President-elect Barack Obama finds himself transitioning into the office at a time when the country is faced with a set of challenges both domestically and internationally with problem number one (at least for now) being the anemic state of both the domestic and international economy. Those of us invested in 401(k) equity mutual funds have seen the value of those holdings drop some 42% since the markets high a year ago resulting in a massive loss of wealth (albeit on paper if one has not sold out). Unemployment has now hit 6.5% and is likely to go higher as disappointing 3Q earnings/loss reports for US companies are nearly fully reported. The worldwide deleveraging continues as banks and credit offerers continue to both tighten terms and credit limits all the while hoarding cash infused by the Treasury under the TARP program. Business activity depends on access to credit that is reasonably priced on reasonable terms and both are lacking in this environment. Indeed, credit of any kind is becoming exceedingly difficult to find. The Libor (London Interbank Offering Rate) rate which is the rate at which banks loan to other banks had been running some 400 or so basis points over the US Fed Funds rate which in normal times would be pegged nearly even. That key rate has been blamed for the freeze up in the commercial paper markets on which business depends to fund day-to-day operations and here too the US Treasury has stepped in to provide liquidity but even with the drop in Libor over recent weeks we are not as yet seeing any indication that credit markets are freeing up. Admittedly this may take some time to take effect but current trends are not favorable for the broader economy as companies are under great pressure from their lenders to improve their cash positions which means they must cut their costs and for almost all of them this means shedding the single greatest driver of these costs — employees.

Things are not any rosier on the international economic scene. The IMF estimates that global GDP would fall to 2.2% in 2009, based on purchasing-power parity (PPP) weights, from 5% in 2007 and 3.7% in 2008 marking the greatest global recession since the Great Depression. Falling crude oil prices which so far have been the silver lining in this dark cloud may or may not continue as oil-producing nations from Venezuela, to the Gulf to Russia find their economies under increasing pressure as this source of wealth plummets. With prices currently around $60/barrel OPEC has just announced that another round of cutbacks in production could be in the offing to restore price levels to the $70-$90/barrel range which would have a further deflating effect on already weak economies. Should an international crisis with Iran arise that might curtail production or access to Gulf crude oil the effects on price and on the world economy could be devastating.

On the home front plans are afoot for a economic stimulus package starting at $100 billion on top of the $700 billion being injected into the financial markets by the Treasury and last years $100 billion tax rebates. Here President Obama will be challenged to keep this package in that range as pressures will build from his own caucus to expand that dramatically including a bailout of the US automakers and their UAW “partners”, both key Democratic constituencies while sober economic analysts like the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein are of the opinion that the only plan that makes economic sense for the automakers is a pre-packaged bankruptcy process that would tie federal aid to a haircut for the union membership in terms of wages and benefits, a total shellacking for stockholders and the firing of top management. Any such plan will be resisted fiercely in the Congress by Democrats who owe much to organized labor for recent electoral gains.

What form the economic stimulus package takes (and some form of it will pass probably with wide bipartisan support in the end) is where the rub will lie. Putting some of this money into infrastructure projects like roads and bridges probably makes some sense as these projects could ramp up fairly quickly and would provide jobs along with much needed transportation relief in some areas. The problem will lie, however, with certain lawmakers wanting to make sure their states get a share of this even though they probably have little in the way of need for same — think “Bridge to Nowhere” here along with any of the innumerable “Robert C. Byrd” Highways to Nowhere in West Virginia. Promised investments in alternative energies, while needed, would not have much immediate economic impact especially in a period of low global crude oil prices. With respect to President Obama’s longer term economic plans, if he’s smart (and he is) he will not push for a rollback of the Bush tax cuts intitially as raising taxes in the current economic climate on anyone is contra-indicated. But one can rest assured that many in his own party will not take this news as welcome although he will get good GOP support on this as well as support from some members of the Democratic “Blue Dog” caucus who might be persuaded to support this over their objections that any new spending be paid for without adding to the deficit.

What is not in doubt is that President Obama will take office at a time of the greatest global economic peril since the 1930s. It is the duty of all Americans to support him where we can in this hour of our country’s need.

Time and again, the United Nations, rather than disavowing, condemning, or defeating genocide, has embraced those very countries that happen to be its worst perpetrators.

One of McCain’s best ideas this election season has been the creation of a League of Democracies.

