Ritula Shah on the UN, the IMF and the G20
Ritula Shah was in New York this week. She writes:
We normally look to history to see the ebb and flow of power. Wars, treaties, disputes and unions -- we allow some time to lapse and then analyse who gained and who lost.
In the last century, it was the postwar settlement that saw the creation of the United Nations and determined who should hold the reins of power and who should be relegated to the passenger seat. The make up of the UN Security Council, the structure of the IMF and eventually the emergence (as it was then) of the G7, reflected western economic and diplomatic power as the Second World War drew to a close.
This week, when President Obama addressed the UN General Assembly, he spoke passionately about the need for the world to move in a new direction - one of mutual interests and trust. And he stressed that solving the world's problems wasn't simply up to the US but a global endeavour.
I was at the UN to hear him speak, and on Wednesday evening's programme (click here to listen to it again) we discussed whether President Obama's multilateralism reflected US strength or an acknowledgement that the rise of nations like China, India and Brazil, meant power had to be more widely spread.
The most significant aspect of the discussion for me was the unanimous view of everyone on our panel of US commentators - regardless of their political convictions - that although some power may have tilted away from the West, America's role as world leader remained unchallenged.
Listening to today's news about the G20 made me think about all this again. The proposed reform of the IMF, giving China a bigger say in line with its growing economic clout, would probably mean a loss of permanent seats for France and Britain. There have been suggestions that a solution to that might be for Europe to agree to representation as a unit, so preserving its influence within the IMF.
There are obvious political difficulties about that which I'm sure will be much discussed but what that may indicate is that the rise of China is sapping power and influence from Europe rather than America.
Similarly, India's long standing demand for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, which we touched on in Wednesday's programme, might also mean Britain and France giving up one of their permanent seats - possibly in favour of a single European one, if it were to go ahead. Some might argue if Washington is really serious about more global cooperation then this is absolutely what should happen, but others might recall the Kissinger quote, "Who do I call if I want to call Europe?" Agreeing a line on foreign policy has never been one of the Union's stronger points.
But that may become a moot point if Europe is no longer the place to call - instead it's Beijing or New Delhi that Washington wants to get up on the other end of the line.
So why does any of this matter? The other news of today makes it all too plain -- the revelation of the existence of second nuclear enrichment plant in Iran. Whoever holds power, most analysts agree, the world needs to cooperate more than ever
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Words, words, words,
I'm so sick of words
I get words all day through
First from him, Now from you
Is that all you blighters can do?
.....
Sing me no song, read me no rhyme
Don't waste my time, show me
Don't talk of June, don't talk of fall
Don't talk at all, show me
Never do I ever want to hear another word
There isn't one I haven't heard
Here we are together in what ought to be a dream
Say one more word and I'll scream
More empty speeches. Countless empty words. And when the last echoes die out, nothing will have changed. Iran continues to move to having an atom bomb to use against???? War in the Middle East grows closer. Global Warming continues to melt the polar ice caps and glaciers. The world's economy is still in a depression and getting worse, pronouncements of the economists whose meager efforts to slow it are running out of steam. The annual ritual of migration to the East River and then to the G20 and then to whatever excuse for a climate change summit comes next runs on schedule. The cliff is not far off and there's no one at the controls, no brakes that work even if there was. Sweet dreams.
Complain about this comment
Things must be bad, as I agree with the barbarian! (#1)
I am however not surprised as even the densest most detached politician (or journalist) must have noticed that none of these summits actually achieved anything - but this is the norm for summits - at best they do no actual damage.
I am particularly disappointed with the G20 as the chasm between the pro and anti regulators is worse than usual and means that absolutely nothing will be achieved and the consequence of this will be that the banks will continue to subvert the state (as they can't fail no matter how hard they try) which is unacceptable to everyone, even the banks!
Complain about this comment
I agree with the movement to include a greater franchise of the population of the world to races other than the white European races. The unfair domination of the world by a select group of powerful nations has gone on for too long. It is true that we are so unfamiliar with a world that includes a wider representation of peoples and leaders that the adjustment which has come about suddently and abruptly will be long and painful for the peoples of the world. It wasn't so long ago that countries such as China and India were considered incapable of governing themselves much less being asked to take a share of the responsibility of ruling the world.
Complain about this comment
"It wasn't so long ago that countries such as China and India were considered incapable of governing themselves"
China and India had thriving civilizations that governed themselves long before Europeans knew they existed. Statements like your were used as justification for European colonial rule under a system of imperial enslavement that allowed Europe to exploit and steal their raw materials, their labor, and their cultural artifacts by military force. That is by and large how Europe got rich, not by its own efforts. Now that this is no longer possible, Europe will revert to a standard of living that its own efforts can sustain. Of all the regions in the world, the disparity between the value of what Europe produces and what it consumes is the widest anywhere. Its cradle to grave welfare state social safety nets would have been unsustainable even without expansion of the EU.
