Beginning on a Hopeful note?

We interrupt your Wikileaks coverage to bring you this late breaking story:

Secretary Clinton, while attending a Gulf Security Conference in Bahrain, spoke at length about the upcoming P5+1 talks. Two things were unique about the speech. Firstly that it focused heavily on engaging Iran, something that we heard a lot about in the campaign but very little since. She even acknowledged their right to a peaceful nuclear program, something we've heard before but not nearly often enough. And Secondly, the Iranians she was speaking to were in the room with her. Direct communication between the U.S. and Iran is almost unheard of, to the point where most of our negotiations are done through the Swiss or the Pakistanis. Not only was an Iranian delegation in the same room, but it was led by none other than Manouchehr Mottaki Iran's Foreign Minister. His presence as the same conference as Secretary Clinton was almost certainly no accident.

It will probably as yet come to nothing, but it does seem as good a sign for next weeks negotiations as we could ask for.

Best posts I've read

As promised here are some of the best posts I've read on the wikileaks scandal. I chose to highlight those who aren't simply (like so much of the media) focusing on the gossip of the leaks, but hard substance instead. First up is...

• the Democracy in American blog by The Economist. The writer W.W. points out what so many reports have missed, that this story isn't about Mr. Assange or the specific info dump, its about the new status qoe. The ability now exists to take actions like this, and though Mr. Assange and his Wikileaks organization have been exceptionally clever in their execution, the capacity is within the hands of near anyone. What will our politics, our society, and our institutions look like in such a world?

• Steve Levine's Oil and Glory blog. His post is nothing if not entertaining, apparently many of the foreign service officers he knows are enjoying having the limelight. Finally the world can recognize their genius. In a world where losing yourself a senate race or even losing yourself from your own wedding are enough to land you book deals It wouldn't surprise me if this leak ended in meal tickets for a few diplomats.

This post will be updated as find more I want to share.

Hero of the Week: Robert Gates

I'm already a big fan of Defense Secretary Gates for his attempts to cut useless and expensive programs (boondoggles) at the Pentagon and his lobbying on behalf of State and USAID but the quotes he's delivered on the wikileaks controversy quite simply made my day. Said Robert Gates when asked about Wikileaks publication of secret diplomatic cables:

    "Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time...  

     When we went to real congressional oversight of intelligence in the mid-'70s, there was a broad view that no other foreign intelligence service would ever share information with us again if we were going to share it all with the Congress.  Those fears all proved unfounded.  

     Now, I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on.  I think -- I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets... 

     Is this embarrassing?  Yes.  Is it awkward?  Yes.  Consequences for U.S. foreign policy?  I think fairly modest."

Favorite. Sec Def. Ever. 
Both his candor and sense of proportion are well appreciated. Two virtues I'd like to see more in our public discourse. Secretary Gates delivered these remarks at a press conference for DADT repeal and its worth reading for its intended content alone but these wikileaks quotes are priceless. The transcript of the press conference can be found here.

Bandwagoning with Bloggers

I haven't had much time lately to weigh in on the newest wikileaks disclosures, or for blogging in general, and I felt it was well time I did so. In the coming week I'll take some time out of my busy schedule (I'm in the middle of trying to get a paper published) to bring you some commentary on this evolving situation.

Look for: An analysis of several specific cables. Analysis of how the U.S. Government is handling the situation. And of course shout outs to the best pieces I've found on the leak and its impact.

If there are any blogs, op-eds, or other writings that you think are good share a link in the comments.


Updated: New Wikileaks posts

• Hero of the Week: Robert Gates
• Best Posts I've Read

America at the Human Rights Council

The United States stint before the UN's Human Rights Council last Friday has been all over the news recently (at least the news I read). David Bosco of the other multilateralist and Colum Lynch of Turtle Bay both present good analysis, but I thought I'd quickly review the situation for anyone who might have been distracted recently as well as throw in my own two cents.

Under President Obama's administration the United States has for the first time ever joined the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) which requires its members to submit a report on their adherence to international standards on human rights every 4 years, a practice known as the Universal Periodic Review. The US submission can be found: Here. After submitting the written report (and this is the fun part) representatives from other countries get to publicly question the US about it. Two minutes per country. A number of US adversaries (Iran, Venizualia, Cuba, and North Korea) actually camped out as if they were waiting for the next generation of iPhone, in order to get first speaking rights. Cuba won the right to go first, and those countries proceeded in providing a heavily critical of US policy.

