The _Boston Review_ has a fascinating debate on the future of American foreign policy, with a long “lead essay”:http://bostonreview.net/BR30.1/walt.html by Stephen Walt, and responses from Richard Falk, Joseph Nye, Ivo Daalder, Mary Kaldor and Ann-Marie Slaughter among others. The Walt piece is on-line; the others are only available in the print edition at the moment (but if you enjoy CT, you should “subscribe”:http://bostonreview.net/subscribe.html to the _Review_; you’ll almost certainly like it, and it’s a cheap read). I suspect that he’s going to get most flak for his bald statement that it is not in the national interest of the US to offer unconditional support to Israel, but the most interesting bit of the essay, to my mind, was his discussion of non-proliferation policy. Walt is a realist – perhaps one of the three or four most prominent IR realists out there – and he’s calling for the US to give up most of its nuclear weapons in order better to encourage other states to sign up to a revamped version of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
bq. If the United States is serious about reducing the dangers of nuclear terrorism (and it should be), then it must offer the rest of the world a “grand bargain.” In exchange for a more reliable nonproliferation regime (accompanied by an aggressive effort to secure existing stockpiles of loose nuclear materials) and the verifiable abandonment of nuclear ambitions by countries like Iran and North Korea, the United States would simultaneously agree to 1) abandon current plans to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, 2) significantly reduce its own nuclear arsenal (while retaining a few hundred warheads as a deterrent against direct attacks on the United States), and 3) take concrete steps to reduce the threat that it presents to so-called rogue states, including a willingness to sign some sort of nonaggression agreement with them.
This seems to me to be a thoroughly sensible set of arguments – but I’m rather surprised to find a realist advocating them. I’m even more surprised to find that I agree more with Walt’s essay than with the replies of some of his more ‘liberal’ critics such as Slaughter and Daalder (but then Walt, unlike Slaughter and Daalder, got it right on Iraq). Anyway, it’s a fascinating essay – anyone who’s interested in these debates should definitely give it a read.
NB – as per my usual policy, comments relating to Israel or Palestine will be expunged, to prevent the comment section degenerating into a flame-fest.
{ 52 comments }
james 02.16.05 at 3:40 pm
Is there any historical precedence of a disarmament type “grand gesture” being successful? The US reduced military capacity after WWI. This did nothing to prevent WWII and left the US at a military disadvantage at the start of the war.
Anderson 02.16.05 at 3:46 pm
Henry, I need the “thoroughly sensible” aspect of these ideas explained to me–I must be slow today.
(1) The powers whose proliferation especially bothers the U.S. are not those who are afraid of our using nuclear weapons on them; it’s those who are hoping to use nukes to prevent U.S. invasion.
(2) That problem isn’t really addressed by “some sort of a nonaggression agreement.” First, U.S. credibility is not exactly at a high point, and even when it’s been better, our penchant for changing policy every 4 to 8 years has never inspired much confidence. Second, “rogue states,” pretty much by definition, are not the ones whose signatures on a nonaggression agreement will carry much weight.
Look at it this way: the U.S. tells North Korea or Iran “hey, give up your nukes and we promise never to invade you, unless of course you violate one of these clauses” (harboring Osama, etc.). If you were running either nation, what would be in your national interest: trusting the U.S., or working triple shifts on getting a deliverable H-bomb in operation?
I’m all for streamlining the U.S. nuclear arsenal unilaterally; we might save some money, and we don’t need to blow up the entire planet. And much of Walt’s article is indeed quite sensible, far too much so for Bush’s America. But to call Walt’s proposals you’ve quoted “realist” is an abuse of language.
Andrew Boucher 02.16.05 at 4:11 pm
This realist agrees that America should not offer unconditional support to Israel – it shouldn’t offer it to continental Europe, either, for that matter.
This realist disagrees that it would be possible to actually get verifiable abandonment of Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions – so I think the premises are moot to begin with. Also disagree that America proposing to give up its nuclear weapons would actually cause either Iran or N. Korea to give up their ambitions (i.e. I ditto here anderson’s remarks).
Henry 02.16.05 at 4:40 pm
Hi Anderson
Walt is proceeding here from the basic assumption that nuclear weapons are (or should be) a defensive weapon – that is that the reason that states have nukes is to discourage other states from invading them. To the extent that Walt is right, states like North Korea and Iran which are going nuclear are doing so in order to deter US invasion – and the aggressive new doctrine of the Bush administration, Axis of Evil speech etc have all had the counterproductive result of pushing these states to accelerate their programs. Walt is of course simplifying drastically here – states acquire nuclear weapons for reasons of prestige too – but insofar as there is some hope of getting states like Iran and North Korea to disarm, and (perhaps more likely) not giving other states the incentive to nuke up, it lies in a more solid non-proliferation regime, where the US is prepared to make some real sacrifices, as it has not been in the NPT discussions to date. Yep – this is a highly risky strategy. But what alternatives are there? Invade Iran? Invade North Korea? Either of these would be likely to result in disaster.
