US Politics

When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, many people rejoiced for many reasons. There was the obvious end of the Bush era, the election of the first African-American leader as well as a hopeful shift in America’s foreign policies. The United States, it was thought, was re-engaging with the world from its arrogant unilateralism.

Behind all of the above, there was the general feeling that a reasonable U.S. leadership on the world’s stage was returning. Although the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) were rising, there was recognition that the United States was still the dominant force in international relations and that having a responsible leader was in everyone’s interest.

Barack Obama is being heavily criticized for his actions concerning the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While part of the criticism may be well-founded because of his lack of immediate response as well as failure to communicate compassion, he is the focal point for anger and frustration at the environmental damage over which he has little control. Even if he sent the entire U.S. armed forces, the oil would continue gushing.

But not only is President Obama unable to stop the oil spill, he is also unable to stop Israel from boarding ships on the high seas and killing peace activists. He is also unable to stop North Korea from sinking a South Korean ship. He is also unable to stop Iran from developing its nuclear program. He is also unable to stop the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan and suicide bombings in Pakistan and Iraq.

Should we blame of all this on Barack Obama? Should we conclude that the United States is in decline? Or should we say that the world is extremely complex, and that even the President of the most powerful country in the world cannot control all that happens. While we certainly should not pity Mr. Obama and recognize that several of the world’s situations are related to U.S. policies, we should recognize that a little humility goes a long way, and that power in the 21st century cannot be localized in one man’s hands.

Mr. Obama has his responsibilities, perhaps more than he realized when he took office, and the time of his seeming in control and pushing his agenda seems to be fading. Health care reform and financial regulation are being swept away on the beaches of Louisiana and Florida.

We are well past the euphoria of his Cairo speech one year ago. The audacity of hope seems more and more audacious, and less and less hopeful.

June 5, 2010

International lawyers speak of the international community as a society of states that follows accepted norms. When they refer to the international community, they are also referring to those institutions, including civil society, which accept certain procedures. All of this implies mutual cooperation and understanding of the rules of the game.

What to do with a state or states that do not comply with the accepted norms or procedures and refuse to follow the rules of the game? What to do with “rogue states” that are outside the international community? “Rogue states” do not follow accepted international norms; they do not follow accepted procedures; they play by their own rules.

One of the arguments of the “rogue states” is that the accepted international norms, procedures and rules have been imposed by the West. International law, they claim, is a Eurocentric construction. Even if this is true, what began as international law in the West has by and large been accepted by almost all states.

What about Israel? Israeli commandos raided an aid flotilla in international waters killing several people and holding others hostage. There has been an international outcry against Israel. Turkey, an important ally of Israel in the Muslim world as well as the unofficial sponsor of the convoy, has recalled its ambassador to Israel and cancelled planned joint military exercises.

The United Nations Security Council has condemned all acts that resulted in the death of nine civilians in the aid flotilla. It also demanded an impartial investigation into why Israeli opened fire against civilians bringing supplies to Gaza in defiance of the Israeli blockade. The United States continues to defend Israel’s actions saying that the attempt to run the blockade at sea was “neither appropriate nor responsible”.

Israel continues to act outside the norms, procedures and rules of the international community. It has failed to abide by numerous United Nations resolutions and refused to allow designated investigations of its actions. The United States continues to defend Israel in spite of international condemnation of Israel’s activities.

Israel is a “rogue state,” and by continuing to defend Israel in spite of its egregious violations of international law, the United States, by association, becomes a “rogue state”. And, one has to look no further than that to understand the motivations behind September 11.

Last week saw a flurry of activity in trying to halt Iran’s nuclear program. First, Brazil and Turkey tried to broker a deal with Iran, similar to one that had been previously proposed by other countries, that it ship uranium out of the country in return for receiving enriched uranium that could be used for peaceful purposes.

Second, and immediately following the victorious announcement of the Brazil-Iran-Turkey deal, Hillary Clinton announced that the United States had secured agreement from the permanent members of the Security Council on a draft resolution of new sanctions against Iran.

