U.S. Role in the World

Staying with the subject of the G20 Summit, I was looking over the White House website for the summit, they provide a fact sheet on the agreement reached by the world leaders last weekend in Washington, it makes for interesting reading. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also takes a look back at the summit, noting two opinion pieces that offer advice for the U.S. effort to deal with the financial crisis:

Leaders from the G-20 countries met in Washington this weekend to discuss the global economic crisis. The inclusion of countries like China, India, and Brazil in these talks points to an important redistribution of economic power beyond the traditional industrialized nations. Albert Keidel explains how China’s historic decision to fund a $600 billion domestic stimulus package provides a road map for future U.S. policy. David Rothkopf argues that President-elect Obama will need to promote stronger multilateral institutions to govern global markets.

It’s interesting that much of the commentary I’ve read about the summit has noted the historic nature of Bush’s invitation to the leaders of emerging economies to join the summit. For a leader in search of a legacy it may be that his inclusion of these countries may have done more to promote multilateralism than the efforts of other countries whose actions seem to be based more on a thinly veiled anti-Americanism than a true desire to build a new international consensus.

Here are some additional international headlines on the summit:

• The Daily Yomiuri (Japan) - G-20 leaders resolve to overcome crisis
• Business Standard (India) - G-20 for overhaul of financial rules
• Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) - US agrees to share world’s financial top billing
• Independent Online (South Africa) - World leaders vow closer co-operation
• Financial Post (Canada) - Tradition and reality outweigh rivalries
• Deutsche Welle (Germany) - Media Questions Merits of G20 Summit
• The Age (Australia) - G20’s first steps

Center for American Progress Action Fund vice president Nina Hachigian comments to Politico on the implications of the financial crisis for the U.S. role in the world:

The financial crisis is horrible, but it’s reinforcing two central truths. First, that we really have to focus on home and getting our domestic house in order and getting our domestic economy growing again. In order for us to continue to be successful, to attract capital here, we really need to invest in our domestic education and health care infrastructure. … The other thing the financial crisis highlights is that we are all interdependent and what we do here can affect Europe. We need investments from Asian countries - this is all one boat that we are in together.

According to this post-summit report from The New York Times the world leaders gathered in Washington demonstrated a willingness to accept that interdependence and embraced new policies to make that interdependence more transparent and accountable. Specific actions will be hammered out in the coming months at the ministerial level while the G20 heads plan for the next meeting to be hosted by President Obama.

President Bush will welcome world leaders to Washington this weekend to address the global financial crisis. He has already signaled his resistance to increased regulation of global finance in advance of the competing agendas the leaders will bring to the table. This AP report examines the diverse proposals world leaders bring to Washington and it makes clear that Bush’s status-quo approach may not sit well with his peers who are eager for  major reform on par with the Bretton Woods agreement which established the post-war  financial system. It’s worth noting, that agreement was negotiated and implemented over many years, it’s doubtful that a weekend summit will lead to a comprehensive successor. Perhaps this meeting will merely be an opportunity for the world leaders to set forth their initial negotiating positions while leaving it to a future conference, one attended by the new American president, to forge a new framework for the global financial system.

I mentioned yesterday the Russian challenge to Obama, an escalation in the dispute over missile defense in Europe. Why is Russia mounting a nuclear challenge to a candidate who promised to dramatically change the U.S. nuclear policy by seeking a ban on the production of fissile materials, a reduction in nuclear stockpiles, a reaffirmation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and securing loose nuclear materials worldwide? One would think that this is a nuclear agenda that Russia would welcome. Of course, we don’t necessarily have to cast this in terms of nuclear policy, the U.S. ABM interceptors will not be nuclear and the Russian missiles probably won’t be nuclear either (they have stated that the missiles will be Iskander missiles, a nuclear-capable short-range mobile ground-launched missile), but the question remains, why alienate a president-elect that by all accounts is willing to adopt a more flexible and moderate approach than his predecessor? Stratfor suggests that the Russian action has less to do with missile defense and more to do with dividing Europe:

We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention — and U.S. power — to bear.

Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can’t afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War. The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force. The Russians will be prepared to talk, and will want to talk a great deal, all the while pursuing their own national interest of increasing their power in what they call their “near abroad.”

President-Elect Obama will need to tap into every bit of the European goodwill they offered him during his campaign if he hopes to forge a united allied response to this Russian strategy.

The FPA’s Pakistan blog notes that conditions are dire in Pakistan’s quake zone. Given the fragility of the U.S. alliance with Pakistan (due in part to recent drone attacks), there is an opportunity here to work on relationship building. An immediate and substantial offer of humanitarian assistance by the U.S. would go a long way toward winning the hearts and minds of the local population. Let’s demonstrate that the U.S stands by allies in times of trouble.

The next president will have an opportunity to improve the image of the U.S. role in the world. A recent survey of international public opinion by the Washington-based Pew Research Center found that regard for the U.S. is quite low, even among our allies. This video report from NBC News highlights that survey and notes the challenge facing the next president in restoring trust in American leadership. If you were president, what would you do to reverse the trend and rebuild support for the U.S. role in the world?

