Friday, April 01, 2005
Another Critical Intelligence Report
The latest of a series of reports, the "Silberman-Robb" report makes a scathing indictment of the intelligence system both before and after 9/11, before and after the attack on Iraq. Like previous reports, it makes many suggestions for improving the performance of system or systems, many based on failures to adopt or implement successfully previous recommendations.
It is hard to know what to add to all the commentary that has poured forth on the unclassified portions of the report. (One of the problems is right here: so much is classified that judging what is really being said becomes unduly difficult.) But what strikes an outside observer most forcefully is the simple fact that too much advice is flowing forth. How can organizations that have just been restructured several times since 9/11 (several changes within each organization plus new CIA direction plus incorporation of much of the effort into Homeland Security plus the setting up of an intelligence czar over the whole intelligence community) incorporate this advice effectively?
Given this caveat, many of the suggestions seem useful in themselves. The major thrust is integration, "Let's get the different parts of the structure talking with one another." One small part of the problem in this area is illustrated by a report of a continuing feud between a new center for terrorism threat analysis and the CIA's counterterrorism unit. The government had proposed a National Counterterrorism Center. But the units that were meant to contribute to this failed to do so effectively. Its head finally reported that lack of cooperation made it unable to fulfill its mission. It is perhaps not helpful that the new Commission report proposes several more such integrative agencies or units. One gets the feeling that the problem is simply unmanageable and may only get worse. (The intelligence muddle is just one example of how hard it is for a President to actually run the country however well meaning or even however intelligent he might be.)
Before leaving the issue, let me mention a couple of recommendations that might do some good because they seem to lie outside already established turfs. One is to set up within the Director of National Intelligence's Office (DNI, remember the acronym, you'll be hearing it a lot) a long-range research and analysis group that would look into general issues more deeply than is generally the case. Second, the Silberman-Robb report recommends setting up an independent, nongovernmental think tank to play the devil's advocate, to challenge the intelligence agency's views. This seems a great idea, although how the clearances required to know what the intelligence community is reporting to the President and other top officials would be handled would be a serious problem. Ultimately, the problems of the intelligence community are several — bureaucratic intransigence, overlapping jurisdictions, inadequate humint, and relatively low general intelligence and education. The think tank might help to at least ameliorate the latter.
It is hard to know what to add to all the commentary that has poured forth on the unclassified portions of the report. (One of the problems is right here: so much is classified that judging what is really being said becomes unduly difficult.) But what strikes an outside observer most forcefully is the simple fact that too much advice is flowing forth. How can organizations that have just been restructured several times since 9/11 (several changes within each organization plus new CIA direction plus incorporation of much of the effort into Homeland Security plus the setting up of an intelligence czar over the whole intelligence community) incorporate this advice effectively?
Given this caveat, many of the suggestions seem useful in themselves. The major thrust is integration, "Let's get the different parts of the structure talking with one another." One small part of the problem in this area is illustrated by a report of a continuing feud between a new center for terrorism threat analysis and the CIA's counterterrorism unit. The government had proposed a National Counterterrorism Center. But the units that were meant to contribute to this failed to do so effectively. Its head finally reported that lack of cooperation made it unable to fulfill its mission. It is perhaps not helpful that the new Commission report proposes several more such integrative agencies or units. One gets the feeling that the problem is simply unmanageable and may only get worse. (The intelligence muddle is just one example of how hard it is for a President to actually run the country however well meaning or even however intelligent he might be.)
Before leaving the issue, let me mention a couple of recommendations that might do some good because they seem to lie outside already established turfs. One is to set up within the Director of National Intelligence's Office (DNI, remember the acronym, you'll be hearing it a lot) a long-range research and analysis group that would look into general issues more deeply than is generally the case. Second, the Silberman-Robb report recommends setting up an independent, nongovernmental think tank to play the devil's advocate, to challenge the intelligence agency's views. This seems a great idea, although how the clearances required to know what the intelligence community is reporting to the President and other top officials would be handled would be a serious problem. Ultimately, the problems of the intelligence community are several — bureaucratic intransigence, overlapping jurisdictions, inadequate humint, and relatively low general intelligence and education. The think tank might help to at least ameliorate the latter.
