30 July 2004
Reversal of Idealists and Realists
In reviewing In Defense of Globalization by Jagdish Bhagwati and Why Globalization Works by Martin Wolf in The Wall Street Journal of 6/24/04, Bruce Bartlett states “It is comically ironic, then, to see antiglobalists attack the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Both institutions do more to impede true globalization than to encourage it; and though both were created to foster growth, they more often than not thwart it.” By financially suborning public sector dirigisme at the expense of the marketplace, they have obstructed the free allocation of resources to productive and beneficial uses in the developing world.
David Fromkin’s review of The Iraq War by John Keegan in The New York Times
Book Review of 6/20/04 made a similar point: “Keegan defines the argument about whether or not to attack Iraq as a split between idealists, who believe in a world free of warfare, and realists, who regard warfare as a normal and indeed inevitable part of international affairs. . . . These days it is the idealists who believe in overthrowing evil wherever it is found. And it is the realists who counsel going to war only in defense of the country’s vital interests.” That’s one way to describe the “Powell Doctrine.”
Conservative fundamentalists seek to attain an ideal state of goodness by any means, while progressives try to achieve realistic humanitarian goals using practical tactics. That’s probably as it should be. Other wrong-headed idealists use futile methods like vandalism to trumpet the cause of the world’s poor and powerless. They employ unrealistic impractical tactics to attack the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organization, multinational corporations and other symbols of resistance to the new and truly liberal framework that is transforming the global economy and politics. The information technology revolution has made entrepreneurship a key to rising standards of living around the world (cf. India); it has also induced intransigent governments to cede increasing portions of policymaking to individual initiative (cf. China).
The IT revolution has made it easier to organize and implement disruptions of international meetings. Terrorists have shown great skill in taking advantage of this. Realists can almost afford to ignore the misguided antiglobalization idealists who don’t accomplish much beyond making news headlines. However, ignoring terrorism has tragic consequences. Idealists dedicated to overthrowing evil, however they define it, are in danger of being locked in Manichean confrontation with each other. Realists, who favor survival and material well-being, will never convince either side to accept, or even tolerate its opponent’s metaphysics. The realists’ task is to lead the two fundamentalist sides to confine their vital interests within boundaries that do not overlap. This could be the roadmap for preventing violent conflict between radicals in opposing civilizations, not to mention neighboring religious and ethnic populations.
In reviewing In Defense of Globalization by Jagdish Bhagwati and Why Globalization Works by Martin Wolf in The Wall Street Journal of 6/24/04, Bruce Bartlett states “It is comically ironic, then, to see antiglobalists attack the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Both institutions do more to impede true globalization than to encourage it; and though both were created to foster growth, they more often than not thwart it.” By financially suborning public sector dirigisme at the expense of the marketplace, they have obstructed the free allocation of resources to productive and beneficial uses in the developing world.
David Fromkin’s review of The Iraq War by John Keegan in The New York Times
Book Review of 6/20/04 made a similar point: “Keegan defines the argument about whether or not to attack Iraq as a split between idealists, who believe in a world free of warfare, and realists, who regard warfare as a normal and indeed inevitable part of international affairs. . . . These days it is the idealists who believe in overthrowing evil wherever it is found. And it is the realists who counsel going to war only in defense of the country’s vital interests.” That’s one way to describe the “Powell Doctrine.”
Conservative fundamentalists seek to attain an ideal state of goodness by any means, while progressives try to achieve realistic humanitarian goals using practical tactics. That’s probably as it should be. Other wrong-headed idealists use futile methods like vandalism to trumpet the cause of the world’s poor and powerless. They employ unrealistic impractical tactics to attack the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organization, multinational corporations and other symbols of resistance to the new and truly liberal framework that is transforming the global economy and politics. The information technology revolution has made entrepreneurship a key to rising standards of living around the world (cf. India); it has also induced intransigent governments to cede increasing portions of policymaking to individual initiative (cf. China).
The IT revolution has made it easier to organize and implement disruptions of international meetings. Terrorists have shown great skill in taking advantage of this. Realists can almost afford to ignore the misguided antiglobalization idealists who don’t accomplish much beyond making news headlines. However, ignoring terrorism has tragic consequences. Idealists dedicated to overthrowing evil, however they define it, are in danger of being locked in Manichean confrontation with each other. Realists, who favor survival and material well-being, will never convince either side to accept, or even tolerate its opponent’s metaphysics. The realists’ task is to lead the two fundamentalist sides to confine their vital interests within boundaries that do not overlap. This could be the roadmap for preventing violent conflict between radicals in opposing civilizations, not to mention neighboring religious and ethnic populations.
29 July 2004
Darfur
The United Nations is not the institution on which we can rely to resolve ethnic oppression in one of its member countries. Member states use the UN as an instrument for preserving power. They resist its use to impose policy changes on them when they do not threaten the interests of other states.
The impact of the flight of Darfur residents on Chad gives the UN the only reason for enforcing an end to the Sudanese crisis that is consistent with its raison d'etre. If the government of Chad were to bring a complaint to the Security Council, the permanent members could undertake military action to prevent further migration and to mitigate the human suffering that causes it. Failing that, the most effective strategy for liberal activists would be to demand intervention by the African Union or even NATO.
The United Nations is not the institution on which we can rely to resolve ethnic oppression in one of its member countries. Member states use the UN as an instrument for preserving power. They resist its use to impose policy changes on them when they do not threaten the interests of other states.
