So John McCain has decided to attend tonight’s debate. That’s good news for everyone who cares who leads the United States for the next four or eight years.
Before moving on the main event, we should all take a moment to ponder John McCain’s puzzling and opportunistic suggestion that he wouldn’t attend the debate and instead would focus on more important (less political) matters, such as the financial crisis.
But it’s ridiculous to separate the two events as political and apolitical, respectively. The debate is concerned with choosing the next president, a decision that couldn’t be more relevant for the resolution of the crisis. And the crisis itself is wholly embedded in the political processes of the country. Secretary Paulson will propose a bail-out, the Congress will consider it, and it may or may not pass (depending on Pelosi, other Democratic leadership, etc). McCain’s implicit suggestion that the ‘dirty’ business of politics ought to be set aside for the ’serious’ business of running the country is either bizarrely naive or cold-heartedly calculating and opportunistic.
Fortunately we’ll have our opporunity to see Obama and McCain in action tonight. But be wary of any candidate who tries to play the “I’m too good for politics” card (which is all too common). Neither of them are too good for politics–they’re both politicians! And they continue to run the same dumb and less than truthful attack ads on television. Instead of a debate about who cares more about the country, I’m hoping to hear persuasive answers to questions like: “What are we going to do about Iraq?”, “How will we resolve the financial crisis?”, “How will we achieve these objectives?”.
In early August, Russian tanks rolled into Georgia and IR students the world over started celebrating the return of their field of study to mainstream relevance. Then, I thought for about two seconds and realized that was a very twisted version of wishful thinking. First of all, none of us should wish the return of the Cold War, it would be miserable (doing missle drills during the middle of your work day would be very annoying). Second and more importantly, it just is not realistic. Reason being–and I will use a quickly tiring cliche here–is that the world is too interconnected.
I cite as my principle evidence what has happened to the Russian economy post-Georgian invasion. In this recent article, FT reporters list a number of disheartening statistics if you are a Russian investor. The main statistic is that the Russian stock market has plunged 45% since May. While this slide predates the invasion of Georgia, its hard to say that the Russian economic slide and bellicose Russian behavior are not related. It may also be true that the correlation is the reverse of what you would expect, that the economic slide precipitated the Russian invasion because politicians wanted to show national strength amidst economic weakness. I highly doubt that to be the case, but if that was their strategy, then they only accomplished further weakening their economy and putting themselves further into a corner politically. Regardless of what they may have thought, sabre-rattling is not an effective course of action anymore.
The difference between now and the pre-1989 world is economic inter-connectedness. The USSR could behave the way it did because it actually had control of a sphere of influence both politically and economically. In those days, its satellite countries traded within the Soviet bloc and their currencies were not traded on open markets. Now, even the Ruble is traded on an open market and former Soviet countries of all shapes and sizes (Russia included) are joining the free trade regime. Ukraine and Georgia may not be members of NATO but they are members of the WTO. Then there are the EU members from the former Soviet bloc like Poland. Russian wealth is also largely dependent on Europe buying Russian oil. In short, these economic ties preclude any swift turn backwards in time or allegiance to the Cold War.
What does this have to do with the impending presidential election? Well, from the Republican side we have a man with a wealth of foreign policy knowledge and experience who professes to be an economic novice. On the Democratic side we have a very intelligent yet untested man who seems to understand the way the world works. Because of his inexperience (yes, I said it but I don’t mean it like that) it is hard to say if Mr. Obama would be capable of handling foreign policy’s complexities but he has given every indication that he is intelligent enough to understand it fully. However, I view Mr. McCain’s foreign policy record as detrimental. He has foreign policy experience but his views were cemented during a truly bygone era when communists were communists and foreign policy entailed blockades and nuclear buildups. Now, the so-called “communists” are better capitalists then we are and blockading just about anyone hurts someone’s pockets that we do not want it to. The fact is that economics is foreign policy and foreign policy determines the prevailing economics. Having a rudimentary understanding of either, or even claiming that the two are separate, is simply unacceptable.