Why the flurry of activity on sanctions? Sanctions are an imperfect way of trying to convince a country to change its behavior. Countries are worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons as well as being worried that Israel or the United States could use military action if Iran’s nuclear program is not properly monitored. Sanctions seem to be the solution of the day, although the previous sanctions against Iran seem to have had little effect.

In the world of diplomacy, there are three factors at play here. First, Brazil and Turkey, as emerging powers, have tried to assert their influence in a major confrontation. Turkey in particular is showing a most energetic foreign policy in the Middle East as well as the South Caucasus. So, not only are Brazil and Turkey part of a group of new economic actors, but this is an important foray for them into the world of international political negotiation.

Second, the immediate reaction by Secretary of State Clinton in announcing the draft resolution shows that Washington was not pleased by the interference of other actors in the Iran dossier. Caught flat-footed, the U.S. clearly declared that halting the Iranian nuclear program is a big power subject that is not open to other players.

Finally, the fact that China and Russia appear to agree on new sanctions against Iran is the fruit of enormous lobbying by the United States to find consensus. One can only imagine the anger in Washington when they heard that their NATO ally Turkey had brokered a deal that tried to undermine U.S. leadership.

As for Brazil, this is not the first time President Lula has tried to play an international role outside of U.S. domination. The question remains whether South-south diplomacy has any future. For the moment, Mrs. Clinton’s immediate reaction was no.

In “The End of History,” Francis Fukuyama said that liberal democracy and free market capitalism have become the universally preferred political and economic systems for all societies. With the current debt crisis in Europe, the financial crash on Wall Street and the U.S. deficit continuing to mount, it would be easy to question his analysis of ideal economic systems. Moreover, it might also be possible to question his assumption that free market capitalism and liberal democracy go together.

On a recent short visit to Brazil, one of the leaders of the new emerging economies – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – I had a heated debate with some of the leading CEOs of major industries. They all lauded the corporate responsibility of their companies, stressing the importance of values for their internal as well as external policies. Ethics, I was told, was a crucial part of their corporate cultures.

When the discussion turned to politics, we entered an entirely different ball park. Corruption seemed to be rampant; the government was barely functioning as we in the West would understand a viable political system. “How could it be,” I asked, “that a thriving economy could exist alongside a weak political system?”

I assumed that good governance was a prior necessity to successful economic development. In Fukuyama’s terms, I assumed that liberal democracy was the basis for a successful free market economy.

In the advanced western societies, we assume that the public sector is stable and that its role is to control the private sector. The subprime collapse in the United States was due to a lack of public control of private finances. Corporate greed, we think, has to be controlled by governments. But in Brazil, they seemed to be telling me, the private sector behaves ethically while the government is rife with scandals.

Were they telling me the truth about their activities? Perhaps not. Nevertheless, it is true that Brazil has a booming economy at the same time that its government flounders. In other words, there is a highly developed economic system alongside an underdeveloped political system.

Fukuyama assumed that free market capitalism and liberal democracy went together. Most Western development experts believe that the rule of law and good governance are prerequisites for economic development. What would be the consequences if the opposite were true?

Perhaps economic development in the newly emerging economies will lead to political development, and not vice versa. For the moment, booming economies in China and Russia have not led to liberal democracy. The hope in Brazil is that economic growth will foster democratic development. For the moment, Fukuyama appears to have misunderstood the complexity of development, both political and economic, and their relationship.

When I attended university for four years in the United States, I listened to innumerable lectures, participated in endless seminars, and read until my eyes watered from fatigue. Most of what I listened to and read has long been forgotten.

However, there is one lesson that I learned outside the classroom that remains vividly etched in my memory and which is directly relevant to much of the current deficit crisis.

For reasons that escape me, I was for a short period of time in my last year responsible for buying beer for my social unit. Now at that time, in the State of Massachusetts, only persons over 21 could buy alcohol.

