A good article and my personal debate scorecard

This is a good article by Joseph Nye discussing something we probably know but don’t want to admit:
Bin Laden’s Potential “October Surprise”

By my count, here’s how the debate went:

1) On the basis of trade issues, Obama locked up Iowa and made big gains in Ohio, Missouri and Florida. The first rule of domestic trade politics is you don’t speak out against the interests of a concentrated faction in a key electoral constituency. That is precisely what McCain did by speaking out against ethanol subsidies (very popular in Iowa, probably popular in Missouri and Ohio) and sugar subsidies (an important component of the Florida economy).

2) McCain locked up the key Joe Wurzelbacher vote. If he loses the election, at least McCain will have gained a friend.

The NAFTA stuff was FINALLY brought up by McCain, about 2 years too late to have any solid impact, and Obama did enough to toe the line that he would be pro-free trade without casting aside unions. I do think he is right to re-evaluate our enforcement of trade agreements, although he’s opening up a pandora’s box where other countries can start looking at our unfair trade practices. Target #1 will be Obama’s most aggregious piece of pork, the farm bill. I still think McCain has been publicly right on trade: for example ethanol and sugar subsidies are highly distorting in the world economy and I would speculate that ending them could have the greatest immediate impact on increased energy efficiency and independence from Middle-East oil out of any action taken by the government (for reasons why, read up on Brazilian sugar ethanol). However, I also think Obama is bluffing on trade. The president plays a different role in trade politics than that of a Senator: the president is supposed to understand and promote trade due to the good it will do for the county as a whole, while a Senator is supposed to represent it’s constituents’ interests in any trade agreement. It may be a somewhat baseless assertion, but given Obama’s uncanny ability to understand his role, I am confident he will adjust his conduct smoothly and accordingly if he reaches the White House.

Developed vs. Developing: The difference may be obsolete but the normative implications remain

I wrote the following in relation to a New York Times article during the G8 summit, but the message is relevant for election ’08. A major difference between Obama and McCain will be how they approach the host of countries considered “developing” as they direct their foreign policy. Since climate change diplomacy was the subject of the G8 meeting, I took a quick look at what both had to say regarding how they would address the developing world. McCain’s website talks about the need to integrate “India and China” into any climate change initiative—this could be a repetition of the Bush demand that those two countries be involved in any new agreement, but it could also mean that McCain understands their importance in addressing global warming and understands that they require a different approach. Obama’s website suggests that he wants to create a “Global Energy Forum” including the G8 and the same “outreach 5” from the G8 summit, except he wouldn’t make India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa sit at the kiddie table. These websites are probably not the best predictors of what policy might come out of a McCain or Obama presidency but, at least on climate change, it does show that the two candidates might be moving a little bit past the dubious distinction between “developed” and “developing”. With all that said, here was my take on the matter, as of July 9th:

The debate over climate change between developed and developing countries (or, perhaps more accurately, between George W. and China) points to the fact that the distinction between “developed” and “developing” is of decreasing utility. Most often, this distinction is made with reference to per capita GDP, which alone demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the definition. Russia (a G8 member, although on the outskirts by most people’s calculations) is ranked #54, which is a mere 4 spots ahead of Mexico. The difference between them is less than $600 per person. What makes this distinction more ironic is that Mexico is a member of the OECD (another rich country club; South Korea is another member) and Russia is left out of that one. Brazil and South Africa, two other members of the “outreach five” are within the next ten. To be fair, the difference between the two main agitators–the US and China–is nearly 100 spots on the list of 179 ranked countries and the US average per capita income is roughly 20 times that of China, but this whole line of argument presupposes that GDP per capita is a useful measurement for assigning obligations when it comes to international policymaking. Perhaps more useful measurements would look at a country’s total GDP or its share of international trade, because those would demonstrate a country’s clout when taken as a whole. Both measurements completely muddle the field. For example, the US ranks highest in total GDP and China is third highest behind Japan. On this basis, is China a developed country and the UK, France, and Italy are developing? Or, more generally, who is developed and who is developing? The point here is not to clarify or answer that last question, but to demonstrate that the segregation is utterly meaningless.

Perhaps what would be better is to think about this on a case by case basis, and in the case of international environmental regulation, this group should probably be unified. The problem is that these countries use their designations as political tools. China uses its “developing” status to argue that this problem was created by past (now developed) emitters, therefore it is their responsibility, and that it is their right as a developing country to emit freely as a part of the development process. On the other side, the US (or, again more appropriately, George W.) would like to dictate the course of action as the “developed” nation and demand that the “outreach 5″ sign on. The two countries are hiding behind a flawed economic distinction and reaping their benefits through political posturing. The reality is that in this situation, nobody is developed or developing, but everybody is screwed if we don’t do anything. Both groups of countries should probably have the same rights and responsibilities, because as far as the environment is concerned, we are all about equal. The problems with this distinction go beyond environmental regulation to a number of other issues (read: UN security council, WTO, regulation within the IFIs and pretty much anything else you can think of that would fit in here) but I won’t address them all right now. However, questioning of the developed vs. developing distinction and its normative implications needs to happen. In each of the areas I’ve mentioned, a country’s designation as developed or developing has unnecessary and often harmful implications. Any suggestions?