Our Interest is with Japan not China
The Chinese government has launched an initiative campaign within China intended to prevent Japan from becoming a permanent member of the Security Council (along with Germany in the one current proposal). They hope to have enough signatures that the government can say that it simply cannot agree to making Japan a permanent member. China is apparently upset by recent Japanese support for an American position on Taiwan, as well as what goes into Japanese textbooks about World War II. (I would hate to know what goes into Chinese textbooks).
Whatever the sins of the Japanese, Japan is still the second largest economy in the world. It has made a major contribution to many international programs in the last few years, including both those promoted separately by the United Nations and by the United States.
As I pointed out before, the United States needs to set about developing an effective, long-term method of controlling the growth of Chinese power in the world. Taking a firm position on this issue in support of a permanent seat for Japan would make a good start. It should be made clear to other candidates such as Germany, India, and Brazil that China is standing in the way of the expansion of the permanent membership. We might also start talking about alternative ways of establishing world order and marshalling world opinion on critical issues in ways that by-pass the Security Council if it is not to be expanded. Plans for expanding the functions of the OECD (previous post) is one approach. New modalities for regulating international trade that would decrease the advantages China seems to have is another. Whatever we do, we should act in such a way that China becomes isolated on this issue and is forced to pay a diplomatic price.
Whatever the sins of the Japanese, Japan is still the second largest economy in the world. It has made a major contribution to many international programs in the last few years, including both those promoted separately by the United Nations and by the United States.
As I pointed out before, the United States needs to set about developing an effective, long-term method of controlling the growth of Chinese power in the world. Taking a firm position on this issue in support of a permanent seat for Japan would make a good start. It should be made clear to other candidates such as Germany, India, and Brazil that China is standing in the way of the expansion of the permanent membership. We might also start talking about alternative ways of establishing world order and marshalling world opinion on critical issues in ways that by-pass the Security Council if it is not to be expanded. Plans for expanding the functions of the OECD (previous post) is one approach. New modalities for regulating international trade that would decrease the advantages China seems to have is another. Whatever we do, we should act in such a way that China becomes isolated on this issue and is forced to pay a diplomatic price.
The Dead Weight of the Past
The world is suffering from the continuing pressure of the dead weight of the past. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Hindus are entranced by texts written long ago, in contexts very different from the modern world, by people who could not have any understanding of the ways of thinking that educated people everywhere now take for granted. We must clearly affirm that neither the Torah nor the Christian Bible nor the Quran are the word of God. Pick up any one of these texts and read for a while. Even those who believe that God exists in some form cannot believe that God would have sent down messages meant for all time that were so clearly related to the time and place of their recording or transcription.
People have always been killed and tortured in the name of religion. But that this should continue, that it should threaten the very existence of American democracy based on the separation of powers should cause everyone to pause for a minute. In a desire to embed multiculturalism in our society and institutions, many liberals concluded years ago that questions of belief should not be raised in polite society. "Everyone has their own book, and they have a right to follow what it says." But we can accept this no longer. When the book of the Jews is read to grant them all of Palestine while the book of the Muslims leads them to understand that they have a god-given right to the same territory, we outsiders, the interpreters of our day, must come clean. We must clearly declare that no religious book has the authority to guide anyone today.
In the United States, fundamentalists — Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish — insist that the findings of verified science in field after field must be dismissed because they are not found in their holy books. The result is that millions of "schooled" Americans reach maturity deeply confused about the meaning of the modern world and how to react to it. Many Christians have been taught to believe in a violent second coming, a belief so strongly advocated by some that they would be glad to see an all-out war of Jews and Muslims in Palestine — it would herald the glorious end of time. Some Christians have even seen nuclear war in this light, believing that it is actually what the Book of Revelations leads up to. Elite American policy makers cannot blithely carry the country forward and maintain the peace as long as these dead weights continue to pull us down.