In his article Bosco brings up some good points, framing it as "smart public relations" and reminding his readers that in exchange for being subjected to this interrogation the United States will be able to interrogate other regimes in turn, and that some of them have much more to worry about. He is right as far as it goes but he misses  something else: that the antagonistic opening speeches likely muted further criticism of US policy. After all, who wants to be on a list with with North Korea and Cuba?  And by all accounts the rest of the proceedings were fairly restrained, offering a mix of light criticism and praise. It makes it a lot harder to make a tackle a controversial subject like war crimes when you'll be lumped in together with those countries. I imagine it'd feel similar to how we in the US feel whenever someone starts listing off the countries that execute minors. That's not a good list to be on.

So much for isolating Iran...

Despite or perhaps because of America's fervent effort to isolate the Islamic Republic on the world stage Iran has been elected to the OPEC Presidency for the first time since the 79 revolution. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries may be small (only 12 countries) but in many ways it may be just as important to the global economy as any other international institution, it's a cartel of oil exporting countries that together control about 2/3 of known reserves and roughly 1/3 of current production.

Simply being the president doesn't give Iran control over reserves or production of course there's no need for alarm, but the important thing here may be that those eleven other countries elected Iran to the post. It's term is only a year so it isn't simply Iran's turn, it's missed out on the last few. Those 11 countries chose Iran to head their meetings and control their agenda. It demonstrates both a symbolic power and a structural power and at  the least a barometer of Iran's popularity with it's fellow oil producing states. It's significant that Iran hasn't been elected to the post in 36 years and it's equally significant that that dry spell has ended now.

An Open Letter to Congressman Don Young

The following is an open letter I have written to my Congressmen Don Young. He has added his name to a piece of legislation legalizing an Iranian terrorist group. I am very cross at him for this. This was a private letter ten days ago when I sent it, but having received no reply I have chosen to make it an open one.

"Dear Congressman Young,
I'm writing to ask you to withdraw your signature from H. Res. 1431. As you probably know this legislation calls for the delisting of the People’s Mojahedin Organization or (MEK) from the State Department's terrorist list. The thing is Congressman, that the MEK is on the terrorist list for a good reason. It is an Islamist/Marxist organization (two brands of ideology not exactly known for their pro American views) that has committed numerous terrorist attacks within Iran. They have no legitimacy within Iran and are viewed almost universally as traitors to their country because they sided with Saddam Huessain in the Iran/Iraq war. We don't want to be associated with these people and even appearing to side with them undermines us and undermines Iran's democratic opposition and Green movement.

Please withdraw your name and support from this legislation. I don't want my state or my country associated with support for terrorists.

Your constituent,
The Multilateralist"

House Resolution 1431 was written by Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) and has 100 co-signatories including Don Young. If any of those are your congressional representatives feel free to write a similar letter, or even use this one with the names changed.


A detailed analysis as to why this resolution is a very bad idea can be found: here

One step closer to a United Europe

In many ways the European Union has been a wildly successful experiment in supranationalism, but it's attempts at a common foreign policy have floundered in the past. Steps to right these failures began with the passage of the Lisbon Treaty and have continued at a slow and steady pace since. Another step in that process took place yesterday when the EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton appointed 28 ambassadors for Europe. They will be members of the new European External Action Service (EEAS) and will represent no individual state but instead the whole of the EU. They are drawn both from foreign services and from the EU's existing supranational bodies. They are the latest step in making sure that Europe speaks with one voice.

This is definitely a step in the right direction but there are still many more to take and success is still far from assured. There are a number of posts that still need filling, including important ambassadorships like those to Brazil and Iraq, plus many lower ranking positions. The biggest immediate threat to the EEAS is that it still hasn't been funded yet and that may prove a high hurtle to overcome at a time when everyone's trying to slim budgets. In the longer term the question of whether EU member states will see it as representative or whether their own foreign policies will run in parallel has yet to be answered.

The list of European Ambassadors can be found Here .

Time's Running Out

No, not for a Palestinian/Israeli peace but for this: The World Trade Organization's poetry contest! Only 3 days left!

Those of you artistically inclined should take this opportunity to express your feelings about this most vibrant of Keynesian Institutions. Will you compare the evolution of the GATT into the WTO to the metamorphosis of a caterpillar? Will you reminisce over your misspent youth rioting in Seattle? Will you pine passionately for the completion of the Doha Round as you would for a lost lover? These decisions are in your hands! Go forth and poetrify your love of international institutions!

Hero of the Week: CAIR

This week's hero is CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations. They deserve praise for their recent series of PSAs "9/11 happened to us all" and other efforts to fight the recent wave of anti-Muslim bigotry that's been sweeping the United States. These public service announcements highlight the stories of Muslim first responders to the September 11th terrorist attacks and draw attention to the fact that it was a crime committed against Muslims as much as it was by Muslims. The idea, and I hope it's successful, is to remind people that Muslims are fellow citizens and not some alien force; if you pick us do we not bleed and all that.




