A Return to Thoughtful Diplomacy

The first nine months of Barack Obama's presidency have involved a slew of much needed visits to countries all across the world. Fulfilling his promises to reengage any country willing to come to the table, Barack Obama has made great strides forward in promoting the interests of the United States abroad. The current changes in Iran's behavior are a paragon of how well his strategies will come to fruition over time.

His diplomatic poise, which has drawn criticism from the right for superficial reasons, and been effectually ignored by democrats, is beginning to produce tangible results. Despite moments of uncertainty, Iran agreed to a draft deal to send most of its enriched uranium to Russia for re enrichment. The uranium would then be shipped to France to be turned into plates for use in the research reactor at Tehran University. This would strip Iran of the ability to make a nuclear weapon while at the same time allowing them validation in their claims of pursuing nuclear power as a means for self-reliance.

Should this deal go through, President Obama will have orchestrated a finely crafted diplomatic victory. Furthermore, regional tensions would be slackened at a time when "the moment may be at hand" in the Middle East peace process. With the recent poll numbers indicating that because of Barack Obama, the United states is now the most admired country in the world, it seems that the stage is set for real progress.

Finally, the type of diplomacy in which the current American Administration has engaged has been one of calculation, compromise, and strategic positioning. The brilliance of skipping Berlin in May only to dine out in Paris in June is a perfect example of this.

“Life is a constant oscillation between the sharp horns of dilemmas.”
H.L. Mencken

It seems conventional wisdom favors restoring a little more "imperiousness" to the White House's relationship with the press. Across the board, commentators are calling the White House's attacks on Fox News a bad idea. Even Fox News thinks this is a bad idea. While one of the arguments in the NYT article makes sense, it seems tough to figure out just why the White House should avoid butting heads with Fox News.

No one seems to have a problem with the facts of what has been said about Fox. in their own article they quoted Rahm Emanuel and Anita Dunn without contradicting the bulk of their claims. This seems like an odd twist in what may prove to be a very entertaining fight between the administration and Fox News.

The argument against engaging Fox News' brazen partisanship that makes the most sense was in the NYT article:

People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones.

The previous tactic of the administration, explicitly ignoring Fox News, and giving it few if any officials to interview, seems like a long-term strategy that might bear fruit. It seems likely then that a decision was made to head off the inevitable campaigns against various administration officials Fox News would continue to make by taking the fight out into the open.

The carrot-and-stick approach to the media has been in use for a long time, and criticizing the White House for taking a stand against Fox News without disagreeing with claims Emanuel, Dunn, or Axelrod has made does not make a strong case for why the White House should back off.

“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they
control the minds of the masses."

Malcolm X

The need for leadership with class and honor to match their hubris has been in existence for a long time. At the current moment, as has happened many times in the past, the quality of leadership- from Wilson to Grayson, and Beck to Olbermann, vapid partisan noisemaking appears as virulent and infectious as the Swine Flu.

It is always difficult to not panic and declare the end of journalism, the fall of American Democracy, the coming apocalypse in 2012, or what have you. There have been questions about the virility of the American Dollar before. Similarly, as President Obama has pointed out, FDR faced much of the same rhetoric 70 years ago about health care in America.

What is needed is more leadership like that of President Obama, of Senator John McCain. And Ms Noonan is right, elders are needed to set the standards and hand down the lore.

O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
-Shakespeare, Ceasar III, II

Right to Life?

The right to life is the preeminent right mandated by the American Declaration of Independence. Deeply ingrained in the psyche of the American people, there is no greater task of the government of the United states than to protect the lives of its citizens. Medical procedures with the potential to lengthen sharply the lifespan of American Citizens are therefore historically and practically important.

A recent study on mice controlling a particular protein genetically puts a potentially pressing matter into focus: what if only some people could afford this treatment? People have always received medical treatment and care in proportion to their power, wealth, and political status. The amount to which there has been outrage from the less well-off has varied in the past. However, if the future holds a series of procedures that can undeniably alter a select few people's lifespans by a dramatic amount, there will be discord.

If living in the "rich world" will mean living to 100, and everyone elsewhere knows it, what will happen? While clearly the separation is already quite drastic, imagine if the gap between the rich and poor countries doubled in a short period of time.

With reference to the current raucous noise about health care in the United States, what if instead of rising premiums and falling services, most Americans could be angry about the loss of their right to life?

Sino-US Relations

The relationship between China and the United States is rich and of vital importance to the world. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton puts it quite aptly:

We are two of the world’s three largest economies, two of the world’s largest populations, two of the world’s largest militaries, the world’s largest consumers of energy and producers of carbon emissions. For these reasons and so many more, our respective priorities and policies have a global impact, and therefore we have a responsibility to ourselves and others to work as effectively as we can to meet the threats and seize the opportunities of the 21st century

-Hilary Clinton

There are several interesting facts to consider about recent Sino-US relations. In no particular order: The US was the 240th confirmed participant to the World EXPO in Shanghai in 2010, though its pavilion is slated to be one of the larger such pavilions. What this has meant for China is a delicate dance of promoting an event that I personally heard government officials announce as significantly bigger and more important to the country than the Olympic games in Beijing, while at the same time deftly ignoring American reticence to fully participate.

Also, the recent trade disputes between the current administration in the US and Chinese tire manufacturing is worrisome. As the NYT puts it "An all-out trade war between the world’s two largest economies would wreak havoc on the global economy just as it is struggling to come back." While it seems clear from both Hilary Clinton and the head of China's Congress, Wu Bangguo's words that this current trade dispute will not spin out of control, this issue will need remediation at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh.

