Relevance of NATO

A few weeks we talked about "security communities" in my grad seminar on the role of ideas and identity in IR. Thanks to a North Atlantic identity, NATO endures even in the absence of a Soviet threat. Anne Applebaum, however, seems to disagree. She writes:

The fact is that the idea of "the West" has been fading for a long time on both sides of the Atlantic, as countless "whither-the-Alliance" seminars have been ritually observing for the past decade. But the consequences are now with us: NATO, though fighting its first war since its foundation, inspires nobody. The members of NATO feel no allegiance to the alliance, or to one another.

Applebaum's evidence is found in the way that countries frame the Afghan War. She notes that countries are not discussing the Afghan War as an international operation. Rather, national governments and the media portray sacrifices in nationalistic terms rather than as a collective enterprise. I suspect this is partially for domestic consumption, and perhaps elites privately concur that this is an international concern.

Political Science: Methods and the Policy-Academic Divide

In light of Senator Coburn's mission to end NSF funding for political "science," a friend/colleague decided to start an open forum on his f.b. The debate revolves around 1) the usefulness of political science research to the real world and 2) the types of methods we use. This debate was featured in a NY Times article. In addressing issue #1, my friend writes:

I also think Political Science could do more to address relevant policy questions and make our findings more accessible to the general public. My friend suggests the academic rules of the game should slightly change in the following ways:

1) Graduate students should be encouraged to take classes in policy analysis and media communication in which they learn to write concise and jargon-free memos. Such exercises will help them explain their research to both media representatives and policy makers;
2) Graduate students in Political Science should be encouraged to do policy relevant research;
3) Faculty should positively value the media and policy outreach of assistant professors and include achievements in these areas in the tenure review process;
4) Departments of Political Science should welcome back both assistant and tenured professors who temporarily depart from academia to pursue public service in government and other important work with international organizations, since they bring valuable experience to both teaching and research.

Since I'm at a DC-based university, I've thought quite a bit about these questions - especially as I apply for research fellowships. Joseph Nye's op-ed in April on about the lack of policy relevance in poli-sci research was particularly apt. I am largely in agreement with my friend, but at the same time, we need not always look for convergence...even in the natural sciences and engineering, there is both basic and applied research. the "big picture" theoretical questions in the social sciences are equivalent to basic research. Some researchers will be more interested in basic, others in applied. And then there are those who connect the bridge. it's this middle category that our discipline could promote.

Not In Anyone's Backyard

My article on the emergence of a transnational anti-base movement was published this month in ISQ. I was surprised when a colleague at Temple forwarded me a link with a review of it on the Duck of Minerva blog.

http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2009/09/not-in-anyones-backyard-andrew-yeo-on.html

NK Brunch Meeting

KK called together a brunch together to meet CK, who was in town to share his story w/some NK policymakers in DC. I'd have to say JP is the king of analogies. Aside from no one wanting to touch the NK issue among policy circles these days, JP pointed out the current problem w/NK analysis.

Analogy #1: In medicine, there are 3 stages when approaching sick patients: diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring. Regarding North Korea, everyone is focused on treatment without knowing what the correct diagnosis is. There just isn't any solid diagnosis of the problem. Part of the problem is there's not enough information. Nor will the patient let us make a diagnosis. We may look back 10 years from now and find that the treatment we were applying today were silly. 150 years ago, medical textbooks recommended bleeding patients to remove the bad blood (think about the procedure to save President Lincoln). In ancient times, doctors drilled holes in patient's heads (a procedure known as trepanation) to mental diseases. How can we provide diagnosis (i.e. understand N.Korea better) so we don't provide silly treatments?

Analogy #2: This was JP's advice to CK. NK experts are like a Star Trek convention: A nerdy bunch fixated on a narrow problem who only leave home when there's a Trekkie convention. CK needs to reach out to people outside this group to be effective, and to get ideas. Perhaps this means working through Singapore, or Norway. Something I learned today was the prospect of wind turbines for electricity in NK. Apparently Norway was also once a poor, backwards country, but once they discovered wind turbines to generate electricity, the mining industry flourished. Norway apparently has an interest in development work in NK.

