisan Deficit Commission had many interesting cuts.  Other liberal and conservative think tanks also chimed in with their proposals.  Now it is time for congress to act.  Normally, I would be against some budget cuts, especially in a time of recession, but it is clear that unless something is done the U.S. could be seen as weak by the international community.  Finding ways to cut the deficit require a micro-management that is not seen in Washington.  It is just cutting, it is dynamic cutting.  Cutting programs in ways that do not diminish their capacity to work, but finding new ways for them to work better and smarter.  Finding cuts is easy, implementing them is whole different process.

Photo Credit: Fox News

Ratified: The New Name Of Reflection

This segment of my blog that was once called "Reflection," where I post the links on various topics I discussed throughout the day, I will now call it "Ratified."  The term is used to describe what happens to treaties in the senate once they go through the arduous process and cross the finish line.  The name change has more of a U.S. foreign policy ring to it. So, without further ado, here is what I "ratified" today:

1. My first thought was about how personalities matter
2. The answer to the question about why colleges have such long winter breaks
3. How "pragmatic peace" is reflected in Obama's foreign policy
4. Estonia will join the Euro
5. A new woman challenger to Obama's foreign policy
6. Economic stories missed by the media

In Other Economic News...

It is quite obvious that the media is driven to cover the main narrative that is given to them.  In economic news, most of the media will cover the debt laden Greece, Spain, Ireland, and Portugal as the next apocalyptic scenarios for crash and burn economics.  Other stories will usually follow global unemployment levels and currency wars.  Beyond these banal headlines are the stories that are missed.  Two major developments have happened.  First is a possible crisis of Japan's debt that works differently than the U.S.  Bethany McLean writes for Slate:

Japan was thought to possess a miracle economy before it all went to hell in the early 1990s following a spectacular real estate bust. Today the popular perception is that Japan is stagnant but stable. After the economy slowed down, the Japanese government lowered taxes and increased spending, sending deficits, and also government debt, way up. But the debt hasn't been a problem, because Japan's risk-averse populace—which became even more risk averse after the collapse of the technology bubble a decade ago—has sunk its considerable savings into government bonds, known colloquially as JGBs. What could be safer than government debt? As a result, the vast majority of Japanese debt is funded by its own residents—in stark contrast to the United States, which sells a sizable chunk of its debt overseas. And as deflation struck the Japanese economy, the interest rate on its outstanding debt has fallen to an average of a mere 1.5 percent.

In sum, the Japanese government has been able to increase its debt without driving borrowing costs up because of falling interest rates. That fortunate circumstance has allowed Japan to ramp up government spending even as tax revenue has dropped by nearly one-third .The not-so-lucky part is that even at today's low interest rates, Japan's interest on its debt is eating up a scary proportion of its tax revenue—more than 25 percent (not including the funds that come from issuing yet more debt), according to government figures. In addition, much of Japan's debt is relatively short-term in nature, meaning that the government last year had to "roll" at least 140 trillion yen in debt (i.e., replace retiring debt with new debt) even as it issued some 50 trillion in fresh debt to fund the growing gap between what the government spent and what it took in.

This indicates that Japan could be the next crisis ridden country, a continuing hark from the past.  The next major story involves global commodity prices.  Export prices have begun to rise abroad, drawing the conclusion that raw materials could be the market that the U.S. should start to enter.  Paul Krugman writes today for the New York Times:

 In particular, today, as in 2007-2008, the primary driving force behind rising commodity prices isn’t demand from the United States. It’s demand from China and other emerging economies. As more and more people in formerly poor nations are entering the global middle class, they’re beginning to drive cars and eat meat, placing growing pressure on world oil and food supplies.

And those supplies aren’t keeping pace. Conventional oil production has been flat for four years; in that sense, at least, peak oil has arrived. True, alternative sources, like oil from Canada’s tar sands, have continued to grow. But these alternative sources come at relatively high cost, both monetary and environmental.

Also, over the past year, extreme weather — especially severe heat and drought in some important agricultural regions — played an important role in driving up food prices. And, yes, there’s every reason to believe that climate change is making such weather episodes more common.

So what are the implications of the recent rise in commodity prices? It is, as I said, a sign that we’re living in a finite world, one in which resource constraints are becoming increasingly binding. This won’t bring an end to economic growth, let alone a descent into Mad Max-style collapse. It will require that we gradually change the way we live, adapting our economy and our lifestyles to the reality of more expensive resources.

