World Politics

Three big events have happened, are happening, or will happen this week in Southeast Asia:

1) Representatives of the Dalai Lama’s government-in-exile met with Chinese government officials in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen on Sunday to reopen dialogue for the first time since the Tibetan riots in March. Though nothing formal was resolved, both sides billed the talks as a success and announced plans to continue meeting.

2) A massive cyclone hit China’s southern neighbor Myanmar last Saturday, with the death toll already in the tens of thousands. The ruling military junta in Myanmar has refused to let large-scale foreign aid operations into the country, and relief teams have amassed in Thailand awaiting permission to enter. The United States warned today that delayed action could result in a final death count of over 100,000.

3) A national referendum is set to take place this coming Saturday in Myanmar on a new constitution. The proposed constitution would further entrench military rule, reserving a certain portion of seats in a new parliament for soldiers and complicating any attempts at future amendments. Despite the recent disaster, the junta has resisted calls to postpone the vote.

So the Chinese government has received nothing but bad press since it violently suppressed riots in Tibet, and it has renewed dialogue with Tibetan leaders this week in hopes of reversing the trend. A good start. But the conflict has escalated to such an extent that mere dialogue will not be enough to win back the international community. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already decided to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy has threatened to join her. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi have all urged President Bush to consider staying away as well.

If China hopes to convince these leaders to attend the August ceremony, the Chinese government must make it politically viable for them to do so. Public opinion has turned so far away from China on Tibet, Myanmar, and Sudan that the Chinese government must go further than these meetings with the Tibetan envoy. China must take the lead on addressing events 2 and 3, the junta’s refusal to allow disaster aid to enter Myanmar and the upcoming constitutional referendum, if it retains any hope of healing these wounds by August.

The situation in Myanmar has become a full-blown crisis, and the Chinese government is the only major player left with any influence over the Burmese government. Severe political repression is one (very bad) thing, but denying the Burmese people access to vital care is another beast entirely. The Chinese government must lean heavily on the junta to give foreign aid workers unlimited access to the areas affected by the storm. The Chinese government must also take these steps quickly, as the crisis continues to worsen.

China must also pressure the government to, at the very least, delay the constitutional referendum for several weeks. The junta has gone full speed ahead in the last month, doing their damndest to make sure that the new constitution passes. Convincing the junta to shift its focus away from the vote and onto the current emergency might compel the junta to scale back the provisions in the constitution. The increased attention might also force the Burmese government to uphold even the smallest pretense of fairness when the vote actually occurs, but at the very least pushing the referendum back would give the opposition a little time breathing room to mobilize.

The Chinese government has already witnessed the effects of escalating this conflict as the torch relay has proceeded through Paris, San Francisco, and Hong Kong in recent weeks. Railing against the bias of the foreign media and pointing the finger at the United States’ transgressions in Iraq has only aggravated the situation, and stirring up nationalistic fervor in anticipation of a truly international event is not in the country’s best interest. China can’t afford to let the dispute linger any longer. The success of the Games is at stake, as well as the country’s international reputation. And China would do well to remember that the latter will persist well past August.

Time’s annual list of the 100 Most Influential People just came out, so check it out if you have time. Pay special attention to who wrote each entry, as that’s often the best part. Of course, Deval Patrick wrote Barack Obama’s, and Joe Lieberman wrote John McCain’s. Hillary Clinton wrote an entry for Michelle Bachelet, the current President of Chile, and begins her second paragraph, “This was a woman who had overcome so much….” Not to be outdone, Bill Clinton wrote an entry for Tony Blair, starting, “When my friend Tony Blair stepped down as U.K. Prime Minister last year, I advised him to take some time off with his family…”, and our friend Joe Stiglitz ‘64 wrote one for Bolivian President Evo Morales. There are some other gems in there, so post your favorite.

If you’re interested, Joel Stein (of I Love the ’80s fame) also wrote a hilarious article about trying to rank the list, and using some preliminary figures he came up with these results. Aaron, Radiohead clocks in at #20.

