Martin Wolf has penned an essay, Tough liberalism is the only response, that captures a part of my recent, rather muddled and therefore silent, musings on the Janus-faced nature of globalization. Wolf goes beyond the global threat of Islamic extremism to identify many strains pulling apart the fabric of our world of connections. I would add to his list several other troublesome global trends, such as the "politics of frustration" described by Pierre Hassner, that place large question marks against some of the fundamental assumptions that "democracy" in and of itself holds the answer. Hassner reminds us of the dangers to a liberal order that can emerge when frustration mixes with other unsavory elements in a potent populist brew.

Wolf's piece is neither a stirring clarion call nor an elegant bit of philosophising about the merits of classical liberalism. Rather, he argues simply that a "tough liberalism" (or shall we say, a reality-based liberalism?) is our last best hope, not simply to gain some of the promises of a dynamic, prosperous, interdependent world but to avoid its collapse. This is a liberalism that insists on tolerance, not as a virtue, but as a necessity for survival. Although commenting on the international system, his definition applies to liberalism more broadly:

We must agree, within reason, to differ. In essence, this means that we agree more on procedural norms than on substantive ones. Moreover, we enshrine those procedural norms within institutions.

Yet, as he underlines, liberalism requires some rudimentary degree of broadly shared trust. It cannot survive if it simply ignores festering conflicts, frustrations and injustices. It must be as inclusive as possible.

How we build trust at all levels of social and political interaction, from local communities to the international arena -- is our great challenge in a world where we rub against each other with a frequency and intensity hitherto unknown. And where, in a host of arenas, liberal principles and practices are being squeezed out of public space from all sides by ideological combatants with manichaean world-views. That's the "toughness" dilemma -- that liberalism itself cannot be tolerant of those who would destroy it. Yet how does liberalism fight its enemies other than by being itself, and how can it fight when its enemies choose their own battlefield?

Wolf points to many of the unique features of this stage of our world's history. But in some ways he is asking the same question we faced a century ago. Are we condemned again to another cycle of liberalism's triumphs containing the seeds of its own destruction?

article below the fold   more »

[update: Newsweek has posted an interview with Wolfensohn that covers some of the specific issues.]

Jim Wolfensohn is now fully engaged in what will be one of the toughest jobs in the world in the coming few months -- helping the Israelis and Palestinians navigate the Gaza withdrawal and prepare for its aftermath. At Gleneagles, he received support from the G8 for something, but exactly what the G8 promised is somewhat unclear. The relevant text from the G8:

We support Mr Wolfensohn’s intention to stimulate a global financial contribution of up to $3bn per year over the coming three years. Domestic and international investors should be full partners to this process. We are mobilising practical support for Mr Wolfensohn’s efforts and look forward to further development of his plans and their presentation to the Quartet and the international community in September. We note the strong interest of Arab States and members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and encourage them to provide substantial additional support.

This is a somewhat different formulation from the headlines from Blair's press conference at the close of the meetings. The pres generally heralded a G8 "commitment" to provide (up to?) $3 billion over several years. The "commitment" (to support a plan) was echoed in the "news story" produced by the State Department:

Progress was also made on promoting peace in the Middle East, with the G8 leaders agreeing to support a plan to provide the Palestinian Authority up to $3 billion over three years to help spur economic development and governance necessary for the Palestinians to capably govern themselves and provide stability in Palestinian territories.

To tease out from all of this the probable reality. The official document refers to a Wolfensohn plan to mobilize around $9 billion over a three-year period, with funding to come from Arab and Muslim countries and the private sector, not just from the G8. And the only official agreement from the G8 members is to "mobilize practical support" and meet in September. So in effect, they've given JDW a green-light to put a package together, and they seem to have penciled in somewhere in the neighborhood of a third of the financing he's proposing to raise. But it's his plan to go raise all this money, not theirs.

Now a green light like that is all that a world class dealmaker needs to get going, and remember that Wolfensohn made his fortune as an investment banker. So taking full advantage of the headlines ($3 billion commitment, yahoo!), Wolfensohn has just begun a six-day trip to the region by meeting with Mohammed Dahlan, who is currently the Palestinians' civil affairs minister.

[...]Wolfensohn... described his meeting with Dahlan as "a very pragmatic and frank discussion" that dealt with all aspects of social and economic matters.

"I was asked by the G8 to come back (at the end of September) with a plan devised with the Palestinian Authority (PA) for this economic support," he said.

"We are looking very carefully at tangible evidence that will be shown to the Palestinian people a day after the withdrawal," he said. "We're talking about programmes which will be implemented immediately."

