The pressure to cut back foreign policy expenditures has been normal for most countries most of the time, but serious economic constraints on foreign policy did not affect the United States for almost seven decades before 2008. Such constraints will affect not [...]]]>

Capitol Hill

The Frugal Superpower: America’s Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era by Michael Mandelbaum

The pressure to cut back foreign policy expenditures has been normal for most countries most of the time, but serious economic constraints on foreign policy did not affect the United States for almost seven decades before 2008. Such constraints will affect not only the United States but the entire world because the United States has played a historically unprecedented global role, functioning as the world’s de facto government.  “For five decades, in conducting its foreign policy, the United States operated with the mind-set of a doctor, doing whatever was necessary to safeguard the patient – that is, itself.” The next two it will with a role of a philanthropist.

Michael Mandelbaum acknowledges the much talked decline of the United States, but argues that it differs from the declining powers of the twentieth century, and the centuries before, in two important ways. First, the American decline will not be nearly as steep as the previous ones. The American empire will not disappear, as did the empires of the twentieth century, because the United States does not have an empire. Second, the American economy will remain the largest one on the planet for some time to come, and American military forces, for the foreseeable future, will be the world’s most powerful.

The United States will still have major responsibility for quasi-governmental tasks that are vital to global order: providing reassurance, thwarting nuclear proliferation, and furnishing security for international economic activity; but it will have to carry out these tasks with fewer resources than in the past.

Much of the problems Mandelbaum traces to national insistence on keeping gasoline cheap in the United States – the failure is not of understanding or foresight, but of political will. “No single measure, in fact, would do as much to secure American interests worldwide in the face of the new economic limits on American foreign policy than a large reduction in American oil consumption. Mustering the political will to achieve this goal looms as the single most important foreign policy test the United States will face in the coming age of scarcity.”

“One thing worse than an America that is too strong, the world will learn, is an America that is too weak.”

Presidentti Harry Truman oli ensimmäinen Yhdysvaltojen presidentti, joka sai salaiselta palvelulta koodinimen, General (Kenraali). Kylmän sodan aikana, jolloin salaisen palvelun viestintä ei vielä ollut salattua, oli koodinimillä suuri merkitys kohteen turvallisuutta ajatellen. Perinne on kuitenkin jäänyt vahvana elämään ja koodinimi annetaankin edelleen kaikille, joita salainen palvelu suojelee

Nykyisin perinne saa [...]]]>  

Presidentti Harry Truman oli ensimmäinen Yhdysvaltojen presidentti, joka sai salaiselta palvelulta koodinimen, General (Kenraali). Kylmän sodan aikana, jolloin salaisen palvelun viestintä ei vielä ollut salattua, oli koodinimillä suuri merkitys kohteen turvallisuutta ajatellen. Perinne on kuitenkin jäänyt vahvana elämään ja koodinimi annetaankin edelleen kaikille, joita salainen palvelu suojelee

Nykyisin perinne saa paljon julkisuutta ja koodinimien syistä ja taustoista kirjoitetaan paljon; viimeisimmät koodinimen saajat ovat republikaanien Mitt Romney (Javelin – keihäs) sekä Rick Santorum (Petrus – latinankielinen nimi, josta mm. Pyhä Pietari). Koodinimen saa kohde valita itse salaisen palvelun tarjoamista vaihtoehdoista, jonka jälkeen hänen perheelleen annetaan samalla alkukirjaimella alkavat nimet. Mitään tarkkoja kriteerejä ei koodinimille tiettävästi ole, mutta yleisesti ottaen hyvät koodinimet ovat yksiselitteisiä sanoja, jotka ovat helposti lausuttavissa ja ymmärrettävissä.

Presidentti Barack Obaman hallituksen ja vuoden 2008 vaalien koodinimiä:

Barack Obama – Renegade
Michelle Obama – Renaissance
Malia Obama – Radiance
Sasha Obama – Rosebud

Joe Biden – Celtic
Jill Biden – Capri

Rahm Emanuel – Black Hawk
Tim Geithner – Fencing Master (generic codename for Sec. Treas.)

John McCain – Phoenix
Cindy McCain – Parasol
Meghan McCain – Peter Sellers (Peter)
John Sidney McCain IV – Popeye
Bridget McCain – Pebbles

Sarah Palin – Denali
Todd Palin – Driller

Onko koodinimistä puhuminen sitten vastuutonta? Salaisen palvelun mukaan ei oikeastaan. Nykyisin tietoliikenne on mahdollista salata niin hyvin, ettei koodinimien käytölle edes olisi tarvetta turvallisuuden näkökulmasta. On kuitenkin syytä mainita, että julkisuudessa näkyviä koodinimiä ei ole virallisesti vahvistettu salaisen palvelun toimesta.

Pitkä lista koodinimiä löytyy Wikipediasta.

Cardinal Richelieu famously stated that “secrecy is the first essential in affairs of the state,” but does diplomacy still work best in secret, in times when openness has become the grand virtue and the world borderless? If you ask from Parag Khanna, the answer is no. The modern era is chaotic, [...]]]>

Cardinal Richelieu famously stated that “secrecy is the first essential in affairs of the state,” but does diplomacy still work best in secret, in times when openness has become the grand virtue and the world borderless? If you ask from Parag Khanna, the answer is no. The modern era is chaotic, just like Middle Ages, but a new enlightened age is possible too – through “mega-diplomacy”. In his latest book, Khanna defines guidelines how to create this next Renaissance.

For St. Augustine the source of social order lay in the teachings of Christ. For Hobbes it lay in the sovereign. For Rousseau it lay in solitude. For Lenin it lay in the party. They were all wrong. The roots of social order are in our heads, where we possess the instinctive capacities for creating not a perfectly harmonious and virtuous society, but a better one than we have at present. We must build our institutions in such a way that they draw out those instincts. Pushing resources from the global to the local level is the surest step to getting there.

Winston Churchill was a pragmatist. He said, “I’m an optimist – it doesn’t seem of much use to be anything else.”

“Today there are “digital” diplomats who are plugged in and “analog” ones who hide behind pointless paperwork.” -Parag Khanna

After a convincing win in Illinois on Tuesday and an important endorsement on Wednesday from Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney is back on track to drag the primaries until to the bitter end.

Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s senior campaign adviser, was asked in a CNN interview Wednesday morning whether the former Massachusetts governor had been forced [...]]]>

After a convincing win in Illinois on Tuesday and an important endorsement on Wednesday from Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney is back on track to drag the primaries until to the bitter end.

Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s senior campaign adviser, was asked in a CNN interview Wednesday morning whether the former Massachusetts governor had been forced to adopt conservative positions in the rugged race that could hurt his standing with moderates in November’s general election.

“I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes,” Fehrnstrom responded. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.”

CNN

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were quick to pick Fehrnstrom’s money quote, bringing it immediately up in their campaigns in Louisiana. The Democrats didn’t waste any time either and within hours they produced a 48-second YouTube clip entitled “Mitt Romney: Some Things You Can’t Shake Off.”

To be honest, though, I don’t think that Fehrnstrom’s statement is too far fetched. It will be a different game come the presidential elections and after primaries like these, there has to be a shift in the message. But it does give a bit too easy and heavy ammunition for the opponents.

The man (and the team) just don’t know how to win.

Daniel W. Drezner has written one of the most thoughtful books about the IR theory last year. Drezner examines how major theories of international politics would deal with the problem of flesh-eating ghouls rising from dead. At first you might be fooled to take the book lightly, but already a glimpse [...]]]>

Daniel W. Drezner has written one of the most thoughtful books about the IR theory last year. Drezner examines how major theories of international politics would deal with the problem of flesh-eating ghouls rising from dead. At first you might be fooled to take the book lightly, but already a glimpse on the index makes you re-consider (to name just a few: Bueno de Mesquita, Doyle, Gilpin, Jervis, Kagan, Keohane, Mearsheimer, Moravchik, Morgenthau, Neustadt, Waltz, etc.).

Attention in the book is in the most prominent IR theories – realism, liberalism, constructivism, neoconservatism, and bureaucratic politics – and Drezner examines how the different schools would tackle the new problem.

The realist answer is simple if surprising – international relations would be largely unaffected.

This paradigm would be unimpressed with the claim that a new existential threat to the human condition leads to any radical change in human behavior. To them, a plague of the undead would merely echo older plagues and disasters. Disease has affected world politics from the Black Death of the fourteenth century to the 1918-19 influenza pandemic. In the past, most of these plagues simply reified existing power relationships. Because more dynamic and powerful societies developed stronger immunities to plague they gained a greater share of relative power during pandemics. To paraphrase Thucydides, the realpolitik of zombies is that the strong will do what they can, and the weak must suffer devouring by reanimated, ravenous corpses. (p. 37-38)

The liberal paradigm revolves around the idea that cooperation is possible in a world of anarchy and world politics is a non-zero-sum game. The benefits generated by cooperation are often nonexcludable – in other words, anyone will benefit from broad-based cooperation even if they themselves do not cooperate. This creates a free-rider problem.