Whether what we call the less developed world is in a position to make critical judgements about how economic and political power largely controlled in the developed world should be used remains to be seen but the danger of diverting a large portion of it to equalize wealth in a nascent world socialist government risks destroying the capitalist engine that creates it in the first place just as it has in every nation state that has adopted a forced Robin Hood socialist mentality. The result of that would be worldwide impovrishment from which there would be no escape. The danger is that the developed world won't pull the developing world up but that the developing world would pull the deveoped world down to its level. That could easily happen were a naive view of social justice which ignores the realities of economics to control all societies.
Complain about this comment
The presence of permanent members of the Security Council amounts to nothing more than a dictatorship. The UN should be a pinnacle of democracy, yet at its summit we have the 5 nuclear powers setting the agenda to suit their interests and vetoing resolutions that go against them and also vetoing proposed Secretary Generals that might stand in their way.
Complain about this comment
#5
Just be glad you still have a UN at all. I think many other Americans feel the way I do. I'd like the US to walk out of the UN and tell the rest of the members to pack up and leave the US. America will not be subordinate to any supranational government, certainly not a world government under the UN. So called international law has proved to be a fraud nearly every time it was tested just as it has now with Iran and North Korea. The UN was a naive idea that has proven not to be in America's best interest. Smarter Americans than those who agreed to it rejected it when it was called The League of Nations a generation earlier. Britain and its people may be ready to knuckle under, to genuflect to Brussels, Libya, Russia, the UN but America will not. We didn't come this far for our freedom to surrender to anyone.
Complain about this comment
In comment #4, MarcusAurelius criticized me for saying that "It wasn't so long ago that countries such as China and India were considered incapable of governing themselves." He said in response that "China and India had thriving civilizations that governed themselves before Europeans knew they existed. Statements such as your were used as justification for European colonial rule under a system of imperial enslavement......." While I do not deny this and actually opposed European imperialism from an early age there is some truth to the charge that in the 19th century there was increasing agitation and rebellion in China and India. Both countries were ruled by dynasties that were considered foreign by the majority population. China was ruled by the Qing Dynasty which was of Manchu ethnicity different from the majority Han people of China. As we know the Qing dynasty was overthrown and replaced by the (short lived) Republic of China under Sun Yat Sen in 1912. The intrusion by the Europeans especially the British imperialists with their exterritorial enclaves like Hong Kong went a long way towards weakening the already weak grasp of the Manchu dowager empress on the allegiance of the Han people as we know. India was ruled by the Mughal Dynasty, a Persianized offshoot of the Mongol warrior tribes, whose expansion started in 1526 and spread over Hindustan in the 17th and 18th century. After 1725, their power over the subcontinent rapidly diminished. They were overthrown and replaced by the British Raj after 1850. Part of the problem faced by the Mughals, who were Muslims, was the growing religious intolerance between Muslims and Hindus. Indeed, I can recall asking a fellow graduate student from India during the sixties what he thought of the British Raj. He was born before India gained its independence. I was surprised to hear him say that he had a positive opinion of the British period not just because of the introduction of railroads and modern education but because the British had united the country. Recall that India is divided by many different ethnic groups and languages in addition to the great Hindu-Muslim religious divide. The great Partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan was accompanied by widespread communal fighting with the deaths of millions. Unlike India, China was not fully colonized by the European powers (and Japan) but the overthrow of the Manchu (Qing) dynasty led to half a century of unrest and civil strife between Chinese factions until 1949 with the unification under the Communist regime. I don't want to prolong this discussion which is complex enough but I think it is still very much an unsettled issue with many offshoots. For example, in 2008 during the cyclone Nargis controversy over Burma, the foreign ministers of Britain and France (David Miliband and Bernard Kouchner), tried to invoke the so-called "right to protect" doctrine made by the UN Security Council, to justify an unauthorized (by the Burmese government) intrusion by foreign countries relief airlifts to stricken areas. For all we know this could have eventually involved regime change attempts if the Burmese government tried to resist this imposition. This was discussed in this blog, "R2P - RIP?". We also discussed whether Western powers had the right to carry out regime change on Arab regimes such as Saddam Hussein's regime in order to impose democracy on the Middle East in this blog, "Democracy, the Arab World and the West." You said in comment #21 during this issue that, "Invading Iraq was the correct move for many reasons" and I criticized you for this in comment #25. There is a kind of inconsistency between your comment #4 above and your approval of the Iraq invasion in my opinion. Don't forget that Iraq is the home of one of the oldest civilizations in history in the Babylonian empire. And I do agree with you that India and China are civilizations that go a long way back in history. The Mauryan empire of the Indus valley conquered a large part of what is now the modern nation of India from 321 BC to 185 BC. Chandragupta started the dynasty and his grandson Ashoka established a great civilization including the Buddhist religion during this period. It was the last great empire founded and established in India. Strangely enough Chandragupta had to defeat the Asian-Greek satrapy of Seleucus Nicator which was established by the Greek conqueror Alexander in Northwest India. Chandragupta may even have met with Alexander at one point in his career. So the Europeans were trying to conquer the subcontinent starting from as far back as Alexander. All of this historical material is available on Wikiencyclopedia by the way.
