What I've Learned

At the risk of angering the publishers at the Washington Post, I'm reprinting, in its entirety (with a link to the site) Kofi Annan's Op-Ed that was published in today's post. The timing, with a new Congress preparing to start, couldn't be more appropriate. Hopefully someone will listen.

What I've Learned

By Kofi A. Annan
Monday, December 11, 2006; A19

Nearly 50 years ago, when I arrived in Minnesota as a student fresh from Africa, I had much to learn -- starting with the fact that there is nothing wimpish about wearing earmuffs when it is 15 degrees below zero. All my life since has been a learning experience. Now I want to pass on five lessons I have learned during 10 years as secretary general of the United Nations that I believe the community of nations needs to learn as it confronts the challenges of the 21st century.

First, in today's world we are all responsible for each other's security. Against such threats as nuclear proliferation, climate change, global pandemics or terrorists operating from safe havens in failed states, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. Only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves. This responsibility includes our shared responsibility to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. That was accepted by all nations at last year's U.N. summit. But when we look at the murder, rape and starvation still being inflicted on the people of Darfur, we realize that such doctrines remain pure rhetoric unless those with the power to intervene effectively -- by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle -- are prepared to take the lead. It also includes a responsibility to future generations to preserve resources that belong to them as well as to us. Every day that we do nothing, or too little, to prevent climate change imposes higher costs on our children.

Second, we are also responsible for each other's welfare. Without a measure of solidarity, no society can be truly stable. It is not realistic to think that some people can go on deriving great benefits from globalization while billions of others are left in, or thrown into, abject poverty. We have to give all our fellow human beings at least a chance to share in our prosperity.

Third, both security and prosperity depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law. Throughout history human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learned from each other. But if our communities are to live in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity and the need for our human dignity and rights to be protected by law.

That is vital for development, too. Both foreigners and a country's own citizens are more likely to invest when their basic rights are protected and they know they will be fairly treated under the law. Policies that genuinely favor development are more likely to be adopted if the people most in need of development can make their voice heard. States need to play by the rules toward each other, as well. No community suffers from too much rule of law; many suffer from too little -- and the international community is among them.

My fourth lesson, therefore, is that governments must be accountable for their actions, in the international as well as the domestic arena. Every state owes some account to other states on which its actions have a decisive impact. As things stand, poor and weak states are easily held to account, because they need foreign aid. But large and powerful states, whose actions have the greatest impact on others, can be constrained only by their own people.

That gives the people and institutions of powerful states a special responsibility to take account of global views and interests. And today they need to take into account also what we call "non-state actors." States can no longer -- if they ever could -- confront global challenges alone. Increasingly, they need help from the myriad types of association in which people come together voluntarily, to profit or to think about, and change, the world.

How can states hold each other to account? Only through multilateral institutions. So my final lesson is that those institutions must be organized in a fair and democratic way, giving the poor and the weak some influence over the actions of the rich and the strong.

Developing countries should have a stronger voice in international financial institutions, whose decisions can mean life or death for their people. New permanent or long-term members should be added to the U.N. Security Council, whose current membership reflects the reality of 1945, not of today.

No less important, all the Security Council's members must accept the responsibility that comes with their privilege. The council is not a stage for acting out national interests. It is the management committee of our fledgling global security system.

More than ever, Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a functioning global system. Experience has shown, time and again, that the system works poorly when the United States remains aloof but it functions much better when there is farsighted U.S. leadership.

That gives American leaders of today and tomorrow a great responsibility. The American people must see that they live up to it.

The writer, secretary general of the United Nations, will leave office Dec. 31. This article is based on an address he will give today at the Truman Presidential Museum & Library in Independence, Mo.

Incomes, Inequality, and the World Bank

The Post has a story about a World Bank report that came out recently, describing the broad-spectrum failings of poverty alleviation programs.  In short, according to the report, 60% of countries receiving poverty-alleviation loans from the Bank have remained stagnant, or actually lost ground in the "war on poverty".

 

My favorite, exerpted quote, though is this:

"For a sustained reduction in poverty over a period of time, it really pays to worry about both growth and distribution," said Vinod Thomas, director-general of the Independent Evaluation Group. "It has been a mistaken notion that you can grow first and worry about the distribution later."

As China-watchers (and Chinese themselves) can speak on, one of the main concerns for the CCP right now is growing income inequality (and the social unrest that is coming along with it).

 

There are two big challenges that I see on this right now.  First, finding a plan for any given country that will allow it to effectively redistribute wealth/income while not creating a 'welfare state'; and Second, how to convince those who are accumulating the wealth and earning the income that it's actually a good idea for them to surrender some of that wealth.

 

My guess is that the first person who figures out a highly effective way to do this is going to earn a Nobel Prize.

 

 

The Anxiety Kingdom

There is a story in today's Post that, in microcosm, describes China's growing economic problem: Unemployable college graduates. Not because they lack the skills to get decent jobs (the jobs their parents assume college will open the doors for them to get), but because China's economic and regulatory environment make it too hard for the business to start to provide an opportunity to the young people with energy and creativity.

