Brave New World: Constructive Engagement and US Foreign Policy

De-stabilization, Re-architecture and Constructive Engagement:US Foreign Policy for a Brave New World

Introduction and Summary

“Brave New World” is a series of related blog posts that explore current events in the international arena using aset of frameworks for evaluating US foreign policy, the state of the international system and the situation andperformance of individual countries. Taken as a whole it sketches out a long-term strategic approach for how theUS can encourage the development of a new, non-zero sum international system by pursuing constructiveengagement with the other players in the Great Game.We are all best served by a policy that recognizes that the old international paradigm of “winner take all” washarmful to the well-being of the system, the participants and even the so-called winners. Instead what we shouldbe seeking is an international system that provides a stable and secure framework for states to continue to pursuethe domestic development agendas. In other words in the millennia old debates between the relative advantagesof trade vs. raid we come down heavily on the side of trade. The data over the last 20-30 years bear this becausewe’ve seen more progress in human prosperity for more people than at any time in history.At the same time this view is not pollyannish but explicitly recognizes that any system of governance is based onthe use of force to create and sustain the necessary institutional framework for a stable and progressive worldorder. It also explicitly recognizes, and analyzes, the critical role that good government within each state plays inbenefiting itself and the system as a whole.The framework, which have taken to labeling, socionomics, is based on integrating economics with politics andculture. Among the results are:1. The national interest of the US is best served by a stable, predictable and flexible world order.2. As part of the pursuit of both our national interests an the health of the overall system we should beconstructively engaged with each player, but especially the major players, to encourage them to beresponsible and contributory stakeholders in the overall health of the system. Because that is in their bestinterest.3. Good government is a central and critical requirement but the nature of good government depends on thehistory, character and development stage of each state. In other words pure democracy is not necessarilythe best immediate alternative when the necessary political institutions and cultural values are notcapable of supporting it. Rather we should be encouraging the development of government that acts inthe best interests of the society and the people by trading off the extent and nature of participation withthe role of the government. Over time a more representative and participatory government isdemonstratably better for long-term development. A pre-maturely representative government easilydegenerates into a power-hungry elite who act against the public interest.In the readings in this collection you’ll find discussions of the international system, good government and keystates, particularly Russia, China and others that demonstrate and test the model of good government we’vedeveloped. Since each “chapter” is based on a blog entry the URL for that entry is enclosed. Each entry usuallyhas a very extensive collection of background readings that illustrate and support the discussion and if you wouldlike to dig into a particular topic is a good place to start.

Table of Contents

1. From Wild Geese to Tears of the Sun: Development & World Futures 22. What Makes for Progress 43. Knowing China: Issues, Trends, Futures, Culture 64. Brave New World: Non-Flatness, History and Challenges 75. SoW I (the Good): Britain, Brazil, Mexico and India 96. SoW II (the Maybe So): Africa and Asia (China, Burma) 107. SoW III (the Bad): Challenged Russia...another Potemkin Village 108. Having Fun, Doing Good, Making Sausage: Goodtime Charlie's War 119. Marching thru Georgia: the World Just Changed and We Can't Get Off 1310. Georgia, Scary Old World and the Return of History 1411. Round Two Strategic Assessments 1512. Stories Being Told to Us: Welcome to the New World Disorder 1713. Oil and Other System Shocks: Beyond Iraq & Georgia 1914. Oil Shock to Crisis to Systemic Threats 1915. 3of4 BRICs: Governance, Stability & Outlook in China, Russia and India 2116. From Complacent Stabilities to Disruptive Challenges: Europe, Latin America,Africa 2517. Sounds of Angry Men, Whimpering Politicians & the Global Crisis 2718. G-20 Perspectives: How Well Do Bears Dance ? 29

From Wild Geese to Tears of the Sun: Development & World Futures

July 10, 2007http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2007/07/from_wild_geese_to_tears_of_th.html Some years ago I had the pleasure of seeing the "adventure" movie, "The Wild Geese" about amercenary force recuited by a London merchant banker to rescue a deposed African leader soas to restore decent government to his country and, oh by-the-way, give the banker's companiesaccess to the vast copper and other mineral desposits. Any resemblance to the real world isentirely coincidental and the fact that a mysterious plane landed with a few remaing mercs and adead African rumored to be Moise Tshombe is entirely besides the point. Nor that the history ofthe Congo (Zaire, Central African Republic, whatever) closely resembles the highlights of thefictional homeland. And strictly a technical matter is that Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare, commanderof the white mercs during the early Congo troubles is the movie's technical adviser. As anothersidepoint may I recommendW.E.B. Griffin's "Special Ops"- historical fiction about Communistinsurrection in the Congo and the role of the Green Berets in dealing with same. The fact that it's highlyentertaining, a fun read and embeds quite a lot of technical knowledge and historical information that's accurateas far as we can tell is also beside the point.More recently a friend, who normally doesn't recommend adventure movies, suggested I see"Tears of the Sun" about an American SEAL team sent into a cauldron of civil war and a collapsedstate in Central Africa to rescue a politicaly connected American medical missionary. Who ofcourse refuses to leave and abandon her patients so the the Team Leader surrendars all normaldiscipline and shephards her and her charges thru miles of jungle to get across a border. Now theaction is better, the special effects spectactularly and clearly they had better technical supportbecasue the tactics and weapons appear like they could have been used as a training film.Watch both and compare and contrast. Because, you see there's another and deeper - moreprofound difference - difference that points to the failures of the last 50 years of policy and nation-building. In the Wild Geese Pieter Coetzee, the South African farmer carries Julius Limbani on his back becausehe must, all the while calling him kaffir. Limbani objects and tells him that they need to forgive each other andbuild a future together because otherwise African will become nothing but a cauldron of war, insurrection andviolence. In Tears the team is just focused on the rescue and there's no bones made that it's a failed state and notgoing to change. A 1978 movie about mid-60s events and a 2003 movie that could have been made anytime inthe last 10 (20 ?) years, or perhaps the next 10 (or 20 ?). If you can keep a dry eye more power to you. How didwe come from the painful hope of the first to the heroic fatalism of the second ? And is that a true path ? Or do weneed to suck it up and learn from our mistakes rather than continue to look for simple formulas ? It's one thing tohave physical courage, another to have the moral courage to lead and a whole different thing to admit your wrongand find a new path. (An insight I owe toJames Stockdaletalking about the civilian leadership of the Vietnam Warbtw).There are 980 million people in Africa and most of them are in deep trouble. Victims of Cold War machinations,neglect and the failures of their own societies. Good government matters - in fact on 911 we learned two things. Itmatters a whole heck of a lot, more than we ever acknowledged, and - ethics and morals aside - doing good is inour self-interest 'cause if these folks have no hope and no voice what do they care what happens to the rest of us? So in the name of enlightened self-interest let me finally recommend a new book on institutions anddevelopment policy.

The Least Among Us

:

Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It.

Neill Ferguson gives it a sound and glowing review and compares & contrasts it to the two polar opposites ofJeffrey Sachs (more money, more money) and William Easterly (this may not work):

There are, he suggests, four traps into which really poor countries tend to fall. The first is civilwar. Nearly three-quarters of the people in the bottom billion, Collier points out, have recently