Cheney

February 28, 2007 § Leave a comment

Some day figuring him out will clarify the history of this administration. Here the suggestion is in the use of the word “business”, as if that is what government is. He shows no intrest in american history or institutions, or concern that he works for us.

David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times: “Vice President Dick Cheney, thinly veiled as a ‘senior administration official,’ told reporters on his plane on Tuesday that it was not correct that he ‘went in to beat up on’ the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, for failing to confront Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

“‘That’s not the way I work,’ said Mr. Cheney, violating the first rule of conducting a background interview: never refer to yourself in the first person, when it makes it obvious who is talking. ‘The idea that I’d go in and threaten someone is an invalid misreading of the way I do business.'”

Source: White House Watch — News on President George W Bush and the Bush Administration – washingtonpost.com

Advertisements

Drezner, D.: All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes.

February 28, 2007 § Leave a comment

Who does the inernational regulatory sustain? 

All Politics Is Global:
Explaining International Regulatory Regimes

Daniel W. Drezner

riviewer..

Has globalization diluted the power of national governments to regulate their own economies? Are international governmental and nongovernmental organizations weakening the hold of nation-states on global regulatory agendas? Many observers think so. But in All Politics Is Global, Daniel Drezner argues that this view is wrong. Despite globalization, states–especially the great powers–still dominate international regulatory regimes, and the regulatory goals of states are driven by their domestic interests.

As Drezner shows, state size still matters. The great powers–the United States and the European Union–remain the key players in writing global regulations, and their power is due to the size of their internal economic markets. If they agree, there will be effective global governance. If they don’t agree, governance will be fragmented or ineffective. And, paradoxically, the most powerful sources of great-power preferences are the least globalized elements of their economies.

PART I: THEORY

CHAPTER ONE: Bringing the Great Powers Back In 3
CHAPTER TWO: A Theory of Regulatory Outcomes 32
CHAPTER THREE: A Typology of Governance Processes 63

PART II: PRACTICE

CHAPTER FOUR: The Global Governance of the Internet 91
CHAPTER FIVE: Club Standards and International Finance 119
CHAPTER SIX: Rival Standards and Genetically Modified Organisms 149
CHAPTER SEVEN: The “Semi-Deviant” Case: TRIPS and Public Health 176
CHAPTER EIGHT: Conclusions and Speculations 204

Source: Drezner, D.: All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes.

American Idealism and Realpolitik – Forbes.com

February 28, 2007 § Leave a comment

Johnson is a serious fellow. Let’s see..

American Idealism and Realpolitik
Paul Johnson 03.12.07, 12:00 AM ET

America is the reluctant sheriff of a wild world that sometimes seems mired in wrongdoing.

I am not convinced of neither reluctant or sherrif. Seems to me we have sought this role as a way of expanding economic interest. Yes, it gets aligned with ideals, but only in rhetoric to sell the proposal. This is  said at the time when the world is seeing America as in need of restraint from outside, and a major party to the cause of the wildness, through economic overreach and globalization.

The UN has nothing to offer in the way of enforcing laws and dispensing justice, other than spouting pious oratory and initiating feeble missions that usually do more harm than good.

Not of its own doing. The security council wont let it.

NATO plays a limited role, as in Afghan-istan, but tends to reflect the timidity (and cowardice) of Continental Europe. Britain and a few other nations such as Australia are willing to follow America’s lead but are too weak to act on their own.

That leaves the U.S. to shoulder the responsibility.

As a public service? I doubt it. But can it be argued well each way?  The US has acted to get the world to follow its economic rules, and has boycotted when it didn’t like the results (Kyoto).

 

Otherwise–what? Is brute force to replace the rule of law in the world because there’s no one to enforce it? I wish some of those who constantly criticize America’s efforts and the judgment of President Bush would ask themselves this simple question: Would you really like to live in a world where the U.S. sits idly by and lets things happen?

Life in such a world would be like the bestial existence described in Thomas Hobbes’ great work, Leviathan. If people “live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.” In that lawless state there will be “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

In the 350 years since Hobbes wrote his book nothing essential has changed. For proof, look at the poor people of Sudan, in whose struggle the U.S. has not been willing to intervene and whose lives are exactly as Hobbes described. The same is true in Somalia, where the U.S. has been indecisive and vacillating. And this was the case in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S., with great misgiving, finally responded to pressure and sent in its forces.

