Tom's on the web right now

Live streaming audio and video from American University's Washington College of Law

Africa: The ICC is picking on you for a reason

OP-ED: "Will Africa Let Sudan Off the Hook? The criminal court is not singling out a continent," by Desmond Tutu, New York Times, 3 March 2009.

OP-ED: "Put Peace Before Justice: Arresting Bashir would just create more chaos in Sudan," by Franklin Graham, New York Times, 3 March 2009.

Tutu notes that 20 of the original ICC founders were African states and that 30 (out of a total of 48 African nations, I think) of the 108 signatories are also African states. He also notes that it's not weird that all four of the ICC current investigations are Africa-focused, because three of the four (Congo, CAR and Uganda) themselves made the request. Only Darfur was started by the ICC without host nation participation. The ICC is also considering investigations in Afghanistn, Colombia and Georgia.

Graham argues that the indictment simply makes Sudan's government more intransigent regarding outside relief efforts, which, of course, is a weird catch-22: we have to let Bashir keep committing war crimes so we can access his victims. Graham cites "progress" since 2005 that consists of various government peace deals with various groups. Not a strong case, methinks. He says Bashir will ultimately answer to a higher power. Graham, of course, is Billy's kid and the head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

As usual, I would go with the Africa perspective versus the well-meaning outsider.

The US-China tight rope

ARTICLE: China's Leader Says He Is 'Worried' Over U.S. Treasuries , By MICHAEL WINES, New York Times, March 13, 2009

The key paras:

The Chinese government faces a difficult dilemma. If the United States government borrows less and engages in less fiscal stimulus, this could help prevent interest rates from rising in the United States and would preserve the value of China's existing bond holdings.

But less government spending in the United States could also mean a slower recovery for the American economy and reduced American demand for Chinese goods. The United States imported 17.4 percent less from China in the first two months of this year compared to the same period last year, contributing to a record drop in Chinese exports that is braking the entire Chinese economy.

The interdependency here is very real. That's why anything that smacks of economic retaliation would be considered very aggressive.

(Thanks: Kevin McCullough)

Let's compromise on the recession response

ARTICLE: Obama seeks to get past differences on global financial plan, By Stephen Labaton, International Herald Tribune, March 12, 2009

As per my recent Esquire piece, Europe sees an institutional response being required while America is more into a sheer fiscal response.

One thinks some sort of compromise makes sense, to make all those holders of our debt less nervous. By my calculations, we owe about $3.5T east and $1T west.

(Thanks: Abram Conrad)

The road not yet taken on Syria

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: "All Roads Lead to Damascus: Syria is a vital but often overlooked party in stabilizing the Middle East," by Michael B. Oren, Wall Street Journal, 28 February-1 March 2009.

Interesting piece by Oren, whom we must identify as a member of the Israeli defense forces (public affairs) in addition to being a world-class historian. That first part should have been mentioned in his byline, so readers are aware.

This is an a good historical overview that reminds us of Syria's potential as a rollback target re: Iranian influence in the region.

What the piece does not address is the significant likelihood that a Netanyahu government will strike Iran's nuclear facilities before the year is out, an event that is likely to shut down this opportunity.

Manning the mini-forts on globalization's nasty frontier

FRONT PAGE: "U.S. Strategy in Afghan War Hinges on Far-Flung Outposts," by Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, 4 March 2009.

Good description by Dreazen of these "tiny redoubts" in southern and eastern Afghanistan. Basic question is one of critical mass: do 17k more soldiers spread out in more tiny forts create a different security environment or just put more bodies out there for target practice?

As always, the SysAdmin demands bodies as much or more than bucks.

The perfect mix of big firms surrounded by entrepreneurial start-ups

MARKETPLACE: "Dreaming Of Deals In Pharma," by Natasha Singer and Duff Wilson, New York Times, 25 February 2009.

Neat little article with accompanying map that shows the big firms of Big Pharma (J&J, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Glaxo-SmithKline) and their likely takeover targets of the medium tech innovators and the smaller ones a size below.

Baumol et. al, in Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, talked about the perfect capitalism mix being big firms surrounded by a sea of smaller entreprenuers. Big Pharma and the IT sector are often cited as classic examples.

Just a neat map to give you a sense of the playing field.

[Ed. Unfortunately, the map is not available on the NYT free site.]