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?
Mark Halperin, Matt Drudge, etc. are buzzing about a report from Robert Novak that John McCain will make his vice-presidential selection later this week. Meanwhile, Chris Cillizza comments on McCain’s unexpected (and strategically puzzling) decision to travel to New Orleans this Thursday to meet with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Coincidence? Doubtful.
But does McCain really think that a 37 year old unknown with reputedly scant experience can convince the American people that he’s ready to serve as president should the unthinkable happen? Intrade, which specializes in political futures, doesn’t think so. It currently gives Jindal just a 9.2% chance of becoming the Republican veep pick — decent odds but well behind Mitt Romney at 38.5% and still trailing obscure Alaska Governor Sarah Palin at 15.0% and Minnesota’s relatively bland executive Tim Pawlenty at 11.0%.
But I’d take the Jindal veep talk more seriously than the “Intraders” for three reasons:
[1] Jindal’s more experienced than you think. Before reaching the age of 29, Jindal had already run Louisiana’s massive Department of Health and Hospitals and been named President of the University of Louisiana system. In 2001 he was nominated for and served nearly two years as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services before entering Congress in 2005 and the Louisiana governor’s mansion in early 2008. This political resume compares quite favorably with Barack Obama’s seven years in the Illinois Senate and three-plus years in the US Senate.
[2] Jindal’s a very appealing politician. Think John Edwards but of Indian descent and without the $400 haircuts (and a lot more conservative). Anyone who caught Jindal’s appearance on The Tonight Show back in April saw a star in the making.
[3] A conventional pick just won’t do this time around. McCain’s campaign is in rough shape: a PPP poll out today shows Obama +8 in Ohio, a margin that if it holds would sound the death knell for McCain’s presidential ambitions. Obama, meanwhile, is making all the news with his tour of the Middle East and Western Europe; meetings with Karzai, Maliki, Sarkozy, Merkel, and Brown are likely to enhance his growing presidential aura. And Chuck Hagel (accompanying Obama on his trip) is close to becoming Obama’s version of Joe Lieberman. The point is that McCain needs a bold VP pick, someone who could inject some life into his decrepit campaign. Jindal — smart, charismatic, and not an old white man — could be the answer.
If Novak’s right we’ll find out later this week. Stay tuned…
Apparently China thinks that the gold medal tally at next month’s Beijing Olympics is more than a commentary on athletic prowess. The Daily Telegraph reports that the Chinese are not only optimistic about winning more gold medals than the United States, but also that they see the tally as a reflection of China’s growing economy and a potential boon to its international prestige.
To this end, China has poured money into its Olympic development programs. Its not-so-secret plans include a strong emphasis on rowing events, which could yield as many as fourteen gold medals in Beijing. Last month’s New York Times profiled former Soviet rowing coach Igor Grinko, who has taken over China’s rowing team with disciplinary zeal.
What are we to make of this Chinese quest for gold? Mark Leonard at the European Council on Foreign Relations has come out with a new book, What Does China Think?, which details a Chinese obsession with what he calls “comprehensive national power” (or CNP). Included in the CNP formula are traditional measures of power such as GDP or military expenditure, but also soft/cultural power (or in Chinese ruan quanli). Viewed from this perspective, China’s gold medal tally is as much a matter of good diplomacy as it is a subject of national pride. If China sits atop the medal chart come August 24, its particular way of doing things may inch closer to a broad-based international appeal. China may increasingly be able to get other to want what it wants.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. China’s certainly not guaranteed to win the most gold medals despite home field advantage, nor are the games likely to go off without a hitch or three (pollution and human rights concerns abound). And gold medals alone aren’t that significant. But this conversation is only indicative of a broader trend: the popularization of the “China dream” as a consequence of China’s incredibly successful economic development.