Anderson 02.16.05 at 4:52 pm
100% right on invading Iran or North Korea, Henry, but I think what I’m trying to say is that Walt’s proposal is a non sequitur.
Yes, the U.S. needs to behave more credibly and multilaterally, less aggressively, etc. Much of Walt’s advice is on-point and, if heeded, would diminish the incentive for small nations to seek nukes.
But what has that got to do with the U.S.’s reducing its own nuclear arsenal? The only state that might even dream of going toe-to-toe with the U.S. in a nuclear war would be China. Iran and NK aren’t afraid of being H-bombed. For the time being, even Bush appears incapable of that.
I can imagine that such regimes might flog the U.S. arsenal for propaganda mileage (“they want US to have no nukes, but THEY have 1,000s of them,” etc.), but that’s window-dressing. It’s our conventional military power they fear, not so much our nukes. (Okay, the North Koreans are probably afraid of *everything*, including our paradropping a corps of Britney Spears clones; but they’re atypical, I hope.)
So Walt has a proposed solution that doesn’t seem to address the problem. Which is why he has to bring in “some sort of nonaggression agreement,” worth its weight in paper.
Henry 02.16.05 at 5:14 pm
Hi Anderson
Where I think that the reduction of the US arsenal would help is in two ways. First, kickstarting the NPT talks, which are stalled, in considerable measure b/c other states are quite reasonably pissed off at the US refusal to even pay lip service to the principle, set out in the Treaty, that all states should aim in the long term to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether. Reducing the arsenal wouldn’t be an intermediary step in that process – it would probably be a final step – but it would help very considerably, I imagine, in actually getting the talks going again. It’s hard to have a non-proliferation regime if the treaty collapses (as it might) and there isn’t any replacement in the offing. Also, and this is obviously a bit more speculative, it might go some way towards reducing the prestige factor of nuclear weapons. It’s interesting to see a realist advocating NPT type measures – frequently in the past, they’ve been more in favour of limited nuclear proliferation (e.g. Mearsheimer etc). And I do think that Walt’s suggestion would be helpful if it were implemented – not so much in reassuring rogue states, as in ensuring the support of non-rogue states which are currently rather disgruntled with the existing NP regime.
Zed 02.16.05 at 5:44 pm
Sorry for the double ping, Your ‘followups’ aren’t showing? or have I been expunged
Zed 02.16.05 at 6:04 pm
Sorry for the 3 pings, Bad spelling, is to blame, that and the fact thay your default doesn’t prevent that from happening, but it’s not showing up anyways.
Robert Green 02.16.05 at 6:33 pm
as a unilateral hegemon (and yes, i’m aware of the redundancy, but bear with) of course nothing can happen IN THIS PARTICULAR ARENA without unilateral US action. it is nearly solipsistic to point this out. we have what, 10 or 20 times the nukes of anyone else? that is a possibility–the possibility to massive de-arm without changing our essential ability to kill every man woman and child everywhere at any time. i just don’t see the downside.
it is funny that this comes up on the day the kyotocols (thank you and goodnight) go into effect. i think, from the NY Times article, that there is a certain amount of “i’m doing this why?” going on around the world, or at least in Europe, as they essentially dis-arm some cruise missiles in the face of someone else still having a bunch of MX-80s, metaphorically speaking. yet nonetheless, they put scrubbers on their power plants. this is the best of human behavior, goodness for its own sake. this is called…leading. it’s something we do in the world, so why not do it for good? what’s the downside? it seems to me this is the liberal view of IR in a nutshell, or at least it is to me.
Robert Green 02.16.05 at 6:34 pm
as a unilateral hegemon (and yes, i’m aware of the redundancy, but bear with) of course nothing can happen IN THIS PARTICULAR ARENA without unilateral US action. it is nearly solipsistic to point this out. we have what, 10 or 20 times the nukes of anyone else? that is a possibility–the possibility to massive de-arm without changing our essential ability to kill every man woman and child everywhere at any time. i just don’t see the downside.
it is funny that this comes up on the day the kyotocols (thank you and goodnight) go into effect. i think, from the NY Times article, that there is a certain amount of “i’m doing this why?” going on around the world, or at least in Europe, as they essentially dis-arm some cruise missiles in the face of someone else still having a bunch of MX-80s, metaphorically speaking. yet nonetheless, they put scrubbers on their power plants. this is the best of human behavior, goodness for its own sake. this is called…leading. it’s something we do in the world, so why not do it for good? what’s the downside? it seems to me this is the liberal view of IR in a nutshell, or at least it is to me.
Sebastian Holsclaw 02.16.05 at 6:40 pm
“but insofar as there is some hope of getting states like Iran and North Korea to disarm, and (perhaps more likely) not giving other states the incentive to nuke up, it lies in a more solid non-proliferation regime, where the US is prepared to make some real sacrifices, as it has not been in the NPT discussions to date. Yep – this is a highly risky strategy. But what alternatives are there? Invade Iran? Invade North Korea?”
First, I think it is highly unlikely that Iran or North Korea would allow a true verification program to proceed. That is because they have expressed a multi-decade willingness to persue nuclear weapons no matter who is setting policy in the United States.
Second, I know I’m not alone as an American who finds it highly annoying that this is always framed as an American problem. One of the reasons America is so frustrated with the so called multi-lateral process is that it doesn’t do crap. North Korea having nuclear weapons is a multi-decade failure of the NPT. The US doesn’t trust multi-lateral ‘efforts’ because past tries with them have been dismal failures, and Europe especially has not signalled the slightest interest in improving things.
Jake McGuire 02.16.05 at 6:41 pm
I’m not sure that reducing the nuclear arsenal of the US would decrease the prestige value of nuclear weapons; if anything it might define down “nuclear superpower” status enough to put it within reach and therefore worth striving for. It would certainly make counterforce planning (which is what leads to huge numbers of nukes) much more feasible.
Not to mention that nuclear weapons (when combined with ICBMs) will still continue to be immensely useful as deterrents, regardless of who else has them. Counting on the strength of international opinion to prevent the incineration of millions of your citizens is a bad idea. Now a functioning missile defense system would make nukes less militarily useful, but even as a technophile quasi-Republican, I have to admit is the propsects for that are looking somewhat grim.
Tom 02.16.05 at 6:48 pm
My main problem w/ Walt’s perspective is his starting assumption that the overriding goal of US forign policy should be the perpetuation of our global pre-eminence. From this standpoint, he makes a lot of great points againsty the “global hegemony” strategy on the basis that it’s not the most effective or prudent way to achieve that. Which is correct, as far as it goes …
But more important, global hegemony is a strategy that’s fundamentally at odds with what our real goals ought to be: namely, not just extending our moment in the sun, but creating a world order that promotes and protects civil and economic freedom, peaceful resolution of disputes, and closer ties among nations. The kind of world in which a free nation can have prosperity and security whether or not it happens to be the pre-eminent power.
We’re lucky to have had presidents in the past – like Wilson and FDR – who understood that vision, and a couple of generations of policy makers who have figured out how to advance that vision effectively and realistically. So that’s ultimately what troubles me about the Bush administration: for all of their talk about freedom and democracy, i just don’t think they get it. Their actions speak louder than their words, and their actions are those of a hegemon that sees the perpetuation of its power as an end in itself (and for whom promotion of democracy, when it is more than a mere rhetorical flourish, is simply a tactic to promote our “friends” and undermine our “enemies”).
abb1 02.16.05 at 7:13 pm
…it must offer the rest of the world a “grand bargain.â€
Yes, it must. The time for a strong and independent World Government has come. The current situation with the US being a solo superpower is a unique god-given chance to achieve it – should the US elite make it their goal.
Well, right now it seems like a political impossiblity, of course, but who knows; stranger things have happened…
Anderson 02.16.05 at 8:04 pm
Nothing against abb1 personally, but note just how far we have strayed from “realism.”
Sebastian Holsclaw points to one of the rare plusses of Bush’s foreign policy (must … force … fingers … to … type): the U.S. and Europe can play a bad cop/good cop game, where the U.S. is slavering to invade and the good Europeans (heh) are urging the target nation to make concessions, because they just can’t hold the U.S. back much longer.
Of course, this works better when you don’t actually tie the U.S. army down for an indefinite period in Mesopotamia, and when the U.S. and Europe can actually cooperate. But it’s not without its advantages.
ed_finnerty 02.16.05 at 8:26 pm
I don’t see how reducing its nuclear arsenal would reduce the likelyhood on nuclear terrorism. I think this issue was addressed in more complete terms by James Fallows in the Atlantic Monthly. However, as he indicated, nobody is listening.