Count me out for 2009 on paying more to Uncle Sam, but I'm listening . . .

BUSINESS DAY: "The Upside Of Paying More Taxes," by David Leonhardt, New York Times, 25 February 2009.

For half a century, we are told, our taxes have "remained fairly constant relative to the size of the American economy--equal to about 18 percent of gross domestic product."

That is going to end, because Americans "have made it clear that they want a certain kind of government," meaning big Defense + Medicare + Social Security.

So get used to higher taxes unless you want--collectively--to radically redefine our definition of government as we age.

Another sensible call to end the War on Drugs

OPINION: "The War on Drugs Is a Failure," by Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Cesar Gaviria, and Ernesto Zedillo, Wall Street Journal, 23 February 2009.

Gets pretty clear here:

Prohibitionist policies based on eradication, interdiction and criminalization of consumption simply haven't worked.

Instead, we see the "criminalization of politics and a politicization of crime" in Latin America, where democracy is being severely undermined.

Answer?

Medicalize the consumption issue here in the States.

I agree completely. We're wasting vast amounts of money and lives. The vast bulk of this issue is pot, and pot isn't any more damaging on a social scale than alcohol or tobacco.

We simply drew the line at the wrong place, and we and Latin America are paying through the nose as a result.

The beginnings of serious great-power economic cooperation in Asia

WORLD NEWS: "East Asia to Expand Pool of Reserves to Help Currencies," by David Roman and Takeshi Takeuchi, Wall Street Journal, 23 February 2009.

The Chiang Mai initiative after the Flu in 1997-98 set up $80B to help Asia economies deal with any economic crises. It mandated an associated IMF stabilization program be in place.

Korea, China and Japan just now decide to boost the fund by $40B to $120B, supplying 80% of the money themselves and eliminating the IMF provision.

Good to see, especially with our trio leading the way. They just had their first trilateral summit. Gives you a sense of how we're just beginning this process.

Hard line on Chavez? Why the hell not?

WORLD NEWS: "U.S. Touts Hard Line Toward Venezuela," by Jose de Cordoba, Wall Street Journal, 23 February 2009.

The State Department issued some bad wording about the recent constitutional referendum vote that gave Chavez the right to remain president for life.

Once the hubbub arose, State corrects any impression that it approved, signaling that Obama's love offensive won't include Venezuela.

And there's no reason why it should, because they've got nothing to trade besides the oil they HAVE to sell.

A lot more sanguine about Clinton as SECSTATE

DIPLOMATIC MEMO: "Breaking Taboo, Clinton Talks About Prospect of North Korean Succession Question," by Mark Landler, New York Times, 20 February 2009.

ARTICLE: "Hillary's State: Huge expectations, big egos, turf wars; Is Clinton's State Department just like her campaign?" by Michael Crowley, The New Republic, 4 March 2009.

On the first point, I've been saying this for years: the real conversation to have with the Chinese about Kim starts with the question, "What do you want the Korean peninsula to look like once he goes?"

Clinton: "North Korea is on China's border, and I want to understand better what the Chinese believe is doable." She makes that statement WRT to the latest missile development news out of Pyongyang, but it applies to the larger question as well.

Kim is 67.

There is no question about the DPRK's collapse triggering war between the US and China. We simply need the event to go down in such a way as to bolster our bilateral ties and to make Beijing feel secure enough to play the role it needs to play.

Done well, this crisis is an opportunity for major growth in security--a final processing of the Cold War's tailbone.

As for pissing off the North Koreans by being forthright on the question of Kim's demise, screw them. In the end, they represent a very manageable threat that is destined to be liquidated on our--meaning the U.S. and China's--collective terms.

We should act and speak with that in mind.

More generally, the TNR piece gives me a lot of comfort on the quality and number of Asia-smart hands around Clinton--to wit, Jim Steinburg and Kurt Campbell (who taught me briefly as a first-time instructor at Harvard in the late 80s).

Add in Anne-Marie Slaughter at the State "Kennan post" (Office of Policy Planning) and that's an awfully solid team. I got a chance to meet Slaughter when she invited me to speak at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson Center a while back, and she is very impressive.

Overall, passing grades and plenty of optimism.

One of the many dangers of so much public borrowing

FRONT PAGE: "Obama, Breaking 'From a Troubled Past,' Seeks a Budget to Reshape U.S. Priorities: Tax Rise for Wealthy--Push on Health and Education," by Jackie Calmes, New York Times, 27 February 2009.

