Letter from Estoril

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Saturday, May 7, 2011 - 11:11 AM

Your humble blogger has not been ~~contributing to the Osama-a-thon here at FP~~ blogging all that much, because he was busy ~~being a moosehead~~ attending the 2011 Estoril Conference. Many Important topics were covered at this conference, including:

1) The eurozone crisis;

2) The global governance crisis;

3) The crisis in the Middle East;

4) Other global security challenges;

5) The life and times of Larry King.

It was that kind of conclave.

Actually, that really doesn't do it justice. Here's a link to the opening video. Even that doesn't do it justice -- the opening ceremonies featured a sporano suspended 50 feet in the air, a gospel choir, a drum corps, and what I can only assume are the backup dancers for Lady Gaga's music videos.

For a rundown of what the Big Cheeses said at the conference, check out my Twitter feed. The major substantive takeaway I got from the conference is that Portugal would like to do a serious hurt dance on Fitch, Moody's, and Standard & Poor. Half of the conference presenters were Portuguese, and most of the audience was as well. Here is a sampling of the questions the Portuguese asked anyone talking about anything remotely related to economics:

"Why do the bond rating agencies still influence markets after they failed so badly in 2008?"

"Shouldn't the bond-rating agencies be punished for their malfeasance last decade?"

"Aren't the bond-rating agencies to blame for everything bad that has happened since 2008?"

"What do you think of the idea of creating a European standard-ratings agency?"

"Say, has anyone thought about taking the heads of the bond-rating agencies and putting them in a duffel bag?"

OK, I made that last one up, but not the others.

Obviously, the Portuguese have very good reasons to be stressed out. And the bond-rating agencies deserrve an awful amount of flack. Still, the idea that they -- and they alone -- triggered both the 2008 financial crisis and Europe's sovereign debt crisis is absurd. They are far more the symptom than the cause of the crisis.

More blogging after ~~my eyes adjust to not seeing Lady Gaga's backup dancers everywhere I turn~~ the weekend.

COMMENTS (0)

EXPLORE:GLOBALIZATION, EURO, EUROPEAN UNION, FINANCIAL MELTDOWN, FINANCIAL STATECRAFT, FOREIGN POLICY COMMUNITY, HIGH-FALUTIN CONFERENCES, PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS

Are there any realpolitik films?

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Thursday, September 2, 2010 - 4:48 AM

Your humble blogger will not be blogging with great frequency over the next few days, as he'll be ~~drinking~~ ~~power-schmoozing~~ ~~diligently going to panels~~ attending the American Political Science Association (APSA) meetings in Washington. I have to present at a few panels this year, so blogging will be on the lighter side (though if I have time, I want to revisit this question about millennials and foreign policy attitudes).

Here's a topic for discussion. Yesterday I had a disturbing dream involving some hybrid of a normal APSA meeting and The Highlander. Today I finally went to see The Expendables with an IR colleague, which led us into a deep discussion of ~~how much of a bad-ass Dolph Lundgren is~~ how most movies that have any IR component are essentially idealist in their orientation. This led my companion to ask me an interesting question: "Has there ever been a film with an explicitly realist take on world politics?"

I went back and consulted my list of top IR films and came up empty. I then consulted Steve Walt's list and came up empty again. In theory Independence Day has some very crude balancing behavior, but let's face it, that's pretty weak beer. Both The Americanization of Emily (on my list) and Wag the Dog (on Steve's list) are very cynical movies, but I don't think the logic of realpolitik plays that big a role in either film. The best example that comes to mind is an old Star Trek episode -- A Private Little War -- but that's not a movie.

In the end, I can offer two proper film suggestions. The lesser film would be No Way Out (1987), but I can't explain why this is a realist movie without spoiling the ending.

The better example -- or, at a minimum, the better film -- would be The Godfather (1972), which is not exactly about international relations, but is about negotiating an anarchic environment. For more on this selection, see John Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell's The Godfather Doctrine, which started as an article in The National Interest. As they argue:

Unlike Tom [Hagen], whose labors as family lawyer have produced an exaggerated devotion to negotiation, and Sonny [Corleone], whose position as untested heir apparent has produced a zeal for utilizing the family arsenal, Michael has no formulaic fixation on a particular policy instrument. Instead, his overriding goal is to protect the family's interests and save it from impending ruin by any and all means necessary. In today's foreign-policy terminology, Michael is a realist.

Still, this is a thin list. Additional suggestions are welcomed in the comments.

COMMENTS (20)

EXPLORE:CULTURE, FILM, HIGH-FALUTIN CONFERENCES, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, REALISM

The truest thing Jack Shafer has ever written

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Friday, September 25, 2009 - 1:08 PM

As your humble blogger has ~~aged~~ matured, he finds himself invited to more shindigs that are logistically impossible for him to attend [He also has started referring to himself in the third person -- what's up with that?--ed. Oh, stuff it.]

This occasionally gnaws atmy psyche, because missing high-falutin' conferences preys on the same insecurity I have possessed since my grad school days -- that somewhere, at this very moment, there is an awesome, interesting conference going on, and I wasn't invited.

Fortunately, Slate's Jack Shafer makes me feel better about not attending The Atlantic's "First Draft of History" conference. Whenever I get one of these invites in the future, I'm going to have to re-read this paragraph:

I've got just three questions about "conferences" like these: Why, why, why? Other than hustling a little cash for the good cause that is the Atlantic magazine, what purpose do they serve? No, certifying members of the power elite does not qualify as a good cause. Will Gen. Petraeus make history by disclosing that he regrets the surge plan? Will David Axelrod volunteer that the Obama administration is a mess? Will Vikram Pandit fall to his knees and confess that the crash of 2008 was all his fault and beg to be shot? Not a chance. The participants will regift the presents they've given away dozens of times before, and the by-invitation-only audience will tear into the packages as if it's their ultimate Christmas.