The money being pissed away on the useless missile defence system could better be utilized to bribe states such as Korea not to build nukes.
abb1 02.16.05 at 8:38 pm
Anderson,
with all due respect, I think it’s much more realistic to expect a nation to surrender a portion of its sovereignty to a higher authority along with all other nations, than to expect a national government to offer any ‘grand bargains’.
Every national government is pursuing interests of its constituency and there’s nothing you can do about it; a national government is not going to offer any bargains, it’s going to press to the limit, that’s its nature.
They only way to make it work is to establish a system of enforceable international laws; that’s the only thing that can save national governments from themselves. It’s just like the law and order coming to the Wild West.
I agree that it doesn’t sound very realistic at the moment, but I see a possibility of a chain of (very unfortunate) events that just might make it happen.
contrary 02.16.05 at 8:39 pm
“But more important, global hegemony is a strategy that’s fundamentally at odds with what our real goals ought to be: namely, not just extending our moment in the sun, but creating a world order that promotes and protects civil and economic freedom, peaceful resolution of disputes, and closer ties among nations. The kind of world in which a free nation can have prosperity and security whether or not it happens to be the pre-eminent power.”
Yes, and pigs fly!
But the best that experience tells us is to expect no better than a benevolent hegemon, or perhaps a stable, but competetive, multi-national balance of power and influence (hopefully friendly).
Some would argue that the current administration is attempting to accomplish the very aims wistfully articulated above. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
scout29c 02.16.05 at 9:16 pm
Another interesting essay found through blogging. If only this were a starting point for the foreign policy of a new administration, but it is not. Neocons rule. Our current foreign policy is so bankrupt of reality, I fear where we will be four years hence. I feel as if I’m living at the beginning of the previous century, and seeing a little trouble erupting in the Balkans, know something terrible is about to happen over most of the rest of the century. What have the Neocons wrought?
scout29c 02.16.05 at 9:17 pm
Another interesting essay found through blogging. If only this were a starting point for the foreign policy of a new administration, but it is not. Neocons rule. Our current foreign policy is so bankrupt of reality, I fear where we will be four years hence. I feel as if I’m living at the beginning of the previous century, and seeing a little trouble erupting in the Balkans, know something terrible is about to happen over most of the rest of the century. What have the Neocons wrought?
contrary 02.16.05 at 9:29 pm
“The time for a strong and independent World Government has come.”
Does this prospect scare anyone else as much as it scares me? Talk about the possibility of ultimate tyranny! With no escape…anywhere!
luisalegria 02.16.05 at 9:30 pm
Gentlemen,
I think there is a misapprehension here about the goals of North Korea.
They are in the nuclear/missile businesses primarily as as tool for blackmail. They lost their economic prop in the Soviet Union, and they have found a new one by threatening their neighbors. A street thug obtains a gun in order to threaten his victims, not to protect himself from the police.
Let them succeed in this and I think you will see several other states take up that line of work.
abb1 02.16.05 at 10:07 pm
contrary,
but this is just how the human society evolves: in a primitive society all problems can be easily resolved on a community level, then it doesn’t work well anymore and small counties join into larger states and so on. Obviously in the US the federal government has become very powerful, but it doesn’t have be this way, there are other examples. The modern world is so complex, interconnected and dangerous that a world government seems like an obvious logical step. There were attempts to create it since after the WWI, and the need for it is getting more and more critical every day. IMHO, anyway.
Matt 02.16.05 at 11:05 pm
For the reasons Anderson lists Walt and Henry are simply wrong about disarmament. At some point Henry makes a claim about gaining support from non-rogue states this way, but I think its unclear that this is really true or that it would help us in turn deal w/ rogue actors, and even if it were, it does nothing to help Walt’s position which is obviously dealing w/ the immediate relationship b/w rogue states and the US.
Where do arguments like this come from? Is this the power of wishful thinking?
As Anderson also points out this is different from asserting that our aggressive behaviour may be encouraging nuclear proliferation. At the same time, I think assuming this point as proven is a mistake. Aggressive behaviour cuts both ways, something both sides like to ignore. Generally, it depends on the circumstances.
By the way: abb1- you comments on this thread seem out of character. Is the US creating a world government something you would actually like to see happen? (if it were feasible)
george 02.16.05 at 11:14 pm
Correct me I’m wrong, but isn’t (wasn’t) there a Bush initiative to reduce the US nuclear stockpile? Though even if true, the rest of Walt’s platform is pretty much anathema to this administration.
Ian Whitchurch 02.16.05 at 11:30 pm
Sebasitian,
You clearly didnt get the RNC memo regarding North Korea.
Unilateralism good, multilateralism bad. Except for North Korea, whose demand for one-on-one talks with the United States is absolutely unacceptable, and only a multilateral six-state solution is acceptable.
Finally, it’s an American problem, because you set yourself us as the global policeman. Overturning Westphalia by declaring certain states “rogue” and able to be destroyed at will – yeah, well, of course those states want nukes.
What the hell else do you use to force George W Bush’s cowardice to the surface ?
Chemical and biological weapons … those he laughs off.
Nukes … if you have nukes, he backs right off.
Just ask Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il.
Ian Whitchurch
Sebastian Holsclaw 02.16.05 at 11:53 pm
“Finally, it’s an American problem, because you set yourself us as the global policeman. Overturning Westphalia by declaring certain states “rogue†and able to be destroyed at will – yeah, well, of course those states want nukes.”
Are you aware that North Korea sought nuclear weapons before George Bush became President?
Are you aware that it had an illegal uranium program in the 1990s, after the Agreed Framework?
Are you aware that North Korea is a signatory of the NPT?
I don’t give a damn about the ‘talking points’. I do find it interesting that so many people want to trust international institutions when they have failed so dramatically with respect to North Korea. They also failed dramatically with respect to Saddam’s nuclear program in 1990. They are currently failing with respect to Iran.
Dan Simon 02.17.05 at 12:02 am
Walt is a realist – perhaps one of the three or four most prominent IR realists out there – and he’s calling for the US to give up most of its nuclear weapons in order better to encourage other states to sign up to a revamped version of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Why think small? Perhaps we can persuade North Korea to eliminate its conventional army as well, if the US, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia all agree to dismantle theirs. And maybe the US can lure Iran towards more democracy by agreeing to submit its laws to a council of Islamic scholars for approval, in return for the Iranian leadership agreeing to loosen up its criteria for electoral candidates a bit.
Once you embrace the strategy of appeasement–er, “Grand Bargains” with totalitarian regimes, there’s no telling what miracles you may achieve.
bob mcmanus 02.17.05 at 12:35 am
“Walt is a realist – perhaps one of the three or four most prominent IR realists out there – and he’s calling for the US to give up most of its nuclear weapons”
Although it could not be spoken, I think even Ronald Reagan realized that the massive “counterforce” strategy of the 70’s was stupid and insane, which is why he was attracted to Strategic Defense. The Generals, by their mission, of course want enough nukes to be able to fire the last possible nuke, but the thousands of thermo-nuclear weapons still in commission is just a testament to madness.
We can get rid of most of them.
am 02.17.05 at 1:02 am
He seems to assume that nuclear proliferation in “rogue states” is somehow the US’s fault, and that actions regarding the US’s nuclear armaments will in some way affect those states’ behaviour.
This neglects regional and domestic influences altogether. And in major cases (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, for example), those influences dominate.
detached observer 02.17.05 at 2:06 am
Sebastian,
Walt is proceeding from the assumption that North Korea is rationally seeking nuclear weapons to prevent an American invasion. In this framework, North Korea has broken its previous agreements due to bellicose rhetoric from the United States, or, alternatively, due to a belief it acquired one way or another that U.S. invasion is likely and protection against it is worth international censure. Once you accept this, steps by the United States that would unequivocally communicate to NK that an invasion is not going to happen (e.g. reduction in its nuclear arsenal, noninvasion pacts, etc) would remove the incentive on the part of NK to seek nuclear weapons. In short, we can trust NK to keep Walt’s hypothetical pact because it would be acting in its own interest.
The argument is ironclad: the only way to attack it so to attack the assumptions (i.e. NK is rational, it wants a nuclear weapon primarily to deter a US invasion, etc).
Josh Narins 02.17.05 at 2:36 am
The detection of nuclear weapons programs is far, far easier than you’ve been led to believe. Verification programs that don’t even involve people on the ground are feasible (but probably not cheap). Krypton-85 is one marker. I believe, but can not state, that there are other particles which are flung far.
Walt doesn’t sound like an IR to me.
There are, however, a variety of reasons to re-assess our nuclear arsenal.
The Jan/Feb ’05 issue of Foreign Affairs has a J Deutch article on reasons to lower our stockpile (and start using stockpile, rather than armed missiles, as the counter).
It also has an article on North Korea which would put Sebastian Holsclaw in his place, and quick.