Like so many things, there's a catch. China can't afford to simply free up the restraints on their economic and business sytems. Why? Because it will tear apart the economy from too much economic growth. It's currently caught between a rock and a hard place, both of it's own making: it needs as many college graduates as possible to provide upward mobility for a population enormously in need of hope; but at the same time it has to slow (to a modest 8 or 9%)the economic growth so that the economy doesn't destabilize the whole country.

I'm a bit worried that we're going to have more of this kind of news before we hear less.

Global warming and economics

Global Warming To Cost Up To 20% of Global GDP

In college and in grad school, I had ongoing debates with my roommates and friends about the need to quantify, in dollar terms, the costs of global warming, if we wanted the businesses and governments around the world to start taking it seriously. If there isn't a dollar value attached to it, it doesn't affect their bottom line, and they don't have to worry about it.

Sir Nicholas Stern has just done this, in a 700 page report he prepared under a commission from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, in the UK. In his report he presents the costs of global warming at between 5-20% of annual global GDP over the next century plus. If this were an average loss to everyone on the planet, it would mean the average american would earn 8,000 less a year, just because of global warming.

It's a long report, the executive summary is even 27 pages. The middle of the summary is pretty interesting. I'd suggest starting to read at page 10 or so.

Bitter Partisanship

If you thought bitter partisanship was constrained to the Western Hemisphere (where outside the U.S., Mexico is also bitterly--and evenly--divided) there is news from Eastern Europe showing how we are not alone in our "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. At least we haven't resorted to tear gas, rubber bullets, or fire hoses yet, as is happening in Budapest now.

Today is the 50th anniversary of their 1956 uprising against the Soviet Union. So maybe, in a bittersweet sense, it is fitting.

North Korean Situation

News From the Frontier
This is a good story from the Monterey Herald about the situation in one spot along the Chinese-North Korean border. It does a good job of giving a glimmer of what is and what could happen, depending on how the situation unfolds.

Take a look, here.

From the Security Council
The AP also has a good recap of the Security Council resolution, including additional restrictions imposed by individual countries: U.S., Japan, and potentially Australia.

The Security Council voted Saturday to impose the following sanctions on North Korea, in response to its claim that it has conducted a nuclear test:

_ an embargo on major weapons hardware such as tanks, warships, combat aircraft and missiles.

_ the freezing of the assets of people or businesses connected to weapons programs.

_ a travel ban for anyone involved in weapons program.

_ a ban on the sale of luxury goods to North Korea.

_ a ban on the importing of materials that could be used in unconventional weapons or ballistic missiles.

_ a call for inspections of all cargo leaving and arriving in North Korea to prevent any illegal trafficking in unconventional weapons or ballistic missiles.

In addition to the U.N. resolution, the United States maintains its own sanctions on North Korea, including:

_ a ban on U.S. defense exports and sales to the country.

_ a ban on U.S. aid, including a halt in food deliveries through the World Food Program, though not all food assistance has been banned.

_ several financial restrictions that oppose support for North Korea from international financial institutions and restrict business with banks that the U.S. alleges have helped the regime counterfeit and launder money.

_ strict limits on the amount of trade between the two countries.

Japan has imposed the following additional measures and is considering several more:

_ a ban on the entry of North Korean ships to its ports.

_ a trade embargo.

_ a continued ban on the Mangyongbong-92 ferry's entry into Japanese waters. Japan has restricted the movement of the ferry, which once served a major conduit for trade, since July when North Korea test-fired seven missiles into the waters between the two countries.

Australia is considering the following additional sanctions:

_ a ban on the entry of North Korean ships to its ports.

Shot heard 'round the world

Thanks to everyone who has called, written, or text messaged to let me know that, about 24 hours ago, North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon. For those who don't know me, I've spent the last year and a half procrastinating finishing a master's paper on North Korea. I'm just about finished (presented oral arguments a couple of weeks ago) and have been held up from making final corrections as life has intervened a bit.

While it is quite likely that Kim Jong Il, the "Dear Leader" of the DPRK is misguided, I think it very unlikely that he and his advisors have abandoned reason. Quite the contrary. It seems more likely that the North Korean leadership is playing a game of Chinese-style self-interested real politik. Here's why:

1. South Korea's President Roh has based his foreign policy on improving relations with North Korea. He is most likely to go for reconcilliation rather than conflict.
2. Japan has a new Prime Minister--quite publically a 'hawk' when it comes to North Korea--so North Korea doesn't lose anything by incurring his wrath. Especially since Japan still doesn't have offensive military capabilities.
3. The U.S. is too bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq to mount a serious, sustained military action against the DPRK. Further, with the U.S. still holding war-time command authority on the Korean Peninsula, the South Korean forces (though fairly capable themselves) are effectively held to defensive actions without a more robust U.S. presence to use as an offensive force.
4. This may be the most significant, though the least certain: North Korea has wagered that China's drive for internal stability and economic growth (especially presently, during the once every 5-year plenary session of the National People's Congress) will outweigh China's desire to put resources into maintaining the previous status quo along it's periphery.

