The State and Global Governance

I assigned 3 articles related to global governance. Two are related to the nuclear security, and one on Europe’s loan package to Greece. Hopefully, students are beginning to pick up on some of the key questions of our times in international relations: cooperation under anarchy (to steal from Kenneth Oye's title). States remain the central actors in international politics. However, world leaders continue to increasingly rely on international institutions, supranational organizations, or world forums and conferences to tackle global issues. Does this suggest a) the decline of states in international politics b) a revamping of state power filtered through international institutions c) or a new form of global politics defined by international institutions and forums? I like answer “b” – but I won’t elaborate here.

On the point about forums, is it just me, or do we see more and more of these loose international forums on the rise. Recently, we have forums on climate change, financial regulation, and nuclear proliferation. Is this a sign that process is just as important as outcomes when devising solutions to world problems?

Civil Society in Iran and Eastern Europe - A Good Analogy for U.S. Foreign Policy?

Apparently Charles Krauthammer assesses Obama's Iranian foreign policy as an abject failure - or perhaps more accurately a missed opportunity - from both a strategic and moral perspective by not supporting Iran's opposition. Krauthammer goes one step further, evoking eveb regime change

"What should we do? Pressure from without -- cutting off gasoline supplies, for example -- to complement and reinforce pressure from within. The pressure should be aimed not at changing the current regime's nuclear policy -- that will never happen -- but at helping change the regime itself"

The analogy here is Reagan's public and covert support to opposition movements in Eastern Europe (i.e Solidarity in Poland), which provided hope to dissidents and helped sustain momentum for regime change and democratization with civil society playing a major role. I'm not sure if this is really analogus to Iran, however. It was more likely Gorbachev's reforms, and the signal (or lack of credibility) that he would use military force to keep communist parties in power, which provided civil society in E. Europe much of their momentum. This is the argument I made in the following article (see abstract). Of course, if we push the causal chain further back, we could attribute Gorby's reforms to Reagan's tough stand against the Soviets, kicked off with the "evil empire" speech.

Democracy Promotion and Human Rights Under Obama

A couple articles in the post related to a possible shift in the Administrationa's position on human rights. The first article by Joshua Kurlantzick of CFR is somewhat critical, arguing that in his desire to distance himself from the Bush Administration, Obama has downgraded the role of democracy and human rights.

The second is a speech by Hillary Clinton at Georgetown, which seems to suggest the Administration's giving democracy and human rights more attention.

Perhaps Obama feels he's created enough distance and legitimacy to now comfortably address the topic of human rights and democracy.

Obama the Realist

Beginning with Obama's Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo, the Administration has provided greater clarity, a new sense of direction, or both regarding its foreign policy.

The speech had very strong realist overtones. I wouldn't disagree that Obama was all along a realist and pragmatist. Indeed, some have referred to the Obama Doctrine as realism rooted in values. E.H. Carr must be rolling in his grave.

But at the same time, recent statements may also suggest an updating of Obama's current foreign policy accomplishments (or lack of). Obama's engagement overtures to Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela, and the current situation in Afghanistan haven't gone anywhere so perhaps he's injecting new life and bite into his foreign policy.

The Spread of Ideas and the Protestant Reformation

I assigned Daniel Philpott's Revolutions in Sovereignty in my grad seminar. What struck me was the mechanisms leading to the transnational diffusion of ideas and the spread of a movement (in this case the Protestant Reformation). It's a classic example of social/transnational movement theory applied to history.

Philpott pinpoints the origins of the movement to Luther's theology. Luther didn't create ideas from thin air, but through a process of reflection, influenced by "late medieval theology, espeically nominalism, which emphasized God's inscrutability and fallen man's distance from Him" (p.123). Luther's own spiritual criss stemmed from "excessive monastic discipline," and his revulsion against corrupt practices of the Church.

Luther's ideas first spread within monasteries, then to the clergy, then to congregations. Missionaries and church pastors helped transmit ideas. Two novel means of disseminating information were the sermon (previously, the Word was not preached, but conducted through ritual and readings of Scripture) and the pamphlet (with the invention of the printing press).