Josh Narins 02.17.05 at 3:04 am
The detection of nuclear weapons programs is far, far easier than you’ve been led to believe. Verification programs that don’t even involve people on the ground are feasible (but probably not cheap). Krypton-85 is one marker. I believe, but can not state, that there are other particles which are flung far.
Walt doesn’t sound like an IR to me.
There are, however, a variety of reasons to re-assess our nuclear arsenal.
The Jan/Feb ’05 issue of Foreign Affairs has a J Deutch article on reasons to lower our stockpile (and start using stockpile, rather than armed missiles, as the counter).
It also has an article on North Korea which might cause S Holsclaw to reconsider his positions.
cw 02.17.05 at 4:20 am
As you well know, Israel is a fly on the Ass’s behind of Humanity. The Ass of Humanity must flick it’s tail and expurgate the insect Zionism. Untill, and only when, the flicking of this long and strident tail occurrs, sending the insect of Zion tumbling and buzzing guts akimbo into a purgetory of historical derision and turpitude, the Ass of Humanity will continue to shake and twitch in repusion towards the I of Z’s illegal and outrageous activities.
You may expurgate these words from the flyspecked computer screens of your weak-minded contingient of Zion-Coddlers, but the truth of these utterances are now forever burned into the mitachondriea of your intellect, and you, personally, will never be able to look the Ass of Humanity in the face again without know you have betrayed that same said intellect, which is, in every case, yours and yours alone.
So go ahead and delete me from your the aforementioned screens. You will never delete me from your mind.
abb1 02.17.05 at 8:04 am
Matt,
By the way: abb1- you comments on this thread seem out of character. Is the US creating a world government something you would actually like to see happen? (if it were feasible)
Sure I would. Sure it’s feasible. World government already exists, it’s called ‘UN’, created by the US in 1945. But it has problems: not independent enough, not strong enough, the whole structure with the permanent members of the SC and their veto power is not working well and so on; but it’s a start.
abb1 02.17.05 at 8:19 am
By the way,
weapons proliferation, war and terorrism are, of course, very serious global problems that the US, of course, is unable to solve alone, with or without offering bargains. But there are plenty of other tremendous global problems – pollution/climate change, global trade/labor standards; people are begining to recognize various moral issues as global – human rights, democracy, etc.
Elliott Oti 02.17.05 at 10:08 am
I do find it interesting that so many people want to trust international institutions when they have failed so dramatically with respect to …
100% non-proliferation is impossible to guarantee, multilaterally or unilaterally. If you want the exceptions to remain a small handful, it behooves the biggest and most prominent members of the international community to demonstrate to the rest that they take their commitments seriously and in good faith. International institutions are made solid by hard work and commitment, not by undermining them systematically at the first sign of setbacks.
Walt Pohl 02.17.05 at 10:11 am
cw has mastered a new and extra-delusional form of anti-semitism.
Sebastian: You do realize that the United States also failed to keep any of its promises to North Korea in that same deal. I’m not sure it would have made any difference (this is North Korea we’re talking about here, after all), but it’s not surprising that they didn’t uphold their end of the bargain.
MFB 02.17.05 at 10:56 am
You know, if the United States could commit to a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons, that might also help.
I know that policies are subject to change every few months. But couldn’t the Americans get it into a Constitutional Amendment? God knows it makes more sense than a constitutional amendment on gay marriages or budget balancing.
Boronx 02.17.05 at 2:06 pm
Good ideas…four years ago. This really seems like closing the barn door to me.
luminous beauty 02.17.05 at 4:03 pm
What is the working definition of “realism” in the field of IR. It seems from some of the posts here that it refers to interpretation of world events consonant with one’s self-interested ideology rather than any attempt to be objective. For example:
The identification of anti-zionism with anti-semitism. The gruesome irony of this view is that the Arabic people are much more semitic than the majority of Israelis. The assertion that any criticism of reactionary tendencies in Israeli politics is the same as hating Jews en masse is on its face irrational, despicable sophistry.
The view that American interests are merely the desire to see the spread of civil and economic freedom is pure horseshit. I’d personally like to see the spread of civil and economic freedom in the US. The reality of US hegenomy is in the furtherance of global corporatist control of resources of all localities, via the establishment of client regimes willing to ignore the civil and economic liberty of their own citizens for the “bargain” of accumulating corrupt wealth for a few, in exchange for capitulating to neo-liberal restructuring of their economies. Any country unwilling to submit is isolated and branded as “rogue” or “failed” states.
Realism would seem to require understanding that the US is no more a liberal democracy than NK is a socialist paradise.
It’s telling that no mention is made of the political movement towards reconciliation and social integration of NK and SK. That would seem to me to be the primary “success” of the Bush regime. They would rather have an irreconcilable enemy with whom they can refuse to negotiate in order to reinforce the domestic domination of the US gov. by the corporate/military elite than promote regional peace.
luminous beauty 02.17.05 at 4:05 pm
What is the working definition of “realism” in the field of IR. It seems from some of the posts here that it refers to interpretation of world events consonant with one’s self-interested ideology rather than any attempt to be objective. For example:
The identification of anti-zionism with anti-semitism. The gruesome irony of this view is that the Arabic people are much more semitic than the majority of Israelis. The assertion that any criticism of reactionary tendencies in Israeli politics is the same as hating Jews en masse is on its face irrational, despicable sophistry.
The view that American interests are merely the desire to see the spread of civil and economic freedom is pure horseshit. I’d personally like to see the spread of civil and economic freedom in the US. The reality of US hegenomy is in the furtherance of global corporatist control of resources of all localities, via the establishment of client regimes willing to ignore the civil and economic liberty of their own citizens for the “bargain” of accumulating corrupt wealth for a few, in exchange for capitulating to neo-liberal restructuring of their economies. Any country unwilling to submit is isolated and branded as “rogue” or “failed” states.
Realism would seem to require understanding that the US is no more a liberal democracy than NK is a socialist paradise.
It’s telling that no mention is made of the political movement towards reconciliation and social integration of NK and SK. That would seem to me to be the primary “success” of the Bush regime. They would rather have an irreconcilable enemy with whom they can refuse to negotiate in order to reinforce the domestic domination of the US gov. by the corporate/military elite than promote regional peace.
luminous beauty 02.17.05 at 4:10 pm
What is the working definition of “realism” in the field of IR. It seems from some of the posts here that it refers to interpretation of world events consonant with one’s self-interested ideology rather than any attempt to be objective.
The view that American interests are merely the desire to see the spread of civil and economic freedom is pure horseshit. I’d personally like to see the spread of civil and economic freedom in the US. The reality of US hegenomy is in the furtherance of global corporatist control of resources of all localities, via the establishment of client regimes willing to ignore the civil and economic liberty of their own citizens for the “bargain” of accumulating corrupt wealth for a few, in exchange for capitulating to neo-liberal restructuring of their economies. Any country unwilling to submit is isolated and branded as “rogue” or “failed” states.
Realism would seem to require understanding that the US is no more a liberal democracy than NK is a socialist paradise.
It’s telling that no mention is made of the political movement towards reconciliation and social integration of NK and SK. That would seem to me to be the primary “success” of the Bush regime. They would rather have an irreconcilable enemy with whom they can refuse to negotiate in order to reinforce the domestic domination of the US gov. by the corporate/military elite than promote regional peace.
luminous beauty 02.17.05 at 4:11 pm
What is the working definition of “realism” in the field of IR. It seems from some of the posts here that it refers to interpretation of world events consonant with one’s self-interested ideology rather than any attempt to be objective.
The view that American interests are merely the desire to see the spread of civil and economic freedom is pure horseshit. I’d personally like to see the spread of civil and economic freedom in the US. The reality of US hegenomy is in the furtherance of global corporatist control of resources of all localities, via the establishment of client regimes willing to ignore the civil and economic liberty of their own citizens for the “bargain” of accumulating corrupt wealth for a few, in exchange for capitulating to neo-liberal restructuring of their economies. Any country unwilling to submit is isolated and branded as “rogue” or “failed” states.
Realism would seem to require understanding that the US is no more a liberal democracy than NK is a socialist paradise.
It’s telling that no mention is made of the political movement towards reconciliation and social integration of NK and SK. That would seem to me to be the primary “success” of the Bush regime. They would rather have an irreconcilable enemy with whom they can refuse to negotiate in order to reinforce the domestic domination of the US gov. by the corporate/military elite than promote regional peace.
scout29c 02.17.05 at 4:39 pm
I do find it interesting that so many people want to trust international institutions when they have failed so dramatically with respect to North Korea. They also failed dramatically with respect to Saddam’s nuclear program in 1990. They are currently failing with respect to Iran.
While we may wonder and ague whether international institutions are working, in the case of Iraq, we have proof. It was working; we just did not know it. Our intelligence fail to detect that Saddam had no WMD and certainly no nuke program and Saddam’s intelligence fail to convince him that the U.S. would call his bluff in the extreme.