I, being over 21, was assigned to purchase the kegs of beer for 30 thirsty college men. (Indeed, some were under age, but the university, bless its heart, turned a blind eye to our group misdeeds as long as we remained inside our premises.) On the premises was a beer cellar with two kegs – dark and light – on tap 24/7. In sum, the beer purchases were not small.

The first time I walked to the liquor store, I had money in my pocket to buy the kegs. I assumed that the budget of the unit would reimburse me for the purchase. I ordered several kegs to be delivered, and when the owner quoted the price, I took out my wallet to pay. “No problem,” he said, “I will put it on the bill”.

I then returned to the house and informed the Treasurer of the amount. “No problem,” he said, “we will pro rata it”.

Being neither an economics nor Latin major, I asked for an explanation. “You see,” he explained, “we run up a bill at the liquor store for the year, and then we leave and turn the bill over to the succeeding group which does exactly the same thing.”

“But,” I naively questioned, “why does the store owner continue to give credit?”

“Because,” he wisely responded, “the store owner knows that eventually the university will pay because no one can insist that one class pay all the back bills. There is an explicit understanding although the university is unaware of the situation.”

Did I feel guilty? Does any 21 year-old feel guilty about drinking free beer? With hindsight, I understand that most societies today are like me then. Let’s keep drinking; someone will eventually pay the price one way, one day, or another. Viva pro rata!

The recent Senate hearings in the United States with Goldman Sachs’ executives are not only riveting theatre allowing the venting of public anger at skewed wealth distribution. They are also reminders of profound philosophical differences about the relationship between the private and public sectors.

Senators are angry because they sense that the Goldman people have cheated their clients and the general public. At the same time Goldman was selling products that it knew were not worthy – I skip the specific language of the e-mails being sent around the office – Goldman itself was shorting the same products. In other words, Goldman’s clients were buying products that Goldman thought would go down in value.

What is the problem here? According to bankers, there is no problem if clients give orders to the bank to carry out their wishes. If you want to buy a bad widget, that is your decision. As long as the client did not ask Goldman’s advice, or Goldman did not recommend the stock, there is no problem since the buyer is responsible for what he or she buys.

On the other hand – and here we are very close to ethical/legal considerations – should Goldman have told the clients what it thought of the products and/or told the clients that it was shorting the products itself? Should Goldman only be a puppet carrying out the orders of its clients, or should it be more proactive in giving its opinion?

The hearings are taking place at the same time President Obama is trying to promote legislation to regulate certain aspects of the banking and trading sectors. The current recession as well as the huge bonuses being given to financial executives has energized the public against Wall Street.

And, in a highly polarized political environment, the controversy has become a rallying cry for the Democratic Party against Republicans.

But, beyond those obvious political considerations, the fundamental question remains about the role of government in protecting the consumer. Let the buyer beware has always been a popular motto.

In the case of food and medicine, for example, the role of the government is interventionary, not, on the other hand, in the case of used cars. The question now is whether and how intervention needs to be legislated in the financial sector.

What did Goldman Sachs know? When did it know it? What should it have done?

Risk analysts and military experts are always supposed to work outside the box. “Think the unpredictable and prepare for the impossible,” goes the motto. And yet, during the recent airline stoppage due to volcanic ash we discovered that no one was properly prepared for dealing with the crisis.

Airline planners, transport executives in both the public and private sectors were caught completely off guard. There was no plan B in the drawer, just as there was no plan B when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989.

What lessons can be drawn from this experience? Just as generals are usually planning for the last war, I am sure transport executives are now examining all the possible volcanoes around the world. But that’s not the point.

The confusion resulting from the delays was perhaps part of nature’s reminder that we cannot control all that is around us; but, more importantly, it was a reminder of our limited imaginations.

Thinking outside the box depends on who is thinking and what is the box. For example, several of my colleagues involved in chaos theory are regularly invited to military academies in the United Kingdom.