The civil rights of US citizens is a moral issue; protecting the right for Muslims to build a Mosque anywhere (or in this case a community center) is the only way I can make sure that Christians can build Churches anywhere they want and Jews can build Synagogues where they choose. And the controversy over the planned community center in Manhattan is just one outgrowth of intolerance; there's been stabbing, arson , and the reprehensible Burn a Koran day. Disgusting.




This is also a foreign policy issue and the image of so many Americans protesting their fellows civil rights is not one that will play well around the world, it confirms many people's worst fears about America's relationship with Islam. For both these reasons and many more it is vitally important that the US comes to terms with it's fastest growing religion and this latest campaign by CAIR is helping do just that. By dispelling the otherness of Islam and reminding us that it's adherents are our friends and neighbors these PSAs are striking a blow against xenophobia and intolerance.




The battle for hearts and minds is far from over, both at home and abroad. I hope CAIR keeps these PSAs up.

I was The Multilateralist before it was cool.

I created this blog just under a month ago so I'd have a forum to discuss global politics, U.S. foreign policy, and the question of what kind of global order we're headed towards.

A few days ago while trying to register a twitter account for this blog I made a discovery that the name "Multilateralist" was already taken. I thought this strange. Clicking on it I discovered I had only missed out on the sought after username by a day or two. It was linked to a new blog on Foreign Policy called you guested it: The Multilateralist! Written by a David Bosco. He's apparently written a book on the UN Security Council. He appears to be an egomaniac. But if I had books published or a blog sponsored by Foreign Policy magazine I probably would be one too.

I will freely admit that I felt a little like I'd been stolen from. After all, I thought long and before I came up with this name and (this is the crucial part) did a google search to try and find out if it was already taken. So while I resent the hell out of Bosco for his success and for stealing my name... I'm going to ask you to do something that may seam strange under the circumstances: Read his blog. It's about all the same ideas as mine, but with a tighter focus on international institutions. It's also quite good and as far as I'm concerned there aren't nearly enough people thinking and talking about the international system. His voice is welcome.

We'll see it this here internet is big enough for the both of us. I'm going to continue as The Multilateralist for now. I'll hope that his shadow isn't to big, if I get lost in it I may have to find a new name and I'm already rather fond of this one.

Personal Political Agendas or just Incompetence?

Recently U.S. Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) used his power as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to block One Hundred Million Dollars of military aid to the Lebanese army. He placed this hold because he had been "concerned for sometime about reported Hizballah influence on the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF)." He was quickly supported by Representative Cantor (R-VA), who said the recent border skirmish between Israeli and Lebanese forces “demands a sweeping reassessment of how we distribute our foreign aid."


The assertion that the mild skirmish on the Israel/Lebanon border is justification for cutting aid is preposterous. Anywhere in the world where borders are contested or even just poorly demarcated border skirmish's of some kind are inevitable. Clearer heads don't always prevail and everyone is armed, sometimes lives are lost; these problems are more likely to escalate when the countries involved are adversaries. But this can't and shouldn't be seen as an act of policy from either side. If this was not an act of policy than what sense does it make to punish an entire institution? None. 


Cantor thinks aid should be blocked until we "can certify that the Lebanese army is not cooperating with Hezbollah," as if antagonism towards Israel is unique to Hezbollah in Lebanese society. Being invaded and occupied by a country then invaded again tends to leave pretty broad based resentments Mr. Cantor, and there is no segment of Lebanese society that would willingly be branded Israel's ally right now. Not the Sunni, not the Druze, not even the Maronites. Viewing Israel as a threat doesn't mean the Lebanese Army has anything to do with Terrorists.


What's more important than the Congressmen's misperception with what they're decrying is the considerable damage that they may be doing. Whatever "influence" Hezbollah may have within the Lebanese army it's still a competing power base. The reason Hezbollah is so popular to begin with is that they were seen as defending the country when the official military was unwilling or unable to. Undermining the LAF does nothing but strengthen Hezbollah's position in the country. State department spokesman PJ Crowley explained that supporting the LAF is in the United States' interest because it It "allows the government of Lebanon to expand its sovereignty" and that means weakening militias and terrorists across the entire country, including Hezbollah. If Berman and Cantos really want to weaken Hezbollah then their policy is self defeating.


If they don't weaken the LAF they will at least weaken American influence in it and Iran is already picking up the pieces. Iran and Syria have both offered to help bankroll the LAF. With donations coming in from just a few select organizations and individuals like Defense Minister Murr the LAF may become a servant of their personal, perhaps sectarian interests.


The actions and words of Berman and Cantor are probably well meaning acts of incompetence; strengthening the very forces they are meant to weaken, but I fear the possibility that they may be all to deliberate. I fear that this comes at a time of heightened public xenophobia against Islam when playing "tough on terrorism" plays well in the polls. They can score political points by grandstanding over military aid to a Muslim country but only at the expense of American foreign policy and security priorities. The Representatives either don't know or don't care about the damage they're doing.

