X MARKED THE SPOT:

May 15, 2006

A More Dangerous World? Think Again: Over the past dozen years, virtually every trend in global security has been positive — dramatically so. (Carl Robichaud, May 15 , 2006, Mother Jones)

Since 9/11 and the global war on terror, the world is a much more dangerous place. Right?

Dead wrong, according to a recent in-depth study, which found that virtually every trend in global security in the past dozen years has been positive, and dramatically so.

The world is today a safer place, according to the Human Security Report, a project funded by five nations and published by Oxford University Press. The study, which is the culmination of three years of research, offers a comprehensive look at the data on political violence from 1988–2005, and reaches some arresting conclusions:

# Fewer armed conflicts. Armed conflicts declined by more than 40 percent since the early 1990s. During this period, fifteen more armed struggles for self-determination ended than started. Today there are fewer armed secessionist conflicts than at any point since 1976.

# Less genocide. Notwithstanding the horrors of Rwanda , Bosnia , and Sudan, the number of genocides and “politicides” fell by 80 percent between the high point in 1988 and 2001.

# Fewer international crises. The number of “international crises” declined by more than 70 percent between 1981 and 2001.

# Fewer arms deals. International arms transfers, in real dollar values, fell by 33 percent between 1990 and 2003. This accompanied a sharp decline in total military expenditure and troop numbers as well.

# Fewer refugees. The number of refugees dropped by some 45 percent between 1992 and 2003, as more and more wars came to an end.

# The longest peace between major powers. The period from World War II to today is the longest interval of uninterrupted peace between great powers for hundreds of years.

# The rise of the United Nations after the cold war. The years since the end of the cold war have seen the related emergence of the United Nations as an effective actor in conflict resolution.

It seems the past decade’s global security sea change has gone virtually unnoticed outside of political science departments. The dominant narrative in America—echoed by the media, politicians, and the security establishment—is that we today live in a more dangerous world with endemic conflict, clashing civilizations, and new threats.

How could it be otherwise after History has Ended and sovereignty been redefined?


TRY, AMERICA POWERS EMERGING ECONOMIES:

May 15, 2006

Emerging Nations Powering Global Economic Boom: The expansion is the strongest since the 1970s, with China, India and Russia setting the pace. But many U.S. workers are left behind. (Tom Petruno, May 14, 2006, Los Angeles Times)

The global economy is on a growth streak that is shaping up to be the broadest and strongest expansion in more than three decades.

Rising spending and investment by consumers and businesses worldwide are boosting national economies on every continent, pushing down unemployment rates in many countries and lifting business earnings and confidence.

Of 60 nations tracked by investment firm Bridgewater Associates, not one is in recession — the first time that has been true since 1969.

Yet this is a different kind of boom from any other in the post-World War II era, analysts say. The soaring economies of China, India, Russia, Brazil and other emerging nations increasingly are setting the pace, overshadowing the slower growth of the United States, Europe and Japan, where the benefits of the expansion have eluded many workers.

“This is the first recovery where developing economies are playing a dominant role,” said James Paulsen, chief strategist at Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis, which manages money for big investors such as pension funds.

The trend is being driven by free trade, which has created millions of jobs in emerging nations in recent years, fueling stunning new wealth in those countries.

This is a story not only at odds with the facts–strong US GDP growth and low unemployment–but with itself–the jobs in those developing countries consist of doing the manufacturing and other work [answering phones] we’re too wealthy to do ourselves. It does though demonstrate just how powerful the End of History remains — forcing capitalism upon such a wide array of nations — even at a time when folks want to dismiss it.


COVENANT THEOLOGY:

May 14, 2006

A Rebel Prince’s Vision for Reform: Saudi’s Long-held Ideals Gaining an Audience with Royal Family (Anthony Shadid, 5/14/06, Washington Post)

[Prince] Talal is many things: for 50 years, the most liberal figure in a family that remains the most conservative and traditional of the Persian Gulf’s monarchies and tribal dynasties; a philanthropist who brings a ruthlessness to business that he once saved for politics; a glimmer of light for the kingdom’s liberals, many of whom acknowledge that change here will probably only come under the auspices of religion and its modernization, not through the secular talk of civil society and individual rights.