The conundrum for liberals is that while an outcome of mutual cooperation is better than one of mutual defection, everyone is best off in a situation in which they can unilaterally defect. Since every actor has these same incentives, the outcome can be a “tragedy of the commons” – everyone defecting even though everyone is better off cooperating. (p. 48)

Neoconservatives would scoff at the realist contention that zombies are like any other actor in world politics, and at the liberal contention that global governance structures could cope with the zombie menace.

Neoconservatives would recommend an aggressive and militarized response to ensure the continued hegemony of the human race. Rather than wait for the ghouls to come to them, neoconservative would recommend proactive policy options that take the fight to the undead. Their policy preference would be for an armed invasion of the central region in the zombie-affected area. Deploying armed forces in ghoul-infested territory would serve two purposes. First, it would act as “flypaper,” diverting zombies from expanding their dominion. Second, this use of force would eventually drain the swamp of the undead menace.

It is to neoconservatism’s credit that its doctrine is consistent with extant work on how best to respond to the zombie menace. A war against zombies would, surely, be a war against evil itself. However, other elements of neoconservatism might undercut the long-term viability of their initial plans. For example, neoconservatives frequently assume that all adversaries are part of a single axis or alliance of evil enemies. Because of neoconservative hostility to authoritarianism, they would be inclined to see zombies and despots as part of the same overarching threat.  (p. 65)

The greatest strength of Drezner’s book, however, is in its simplicity. It is thought-provoking: the questions are pertinent to the international community, but at the same time theories are presented in a manner that allows one to think almost any problem the international community could face in the future.  In the end, the international relations scholar must concede that analytical rigor alone is an insufficient basis for political judgment on how to respond to problems we might face. “Having the judgment to know which models apply in world politics – and when – is more art than science. As Albert Hirschmann observed soon after George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968) was released, “[O]rdinarily social scientists are happy enough when they have gotten hold of one paradigm or line of causation. As a result, their guesses are often further off the mark than those of the experienced politicians whose intuition is more likely to take a variety of forces into account.”

Daniel W. Drezner’s blog post on International Theories and Zombies.

Theories of International Politics and Zombies. Daniel Drezner. Princeton. January 2011. 

Bruce stated the obvious that there are tens [...]]]>

“The Boss” delivered an inspirational keynote speech in front of a packed convention center crowd. Springsteen talks about his influences, how he still practices his rock n’ roll poses in his bedroom mirror, and he even picked up the guitar to croon a bit for the crowd.

Bruce stated the obvious that there are tens of thousands of talented bands out there, giving young musicians hope by telling them to make a name for themselves in music by being, tough, cocky, and humble.

The near-hour keynote proved to, not only those in attendance, but those listening/watching around the world, that “The Boss” needs to release an autobiography. Seriously! Who couldn’t listen to Bruce speak for hours upon hours? The guy is a wordsmith. He is a poetic genius. This keynote proves that.

Tiistaina käytyjen esivaalien jälkeen on keskustelu käynyt kiivaana Newt Gingrichin jatkon suhteen. Gingrich on itse toistuvasti sanonut jatkavansa Tampan puoluekokoukseen saakka, mutta hänen verraten huono tuloksensa sekä konservatiivien toiveet kentän rauhoittamisesta kahden pääehdokkaan välille, ovat herättäneet huhumyllyn uudelleen.

Rick Santorumin voitettua Alabamassa ja Mississippissä näyttävät Gingrichin mahdollisuudet olemattomilta. Santorumista on muodostunut konservatiivien ykkösehdokas ja [...]]]>  

Newt Gingrich

Tiistaina käytyjen esivaalien jälkeen on keskustelu käynyt kiivaana Newt Gingrichin jatkon suhteen. Gingrich on itse toistuvasti sanonut jatkavansa Tampan puoluekokoukseen saakka, mutta hänen verraten huono tuloksensa sekä konservatiivien toiveet kentän rauhoittamisesta kahden pääehdokkaan välille, ovat herättäneet huhumyllyn uudelleen.