But that’s for the future. Right now, rising commodity prices are basically the result of global recovery. They have no bearing, one way or another, on U.S. monetary policy. For this is a global story; at a fundamental level, it’s not about us.

Notice that not a peep came from the 24 news cycle about these stories.  Both have significant implications for the global economy, and ironically, U.S. foreign policy.  Sadly, until Japan collapses and the U.S. is behind in the times on economic growth, the stories will stayed uncovered.

The Woman To Test Obama

Besides the nagging that comes with the institution of marriage by his beloved wife Michelle, President Obama will stare down another woman who will certainly challenge his platform.  This time the topic will be foreign policy, and no it is not Hillary.  Republican Representative from Florida Ileana Ros-Lehtinen will become the new chairman, or chairwoman, of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  Despite her moxy and personal energy, she has the ability to argue with the current command-and-chief on numerous topics regarding the world abroad.  Her Cuban background makes her one of the first Hispanic women to chair a committee, besides holding the legacy of being the first Hispanic woman elected to congress in 1989.  Rising through the ranks, she is could be an abrasive and formidable challenger to the "anointed ones" current foreign policy choices.

Her parents escaped from Cuba as refugees in the dreaded Castro regime.  She is passionate about standing up for those who argue against tyranny and support democracy.  With a watchful eye, she hopes to go through the foreign aid budget with a fine tooth comb to eliminate fraud and waste.  Her support for the Iranian sanctions gives her some clout with the Obama administration, but her fervent support of Israel makes the Israel-Palestine negotiations rather difficult.  Now, she does support a two state solution for the two fighting peoples, but with the split between Fatah and Hamas, her belief is that it could turn into a tri-state solution.  Her opposition to the START Treaty reflects the usual arguments posed by the Republican Party about Russia not abiding by the treaty and nuclear weapons modernization.

The current chairman of the committee is California Democrat Howard Berman, a lawyer who has a passion for bipartisanship.  Not that Ros-Lehtinen will not compromise, but she has a different perspective than the current chairman.  Namely, she argues for American exceptionalism.  Restoring America to its original glory has become synonymous with GOP foreign policy rhetoric.  Many Democrats see her as a hindrance to their foreign affairs agenda, but I see two arguments against that statement.  First, the House Foreign Affairs Committee does not control the budget for foreign aide, the House Appropriations Committee does.  So, the only power that can be exerted by this committee is the power to scrutinize.  Second, more weight should go the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where the nominees stand for confirmation hearings.  Senator John Kerry holds the chairmanship of that committee.

The final point that should be emphasized is that opportunity that the president could take from working with Ros-Lehtinen.  The current Republican presidential field is talking about "American exceptionalism" in all their books and appearances.  They claim the president does not appreciate America for what it really is, the best God-given nation on earth.  With this new woman taking the reigns who holds similar beliefs to these contenders, it could give Obama the opportunity to work with and compromise with a Republican on numerous issues regarding foreign policy.  This provides him with the advantage of better understanding their point of view, but it also shows he does care about the U.S. as a nation of exceptional value.  A message, I might add, that will definitely resonate with voters.  His pragmatic peace framework is not totally out of line with this viewpoint, but it could be a little better in sync with it.  Plus, finding ways to work with Republicans can never hurt the president.

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen could become a pain in the side for the administration or a great asset.  Only Obama can make the call on this topic.

Photo Credit: Google Images

Estonia: The Confidence Builder

It was recently announced that in 2011, the EU will accept Estonia as the newest member to the trading bloc.  This means that Estonia will adopt the Euro as its official currency.  Currently, Estonia is an official member of the EU, but it is not part of the Euro trading zone.  It is considered a strange investment for the EU because currently the bloc is in a bit of tizzy with regards to bailing out unstable economies, such as Ireland and Greece.  Eventually, Portugal and Spain will also need bailouts I'm afraid, giving the EU something to worry about.  This newest announcement also should spark fear in the EU because Estonia is far from a country of great economic success.  The Associated Press reports:

By European standards, Estonia is a poor place. The average monthly salary was euro760 ($995) in the third quarter of this year, while unemployment is 15.5 percent, compared with an average of 10.1 percent in the euro area. And last year the economy saw its worst fall ever, with output plummeting nearly 14 percent — one of the steepest falls in the 27-member EU.