Last week, Congressional Democrats refused to pass the US free trade agreement (FTA) with Colombia. They defended their position by citing human rights abuses against trade unionists, but many accounts dispute claims of systematic aggression against unions. Critics abounded from all sides: The Bush administration justifiably cried foul because the Democrats were reneging on a May 2007 deal to pass the FTA in return for stricter environmental and labor standards. Economists noted that Colombian exports already enter the US duty-free, meaning that the FTA would be a fairly unambiguous win for the US economy. Others, including, not surprisingly, The Economist, argued that Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has made great strides in the government’s struggle against FARC guerillas, and that he should be rewarded with more than just military aid. The publication called him “that rarest of beasts: a democratic, pro-American president winning an anti-terrorist war.” They’re right—Uribe is our main ally in the region, and for once we don’t have to compromise our principles to win a friend. Uribe currently enjoys approval ratings of over 80 percent within his country. Yeah, 80 percent. That’s not a typo.

No, the Democratic Party rejects trade agreements because it’s the workers’ party, and trade plays a role—a small role, but it may be increasing—in falling real wages and growing inequality. But the argument against trade has become less tenable as critics point out that an improved social safety net, not protectionism, is the answer to these problems. Last week, even the The New York Times called for the Democratic Party to change their tune on trade, asking the Democrats to present their electorate with evidence on the benefits of trade and trust in its ability to separate fact from fiction.

But the Times leaves out the main reason for the Democrats to jump off the anti-trade train. The Democratic Party is not only the workers’ party; it is also a party of saps. Democrats love fighting for the small fry, and in this globalizing world the small fry has increasingly become the foreign worker, and especially the foreign farmer. Unfortunately for the Democrats, their rejection of the Colombia FTA has coincided in the last week with a global food crisis, shining an ugly spotlight on how their anti-trade agenda compromises the interests of poor farmers. Shortages and riots have occurred all over the globe as the burden of skyrocketing food prices has fallen disproportionately on the poorest countries, for whom these are staple commodities. The chart below, courtesy of economist.com, summarizes this increase in prices. Note that the x-axis is in months.

There are good reasons to think that liberalized trade would have helped avoid this crisis, and that liberalizing trade may yet help ameliorate its effects, especially in the long run. Firstly, most of the poorest countries affected by this crisis are food importers, which suggests that liberalizing trade would lower the domestic price of these commodities, as Harvard economist Dani Rodrick pointed out recently in his blog. Secondly, reducing barriers to trade in food would amend the incentive structure of agriculture and help these nations make the transition from small-scale farming to large-scale production. Family farming is no longer commercially viable; in a disturbing paradox of the current food crisis, rising commodity prices have prevented poor farmers from buying the fertilizer they need to grow the crops that are most in demand. Increasing the scale of production would fix these problems.

For years, Congressional Democrats hid behind the similarly distorting policies of Republicans. While they were unwilling to budge on trade, the argument went, the Republicans were similarly unwilling to budge on the massive subsidies the US government doles out to domestic agri-business every year. Tit for tat. (In fact, US crop subsidies have been such an issue that Congressman John Olver may or may not have become visibly irritated when discussing them at an Amherst Democrats event a few nights ago.) But the crop subsidies are back on the table, and for once we have our president to thank. With his official lame-duck status, President Bush has been able to break the stalemate. The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that Bush is insisting on drastic cuts in the subsidies in the five-year farm bill going through Congress this week. For once, he is threatening to use his veto in the right way.

With the subsidies in the bag, the Democrats must jump on board with trade. They’re officially out of excuses.

http://www.elections.foxnews.com

The mudslinging between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton hit an all-time high in the past two weeks, but more than just their reputations as patriotic churchgoers and honest storytellers is at stake. The heightened competition has also led Obama and Clinton to make wilder and wilder blanket statements, not least last week at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia, where both candidates made solemn vows not to raise taxes on people earning less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. Obama committed himself to Charlie Gibson’s request for a “rock-hard pledge” that “we will be out of Iraq in 16 months… no matter what the military commanders” say, and Clinton has similarly promised to begin withdrawing troops soon after entering office.