In the Middle East, fundamentalist Islam continues to teach that women are inferior, that they were put on the earth to serve men and bear children. As the history of Pakistan has demonstrated, no matter how many liberals rise up to leadership positions in Muslim societies, there is always the danger that a politico-religious group will be able to undermine the progress toward equality that fitfully occurs. "Real democracy", in the sense of free and fair elections, may carry such societies back to the Middle Ages. I have always felt that the Draconian measures of the Turkish army to keep religion out of politics (Islam cannot be mentioned in a political context) cast doubt on the sincerity of the commitment of the Turkish elite to democracy. Now, however, I wonder if such Draconian means are not essential in the Islamic context for the world to grow up.
All peoples must eventually mature into educated modern peoples free of the burdens of the past. If they do not, their leaders will not be able to work out a means to face the escalating difficulties of a world whose relentless material expansion threatens us all.
People have always been killed and tortured in the name of religion. But that this should continue, that it should threaten the very existence of American democracy based on the separation of powers should cause everyone to pause for a minute. In a desire to embed multiculturalism in our society and institutions, many liberals concluded years ago that questions of belief should not be raised in polite society. "Everyone has their own book, and they have a right to follow what it says." But we can accept this no longer. When the book of the Jews is read to grant them all of Palestine while the book of the Muslims leads them to understand that they have a god-given right to the same territory, we outsiders, the interpreters of our day, must come clean. We must clearly declare that no religious book has the authority to guide anyone today.
In the United States, fundamentalists — Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish — insist that the findings of verified science in field after field must be dismissed because they are not found in their holy books. The result is that millions of "schooled" Americans reach maturity deeply confused about the meaning of the modern world and how to react to it. Many Christians have been taught to believe in a violent second coming, a belief so strongly advocated by some that they would be glad to see an all-out war of Jews and Muslims in Palestine — it would herald the glorious end of time. Some Christians have even seen nuclear war in this light, believing that it is actually what the Book of Revelations leads up to. Elite American policy makers cannot blithely carry the country forward and maintain the peace as long as these dead weights continue to pull us down.
In the Middle East, fundamentalist Islam continues to teach that women are inferior, that they were put on the earth to serve men and bear children. As the history of Pakistan has demonstrated, no matter how many liberals rise up to leadership positions in Muslim societies, there is always the danger that a politico-religious group will be able to undermine the progress toward equality that fitfully occurs. "Real democracy", in the sense of free and fair elections, may carry such societies back to the Middle Ages. I have always felt that the Draconian measures of the Turkish army to keep religion out of politics (Islam cannot be mentioned in a political context) cast doubt on the sincerity of the commitment of the Turkish elite to democracy. Now, however, I wonder if such Draconian means are not essential in the Islamic context for the world to grow up.
All peoples must eventually mature into educated modern peoples free of the burdens of the past. If they do not, their leaders will not be able to work out a means to face the escalating difficulties of a world whose relentless material expansion threatens us all.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
The Administration's Commitment to Tough-mindedness
The Republican attempt to intervene with due process in order to save the life of an unfortunate but essentially unsalvageable woman in Florida might suggest an unwillingness to take the kind of difficult and tough decisions that doctors so often feel called upon to make. However, in the military-terrorism-foreign affairs-treatment of prisoners realm, the Administration is laying the groundwork for even tougher actions. First, they appointed Ambassador Bolton as American Ambassador to the United Nations. This is in spite of his well-known record of disparaging the usefulness of the organization and his stated position that we should only support the United nations when it supports our interests. This record is so egregious that a number of high-placed persons who have served in the foreign service and in policy positions in previous administrations have written a letter to Senator Lugar opposing his nomination. Second, President Bush has appointed Ambassador Negroponte to be director of directors for America's intelligence agencies. Negroponte has two sides. On the one hand, he loyally carries out whatever policy those above him wish him to. (He might or might not have told Bush the truth about Iraq: he finds out what is expected and then does it.) On the other hand, he has been the coldest of cold warriors. He resigned from a Vietnam policy position in the 1970s because he felt Kissinger had sold out the South Vietnamese (he did, but the importance with which he took this does show a rather unusual stance). As Ambassador in Honduras, he was according to those who worked with him at the time, notably unconcerned with the actions of the groups associated with the United States in the anti-communist struggle. The ambassador that preceded him in Honduras has accused him of discouraging reporting to Washington of torture, abductions or killings by the units he was supporting. Although an ambassador, he seemed actually to be part of the CIA in this position. As another acquaintance has said, Negroponte thought that to defeat the Russians in the Cold War anything was permissible. There is a fear that in the present fearful climate of the so-called "war on terror", he will evince the same kind of attitude.
Human Rights Reports: The More the Merrier
China has recently come out with a human rights report on the United States. It is available in English here. China intends this to be counter-propaganda against the State Department's annual human rights report that always has many negative things to say about China. (Even though their report is ostensibly developed as propaganda against the American Human Rights report, I doubt if average Chinese have access to the American original.)
However, it is useful for Americans, and indeed all peoples, to examine and think about the ways in which the United States can be said to fail to live up to the high human rights standards that we expect the rest of the world to attain. It is significant that the primary sources for the Chinese report are reports on leading American newspapers. Their treatment is often unbalanced, but it is generally based on relatively noncontroversial data.
The Chinese report emphasizes problems in personal security in America, pointing out the high level of violent crime and the large number of people in American jails. There is also a good deal on how inmates are treated. They point out the high levels of poverty and joblessness. They point to the difference in the ways in which different races live in the United States, pointing out how the inferred racial discrimination is against the very words of the Declaration of Independence. They point to high rates of rape, emphasizing particularly sexual crimes against children. (As is often the case with these discussions, there is no reference to things being better in China or elsewhere — lack of useful statistics is probably one reason.) The Chinese report particular faults the United States for its treatment of foreign nationals, beginning with the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The interested reader should go the full document referenced above. One cannot agree with the Chinese advice that given these shortfalls in our behavior we should give up our report, but one can agree that "the United States should reflect on its erroneous behavior on human rights and take its own human rights problems seriously". Would that there could be a cross-cutting world of such reports. There could not be a better kind of competition.
However, it is useful for Americans, and indeed all peoples, to examine and think about the ways in which the United States can be said to fail to live up to the high human rights standards that we expect the rest of the world to attain. It is significant that the primary sources for the Chinese report are reports on leading American newspapers. Their treatment is often unbalanced, but it is generally based on relatively noncontroversial data.
The Chinese report emphasizes problems in personal security in America, pointing out the high level of violent crime and the large number of people in American jails. There is also a good deal on how inmates are treated. They point out the high levels of poverty and joblessness. They point to the difference in the ways in which different races live in the United States, pointing out how the inferred racial discrimination is against the very words of the Declaration of Independence. They point to high rates of rape, emphasizing particularly sexual crimes against children. (As is often the case with these discussions, there is no reference to things being better in China or elsewhere — lack of useful statistics is probably one reason.) The Chinese report particular faults the United States for its treatment of foreign nationals, beginning with the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The interested reader should go the full document referenced above. One cannot agree with the Chinese advice that given these shortfalls in our behavior we should give up our report, but one can agree that "the United States should reflect on its erroneous behavior on human rights and take its own human rights problems seriously". Would that there could be a cross-cutting world of such reports. There could not be a better kind of competition.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
What's Happening in Iraq?
In last night's Lehrer show three experts agreed that the security situation in Iraq was steadily improving. Violence was down, while what remained was directed primarily at Iraqis, especially those in the security forces or wishing to be in them. The Iraqi security forces, for their part, were slowly but steadily becoming more capable, and thus more able to take over from the Americans. But the discussants also agreed that it would be a long time before the Americans could leave. There was still too much violence for the new state to survive.
Meanwhile, the election produced a balance of forces that has led to an alarming failure of the America-sponsored political process to move forward. The Kurds and the Shi'as cannot agree on critical issues, such as the status of Kirkuk, the Kurd's percentage of oil income, and the secular/religious balance. Complicating the picture are the Sunni Arab leaders who now say they must have at least one vice-president and receive as many critical cabinet posts in any new government as the Kurds (in spite of having elected very few members of parliament because most Sunni Arabs abstained). Given this impasse, the holdover government is apparently barely functioning, and the confidence of the people declines with every passing day. Some of the Shi'a parliamentarians are beginning to have second thoughts against backing the relatively conservative Ibrahim Jafari to be the new Prime Minister. Chalabi may be at work here: Muqtada al-Sadr is said to be one of the doubters (if we believe that these two have continued their strange relationship).