They are surprised, and indeed pleased, at how the British armed services are receptive to new ways of thinking. When one reads about U.S. soldiers withdrawing from some isolated outpost on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, one can only wonder what the officers in charge were thinking would happen when they established mini-fortresses in those hostile mountains.

Were they trying to reconstruct forts in the old West for protection from the wild natives?

We are all products of cultural paradigms which shape our thinking. Some are able to move beyond those paradigms to invent new ways of looking at specific situations. We call those people geniuses and the act of moving beyond traditional boxes creativity.

The people at Goldman Sachs are highly creative in thinking of new ways to make money. If only the best creative minds of this generation would put their energy to work to think outside the box in the interest of mankind.

Before earthquakes, we are told, animals move away from the region because they sense rumblings that even sophisticated machinery cannot register. Animals, it appears, are extremely sensitive to shifts in tectonic plates beneath the earth’s surface.

Are we now witnessing tectonic shifts in the relations between the United States and Israel that may turn into a major policy shift if not a new dynamism in the Middle East peace process?

We know that Vice-President Biden was insulted by Israel during his recent visit by the announcement on March 9 of extended settlements. We know that subsequently he showed up 90 minutes late for a dinner with the Prime Minister.

We know that President Obama snubbed Mr. Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington. We know that Mr. Netanyahu did not attend the recent nuclear summit. Is all of this serious, or merely posturing by Israel to train the new American administration to follow what Israel wants, as it has done with previous administrations?

(Note that 76 Senators have signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supporting Israel. A similar letter was signed by 333 members of the House of Representatives.)

Two recent statements by American leaders indicate that there may be a tectonic shift in the unconditional support of Israel by the United States. First, there was the comment by General Petraeus during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the continuing tension in the Middle East puts U.S. soldiers and hence United States security at risk.

And then, President Obama at a news conference last Tuesday, followed this line of reasoning by saying that solving the Middle East conflict was in the “vital national security interest of the United States”.

If one reads Norman Finkelstein’s “This Time We Went Too Far,” a searing indictment of the recent Israeli invasion of Gaza, or reads Judith Butler’s speech at the University of California at Berkeley “You Will Not Be Alone,” printed in the April 13 Nation Magazine, one senses that rather than “training” the Obama administration, Israeli actions have moved the new administration to go beyond the status quo, and that a serious rethinking of knee-jerk support for Israel is beginning in Washington.

Finkelstein and Butler have been consistent critics of Israeli policies toward Palestinians. Both are Jewish and cannot be accused of anti-Semitism. They write about unacceptable actions by the government of Israel. Washington seems to be listening this time, there are rumblings.

General Petraeus’ argument that a failure to end the Middle East conflict puts U.S. soldiers in danger has traction in terms of arguing for U.S. security, as President Obama stated. While one would have thought arguments about violations of international law would be more forceful, these arguments are the beginning of rumblings.

There is even talk of the United States putting a new peace plan on the table. An earthquake to follow?

The signing of the START Treaty in Prague by Presidents Obama and Medvedev is an important step in restarting the button of U.S.-Russian relations. Just before a major international conference in Washington on nuclear security, a positive Russian-U.S. cooperation also sets a good example of best practices in reducing the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

Enough of Cold War saber rattling, enough of the threat of mutual assured destruction; the two leaders have shown that nuclear proliferation can be slowed down and reduced, if not stopped. It will now be up to countries like North Korea and Iran to follow.

At about the same time as the signing, Russia was stunned by a terrorist attack in the crowded Moscow subway and there has been political upheaval in Kyrgyzstan. What is the relationship between the signing and these two events?

The terrorist attack highlights the uncertainty in the Caucasus, both north and south. Since the implosion of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has struggled in stabilizing the North Caucasus and establishing definitive borders with Georgia in the South Caucasus. Chechnya continues to be a security challenge; the subway suicide bombings remind us of the instability within the borders of Russia.