Ideas here are powerful b/c they first shape identities. After potential converts encounter reformation theology, through a process of reflection and mental toil, they begin to identify themselves as Protestants.

Second, ideas are a form of social power. Converts begin to organize themselves and transalte their commitment to political orders (i.e. new converts might mobilize into political parties, congregations, etc...).

Its the poltiical theology of Reformation which becomes really interesting. The reformers were critical of the hierarchal authority of the Church (105-107). These new converts aligned (or were perhaps used) with secular authorities (i.e. Protestant German princes) who were also opposed to the Church, but more specifically, Charles V and the Holy Roman Emperor. These reformers demanded that the spiritual and secular realm be organized separately. Thus, Philpott finds a correlation between regions where the Reformation crisis was powerful, and strong political interests in establishing a Westphalian sovereign state system.

Humanitarian Aid and NGOs

For my transnational politics class today, I invited three guest panelists from the humanitarian/non-profit sector. Pete from Food for the Hungry, Brendan from Save the Children and Lynn from National Endowment for Democracy. Unfortunately, Lynn fell victim to the swine flu so we only had two panelists.

The panel discussion was not only informative and inspiring for students, but for me as well. Pete's story - from a logger in Montana to the director of policy with FH - and his recent experiences in Indonesia and Afghanistan were particularly inspirational. A few things I learned from the panel and students' questions.

1. NGO Vocabulary:
- The 3 M's (Military, mercenary, missionary): This was in reference to the three types of groups involved in aid work. Mercenaries are the contractors, and NGOs who follow the money (or the military). Missionaries (not necessarily in the religious sense) are those who are genuinely concerned about the people and there to bring change/improvement.
- The 3 Ds (defense, diplomacy, development): What's needed to bring stability, good governance, and improve quality of life in places like Afghanistan.

2. Afghanistan:
Pete just returned from an assessment trip to see whether and how FH could get back into Afgh, and returned a bit discouraged. A lot of money is going to waste. While aid has been pouring into the country, it hasn't been used efficiently or wisely. As an anecdote, Pete mentioned how a friend in a different NGO said it cost a million dollars just to "open-shop" and 90% of the funds were spent on providing security to the workers and operations. This doesn't even get into the corruption issue. Only a small percentage is being used directly to provide aid for people on the ground.

3. Value chain
Brendan, who's working on aid reform, mentioned the importance of the "value chain" -working on projects which provide added value to other projects. For instance, delivering food aid requires establishing a distribution system. FH might help farmers grow crops, but if they sit in storage and can't be distributed efficiently, they end up rotting, and everything goes to waste.

4. Working with corrupt or despotic regimes
In relief or disaster work, sometimes you have to work through the corruption if you're going to save lives.

5. Militarization of Aid
As a long term trend, the development sector needs to think carefully about delegating humanitarian tasks to the military. However, the US Navy's role in the 2005 Tsunami relief effort demonstrates the military's potential for effective and efficient mobilization of disaster relief. Although the US military sometimes acts before it thinks, in the tsunami relief effort, the quick response saved thousands of lives. On the other hand, after an earthquake in X region, FH requested the UN to helicopter in FH's disaster kits. However, the UN stated they hadn't processed all the necessary paperwork. The helicopters stood idle on the launch pad for eight days as NGOs waited for approval. Meanwhile, with each passing hour, the death toll climbed.

6. Protecting NGO workers in security scarce zones
FH's protection comes through relationships rather than guns. In other words, they are basing their protection by gaining trust from the locals.

For more on these issues, here's a recent book on humanitarian assistance and foreign policy: Global Compassion: Private Voluntary Organizations and U.S. Foreign Policy Since 1939

Coburn Bill to Cut NSF Funding to Political Science Defeated

"After a cloture vote on November 5, the Senate voted on the Coburn's amendment and soundly defeated it by a margin of 36-62" - APSA website. See APSA president Henry Brady's letter to the Senate stating the value of poltical science research.