g m g D e s i g n . c o m

No offense to Barak Obama, but he does not deserve the Nobel Peace prize, nor will that make his job any easier. The Nobel committee, at least for Peace, seems to have a proclivity toward making very good choices some years and awful choices other years (i.e., 2007’s choice of co-winner Al Gore or, of course, this year’s choice of Obama). Which year takes the cake for the worst decision by the luminaries on the Peace committee: 1994, for co-awarding Yasser Arafat with the Peace prize. I mean, how stupid are the Peace prize judges? By comparison, I should point out that Obama and Gore are much more peaceful than Arafat, but the lack of judgment is still very obvious, years later.

Obama might deserve the Peace prize at some point in the future, but that time hasn’t arrived, not by a long shot. Further, winning the prestigious award will almost certainly make his job much harder, as every action he takes is critically evaluated for its “Peace-ness.” Perhaps the Peace prize judges are trying to strategically effectuate an outcome that they find appealing; however: 1) that is not the point of the prize, making the prize seem disingenuous, and 2) that approach is likely to backfire.

The willingness to take bold, direct action (against vile dictators, terrorist-supporters, or Somali pirates) will likely drop, as Obama already has his Peaceful legacy to consider. Bush Jr may have been too flippant about going to war, but Obama will be the opposite: too contemplative, weak, and unthreatening.

Barnett argues for completion of Doha round (of free trade talks), rather than continuing the disastrous policy of foreign aid to under-developed regimes.

Nice piece that argues that Africa is the least developed part of the world but also the least free when it comes to economic activity (meaning, the most protectionistic), so instead of debt relief (that punishes the thrifty and rewards state thievery and diversion to arms spending) and more aid (how did China and India lift so many hundreds of millions out of poverty with no significant aid?), the world’s major economies (i.e., G8 that held the Gleneagles conference) would do much better to complete the Doha Development Round of the WTO.

Dr Martin Hellman (the “Hellman” in Diffie-Hellman… in other words, a prominent cryptographer) writes about our relative risk of nuclear annihilation. Bottom line is that if we’re 99% safe from nuclear annihilation, we’re in grave danger. Check it out.

After reading this commentary, it got me thinkin’. Foreign policy interventionism is much, much less popular now that US and British troops are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the high level of military success in both countries in the initial combat phase, the post-war reconstruction phase (where we “win the peace”) isn’t going well. Rather than evaluate this situation for what it is, demagogues on both the left & the right become internationally withdrawn. The result: foreign interventionism (Bush-style for the Right and Blair-style for the Left) has taken a beating; no one on either side wants it. “Bring the troops home” seems to be the message.

In my humble personal experience, foreign policy inactivity is justified in a number of ways. Off the top of my head:

• Desire to focus on domestic agenda
• General belief that American interventionism is “bad”
• Disgust over setbacks in Iraq, Afghanistan
• Belief that non-military measures, such as expanding globalization, are more effective than military campaigns

It’s possible, even likely, that we can and will build up our capacity to re-build nations with more efficacy than what we’ve done in Iraq. To do so, we need more international cooperation; not on the initial “take down the bad regime” side, but on the “post-conflict need-to-rebuild-the-country” portion (Barnett differentiates this in the following way: the Leviathan force is the Thor’s hammer military; the System Administrator force is the military-civilian force that is engaged on the reconstruction side). We definitely have the capacity to take down bad international actors. But rebuilding countries (or building them, in Afghanistan’s case), requires more people, more diverse skillsets, and greater internationalization. What would Iraq look like if we had done this? What would it look like to have 20,000 Indians and Chinese in that country right now?

An international organization like the IMF, but for nation re-building, could be built up and leveraged in post-conflict situations. After all, why should the US/UK be burdened with this cost to our troops and our treasury? Other nations are logical stakeholders in this and not only can participate, but would bad happy to do so. An IMF-like mechanism would be a perfect opportunity for them.

The Kim family has led to the intentional deaths of millions of North Koreans, not to mention the mayhem that they bring about as a result of their drug and arms-dealing. Trading nuclear material could become their next shameful act to add to their list. Saddam no doubt had similar ambitions, though they were set back quite a bit more than most experts anticipated (with regard to their nuke program). How many senseless deaths by African warlords are needed to convince skeptics that foreign interventionism is sometimes a moral necessity?

And an argument to the “I still don’t care ’cause I’m amoral” crowd: imagine if we had flipped Afghanistan before al Qaeda launched their dreaded and unprovoked assault? What happens over there does indeed affect us over here. Thousands died and millions, if not billions, were indirectly affected due to the vile, hateful Salafist doctrine of al Qaeda’s followers. Millions in Afghanistan have since been liberated by coalition forces, not that the non-interventionists seem to care.