It’s fortunate for the world that in areas in which international law doesn’t operate and rogue states do as they please, America will sometimes agree to play Leviathan in order to establish law, at the risk of huge financial expense and its soldiers’ lives. It does so because it is a country founded on idealism. A majority of Americans have always believed that a society, under God, must come to the rescue of the poor, weak and oppressed if it has the means to do so. The U.S. has applied this idealism systematically to the world as a whole and in many different ways, from the Marshall Plan, which helped raise Europe from ruin in 1948, to declaring war on international terrorism five years ago.

On the Horns of a Dilemma

America is fundamentally and instinctively idealistic. But following these ideals and acting as the world’s policeman raises moral issues. We all agree that the sheriff must be righteous, brave and resolute. But should he also, if the situation demands, be cunning, devious and Machiavellian? In short, should America, along with its idealism, also practice realpolitik? And won’t these two forces be in constant practical and moral conflict?

It’s difficult to exercise authority in large parts of the world and, to use Hobbes’ phrase, “keep them all in awe,” without a touch of realpolitik. Britain discovered this in the 19th century, just as the Romans had two millennia before. Moreover, as British statesmen such as Benjamin Disraeli and Robert Cecil, Lord Salisbury, found, imperial realpolitik expressed itself principally in two cynical maxims: “Divide and rule” and “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.” These two maxims are rearing their heads again in the Middle East, and almost unwittingly–and certainly not from any set purpose–the U.S. finds itself following them.

U.S. intervention in Iraq has had the inevitable consequence of fueling the Sunni-Shia feud, which has raged in Islam for 1,000 years at varying degrees of intensity. It’s now running hotter than ever, and likely to get worse, as more and more of the Middle East is drawn into it. Of course, with the Sunnis fighting the Shia, they have less time and energy to fight the West, and America finds it easier to rule. But this raises moral dilemmas that the U.S. has so far failed to resolve or publicly recognize.

Another situation where realpolitik could come into play is Iran’s nuclear power quest. The moment Iran possesses and can deliver nuclear bombs it will use them against Israel, destroying the entire country and its inhabitants. If this danger becomes imminent, Israel has the means–if suitably assisted–to launch a preemptive strike. Should the U.S. provide such assistance and moral encouragement?

China’s progress in advanced military technology, especially Star Wars-like rocket defenses, is also giving American strategists problems: How should the U.S. react? The realpolitik answer would be to assist India, China’s natural rival and potential antagonist in east and central Asia, to achieve technological parity. But would it be right to do so?

These kinds of questions can arise almost anywhere but do so especially around ruthless totalitarian regimes that are attempting to acquire more military power than is safe to allow them. North Korea is a case in point. It’s one thing for the U.S. to make clear that it will defend its allies, such as South Korea and Japan, from nuclear threats. That is straightforward and honorable. But the realpolitik solution would be to assist and encourage China to deal with the problem of a nuclear-armed and aggressive North Korea, the strategy being based on another old maxim: “Set a thief to catch a thief.”

I don’t envy those in Washington whose duty it is to resolve the dilemma between idealism and realpolitik. But they will not go far wrong if they respect the great tripod on which all geopolitical wisdom rests: the rule of law, the consultation of the people and the certitude that, however strong we may be, we are answerable to a higher power.

Paul Johnson, eminent British historian and author; Lee Kuan Yew, minister mentor of Singapore; Ernesto Zedillo, director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, former president of Mexico; and David Malpass, chief economist for Bear Stearns Co., Inc., rotate in writing this column. To see past Current Events columns, visit our Web site at www.forbes.com/currentevents.
Subscribe to Forbes and Save. Click Here.

Source: American Idealism and Realpolitik – Forbes.com

Iran and the Core

February 28, 2007 § Leave a comment

If the choice is betwen globalizationa and fundamentalism, fundamentalism will win. Not because it is so terrific, but because “globaization” is such a destructive process for so many. The sane way forward, I believe,  is to soften the binary choice.