Rick Santorumin voitettua Alabamassa ja Mississippissä näyttävät Gingrichin mahdollisuudet olemattomilta. Santorumista on muodostunut konservatiivien ykkösehdokas ja ainoa todellinen haastaja Mitt Romneylle. Useat merkittävät repulikaanien taustahenkilöt, mm. Bill Kristol, ovat viime päivinä vedonneet Gingrichiä luopumaan kampanjastaan toistaiseksi kuitenkin tuloksetta.  Spekulaatioita on lisännyt myös huhu, että Gingrichin päätukija (lähes ainoa sellainen) miljardööri Sheldon Adelson olisi kirjoittanut viimeisen shekkinsä Gingrichin kampanjalle. Ilman Adelsonin tukea olisi Gingrichin jatko erittäin vaikeaa.

Gingrichin jatko perustuu hänen uskoonsa, että Romney ei kykene keräämään vaadittavia 1,144 valitsijamiestä taakseen ja näin republikaanit joutuisivat soviteltuun puoluekokoukseen, jossa voisi ”tapahtua mitä tahansa”. Tämä skenaario on kuitenkin hyvin epätodennäköinen ja niinpä paineet konservatiiviryhmissä ovatkin kasvaneet Santorumin nostamisesta selkeäksi haastajaksi Romneylle. Tämä asetelma perustuu laskelmiin joiden mukaan Santorumilla olisi huomattavan paljon suuremmat mahdollisuudet voittaa elintärkeässä Illinoisin esivaalissa Romney, jos Gingrich ei olisi ehdolla. Jos Romney kuitenkin pystyy voittamaan Illinoisissa tulee hänen pysäyttämisensä ehdokkuuteen olemaan lähes mahdotonta. Illinoissa äänestetään ensi tiistaina maaliskuun 20. päivä.

Kysymys tällä hetkellä kuuluukin: mitä Santorum tekee saadaakseen Gingrichin luopumaan ehdokkuudestaan? Jos minä olisin hänen neuvonantajansa, niin pöydällä olisi jo varapresidentin paikka. Niin tärkeä on Illinois Santorumin haaveille tulla valituksi varsinaiseksi ehdokkaaksi. Tämä varmasti olisi myös mieleen Barack Obamalle ja erityisesti hänen viestintäosastolleen.

Nykyinen, konservatiivien hajaantunut tilanne auttanee Romneytä lyhyellä tähtäimellä asetelman evätessä Santorumilta mahdollisuuden mies-miestä vastaan kamppailuun Romneyn kanssa. Marraskuun vaaleja ajatellen ei kuitenkaan ole hyvä asia republikaaneille, että sekasorto ja puolueen jakaantuminen jatkuvat pitkälle kevääseen.

Rick Santorum ja kuuluisa edesmennyt villaliivi

Mielenkiintoisena huomiona mainittakoon vielä Rick Santorumin tyylin muuttuminen. Kun aikaisemmin entinen Pennsylvanian senaattori on tullut tunnetuksi villaliivistään, niin viime päivinä hän on kulkenut huomattavasti arvokkaamman oloisena tummassa puvussa. Presidentinnäköisenä, voisi kyynisempi todeta.

The documentary immediately provoked critical commentary from its lack of any negative aspects from Obama’s presidency so far. But what can [...]]]> The Road We’ve Traveled is a 2012 documentary film about the events of Barack Obama’s presidency. Directed by Davis Guggenheim, the documentary was produced by Obama’s re-election campaign and is narrated by Tom Hanks.

The documentary immediately provoked critical commentary from its lack of any negative aspects from Obama’s presidency so far. But what can you expect from a documentary that is essentially a campaign advertisement?

John Zogby is quite optimistic about the state of the American Dream and the future of the nation, but also backs himself with an extensive amount of statistical data from his own company’s [...]]]> The Way We’ll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream by John Zogby

John Zogby is quite optimistic about the state of the American Dream and the future of the nation, but also backs himself with an extensive amount of statistical data from his own company’s polling results.

Good read if you have an appetite for statistical measures and polls.

Are the kids all right? Not if you listen to some of our leading social commentators. To hear people such as Juliet Schor and William Bennett tell it, today’s youth have been virtually brainwashed by marketers, advertisers, and mushy-headed professoriate. But if your measure of “all right” is a group that is not just tolerant of but welcomes diversity, if it is young adults who do not march in lockstep with any political ideology, who in the majority are willing to think through the subtleties of some of the most contentious issues of the time, if the measure is eighteen- to twenty-nine-year-olds who are open with one an another to an astounding degree and take their cues globally, not just locally the, yes, the kids are doing just fine.

John  Zogby talks about his books and more about new retailer politics.