Great expectations

I decided to wait to blog my personal thoughts regarding Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 until it became apparent the nature of the reaction. I had an idea and it seems that my own perception seemed to be correct.

Much of the rhetoric is that the committee that awarded the prize was rash and mistaken as, according to the critics, Obama has no real accomplishments in his first 9 months as President that warrant such a prestigious honor. Furthermore, they see him as turning into a puppet of the international community, or to put it bluntly, being in Europe’s pocket. Having foreseen this reaction, Obama himself was very cautious when delivering his speech about receiving the award. He stated that he was both surprised and humbled by receiving such an award and viewed the reward not as “a recognition of [his] own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.”

Let’s be frank. Obama is not in the pocket of the Europeans, indeed it’s quite the opposite. Obama has large popularity outside of America’s borders, which strengthens his position on American foreign policy and does not by any means weaken it. Politicians abroad will feel more pressure to side with the U.S. on policies, even controversial ones such as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, Iran, North Korea, and NATO engagement in Afghanistan. To state otherwise is prosperous as we’ve already seen the consequences of acting in the opposite way during George W. Bush’s presidency. Obama has been rebuilding America’s political soft power and him receiving the Nobel Prize will quicken this process.

That being said, it cannot be ignored that there are challenges that he will face, most notably from the radical opposition that has been very outspoken against his efforts to reform health care. There is a large anti-European element in the United States. This will never change. Fareed Zakaria stated it best, contributing to Anderson Cooper’s AC360 program on CNN, that it’s never a great thing for a President of the United States to be popular in France. Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize will without a doubt increase this perception of fear. That said, it’s obvious that the committee in Norway decided to make this years award a political one. It’s apparent that Obama does not have many accomplishments that would deserve him such a prize, rather the decision was a way to mitigate foreign opposition to Obama’s endeavor of working closer with the United Nations, fostering cooperation between countries, and to allow a resurgence of Wilsonism in the international arena.

The committee, however, may have misread the situation. Obama is in need of some good news, but not to the outside world, but to regular Americans themselves. Pushing through Congress one of the most controversial pieces of legislature since the days of Franklin Roosevelt has cost him large amounts of political capital from his own party, capital that he will need if he wants to tackle, as he termed it, the war of necessity that is Afghanistan. Another consequence of awarding such a prize at a premature date is the perception of the Nobel Prize itself to Americans as not being one that is awarded based on true merit, but rather as a political tool or an attempt from Europe to directly influence American foreign policy.

The White House is well aware of these issues, and the approach that has surfaced is one of cautiousness and constraint. Regardless of these hinderances and controversies, at the end of the day this will be a major boost to Obama’s attempt at transforming the international system and putting the United States on a firm foothold as a conduit for such change. The major challenge he will face is the added pressure that has been put on him out of the expectation that he is in the position to make drastic changes in the world, where if he fails, not only will his popularity further plummet within the United States but outside of it as well.

A major boost to international cooperation and diplomacy

It has just been announced that Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. This will without a doubt reenforce his international standing and position in promoting international cooperation and the United Nations in resolving disputes.

I also presume that this fast tracks the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, and will put pressure on both leaders, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas, to find a solution.

A strategic move by a well respected international organization.

Podcasts I’m listening to

There are a lot of ways to acquire information about world affairs. A fun way I’ve found is through podcasts. When they first came out I didn’t “get” them. Then they started to become more sophisticated and some of your big publications, such as CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, and the BBC got on board. To be sure, the amount of content can be quite overwhelming, not to mention if you have an energetic clicking finger, you could find yourself being subscribed to about 30-50 podcasts and there’s really no way you can catch up and listen to them all. So, I thought it would be fun to share with all of you what I’m listening to right at the moment, as well as what I’ve been the most disappointing with.

Podcasts I subscribe to

1. BBC Global News Highlights (Audio)

This is really a great podcast that is updated twice a day. It provides really great interviews and good discourse on current events and breaking news stories. They run about 21-26 minutes a pop, and the twice a day update can be a bit overwhelming, but nevertheless a great way to get your morning news about world events.

2. Inside CFR Events (Audio)

The number one think tank in the world, the Council on Foreign Relations, offers regular audio transcripts of sessions and seminars that are conducted at their facilities. The topics are very diverse, but are  more on the U.S. side of things, as it is a U.S. based think tank. The Council attracts highly prolific politicians and famous scholars in the school of International Relations. Therefore the topics are quite heavy, and do require some background knowledge in IR, but they’re still very understandable and a great way to get informed about certain issues, as well as getting a jump start on any literature or articles that are often relayed to its main web-site. The only issue? They are long, running over an hour they usually consist of a lecture and a question and answer session at the end. The solution I’ve found is that I upload it on my iPod shuffle and listen to a seminar while I’m going for a run. Unfortunately being in Hong Kong where it’s really hot and humid, those jogging sessions haven’t been happening and I have about a weeks worth of seminars to catch up on. Regardless, this is one of my favorite podcasts.

3. NBC’s Meet the Press (Video)

Meet the Press. Is there more to say? The program usually deals with domestic affairs by conducting a discussion that is usually attended by prominent people in both parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, but usually does allocate time for discussion on world affairs. I really enjoy David Gregory’s interview style. He’s not afraid to really press politicians when they decide to be vague and is usually very blunt and sometimes unforgiving until he feels the question has been answered. It’s just a great program, and as I’m not around to watch it when it airs on NBC, it’s great that they offer it as a podcast. The shows are a little less than an hour, but it’s something to have playing in the background during a Sunday afternoon.

4. The Economist (Audio)

That’s right, the Economist offers a podcast and they even made a catchy theme song to go with it. The podcast is very varied and sometimes range from someone reading one of the articles in the current edition to good discussions about economics and foreign policy. My favorite segment is “The Week Ahead” where they look at what’s going to be occurring in the world in the coming week and is a good primer that really compliments the rest of my subscriptions.

5. Fareed Zakaria’s GPS (Video)

As mentioned in our previous post, I’m a big fan of this podcast. Mr. Zakaria regularly interviews politicians, usually those active in the Middle East, and asks some really good questions. He is an IR guy, so a lot of what he talks about is geopolitical, but what makes the video podcast work for me is that he really seems to be enjoying himself when he does it. It’s not boring by any means and he’s not scared to ask some tough questions. I regularly save his interviews and cite them in my research.

6. NPR Programs: Talk of the Nation (Audio)

Ahh yes, NPR. Lead journalist Neal Conan facilitates really good discussions primarily dealing with U.S. politics. The majority of the show consists of people calling in, so for our international readers it’s a really good way to monitor U.S. public opinion of those interested in such topics. The only issue I have is that the topics vary considerably that I’m constantly having to filter and delete segments that just do not interest me.