Complain about this comment
expertseptic;
"While I do not deny this and actually opposed European imperialism from an early age...."
I didn't know anyone that old was still alive. You must be ageless, at least several centuries old. What is your secret to longevity?
"there is some truth to the charge that in the 19th century there was increasing agitation and rebellion in China and India....etc. etc."
How self serving. So if internal rebellion, weak central government, alienation of the people from the government is justification for invasion, takeover, and outside rule, you should not be opposed to the US invading, occupying, and ruling the UK until the day when the people can speak for themselves about whether or not they want to cede their sovereignty to the EU superstate government in Brussels. Fat chance. Don't hold your breath waiting. Uncle Sam has pulled the UK's fat out of the fire more than once too often already. The UK is on its own.
"You said in comment #21 during this issue that, "Invading Iraq was the correct move for many reasons" and I criticized you for this in comment #25. There is a kind of inconsistency between your comment #4 above and your approval of the Iraq invasion in my opinion."
Imposing democracy on the Iraqi population was not one of the justifications. If it were, the US could justify an invasion of just about every other country in the world. The justification was that according to the best intelligence available to those governments who decided to invade, Iraq posed a real danger to their security and to the security of the Middle East, one that would only grow worse if left unchecked. It had already demonstrated its willingess to invade Kuwait and was a clear immediate threat to Saudi Arabia. Such an invasion would have given Saddam Hussein's regime a choke hold on much of the world's oil. (BTW, US troop presence in Saudi Arabia on what al Qaeda considered sacred Islamic soil was the reason he gave as justifiction for 9-11. Those were his first and definitive words on the subject.) The US could not stay in the region waiting for something to happen and then take care of it forever. In fact, it waited until the last possible moment, much too long IMO to invade. It should have invaded the previous September or October with or without the UK trying to get Tony Blair a CYA resolution that was as utterly redundant as the effort was inevitable futile and counterproductive.) The extra time gave Saddam Hussein all the opportunity he needed to hide whatever WMDs he had if he had them at all. Another justification was that Hussein violated the cease fire terms of the 1991 countless times and in countless ways. It had reached a point where UN Security Council resolutions amounted to nothing. BTW, for similar reasons an attack on Iran is long overdue but I don't think at this point a ground invasion is wise or would be effective. The point has been reached when the only effective measures that might have any chance to assure the threat is neutralized will be to devastate the entire nation in one well coordinated simultaneous blow. Too bad, a decade or two ago the damage to achieve the same goal would have been far more limited, the collateral damage and loss of life far lower. Either they or we will pay a bitter price for our leaders' reluctance and hesitation to act when they should have.
Complain about this comment
#8. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Imposing democracy on the Iraqi population was not one of the justifications...."
Barbarious, do you not find it rather annoying that the (so called and false) 'intelligence' about WMDs railroaded your country into invading Iraq? Have you done anything about the agencies that generated these falsehoods? It seems to me that your military is encouraged to engage into actions of dubious value rather too often and that this is the result of poor management of your intelligence community (leaving aside straight criminality e.g. Iran/Contra)
Have any real reforms taken place to the structure and management of the CIA? And is the information they present any more reliable now than it has proven to be in the past? OK, I concede, that you personally want to kill everyone, but surely isn't it better to destroy real enemies rather than phantom ones? And does that not require firm control over your intelligence community, if you are going to believe them or ever to convince other to believe them?
Complain about this comment
John from Helldom;
"Barbarious, do you not find it rather annoying that the (so called and false) 'intelligence' about WMDs railroaded your country into invading Iraq?"
I recognize the limits of intelligence gathering. Anyone who revealed a truth about Iraq under Saddam Hussein was tortured to death. Look at what happened to his Brother-in-law who foolishly returned after he revealed Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program in Jordan in 1995 4 years after it was supposed to have been divulged. Better to err on the side of caution. If a threat seems to be real, better to attack and destroy its source finding out later that it was an illusion than to let it go unchecked because it cannot be 100% verified.
"Have you done anything about the agencies that generated these falsehoods?"