These guarantees on Iraq pose much more of a threat to the Democrats’ chances in November than cracks at their lapel pins. Neither of the candidates can pretend to know what the best course of action will be in Iraq a year from now, and doing so only makes us question their credibility and common sense. As we begin withdrawing, we may face any number of challenges, ranging from the logistical difficulties of transporting hundreds of thousands of troops and technocrats from Iraq to possible retaliatory attacks on the soldiers left behind after each stage of withdrawal. The details of these risks will remain unclear until we face them, but we know that they will be complex enough to challenge any hard deadline for withdrawal—especially one inside 16 months. When choosing their outline for Iraq, then, these self-imposed deadlines may very well force both candidates to choose between two paths: unabashedly reneging on their vows, or hurrying a withdrawal to comply with their promises. Obama and Clinton may both then be in the unfortunate position of either compromising their integrity or acting against their better judgment.

If faced with this trade-off, the irrationality of a hasty withdrawal would be the more worrying fault between the two. The war in Iraq has included considerable massive human loss and great catastrophe, but just as upsetting for most Americans was the blitheness and single-mindedness with which President Bush seemed to plow ahead. Acting similarly single-mindedly, even to pursue opposite ends, is just as disquieting. It suggests that the candidates believe that average Americans don’t understand the intricacies of the war and can be comforted by empty promises. Instead, it seems reasonable to believe that the average American appreciates the grave risks associated with a hasty withdrawal and wants a president with the sound judgment to pull out our troops as soon as possible—but not so soon that the withdrawal itself further endangers American lives.

This concern is heightened because, despite the Democrats’ relative popularity abroad, they would continue to face huge obstacles in the foreign policy arena if elected. Both Obama and Clinton would surely be able to get some easy wins, firstly by renouncing all forms of torture and secondly by taking the initial steps to close Guantanamo Bay and our secret prisons. Beyond declaring good intentions, though, things get murky: We will still pursue our national interests abroad, and certain groups abroad will still want us to do things we cannot. We will continue to resist pressure to join the International Criminal Court, threatening our relations with Europe; we will still refuse to take a hard line on Israeli militarism against Palestinians; and we will still drag our feet on trade, compromising our economic ties in the Americas. Even the initiatives we hope to genuinely dedicate ourselves to, like global warming, will continue to face an intransigent Congress.

So we should savor victories when we can get them, and making false guarantees on timelines for withdrawal endangers a Democratic win on Iraq. Any “rock-hard pledge” on the war simply sets the Democrats on the path of broken promises and poor management of the war that ruined President Bush’s international reputation in the first place. The Democratic candidates should therefore merely show a new attitude toward the war and reaffirm their commitment to closing the door in Iraq as soon as is justifiably possible. They should play up their judgment and common sense—besides, that’s what Bush was missing all along.

Here’s a link to the transcript of Pope Benedict XVI’s speech at the United Nations on Thursday. If you’re too busy to read it, a brief summary of his main points: The Pope started out by highlighting the paradox between the unfair weight given to “the decisions of a few” and the need for “collective action by the international community” to address global problems. He rejected the notion that international rules limit freedom or challenge sovereignty, and he further espoused the principle of the “responsibility to protect.” He argued that each state has the “primary duty” to protect its own people, but that if any state is “unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene.” He ended by endorsing human rights as “the ethical substratum of international relations,” reasoning that human rights can help evaluate discern the difference between “justice and injustice, development and poverty, security and conflict” by serving as “measures of the common good.”