This AP report gives the impression that Europe has taken the lead in meeting the global credit crisis and that the U.S. is merely reacting. And yet it was after this weekend’s meeting of the G7 finance ministers in Washington that the major decisions being announced this week were taken. Here is the text of President Bush statement after the meeting. I wonder if this particular narrative is a result of the cable news cycle of reporting (and hyping) news out of Paris because it’s more timely, or is it a more accurate reflection of the leadership shown by Europe? And while the Eurozone rescue package totals over $2 trillion dollars it’s worth noting that it will not be centrally administered as the U.S. package will be. Perhaps this Europe vs. U.S. narrative is merely sensational reporting, tabloid business headlines, when the reality is (or we would like to believe it is) that the U.S. and Europe are taking cooperative measures that complement their domestic economies, play to their strengths, and will in the end shore up the international financial system.

The United States paused today to note the anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. This is an opportunity for reflection and resolve. We look back on those attacks (the archive of The New York Times report can be found here) from this safe distance seven years later and marvel at the national unity that arose in the aftermath of those attacks. I was particularly impressed with the international support offered to the United States. Who can forget the French newspaper Le Monde expressing solidarity with the headline “We Are All Americans” or the candlelit vigils in capitals all over the world, even in Tehran. If we have allowed that good will to erode over time, perhaps the U.S. can work to restore that support, to work more closely with allies and forge pragmatic alliances with those who would not ordinarily cooperate with the United States.

This anniversary is also a time for resolve, for taking stock of our progress and evaluating the strategies we have used, build on the winning strategies and discard those that have failed. When President Bush declared the War on Terrorism he invited the support of allies working under the principle “you are either with us or against us.” That organizing principle helped motivate countries like Pakistan, a most unlikely ally, to firmly declare their support for the American effort. Pakistan, under President Pervez Musharraf, became a key ally and over many years helped take the war to the mountains and caves where the al-Qaeda leadership was thought to be in hiding. The alliance with Pakistan was fraught with difficulties and now that we are entering the post-Musharraf era in Pakistan, those difficulties have grown (ISN - Terrorism Index 2008):

The experts at the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine were hit broadside with a development they didn’t foresee when compiling their annual Terrorism Index, released on 19 August: the resignation of Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf the day before. The fourth annual Index, which was gathered from opinion surveys of US foreign policy and security experts across the ideological spectrum, suggested a ray of optimism. A year ago, 91 percent of the experts said they believed the world was growing more dangerous for the US; this year, that figure fell to 70 percent. But Musharraf’s resignation added a major element of uncertainty to the picture, acknowledged participants in the survey effort at a press briefing in Washington. It highlighted one of the major conclusions suggested by the Index: Pakistan now represents the central front on the war on terror.

As we move forward from this 9-11 anniversary we have an opportunity to resolve to work more closely with allies, to restore some of that international good will offered to the U.S. in the aftermath of 9-11. With Pakistan, we are confronted with a stark and immediate choice to work with the new government of President Zardari in fighting al-Quada and the Taliban or act unilaterally and disregard the sovereignty of Pakistan. How we make this choice may well determine the shape of the next phase of the war on terrorism. Early indications are that President Bush has decided to act unilaterally, a decision that could radicalize thousands of new jihadist fighters in the mountains and tribal regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. We have a very narrow window of time to use this 9-11 anniversary as an opportunity to thank all of those allies that stood with us seven years ago and who stand with us now, to say to them that our motto is no longer “you are either with us or against us” but is now “we are all in this together.” That, I think, would make a fitting resolution on this day of remembrance.

Russia is gloating after the weekend EU summit failed to impose sanctions for the invasion of Georgia. The EU decided to do what it could to help Georgia rebuild and may consider further actions in the future, depending on whether Russia honors the ceasefire agreement. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney is in the region to offer U.S. support as the White House announced a major new aid package (The New York Times - White House Unveils $1 Billion Georgia Aid Plan):

President Bush proposed $1 billion in humanitarian and economic assistance on Wednesday to help rebuild Georgia after its short, disastrous war with Russia last month, but he stopped short of committing the United States to re-equipping its battered military. Mr. Bush announced the infusion of aid as Vice President Dick Cheney arrived here in what he described as a demonstration that the United States had “a deep and abiding interest” in keeping Georgia and other neighboring states free from a new era of Russian domination. […] The initial money, Mr. Bush said in a statement, would be used to feed and shelter tens of thousands of Georgians displaced during the fighting that began on the night of Aug. 7 when Georgia tried to establish control over a breakaway region, South Ossetia, only to be driven back by Russian forces. Mr. Bush also pledged to support its transition to a democratic market economy.

It would appear that Russia has gained territory and Georgia has gained foreign aid. In this interview posted on the Foreign Policy website (Seven Questions: Russia’s Big Mistake), Paul A. Goble explains why Russia is not really the winner in the Georgian crisis.

The U.S. and the UK have collaborated in Iraq and countless other endeavors over many generations. In this piece in the Financial Times, Martin Wolf argue that the ongoing presidential election may well determine the character of the next, and possibly final, era of Anglo-American hegemony. Wolf says it’s all about the choice between conflict and cooperation.