7. Anderson Cooper’s 360º Podcast (Video)

Anderson Cooper of CNN fame conducts a nightly podcast regarding various issues of the day. Frankly, issues vary considerably, which reflects the quality of the material given. Sometimes the majority of the 20-30 minutes is devoted to one issue, such as the murder of a young woman at Yale, which really cuts down on time for politics. Additionally it seems the program acts a bit like a 6 year old on ADHD, in that topics that were devoted so much air-time the previous day, disappear entirely and then pop up a again randomly a week later. However, Cooper manages to bring in a lot of good commentators and he’s good at facilitating a debate. Debate on a topic usually involves individuals from both sides of the political spectrum. In short, it’s a great podcast to start the day, while doing a morning routine or drinking that first cup of coffee.

Podcasts I’m disappointing in

1. Newsweek (Video)

Talking about a huge waste of time not to mention a great loss of potential, Newsweek fails to deliver on providing quality content that reflects its magazine. Its podcast is dedicated to pop culture, and anything political is put on the back burner. It’s there, but buried and you really have to look for it. This is a huge waste of space so devote your precious time to higher quality efforts from the Economist and the Washington Post. Hell, even do a Fox News podcast if it exists.

2. Die Zeit (Audio)

Die Zeit is a really good German newspaper that devotes itself to doing quality commentary on current events. It does offer a podcast, but after listening to it I’m wondering why they even bothered. It usually entails a reading of one of its published articles, that’s it. No discussion, nadda, zip. Germany still hasn’t figured out the podcast thing and this pretty much reflects it.

But that’s it! Those are my recommendations and what I’m listening to right now. Check them out. But you don’t have to take my word for it.

Fighting two wars

I’m sitting in a coffee shop in Hong Kong (no it’s not Starbucks) and reading the September 22, 2009 edition of the International Herald Tribune. Two articles caught my interest: The first, titled E.U. is increasingly skeptical of U.S. on climate and the second, titled Commander seeks more troops for Afghanistan, are both linked. How is that you may ask? Well allow me to illustrate.

The climate article depicts E.U. frustrations that the United States will not be able to deliver on climate change proposals that will be promised at the upcoming conference in Copenhagen. They fear that it will end up being another Kyoto, and though the Obama administration may sign a comprehensive agreement it will fail in the Senate. The main issue is tying the U.S. to any international regulatory bodies that will monitor and enforce any commitments the U.S. will make.

And they are right. The U.S. will never, at least in the near future, commit to anything that may directly affect American business practices within its borders, unless it’s a local policeman. Nor should it.

Regarding the second article, General Stanley A. McChrystal’s report of the military situation in Afghanistan has been the news of the week. And it’s only Tuesday. Simply put, he’s calling for more troops to be sent, or else the U.S. mission there will fail. Notice the lack of could or might, but will. It’s a jolt to the Obama administration as Obama has been dancing around the topic and openly displaying his hesitancy in sending any fresh troops, unless the situation, to paraphrase from an interview during this past Sunday’s Meet the Press, will directly and without a doubt threaten U.S. national security.

Oh how having a war and a conference on climate change have found themselves to be occurring during one of the worst possible times.

And this is how these two issues are linked. Both articles illustrate the position Obama is in right now. Sandwiched between two parties on two different issues, the Democrats want to push their version of Health Care reform through in direct opposition to the Republicans, while the GOP wants a bigger U.S. commitment for the war, and the Democrats are becoming very much opposed, as U.S. casualties are rising and the cost of the war is increasing. Obama has to work with each issue while appeasing one party and excluding the other. If you think you saw some interesting debates on Health Care reform, wait till Obama promises, if he does just that, something substantial regarding a U.S. commitment on climate change.

He will not get both, and it’s at the cost of finally insuring more than 94% of Americans.

And this is the pickle. Afghanistan is a problem that is here and now and will affect the U.S. more in a negative way and not to mention quicker. To be sure, we finally accepted that the Earth heating up will have devastating consequences, it’s nevertheless a long-run-issue and merely got in the way of one of the biggest domestic changes the U.S. is experiencing right now.

To be sure, if we want to win in Afghanistan we will need to send more money and troops. Fighting an insurgency has a high capital and human cost. Just look at Thomas Rick’s highly influential book, Fiasco, which outlined these observations and identified why the U.S. failed in Vietnam and was struggling and losing in Iraq shortly after the invasion. To win hearts and minds you need boots on the ground to do it.

But the E.U. criticism of the U.S. does have its advantages. If you want a larger U.S. commitment in fighting climate change, then the U.S. needs a larger commitment by its European friends in Afghanistan, mainly from Germany, Italy, and France. Unfortunately this won’t be the concession but will probably be the same one the Senate demanded with Kyoto, and that’s also a commitment in cutting carbon admissions by the rising economies of India and China. To be frank, the Europeans want a larger promise from the U.S. than what the U.S. is willing to give. The irony is that it will probably be very unlikely that the E.U. will even make its target, and let’s not forget that it didn’t even do what it said it would at Kyoto, it was far short of its stated goal.

But nevertheless, these two issues are very serious and require an international, if not a regional effort for Afghanistan. If the U.S. can link these two issues, conceding on one forum while pressing the Europeans to be more engaged in Afghanistan, then acceptable efforts will be put forth in tackling these issues. Unfortunately, domestic pressures in the U.S. will make this propsect very unlikely.

Enough Project and a great Fareed Zakaria interview

I actually have a lot to discuss today regarding access to good material.

The main theme of this web-site is to promote interest in world affairs. One essential tool for achieving this is to expose relevant web-sites and good sources of information to our readers. Enough is one of those web-sites.

The Enough Project is a project that conducts research in areas of conflict in Africa. From Somalia, Sudan, to Uguanda, the organization provides access to strategy and research papers and general overviews of the conflicts that its researching team has conducted. It’s an excellent way to understand the conflicts in Africa and is a must read for anyone who has been curious or confused by what exactly is happening in the region.

I used the web-site extensively when I conducted my research regarding Somalia and the concept of humanitarianism. The web-site really is a great resource, and what’s better is that they regularly offer assistant Research internships and full time positions. It’s a great way to study where Somalia is at the moment in terms of striving for peace, the origins of the Sudan crisis, and current news regarding decisions in Zimbabwe. What’s even better is that all their publications are free and they’re very well written and really do achieve a good, concise analysis, based of course on my own personal experience when I was conducting my research.

Second, be sure to check out Fareed Zakaria’s GPS podcast for last Sunday. He interviewed Russian President Medvedev and it’s really informative. The President really composes himself well and balked at critics who charge that the real holder of power is Prime Minister Putin. He simply pointed to the constitution and observed that for anything to be official, the President has to sign it. Though there are doubts whether or not this is true, take a look at Gorbachev’s interview with the BBC where he expresses worry regarding Putin’s comment that he’ll have a discussion with the President to determine whether or not he will run for another term as President. Another interesting tidbit came out in the interview regarding a secret meeting between Medvedev and Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu. The discussion probably had something to do with Iran, and it was interesting that the rhetoric used by Medvedev regarding Iran was much harsher.

Fareed essentially outlines these points during some pauses in the interview. He’s a great interviewer, albeit a bit diplomatic but still isn’t afraid to really ask some tough questions. What I found the most interesting was that he provided a link to Medvedev’s paper that severely criticizes the state that Russia is in right now. He expresses the danger of having rambid corruption, a state owned press, over-reliance on raw materials and the dire need to modernize the Russian economy. It’s a great article and you can find the link here. Watch the interview. Russia to the “West” is perceived as being a very mysterious country that makes the news by flexing its muscle. It’s refreshing to get a good insight into pertinent questions of how Russia is perceived to be behaving and seeing the “head” of state answer some tough questions. Medvedev has always advocated an independent press and has in the past encouraged the media to put more pressure on the government. The debate is whether or not that is possible under current conditions. Regardless, what was the most revealing was seeing or hearing where Medvedev believes Russia should be in terms of its own development. The tragedy is that it’s a far cry from where it actually is.

Just bad timing

The big news of the day is that that United States abandoned its plans for establishing a missile defense shield in Europe. The change was expected but the timing was not. Obama is facing a lot of criticism at home for moving to the left, especially regarding health care reform. He has made concessions with the public option, but the Republicans are in full swing and are not shy about rallying the general public and portraying him in a very evil light. We’ve all seen the news footage of the townhall meetings and people screaming at their politicians, even of posters depicting Obama as a Nazi. This will undoubtedly add more fuel to this fire.

Regardless, the abandonment is not entirely a bad idea. Obama has made very clear that his adminsitration has three distinct foreign policy goals. The first is to increase U.S. activity in Afghanistan, as he believes, rightly, that Afghanistan directly threatens U.S. national security. The second is Iran and its nuclear program and the third is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. We have established on this forum that the last two are directly linked. Apathy against the United States in the Middle East has more to do with the U.S. failure in pushing Israel to acknowledge an independent Palestinian state than the war in Iraq. If this can be resolved, he can put influential countries, such as Syria, Jordan and Egypt firmly on his side and put more regional pressure on Iran. Regarding Iran, the major stumbling block is of course Russia, who has been very adamant in viewing any attempts by the U.S. to start a Missile Defense program in Europe as a direct threat to its natural security. Therefore, the move to forgo any plans at such a shield has more to do with woing Russia than believing that such a system cannot work.

On the other side of the debate is the belief that in forgoing such a system is to alienate further our key Central European allies, Poland and the Czech Republic, in the face of an aggressive Russia. Admittedly, public support for such a system in these countries has been extremely low, and the European Union has always been very weary at any attempts by the U.S. in having such an influence in these countries, as their relations with Russia would be in jeopardy, a vital source for their vital energy resources.

This is a very bold move by the Obama administration considering the timing. Public support has been waning due to health care reform, and Democrats are putting up a fight concerning Obama’s plans in Afghanistan. It’s the right move to be sure, but it’s just very bad timing.

Beating a bad rap

Realists have a bad rap. They are portrayed as those who are always beating the war drum out of the false belief that war is the best and only way to improve a state’s security. Many point to the advocacy of mutual assured destruction (MAD) by realists who observed that the reason for peace between the two superpowers from 1945 until 1989/91 was solely because they could destroy each other with nuclear weapons. There even existed the idea that if one wanted world peace, then it was better to give the enemy nuclear weapons and create a MAD scenario. Others look at the U.S. invasion of Iraq, stating that it was neo-conservatives who took a realist approach to promote change in the Middle East through an interjection of U.S. military power in the region, in order to deter future threats and destroy havens for terrorists. They point to such concepts as pre-emption, having a war on terror, and the need for allowing enhanced interrogation techniques to illicit information from an irrational enemy. Fortunately, this if far from the truth and these above-stated concepts are denounced by scholars in the school of realism as well.

Case in point. Stephen M. Walt, one of the more famous realists, recently blogged on the Foreign Policy web-site that going to war with Iran over its nuclear program is actually a mistake. Such a war would actually decrease the security of the United States. How can you get a country to start a dialogue regarding their nuclear weapons program if you constantly threaten to bomb them? Would this scare them into dropping all prospects of a nuclear program or further show their need for a nuclear program to deter a hostile state? Walt argues the latter.

Indeed, two months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 Walt argued again, with John Mearsheimer, in Foreign Policy against a military approach. Their red line was that there was no need to use the instrument of war, as Saddam Hussein was already contained and the negative consequences from an armed invasion far outweighed the benefits. There would be a greater loss to American lives than there had been under the current status quo and apathy against the U.S. would significantly increase in the Middle East, putting into jeopardy its access to vital resources in the region. Both have proved hauntingly correct, not to mention that Iran’s influence in the region has actually increased at the cost of American lives.

It’s time to put things straight and acknowledge that the Realist school does not actively promote war, but sees it only as one of many mechanisms to enhance a country’s security. There are other tools at a state’s disposal that it can draw from. Be it soft power, such as cultural appeal, economic influence, being a leader in international institutions, or hard power, states still hold the ability to resolve their differences peacefully, a mechanism not only promoted by institutionalists or liberals, but by realists as well.

To be sure, holding a hard-line in one “ism” is dangerous in itself. To do so is to miss the big picture and limit oneself to a single approach, when the real world actually requires multiple approaches to enhancing and guaranteeing state security. This is why the United States is the superpower. It’s not just its military that is big and powerful, but for the time being and despite the financial crisis, its economy is as well. Not to mention that it’s a hegemonic-driver of international institutions, such as the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. It’s capable of pushing through ideas such as free trade that can benefit everyone who takes part, and let’s not forget, its culture is highly appealing, making it a cultural hegemon as well.

There are groups who are endangering this capability, and Walt is not shy on saying who it is. Neo-conservatives have not learned their lesson from the disastrous decision to invade Iraq out of the premise that it was building nuclear weapons and was on the verge of using them against the U.S. Any military action against Iran, whether it comes from the U.S. or Israel, would be just as disastrous because it would not only instantaneously disrupt protesting forces occurring within the country right now, but would also further isolate Iran in a negative way and more than likely disrupt the Palestinian peace process at the same time.

To use Walt’s analogy, holding a gun to Iran’s head is just going to make them more determined to acquire a nuclear weapon. Seeing that armed conflict is not the answer and knowing that there are other alternatives is not a liberal or realist approach. It’s just common sense.

Lessons learned from the past

A friend of mine passed along a link to The Iron Curtain Diaries, a project undertaken by journalists, photographers, and a cartoonist who travelled along the former “iron curtain,” interviewing people about their feelings of the past and their prospects for the future. I’m usually not a big fan of flash sites, but this one is well designed and very informative. Plus it’s very easy to access media content, such as interviews, video and text and it’s all streamlined. It’s definitely worth a look and a showcase in how the internet can create an interactive experience and give museums a run for their money.

But bouncing on that, it seems academia has been in an old “Eastern Europe” kick. It probably has something to do with the fact that the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall is right around the corner, but regardless it’s useful to point out a few articles to spark your interest, in case any of you has or wish to have some knowledge on the subject.

The first is an article straight out of Foreign Policy by Edward Lucas. Edward Lucas is one, if not the lead scholar of the region formerly known as the Soviet Union, which is illustrated by the fact that he’s a regular contributer to the Economist. He has a new book out called The New Cold War, which seems to be getting some good reviews and I did put it on my “to-read” list. The article outlines many of the problems that the Baltic states, (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) are facing in terms of large amount of government debt, corruption, and a tourist industry that is nearly collapsing. The article is very informative, and goes beyond politics and economics and brings to light some interesting cultural tidbits about the countries. First, these states were considered to be the “winners” of the post-Cold War who were able to quickly transform their economies from one driven by a strong, central government to a market economy. This was no easy task, and, as Lucas outlines, some of the Baltic countries were more successful than the others. Unfortunately they were hit very hard by the financial crisis, exposing their high government debt and had to quickly rely on a partial bailout from the European Union. The second point is that with their collapse and fear of them becoming failed states, it would be quite easy for Russia to regain a strong foothold in the region and bully them away from the West. Yes they are in NATO and the European Union, but, here my last point, it surprises me that more attention hasn’t being given to the state of affairs in the Baltic states, as they not only have a high strategic geopolitical importance, but could serve a precedent of a country, or countries, failing in the EU. If they do fall and are gobbled up by an aggressive Russia, what message could this send to other states who view the European Union as a given to ensure their national security? What about new states that are currently entering the mix, like Croatia (Slovenia has finally dropped its stance of blocking any chance of it entering) or the rest of the former Yugoslavia who view the road to the EU as a guarantee for prolonged peace? Second, the thesis of the article seems to be that these countries are disappearing. Not literally of course, but no-one seems to be paying any attention to them or taking into account the seriousness of the situation. Whether it’s NATO who, Lucas argues, never really took to providing the Baltic states a competent military presence in face of a Russian threat or tourists who seem to have abandoned the region (apparently it’s so bad, that employees in the service industry decided not to show up for work), it seems as if the region is in danger of disappearing.

To be sure, the old Eastern bloc has come a very long way since 1989. Many have transitioned to market led economies, are democracies, follow (more or less) the rule of law, and are success stories. However, it is a fickle thing as the financial crisis has demonstrated and it is easier to destroy than to create. The EU has its hands full to be sure. Hungary has proven to be very insolvent and is in deep financial trouble. The Czech Republic and Poland have their troubles, but from the material I’ve read and at least from what I’ve seen, it doesn’t seem to be as dire as what Lucas portrays in the Baltic region.

What impresses me the most and makes me very hopeful for the current state of the world, is that if one lesson I have learned from these accounts of success and stories form the Iron Curtain Diaries, it is that there exists a possibility to put aside differences and high points of tension that are historic and culturally deep. The Economist singles out the relations between the Ukraine and Poland being very close and productive, despite both of their turbulent histories and the autocracies they have committed against each other. They managed to create a dialogue, acknowledge what happened, and are moving forward together.

This proves that it’s worth being hopeful and something we should think about as the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall approaches. Despite war or societies being cut off by oppressive regimes, there is still hope. Not for it to end, but for the time afterwards, when all is said and done and the smoke has been cleared from the battlefield. It is possible to rebuild and heal any scars.

Dancing with the dragon

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that China and the U.S. are starting a dialogue on issues of counter-terrorism. This reveals the nature of the Chinese / American relationship regarding foreign issues.

Indeed, each country’s respective foreign policies are a result of very different domestic pressures and political goals. China’s foreign policy is based solely on its need for resources as a result of government pressure in sustaining large domestic growth. Therefore it’s no surprise that its official line on doing business in Africa, in particular in Angola, Republic of Congo, Sudan, and Nigeria, is based out of respecting sovereignty by separating politics from economics. Any condemnation by human rights groups or governments of China investing in areas of conflict where conflict diamond mining is taking place, or child soldiers or workers are being used is usually met with a Chinese response that sovereignty must be respected and it’s not their right to interfere.

The United States on the other hand is finding its population to be more interested in domestic policies than foreign policy, a trend that is a post-Cold war phenomenon. This is strengthened by the media that covers issues outside of America’s border in a specific framing of an event and in a minute time frame. A good example is the framing of the crises in Somalia in the early nineties as a humanitarian crisis. This caused the U.S. mandate to be very specific and limited when it decided to intervene and failed to grasp the political and sociological origins of the crisis. The American population therefore did not have a realistic grasp of what the conflict was, and as images were displayed of a U.S. soldier’s body being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, there was heavy pressure from Congress to send the boys home. A lack of interest in world affairs makes it hard for the United States to produce a concrete foreign policy, as Henry Kissinger has observed, and produced a dichotomy, in that what the U.S. promises may not be what it delivers after pressure from Congress has been applied. Therefore to use a term coined by Joseph Nye Jr, the U.S.’ soft power is also undermined when it proves that it can’t deliver on promises regarding trade benefits or other economic policies.

Despite these trends in both state’s foreign policies, there is always rhetoric of the two countries needing to work together. After all, China is a rising power and the U.S. is already the superpower, but the question remains, can they cooperate on sensitive issues?

As Hillary Clinton announced in the above linked article, there are a few issues, in which China and the U.S. can agree on. The main one is, and has been since 9/11, counter-terrorism. China’s territory consists of major minority groups who are dissatisfied with their current political and economic situation. From Tibet to the Xinjiang region, China is currently struggling in figuring out how to manage their minority populations who happen to reside in areas of great geopolitical importance. The Tibetan area is a major source of money from tourism and the Xinjiang area is rich in natural resources. Both of these areas constitute large chunks of Chinese territory, and efforts to keep these areas under control are one of Beijing’s top priorities.

Washington is determined to get Beijing to contribute more resources to international problems and convince China to act more sternly against Iran’s nuclear ambitions and North Korea’s irrationality. Issues such as the rule of law, though important, is already the top agenda for many NGOs and the European Union, and as the standard of living in China increases due to its economic performance, political rights will eventually be demanded upon by a rising middle class. Hillary Clinton is wise to realize this trend and therefore focus American / Chinese dialogue on issues that can serve both of their needs, as well as put the U.S. in a position to make an impact. However, the Obama administration has a fine line to walk. It must not give China a carte blanche in how it acts towards its minority populations out of an excuse that cracking down violently to protests is one of their counter-terrorism measures, which occurred when Russia cracked down heavily in the Chechnya region, shortly after Bush declared a war on terror.

China is an important country, but an influential one in the making. The Obama administration has a great opportunity to plant seeds that can contribute to closer relations in the future. But it must not do so out of the cost of complying with Chinese aggressions against their minority populations.

And the wheel goes round and round

Despite pressure from the Obama administration Israel is still planning to build 455 new housing units in the West Bank, according to this report. This move by defense minister Ehud Barak is seen as a slap in the face to Obama’s new hardline approach to the Middle East. Obama rightly believes that the U.S. image in the Middle East, as well as the difficulties the U.S. is facing in deterring Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, are directly linked to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. If he can finally secure a two state solution, so it is believed, then many influential states in the Middle East, such as Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, could put more regional pressure on Iran in ending its nuclear ambitions. Unfortunately, as can be referenced in our “Et tu Brute?” post, Obama’s political struggles at home has an additional consequence of undermining his influence abroad.

Ever since its establishment in 1948, Israel has always took a realist approach to its foreign policy, especially regarding the occupied territories. Attacks on Israeli civilians by militant Palestinians has always been returned with a heavy handed response by Israeli troops. Just this past year in fact, after missiles originating from Gaza met Israeli soil, Israeli troops reentered the region, leveling houses one by one. Even the first successful act of peace brokered by Jimmy Carter at Camp David between then Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat was only made possible after Sadat initiated the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and gained considerable amount of territory, before finally being pushed back out of the Sinai by Israeli troops, as a consequence of an Egyptian deal with Syria to push further and leaving their surface-to-air missile umbrella.

Therefore it should be no surprise that Israel is taking advantage of Obama focusing his attention on pushing health care reform through Congress and losing political clout whilst doing it. Indeed, Israel may not be as strategically important to the U.S. as it was during the Cold War, it nevertheless knows politics and how to play the grand game of international relations.

The Obama administration should not tolerate this blatant maneuver to jeopardize the peace process. Though one could argue that failures in ending the Palestinian/Israeli conflict can be contributed to both the Israelis and Palestinians, the United States nevertheless has a substantial opportunity of having a President who was willing to put the conflict on his agenda in the beginning of his Presidency, clearly illustrating the need to end the conflict. But if history has taught us one thing, it is that the prospects of peace usually disintegrates when it is almost achieved. Obama needs to stay focused and use harsh language to criticize any Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories, despite any trouble that he is experiencing at home.

Et tu Brute?

Accountability, transparency and change. Such were the promises of Obama during his campaign and during the first few months of his presidency. Change would be transparent, and those who committed past transgressions would be held accountable. The biggest flaw? He relied too much on the general public, and sincerely believed that as they wanted change (hence them electing him into office) they would also agree with pretty much everything he proposed.

I was thrilled that within a few days of his officially taking up office, he denounced Guantanamo and stated that it must be closed and quickly proposed a brand new stimulus package to jump start the economy. He cautioned that decisions must be made quickly and a stimulus package must not be developed within the “politics as usual” mentality. Shortly thereafter, he proposed an examination of U.S. practices regarding the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” such as water-boarding, and again asserted that it would now be U.S. policy to follow the Geneva conventions. Such times for Obama were grand and he was riding on enormous public support, unprecedented by a newly arrived President almost reaching the 70% approval mark while coasting nicely above 60% in the Gallup Polls. Then the tide began to turn.

It started with photos that Obama decided to release regarding the victims of water-boarding techniques, and peaked with information regarding large bonuses being paid to banks and large financial institutions that received bailout money. Obama was wise in ceasing the release of additional photos, as it would undermine the U.S. intelligence gathering machine, forcing such individuals to constantly analyze an order based upon whether or not it might become illegal in the future. The bonuses, however, are another story. Indeed, he was quick to use very explicit language regarding the giving of such bonuses, but the damage was done and the government was in a bind based upon the legality of being able to actually stop the bonuses form being paid. However, popular support was still rather high for Obama, holding a higher than 60% approval rating. Regardless, much political capital was already paid out and many proposals, such as the stimulus package, were largely uni-partisanly based and it finally caught up with him. Nevertheless, feeling confident and seeing his approval rating still above 60% through the month of July, the Obama administration believed they had the ability to initiate one of the most ambitious changes in the first few months of Obama’s presidency. Health care reform.

Oh how those three little words have proven to dramatically change Obama’s position in the political spectrum. Though it may take a student of brain surgery to actually understand the bill, grouped together with dramatic accusations of what the bill will do to private insurance companies on both sides of the center, the compromise of getting rid of the public option all together threatens to undermine the Obama presidency less than a year he is in office.

If only he would have thrown a little bit of a bone to the Republicans.

Everything that he set out to do along with the energy in which he did it, has climaxed to this point. Though touting the need for bipartisanship and the need to stay away from “politics as usual”, it sadly has turned out to be quite the opposite. The Democrats for once took advantage of a reeling Republican party who did not know its own identity, as well as having a majority in Congress, to state loudly that the tables have turned and refused to give the Republicans any concessions regarding the stimulus package and crammed in any provisions in bills that the Republicans might have blocked in the years before. Unfortunately they picked the wrong time to do it.

True enough, America’s health care is in a dire state. This has been established. What is lacking is an honest dialogue by both parties, as well as a clear, sophisticated debate on the issue. The general public has reared its ugly head and accused Obama of Nazism, a criticism that is highly unintelligent and unwarranted. Nevertheless, the inability to work with the other party, despite it collapsing internally, has finally came around. The public option, which is a critical component of the bill, is in danger, not because of it necessarily being bad or even “evil” as many of its critics will jump at the bit to explain, but because the Obama administration and the Democrats failed to sell it and woo private insurance companies and the Republicans that it is actually a good thing. Instead, reliance upon a majority in Congress as well as a large public support base gave false hopes to the Obama administration that it could get away with seamlessly passing health care reform based solely upon the Democrat’s vision of what it should look like. To put it simply, they became lazy and the rooster has finally come home to roost.

American government was not built to be fast moving, in order to implement any type of reform or law instantaneously, especially when it is a controversial one. Instead, America’s government institutions were built to move slowly, check what the other is doing, and provide a forum of sophisticated debate on proposed legislature. What has been lacking is the latter, and the American population is in the process of doing a 180º turn and populist movements are jumping on the opportunity.

The greatest mistake was that Obama did not take to heart the Shakespearean concept of what a general public is. They may love you in the present, but it does not take much, nor a lot of time, for their mood to change, and the politicians that represent them to obligingly turn around, and reveal their hidden daggers.

Russia’s most dangerous threat

The BBC titled article, Africans ‘under siege’ in Moscow, reflects a grave problem that Russia is experiencing at the moment, such a degree of gravity in fact that this issue has surprisingly garnered very little international attention.

I remember being exposed to the problem through a New York Times article I read in 2004 or so. I remember a picture of an African, his head resting in his hands, while the article described his struggle for survival, or having to deal with constant death threats of being lynched, as well as witnessing his friends being brutally attacked openly in the streets. The police just ignored it.

Working in the study abroad office, we were delicately trained to warn African-Americans, or even students of a dark skin color, who were interested in studying abroad in Russia of the consequences they may face. I remember one such encounter of complete disbelief. His interest in Russian history spurred his interest to learn the language. The natural next step was to study abroad. I remember feeling as if I were transported back in time, and having to tell him that we only had one position for a man of his stature on the collegiate basketball team, and it was already filled.

The situation in Russia cannot be termed ‘latent’ racism, rather it is violent, bloody, and anyone that appears to be ‘non-Russian’ is susceptible. I found a two year old Times Magazine article, depicting how college students placed a bomb in a small café, and killed many “non-white foreigners.”

Surprisingly, even with the new Obama administration, there has been little, if hardly any, condemnation by a President of the United States on levels of racism that are happening right now. Instead, dialogue is focused on realist, or geopolitical concerns, such as the Missile Defense Shield, NATO’s expansion, Iran acquiring nuclear arms, and decreasing the number of nuclear arms between the two countries. Though all these issues are important, the United States however has a great opportunity to control the rising of a dangerous form of nationalism, which is even more important. Though Georgia was swiftly defeated by Russian forces last year, the conflict however revealed the poor shape Russia’s military is in. Its weapons systems are outdated, and despite talks from Medvedev on Russia’s desire to further modernize its forces, it will take decades, not to mention large amounts of cash to be on the same par as the United States or even Europe. Thus, if history has taught us anything in the past 100 years, it is that nationalism can be an even more dangerous force than any military or weapon. Just as Nazism transformed the most democratic regime that Europe ever had into a militant, racist regime that systematically murdered ethnic minorities, if Russia does not put a stop to these violent acts of racism, nationalism could once again acquire a stranglehold in the region and change the nature of the continent.

Europe is also in a good position, if not better, to influence Russia positively. Russia is already a member country of the Council of Europe, an organization that promotes human rights and the rule of law and from which the European Union took its flag. Unfortunately, just as is the case with the U.S., the EU’s major efforts with Russia are in terms of securing its energy, and dissuading Russia from “turning the valve,” just as it has done in the past with Ukraine, a major transit country of natural gas into the rest of Europe. With the United Kingdom being the obvious exception, as well as some of the former Eastern European countries, continental Europe only resorts to crude language and warnings that are not usually followed. Instead, politicians seem more willing to accommodate Russia out of fear of waking up the next morning and not having any hot water.

To be sure, this is by far not an easy task. Russian politicians are using this emergence of nationalism to further their own domestic goals, as well as promoting an aggressive Russian foreign policy. A desire to return to the days where Russia was the other superpower, a Russia that could act freely in its own spheres of influence, is strong among the Russian public and elite.  However, every country must have some form of immigration. Immigrants are able to fill in certain gaps, by filling jobs that were traditionally occupied by ethnic Russians. Moreover, as the United States is a primary example, if Russia reforms its higher education institutions it will be able to attract highly advanced workers, such as engineers and doctors, and take advantage of its geographic location next to China. If it continues to allow such rampid, horrifying acts of violence against immigrants, it won’t have a chance in this era of globalization, and Russia’s economy will only worsen, as energy prices seem to be stabilizing and may further decrease in the future. Though Russia’s foreign policy seems aggressive if not militant, domestically it faces severe problems that could destabilize the region. Both the Obama administration and the EU need to work together and take a unified stance and work with Russia in combatting violent racism. Most importantly, both actors must put this issue on the table, and acknowledge the threat that nationalism poses, outside of strategic, geopolitical concerns.

German elections – 2009

For those of you who missed it, elections are well underway in Germany.

Alex Harrowell over at Fistful of Euros, has a good description of what the heck is going on, as well as a good overview of how the election process works in the country, in terms of coalition building.

I will just shed a little light on a few interesting tidbits.

In the eastern realm of the country, there always exists a pretty good turnout for die Linke (“The Left” – the old communist party of yore) and the NPD (the NSDAP, or so one could argue, in its current form). These elections hold true so far. Die Linke is showing a strong performance in both Sachsen and Thüringen, and also, which is always an interesting case study, in Saarland, giving the SPD a run for their money. The NPD are making an appearance in the election results in Thüringen and Sachsen, which shows that they are garnering enough votes to be counted in the results. This will without a doubt be comparable to the other Bundesländer in the east.

The financial crisis has hit Germany very hard because its economy is mainly focused and driven on exports. Therefore, the rather poor performance of the SPD mirrors the troubles that they are having in terms of identity. The CDU has been leaning left, and it seems the German population views them to be doing it a lot better than the traditional workers’ party.

Local European elections always sort of mirror the main issue on the continent today, or rather two issues at present. The first is immigration and the second is of course the financial crisis. There have been talks of a fortress Europe systematically emerging, which is a debate in its own right, but the fact is that Europe is having a lot of difficulty with integrating its large immigration population. Being a social-welfare state, government institutions are just not built to allow easy movement of peoples between various classes, and social mobility for immigrants is rather low, compared to the United States whose institutions are founded upon it, though they are obviously not perfect.

There have been comments that globalization is the United States, and globalization is Americanization, to use it in the negative sense. Immigration policy is a major reason why the U.S. has benefited quite a lot. It still attracts the brightest students from abroad, and still dominates the globe in terms of advanced education, (though the U.S.’ secondary education is in a dire state) which is a major drive for entrepreneurship that increases its ability for innovation. Though after 9/11 there have been major setbacks in this endeavor, and any non-U.S. citizen wanting to work or reside in the country for longer than three months will be able to attest to the rigorous (and outright embarrassing) application process, nevertheless Europe has a tougher job. It has to reform itself entirely from a country that is based on homogeneous principles, to accepting those who become naturalized citizens, who have newly acquired a European passport, to also be German, British or Italian.

Read Harrowell’s article. But in essence, the SPD and CDU (Angela Merkel’s party)  are going to lose a few seats, but the latter will still be the dominant party. The biggest winner will be the FDP, Germany’s “catch-all” party, which really shows confusion and a bit indifference regarding the state of affairs in the country. Without the SPD being able to fully capitalize on the financial crisis, which truthfully makes it difficult to point the finger at the other party that they happen to be in a grand coalition with, the status quo will be more or less upheld. What is important is how many votes the FDP will acquire, and what sort of direction they will take when the time comes to build a coalition.

Die Zeit is keeping a tally on the scores for the Bundesländer, in which voting is underway. You don’t need to have a knowledge of German to understand the graph and the results.

A multilateral nightmare

Reading Zbigniew Brzezinski’s new essay from the September/October publication of Foreign Affairs on the future of NATO, inspired me to write my own thoughts regarding this multilateral security organization.

Brzezinski essentially outlines, more or less, the same arguments regarding NATO’s role and future in the post-Cold War era as Henry Kissinger did in his extremely foretelling book, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? They both outline the extreme importance of the Trans-Atlantic relationship, and how global power is slowly shifting away from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which makes NATO extremely important as a security organization. Additionally Kissinger asserts that the great danger lies not in the emergence of a new European identity in the form of the European Union, but rather the cause of this identity acting as a counterweight to American cultural influence. In Uncouth Nation, Andrei Markowitz outlines this same problem, and views an emergence of anti-Americanism to be so prevalent in Europe that a new European identity is emerging to counteract the weight of the United States. He is even as provocative as stating that George W. Bush should take his place among Jean Monnet, Robert Schumann, and Jacques Delors, as nothing before the U.S. led invasion of Iraq has ever produced a unified European identity in direct opposition to the United States. For me, the fate and purpose NATO is based upon four fundamental questions.

1. Need for purpose

First, the question must be asked regarding what NATO is supposed to be in this post-Cold War period. During the Cold War NATO had a distinct purpose; to create an alliance in Europe that would dissuade any military action by the Soviet Union and to stop a third World War coming into being. However, no longer do we live in a balance of power mentality, where wars are fought for the geopolitical advantage of territory, rather conflicts are more complex and predominately internal. Some, such as Mary Kaldor, have termed these New Wars, while others have termed them simply asymmetrical conflicts, pointing towards the way they are fought. Regardless, these wars are not a question of State vs. State, but involve non-State actors, such as warlords, that have emerged and do not respect international institutions, the rule of law, or even international law such as the Geneva Conventions. This has created a complexity that NATO must deal with, but so far has not. Additionally Kissinger views this more as a problem of a mission statement, as well as the multilateral character that NATO has acquired, paving way for the need of a consensus and not leaving room for those States with true hegemonic power, such as the United States, to take a substantial lead.

2. Improvement of the EU/NATO relationship

This leads to the second question: How can NATO play nicely with the EU? Though official rhetoric has been that the EU does not intend to replace NATO nor see the organization’s importance decrease, the way the EU decision making process works as well as NATO’s role in the region, has proved otherwise. It has always been argued that the need for the EU to have a common foreign and security policy is essential, the path toward this goal however is hotly debated and left unanswered. The EU has established European Battlegroups that are meant for rapid deployment and deal mainly with peacekeeping and “humanitarian missions.” Unfortunately with the European countries not having homogeneous weapons systems, the contributions by different countries in terms of forces and weapons have proven to be a logistical nightmare (this has however been identified, and plans to make homogeneous types of weapons as well as the means to transport them are in development). Additionally, the confusing nature of the EU in terms of who has what jurisdiction over which pillar, makes NATO’s ability to combat terrorism, or root out the sources that are funding the Taliban in Afghanistan, that more difficult. Information regarding the movement of peoples, bribery, organized crime, weapon smuggling, fraud, etc, are no longer under the jurisdiction of NATO member countries, but under Brussels. This creates a scenario that slows down the decision making process when a NATO action may be needed. Instead of creating a homogeneous, information sharing network that is used toward the completion of a goal, infighting and sore spots emerge under allegations that a territory has been inappropriately crossed and toes have been stepped on. NATO is no longer able to respond together as one unit, but must now go through unnecessary bureaucratic red tape that make its actions ineffective and has proven to divide the alliance rather than strengthen it.

3. NATO’s role in Afghanistan

This leads to the third question of whether or not NATO’s role in Afghanistan is politically sustainable in European countries. Thus far, the ability to properly frame the war in Afghanistan by Europe’s politicians as a serious potential threat to Europe has failed. Many argue that Europe is at a dangerous period of insecurity as it fails to properly integrate its large immigration population. Many point to the fact that many of the terrorists responsible for hijacking the planes on 9/11 were schooled and resided in Europe. Others show the growing resentment of Muslim populations in France and the U.K., as a result of large disparities of income and restrictions to education that disallow social mobility that further endanger Europe’s national security. Regardless of the argument, Afghanistan is as much geopolitically important to Europe, if not more so, as it is to the United States. Thus far, the failure to convey this essential fact to the European public has been dismal. In Germany, where even a limited mandate in Afghanistan exists, the upcoming elections and German passivity to anything regarding the notion of war, are making people nervous and questioning whether or not the number one economic power in Europe will have a future presence in the country. Furthermore, the increasing casualties of British soldiers are making many in the United Kingdom vocally question Britain’s engagement in Afghanistan (a situation that is presently occurring in the United States as well), and could danger the future of the NATO alliance if the U.K. decides to withdrawal. Looking at the wording of news web-sites, such as the BBC, there exists a failure to control the flow of information while offering counterpoints and explaining that such sacrifices are needed. I even remember a lecture I attended at the Chatham House in London concerning just this topic, and it was surprising to me how many were in favor of Britain withdrawing.

4. The Russian question

Finally, the question of how NATO should negotiate and act toward Russia should finally be agreed upon. There is a split among European countries regarding this matter. Many, such as the former Eastern European countries, are just as concerned with an emerging, hostile Russia and its current stranglehold on Europe’s energy security as the United States. Others, such as Germany, view Russia to be a key component in its energy security, and sometimes view it politically acceptable to move closer to Russia and act as a counterweight to U.S. influence.

The future is unclear

NATO is in danger of collapsing. Will it collapse with Afghanistan? It is very unsure. What is certain however is that NATO must define its strategic goals more clearly, and the United States must delicately balance its stance toward an emerging European identity without splitting Europe further and pushing some states more to the East. Above all, it is finally time for Europe to take more of an active role in its own external security, which cannot be achieved without a secure, confident Europe that can act as one unit. There does exist presently a tragedy of the commons, especially regarding Afghanistan, where some countries are not sacrificing as much as others. This, unfortunately, is the cause of any form of collective good. It must be combated and NATO member states must be persuaded to engage conflict areas just like everyone else, if and when NATO decides to act. This is the main task of the United States. The U.S. must lead the call that if a country is a member of NATO it must put in as much effort as everyone else based on its military capabilities. One country cannot make the sacrifice of its citizens, while others are allowed to sit up north and enjoy the Afghan countryside drinking a cold beer. Europe must act as one, and it is up to the United States to allow Europe to make important vital decisions, and make more of an impact in the region. The United States must use its soft power through culture, economics and diplomacy, per Joseph Nye, to strengthen the Trans-Atlantic relationship, while developing a clear, concise foreign policy, per Henry Kissinger, that leaves room for no surprises and gives everyone a fair deal. This will result in the United States to further strengthen the NATO relationship, create a solid framework in dealing with Russia’s worry over NATO’s expansion eastward, and create an environment where NATO’s members can define the role of the most powerful security alliance this world has ever seen. This, naturally, is easier said (or written) than done.

Nepotism at its ugliest

Ask any recent graduate and they will tell you that the job market is not what you would call alive and well, especially employment in the international relations sector. Governments are forced to cut back aid and focus tax-payer money on domestic stimulus projects. This not only means less money for international organizations, but also a restructuring on how these organizations employ recent graduates.

Sadly, these practices are strengthening the ineptitude of multilateral institutions, and are promoting nepotism at its ugliest.

Look for any “entry level” position and you will find that the minimum requirement is 3 or 5 years of experience, in a very specific region of study, mainly in terms of actual field work. This high barrier of entry is making it very difficult for individuals without any actual experience, recent graduates for example, to get their foot in the door, despite how passionate one may be about a certain issue. So how do recent graduates get into the world of tax-free salaries? Simple. Unpaid internships are widely available that are full time, and last anywhere from 3 months to a year. Unpaid internships are common, especially for institutions that do not have a lot of funding, such as those that are doing business without a thought for profit, (supposedly NGOs) or those who find themselves in industries that are seeing their profit margins drastically decreasing. (American newspapers).

Despite this rather ugly trend of paying educated people little to nothing, it is actually not a very good practice for one simple reason. It is nepotism at its worst, and nepotism just breeds more inefficiency, something that IOs are notorious for having.

Many qualified individuals coming out of universities had to work full time in order to finance their studies. Let’s not forget to mention that many had to take out large amounts of student loans in order to keep up with the slight increases of tuition that universities installed each year, and they have 6 months to find meaningful employment before the governments calls the loans in. Also, these individuals cannot afford to do unpaid internships, for the simple argument that many of these organizations, such as the United Nations, have offices in cities with extremely large costs of living. New York City, Geneva, Brussels, Luxembourg, Paris, London, Tokyo etc, make it nearly impossible for most recent graduates to not only work without a salary, but to even find a place to live and eat three solid meals a day. You thought student life was rough with ramen noodles and peanut butter sandwiches, wait till you work for free.

Instead, the trend seems to be that the large number of those unpaid internships are being filled by those individuals whose families were more than willing to pay for their education, and who are also willing to fit the bill to have their children work for free. This is slamming the door shut in the faces of many qualified, highly educated individuals with a fierce passion for wanting to better the world in some way. They do not want the status quo, they want to change it. They’ve sat through the NGO classes, and those dealing with the United Nations. They know about their inefficiencies, as well as their good traits, the same or perhaps even better than their fellow colleagues who had patrons. Instead, the door remains open for a distinct group of people, despite their qualifications, their grades received, or the quality of the thesis they wrote, who can simply afford to work for free.

Therefore it is puzzling to me why this system exists the way it does. The obvious reason is simply there just is not enough funding. But this is a cop out. Unless every person in a given office in a given institution does not partake in any training activity whatsoever, then yes, there is not enough funding to employ someone without any experience. The other reason is that maybe international organizations merely like the current system the way it is. Perhaps it is a form of keeping the old guard in place, no matter how inefficient they seem to be. If they can continue to draw their current salary and fly first class to impoverished areas, stay in Hiltons and eat at fancy restaurants while reporting on the state of the country’s economy they are studying at that time, than why should it change?

Nepotism exists to keep a certain group in and a certain group out. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule, and it is a general statement to make regarding international organizations, as some do pay their interns and there does exist opportunities for recent graduates outside of unpaid internships. Nevertheless, this is quite common and if people who have the means and are willing to work for free, why change it? Why pay educated people to work 8 hours a day doing the same job that someone else did a few years ago who drew a yearly salary? Nepotism like this does not provide a way for innovation or for improving the efficiency of an organization, it just keeps a distinct type of class in and another type of class out.

Sadly, this argument is assuming that there exists a civil society who can make a difference. This has been debated from both sides. The core argument is whether or not the world is better or worse off with international organizations. I believe that it is better off. However, if one is in this world to make a positive difference to civil society, I would ask all these individuals to look at your government first and if the options are not available, do something independently second. All this talk of reforming the Security Council, or needing something better than the UN is very redundant, if these organizations do not first employ individuals based on their merits and accomplishments, rather than whether or not they can afford to work for free.

A remark on the relaunch of EI

For those of you who have checked this site periodically, and continued to do so despite there not being a new post in almost a year, I welcome you back and am extremely grateful for your interest. For those who have somehow stumbled upon this blog for the first time, welcome.

Being a graduate student and having to write 20 page papers, while working on a thesis, I sadly did not have any time to dedicate myself to writing periodically about current affairs, something that this blog requires. Instead, EI had to collect dust. But it is back, and hopefully better than its predecessor.

I’m frustrated because I just do not have the time to learn the code and make the blog distinct in its own way, in order to express itself and allow it to transform and become its own as it develops. Instead, I am forced to rely on pre-made templates that best represents how I have envisioned this site to be. We are almost there.

I’m not going to divulge the whole plan that I have for EI, but just to say that there is one. The main purpose of the site is to act on what the likes of Henry Kissinger, Joseph Nye, and John Stewart have observed. There is a recent trend of many Americans to be ambivalent to world affairs. Instead, focus seems to be on pop culture, entertainment and domestic events. Now, this site is not just for Americans, its existence is to serve the populations residing on this planet. While all three of these do have their merits, world affairs are nevertheless just as important, especially when the United States is the world superpower. If foreign policy will be made by my generation, then it better be made by an astute, educated generation that has a profound knowledge of world politics. This project hopes to contribute to that learning experience.

To all of you I give a warm welcome. As time will pass, the posts on this blog will increase. I am always on the look out for contributers who have the same passion of world politics as I do. Please make yourselves known. Send me an e-mail at chris.osman@gmail.com and let’s have a conversation. I hope all of you further enjoy the contributions on this blog. I enjoy making them.