Saddam blocked the inspectors because what he had to hide was the fact he had nothing to hide. One can guess at his reasons, but the results are the same: the U.N. and the sanctions were working. He could rattle sabers all he wanted, he was no threat. We should remember that in our future dealing with Iran or North Korea – that is, if we ever have any future dealings with Iran or North Korea. For the current administration to use international institutions would be to admit they were wrong to abandon them before, and this groups feels admitting you are wrong is a sign of weakness. It is better to appear strong than right.
scout29c 02.17.05 at 4:43 pm
Appearing strong worked so well for Saddam.
contrary 02.17.05 at 6:33 pm
“The view that American interests are merely the desire to see the spread of civil and economic freedom is pure horseshit. I’d personally like to see the spread of civil and economic freedom in the US.”
Wow, Luminous Beauty. Do mean to say that even in the great old US of A there is not economic or civil freedom? What are you looking for – that everyone gets the same economic stipend for life, and that everyone gets to see their pet politician elected, and that everyone gets to do anything that enters their mind to do, without bound or consequence? Are you sure that these are not just sour grapes?
What alternate societal framework gets these things for you, and for everyone else, too? Oh, and have the society still be functional (other than just being self-absorbed)? Never mind that there may be competing ideas of what is fair and just and right – at both the personal and societal level.
contrary 02.17.05 at 6:58 pm
“While we may wonder and ague whether international institutions are working, in the case of Iraq, we have proof. It was working; we just did not know it.”
Would you please show me the proof? I think we only have conjecture, based on appearances. I don’t think Saddam has cracked under questioning (?) to let us know what he did with his WMD that we know he had. He certainly didn’t document that he had disposed of any. The WMD are simply not there. Where they are is anyone’s speculation.
If the international institutional sanctions were really working, we would be able to account for all these things. They would be verifiable.
Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.
abb1 02.17.05 at 7:46 pm
The WMD are simply not there. Where they are is anyone’s speculation.
No, not speculation. There was a year and a half long billion dollar effort undertaken after the war to trace the Iraqi WMD. People were interviewed, industrial sites inspected, warehouses, labs, roads, vehicles examined and so on.
The conclusion: proscribed weapons and materials didn’t exist. That’s a fact – they didn’t exist.
Programs to manufacture proscribed weapons and materials didn’t exist. That’s a fact.
However, some weapons of mass destruction program related activities have been indeed discovered.
We got ’em!
scout29c 02.17.05 at 9:26 pm
contrary at none@doc.com
The proof is we are in Iraq and the weapons are not there. I was against the invasion but was surprised that no WMD’s were found. I for one was shocked and awed. We know he had them; he used them on the Kurds. The stories of Judith Miller running all over Iraq with her “special†contacts looking for WMD’s and mobile labs would have been funny if it were not so tragic. If there had been anything the Bushies could have hung their hat on, we would have heard about it. Of that, you can be sure.
I am aware that the weapons in question could have been spirited away and are being held in Syria. If that’s true, they are the Syrians’ weapons now, Saddam’s people will never get them back, nor any terrorist group either. As Stephen Walt mentioned in his essay, any country, in this case Syria, will do what is best for Syria. Another strange coincidence is the disappearance of the high explosives, which we know were there and may or may not have been seen after the Americans arrived. Perhaps they are with the WMD’s – that’s one theory.
I’m sure there are many theories as to what happened to the WMD’s, but the fact is they were there a decade ago and now they are not. The sanctions with all its questionable verification and corruption in the Oil for Food program worked. The theory that Saddam no longer had WMD’s but was acting like he did is the simplest and therefore the most plausible one. We don’t get proofs like this very often, and we’ve paid a heavy price for it. How will we use it?
contrary 02.18.05 at 12:05 am
“I’m sure there are many theories as to what happened to the WMD’s, but the fact is they were there a decade ago and now they are not.”
My point exactly. My concern now is what happens when they turn up again, which, if they haven’t really been destroyed, we know they will. Who will have them? Who knows. Maybe Saddam buried them, and they’ll be accidently uncovered by some Iraqi child 30 years from now. There’s a tragedy just waiting to happen.
Too bad that this case has been hard to pin down definitively. But I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised.
Don Quijote 02.18.05 at 3:25 am
Wow, Luminous Beauty. Do mean to say that even in the great old US of A there is not economic or civil freedom?
What the US does within it’s borders and what it does outside of them are two different thing. If you don’t believe me, study Central America, that region has been under US control for over a hundred years, is it industrialized? are the inhabitants wealthy? is it free? are the regimes in power put there by the US and overthrown when they stop acting in accord with US interest? do the goverment we back commit atrocities? do we call them on it? do we call the goverments we don’t like on it?
Comments on this entry are closed.