Perhaps most compelling, though, is that Talal takes a debate about democratic reform in the Arab world, defined lately by the Bush administration, and illustrates a broader, more enduring context, one that speaks to experience rather than promise. His calls for change are little different than in the 1950s and ’60s, when he was dismissed as a communist sympathizer; he remains a critic of U.S. policy, citing Iraq’s trauma as the latest example. To Talal, the battle itself is not new, only the players. And in his words are a sense of vindication for ideas he believes are no less crucial today.

“The world has changed, not me,” he said. “History has proved the rightness of what I was talking about.”

“Some of the members of the family were against those ideas,” he added. “Now they’re talking about them.”

These days, Talal advocates a constitution that would bind an absolute monarchy by law, “a social contract between the ruler and those who are ruled.” The parliament, now an appointed, relatively toothless body known as the Consultative Council, would be at least partially elected, with the right to oversee the budget, monitor the government and question ministers, he said.

Women? “Right now, we have more than 2 million female students,” he said, shaking his head. “When they graduate, where are they going to go? Either you close the schools and leave them to illiteracy or you grant them an opportunity to work.”

He laughed. “Can you imagine, can anyone imagine, that women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia?” he said.

His list went on: Progress is impeded by “the opposition of religious extremists.” The religious establishment, long the allies of his family, should stand aside as the country forges a division of power — judicial, executive and legislative. Along the way, the kingdom, he said, must determine the mechanism of passing the monarchy from the aging sons of the country’s founder to their grandsons before simmering rivalries between the branches of the House of Saud flare into the open.

“The goal remains the same,” he said, “the participation of people in forming opinions and making decisions.”

The same words, a different era: “Now we’re freed from the notion of the Red Prince, the name the Americans gave me.”

A constitutional monarchy is the ideal form of government.


BETTER SHRED THAN DEAD:

May 13, 2006

I’m ready to rip up Human Rights Act, declares Cameron (Graeme Wilson, 13/05/2006, Daily Telegraph)

David Cameron revealed yesterday that he is ready to tear up the Human Rights Act amid growing public concern that it is being exploited by foreign criminals.

If he wins the next general election, the Conservative leader will order a review of the law introduced by Labour eight years ago and rewrite the legislation if necessary.

However, if it becomes clear that it was not possible to improve the Act through amendments, Mr Cameron is prepared to abolish it.

The Tory leader’s aides conceded last night that even if the party scrapped the Act, Britain would still be bound by the European Convention of Human Rights.

An excellent start, but until he’s ready to scrap the EU treaties that infringe on British sovereignty he’s not going to be a great PM.


WALIKNG OUR TALK:

May 12, 2006

Japanese Discovery of Democracy (Masaru Tamamoto, 10 May 2006, The Japan Institute of International Affairs)

Those familiar with post-1945 Japanese foreign policy will readily notice that bringing ideological difference to the fore is new. After the collapse of its empire by the defeat in war, Japan had refrained from expressing value judgments on how other nations organize themselves-empires are exactly about organizing the lives of other nations. Today’s new talk of democracy is one manifestation of the debate as to whether Japan should begin to adopt a more assertive foreign policy. Supporting the emergence of new democracies has become a part of the foreign policy agenda, though not central.

Elevating democracy above totalitarianism, liberty above tyranny, of course, had been the language of the United States in the Cold War. Cold War thinking and habits linger in the way Tokyo and Beijing frame their security structures with each other. And Japanese pundits who pit democratic Japan against dictatorial China surely have in mind the United States as audience. Emphasizing democracy is their way of reaffirming the bond of Japan’s alliance with the United States in the face of rising China. But the United States is not quite buying the Japanese rhetoric. Washington’s China policy is engagement, and its slogan is turning China into the world’s “responsible stakeholder.” While Washington has not entirely given up on “transformational diplomacy,” there is increasing impatience with the way Japan handles China; there is even concern that the U.S.-Japan security treaty might turn into a burden if Japan’s alienation in East Asia were to worsen.

Many Japanese analysts agree that Japan now faces a fluid and unstable strategic environment-the issue is the rise of China and nuclear brinkmanship of North Korea. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, Japanese foreign policy has had a simple architecture. How to maintain the American relation was key, and most all else flowed from that relationship.

Following the defeat in war in 1945, Japan recoiled from the harshness of international power politics. The American victors offered vanquished Japan a deal, which was sealed with the U.S.-Japan security treaty: The United States extended a security umbrella over Japan in exchange for the use of Japanese territory as America’s forward military base. The United States acted as Japan’s buffer to international power politics, while Japan happily pursued the life of economism. In this way, the security treaty became Japan’s highest source of authority, the functional successor to the prewar emperor, “sacred and inviolate.”