I’ve heard considerate people argue against intervening in the affairs of other countries. We need a more efficient mechanism for “flipping” countries from dictatorship to open, free societies. We need a mechanism for nation-state creation in the case of “fake states”–countries that lack sufficient central governance and are breeding grounds of anti-Western hate (Africa is the next logical stomping ground for al Qaeda, for example). This is a do-able task, and the aforementioned constructs would be more effective and cheaper than what we current employ. The case for foreign interventionism has never been stronger, and the arguments on the contrary are as hollow as they’ve always been.

That’s apparently the nickname for the book that Chavez shoved in Obama’s face. It’s a left-wing book that presents ideas of the sort that has kept much of Latin America back economically (that “caplitalism is bad,” and that Europe/US are prosperous on the backs of Latin Americans, etc).

Americans seemed to be curious about Mr. Chávez’s reading tastes. But in Latin America, “Open Veins” is a well-known rant by Uruguayan Marxist Eduardo Galeano. And it also has another distinction that Mr. Chávez may be less inclined to publicize: It is widely regarded in free-market circles as “the idiot’s bible.”

Newsweek has an interesting commentary on the US base in Cuba: convert it to a free-trade zone! Check it out:

The way to bring radical change to Cuba is to return Guantánamo Bay to the Cubans—but not to the Castros. The Miami-based diaspora of some 1.6 million Cuban-born people and their offspring could turn the base into something many of them love dearly: a business opportunity. As a tax-free, duty-free, open-trade zone run by Cuban-Americans for the benefit of their brethren on the island, Guantánamo Bay could become a model for a new Cuba, a place where fair dealing, the rule of law and free speech are the norm. By starting businesses catering to Cubans, and later opening factories to employ them, Cuban-Americans would bring normal rights onto Cuban soil. Open the border at Gitmo, initiate trade and the Castro regime’s stranglehold would start to crumble.

Economic connectivity with the rest of the world will non-violently challenge the idiotic marxist ideology that is so ingrained in Cuba (though I’m sure most Cubans know it’s bullshit by now… it still might be perceived as “too American” for them, unless it’s being driven by their Cuban-American counterparts).

This is a great idea that should have literally transpired decades ago. For some reason, the morons in Congress think that the Cuban embargo has been successful (rather than the total failure that it is). Connecting directly to the people and establishing economic connectivity opens the door for eventual normalized relations, a more democratic form of government for Cubans, greater Cuban prosperity, and maybe even a more formal connection to the US–Cuba as a US territory or even, eventually, America’s 51st state.

HT to Tom Barnett’s blog.

FP’s blog site reports on Ron Paul’s idea of privatizing maritime security. Fascinating idea. The gist:

It’s the ships themselves who choose to go into those dangerous waters; why not let them take on the cost of providing security? Let them carry guns and fight back. The U.S. government for its part, Paul suggests, would “arm” the private ships with a different kind of ammunition in the form of Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

The long-dead U.S. foreign policy tool, allows the government to write letters granting private citizens the authority to go after fugitives or others who do them offense. If applicable, the citizens could then collect government-issued bounty for their good work. In short, the letters would put the fight on piracy in the hands of the people. Or sailors.

I wouldn’t say this replaces the Navy; it supplements it. It asserts the idea that we’re allowed to defend our lives, liberty, and property from bad actors, be they here or abroad. Sounds like it’s consistent with the vision of our Founding Fathers.

Strategic thinker and all-around-smart-guy Thomas Barnett is positive on Hillary Clinton (thus far… there’s still plenty of screw-up time). Maybe she’ll be much more useful as a secretary of state than she was as a senator.

He says this about Clinton (or, er, her staff):

More generally, the TNR piece gives me a lot of comfort on the quality and number of Asia-smart hands around Clinton…

The subject at hand, US-Sino relations in the context of the N Korea situation, and Barnett’s thoughts:

There is no question [raised by Clinton or her counterparts] about the DPRK’s collapse triggering war between the US and China. We simply need the event to go down in such a way as to bolster our bilateral ties and to make Beijing feel secure enough to play the role it needs to play.

Done well, this crisis is an opportunity for major growth in security–a final processing of the Cold War’s tailbone.

Bottom lines:

* Clinton’s not too bad; let’s give her a chance!

* War with China = dumb idea pushed by “big war” crowd to fund the billion-dollar toys they love

President/Dictator-for-life Hugo Chavez confirmed his lack of respect for personal freedoms and his lack of grasp of basic economics by continuing his crusade against the private sector. This time, he seized a rice mill owned by Cargill.

The last 2 paras look interesting:

“I warn you, this revolution means business,” said Mr Chávez, who urged Venezuelans to fight against “capitalist speculation”. But he added that “those private companies that work within the law . . . can keep operating here”.

Although rice production has been the focus of government intervention so far this week, Mr Chávez said it would inspect other sectors, including plants producing maize flour, cooking oil and lavatory paper.

The companies that can continue operating are ones that are non-foreign owned (socialism is inherently protectionist) and ones that Chavez personally approves of. American firms aren’t looking too hot in Venezuela right now, nor are local media companies (unless they’re pro-Chavez).

—

The remnants of Venezuela’s democratic system might save it from perversion into socialist dystopia… depending on a) how fast Venezuela pumps oil and b) the price of oil per barrel.