As for Kyrgyzstan, the Switzerland of Central Asia with lovely mountains and Lake Isikul, its political instability reminds us of the precarious stability in many of the former Soviet republics. Next to the oil and gas rich Kazakhstan, which is the current Chairman-in-Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the small newly independent country has not found an economic/political system satisfying all elements of the population. The Soviet system collapsed, but no satisfactory replacement is functioning.

In addition, the upheaval in Bishkek represents the end of the euphoria of the Rainbow Revolutions. The loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are the obvious manifestation of the failure of the Rose Revolution in Georgia. The deep divisions in the last election in Ukraine show the precarious political situation following the Yellow Revolution. And now, with riots and a coup d’etat in Kyrgyzstan, we have the end of the promises of the Tulip Revolution.

With the signing of the new START Treaty in Prague, we are reassured that the menace of nuclear war is reduced. We see two leaders acting responsibly in the interest of the common good. And yet, the subway attacks in Moscow and the riots in the streets of Bishkek should also lead us to question the fundamental security of the Russian Federation and its neighbors.

Mr. Medvedev certainly deserves credit for his efforts in the nuclear field, as does Mr. Putin for his historic visit to Poland. The Russian Federation appears as a more positive member of the international community.

But, the internal problems within Russia as well as those on its borders cannot be ignored. Just as President Obama must deal with health care, employment, financial reform and infrastructure modernization on the domestic front at the same time he negotiates on nuclear weapons, the Middle East, and China’s trade imbalance, his Russian counterparts must also focus in two directions at the same time. Not an easy task for each, but the level of cooperation between the United States and Russia is promising on the global front, which is certainly a vast improvement of the eight years under George W. Bush.

But, insecurity within Russia and on its borders is not the same as dealing with a smoker in an airplane toilet, and fundamental security issues are still high on the agenda in Moscow which influence Russia’s international role.

President Obama signed the nuclear treaty after an important domestic victory on health reform. President Medvedev signed the treaty confronted with destabilizing situations inside and outside Russia.

Nothing succeeds like success. In the midst of a serious downturn in his popularity and questions about his ability to lead, President Obama has had two notable successes in the last week. First, he was able to muster enough Democratic votes to push through health care reform, the third major revision in U.S. social policy since 1935.

Second, he was able to agree on major reductions in nuclear weapons and delivery systems with the Russian Federation, a major accomplishment to replace the expired START Treaty.

Both successes were based on perseverance; the health care reform bill was the result of over a year of difficult negotiations, the nuclear treaty has been deliberated with the Russians for years in anticipation of the December 2009 ending of the previous agreement.

In addition to perseverance, President Obama showed a different style of leadership in the buildup to the successes. In the case of health care reform, he began by letting the members of Congress, including Republicans, work through the details of the bill.

In the end, however, he took charge of the operations and was able to win approval with no Republicans voting in favor. The bipartisanship, bottoms-up approach was abandoned when it was obvious it was going nowhere.

President Obama exerted all the pressures incumbent on the White House to convince Democrats that the bill was the right thing to do. He must now convince the American people of the same thing before the mid-term election in November 2010 to maintain Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

As for relations with the Russian Federation, the United States has stated that the restart button has been pushed, but until the recent telephone conversations with President Medvedev and the announcement of the nuclear breakthrough there was no concrete proof of any change from the Cold War.

President Obama personally called his Russian counterpart, as he had personally met with the Democratic members of Congress. And there is still much work to be done. The recent meeting of the Quartet dealing with peace in the Middle East took place in Moscow, and Russia’s role in helping the stop Iran’s nuclear development will also be crucial.

President Obama must now convince the Russians to be reliable partners to the United States in finally getting to a reasonable peace settlement in the Middle East as well as halting Iran’s nuclear program. A solid, working relationship is in the interest of both countries.

There was obvious elation in Washington last week. But, the continued intransigence of the Republicans, Israelis and Iranians indicates that there is still much to be done. But, success breads success, and the new style of the President is most encouraging.