Thirdly, global challenges like non-proliferation, global climate change, and pandemic threats all require delicate and long-term conversation between both nations. Iran is perched at the edge of having nuclear capabilities, the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012, and the H1N1 virus is on the move.

It will be up to Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama to ensure that all of the many competing forces in the Sino-US relationship are balanced. With their combined political acumen, there is a substantial enough amount of skill and intelligence that this is surely possible.

Realistic Missile Defense

Barack Obama's announcement today that the US would no longer be pursuing single-location ground based missile defense in Eastern Europe was a well though out and well articulated announcement. As has been the case for decades, ICBM "Star Wars" type defense is exciting in concept, but fails to ever match its potential.

To put it simply, the plan to stop long range missiles was not going to work, and replacing a costly and ineffective system with one of the best functioning missile defense systems makes sense. Obama's decision also overturns a strange decision of the previous administration to actively antagonize Russia and local citizens by insisting on installing missile defense systems in former USSR states.

Another way of saying it:

Poking Russia and Iran in the eye isn’t worth the hassle.

McCahill

Instead, how about a US foreign policy balance practical and useful military technology with diplomacy. Wouldn't it be best if the US made use of its vastly superior resources and technology to provide safe and realistic missile defense?

BP's New Find

Today BP announced it had found a "Giant" oil find in the Gulf of Mexico. After drilling deeper than Mt Everest is tall, BP found what it estimates will provide 600,000 bpd by 2020.

By that time it would be nice if refining and extraction technology were more able to resist shutdown or damage from hurricanes in the Gulf. After the damage wreaked by hurricanes Katrina and Ike, it would be foolish not to prepare years in advance for possible hurricane damage.

Effectiveness of UN Sanctions

From the inner quirks and hallway politics of the Security Council to the extensive and bureaucratic machinations involved in Ecosoc and NGOs, the UN as a whole is an intricate web of aspirations, optimistic endeavors, reluctant abdications, and abject failures. The stated goals of the United Nations are above all an ideal.

It is both admirable and desirable for the UN to seek to accomplish its goal of perpetuating international peace and security. However, the founders knew from the onset that every part of the UN would have to be a compromise between the Wilsonian ideals associated with the League of Nations and the emotionless calculations of realism.

Today's UN is no different. Take the recent sanction against North Korea this June following the DPRK's missile launches. Though enforcement seems feasible, there has been little success in stopping North Korean weapons exportation. The recent seizure of 10 containers of an arms shipment is a good sign.

That the seizure occurred several weeks ago and did not cause a flare-up in the rhetoric of the DPRK is also a good sign. There are several aspects of the seizure, however, that bear consideration:

First, the threat of war from North Korea should an American ship intercept a ship bound to or from North Korea under the new sanction limits American actions. Because of this, the UN resolution, though binding, is without much of its power. Second, the fact that the arms were headed for Iran, another international pariah, speaks to the effectiveness of UN sanctions.

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
-John F. Kennedy

The Right Words

Few among the leaders of any country posses the antique skill of oratory. Few politicians or businessmen drive policy and the future through the strength of their performance behind the rostrum. But when a leader comes forward who can move people with words, who can turn the malcontent into supporters, give the saddened new hope, or put the strength of righteousness into believers, that leader rises to the top.

However, there is no guarantee that any great orator will use the skill for good. The world is not as simple as fiction or pundits would make it, and there is no easy slogan to drive popular opinion in the right way. With the amount of information available to any person with access to the internet, no politician can get away with saying things that are completely unsubstantiated for long. On the other hand, with the amount of information available, a politician who can give people shivers down their spines with the first syllable can get away with saying almost anything.

Evoking the emotions of a nation through oratory raises the stakes on issues both mundane and MAD. It is easy to repeat and whitewash small details into news fiascoes, drawing attention from what matters. The tools of any leader are greatly enhanced by the ability to stand and look a crowd and a camera in the eye and give them something in which they can believe. However, an orator is responsible for the effects of his or her words, and must be careful to use only The Right Words

“There is nothing in the world like a persuasive speech to fuddle the mental apparatus and upset the convictions and debauch the emotions of an audience not practiced in the tricks and delusions of oratory”

Mark Twain

Oil; Part One of Many

Deciding to go to war is the most significant decision a nation can make. The rise of total war has given conflict the potential to encompass all aspects of a nation. Likewise, the dramatic increases in globalization in the past few decades have made economic interconnectedness a facet of everyday life for developed nations. The complexity of the modern world demands that nations develop long-term strategies for maximizing political and economic wellbeing. 

When contemplating the use of military force, the weight of innumerable factors all come to bear.  No political schema is free of the subtleties politics of state. No matter if you are Kim Jong-Il or Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama or Felipe Calderon, war is no simple decision of yes or no.

Why did Japan choose to go to war in the Pacific, and finally against the United States in 1941?  The answer is elusive, and every explanation seems to either leave out important facts, or skew them to suit a particular political theory.

Uniquivocally, however, at the very core of Japan's decision, was it's lack of abundant natural resources.  Above all of its material needs sat one specter: Oil. 

Victory [in war] is the beautiful, bright-coloured flower. Transport is the stem without which it could never have blossomed. (1899)

— Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill

In The River War (2004), 87.