Good book review at
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/ashton.html

Western Imperialism in the Middle East, 1914–1958
David K. Fieldhouse
Jesus College, University of Cambridge

American Idealism and Realpolitik – Forbes.com

February 27, 2007 § Leave a comment

Johnson is a serious fellow. Let’s see..

American Idealism and Realpolitik
Paul Johnson 03.12.07, 12:00 AM ET

America is the reluctant sheriff of a wild world that sometimes seems mired in wrongdoing.

I am not convinced of neither reluctant or sherrif. Seems to me we have sought this role as a way of expanding ecnomic interest. Yes, it gets aigned with ideals, but only in rhetoric to sell the proposal. This is  said at the time when the world is seeing america as in need of restraint from outside, and a major party to the cause of the wildness, through ecoeomic overreach and globalization.

The UN has nothing to offer in the way of enforcing laws and dispensing justice, other than spouting pious oratory and initiating feeble missions that usually do more harm than good.

Not of its own doing. The security council wont let it.

NATO plays a limited role, as in Afghan-istan, but tends to reflect the timidity (and cowardice) of Continental Europe. Britain and a few other nations such as Australia are willing to follow America’s lead but are too weak to act on their own.

That leaves the U.S. to shoulder the responsibility. Otherwise–what? Is brute force to replace the rule of law in the world because there’s no one to enforce it? I wish some of those who constantly criticize America’s efforts and the judgment of President Bush would ask themselves this simple question: Would you really like to live in a world where the U.S. sits idly by and lets things happen?

Life in such a world would be like the bestial existence described in Thomas Hobbes’ great work, Leviathan. If people “live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.” In that lawless state there will be “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

In the 350 years since Hobbes wrote his book nothing essential has changed. For proof, look at the poor people of Sudan, in whose struggle the U.S. has not been willing to intervene and whose lives are exactly as Hobbes described. The same is true in Somalia, where the U.S. has been indecisive and vacillating. And this was the case in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S., with great misgiving, finally responded to pressure and sent in its forces.

It’s fortunate for the world that in areas in which international law doesn’t operate and rogue states do as they please, America will sometimes agree to play Leviathan in order to establish law, at the risk of huge financial expense and its soldiers’ lives. It does so because it is a country founded on idealism. A majority of Americans have always believed that a society, under God, must come to the rescue of the poor, weak and oppressed if it has the means to do so. The U.S. has applied this idealism systematically to the world as a whole and in many different ways, from the Marshall Plan, which helped raise Europe from ruin in 1948, to declaring war on international terrorism five years ago.

On the Horns of a Dilemma

America is fundamentally and instinctively idealistic. But following these ideals and acting as the world’s policeman raises moral issues. We all agree that the sheriff must be righteous, brave and resolute. But should he also, if the situation demands, be cunning, devious and Machiavellian? In short, should America, along with its idealism, also practice realpolitik? And won’t these two forces be in constant practical and moral conflict?

It’s difficult to exercise authority in large parts of the world and, to use Hobbes’ phrase, “keep them all in awe,” without a touch of realpolitik. Britain discovered this in the 19th century, just as the Romans had two millennia before. Moreover, as British statesmen such as Benjamin Disraeli and Robert Cecil, Lord Salisbury, found, imperial realpolitik expressed itself principally in two cynical maxims: “Divide and rule” and “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.” These two maxims are rearing their heads again in the Middle East, and almost unwittingly–and certainly not from any set purpose–the U.S. finds itself following them.

U.S. intervention in Iraq has had the inevitable consequence of fueling the Sunni-Shia feud, which has raged in Islam for 1,000 years at varying degrees of intensity. It’s now running hotter than ever, and likely to get worse, as more and more of the Middle East is drawn into it. Of course, with the Sunnis fighting the Shia, they have less time and energy to fight the West, and America finds it easier to rule. But this raises moral dilemmas that the U.S. has so far failed to resolve or publicly recognize.

Another situation where realpolitik could come into play is Iran’s nuclear power quest. The moment Iran possesses and can deliver nuclear bombs it will use them against Israel, destroying the entire country and its inhabitants. If this danger becomes imminent, Israel has the means–if suitably assisted–to launch a preemptive strike. Should the U.S. provide such assistance and moral encouragement?

China’s progress in advanced military technology, especially Star Wars-like rocket defenses, is also giving American strategists problems: How should the U.S. react? The realpolitik answer would be to assist India, China’s natural rival and potential antagonist in east and central Asia, to achieve technological parity. But would it be right to do so?

These kinds of questions can arise almost anywhere but do so especially around ruthless totalitarian regimes that are attempting to acquire more military power than is safe to allow them. North Korea is a case in point. It’s one thing for the U.S. to make clear that it will defend its allies, such as South Korea and Japan, from nuclear threats. That is straightforward and honorable. But the realpolitik solution would be to assist and encourage China to deal with the problem of a nuclear-armed and aggressive North Korea, the strategy being based on another old maxim: “Set a thief to catch a thief.”

I don’t envy those in Washington whose duty it is to resolve the dilemma between idealism and realpolitik. But they will not go far wrong if they respect the great tripod on which all geopolitical wisdom rests: the rule of law, the consultation of the people and the certitude that, however strong we may be, we are answerable to a higher power.

Paul Johnson, eminent British historian and author; Lee Kuan Yew, minister mentor of Singapore; Ernesto Zedillo, director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, former president of Mexico; and David Malpass, chief economist for Bear Stearns Co., Inc., rotate in writing this column. To see past Current Events columns, visit our Web site at www.forbes.com/currentevents.
Subscribe to Forbes and Save. Click Here.

Source: American Idealism and Realpolitik – Forbes.com

Schwarzenegger and conversation

February 27, 2007 § Leave a comment

 This is good.

Schwarzenegger: Politicians need to ‘schmooze’ with each other

WASHINGTON (CNN) — California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger implored Washington politicians to act more like those from his home state, during a speech that stressed bipartisanship at the National Press Club Monday.
“Division is what Washington has come to represent,” he said. “For too long this town has been about divide and conquer. Find an issue that splits our country in half, then crack it just enough so you can come out ahead.”
Schwarzenegger also suggested Democrats and Republicans in Washington spend more time socializing with each other.
“I asked myself the question, how come Republicans and Democrats out here don’t schmooze with each other?” he said. “You can’t catch a socially transmitted disease by sitting down with people who hold ideas that are different from yours.”
The former actor even suggested President Bush should get himself a “smoking tent” where members from both parties can meet.
“I have a politically incorrect smoking tent — I don’t know if you have heard about that one,” Schwarzenegger said. “People come in there, Democrats and Republicans, and they take off their jackets and rip off their ties and they sit down and they smoke a stogy and they talk and they schmooze.”

Source: CNN.com – CNN Political Ticker

Montana and fast track legislation

February 27, 2007 § Leave a comment

 The return of state rightin a positive and progressive way.. Ths is justt an excerpt from the bill

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA URGING CONGRESS TO CREATE A SYSTEM THAT ENSURES THAT TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED USING A DEMOCRATIC, INCLUSIVE MECHANISM THAT ENSHRINES THE PRINCIPLES OF FEDERALISM AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY.

     WHEREAS, democratic, accountable governance in the states generally, and specifically the authority granted by the Montana Constitution to the Legislative Branch, is being undermined by international commercial and trade rules enforced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and established by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and is further threatened by similar provisions in an array of pending trade agreements; and

     WHEREAS, today’s “trade” agreements have impacts that extend significantly beyond the bounds of traditional trade matters, such as tariffs and quotas, and instead grant foreign investors and service providers certain rights and privileges regarding acquisition of land and facilities and regarding operations within a state’s territory, subject state laws to challenge as “nontariff barriers to trade” in the binding dispute resolution bodies that accompany the pacts, and place limits on the future policy options of state legislatures; and

     WHEREAS, NAFTA and other U.S. free trade agreements grant foreign firms new rights and privileges for operating within a state that exceed those rights and privileges granted to U.S. businesses under state and federal law; and

Source: SJ0017

Where Am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for February, 2007 at Reflections on GardenWorld Politics Douglass Carmichael.