[...]Wolfensohn's visit will see him meeting with top Israeli and Palestinian officials in a bid to focus on six areas that require coordination, a statement from his office said.

They include: border crossings and trade corridors, connection of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, freedom of movement in the West Bank, the establishment of an airport and sea ports in Gaza, the houses which will be evacuated by the Gaza settlers, and the settlers' greenhouses.

He was also to work with the Palestinians on three key economic and developmental issues: resolution of the PA's fiscal crisis and establishment of a new social safety net programme; a package of "rapid impact" initiatives for dealing with unemployment immediately after the withdrawal, and a three-year plan for Palestinian development. [emph added ed.]

Lots of questions up in the air, such as where the funding is to come from for "immediate" projects, or whether Congress will continue to hamstring the Bush Administration by forbidding any monies to pass through the hands of the PA. Perhaps State is hoping that Congress will ease up once there's an overall international plan, with effective oversight mechanisms, through which the US contributions would flow.

That being said, Wolfensohn already knows his portfolio well -- a significant part of the assessments and planning that he will be drawing on has been produced by the organization he headed for ten years until just a month ago, the World Bank. A considerable number of studies and reports on the specific issues he listed have been produced over the last several years by the Bank's staff, working closely with both Israelis and Palestinians. And on security issues with others, especially the Egyptians.

Wolfensohn's intimate knowledge of the politics, the players, and the technical issues, his ability to use the media adeptly, and his dealmaking skills when it comes to raising money from both public and private sources -- plus the sheer force of his personality -- make him uniquely qualified for this almost impossible task. The main risk -- other than the general explosiveness of the whole situation -- is that JDW sure is fond of personal glory, as Sebastian Mallaby has amply detailed. But JDW has learned a lot of lessons over the past ten years, and in the final analysis, he's also a realist.

Here's hoping that being the Quartet's envoy won't be a totally thankless task.

cross-posted at Liberals Against Terrorism

One of my favorite personal diarist bloggers is a droll EMT with the London Ambulance Service. Funny about reading blogs -- the first thought that crossed my mind when I saw the emergency vehicles on BCC was, I wonder whether "Random Acts of Reality" is in one of those. Turns out he wasn't on duty, but he headed in to handle back-up for the "normal" work of the LAS while others were busy with handling the bombings. Among his end-of-the-day reactions:

Once the shock had settled, I started to feel immense pride that the LAS, the other emergency services, the hospitals, and all the other support groups and organisations were all doing such an excellent job. To my eyes it seemed that the Major Incident planning was going smoothly, turning chaos into order.

And what you need to remember is that this wasn't a major incident, but instead four major incidents, all happening at once.

I think everyone involved, from the experts, to the members of public who helped each other, should feel pride that they performed so well in this crisis.

London won't be beaten, we spent 20 years under the shadow of the IRA, and are used to terrorists.

That seems to pretty much sum up the general sentiment of most British bloggers and their commenters.

Via the blog of the UN Foundation, UN Dispatch, quoting an AP story:

Secretary-General Kofi Annan has announced the creation of a fund to promote democratic institutions and practices around the world - an idea first proposed by the United States.

President Bush suggested the creation of a fund in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September. He said it would help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting the rule of law, independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions.

Somewhat ironically, given the recent run of rather depressing news about the state of democracy in Africa, it was at the African Union summit earlier this week that Annan announced the initiative (pdf). It's also not entirely clear whether Africa is all that high a geopolitical priority for the Bush Administration in proposing the fund, given its strategic emphasis on promoting democracy in other regions. But Kofi, ever the diplomat, made the most of his announcement.

more below the fold   more »

Donald Rumsfeld is off in Singapore, at a conference of defense types, lecturing the Chinese on their military modernization expenditures. "Whadda ya need all that military hardware for?" he asks. "Who's threatening you? Some of your neighbors might take it the wrong way!"

The Chinese must be biting their tongues not to say, "We were wondering the same about you, with your plans to spend billions on "military transformation" and your precious "lily pads" sprouting nearby." Especially since the Bush Administration apparently expects the Chinese central bank to provide the financing.

With all the ink split and airwaves filled about John Bolton and UN reform, very little in the way of "what exactly do we mean by reform" has been discussed by either proponents or opponents of Bolton's nomination. I admit to a certain sympathy for Tom Friedman's recent takedown of the GOP cries for "UN reform."

"Reforming the U.N." is without question one of the most tired, vacuous conservative mantras ever invented. It is right up there with squeezing "waste, fraud and abuse" out of the Pentagon's budget.

Still, I think Suzanne Nossel does us all a terrific service at Democracy Arsenal in explaining where UN reform really does matter. She outlines a number of key issues, as well as the stands being taken by different players.

Suzanne presents her piece as "on the margin of the Bolton debate." If, however, as has been speculated, the White House is considering pushing Bolton to the Senate floor even if the Committee sends his nomination with a negative recommendation, the sole reason -- other than an assertion of presidential power -- will be to tar the Democrats as "UN-huggers" who don't want an "effective UN." Such a circus will do neither the Democrats nor US foreign policy any good.

For that reason, I think it's extremely healthy for the policy blogs like Democracy Arsenal to expand beyond Bolton himself to the specifics of UN reform. The point is not that the Bush position on reform (at least as it's likely to be pursued by Rice) is either necessarily disingenuous or bad per se. Nor is it that the Bolton opponents are opposing Bolton as a way of undermining Bush's position on the UN. Rather, it's that Bolton is the wrong guy to pursue a reform agenda that is broadly shared on both sides of the aisle.

To make that case effectively requires Bolton's opponents to do more than simply saying "me too." It's not enough to say vaguely that the UN needs reform. That isn't very persuasive, and it has the added negative effect of being just general UN-bashing, rather than focusing on expanding on what the UN does well and changing it where it needs to change.

Suzanne also makes the point that it's important to identify where specific reform priorities overlap with Kofi Annan's proposals, and where the sticking points are. As she illustrates, a lot of those sticking points will be found in disagreements between the US and either Annan or other groups of countries, NOT between a majority of Republicans and Democrats.

Suzanne points us to a recent speech at the UN by Shirin Tahir-Kheli, the person Condi Rice has put in charge of the reform effort and the response to Annan's proposals. There are lots of tricky issues that are finessed in the speech. But I think most of us will find there's much to like in the Rice agenda so far. Which just makes the Bolton appointment all the more maddening and inexplicable!

{cross-posted at Liberals Against Terrorism}

This is one of those inside-baseball posts, but it's very good news for the development community.

The nominee for the new head of the United Nations Development Program -- replacing Mark Malloch Brown who has moved to Kofi Annan's chief of staff -- is Kemal Dervis from Turkey. For those of you who have read Sebastian Mallaby's book on Jim Wolfensohn's stint at the World Bank, you'll remember Kemal as one of the most colorful characters in one of Mallaby's most riveting tales. Kemal was the World Bank manager under whom the extraordinarily difficult and innovative Bosnia emergency assistance package was put together in 1994 -- which was crucial to the success of bringing Dayton to a conclusion. And as Mallaby notes [p. 121]:

a few years later, when he returned to Turkey to take up an appointment as his country's finance minister, the stock market jumped as his plane landed in Ankara and he was greeted as a savior.

I'm not going so far as to hail Kemal Dervis as UNDP's "savior," although given UNDP's leading role regarding the Millennium Development Goals and an uncertain mandate with respect to crisis prevention and recovery, this is one challenging job. It's great to see someone who is both a fine mind and a risk-taker in a major leadership role in the international civil service. Kudos to Kofi for selecting him from among 100 candidates.

Here's a snip from the UN press release today:

UNDP is the largest of the independently funded UN agencies and, under its special General Assembly mandate, leads the UN's work on eradicating extreme poverty and promoting good governance in the developing world. Its staff is active in 166 countries.

Mr. Dervis' current activities, such as participation in the Global Progressive Forum and the Progressive Governance Network, have been aimed at "finding ways to make globalization into a more stable and inclusive process and to further international cooperation," UNDP said.

He is the author of a book published last month called "For Better Globalization," speaks fluent English, French and German, besides Turkish, and holds a doctorate in economics from Princeton University and Master's and Bachelor's degrees from the London School of Economics (LSE).

{cross-posted at Liberals Against Terrorism}

I realize I'm about nine years too late to this argument by now, but I finally got around to reading Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations during the course of my paper on him for my "Ideas in American Foreign Policy" course, which has been one of many things keeping me preoccupied lately. Anyone who's interested can find the final draft after the break — it's a little book-reportish at points, and my conclusion was a little muddled since I'm still not sure what I ultimately think of Huntington's arguments, but maybe some will find it interesting.   more »

Stephen Hadley, briefing the press on President Bush's itinerary for his round of European fence-mending:

On Monday afternoon, the President will deliver a speech at the Concert Noble. The speech will focus on his vision of a united transatlantic community, working together to promote freedom and democracy, particularly in the broader Middle East. The speech will build upon the President's inaugural address and State of the Union remarks. It will be an opportunity for him to communicate directly with the people of Europe, and will show America's desire to work in partnership with Europe, based on common values, to advance the cause of freedom.

To be followed by a working dinner with Chirac.

This could be interesting. Get ready with your text parsers, your dog-earred copies of the inaugural and the SOTU, and tune your browsers to your favorite Continental rags.

I must apologize for being remiss in my duties here at chez Nadezhda over the past few days. The front desk has been left empty for extended periods, and it's really my fault. Praktike has been on an amazing production streak at LaT and the Chef has been covered with dust from head to toe reclassifying the entire central library collection at TerrorWiki. Prak has been kind enough to cover the front desk here from time to time.

I've been off doing some remodelling, as well as planning another room (I'm afraid I'm a frustrated interior designer at heart!). And I forgot to leave a note on the door to go round back.

So here's a bit of something until the crew leaves and I get the construction mess cleaned up.

These are comments I wrote over at Eric Martin's place a week before the inauguration. I think you might find some of it relevant to discussions since the inaugural address -- how the Bush Administration is repositioning re the "GWOT" vocabulary, the relations between the CIA and DOD in covert operations, and the rumbles of cross-border excursions in Iraq.

The comments aren't addressed to the specifics of the current brouhahas, but sometimes I have to remind myself to keep the big picture in mind as I react to specific events or disclosures, especially the more outrageous. So I find it helpful to occassionally go back to look at something I said, even if it was only a week ago. [ed., no comments about senior moments now, you hear?]

---

For context, the discussion at Eric's was about Norman Podhoretz' "revisionism in real time" (to use Eric's felicitous formulation) and the various "enemies within" to which Norman's salvo was likely addressed. My remarks begin with an important and timely question from Alex:

A serious question: If Bush decides to invade another country [i.e. Iran or Syria, ed.], do you think he will attempt to use the congressional authorization from the Iraq War for permission, OR do you think that he will ask for a new authorization, OR do you think he'll just go ahead?

Sorry, I'm impatient. Can't wait for your answers. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS CONGRESS WITH AUTHORIZE ANY NEW WAR DURING THE REMAINDER OF THIS PRESIDENCY, excepting following an attack of course. Zero.

My response, edited a bit for readibility but otherwise just stream of keyboard:

See the excellent recent Lawrence Freedman piece on The Iraq Syndrome, which will be Rumsfeld's legacy, in the same way Robert McNamara's was the Vietnam Syndrome. My very quicky remarks on Freedman are here.

I believe Freedman is absolutely correct about an Iraq Syndrome. There's a big difference between a significant portion of the public being willing to continue to support (or at least not openly oppose) Bush and the US invasion because "America right or wrong." They get their backs up when somebody suggests that the President and the US did the wrongn thing.

It's another thing altogether for those same people to support a further adventure. They're going to be awfully gun-shy, pun intended.

The causus belli would have to be sufficiently major that it triggered the viscera of Americans across the political spectrum. The US would have to feel itself under direct attack -- not some argument of possible future threat that must be prevented or preempted. Unless we have a meltdown of our political system, the Bush Doctrine as a military strategy is dead, but there's not anything yet in its place.

If a new intervention were pushed by the Bush Administration, a much larger portion of the general public this time around would want to know in great many more of the details about military overstretch, quagmires and exit strategy, possible "blowback," etc. These issues were dismissable in the wake of 9/11, with the drumbeats being echoed by the MSM, and with the "lessons of Vietnam" dismissed as either irrelevant or "we've gotten over Vietnam by now."

By contrast, Iraq is, shall we say, still fresh in the mind? We've got a new situation that's looking more and more like quagmire from any and every angle. And this time around, the MSM has a whole other narrative in which to filter and frame pronouncements from the Bush Administraton.

I'd say the foregoing description of a general public that is more cautious or less willing to take Bush's pronounements on faith is similarly equally true for a goodly portion of Repubs on Capitol Hill. Most are not of the neo-con persuasion. Also, they're politicians, so the reluctance of a larger portion of their voters, and the willingness of a larger number of their home districts to take a hard look at the bill-of-goods the Bush Admin would be selling if they followed the Poddy script, is likely to put the brakes on any adventure. We're already hearing rumbles from Repub Congressmen after visiting their home districts.

All of this is equally applicable, BTW, to any proposal for humanitarian interventions that involve peacemaking -- not just helping disaster victims like the tsunami. The Iraq Syndrome will put any thoughts of a repeat of interventions in the Balkans, or going into a Sudan, under the microscope across the political spectrum, not just from the old-fashioned anti-war Left or the isolationist Right.

The thing to watch for is mission creep in Iraq. Please note that although Rumsfeld was pretty direct about denying US-supported Iraqi death squads (by the Pentagon, didn't say anything about the other agency, heh) he was notably less straightforward about crossing the border into Syria by US special forces.

[ed., I highlighted Rumsfeld's statements on Syria because I found astounding the naivete of certain right-wing bloggers when they dumped on Rumsfeld for being too "casual" in his reaction to the Newsweek article on the Salvador option. Donald Rumsfeld may decide to appear breezy some times in responding to the press, but his responses are never "casual." If he said he hadn't read the article, you can go to the bank on the statement as being factually accurate. If you inferred, however, that he was unaware of every last jot of every sentence in the article in terms of what he could and couldn't safely say, you are a fool. He is the only one of the leading lights of BushAdmin1 to have been caught in an out-and-out falsehood over the invasion of Iraq only once. And that case appears to have been a slip of the tongue he has regretted fiercely. Always, always parce Rumsfeld -- most especially when he's being "casual."]

I hate to keep returning to Vietnam, but there are features of that conflict that should at least be examined occasionally. One is the understandable temptation by both the WH and the military to go to where they think the source of the problem lies -- across the neighboring borders. The international and domestic political fallout can be considerable, as the Cambodian bombings demonstrated. And mission creep can also be a factor in spreading instability outside of the country of conflict. That's just a commonsense observation, not a moral judgment.

Now one of the big problems is that, unless we take Kristol's proposal and bomb the Syrians openly, the BushAdmin and the military have to conduct deniable operations. That means one or both of two things. We ultimately engage unofficial/paramilitary groups to do the incursions. We lie through our teeth about it publicly.

The latter course was adopted by the Nixon WH with respect to Cambodia (hey -- Kerry's Cambodia story to this day can't be documented because it's shrouded in a system designed for deniability). And at some point, deniability exploded in their face, and LBJ's Credibility Gap became Nixon's Grand Canyon of government-by-deceit. That was a terrible scar on US domestic politics writ large, not just on the future conduct of US foreign policy.

Now, as for Finlandization [ed. appropo of Podhoretz]. I don't have a reference for you at my fingertips that gives you a broader history. But it's the Poddy codeword for the sinister policies of creeping appeasement of the guys who were running the show in Reagan II -- not the stalwart anticommunists of Iran-contra and the NSC but the (sneer) diplomats. He and Midge were still yammering about Finlandization at conferences on Europe after October 1989!

The reemergence of Jimmy Baker must have them in a cold sweat. Baker is the incarnation of evil because he's so much more plausible than the cartoonish anti-war Left. Granted the Podhoretz crowd is all geared up for realtime revisionism (take a gander at Roger Simon's comment section on the Podhoretz article if you want to see an awesome example of your [Eric's] meme in action). But if you want to know who their real enemy is, it's Jimmy Baker and his ilk because that smooth talker is one dangerous man.

-----------------------------

Follow-up from Alex:

[O]ne major difference between now and Cambodia is the media. I think secret runs into Syria would land on Al Jazeera in a heartbeat, although I do allow for the possibility that there is lots going on in Iraq that we simply don't know is happening. From what I understand from press reports, the press is quite restricted from moving around by the insecurity.

Another question that I find interesting to contemplate is the military force size question in relation to the possibility of invading "the next country." Unless all the retired military analysts are lying about our force strength, attacking a new country doesn't seem feasible at this time. And that begs the question of just what we would do if WE were attacked here and wanted to retaliate. Shift forces from Iraq or Afghanistan?

I think if it really came to that, particularly following an attack, that there would be a serious readjustment in the world view to send troops, including NATO and maybe UN, to replace troops in Iraq and redirect them (maybe borrow some from Afghan., too). What I don't like is being in the position of being so vulnerable, especially for no good reason.

I heard that Baker had made a statement, but I haven't tracked down what he said yet. In fact, I have been waiting for him to speak ever since Scowcroft's and Zbig's comments last week. What I would dearly love to know is the current status among Bush 41, Brent and Baker. Can you say strained?

------------------------------

From nadezhda to Alex --

Here's a link to a press report of Baker's speech.

It's about time! However, the way I read the situation, Baker is out there running interference for Dubya. This is where the BushAdmin is generally headed, but somebody's got to tell the faithful that it's time for a reality-based policy. Rude awakening for many, I fear, if the comment thread on Roger Simon re the Podhoretz article is any indication.