This last piece, though a gamble by North Korea, if correct, could allow North Korea to dramatically shift the terms of battle in their favor. And whether intentional or not, they would be using precisely the same tactic the West did against the USSR during the Cold War. The U.S. knew the Red Army was signficantly larger than our own forces, and would be able to reach deeply into Western Europe before we could mount a serious resistance or counter attack. So the U.S. used our forward stationed troops as "trip wires". If the Soviets began a major assault on Western Europe, word would quickly get back to Washington, and we'd fire nuclear weapons against the Soviets. (It's not ironic the concept for the ultimate shape of this conflict was "MAD".)

At present, though, it seems to be a general consensus that the North Koreans are unable to mount nuclear weapons on a missile for delivery at any distance (with accuracy). Their last (and first) long range missile test blew up just above the launch pad. This means that the only conceivable targets (in a traditional, nuclear combat scenario) are South Korea, or China. We can fairly well rule out China, if for no other reason, that the Chinese, if attacked, would have no mercy--and the North Koreans know this. This leaves South Korea as the main target.

The impact of using this type of weapon against Seoul, or another major population center in South Korea would be devastating. Likely, tens of millions of people would die within a few days or weeks. South Korea would be devestated--not just physically, but psychologically and emotionally as well. Remember, it is a very (geographically) small country. The resulting retaliation South Korea--and it's newfound allies around the world--would wreak upon North Korea preclude this option as well unless as a completely desperate act.

So if you were Kim Jong Il and had these nuclear weapons, and wanted to get something, what would you do? My guess is that he will try to blackmail China, S. Korea, Japan, and the U.S. into either buying the weapons, or more likely, leave open the idea that the material might somehow be sold to other parties interested in acuiring nuclear material.

But this still leaves the question--which I have yet to come up with a plausible answer for--of what is it that North Korea is seeking in it's game of real politik? If you have ideas, please send them my way.

A uniquely American crisis

The U.S. is facing a crisis. It has to do with Iraq, but our involvement in Iraq is only a symptom of the broader problem. This thought is still forming, and remains a bit rough around the edges, but I want to through it out because it's been so long since my last post.

The U.S. military has become so effective, so powerful, so efficient at it's job: defeating identified enemies, that it has far outpaced not only our enemies and adversaries ability to fight back, but it has outpaced even our own ability to prepare for the aftermath.

What am I talking about? The men and women in our armed forces can, on very short notice, be nearly anywhere in the world, engaging in successful operations against nearly any traditional enemy we could face. The problem this creates--and where the crisis comes in--is that the rest of our government is not, and I believe should not be, in a position to deal with the consequences of such rapid victories.

Put in a concrete situation, the U.S. force in Iraq was 1. enormously effective at eliminating the Iraqi threat; and 2. Woefully prepared to handle the post-conflict element of operations in Iraq. Recent publications from George Packer's "Assassin's Gate" and Bob Woodward's "State of Denial" suggest that much of this has been caused by the administration's unwillingness to face the realities caused by America's actions.

If true, this attitude would clearly be a major contributing factor to the problem. It, alone, is not sufficient, however. Planning an attack, or a campaign, against a target or a country is a complex undertaking. It requires an understanding of the force being faced, it's strengths and weaknesses, the terrain, and myriad other items. But it is fairly transferrable from one place to another: tanks are always tanks; guns are always guns. Achieving victory, then, is something that takes a great deal of effort--but is something that our military is eminently well suited to do.

Achieving peace, prosperity, and ultimately political success, is something our military has not trained for, and is not presently equipped to do. Unfortunately, neither are any of our other federal departments or agencies. Creating a stable, productive, and peaceful country where there was a despotic autocracy requires a very differents set of skills and knowledge--and a country (or even provincial-level) expertise that our soldiers do not have the luxury to afford. On V-E and V-J day in world war two, the U.S. Generals in charge had spent the entirety of those wars facing the adversaries. They had at their disposal staffs with extensive knowledge of the countries and cultures in play--not just the relevant military information, but extensive information about history, culture, society, and in-country networks that existed or were believed to exist. And they had several years of working with these people to develop a clear sense of what would be needed not only to win the war, but, to use a cliche, "to win the peace."

Since World War II, our military has in both real and relative terms become a force unrivaled. Our experience in Vietnam gave us the "Powell Doctrine" of using "overwhelming force" to defeat an enemy. These two together, have left the U.S. in a position where our political leadership, and our military commanders no longer have the time to gain sufficient knowledge about a place, or establish networks of people who have this information, to create and put in place (much less execute) a plan that will allow the U.S. to succeed after the military operation has been successful.

This is not just a problem, it is a crisis. Unless we can bring our ability to win peace in line with our ability to fight wars, the United States will have more situations like Iraq in our future, not less. We will identify threats to our safety. We will neutralize them. And, perversely, we will be less secure after the threat is gone then we were when the threat was there.