No I don't work in the government, that is not my job. Have you done anything about MI5? They seem to have made the same mistakes. In fact the so called "dodgy dossier" which "sexed up" the threat and contributed to the concern was a British invention.
"It seems to me that your military is encouraged to engage into actions of dubious value rather too often and that this is the result of poor management of your intelligence community (leaving aside straight criminality e.g. Iran/Contra)"
Yours invaded also. In fact America waited for Britain to get its political act together, a mistake on America's part. In a world of threats from crazy people who desperately want to obtain WMDs to inflict as much destruction on our societies as possible, I think shoot first and ask questions later makes a lot of sense. It's better than waiting around to be shot dead because you weren't 100% certain of the other guys intentions or capabilitis. That's the mistake that has been made in Iran and North Korea and we will pay a heavy price for it.
"Have any real reforms taken place to the structure and management of the CIA? And is the information they present any more reliable now than it has proven to be in the past?"
Now how the hell would I know? Use your brain for once. Do you think I'd be posting here if I worked for the CIA and knew what was going on inside? All I know is what is in the press. That the Obama administration has emasculated it. This was a very bad move for America and the world.
"OK, I concede, that you personally want to kill everyone"
Not at all. I don't want to kill you. Letting you live and endure pain for however many more years you have left is far more cruel. Why would I want to let you off easy and put you out of your obvious misery? How fortuitous that you are condemned to live in Helldom.
"isn't it better to destroy real enemies rather than phantom ones?"
Of course it would be if we knew who they were. All we have are suspicions based on actions we see. Now who do you think my number one target would be if I were king of America and had free reign over its arsenal? Who am I most suspicious of?
Complain about this comment
To MAII in post #10
"Better to err on the side of caution. If a threat seems to be real, better to attack and destroy its source finding out later that it was an illusion than to let it go unchecked because it cannot be 100% verified."
Why do you only apply this philosophy to military endeavours? Why not to green issues for example?
Complain about this comment
#11. _marko wrote:
"Why not to green issues for example? "
Perhaps the military industrial complex does not make a profit from them? (eh? Maximus Cretinous Americanus)
Complain about this comment
marko
"Why do you only apply this philosophy to military endeavours? Why not to green issues for example?"
That's what's happening. Brazil and Indonesia are burning down their rain forests in case the green foliage is a contributing cause of climate change. I'd recommend sending them napalm but they seem to be doing the job just fine without it.
John from Helldom, I'd say there is some profit to be made from napalm and flame throwers but not a whole lot. I think our balance of trade won't suffer much if we just allow the native farmers to stick with gasoline and a match. It's crude but effective.
Complain about this comment
I see Marcus that you are mistaking the mood in your trailer for the entire US again!
While the Europeans were doing some hideous things to the Chinese and Indians, what were your 'founding fathers' doing to the American Indians and other natives? Fulfilling the 'white man's burden'? Not content in killing people armed with only spears your forefathers invaded Canada in 1812. The Brits whipped your behinds and renamed the White House the Burnt House! ;-)
Complain about this comment
decellar
I wish you Brits would learn some real history. The war of 1812 ended in essentially a standoff. But the Battle of New Orleans was fought 2 weeks after the peace treaty was signed. Find a copy of Johnny Horton's song and listen to the words describing the battle. It didn't affect the outcome but I'll bet it was a lot of fun...for the Americans.
Yeah they (the Redcoats) ran through the briars
And they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
From down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
To this day I still can't figure out why we entered WWI.
Complain about this comment
Here's some real history for you: The US invaded Canada and the British Army repelled them back destroying the White House in the process; all the while the Brits were fighting Napoleon, and maintaining the largest Empire the world had ever seen! What were your lot doing at the time? Still burning witches!?
At least Europe has history; yours wouldn't fill a haiku!
Complain about this comment
decellar;
"What were your lot doing at the time? Still burning witches!?"
Actually....I hadn't been born yet. In fact it would be over 150 years after the War of 1812 that I was born. In addition to learning history you should also brush up on math. Basic arithmetic.
The famous Salem Witch trials took place in 1692-1693 under British rule. This was over 80 years before the war for American independence and 120 years before the War of 1812. To hear the Canadians tell it, it was they who repelled the Americans from Canada not the British.
The war of 1812 was fought over among other things the British navy kidnapping American sailors claiming that they were deserters from the British Navy. In the treaty, they agreed to stop this practice. They did burn down Washington DC. I've always felt there was much unfinished business between the US and the UK. This is certainly one of the issues which was never resolved to my satisfaction. I don't see how it was possible to ever reconcile differences between us after that event. Among the small victories was rescue of the famous painting of George Washinton by Gilbert Stuart. It was spirirted out of the White House before the British troops captured it, looted it, and burned it down.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm, make that 150 years only 135 years. That's what happens when you post before your first cup of coffee.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS