Politics (part 2)

Here’s a different analogy, meant to be a little closer to the truth than the last one.

Imagine a tough neighborhood, say in the Bronx. The police are all on permanent holiday. Chaos ensues — rioting, looting, etc. — but eventually a few gangs emerge as dominant, and one in particular is truly Dominant. They exploit the neighborhood in every way they can — loan sharking, extortion, intimidation. The other strong gangs often act in cooperation with them, since they get a cut of the action.

Despite the power of the Dominant, some lesser gangs fight back. It is not that they are noble or anything; they simply hate the Dominant’s power, would like more action for themselves, and perhaps disagree ideologically with the Dominant’s beliefs. They can’t really challenge the Dominant’s power, but they can sure be a nuisance.

Say what you like about the Dominant’s loathsome practices. The fact remains that the stability offered under their rule is in many ways preferable to the neighbors than the chaos of the lesser gangs’ acts of terrorism.

Now suppose you become the captain of the Dominants. What will you do with your power? You could simply retreat and let everyone do their own thing. Bad idea. The natural result would be even more chaos, and eventually a different gang would become dominant, and there’s no reason to think they’d be any better than you.

Probably, you’d think this way: I need to use my power to keep order and stability in the neighborhood, as much as I can. When I see obvious unstable elements, I will annihilate them, and try to set up my own operations in their place (or operations of my buddy gangs). Generally, I’ll try to make the stability I offer as attractive as I can to all other gangs, since that’s likely to reduce the incentive to be unruly. But the bottom line, of course, has to be the dominance of the Dominant: without that, no stability.

I think the most interesting idea Barnett (again, blog here) puts forward is the procedure for deciding when an ‘unstable element’ (read: Iraq, Sudan, N. Korea) needs to be annihilated. He leaves it to the UN Security Council to indict them; then the G-8 serves as an executive body to say precisely what needs to be done; then the US military handles the dirty work (who else?); and then, immediately following, a US-led international systems administration force — what he calls “a pistol-packing Peace Corps” — sweeps in to stabilize and rebuild. The resulting country will be obviously pro-US and pro-G-8 — that’s the idea: the Dominant stays dominant. But also stable, democratic (or nearly so), and to some degree ‘free’.

I can’t say how realistic Barnett’s proposal is, since it seems to me that sometimes the Dominant is simply going to want to flex its muscle and take over an economy — or back some other lesser gang who is doing this — without being governed by the UN or even the G-8: there is a lot of money to be made in supplying wars, of course.

Still, this seems like a recipe for a better situation than what we’re now experiencing. Bush really bungled Iraq — no significant international buy-in, not enough of an effort to rebuild. But if it had been handled along Barnett’s lines, there would be more of a stable country there, and with much better prospects than what was there before. (Or? Do I know what I’m talking about?) What if a process like this had been followed at the outbreak of the most recent violence in central Africa?

About Huenemann

Curious about the ways humans use their minds and hearts to distract themselves from the meaninglessness of life.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Politics (part 2)

  1. Mike says:

    The thing I think is missing here is that when another country has nuclear weapons you have to treat them as equals in some sense and that the interaction between these bully-equals is the main story. These other stories we participate in at our own risk when we fail to keep that main story in mind.

    The true bungling of Iraq is in relation to Russia, China and the EU. These sideline fights make us forfeit the real game.

    We especially need to be keeping a relationship with Russia such that we can help them keep their weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Something that requires a bit of diplomacy, money and intelligence.

    Otherwise… BOOM!


  2. Huenemann says:

    Barnett’s not too worried about Russia and China (and India, another nuker you left out). They show every indication of wanting to be G-8 like — they want to play with the big bullies. So long as economic connectivity with them arises, we’re safe with one another, and there’s already a lot of connectivity in place. He thinks we should “buy in” a relationship with China while the price is still cheap.

    But MWDs in lesser states is a big problem. That’s why in addition to all the other stuff I described, Barnett thinks we need counter-terrorist specialists who can pretty much do whatever they want without being accountable (Dirty Harrys).

    Sheesh, listen to me. I sound like a Republican.


  3. Mike says:

    I don’t think economic connectivity guarantees much when “the button” is in the hands of the few. I don’t mind strong arm tactics but only when taken as a collective action, which is what it sounds like he wants. Even if Russia wants to play nice it’s uncertain they have that ability without assistance. It costs a lot of time and money to take care of nuclear weapons and waste effectively. They might have different priorities.

    Economic connectivity might be more of a guarantee in democracies (India/EU but not China/Russia).

    Real Republicans believe in non-interventionist foreign policies, it’s just confusing because “Republicans” feel free to mangle terminology so they can take their label with them wherever they go ideologically. You actually sound more like a Democrat, you have some belief in international law and the global good. The Democrats’ temptation is the same as the “Republicans” though… to believe you know things about places you’ve never been and people you’ve never met.

    What the US has shown in the past 8 years is that it doesn’t even really deserve a place at the international table. Until we earn that place again we should consider ourselves at risk. This long term reorientation sounds nice but it’s just an optimistic dream until there is some sort of reconciliation. Almost all of the US perspectives on international diplomacy sound like the ravings of an egotistical madman from the outside.

    I really don’t know anything about any of this.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s