Looking Beyond The State
I agree with Fareed that about the use of fear-mongering on the right and occasionally the left for domestic political purposes. And I agree that by a number of measures we are actually much better off than in many previous eras. But in his list of threats he betrays his realist roots, and thus misses some of the most important reasons for worrying about the current international environment. When Fareed lists usual suspects, he starts with terrorism, but the rest of the list - rogue states, Iran, North Korea, a revanchist Russia, an expansionist China - is completely state-centric. It's a Bismarckian tableau - who is up, who is down, who needs reassurance, who bears watching. He then throws in, slightly tongue in cheek, two economic threats - Indian outsourcing and Mexican immigration. But he completely ignores many of the threats I would put at the top of my list - nuclear proliferation, global epidemics, and climate change. In the case of both global epidemics and climate change, we face the direct threats of disease, flooding, drought, desertification, etc, but also the secondary security threats of profound domestic dislocations, causing government collapse, refugee flows, border wars, and conflict that appears to be ethnic in nature but that is in large part driven by resource scarcity (Darfur is a partial example).
The tertiary effects are even more worrisome.
To the extent that health and environmental challenges (and they are related) cause social unrest in countries like Russia, China, and even India, it is the domestic political reaction we have to worry about. Susan Shirk's China: Fragile Superpower, does a superb job of laying out why the U.S. does not need to fear an expansionist China, but a threatened one. And the same certainly true of Russia, which has been shifting public attention from internal problems to external threats for centuries, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other autocracies or transitional democracies.
In the end I agree with Fareed's conclusion, that our reactions to the actions of other countries that risk adding fuel to the fire and creating dangerous counter-reactions. But he is too quick to dismiss the danger of autocracies. It is not that they are expansionist aggressive states necessarily; it is the nature of their hold on power and hence the way they are often inclined to react to domestic problems that could threaten that hold. Couple those types of reactions with broader global threats to the health, comfort, and livelihoods of several billion people, and the world doesn't seem like quite such a benign place.
Except that being overly concerned with authoritarian regimes and the world not being a benign place tends to lead to all sorts of provacative silliness. The worst of them are a Concert of Democracies and the overfunding of our military at the expense of more worth endeavours.
May 5, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did you think of the lineup for the Iraq panel in the NYT's? They seemed to think you're the extreme left view.
May 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you put that question to her, memekiller.
As Atrios said, angling for a job in the next Democratic administration doesn't make you a progressive and Anne Marie-Slaughter is no progressive, as was proven last time she visited us here.
May 5, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "tertiary effects" appears to be the core of your remarks; these are largely concentrated on the interrelated issues of economic expansion and "health and environmental challenges" that are interwoven in the affairs of those nations listed(Russia, China, India,Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.).
In short in these countries internal issues will take on more significance as their economies attempt to fulfill growing economic expectations that will require more external contact with each other and the United States as well as all of the economically developed world. A current but minor measure is the flap about the Olympic Games. The Chinese appear hyper sensitive as the Games are in China; the Olympics is a source of national pride as the country attempt to expand it international presence and fortune, in large part this is internally driven. Externally, issues tied to Darfur are not related to internal Chinese political affairs but are of grave concern to many governments, but the Chinese at the U.N. have not been a productive party on Darfur, but do seek to be large player on the global stage.
Given recent years, and the yet to be completed Cold War(in the thinking of many), the U.S.A. cannot be the police nor intervene in the internal affairs of nation as it has in the past; their are cost that have yet to be measured or contemplated.
Whatever international engagements the U.S.A. seeks, it must recognize these basic factors nor can it get bogged down in any way as it is in Iraq, and with Iran.
May 5, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fareed's point seems clear. As far as US security is concerned the world is a safe place. We do not have real enemies that can realistically threaten us. Of course Slaughter must disagree and imagine enemies and potential threats everywhere. That is what she does. It explains her support for the US invasion of Iraq in the first place.
This is a career problem for her. As an international expert, she would be out of a job if world peace broke out and the US realized that we really didn't have to police, occupy, undermine, confront other nations.
May 5, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I obviously shouldn't speak for Slaughter but I think her line on Iraq is that she supports the doctrine of pre-emption in certain cases but that she didn't support the use of it against Iraq.
I don't quite buy that, but that's how I've seen her state her position in the past.
May 5, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her positions on humanitarian war and unilateral invasions are quite clear. Today her position is very clear: whatever one may think about the invasion in the first place we must now work to achieve the goals that Bush set out initially. That is she supports continuation of that war.
