160 shipmates and no captain

The last couple of times I’ve written about the United Nations, the theme has generally been as follows: Yes, it’s full of countries who can’t be trusted and will exploit their seat at the table for all sorts of negative gains, but it’s better for the U.S. to have a seat of their own than not, in order to keep a legal eye on them. This is the same reason White House officials and leaders in military and business are calling on the U.S. to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Who’s thwarting their efforts in Congress? Guess.

The above-noted proponents are making essentially the same appeal to diplomatic opportunity that I made. The opponents – mainly Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), big surprise) – aren’t swayed. They are certain that signing the treaty “would undercut U.S. sovereignty, force a redistribution of wealth and stand in for the Kyoto Protocol on climate change that would allow foreign countries to regulate U.S. energy.”

It is true that the treaty would establish general environmental obligations on the high seas. But keep in mind that one essential component is the definition of which parts of the ocean belong to individual countries. The treaty gives sovereign rights to a country’s continental shelf within 200 miles. If the environmental damage happens within that limit, wouldn’t this sovereignty override any regulatory demands from the UN?

Other arguments from Inhofe: The new International Seabed Authority, which would control the ocean outside those 200-mile limits, would have the power to “levy a global tax” on mining companies therein (but is that actually what they’re planning?); it would not permit foreign boarding if the ship being boarded is carrying illegal weapons (isn’t that a problem for security at the destination country?); it would regulate the airspace over territorial waters (so? We regulate the airspace over territorial land); it would subject companies hoping to mine the seabed to new fees and bureaucracy (they don’t seem bothered by that).

In at least one way, this treaty could do more for U.S. ocean sovereignty than Inhofe thinks. The fisheries in Canada’s Maritime provinces used to thrive much more than they do now. Since then, overfishing by foreign ships has been blamed for their downturn. If Canada and other trustworthy nations were to join the U.S. in signing the treaty, we could have more muscle to flex in telling those foreign companies to get out.

It’s perfectly acceptable for Inhofe and his fellow opponents to point out certain aspects of the treaty they find worrisome. But it comes down to this: You may sign the treaty and still not be as influential as you’d like, but if you don’t, it’s certain that you won’t.

Why they look soft on China

There are a couple of big reasons to let Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng seek refuge in America: 1. They let Soviet dissidents do it during the Cold War. 2. It would send a message to the Chinese that the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty rings as true today as it ever has before. 3. They probably will mess him up bad if he stays. Maybe not soon, but they could use him as a bargaining chip for years to come – as if they needed another one, considering all that American debt they still hold.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of even bigger reasons not to let him in: 1. He initially wanted to stay in China, with protection, and now he’s changed his mind, which might be OK if the U.S. legally owed him protection without requiring him to go through the usual diplomatic channels. 2. If the U.S. did too much “message-sending” while they’re still in China’s pocket, it could mess them up bad.

Think about it. If they let Chen in, a whole host of other dissidents could come out of the woodwork and demand their fair share. If that happened, the Chinese could respond any number of ways: calling in its payments, putting up new trade barriers, conveniently disposing of the attempted refugees. Everyone will find a reason to blame the U.S. for letting that happen.

And without getting too deeply into the fear-mongering, China has been building up its military capabilities, and even if they’d be no match for the U.S. military, there are a few lesser countries closer to them whom they could easily turn into collateral damage. With no political or economic appetite for another big war, the U.S. couldn’t afford to do much with its military. And if they were dumb enough to use it on China now, that would provide a nice opening for Iran, for whom China is an oil buyer. In short, another Cold War, with both countries waiting for the other to drop the bomb.

So, in the long run, it may be better for the U.S. and China if this happens: The U.S. stays out of dissident issues, except to express general support for democracy, and devotes its resources toward a real economic resurgence and consequent debt resolution. China, meanwhile, continues on its current course (which it surely will) until its emerging middle class starts demanding their rights. Economic activity is disrupted, U.S. business ship out manufacturing for safety, the world turns on China. Deaths ensue, but so does a movement for regime change. By that time, the U.S. is ready to get involved.

