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.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, August 9, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, August 6, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
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.
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)