A diplomatic lockout

In June of this year Turkey and Brazil made a serious effort to negotiate a compromise between Iran and the international community in regards to Iran's nuclear program. They succeeded in getting Iran to agree to most all of Washington's demands. Their success was ignored by the U.N. Security Council which passed a new round of sanctions despite the best efforts of two of it's members. I'll be explaining how that vote hurt non-proliferation efforts in a future post, but here I'll explain how it damaged hopes of a peaceful international community outside of just that single issue.

The existence of a relatively peaceful international order is contingent on one thing: The ability of the system to incorporate rising powers within existing institutions. Giving countries a stake in the system means they are far less likely to try overthrowing it. Incorporating China's "peaceful rise" is widely understood to be one of the most important challenges of the current century. What is less widely understood is that China is not the sole rising power the system is struggling to incorporate. Among these other rising powers are Turkey a rising regional power and Brazil a rising global power. Both have consistently expanded their economies over the past decade. Both have a huge military. Turkey has more influence than just about any other country in the Middle East. Brazil is just beginning to have political influence on a global scale.


This was a major diplomatic push for the two countries who were staking their hopes and reputations on it; it was a gamble to be taken seriously on the world stage. They put a great deal of energy and resources into fighting for the international order only to have their success called a failure and thrown back in their face. If the US had at least studied the deal they had come up with at greater length, shown that it had really considered it rather than simply dismissing it out of hand then we might not have as big a problem. An indication of the anger of the two countries can be seen in that this was the first round of sanctions against Iran that wasn't passed unanimously by the security council, both voted against it. 

They aren't going to make a diplomatic effort like this on our behalf again and our efforts to solve the worlds problems will be poorer for it. If we are very unlucky this may mark the beginning of a disconnect between the emerging powers and the existing institutions; Brazil, Turkey, and others may decide they need to build their own. This event alone won't cause this split but it is symptomatic of great and growing problems based on the international order's failure to accept the rise of so called "developing countries."


Both countries are tied heavily into the international economic order so the present threat is one to the diplomatic and political establishment. If the worst is to be averted then these economic ties need to be strengthened and ways must be found to incorporate Brazil, Turkey, and other rising powers into the political order. It may be a fundamentally meaningless gesture but thanking them for their assistance with Iran might help smooth over some bruised egos. After that they need to be publicly asked to help on other pertinent issues; give them another chance to help and us another chance to accept their help.


If we lock states out of the diplomatic process they will find alternatives. These may not be alternatives we like.

Hero of the week: Fareed Zakaria

I've been a fan of Fareed for a long time. I've read both his books; I watch his show when I can. I've admired his ability to articulate international issues and I think he contributes a great deal to the public discourse. I've recently come to be impressed by him as a person of great integrity.

We were all surprised when the the Anti Defamation League (ADL) a group ostensibly set up to protest discrimination gave in to it instead and came out against the planned Mosque in New York. Fareed was apperently as shocked by this reversal of priorities as the rest of us, and he took action. He returned an award and the ten thousand dollars that went with it that the ADL had given him in 2005. He protested in a potent way, one that brought national media attention to the League's betrayal of its core values. Hopefully this will cause them to rethink their stance on the Mosque and Zakaria will be able to take back the prize he deserves in good continence.

I'll continue to read his books, watch his show, and now... admire him for his integrity as well as his intelligence.

What's in a name?

For those less familiar with the concept multilateralism, it is a term used in political science to describe countries working together to solve their problems. The United Nations is a multilateral institution, so is NATO.

Those underlying principles of cooperation as the means of solving our problems are a theme that will be examined in this blog. I will endeavor to be undogmatic; I don't believe multilateralism is appropriate for all situations and I won't try to force it into analysis of situations for which it is unsuited. I do believe however that in an increasingly interconnected world multilateralism will become more and more important. It is widely acknowledged that working together is the only way to solve global problems such as nuclear proliferation and climate change, something that is almost impossible to dispute.

As the world is drawn closer and closer together the dueling concepts of cooperation and competition will continue to be an essential part of international politics; we'll be keeping an eye on their development here.

In which we publish our views, our aims, and our tendencies...

Welcome to the inaugural post of the Multilateralist blog. It's purpose is to discuss global politics and foreign policy specifically, and more broadly how the world should be governed.

Furthering that discussion is this blog's purpose.

My purpose for it is more personal. I intend it as an outlet, a way to keep my mind nimble and analytical; not to succumb to the distracting haze that is television and massively multiplayer online games. Giving me an excuse to keep reading, researching, and analyzing would be my lowest goal. My highest would be to engage in a debate with those others interested in how this world we live in works and maybe even make a few friends.

After all: The more comrades the better when you're trying to save the world!