Leaving Chen in China may make this administration look soft. But if they’re thinking along these lines, it could be part of a much bigger plan.

It Sachs to be you

A few people, especially those who were pushing for a nomination for economist Jeffrey Sachs, may have looked at the eventual nominee and asked “Why the fuck did he nominate ‘an educator, a doctor and an anthropologist‘ to lead the World Bank?” Given Dartmouth College president Jim Yong Kim’s history, he’s really not the worst pick for the job. I would nominate him for a few things myself. Just not this.

Some bullet points on Kim: He has been educated at Harvard (M.D. and Ph.D. in Anthropology); he co-founded a community health program that has treated tuberculosis patients in South America at lower costs than usual; he spearheaded similar programs related to HIV/AIDS at the World Health Organization (WHO); as president of Dartmouth, this model helped deliver $1 million in donations and 18 tons of medical supplies to earthquake-ravaged Haiti.

Some bullet points on Sachs, currently the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, which focuses on global sustainable development: He has also been educated at Harvard (MA and Ph.D. in economics); he has advised economies transitioning from communism to a market basis; he supports both microfinance and increased aid in the poorest parts of Africa; he has written or co-written 13 books; he has advised the World Bank, the WHO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Development Program. Also, he taught Dambisa Moyo, one of my personal favorite economists.

Got it, kids? The difference could not be more stark. Kim is the public health guy; Sachs is the multifaceted development economics guy. With “the reduction of poverty” as the World Bank’s stated mission, the choice Obama should have made is painfully clear. That was why I was fairly surprised when Sachs endorsed Obama’s choice himself. On the other hand, what was he going to say? “Hell no, asshole, pick me!”

I can think of only two reasons for why Obama would choose Kim over Sachs: 1. The economist community was not divided over him as they have been over Sachs, although this is natural as they all come from different schools of thought. 2. Sachs has some personal obligations keeping him in the U.S. that he is under no obligation to discuss in public. If he’s unavailable, fine, although he might have at least said that much to silence his proponents on the subject.

Even then, I have a hard time believing that the White House couldn’t find a nominee who matched Kim for talent but had a broader area of expertise. We may find that his public health model isn’t feasible for every other aspect of development.

No apologies . . . for apologizing

Yesterday, President Obama phoned Afghan President Hamid Karzai to “express his ‘shock and sadness’” over a U.S. soldier reportedly shooting unarmed Afghan civilians. By some point today, we should expect at least one Republican candidate to chastise him for apologizing – not because he condones the shootings (we assume), but because a) it wasn’t Obama’s doing, b) it won’t stop Afghans from reacting however they choose, c) those of them who react violently don’t deserve any apologies and d) it looks weak.

If those sound familiar to you, it’s because those are the exact criticisms Obama received when he delivered a similar apology for the burning of several copies of the Koran at a U.S. military base. I will use this time to address each of them. First of all, it doesn’t matter if this was Pentagon-born policy or one soldier acting alone. As president, Obama is the commander-in-chief of the whole military. If one of your employees pissed off a client, would you neglect to say you were sorry to the client, even if you had nothing to do with the cause of the piss?

Second, I will agree that Obama has been excessively optimistic about the potential of his apologies to alter the course of local reactions. Perhaps he can be forgiven, since this charge seems to carry the requirement that an apology does alter the course of local reactions. There is a difference between the aggressor apologizing to the victims (or their families) and the aggressor’s president apologizing to the victims’ president. The latter is simply politeness in the form of largely unspoken international protocol.

Third, extrapolating on the above paragraph, if we presume that Afghan civilians who react violently won’t care if Obama apologizes, we should conclude that they didn’t believe the apology was directed at them. And why should they? The only apology they’d want to hear is from the shooter. Neither he or she nor Obama could be the one to say, “OK, we apologized. Please don’t riot.” That would be on Karzai, and he wouldn’t do that unless he had an apology to which to point from Obama.

Fourth, any alternative to apologizing, among them “Not my problem,” “Who cares?” and “Your people suck more,” would make the president who used it look like an asshole. Tell me, which do you believe is the most productive, or the least destructive? Anyone who considers apologizing a sign of weakness must be a delightful husband.