The Cold War provided Japan with a stable strategic environment, the threat of nuclear annihilation of humanity notwithstanding. And there was nothing much that Japan could or was willing to do to affect the deadlock of mutually assured destruction. This Japan could not make any value judgments about the world, according to Kiichi Miyazawa who would be prime minister in the 1990s. So the goal of Japanese foreign policy was to establish friendly relations with as many countries as possible, while under the protection of the United States, the final guarantor of Japan’s willful innocence of international politics.

The question today is: To what extent should Japan continue to depend on the United States to frame its place in the world? While there is a handful of younger parliamentarians espousing the brave vision of a Japan independent and responsible for its own security, the bulk and core of the Japanese foreign policy establishment sees no wisdom in imagining a world without American protection. The current dispatch of Japanese troops to Iraq as part of the American “coalition of the willing”-Japan’s first military venture abroad since 1945 without United Nations cover-is not unrelated to the Japanese calculation of the rise of China; the American insurance premium has gone up.

Sometimes, on some questions, the student surpasses the master.


A PEOPLE WHO THINK THEMSELVES A NATION ARE ONE:

May 11, 2006

New statute of autonomy approved by 128 votes in the Senate (eitb24, 05/11/2006)

Against a fierce fight from the opposition Popular Party (PP), the upper house of parliament approved the text by 128 votes to 125, with six abstentions.

The Spanish government squeezed a controversial new statute for Catalonia through the Senate on Wednesday, clearing the latest hurdle before Catalans to vote on the document which grants the region greater autonomy.

The statute includes a much-disputed phrase, which says Catalonia perceives itself as a nation. Conservatives say this is the beginning of the end of Spain as a unified country.

It’s not a particularly good idea, but self-determination is an inevitable democratic norm now.


GROWING PAINS:

May 11, 2006


PM keeps door open on mission to Darfur (GLORIA GALLOWAY, 5/11/06, Globe and Mail

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canada might send troops to the troubled Darfur region of Sudan despite insistence by his Defence Minister that the mission in Afghanistan precludes significant commitments elsewhere in the world.

“This government stands ready and is in consultation with our friends in the international community to do whatever is necessary to advance the peace process in Darfur,” Mr. Harper said yesterday in the House of Commons.

“If that involves sending troops, that will be an option that we consider.”

No one ever said starting to act like an adult nation again would be easy.


CRUSADER RADIO:

May 10, 2006

Poland revives cold-war tactic: democracy via radio: Beamed nightly into next-door Belarus, Radio Racja supplements state-run media (Andrew Curry, 5/11/06, The Christian Science Monitor)

[H]ere in a ramshackle building not far from the Belarussian border, a Polish-funded team of reporters is offering an alternative to the state media monopoly in neighboring Belarus – a country they refer to as Europe’s last dictatorship.

Mindful of the Western support that sustained their own opposition movement in the 1970s and ’80s, Poles are resurrecting a tool that went out of style at the end of the cold war: radio.


THEY DON'T EVEN ALLOW THE INALIENABLE ONES:

May 10, 2006

UN’s human-rights council wins backing (EDITH M. LEDERER, 5/10/06, Associated Press)

Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia won seats on the new UN Human Rights Council on Tuesday despite their poor human-rights records, but two rights abusers – Iran and Venezuela – were defeated.

Human-rights groups said they were generally pleased with the 47 members elected to the council, which will replace the highly politicized Human Rights Commission. It was discredited in recent years because some countries with terrible rights records used their membership to protect one another from condemnation.

Seating any non-democracy makes the whole Council a joke.


THE ALLIES WHO MATTER (via Tom Morin):

May 9, 2006

India and US to explore the Moon (BBC, 5/09/06)

India and the US are to conduct joint research experiments on the Moon.

Under an accord between the countries’ space agencies, India’s first unmanned lunar mission will carry two scientific payloads from the US agency, Nasa.

Indian officials called the deal a “milestone”. The Indian spacecraft is due to be launched in early 2008.

The Nasa instruments will scan the Moon’s surface for minerals and ice. Devices from the European Space Agency and Bulgaria will also be on board.

The deal is being seen as another sign of increasingly close ties between Washington and Delhi after years of Cold War suspicion.

By the time the Atlanticists and Realists figure out that Europe is a nullity George P. Bush may be president.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.