At the same time, Sheikh Harith al-Dari, perhaps the most influential leader of the Sunni Arab community insists that he will continue to support the insurgency until the Americans announce a date by which they will be gone from the country. Setting such a date is something the Shiites (other than al-Sadr) have not pressed for because they do not want to fight a war with the Sunni Arab community. They also do they want the Kurds to separate themselves entirely from the state, an event that could also spark another internal war. Many Americans, including myself, have thought a definite date for departure would be helpful. It might take the wind out of the insurgency. But one cannot be sure; certainly no one in our government talks that way.
Meanwhile, the election produced a balance of forces that has led to an alarming failure of the America-sponsored political process to move forward. The Kurds and the Shi'as cannot agree on critical issues, such as the status of Kirkuk, the Kurd's percentage of oil income, and the secular/religious balance. Complicating the picture are the Sunni Arab leaders who now say they must have at least one vice-president and receive as many critical cabinet posts in any new government as the Kurds (in spite of having elected very few members of parliament because most Sunni Arabs abstained). Given this impasse, the holdover government is apparently barely functioning, and the confidence of the people declines with every passing day. Some of the Shi'a parliamentarians are beginning to have second thoughts against backing the relatively conservative Ibrahim Jafari to be the new Prime Minister. Chalabi may be at work here: Muqtada al-Sadr is said to be one of the doubters (if we believe that these two have continued their strange relationship).
At the same time, Sheikh Harith al-Dari, perhaps the most influential leader of the Sunni Arab community insists that he will continue to support the insurgency until the Americans announce a date by which they will be gone from the country. Setting such a date is something the Shiites (other than al-Sadr) have not pressed for because they do not want to fight a war with the Sunni Arab community. They also do they want the Kurds to separate themselves entirely from the state, an event that could also spark another internal war. Many Americans, including myself, have thought a definite date for departure would be helpful. It might take the wind out of the insurgency. But one cannot be sure; certainly no one in our government talks that way.
What's Happening in Iraq?
In last night's Lehrer show three experts agreed that the security situation in Iraq was steadily improving. Violence was down, while what remained was directed primarily at Iraqis, especially those in the security forces or wishing to be in them. The Iraqi security forces, for their part, were slowly but steadily becoming more capable, and thus more able to take over from the Americans. But the discussants also agreed that it would be a long time before the Americans could leave. There was still too much violence for the new state to survive.
Meanwhile, the election produced a balance of forces that has led to an alarming failure of the America-sponsored political process to move forward. The Kurds and the Shi'as cannot agree on critical issues, such as the status of Kirkuk, the Kurd's percentage of oil income, and the secular/religious balance. Complicating the picture are the Sunni Arab leaders who now say they must have at least one vice-president and receive as many critical cabinet posts in any new government as the Kurds (in spite of having elected very few members of parliament because most Sunni Arabs abstained). Given this impasse, the holdover government is apparently barely functioning, and the confidence of the people declines with every passing day. Some of the Shi'a parliamentarians are beginning to have second thoughts against backing the relatively conservative Ibrahim Jafari to be the new Prime Minister. Chalabi may be at work here: Muqtada al-Sadr is said to be one of the doubters (if we believe that these two have continued their strange relationship).
At the same time, Sheikh Harith al-Dari, perhaps the most influential leader of the Sunni Arab community insists that he will continue to support the insurgency until the Americans announce a date by which they will be gone from the country. Setting such a date is something the Shiites (other than al-Sadr) have not pressed for because they do not want to fight a war with the Sunni Arab community. They also do they want the Kurds to separate themselves entirely from the state, an event that could also spark another internal war. Many Americans, including myself, have thought a definite date for departure would be helpful. It might take the wind out of the insurgency. But one cannot be sure; certainly no one in our government talks that way.
Meanwhile, the election produced a balance of forces that has led to an alarming failure of the America-sponsored political process to move forward. The Kurds and the Shi'as cannot agree on critical issues, such as the status of Kirkuk, the Kurd's percentage of oil income, and the secular/religious balance. Complicating the picture are the Sunni Arab leaders who now say they must have at least one vice-president and receive as many critical cabinet posts in any new government as the Kurds (in spite of having elected very few members of parliament because most Sunni Arabs abstained). Given this impasse, the holdover government is apparently barely functioning, and the confidence of the people declines with every passing day. Some of the Shi'a parliamentarians are beginning to have second thoughts against backing the relatively conservative Ibrahim Jafari to be the new Prime Minister. Chalabi may be at work here: Muqtada al-Sadr is said to be one of the doubters (if we believe that these two have continued their strange relationship).