Inexperience in the field of global diplomacy is bad enough, but ignoring the field entirely gives me legitimate nightmares about getting one of these guys anywhere near the nuclear button. But I’ll ease off if they appoint a certain someone with years of diplomatic experience to their Cabinet.

Always look a reform horse in the mouth

If Americans are going to give money to anyone outside their borders (hell, inside their borders), it’s reasonable that they’d want to know that it’s being spent wisely and that they won’t regret not opposing it sooner. At a time of deficits amounting in the trillions, that desire becomes more important than ever. But what happens when you factor in some of the first successful attempts at democratic reform in historically autocratic aid-receiving nations? This.

President Obama’s proposed budget contains $800 million in aid to Arab Spring nations, specifically designated for long-term economic and political reform measures. This would only apply to those countries that are in the middle of a transition, including Tunisia, Yemen and even Egypt. That’s the one causing the most argument at home. Here’s Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee:

. . . I’m not sure who’ll we’ll be negotiating with, and who you could give the money to. And there seems to be some awfully extreme views within the Arab Spring movement. I think we have to be very careful that any money we provide would be well spent.

He’s just articulated a concern many people have had about the “anyone but Gaddafi/Mubarak/Assad/whoever the Tunisian was” approach to the Arab Spring. Of course these people are despots who deserve to be run out of town on a rail. But who’s doing the running? Is it someone who has an abiding belief in generally “American” principles of representative government, free elections and freedom of speech/religion/the press? Or is it someone who’s been waiting in the wings to force their own agenda down the citizens’ throats?

Obviously we can’t expect every corner of the globe to have the same political inclinations. We can, however, decide which ones are worthy of aid. So here’s my proposal: Instead of just giving out the aid, have the reformers in each country apply for it, submitting a plan detailing all the steps they will take to ensure timely systemic change that would not cause the usual problems later. Any group who doesn’t demonstrably undertake those steps within a year of getting the money will have to pay it back. And make sure they will allow someone on the ground to keep track of the money.

If you’ve read my columns on the subject before, you’ll know that I think all foreign aid should be checked and balanced. There’s no longer any room for blank checks to nations that have never proven their ability to be trusted with them. That’s especially true when the nation is changing from the ground up. We need to make sure that it’s truly change for the better.

It depends on what you mean by “worked”

Criticism of President Obama’s dialogue-oriented foreign policy from the people who criticize it most can be summed up as thus: He’s a pushover and an apologist. He won’t get tough on enemies of America and/or her allies the way past Republican administrations did. He wastes American resources on military missions that don’t advance our interests. He bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia, which is BAD. But when we take a holistic look at his approach to particularly problematic nations, as the Christian Science Monitor did, how can we determine if it’s “worked?”

I’ll sum up their evaluations of the problematic nations in question:

• Iran: Earlier attempts at diplomacy have been abandoned and are unlikely to succeed now. Punitive measures are de rigueur, although Iran is still heading for nuclear status.
• Syria: The outlook for dialogue was fine until the Arab Spring, at which point Syrian President Bashar al-Assad became illegitimate. Little to no dialogue as of late. Syrian repression continues.
• North Korea: Started out hostile, moved toward negotiations until the death of Kim Jong-il. Outlook uncertain.
• Venezuela: Began on slightly improved terms from those of the last administration. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has returned to steadfast anti-Americanism since.
• Myanmar: Dialogue with U.S. vastly improved since the 1950s. Still much work to be done on democratic reform, but outlook is optimistic.

If we measure the success of a president’s foreign policy by the absence of new hostilities, Obama has done a decent job of keeping them quiet (for now). But this metric is too obvious. If we are measuring that same success by the presence of regime change, democracy, egalitarianism, free markets and disarmament, I can’t say anything has changed much since the previous administration.

But, as any foreign policy critic knows, it is not incumbent on any one country, not even the U.S., to make this happen. If Obama proved that his efforts have largely helped create a climate for these objectives to be met, we could call this aspect of his presidency a success. In an American context, this is how I define “clout,” and I’m not sure if the U.S. has gained or lost any.

