KYAG NO...to Kagan

Kiss Your Ass Goodbye New Orleans.

I had a friend that visited New Orleans in December 1999 when there was a series of torrential rainstorms that flooded the city. She was there for work and got stranded at the hotel with no way to leave the city. All of her clothes were soaked as she was on the ground floor and they moved her up several floors. It was explained to her that New Orleans is an environmental disaster waiting to happen as it's located below sea level with only a 10-foot and a 14-foot levee to protect the city. Sooner or later, a major hurricane is going to come through and destroy the city.

Fast forward to the present. A class 4 hurricane is now barreling down on the City of Sin (or is that Vegas?) and the future of the city is much in doubt. They're predicting that much of the city could be under 25 feet of water. Not only that, the property damage will be massive. They expect vast amounts of pollution from "Cancer Alley" which is located nearby. Benzene and other nasty things are likely to flood the city adding toxic waste to a city alternatively underwater and on fire. The damage is likely to run into the billions if not more.

And here's the rub. If the city had the foresight and the political will to prepare for this event, they may have been able to minimize or at least limit the damage. But, as is ever present in the US, all politics is, "what have you done for me lately" and expensive, long term protection plans are never popular before disaster strikes. Someday, I hope that the US can synchronize politics with the rest of the developed world and actually be a little more proactive (and I don't mean by launching pre-emptive wars on dodgy footing)...

...I read something quite interesting last night for my thesis. It was an article that attempted to explain the divide on 1441 and a potential second Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq in 2003 as a symptom of a growing divide between the United States and Europe. The author cited a man named Robert Kagan, a very well known foreign policy hawk who is tangentially related to someone who reads this blog and is someone I have read fairly extensively. Kagan's argument is that the Europe-US divide actually has roots in history. He sees the US as a strong power with military primacy and thus is committed to using that military might in foreign policy. Europe, characteristically divided and made up of waning powers at best, seeks non-military solutions to foreign policy problems as they have more limited military might and "soft" options are more suited to their capabilities. Kagan cites Kosovo and Europe's inability to respond to war in its neighborhood in Bosnia as examples.

Additionally, he makes a broader point, although I'm not sure if he was aware of it at the time, that multilateralism is the province of the weak. Historically, prior to the US becoming the military superpower it is today (42nd strongest military in the world on December 6, 1941), US foreign policy sought diplomatic solutions to problems. Military might was never stressed by the US, but was by the European powers. To Kagan, World War II turned the tables. The US became the world's military superpower and turned to force and military maneuvers to address crisis while Europe turned to diplomacy as European military power waned and became increasingly dependent upon US strength.

It's a fine narrative that appears persuasive and raises questions for further study. The bigger point about the nature of multilateralism is interesting and not something I've thought of much or studied. But, just as Kagan is entirely clever in his narrative, he's also cleverly deploying an argument that explains the divide over Iraq not on the merits, but because Europe was going to object anyway - it was in their nature. And see, this is part of the George W. Bush strategy for selling the war at home. He argued that "Old Europe" objected and was becoming irrelevant. And the legions of Bush supporters have argued, just like Kagan, that the opposition to the war was not because of the issues at hand, but because there is a larger power struggle ongoing between the US and the other permanent member of the Security Council.

The reason they're dangerous is that they're right, in part. There is an ongoing power struggle. But, where I think that people like Kagan are entirely wrong is in how and why this power struggle is playing out. Iraq was not objected to because of power. Iraq was objected to because there were very dubious reasons for going to war and because the European public was virtually 100% against the war (as was the rest of the world). To gloss over the legitimate arguments, both pragmatic, ethical, and legal, to not go to war is to reveal the corruption of academic inquiry with politicization.

More importantly, however, it's my proposition (and I'm writing about this) that the non-US bloc on the Security Council is attempting to counter-balance US hegemony and leadership by banding together. Apart, France, Germany, Russia, and China are unlikely to be able to counter US military and economic strength. (And I don't buy the China arguments for a lot of reasons, but primarily because they won't sustain their growth rates inevitably because it gets harder to grow fast when the economy is "developed".) However, by forming coalitions and working together, they can frustrate the US. This process is fueled by the US decision to do a war with Iraq. China, for example, looks at the US willingness to invade a country for dubious reasons, in violation of their sovereignty, and enforce "regime change" and wonder what that means for their ongoing dispute with Taiwan. Russia has the same concern for its war in Chechnya. Neither country thinks the US is going to invade, but the US willingness to pursue a policy of pre-emption does potentially complicate Chinese and Russian interests.

Anyway, the point is, the Bush administration has fueled the drive to counterbalance because of its unilateral stance in all areas of foreign policy: the International Criminal Court, the UN, Iraq, etc. Each and every step the Bush administration has made internationally has signaled the world's powers that the primary power in the world is increasingly using its leadership capabilities to serve its own interests. Call it a lack of responsibility if you will; I'll prefer to see it as short-sighted. History is rife with examples of waning empires being counterbalanced by weaker powers. From an American perspective, from someone who is constantly filled with optimism about what America can do for the world, I think it's a terrible idea to pursue foreign policy completely driven by self-interest. There are so many good things we could do in the world, but pragmatically, we could sustain our empire virtually forever if only we engaged in "responsible" leadership. But once you alienate allies and enemies alike, well, you pretty much write the memo on the gravestone of your empire. Good one, George.