BUSINESS OUTLOOK: "Will The Obama Budget Hurt Private Borrowers?" by James C. Cooper, BusinessWeek, 16 March 2009.

FRONT PAGE: "A Rising Dollar Lifts U.S. But Adds to Crisis Abroad: Capital Dries Up in Ailing Nations as Cash Floods Back Into Treasury Bills," by Peter S. Goodman, New York Times, 9 March 2009.

Obama is ambitious, and I always like that. Better to do too much than too little, and better to try too hard that sit in apathy, waiting on others. That's how you really lose a decade, Japan-style.

But plenty of fear here of the new sucking sound in the global economy--namely, all that investment money heading into U.S. Treasuries.

There's fear there won't be enough left over for private entrepreneurship, or for emerging markets in general.

THAT'S why it is crucially important that we don't signal any protectionist impulses during this time period. We are ALREADY beggaring the world considerably by our magnified debt requirements.

The de-globalization impulse

WEEKEND JOURNAL: "The Dangers of Turning Inward: Countries are attempting to protect their own companies and workers from the economic crisis. The financial and political damage will be severe," by Jeffrey E. Garten, Wall Street Journal, 28 February-1 March 2009.

INTERNATIONAL: "Globalisation: Turning their backs on the world; The integration of the world economy is in retreat on almost every front," The Economist, 21 February 2009.

NATIONAL WEEKLY EDITION: "A Global Economy in Retreat: With world trade plummeting, ports stand idle as workers return home," by Anthony Faiola, Washington Post, 9-15 March 2009.

Good trio of pieces regarding the rising tide of economic nationalism, so far not yet extreme, says Garten, and quite understandable given the circumstances.

Still, if you want to see some serious anger, wait until this tide creates enough deglobalization to put at severe risk all those hundreds of millions that located a better life in recent years thanks to globalization. The Old Core's instincts here will not only be counterproductive (we do not constitute the bulk of the global economy's future growth, so retreating to our Western club will mean diminished growth opportunities), but quite threatening to the New Core pillars whose futures are put decidedly at risk with such tactics. We are just now getting those warnings from the Chinese regarding our T bills.

As Garten argues:

It is inconceivable that Uncle Sam could mount a serious recovery without a massive expansion of exports--the very activity that was responsible for so much of America's economic growth during the middle of this decade. But that won't be possible if other nations block imports.

And that outcome is preordained if America's "buy American" instinct is indulged.

Then there is the more obvious reality of having our credit cut by the same countries we may seek to punish with our trade protectionism.

Garten's logical to-do list is one I agree with completely:

It would be an achievement if the WTO publicized and named and shamed anti-global measures that governments were taking. Shoring up the IMG and the World Bank to help poorer countries deal with economic stress would be a good idea, too. Developing far-reaching trade adjustment policies consisting of education, training, wage insurance and other forms of community support for those people clobbered by imports will be valuable, because it would reduce protectionist pressure. Making a Herculean effort to conclude the global trade agreement that now languishes in Geneva and designing and implementing a treaty on climate change would also be a great shot in the arm. And if the efforts under way in Europe and in the U.S. to reform banking regulation could be brought under one roof--a new global banking regulator--in place of what could otherwise turn out to be competing and conflicting systems, that would be a breakthrough.

But the most powerful medicine for the disease of economic nationalism would be a short-lived recession.

As always, very sensible stuff from Garten.

The biggest charge against globalization has long been that it does not deliver benefits to the poor. The main evidence against that is that poorer countries have grown much faster than rich ones since globalization went truly global. To the extent we do witness deglobalization, we shall witness worse times for the poorer parts of the world, along with slower rates of growth everywhere else. It will be the equivalent of depressing interstate trade within the United States--there will be no winners, just varying levels of losers.

But instincts are instincts, and with all sorts of fools dominating the discussion right now, we are likely to indulge their fantasies of "bringing it all back home" until the costs are driven home along with the chimera of "independence." In no time, we'll begin to realize how much more costly deglobalization is in terms of instability and sub- and trans-national violence than was globalization's heady expansion.

And these will be good lessons, despite the pain. Until the experiment is run, the instincts will prevail. We've had globalization based on greed, which I happen to believe in, and now we can experience deglobalization based on fear, which a lot of other people prefer to believe in more.