At the same time, Sheikh Harith al-Dari, perhaps the most influential leader of the Sunni Arab community insists that he will continue to support the insurgency until the Americans announce a date by which they will be gone from the country. Setting such a date is something the Shiites (other than al-Sadr) have not pressed for because they do not want to fight a war with the Sunni Arab community. They also do they want the Kurds to separate themselves entirely from the state, an event that could also spark another internal war. Many Americans, including myself, have thought a definite date for departure would be helpful. It might take the wind out of the insurgency. But one cannot be sure; certainly no one in our government talks that way.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Transforming OECD in Parallel with the United Nations
Today's paper has an Op-Ed on strengthening NAFTA as a counterweight to China. It does not seem to make much sense for two reasons. First, the economies and capabilities of the United States, Mexico, and Canada are simply too different. In particular, we cannot afford to make the Mexican border into an irrelevancy in the near future. The suggestion that this is the kind of international reorganization we should favor rests on an outmoded territorial idea of the basis of international organization. The states that are closest to one another today are not those that are geographically closest, but rather those that are politically, morally, and economically closest.
A similar geographical concept is behind the thought that NATO be expanded in its membership and functions. Both suggestions have in common the idea that the United States faces long-term international problems that can only be handled by more intensive international cooperation outside the United Nations. The United Nations is an important organization, one that will always be needed because of its universality. However, the membership of the United Nations is so disparate that the issues on which effective action can be taken through the United Nations are limited. When it comes to foreign aid, it is difficult to effectively coordinate and develop policy when the poorest of the poor are part of the decision making process. When it comes to massive human rights violations, such as those in Sudan, the problem has often been that the perpetrators are actually members of the UN commissions that are supposed to suppress the violations.
My friend Jim Huntley has written extensively on developing a democracy-centered international organization built along the lines of NATO but having a global reach that would include Japan. However, there has been resistance to this idea in many quarters, partly because it appears to be another American attempt at hegemony, something that led the French to partially withdraw from NATO years ago.
The OECD, on the other hand, has its headquarters in Paris and has never been considered to be under the thumb of the United States. Its thirty members include all of the new European community, Japan and South Korea, as well as NAFTA. The purposes of the OECD (an organization set originally to help administer Marshall Plan assistance0 are to coordinate economic policy, particularly as it relates to development assistance to the less developed countries. Its relatively wealthy members work to improve economic and social conditions within it membership and throughout the world. It struggles against bribery and responsible government everywhere and regularly puts out reports of the social conditions, environmental policies, and educational standards in member states.
The OECD would seem to me to be the best available base from which to build a more effective parallel organization. Its strong statistical branch should help the United States maintain the standards of the rest of the developed world, while we can gradually help member states develop more coherent and congruent positions on the international issues that interest us. A expanded OECD could form a kind of caucus within the United Nations, with the end result either pressing the UN for more effective action or organizing more effective action on its own — if necessary military action to solve international problems. If we nurtured and respected its membership, this could become the group of states that could give the United States the muscle and moral strength that it will need to stand up to an emerging China down the road.
A similar geographical concept is behind the thought that NATO be expanded in its membership and functions. Both suggestions have in common the idea that the United States faces long-term international problems that can only be handled by more intensive international cooperation outside the United Nations. The United Nations is an important organization, one that will always be needed because of its universality. However, the membership of the United Nations is so disparate that the issues on which effective action can be taken through the United Nations are limited. When it comes to foreign aid, it is difficult to effectively coordinate and develop policy when the poorest of the poor are part of the decision making process. When it comes to massive human rights violations, such as those in Sudan, the problem has often been that the perpetrators are actually members of the UN commissions that are supposed to suppress the violations.