It may seem odd that Iraq and Afghanistan were not discussed in the CSM piece, but since the U.S. was already at war with both when Obama took office, I suppose they didn’t apply. Why they didn’t include Libya or Egypt, I have no idea. That was silly.

And they think THEY need foreign aid

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on foreign aid: It’s “taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.” As The Economist noted, while he’s largely incorrect about the first part, as 40 percent of Americans pay no income taxes, he is correct that a good portion of foreign aid monies end up in the hands of government and corporate elites in recipient countries, a concern I have often brought up here. Case in point: China.

The federal government is on track to provide China with $12 million in foreign aid – half of last year’s amount, and a pittance in the trillion-plus deficit era, but still an audacious amount when you consider how much American debt they hold. Two-thirds will be spent on the fight against HIV/AIDS and support for Tibet. The remainder is marked for “promoting clean energy, the rule of law, and to fight wildlife trafficking in China.”

1. China’s carbon emissions went up 10.4 percent in 2010, compared to the year before. And this is what they do with the clean technology they produce.
2. Is the Chinese idea of the “rule of law” something we really want to pay for?
3. The Chinese use trafficked animal parts for medicinal purposes. They’re not going to call the sale and transport of these parts “bad” any time soon.

This is what happens when you pay people to think like you, especially when those people operate under a completely different system of governance. They don’t think, “Hey, now that we’ve got all this free money, we should do something they’d want us to do so we can keep getting it, or at least get some international goodwill.” They think, “FREE MONEY!” And why not? Foreign aid hasn’t been contingent on outcomes or shared values before. But at least making it contingent on the former is doable. You can’t force democracy on a Communist nation; it has to reject Communism itself.

Rep. Brad Sherman (R-CA) proposes that any foreign aid to China be sent not to national institutions, but to democracy organizations operating in the country. That sounds like a fabulous plan. I would add, though, that these organizations would have to pass an ethical “sniff test” to get any U.S. funds. And perhaps aid in general should be reduced or eliminated altogether depending on how much its economy has grown, relative to per-capita wealth, since aid started. I say “per-capita” because total wealth is very misleading.

Maybe all this criticism of China is unwarranted and it’s actually a happy shiny place undergoing demonization from American deficit hawks. Until that becomes irrefutable, let’s not take any more chances with public money.

U.N.-productive measures

Consider: You work at a widget factory. A sizable number of executives in your parent organization say something stupid in public. In response, your entire section of the plant – which happens to be at the end of the assembly line, preparing the widgets for shipping – threatens to cease all of its production until those executives do something to make up for the stupidity. Unreasonable? Of course it is. Take a note, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).

I single her out because she is the leading sponsor of a bill that would “block U.S. funds for any United Nations entity that supports giving Palestine an elevated status at the U.N.”; “ban U.S. contributions to the U.N. Human Rights Council and an anti-racism conference seen as a platform for anti-Israel rhetoric”; and “withhold a portion of U.S. dues to the international body if it does not change its funding system so that dues are paid on a voluntary rather than assessed basis.” Did you get all that?

I’ll start with the third, because it’s the most ridiculous of those ideas. A Google search for “what do U.N. dues pay for” turned up little; I suspect it’s primarily administrative costs. If Ros-Lehtinen and fellow U.N. critics so dislike paying these dues, why not threaten to drop out of the U.N. altogether? Also, I fail to see how they would make up for the shortfall. Should they sell branded widgets?

The other two carry more weight. It is true that anti-Israel sentiment within the U.N. is far from limited to the few, although those countries’ collective influence outside the one-member, one-vote U.N. is far lesser than that of the generally pro-Israel West. Support for elevated Palestinian status ought to be contingent on its having a terrorist-free government. As for the anti-racism conference, I don’t even know what it’s good for anymore.

But this I do know: It would not benefit Israel in any way to have the U.S. spurn the U.N. over them. If the goal is to educate anti-Israel countries about what they’ve been ignoring, the U.N. needs continued participation from as many pro-Israel countries as there are. American participation is more necessary than that of any other country. Their being there ensures that they can keep an eye on things.