A final bit from Faiola's piece:

Singapore's finance minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, however, says that while globalization may be going through a bad patch, it remains the only long-term option for nations as globalized as his.

"This is clearly not going to be a short period of adjustment . . . but globalization is not a bad strategy," he says. "It just takes patience during times like these."

That is exactly why I did not reshape the message of Great Powers as the global financial crisis worsened. I prefer the long-term intelligence to the short-term instincts. I don't want to make a career out of betting on the bad and making that my terms for exploitation.

Secy Clinton: moving beyond Rice's talking-points style

INTERNATIONAL: "Reshaping Diplomacy By Tossing The Script," by Mark Landler, New York Times, 21 February 2009.

ASIA: "American diplomacy in Asia: Hillary says hello to Asia; A well-received first trip abroad as secretary of state, listening not lecturing," The Economist, 21 February 2009.

I must admit: I have no problems so far with Clinton as SECSTATE. I like the style and substance and the stepping-up-to-the-historical-moment vibe.

I also like the honesty and the ability to move beyond Rice's painful bureaucratese.

Rice was a pretty picture all right, but there was no there there.

Clinton is a story a thousand times more interesting, and there is a surfeit of there there.

I simply like the gravity created. It's like we have a real SECSTATE again for the first time since Baker--a figure to be reckoned with versus one to be trifled with.

And the listening shtick--an oldie but goodie for her--is just what the doctor ordered

I say again, Clinton's approach on China is the right one

WORLD NEWS: "Clinton Puts China Focus on Economy, Not Human Rights," by Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, 23 February 2009.

She talks about our economies being "intertwined" and states, that "by continuing to support American Treasury instruments, the Chinese are recognizing our interconnection."

Then she drops the clincher for those of us who worried about a repeat of her 1995 appearance in Beijing: "We have to continue to press them" on human rights, "But our pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate-change crisis and the security crisis."

Game, set, match.

Human rights and other topline political achievements trump none of those more basic concerns right now.

Instead, Clinton previews a certain focus on environmental issues as her version of most pertinent human rights--very Maslow and very correct and right out of Great Powers.

I totally approve.

A sense of the gap between our judicial rule-set on terror and the rest of the Old Core

INTERNATIONAL: "France Clears 5 Ex-Inmates Whom U.S. Held in Cuba," by Steven Erlanger, New York Times< 25 February 2009.

Five French citizens who were previously processed through Gitmo and returned to France for trial have now had their convictions tossed by an appeals court, which said the nature of the interrogations and evidence gathering conducted at Gitmo violated French rules and that, with that evidence tossed, there wasn't enough to uphold the convictions.

The story on all five seems similar: went to Afghanistan for al Qaeda training camp experiences but never were turned on as operatives, so the basic line is, preparation to be a baddie isn't enough.

And quite frankly, that's a fairly American ruling.

But for this ruling to now come is a bit of a thunderclap in anticipation of Euro states expressing little willingness to help us empty Gitmo. Tells you how far away from our own principles we seem to have veered.

Calling Ellery Qigong

INTERNATIONAL: "China's Answer to a Crime Includes Amateur Sleuths," by Andrew Jacobs, New York Times, 25 February 2009.

Prisoners awaiting trial in a county jail allegedly play a dry version of Marco Polo and the searcher, blindfolded, stumbles and hits his head on the floor, triggering a fatal wound.

So sayeth the police.

Public reaction surmised otherwise, as thousands of netizens start positing the prisoner died from interrogation, something that apparently happens a lot in the Chinese police station.

Provincial officials try to tamp down on the anger by inviting the public to solve the case. One thousand (!) volunteers are pared down to a citizens committee of 15, who visit the scene, check evidence, etc.

No, no great answers found, but the case riveted the public, notes the article, and "fueled a frank discussion online and in the state-run media about the extent--and the limits--of official attempts to shape popular opinion."

The provincial official's motive? To restore public faith:

Past experience has shown that the doubts of the netizens will not shift or recede on their own over time. Instead, the doubts will actually rise.

The key phrase there is "on their own."

The attempt backfires because--surprise!--it turns out that all 15 committee members were employees of the state-run media, and the leader is one of those "fifty-cent party members" who gets paid to write pro-gov postings on the web (at 50 cents a pop).