My friend Jim Huntley has written extensively on developing a democracy-centered international organization built along the lines of NATO but having a global reach that would include Japan. However, there has been resistance to this idea in many quarters, partly because it appears to be another American attempt at hegemony, something that led the French to partially withdraw from NATO years ago.
The OECD, on the other hand, has its headquarters in Paris and has never been considered to be under the thumb of the United States. Its thirty members include all of the new European community, Japan and South Korea, as well as NAFTA. The purposes of the OECD (an organization set originally to help administer Marshall Plan assistance0 are to coordinate economic policy, particularly as it relates to development assistance to the less developed countries. Its relatively wealthy members work to improve economic and social conditions within it membership and throughout the world. It struggles against bribery and responsible government everywhere and regularly puts out reports of the social conditions, environmental policies, and educational standards in member states.
The OECD would seem to me to be the best available base from which to build a more effective parallel organization. Its strong statistical branch should help the United States maintain the standards of the rest of the developed world, while we can gradually help member states develop more coherent and congruent positions on the international issues that interest us. A expanded OECD could form a kind of caucus within the United Nations, with the end result either pressing the UN for more effective action or organizing more effective action on its own — if necessary military action to solve international problems. If we nurtured and respected its membership, this could become the group of states that could give the United States the muscle and moral strength that it will need to stand up to an emerging China down the road.
Transforming OECD in Parallel with the United Nations
Today's paper has an Op-Ed on strengthening NAFTA as a counterweight to China. It does not seem to make much sense for two reasons. First, the economies and capabilities of the United States, Mexico, and Canada are simply too different. In particular, we cannot afford to make the Mexican border into an irrelevancy in the near future. The suggestion that this is the kind of international reorganization we should favor rests on an outmoded territorial idea of the basis of international organization. The states that are closest to one another today are not those that are geographically closest, but rather those that are politically, morally, and economically closest.
A similar geographical concept is behind the thought that NATO be expanded in its membership and functions. Both suggestions have in common the idea that the United States faces long-term international problems that can only be handled by more intensive international cooperation outside the United Nations. The United Nations is an important organization, one that will always be needed because of its universality. However, the membership of the United Nations is so disparate that the issues on which effective action can be taken through the United Nations are limited. When it comes to foreign aid, it is difficult to effectively coordinate and develop policy when the poorest of the poor are part of the decision making process. When it comes to massive human rights violations, such as those in Sudan, the problem has often been that the perpetrators are actually members of the UN commissions that are supposed to suppress the violations.
My friend Jim Huntley has written extensively on developing a democracy-centered international organization built along the lines of NATO but having a global reach that would include Japan. However, there has been resistance to this idea in many quarters, partly because it appears to be another American attempt at hegemony, something that led the French to partially withdraw from NATO years ago.
The OECD, on the other hand, has its headquarters in Paris and has never been considered to be under the thumb of the United States. Its thirty members include all of the new European community, Japan and South Korea, as well as NAFTA. The purposes of the OECD (an organization set originally to help administer Marshall Plan assistance0 are to coordinate economic policy, particularly as it relates to development assistance to the less developed countries. Its relatively wealthy members work to improve economic and social conditions within it membership and throughout the world. It struggles against bribery and responsible government everywhere and regularly puts out reports of the social conditions, environmental policies, and educational standards in member states.
The OECD would seem to me to be the best available base from which to build a more effective parallel organization. Its strong statistical branch should help the United States maintain the standards of the rest of the developed world, while we can gradually help member states develop more coherent and congruent positions on the international issues that interest us. A expanded OECD could form a kind of caucus within the United Nations, with the end result either pressing the UN for more effective action or organizing more effective action on its own — if necessary military action to solve international problems. If we nurtured and respected its membership, this could become the group of states that could give the United States the muscle and moral strength that it will need to stand up to an emerging China down the road.
A similar geographical concept is behind the thought that NATO be expanded in its membership and functions. Both suggestions have in common the idea that the United States faces long-term international problems that can only be handled by more intensive international cooperation outside the United Nations. The United Nations is an important organization, one that will always be needed because of its universality. However, the membership of the United Nations is so disparate that the issues on which effective action can be taken through the United Nations are limited. When it comes to foreign aid, it is difficult to effectively coordinate and develop policy when the poorest of the poor are part of the decision making process. When it comes to massive human rights violations, such as those in Sudan, the problem has often been that the perpetrators are actually members of the UN commissions that are supposed to suppress the violations.