I suppose you could sum up my position as “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” If that’s too idealistic for your tastes, forgive me. But if this bill passes, it would embolden anti-Israel countries at the U.N. No sense in giving them that satisfaction, now is there?

No cert, no service

Presenting one of the few non-debt-related House bills worth covering: one that would restrict foreign aid to specific countries with questionable records on counterterrorism. It’s worth noting that, if enacted, this bill would be the first for authorization – as opposed to spending – to make it past the Senate in a decade. Ten years of nothing but spending legislation and the U.S. is in such a fiscal mess? Shocker.

The targeted countries are Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen and the Palestinian Authority (not a country, but who’s counting?). It would be incumbent on the Secretary of State to certify that these countries are cooperating with certain counterterrorism objectives, i.e. keeping Hamas members out of policy-making roles (Palestinian Authority) or investigating Osama bin Laden’s residency in Pakistan. If there is no such certification, the U.S. would block foreign aid from going to that country.

I’m sure some will take this as punishing the civilians of the above-noted countries for their governments’ shortcomings, as Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, did. But if massive amounts of foreign aid over years, decades, were truly beneficial to those same civilians, the status of their collective economic self-determination would be much higher. When a government cannot be trusted to deal with terrorists properly, why trust it to disseminate aid monies properly?

Furthermore, seeing how these governments react to the loss of their aid will be illustrative of their priorities. If nothing else, it may demonstrate that their efforts to wean their countries off the foreign aid teat have been sorely lacking. On top of that, should one be exposed for a dangerously poor counterterrorism policy and refuses to amend it in exchange for aid, they will have proven their disregard for their own people.

Frankly, I’m disappointed that this bill is so narrow in its focus. Why stick to countries that either support terrorism or do too little to dispose of it? I would extend it to include countries with horrible records on human rights and general government corruption, especially when it comes to the disbursement of aid. As much as the House should be thinking about ten days from now, a comprehensive foreign aid review is in order.

If the savings argument isn’t enough, and supporters of foreign aid as it is want to know what the U.S. could be doing with it instead, I direct you, as I have before, to this book. It should be required reading for anyone studying international development.

U.S. cuts Pakistan’s allowance in half

I’m going to predict right now that after the Arab Spring falls off the radar, and for the next five or so years after that, U.S. relations with Pakistan will serve as a major barometer for the success of whichever president’s foreign policy. War between the two nations is unlikely, from my perspective, but tension is not, nor is a Taliban insurgency of Afghanistan proportions. That’s why the U.S. is now telling Pakistan that if they want help with such an insurgency, they’ll have to start paying it back now.

As of this weekend, $800 million of U.S. military aid to Pakistan has been suspended. That may not seem like much, but keep in mind that the total aid budget for Pakistan is $2 billion, representing a 40 percent cut. This was a sort of punishment for suspicions being aroused that the Pakistani military and security services may have a few extremists within the ranks, which is of course intolerable if the goal is to suppress extremism in the region.

The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan has always had its frayed areas, mostly due to the fact that Pakistan has been less willing than the U.S. would like to target extremists in tribal areas of the country, and also because it has given covert support to a few unmentionable groups. But withdrawing money for counterterror operations sounds like what Americans would call an unfunded (or at least underfunded) mandate if they had to put up with such a thing.

On the other hand, the financial support from the U.S. to Pakistan has probably been of far greater value than the operational support for the Afghanistan mission in the other direction. Pakistan has enjoyed plenty of American carrots. With their credibility in such question after the U.S. went it alone to find Osama bin Laden, they’re long overdue for a stick, and they know it.

The suspension of aid represents an opportunity for Pakistan to redeem itself in the eyes of the U.S. If the latter is going to cut military spending for its own sake, what better place to start than aid to a country that can’t be completely trusted? They may think the money would be better spent on “civilian projects” now, but a) that’s their problem and b) they’ll learn quickly how helpful an extra $800 million for military projects can be.

As missions in the Middle East wind down, so will the U.S.’s dependence on the Pakistani military for weapons and transports, and Pakistan won’t be able to accuse the U.S. of hurting itself in the aid process.