The impact of the flight of Darfur residents on Chad gives the UN the only reason for enforcing an end to the Sudanese crisis that is consistent with its raison d'etre. If the government of Chad were to bring a complaint to the Security Council, the permanent members could undertake military action to prevent further migration and to mitigate the human suffering that causes it. Failing that, the most effective strategy for liberal activists would be to demand intervention by the African Union or even NATO.
21 July 2004
Export Finance for Afghanistan
The U.S. Government should back up its professed commitment to Afghan reconstruction with 100% supplier's credit financing for private sector imports of American goods. This program can be targeted at food and infrastructure items. Not only would it support U.S. exports; more importantly, it would help rebuild the private economy of Afghanistan.
The U.S. Government should back up its professed commitment to Afghan reconstruction with 100% supplier's credit financing for private sector imports of American goods. This program can be targeted at food and infrastructure items. Not only would it support U.S. exports; more importantly, it would help rebuild the private economy of Afghanistan.
19 July 2004
Why Gay Marriage?
The primary justification for marriage licensing in modern civilization is the promotion of social stability. In spite of the increased incidence of divorce (50 %?), it must be conceded that without state licensing of marriage and the difficulty of extracting oneself from it, man/woman pairings would be even less permanent – more transitory.
Isn’t that enough reason to add the same incentive in support of longer-lasting relationships between same-sex partners?
The primary justification for marriage licensing in modern civilization is the promotion of social stability. In spite of the increased incidence of divorce (50 %?), it must be conceded that without state licensing of marriage and the difficulty of extracting oneself from it, man/woman pairings would be even less permanent – more transitory.
Isn’t that enough reason to add the same incentive in support of longer-lasting relationships between same-sex partners?
Let Not the Tail Wag the Dog
Protesting against child-marriage in Afghanistan is a clear case of attacking a symptom of rudimentary living conditions rather than acting to enhance them. When Afghan women have access to education and personal opportunity, they will defeat the features of their culture that we deem oppressive.
Attacking the symptoms instead of curing the cause—this is only a second-best strategy to which we must resort when it comes to diseases we don’t understand. However; it can be self-defeating, by allowing a problem to exacerbate, or self-serving. In the case of many humanitarian crises, the world is often very conscious of the real causes behind them. The AIDS crisis in Africa, for example, will not be resolved by calling on pharmaceuticals companies to reduce their “obscene” profits from the sale of drug therapies. How else could they finance the development of such stop-gap palliatives?
It is not the function of pharmaceutical companies to relieve human suffering. It is their function to make money, no matter what their advertising claims. Individuals who profit from the successes of those companies are the part of the world community that should devote its wealth to making the relief of human suffering more affordable.
Just as the IRS tax code prefers to charge individuals for the expense of government (corporate taxes are small compared to individual income taxes), so should the solution of global humanitarian crises be paid for by the individuals who profit from the commercial success of their investments. In particular, corporate executives who benefit through stock options are rightfully responsible for promoting the common good, not their enterprises. After all, enterprises are fictional creations; they do not have consciences.
More to the point, the community of nations needs to devote its resources to eradicating the economic reasons for the AIDS crisis. AIDS has been much more devastating in the least developed countries. Behavior engendered by low standards of living is at the root of the AIDS crisis in Africa. Information Technology has shrunk the distance between the world’s populations. Owing to the conflation this brings of peoples with disparate living standards, treatment of the disease has become an urgent imperative for outspoken critics. Perhaps that energy would be more effective if directed at creating the political changes in the U.S. that are needed to resolve the underlying causes of the AIDS crisis: economic development programs rather than military preemption. Exercising control over our own political process by insisting on such policies would also create conditions that bring child-marriage to an end in Afghanistan.
Protesting against child-marriage in Afghanistan is a clear case of attacking a symptom of rudimentary living conditions rather than acting to enhance them. When Afghan women have access to education and personal opportunity, they will defeat the features of their culture that we deem oppressive.
Attacking the symptoms instead of curing the cause—this is only a second-best strategy to which we must resort when it comes to diseases we don’t understand. However; it can be self-defeating, by allowing a problem to exacerbate, or self-serving. In the case of many humanitarian crises, the world is often very conscious of the real causes behind them. The AIDS crisis in Africa, for example, will not be resolved by calling on pharmaceuticals companies to reduce their “obscene” profits from the sale of drug therapies. How else could they finance the development of such stop-gap palliatives?
It is not the function of pharmaceutical companies to relieve human suffering. It is their function to make money, no matter what their advertising claims. Individuals who profit from the successes of those companies are the part of the world community that should devote its wealth to making the relief of human suffering more affordable.
Just as the IRS tax code prefers to charge individuals for the expense of government (corporate taxes are small compared to individual income taxes), so should the solution of global humanitarian crises be paid for by the individuals who profit from the commercial success of their investments. In particular, corporate executives who benefit through stock options are rightfully responsible for promoting the common good, not their enterprises. After all, enterprises are fictional creations; they do not have consciences.
More to the point, the community of nations needs to devote its resources to eradicating the economic reasons for the AIDS crisis. AIDS has been much more devastating in the least developed countries. Behavior engendered by low standards of living is at the root of the AIDS crisis in Africa. Information Technology has shrunk the distance between the world’s populations. Owing to the conflation this brings of peoples with disparate living standards, treatment of the disease has become an urgent imperative for outspoken critics. Perhaps that energy would be more effective if directed at creating the political changes in the U.S. that are needed to resolve the underlying causes of the AIDS crisis: economic development programs rather than military preemption. Exercising control over our own political process by insisting on such policies would also create conditions that bring child-marriage to an end in Afghanistan.
