Daily Archives: December 28, 2010

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.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Congress, independent internationalist, START

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

Leave a Comment

Filed under independent internationalist, religion, war

Key To Peace: Connectiveness

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

http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf

Leave a Comment

Filed under independent internationalist, Middle East, peace

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.

Leave a Comment

Filed under banks, ICC, independent internationalist, international organizations, international relations, Kenya, Sudan, U.N., U.S.

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

Leave a Comment

Filed under banks, economic policy, global economy, independent internationalist