Read her whiny defense -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/annemarie-slaughter/stop-gotcha-politics-on-i_b_92593.html __ to get see how she tries to wiggle out of her sorry positions. It is pathetic. Destor there is no reason to defend her. She deserves severe criticism today because if a Democrat becomes president she is in a position for a high level appointment. Bring some heat on, we do not need another administration that is infiltrated with war hawks.
May 5, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, Syvanen. It's really difficult to be too hard on Anne MArie Slaughter. Heck, it'd be nice if we could get both Obama and Clinton to promise that there's no room for Slaughter in their administrations. She's just one of those people that needs to be kept away from implementing or advising on policy. Criticizing from afar is fine. But no more.
May 5, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarcasm I presume. You have good instincts when it comes to war and peace but not when it comes to judging others. She really is a hawk, believes in the use of our military in advancing US foreign policy positions even when there is no threat to the US mainland. She is a major advocate of humanitarian war and that argument was used by numerous democrats and "liberals" that supported the invasion of Iraq. Why not take advantage of the current climate of revulsion against the Iraq war to purge the Democratic party of its war hawks? There are plenty of others. Wasn't that what we were doing supporting Ned Lamont?
May 5, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No sarcasm at all. When I said it's difficult to be too hard on her I mean that no matter what you say shje likely deserves stronger criticism.
Your absolutely right on this score. The idea of Slaughter with any more influence than she already has is scary and should be opposed.
May 5, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Slaughter must disagree and imagine enemies and potential threats everywhere. That is what she does. . . . This is a career problem for her. syvanen
Gives me a chance to deploy one of my favorite quotations --
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
May 5, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I try to be original, but alas there is always someone who has already said it more eloquently.
May 6, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Fareed paints a far too rosy scenario. He implies if not outright states that our consumption based capitalist system should be the natural model for the rest of the world. He does that by saying that there are no alternative systems that compete with this model. However, it is physically impossible to duplicate the massive consumption driven economy that we have here in the US over the entire globe. There are not enough resources. Thus we see the start of the era of resource wars.
This pacific and idyllic vision of the future that Fareed presents is just wrong. It is based on premises that are not attainable.
The awkward attempts at trying to scare the American people with "terror", "revanchist Russia" "North Korea" "Nuclear Iran" and what not are an attempt to gear the people up to endure the "long hard slog" ahead that Rumsfeld predicts.
Ms. Slaughter calls Fareed a realist in his views. Perhaps I don't understand that term well enough, but it seems more that he has a pie in the sky view of the future.
Given that not all nations will be able to achieve the standard of living we enjoy, there will be strife. Given that we want to continue to enjoy the standard of living that we are used to we will fight for it, even if it means continued militarism and resource wars.
The notion of a "Concert of Democracies" is perhaps the closest one can come to in reconciling all these competing forces. I would say "Concert of Developed Nations" and leave democracy out of it. But that's a minor point in my opinion
May 6, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
of course any such "Concert of Developed Nations" is a thinly disguised call for paternalism and a world divided between the haves and have nots
May 6, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
My question for Slaughter is what's the justification and where is the shared principle in presenting one's self as "centrist"?
Point being, it can't be used to justify any policy one wishes, nor an excuse for the anything-goes mentality we've seen in D.C. the last eight years. (or forty-eight).
Centrism cannot be a rhetorical fillip or some sort of balm that releases poor policy ideas from the obligation to undergo a legitimate public vetting.
I say this b/c several years back, Slaughter held a confab/conference at Woodrow Wilson ostensibly to bring a common-sense corrective to the Iraq debacle and subsequent quagmire (h/t Steve Clemons). Turns out, though, Slaughter's conference was entirely funded by David Rubinstein of the Carlyle Group--major defense contractor.
There's just no way brilliant solutions that are in the national interest are going to come from the same intellects that got us into Iraq in the first place. If I can read in the papers that the 'evidence' for war/WMDs was manufactured---so can 'centrist' Ann-Marie Slaughter.
Yet the servicemen on their seventh tour to Iraq didn't here Slaughter's voice raised in protest; Slaughter never demanded the Constitutional requirement that Congress Declare War be adequately fulfilled.
Departing from America's standards and principles is an egregious rupture in the Constitutional legal & social contract. Using "centrism" as a shield of reasonableness for grossly unreasonable behavior is precisely what's gotten us into this quagmire and put our national security at grave risk.
When you realize that Slaughter and Fareed Zakaria are members of the same groups as Kissinger and Cheney and Richard Perle and Robert Kagan . ..
. . . you can only conclude that Slaughter is not remotely viable as the Voice of Reason.
The tightly knit and exclusionary social and professional circles she runs in ARE The Problem. They got us into this mess because they were too arrogant to stick to the American legal processes that made this country great and admirable in the first place.