Also, the Congressmen most noted for NK work (Ed Royce, Sam Brownback) may not be the best people to approach in setting up a business venture, or development projects in NK. Oskar Schindler may be an excellent example or analogy in promoting HR. Schindler may have wanted to save Jews, but initially he was running a business, and he needed Jews to stay alive to operate his factories. The survivors and relatives of Schindler's Jews may be open to helping the NK human rights cause, b/c it speaks to their own experiences.

Liberals and Human Rights

Intuitively, one would assume that "liberals" would take a stronger stand on human rights than conservatives. The demand for civil liberties, transparency, and basic freedoms are all issues liberals would naturally demand. Yet human rights have become the agenda of conservatives. When did human rights and the demand for liberal values abroad become the issue of conservatives (i.e. the rise of the neocons)? Are Democrats wary of pushing the human rights button, evoking the "freedom" rhetoric which rings so close to the Bush agenda.

We see the delicate balance Obama faces with Iran. Obama should provide the Iranian opposition moral support and denounce the use of violence to quash protestors. Yet he's been careful not to denounce Ahmadinejad, or make comments which would further incite the opposition, or suggest the illegitimacy of Ahmadinejad's rule (and by extension grounds for regime change). And from a "realist" perspective, Obama will likely be negotiating with Ahmadinejad's government on future nuclear policy. Thus he's exercising caution now with his words so as to not undermine future prospects of diplomacy or engagement with Ahmadinejad.
therefore is exercising caution. Glenn Kessler below gets at some of these points

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703850.html


But this digression still doesn't get at the heart of my question about the position of political liberals (i.e. Democrats on human rights). More salient for my research is figuring out what the liberal position is on human rights in North Korea. My tentative answer is that they have no position. Liberals have been largely silent on human rights in N.Korea. The agenda has been dominated by conservatives and evangelical Christians. I think there is a "moderate" position here, which I would fall under. Focus on providing humanitarian aid. Denounce the lack of political, eocnomic, and religious freedom in N.Korea, but w/out openly promoting regime overthrow (even if this is desirable). Perhaps there is a way to silently promote regime change, by pulling internal levels, providing humanitarian assistance, and working with local officials to institute market reforms.

Thinking Outside of the Box on N.Korea

Two articles from the Post which I thought might help us think out of the box on N.Korea. When I mean out of the box, I mean thinking about issues outside of security, proliferation, and food aid, things like development assistance and the viability of economic zones.

The first article on agriculture development in Afghanistan doesn't apply to NK, but it' the principle of looking beyond existing models or frameworks which have continued to fail in the past.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061804135.html

The second article pertains to the precarious state of the Kaesong Industrial Complex with S. Korean investors pulling out amidst NK demands, and increased political risk in conducting business with the North. Again shows why at the end of the day the security issue dominates the agenda. Must security issues be resolved first before moving forwad on issues of economic reform, development, human rights etc... or will efforts promoting economic reforms and development help pave a resolution to security issues. (Update: S.Korea's "sunshine" engagement policy was an attempt at the latter. Obviously it failed...but perhaps the program was undercut by the early Bush Administration's NK policy).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803683.html

Passport DC

Taking part in Passport DC 2009, my brother and I visited several Embassy open houses on Saturday. We visited the Embassies of Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Ghana, and Ethiopia. Each embassy provided or showcased samples of food, music dance, and traditional dress unique to its country, but the expressions of joy and happiness were all same. Keep in mind that several of these counties are currently afflicted by political instability, poverty, or war. Yet to see people celebrating and dancing, despite pressing current events taking place back in the home country, was quite a sight. Passport DC was a reminder that the human race shares a common bond through the love of food, music, and dance. A bond which cuts through space and time.