So the postings by angry citizens continue to pile up by the tens of thousands.

The rise of the SysAdmin Industrial Complex

U.S. NEWS: "Major Defense Contractors Aim for Soft-Power Role," by August Cole, Wall Street Journal, 2 March 2009.

CORPORATE NEWS: "Lockheed Wins Pact For Defense," by August Cole, Wall Street Journal, 4 March 2009.

More good reporting from August Cole on the emerging industrial corner of the SysAdmin complex. Cited are BAE, Northrup and Lockheed, all of whom I've spent years briefing, division by division and at the senior leadership levels. They are moving into "soft power" programs that see them providing things like peacekeeper training and anthropologists to both the Pentagon and State.

Cole reminds us of LockMart's purchase of Pacific Architects & Engineers, which has done everything from peacekeeping in Darfur to helping write the Afghanistan constitution.

Key quote from Linda Gooden, head of LMCO's "fast-growing" Information Systems & Global Services:

We recognized five or so years ago that the industry was changing and that the government was looking at more than just hard power.

It was during this time of the year in 2004 that I briefed Lockheed's top 500 global execs in Phoenix (the original PNM brief). It was--in retrospect and from what I've learned--arguably the most influential single talk I've ever given.

I had no idea at the time. Sometimes lampooned for not knowing--much less caring about--who's in the audience (see Jaffe's original WSJ profile on me), I spoke at a level laughingly above my paygrade, which is my norm.

The constant feedback across my career has always been the same: "What you're talking about is so much more than what you're talking about!" In many ways, then, the successful grand strategist is a virtual idiot savant, crossing domains at a speed he does not understand fully and yet does not fear. That fearless, drawing-outside-the-lines mentality is easily mocked for being an inch deep and a mile wide, but every player has his function, so either you accept that constant gripe or you reach for the tools of the drill-down artist and find your intellectual security in knowing what you know, and not connecting what you see.

As I noted in PNM: having the right answer is almost always meaningless, unless it's obtained at the right time and can be delivered to the right people. Unless the decisions follow, the vision is without weight. As they say in the Pentagon, vision without budget is hallucination.

But for all you people who keep asking me, "Are you getting through?" This is major data point.

Like I say in Great Powers, you don't convince a very conservative company like LMCO of anything that doesn't make sense to them as well. You nudge history; you do not make it. All the grand strategist can do is anticipate that answer and work on publicizing it as much as possible to the right people at the right time.

That time is now. International Resources Group, a company I've worked with going back for well over a decade, is a blue-chip USAID contractor. It was bought in December by L-3 Communications, a long-time DoD contractor.

Meanwhile, L-3 is unseated by Lockheed on a Special Operations Command logistical contract, another form of its branching out in markets now seen as adjacent and no longer operationally distant.

Key paras to conclude the first piece:

The deal [L-3's purchase of IRG] was the latest sign that the industry expects business to grow in the coming years as the companies use many of these contracts as an entry point to sell an array of services.

Bolstering the government's ranks of foreign-service officers and development experts will take time. In the interim, the companies want to step in, whether it is staffing new global health programs or continuing to operate in current hot spots. U.S. military forces are on their way out of Iraq, but civilian contractors are expected to remain there, training military and police forces, as well as assisting the government to rebuild infrastructure and improve basic services like education.

The real transition is beginning.

What I say in Great Powers is this: first comes the military, then comes industry, then comes the political will. Expecting the political will to come absent the capabilities--both public and private--is illusory. We may stumble into such responsibilities in a fear-threat reaction (like Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11), but absent such intervening impulses, we will abjure.

That's why it is crucial to take advantage of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions, and that's why I supported going into Iraq after Afghanistan: we'd be forced to change in response to circumstances too grave to ignore.

Now, we're actually much closer to having what it really takes for Afghanistan--most of all being strategic patience.

You may ask, "Why did it have to take so long?"

I will tell you that I'm pleasantly surprised by the speed, given the deep and intense opposition--here.

Dare I say it thrice? I like the new pick for Commerce!

NATIONAL: "Commerce Pick Carries Lengthy China Resume," by William Yardley, New York Times, 25 February 2009.

Gary Locke has mucho credentials and access vis-à-vis China. Can't ask for more on Commerce.

Hope third time is a charm!