Those processes were designed to select politically viable and just causes that were possible and conferred some net benefit in terms of power and security, not ensnare us further in "entangling alliances" and losing battles that openly contradict the fealty to self-rule this country was founded upon.
Slaughter's colleagues got us into this mess, and Slaughter hasn't the courage or the insight to come up with just or workable solutions to lead us out of the Occupation of Iraq. (Charlie Rose has the same problem, which is why he keeps murmuring ineffectually about 'our responsibility' when we've long since failed miserably on that score. The Pottery Barn makes you leave the store when you keep breaking the entire inventory.)
It's the SAME GROUP of people who keep arguing for staying in Iraq as the ones who got us into this Occupation, and Ann-Marie Slaughter is one of those people.
It's just not in the national interest to allow the same interlocking set of think tanks, nominal intelletuals, defense contractors, consultants (the Albright Group) and corporations to define and run the public agenda.
Any diary farmer from de Pere or Des Moines could keep America safer and out of the kind of trouble George W. Bush has instigated. I kid you not.
It's the disengagement of Slaughter's professional circles---from the rest of the country---that is the number one problem this country faces. It is the cause of the mess we're in. The arrangement from which Slaughter so heavily benefits has sanctioned a departure from the rule of law, torn out our Constitutional foundations, and tossed aside our national security as recklessly as they've misused our soldiers and blown our honor.
Turning over the CPA to Paul Bremer---Kissinger's right-hand-man---so he could auction off Iraq, is a case in point. Yanking Jay Garner outta there because he wanted to hold elections amply demonstrates that shattering Iraq as a nation was the core objective.
Unless she can speak frankly, Slaughter's affirmative role in these arrangements does more harm than good.
Only by returning this country to legitimate decision-making processes and inclusive policy discussion can the rupture in the national fabric be repaired. The exclusion of American voices who KNOW BETTER than Slaughter and 'Fareed'--dear Fareed! had better come to a quick end. Or the chickens will come home to roost, as George Washington so ably taught the British Crown.
Presuming to put on the same error-prone raiments as King George III has obviously ill-served American national security, not to mention its moral standing. Without adherence to core American principles, 'centrism' is entirely unmoored.
Without engaging the American people directly and in good faith, without following their lead rather than studiously ignoring it, without ending this exclusionary process, our current ugly situation will get much, much worse before it even hints at getting better.
May 6, 2008 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear John,
International affairs are too important to be left to the "wisdom" of the American people -- such as it is.
Your friend,
Anne-Marie
May 6, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen!
That's the first Dear John Letter I've ever received. If you don't mind I think I'll I wear it on my sleeve.
International affairs are, but of course, too important to be the exclusive domain of anyone BUT the American people. The endemic, circular logic and solipsistic world-view of self-assigned insiders---
---who're largely defined not by the power of their ideas and never by the integrity of their decisions, but by a set of incestuous relationships designed to keep D.C.'s revolving door spinning at warp speed---
---continues to inflict a great deal of damage to this country. And allowing the 'it'd be irresponsible to leave Iraq line' to live beyond its allotted 24 hours is Exhibit A.
Todays' think tankers ("We are the Best and the Brightest! We can win the War in Vietnam!") aren't in the business of solving problems. They're in the business of feeding thin justifications to those harvesting massive profits as simply and as blatantly as shearing sheep.
Worse, the kabuki conversation here between Fareed! dear Fareed and Slaughter comes off as a peacock-like display put on for the benefit of the unwashed. See? We're included because we get to watch--and even comment! But there's no authentic public in that two-way conversation, or in the wider 'public debate.' Both are "made men"; Zarkari & Slaughter are charter members of the insiders' insiders' insiders' clubs---so where's the fresh perspective? Where's intrinsically American inclusionary impulse? Where's the debate? the desire to listen & learn from fellow citizens? Slaughter's concerned with Zakaria.
What we've got is Groupthink reinforced by twinned congenital Groupthink. What won't see is Slaughter engaging with posters on this forum, with the public, with new ideas, with the absolute imperative to repair the rupture in the social contract & legal fabric of America.
Belonging to the very same clubs as the neocons who muscled America into a wrongheaded and unjustifiable war and Occupation isnt' in and of itself wrong. Saying nothing, though, is indefensible. Going-along to get-along compounds the error. And the pretense that 'fixing Iraq' is somehow our responsiblity, when our job is fixing our own body politic and the dysfunctional process which took us to war by betraying our plain law & core principles, abets the continuation of a crime---not just against Iraq's sovereignty, but against America's sovereignty. That betrayal, and that pretense, is a form of treason.
May 6, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Does AMS now believe that the US needs to fear Russia and China if they are threatened, and if so does she now renounce her position in favor of a Concert of Democracies which would threaten them?
May 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink