It's hard to believe, but ten years ago Robert Kagan published "Power and Weakness" in the pages of Policy Review.  Coming on the heels of the invasion of Afghanistan and the start of the Iraq debate, Kagan's essay seemed to crystallize the state of the transatlantic relationship back in the day. 

To celebrate it's 10th anniversary, Policy Review has come out with a special issue devoted to the essay, asking a variety of smart people to weigh in.  Oh, and me.  As I put it in my essay, "I come to praise Kagan's insights -- and then to bury them."  You'll have to read the whole thing to see what I mean. 

Check out the rest of the essays as well.  With the passing of a decade, it's pretty easy to point out the ways in which Kagan's analysis breaks down (and, to be fair, the ways in which it doesn't).  To his credit, Kagan himself is painfully aware of how his essay has aged: 

Ten years ago, when I wrote the original essay, it would not have occurred to me that anyone would be commenting on it a year later, let alone a decade later. As Tod knows, I only wrote the essay because he had invited me to speak at a conference, and I had to deliver something. No doubt the other contributors will recognize the experience. Therefore from the beginning I have been acutely aware of the essay’s limitations — and have had the good fortune to have all those limitations pointed out to me frequently, in many languages, with greater or lesser kindness over the years, and now again at the scene of the crime a decade later.

I remember talking with Kagan when the original essay came out and blew up, and I can aver that he was just as surprised as anyone else about its impact.  Let this be a lesson for policy wonks everywhere.  Sure, most of the time when you write something it disappears into the ether, to be forgotten almost immediately.  But on occasion, serendiptity or fortuna strikes, and you've suddenly got a major essay on your hands.  Always write with that in mind -- because if your essay does blow up, you better be ready, willing and able to defend every paragraph of it. 

Walter Russell Mead has not been the biggest fan of the current president, so it's worth quoting at length what he said in a recent blog post about Obama's Pacific Rim trip: 

The cascade of statements, deployments, agreements and announcements from the United States and its regional associates in the last week has to be one of the most unpleasant shocks for China’s leadership — ever.  The US is moving forces to Australia, Australia is selling uranium to India, Japan is stepping up military actions and coordinating more closely with the Philippines and Vietnam in the South China Sea, Myanmar is slipping out of China’s column and seeking to reintegrate itself into the region, Indonesia and the Philippines are deepening military ties with the the US: and all that in just one week. If that wasn’t enough, a critical mass of the region’s countries have agreed to work out a new trade group that does not include China, while the US, to applause, has proposed that China’s territorial disputes with its neighbors be settled at a forum like the East Asia Summit — rather than in the bilateral talks with its smaller, weaker neighbors that China prefers.

Rarely has a great power been so provoked and affronted.  Rarely have so many red lines been crossed.  Rarely has so much face been lost, so fast.  It was a surprise diplomatic attack, aimed at reversing a decade of chit chat about American decline and disinterest in Asia, aimed also at nipping the myth of “China’s inexorable rise” in the bud....

[I]t was as decisive a diplomatic victory as anyone is likely to see.  Congratulations should go to President Obama and his national security team.  The State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House have clearly been working effectively together on an intensive and complex strategy.  They avoided leaks, they coordinated effectively with half a dozen countries, they deployed a range of instruments of power.  In the field of foreign policy, this was a coming of age of the Obama administration and it was conceived and executed about as flawlessly as these things ever can be.

You know it was a good foreign policy trip when Politico runs the "Obama will soon miss his foreign policy successes as he returns to the Washington mire" storyline upon his return. 

The standard line among the press and expert analysts is that the combination of speeches and actions represents a dramatic foreign policy "pivot" to East Asia.  This elides some prior speeches that suggested this was under way for some time, but still -- what does it mean? 

I'd suggest three things.  First, it's an interesting moment to highlight some macro trends that are relatively favorable to the United States.  In comparison to, say, China or Europe, the United States looks to be in decent shape.  Over the longer term, trends in both energy and manufacturing suggest that the United States will continue a time-honored tradition and emerge from a crisis of its own making in a stronger relative position than before.  If the administration is smart, it will marry its recent successes to these longer-term trends as a way of constructing a more optimistic strategic narrative. 

Second, China is likely to pursue a more accommodating posture in the short run.  As Mead notes, the official Chinese reaction has been muted.  The unofficial reaction has ranged from the hyperbolic to the inscrutable.  Still, as I've pointed out repeatedly, China's behavior in 2009 and 2010 was a giant honking invitation for the rest of the Pacific Rim to cozy up to the United States.  And that's what should worry Beijing.  It's not that the United States is interested in maintaining its presence in East Asia -- that interest has not wavered.  What has changed is the eagerness with which the countries in the region, ranging from Australia to Myanmar, have reciprocated. 

Third, while the Obama administration deserves credit for this foreign policy swing -- and for some fun, compare and contrast coverage of this trip with Obama's Pac Rim swing from two years ago -- the "pivot" language is badly misplaced.  A pivot implies that the United States will stop paying attention to Europe or the Middle East and start paying attention to East Asia.  While I'm sure that's what the Obama administration wants to do, it can't.  Europe is imploding, as are multiple countries in the Middle East.  The United States can't afford to ignore these regions, since uncertainty there eventually translates into both global and domestic problems.  A European financial meltdown or an Egyptian political meltdown will have ramifications that simply can't be ignored. 

Talking about a United States "pivot" in foreign policy is meaningless.  The US, like an overstuffed couch, is simply too big to pivot. 

What do you think? 

When I woke up this morning and scanned the headlines, I knew what I was going to blog about -- the stories in the press about how the European Union was, after much hemming and hawing, beginning to move towards a closer fiscal union.  I was then going to not-so-humblebrag about my own prediction that this would indeed happen. This was all going to be a great set-up to the last-minute reverse course -- i.e., this Financial Times op-ed by German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble in which he declared his "unease when some politicians and economists call on the eurozone to take a sudden leap into fiscal union and joint liability." 

Here's the thing, however -- if you read my eurozone blog post from this past February, you'll see that almost the exact same dynamic played itself out six months ago.  This time the Germans are pre-emptively balking before the peripheral countries can balk in response to German calls for austerity... but you get the general idea. 

So... in the interest of avoiding IPE déjà vu for readers, I hereby promise not to blog about this again until something actually happens beyond news reports of preliminary steps-towards-fiscal-centralization-followed-by-political-pushback.  I will simply observe that Ryan Avent's basic question will be the one to ask going forward: 

Europe's leaders know what they'll have to do to stabilise the situation. The key question now is: what is the set of euro-zone countries consistent with the political will to save the currency area? Europeans in Europe's core will share a currency with "outsider" countries, but they won't fight to save them. So who are the outsiders? Who has to go to convince core voters that the cost of saving the euro zone is worth bearing?....

With which countries do core voters sufficiently identify themselves as to make a large, ongoing commitment acceptable? Answer that, and you probably have a good idea how this mess will end.

Readers are requested to state which countries get the Euroboot in the comments below. 

[WARNING:  THE FOLLOWING IS AN OPTIMISTIC GLOBAL POLITICAL ECONOMY POST]

Note:  in my last blog post, I might have sounded juuuuust a wee bit pessimistic about the state of the global political economy.  That was my intent, but it wasn't necessarily how I actually felt.  My aim was to assemble as negative a brief as possible about the state of the global political economy.  The aim of this post is to argue that, despite all the recent bad news, the fundamentals of the global political economy are surprisingly sound.  I'm not actually as optimistic as the rest of this post suggests, either -- but I do lean more in this direction.  The fact that I'm blogging this from a zombie-proof vacation redoubt should in no way affect your evaluation of the following few paragraphs.  

So, when we last left off this debate, things were looking grim.  My concern in the last post was that the persistence of hard times would cause governments to take actions that would lead to a collapse of the open global economy, a spike in general riots and disturbances, and eerie echoes of the Great Depression.  Let's assume that the global economy persists in sputtering for a while, because that's what happens after major financial shocks.    Why won't these other bad things happen?  Why isn't it 1931? 

Let's start with the obvious -- it's not gonna be 1931 because there's some passing familiarity with how 1931 played out.  The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has devoted much of his academic career to studying the Great Depression.  I'm gonna go out on a limb therefore and assert that if the world plunges into a another severe downturn, it's not gonna be because central bank heads replay the same set of mistakes. 

The legacy of the Great Depression has also affected public attitudes and institutions that provide much stronger cement for the current system.  In terms of publuc attitudes, compare the results of this mid-2007 poll with this mid-2010 poll about which economic system is best.  I'll just reproduce the key charts below: 

The headline of the 2010 results is that there's eroding U.S. support for the global economy,  but a few other things stand out.  U.S. support has declined, but it's declined from a very high level.  In contrast, support for free markets has increased in other major powers, such as Germany and China.  On the whole, despite the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression, public attitudes have not changed all that much.  While there might be populist demands to "do something," that something is not a return to autarky or anything so drastc. 

Another big difference is that multilateral economic institutions are much more robust now than they were in 1931.  On trade matters, even if the Doha round is dead, the rest of the World Trade Organization's corpus of trade-liberalizing measures are still working quite well.  Even beyond the WTO, the complaint about trade is not the deficit of free-trade agreements but the surfeit of them.  The IMF's resources have been strengthened as a result of the 2008 financial crisis.  The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision has already promulgated a plan to strengthen capital requirements for banks.  True, it's a slow, weak-assed plan, but it would be an improvement over the status quo. 

As for the G-20, I've been pretty skeptical about that group's abilities to collectively address serious macroeconomic problems.  That is setting the bar rather high, however.  One could argue that the G-20's most useful function is reassurance.  Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent them from growing into anything worse. 

Finally, a note about the possibility of riots and other general social unrest.  The working paper cited in my previous post noted the links between austerity measures and increases in disturbances.  However, that paper contains the following important paragraph on page 19: 

[I]n countries with better institutions, the responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower. Where constraints on the executive are minimal, the coefficient on expenditure changes is strongly negative -- more spending buys a lot of social peace. In countries with Polity-2 scores above zero, the coefficient is about half in size, and less significant. As we limit the sample to ever more democratic countries, the size of the coefficient declines. For full democracies with a complete range of civil rights, the coefficient is still negative, but no longer significant.

This is good news!!  The world has a hell of a lot more democratic governments now than it did in 1931.  What happened in London, in other words, might prove to be the exception more than the rule. 

So yes, the recent economic news might seem grim.  Unless political institutions and public attitudes buckle, however, we're unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the 1930's.  And, based on the data we've got, that's not going to happen. 

Kim Sengupta and Solomon Hughes have one of those exclusives in The Independent that's an equal mixture of intriguing and dubious on the current situation in Libya.  Here's the lead: 

The Libyan regime is preparing to make a fresh overture to the international community, offering concessions designed to end the bloodshed of the three-month-long civil war.

 

The Independent has obtained a copy of a letter from the country's Prime Minister, Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, being sent to a number of foreign governments. It proposes an immediate ceasefire to be monitored by the United Nations and the African Union, unconditional talks with the opposition, amnesty for both sides in the conflict, and the drafting of a new constitution.

David Cameron and Barack Obama met yesterday to try to find an exit strategy from a conflict increasingly appearing to have no definitive military solution in sight. The US President acknowledged that the allies now seem to face a long, attritional campaign.

Reading through the whole story, I certainly believe that Libya sent out a cease-fire proposal.  What I don't buy is the notion that various NATO countries are eager to accept such a deal.  That part seems much less clearly sourced. 

There's also this interesting Financial Times story by Michael Peel and Sam Jones suggesting that Libya's sovereign wealth fund has less money that previously anticipated: 

Libya lost billions of dollars on sophisticated financial products sold to Muammer Gaddafi’s sovereign wealth fund by some of the world’s leading financial institutions, according to a confidential Libyan government document.

Banks and hedge funds led by France’s Société Générale are named in about $5bn (£3bn) of deals involving the oil-rich nation, some of which had resulted in heavy losses by the middle of last year.

One of the most striking losses, outlined in an internal report for the Libyan Investment Authority, was a 98.5 per cent fall in the value of the sovereign wealth fund’s $1.2bn equity and currency derivatives portfolio....

The report for managers of Libya’s sovereign wealth fund, dated June 30 last year, said its bank and hedge fund investment products had fallen in value from about $5bn to roughly $3.5bn, out of the body’s total assets of $53.3bn.

This is an interesting strategic dilemma for NATO.  On the one hand accepting a cease-fire would potentially end an intervention that has lasted longer that top policymakers apparently expected.*  On the other hand, a cease-fire doesn't exactly scream "geopolitical win."  There's always an incentive to hold firm and count on the Gaddafi regime to crack. 

If you were Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, or David Cameron, which bet would you make?  A cease-fire now or rolling the dice for a more complete victory?    

Hey, remember the rest of the world?

The Financial Times' Ben Hall and James Blitz  report on a surprising degree of defense cooperation between London and Paris:

David Cameron, British prime minister, and Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, hailed their summit in London on Tuesday as an unprecedented move towards closer integration between Europe's pre-eminent military powers brought on by budgetary austerity but also a closer alignment of the two countries' foreign policies.

They signed two treaties: one covering the sharing of technology used to maintain nuclear warheads and another on initiatives about conventional forces.

Mr. Sarkozy said the agreement to share a new research facility in France for the testing of nuclear warheads was testament to a "level of confidence between our two nations unequalled in history".

Until now, France and Britain have closely guarded the secrets of their nuclear deterrents, regarding them as the bedrock of their independence.

Mr Cameron said the two treaties would commit the French and British armed forces to working "more closely than ever before".

Paris and London also agreed to set up an "integrated carrier strike group", allowing each to fly combat aircraft from the other’s carrier once Britain has an operational ship equipped with its U.S.-built Joint Strike Fighter jets, by the beginning of the next decade. In the next 10 years, the French and British navies would centre co-operation on the Charles de Gaulle, France’s only carrier.

What's interesting about this is not the military effects -- in the end, this is about trying to do more with less -- but the political ones. In a world of austerity, there is some logic in close allies working together to eliminate redundant platforms and/or other fixed costs that could be pooled across countries. Furthermore, this kind of defense integration, once started, would strike me as very hard to reverse. 

This year has seen a lot of people predicting the end of the EU and NATO as Europe struggles with its economic misfortune. I wonder, however, if hard times are actually having the opposite effect of forcing European and NATO countries closer together. This might not be popular, but it's the only viable policy option in some instances.