My friend Jim Huntley has written extensively on developing a democracy-centered international organization built along the lines of NATO but having a global reach that would include Japan. However, there has been resistance to this idea in many quarters, partly because it appears to be another American attempt at hegemony, something that led the French to partially withdraw from NATO years ago.
The OECD, on the other hand, has its headquarters in Paris and has never been considered to be under the thumb of the United States. Its thirty members include all of the new European community, Japan and South Korea, as well as NAFTA. The purposes of the OECD (an organization set originally to help administer Marshall Plan assistance0 are to coordinate economic policy, particularly as it relates to development assistance to the less developed countries. Its relatively wealthy members work to improve economic and social conditions within it membership and throughout the world. It struggles against bribery and responsible government everywhere and regularly puts out reports of the social conditions, environmental policies, and educational standards in member states.
The OECD would seem to me to be the best available base from which to build a more effective parallel organization. Its strong statistical branch should help the United States maintain the standards of the rest of the developed world, while we can gradually help member states develop more coherent and congruent positions on the international issues that interest us. A expanded OECD could form a kind of caucus within the United Nations, with the end result either pressing the UN for more effective action or organizing more effective action on its own — if necessary military action to solve international problems. If we nurtured and respected its membership, this could become the group of states that could give the United States the muscle and moral strength that it will need to stand up to an emerging China down the road.
Revolutionary Democracy
The news has been full of the Kyrgyzstan chapter in a developing democratic wave. A few years ago the country and its ruler were considered the most democratic in Central Asia. But after familial and other corruption and a questionable parliamentary election, the situation unraveled. A popular movement began in the south, the poorer and more religious area. It spread rapidly to Bishkek, the capital. Soon, the police abandoned their posts and the President fled the country with this family. The newly elected parliament (the one the protesters rejected) and the old parliament (elected at a more promising time) have begun meeting on separate floors in the parliament building (confusing since some people are in both old and new parliaments). But the popular coup has stalled for now. The Supreme Court has not registered the new parliament and the new interim PM elected by the old parliament is not sure he has the right to rule. Demonstrations for the President have occurred. Stay tuned.
Whatever happens, the movement to reject the announced election result was inspired in part by events recently in the Ukraine and before that in Georgia, where the outcomes were rejected and the rejections legitimated by new elections. A legitimating second election did not happen in the Philippines in the 1980s when Marcos was thrown out after an election that the opposition claimed was rigged. (As one of the observers of that election I do not know that it actually was. Where I was Marcos clearly won on the basis of ballots counted — but how free the average voter felt he was in making his choice is another question.) Many of these movements look back to the popular movement that finally got rid of Milosevic in Serbia in 2000. Today, we have examples of popular movements in Lebanon and Zimbabwe, and may see one in Egypt.
This democratic fervor and ferment is generally to be applauded. However, we must remember that mob democracy is not the same as constitutional democracy. The revolutionary birth of a nation such as occurred in the French Revolution is not something we would want to see repeated. It is important to not be too quick to endorse such movements, taking sides only when there is a high probability that the result will be a stable, responsible government.
Whatever happens, the movement to reject the announced election result was inspired in part by events recently in the Ukraine and before that in Georgia, where the outcomes were rejected and the rejections legitimated by new elections. A legitimating second election did not happen in the Philippines in the 1980s when Marcos was thrown out after an election that the opposition claimed was rigged. (As one of the observers of that election I do not know that it actually was. Where I was Marcos clearly won on the basis of ballots counted — but how free the average voter felt he was in making his choice is another question.) Many of these movements look back to the popular movement that finally got rid of Milosevic in Serbia in 2000. Today, we have examples of popular movements in Lebanon and Zimbabwe, and may see one in Egypt.
This democratic fervor and ferment is generally to be applauded. However, we must remember that mob democracy is not the same as constitutional democracy. The revolutionary birth of a nation such as occurred in the French Revolution is not something we would want to see repeated. It is important to not be too quick to endorse such movements, taking sides only when there is a high probability that the result will be a stable, responsible government.