COMMENTS (2)

EXPLORE:CULTURE, HIGH-FALUTIN CONFERENCES, PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS, SUMMITRY

Gone APSAing

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - 4:13 AM

Your humble blogger will be away from his traditional blog desk and bound for Toronto for the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.

I will likely post some about interesting tidbits from the conference. Readers are encouraged to peruse the program and let me know which panels they think are "must-see" events.

I can only speculate how many political scientists -- people with plenty of post-graduate education, mind you -- are thwarted in their attempt to attend APSA because they forgot that Canada is actually not the United States and that they therefore need a passport to get into Canada (and, more importantly, return to the United States).

COMMENTS (0)

EXPLORE:ACADEMIA, HIGH-FALUTIN CONFERENCES, POLITICAL SCIENCE

Gone fishin'

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 2:07 PM

Your humble blogger will be posting lightly over the next few days, as he is taking the Official Blog Wife and Official Blog Children to a sunny and warm (but undisclosed) locale.

Before I go, however, some brief reflections on the International Studies Association meetings, which, like Stephen Walt, I did attend:

I think ISA needs to set aside maybe five prime-time panel slots and not book them until a month before the conference. Between the deadline for submissions and the conference, a s**tload of Very Big Events have taken place, and yet there were too few panels devoted to the financial crisis, Russia-Georgia, etc. Shortening the lag time might help a bit on this front.
I was a discussant for a terrific panel on whether the spread of mobile phones is increasing the ability of civil society to protest against authoritarian governments. The provisional answer is, "not really," but the spread of these technologies might lead to improved human rights performances by those same governments.
How the economic crisis affects my field -- a lot more people were asking me, with a twinge of desperation in their voices, whether Fletcher was hiring.
Joseph Nye was touched to find out that his peers believed him to be the most influential American IR theorist in terms of affecting policy. He nevertheless displayed some genuine humility in suggesting that this assessment was bunk.
There was something bizarre about having the main conference hotel be in Times Square. If ISA is going to go there, why not hold the conference in my dream locale?

COMMENTS (3)

EXPLORE:ACADEMIA, HIGH-FALUTIN CONFERENCES, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

There's never an upside to moderation

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 11:16 PM

Being a moderator on a conference panel is a thankless task. By implication, you're the least important person on the dais (otherwise you'd be on the panel rather than moerating it). If you're good and you're lucky, no one notices you. For every other scenario, however, you get noticed for bad reasons.

Reading this New York Times account by Katrin Bennhold, I feel some small measure of sympathy for Washington Post columnist David Ignatius:

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey walked off the stage after an angry exchange with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, during a panel discussion on Gaza at the World Economic Forum on Thursday, and vowed never to return to the annual gathering.
Mr. Erdogan apparently became incensed after he was prevented by the moderator from responding to remarks by Mr. Peres on the recent Israeli attack. The panel was running late and Mr. Peres was to have had the last word, participants said....
In a news conference immediately following the panel discussion, Mr. Erdogan said that he was particularly upset with Mr. Ignatius, who he said had failed to direct a balanced and impartial panel.
By all accounts, the discussion of the Gaza incursion was a lively one, with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, joining Mr. Peres and Mr. Erdogan. For the most part, participants said, Mr. Peres was alone in defending the Israeli role in Gaza, which is why he was given the final 25 minutes to speak. Earlier, Mr. Erdogan had spoken for 12 minutes about the sufferings of the Palestinians.

In an ideal world, as a moderator you always want each panelist to have two minutes apiece for closing remarks. In that same ideal world, politicians are capable of limiting their remarks to 120 seconds. In the real world, Ignatius was between a rock and a hard place.

COMMENTS (0)

EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, DAVOS, HIGH-FALUTIN CONFERENCES, ISRAEL, PALESTINE

The globalization wisdom of David Paterson (UPDATED)

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Monday, January 26, 2009 - 2:10 PM

Davos -- a.k.a., the World Economic Forum -- is upon us, and there are conflicting reports about the overall attendance at the conference. There is a general consensus, however, that politicians will be overshadowing businessmen at this year's conclave.

This is all to the good. World trade is shrinking for the first time since the early eighties. Perhaps getting the best political telent on the planet together in Switzerland will shake the policy gridlock loose.

Consider, for example, New York governor David Paterson. Fresh from his meticuluous, classy, and error-free selection of Hillary Clinton's replacement for the Senate, Paterson is headed for Davos. Here are his deep thoughts on why he is going:

[The] question involved Mr. Paterson’s trip to Davos, Switzerland, which his office announced on Saturday. Much of the five-day forum will focus on how countries and central banks can address the global downturn, and Mr. Paterson said the United States stood to gain by lending money to other countries.
“There’s an immense opportunity if we use some of those resources to try and make loans available to other countries,” he said. “It would give us bigger resources for the taxpayers.”
“There’s a desire to have leaders from around the country be in Davos to talk about the interests of a lot of countries right now whose exports are limited,” he said, before leaving the hotel.

A contest for readers: convert Paterson's answer into coherent prose. Bonus points if you can convert it into prose that justifies Paterson's trip.

UPDATE: Apparently Paterson couldn't convert this answer into plain English either -- he's changed his mind about going to Davos.

COMMENTS (8)

EXPLORE:GLOBALIZATION, DAVOS, GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, HIGH-FALUTIN CONFERENCES