Of course, to some extent the Pope’s speech is a standard one, upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter and calling for a rededication to multilateralism. But harking back to the rules of the post-World War II era will not help us solve the problems the UN faces today. While all nations may be equal under the laws of the Charter, some are clearly more equal than others in terms of funding for the organization. Rather than insisting upon multilateral consensus—an ideal, but not necessarily a reality—the UN rules must develop a new understanding of legitimacy. This new understanding must be able to distinguish between actions generally seen as illegal (i.e. outside UN processes) but legitimate, such as the NATO bombings of July 1995, which helped end the Bosnian war and bring about the Dayton Peace Agreement, and actions that are undeniably illegal and illegitimate, like the invasion of Iraq. It must recognize the importance of consensus in addressing long-term international problems, like global warming, but it must also acknowledge the need for dispatch during times of crisis. All in all, though, the Pope might be on to something when he argues that a basic respect for human rights may lie at the foundation of this understanding.

Conflicts like those in Darfur and Somalia always spark heated debate. The most common arguments are ideological in nature, centering around questions of moral responsibility and the need for legitimacy. But other technical questions are equally harrowing and often overlooked. Take Darfur as an example. If the United States were to expand its involvement in Sudan, should it act solely through the United Nations? Should the UN mission absorb the African Union envoy, or should they merely attempt to work more collaboratively? Should the outside groups become actively involved with the local peace process, or should they restrict their role to maintaining order? If the UN is kept out of the negotiations, how does it ensure a lasting resolution? These questions often have no good answers, as our recent history in Kosovo, Rwanda, and Iraq has shown us, and all decisions have serious costs. Even the best laid plans almost always fail.

Ultimately, I’m not arguing that we simply ignore the suffering in these states, and I only make these points as a means of comparison. As contrasted with Darfur and Somalia, the recent electoral controversy in Zimbabwe is remarkably straightforward. Zimbabwe’s economic woes can be directly attributed to the policies of Robert Mugabe, and most experts agree that the president deserves the lion’s share of the blame for the suffering of his people. Getting Mugabe out of office would thus markedly improve the situation in Zimbabwe.

Moreover, the US didn’t even have to embezzle funds and support a coup in order to oust Mugabe from power (as it did in Venezuela a few years ago), and it didn’t have to invade the country like it did in Iraq. The Zimbabwean people voted—yes, voted—Mugabe out of power, and the only thing the United States had to do was exert pressure on him to abide by the results of the March 29 election. And yet, the US failed to do so immediately following the vote, allowing Mugabe to reestablish his hold on the presidency and bunker down for a fight. As of this writing, the president’s administration has still not yielded to calls by the opposition to release the official election results, though numerous reports suggest that the vote came down in favor of the opposition party leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.

Needless to say the US can neither force Mugabe to release the results nor abide by them without the threat of military action, but harsh censure can still undermine and discredit the autocrat’s hold on power. So far, many international leaders have been loath to unleash criticism on Mugabe because he remains a symbol of pan-African nationalism’s ideological victory over colonialism. Neighboring leaders like Thabo Mbeki of South Africa are particularly vulnerable to this political two-step, as criticizing one of the first pan-African leaders may very well hurt his own political future, regardless of Mugabe’s past transgressions. While toeing the line between being under-involved and imperiously over-involved, the US must underscore the suffering Mugabe’s policies have caused and insist he abide by the results of the popular vote. After all, Mugabe has already conceded the Parliament to the opposition, so he might be more susceptible to the pressure of international condemnation than we may think.

Of course, the lackluster US response is entirely predictable. Zimbabwe doesn’t exactly qualify as a strategic interest of the United States (read: no oil), so no one really cares. But, think about it from another perspective—this lack of political importance might just be the biggest reason next to the plight of the Zimbabweans for the US to take an interest in the outcome of the struggle. The US government could use the situation in Zimbabwe to show that it cares about democracy in more than just petro-states, and it might even salvage one iota of the US’s international reputation from the wreckage of Iraq—all at no diplomatic cost. Now that’s a political bargain everyone can get behind.

President Bush and his administration have started to catch on. Meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday, Bush said that the controversy in Zimbabwe had persisted for too long and encouraged the Security Council to discuss possible repercussions. But if Bush lets the situation fester and deteriorate into mass violence, our small window of opportunity to act will be gone faster than we can say “Kenya.”

Update (4/24): Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa calls for an arms embargo on the faltering state; the United States formally criticizes Mugabe and argues against a power-sharing agreement.