Why? Dumb socialist systems cost money (oil), and absent that “free” money, his social programs can’t sustain themselves. With democracy in place (minimally), there might be enough time for his socialist revolution to falter and be rejected by the population.

What foreign policy initiative could the US phase in to make Chavez’s life more difficult? A carbon tax. Yes, I said it. A carbon tax can be phased in, with proceeds going to pay down the massive deficit (or for pie-in-the-sky Al Gore-ish wind mills; you choose). To offset the new tax, the “hidden” taxes meant to save us from ourselves (like CAFE vehicle requirements) can be removed.

Oh, and we’re either going to get a carbon tax or a cap ‘n trade system. One is more efficient and useful; the other is a tax-in-disguise, inefficient fraud.

Tying this back to foreign policy: economics and foreign policy are always tied. A carbon tax punishes idiots like Chavez and spurs the private sector, not government, to come up with alternatives (like efficiency, or alternate non-carbon fuels). The government sucks at micro-managing, so they need to get out of that business; here’s a great opportunity.

Now that Raul Castro has taken control of the country ravaged by his idiot brother, things are lookin’ up. A top Cuban official was let go, and that can only be a good thing. Raul is shaking things up politically and economically (introducing the free market, gradually). A very good sign.

Oh, and could Cuba become the US’s 51st state? Or 52nd, after Puerto Rico; or 53rd, after Puerto Rico and northern Mexico (Or…)? Who knows?

Thomas Barnett points out the irony (that escaped me)–we screw the UAE over on a deal to run shipping ports but are OK with them having nuclear technology. Funny irony when you think about it.

Like Barnett, I agree that the nuke deal was a good idea and actually increases our security, not the other way around.

A WSJ writer suggests that Obama will bargain to get the US’s fiscal house in order. Toward the bottom:

Here’s where the Grand Bargain could come in. Like Humpty Dumpty, the budget is going to be broken anyway. In putting it back together, would retirees be willing to accept that idea of having more prosperous seniors pay a monthly premium to receive their Medicare health coverage? Would liberals accept cuts in their favorite social programs? Would conservatives accept the idea of a carbon tax, to both raise big money for entitlements and prod the nation to move more quickly away from fossil fuels?

Obama is proving to be much more of a centrist than his campaign rhetoric. He may very well go down as a visionary if he can bring all sides together & find some real solutions (Medicare, Social Security).

The title of the editorial struck me b/c we really need a grand bargain in another respect as well–foreign policy. In the view of strategic visionary Thomas Barnett, we need a grand bargain with Iran to get closer to Mideast peace. Obama, unlike McCain, might actually do that, provided he doesn’t cave in to fears of being considered “soft” on foreign policy.

Grand bargains aren’t a sign of weakness, but refusing to bargain out of fear certainly is.

Thomas Friedman has an interesting perspective on Israeli foreign policy–and American foreign policy–in the region. Nothing that hasn’t been said before, but good recap. Moving forward, I think Obama/Clinton (as pres & sec-state) will try the diplomatic approach. The stick and the olive branch approach has been tried, and failed, before, but it’s all Israel can do now, and worth trying again. Obama will take this opportunity seriously and might make some good in-roads.

tdaxp writes:

We hear a lot about the need for a pro-growth economic agenda. However, we need a pro-growth foreign policy agenda, too.

Of course, this means supporting the power and influence of actors who support growth, and reducing the power of influence of countries that oppose it.

Specific suggestions? We need to be pro-India and pro-China, because it is only these new core economies that can both spend and save enough to help America in our burden of leading the global economy. A pro-China/pro-India foreign policy will kill the Joint Strike Fighter. The JSF channels our relationship with other great powers into conflict, instead of growth.

Well-spoken. We can throw money down the toilet on “Star Wars” and get absolutely nowhere, or we can divert resources toward realistic threats, like weak, rogue states and trans-national terrorist groups. Current priority is focused on too much of the former and not enough of the latter. I hope the “pro-growth foreign policy” term, as defined by tdaxp, becomes mainstream.

Fareed Zakaria has a good editorial entitled: Wanted: A New Grand Strategy. Check it out. Oh, note that Zakaria takes a pro-Obama stance and suggests that Obama is in a unique position to promote American interests worldwide (but don’t let that distract you from the very good main point: we need a grand strategy, one that doesn’t reflexively react to events but instead guides events in our strategic direction).

I suspect most people don’t do grand strategy well. First, people have a very zero-sum mindset (the “if you’re winning, I must be losing” mindset). Further, people tend to stereotype. I.e., after 9/11, the perception was that “those people” in the middle east are all bad (or, absurdly, the opposite extreme of blaming America for the attack). Lastly, people have a tendency to have a high opinion of their opinions. Differing opinions, even if the differences are superficial in substance, are meant with hostility.

Perhaps it is not just our political class that needs to develop a grand strategy, but society at large that needs to augment its strategic capacity.