A handful of economists argue that given such disparity with developed euro area members, Estonia should refrain from joining and instead concentrate on catching up by running deficits — something that the euro rules theoretically prohibit.

Estonia's economy — known for its embrace of innovation and new technologies — is emerging from the crisis. Third-quarter growth was 5 percent year-on-year, largely thanks to a surge in exports, while the International Monetary Fund forecast next year's growth to be 4 percent.

Estonia is experiencing growth, which is good to some extent.  What I would fear is that Estonia could face too much growth to have technology bubble that could burst at any moment.  Oddly enough, this was the same scenario that occurred in Ireland.  I agree with the analysis that Estonia should develop its economy to stay on strong footing before it enters into the Eurozone.  The EU should only let countries that have strong foundational economies join its exclusive club.

This could be a symbolic gesture for the EU saying that it is still accepting members in eastern Europe and could someday let in Turkey.  On the other hand, a symbolic gesture could trade-off with mass chaos if economic indicators are not watched carefully.  

Pragmatic Peace

After viewing President Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech, it gave me an interesting sense of where the president has taken his foreign policy agenda.  After the speech came out, most commentators thought the president had announced his newest doctrine of "pragmatic peace."  They were referring to the president's ability to accentuate his goals in terms of being realistic towards attaining peace.  He was considered the first president who did not speak in absolutes when it came to foreign policy.  Meaning, he did not say that a specific group was "absolute" evil or the U.S. would stand "absolutely" with a particular group.  Two presidents used this type of language.  "Absolute" evil was Ronald Reagan, who would use this terminology to discuss the Soviet Union.  John F. Kennedy used the "Absolutely" stand rhetoric to refer to groups the U.S. would not leave behind in terms fighting communism.

Of course, this is not to say that President Obama does not believe in standing up against human rights abuses, but he does understand the consequences of disrupting the balance between an international partner like China and criticizing countries who wield less power, such as Sudan.  The pragmatism part refers to his acute sense of noticing the international community and its role.  So, he wants to help those are suffering in the world, but he also does not want to disrupt the balance of power.  Hypocritical as this might sound, many see it as an opening towards opportunity for the U.S. to be a leader and respecting sovereign nations.

More to the point, has the president accomplished his goal of achieving "pragmatic peace?"  Well, world peace does not exist, so probably not.  Definitely his reciprocal actions towards other nations is an illustration of this practice.  For instance, he invited the Dali Lama to come to the U.S., but was careful not to provoke China.  He also went to India last month, but he did not use language that could incite Pakistan to react harshly to his visit.  In other words, he has used caution when addressing other nations as to not start regional wars or international trade disputes.

The other side of President Obama's foreign policy is what I referred to in my first thought this morning.  Mainly, he uses incrementalism to solve problems.  He takes small steps towards solving problems.  On climate change, he signed the small, non-binding Copenhagen Accord.  With Iran, he passed international sanctions that targeted specific groups.  The new START Treaty even put this into practice by reducing nuclear weapons by small amounts.  To his credit, at least he is trying.  On the other hand, he is losing support with people who want radical action.  Sadly, his style will never reflect that type of action.  The president sees every problem like an arms control treaty.  Each step you take must be carefully negotiated and planned.  No president ever expected to rid the world of nuclear weapons all in one sitting.  It would take years of tough negotiating to ever achieve that goal, which is still a work in progress.

My only fear regarding this incrementalist style of diplomacy is that he will lose elections based on his foreign policy.  If he does not take dramatic action, people will say he is being to slow and shortchanging the American public, and the world for that matter, on comprehensive foreign policy victories.  If the Israel-Palestine negotiation debacle has been any indication, its that their are serious drawbacks to this incrementalist paradigm.  Climate change is another problem.  Copenhagen, and most recently Cancun, seemed like good places to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  This arms control strategy does not work as well with climate change because so many economic and political interests revolve around climate change that getting to the big picture of a global agreement may never come to fruition. Both examples reveal the limits of Obama's foreign policy miracles.

The point I want everyone to get out of seeing the speech and watching Obama's foreign policy in action is how different and similar rhetoric and action work.  Obama has used his pragmatism from the Nobel speech as an outlook on global affairs and a guiding principle, but along the way he has found a tool of incrementalism to put that outlook into practice.  Hence, you have the paradigm and the toolbox necessary to make it happen.  Unless his style changes, this will be the way business is conducted by the president for quite a while.

Photo Credit: Time Magazine