I am not opposed to Wilsonian Multilateralism (or Clintonian for that matter). However, I do disagree with any nation’s foolish reliance on a corrupt organization that protects genocide while denouncing fledgling democracies. The hypocrisy is staggering.

I’m also in favor of regime change when possible and necessary, and with humanitarian intervention when the stakes are high enough. I do believe government’s such as Sudan under Omar Bashir should be toppled for the greater good. Does this mean we need to invest years and billions of dollars in future nation building as we are now in Iraq? It’s hard to say. Certainly international, bi-partisan cooperation could help hasten efforts in places such as Darfur where the question of saving human life is far more urgent than any question of re-building. This does not, however, mean that we should enter countries without international support or proper planning. The first three years in Iraq should be enough of a precautionary tale. The UN, however, is not an international body willing to act in any cohesive or meaningful way.

Could we blend some version of practical multilateralism with the Bush Doctrine? It seems less and less likely that either way is plausible without some help from the other.

An American Century?

America is in the unique position of leadership under such a multilateral foreign policy. McCain’s League of Democracies may be an ideal vehicle for this hybrid of American power and international cooperation. It is my hope that even if McCain loses–and I believe he will lose at this point–that Barack Obama and McCain put their differences aside to work toward achieving this foreign policy. Bi-partisanship will be necessary in the coming years.

The Bush administration entered the White House intent upon a far less interventionist policy than the Clinton administration–indeed, Bush came across far less hawkish than Gore in the 2000 election, disavowing regime change and nation building. However, the events of 9/11, the fear of WMD’s in Iraq, and the overall growing international tension forced the Bush administration into a foreign policy that they did not initially plan. Indeed, Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives used this to their advantage, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others were more of the Realist variety, reluctant to fully embrace the hawkish policies that the neocons advocated.

This combination of neoconservative unilateralism and more classically conservative distrust of international powers and institutions led to a United States foreign policy that was anything but multilateralist, and oftentimes unsure of the direction it wanted to move. This goes deeper than the obvious disagreements between a Powell State Department and the more hawkish DOD. Indeed, even during the Rice years, State has been more moderate in its approach to foreign affairs.

The “Coalition of the Willing” in Iraq was, and is, a farce save for Britain. This is not to diminish the bravery of the token troops sent from Poland, Italy, Georgia and the other Coalition nations, but in all seriousness, should America withdraw, these troops would be utterly useless. Even the NATO operation in Afghanistan has been rather more a unilateralist approach than it ought to be, with only the Danish and the British contributing much of anything at all to the effort.

Globalization and Multilateralism

It is my hope that whoever becomes President will continue to push a strong foreign policy agenda, especially against the rogue nations Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea (not to mention Russia, China…the list goes on). I also hope that they eschew the narrow unilateralism of the Bush years in favor of a more practical multilateralist approach.

This will take very rigorous diplomacy on America’s part, especially since America has reached new lows of unpopularity and mistrust around the world. Ironically, this has occurred simultaneously with the election of some of the most pro-US European leaders to take office in years. It is a promising, ironic, and dangerous world we entrust to the next American President.

Our allies can live up to that title more in the coming years, as can America, and we can do more to convince other democracies that this war against radicalism, proliferation of nuclear arms, and terror is one that we all must face together. It is a struggle that we cannot face alone, and that our allies cannot wish away. America should lead, but it should not leave behind the rest of the free world. Globalization has changed the game. In a world in which economies are inextricably bound to one another, the question can never only be one of national security–it is international security that must be achieved.

If the United Nations cannot bring this about, effectively abandoning its mission, and choses instead to cater to the tyrants and demagogues rather than uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, then America must find a new way to shore up its international support. We cannot go it alone for another eight years, nor can we fall victim to the easy road of moral relativity, tolerating the dangerously intolerant.

The time has come to throw out both options: futile international efforts and cowboy politics, and to seek out new ways to create a safer, more peaceful world, whoever our next President may be.

~cross-posted at <a href=”http://neoconstant.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/16/2008268-multilateralism-and-the-bush-doctrine”>Newsvine.</a>

Well, as per usual, the internet is buzzing with information, news, a wide variety of topics.  I’ve taken it upon me to find just a few of the most interesting, riveting, and thought-provoking bits.

CNN reported on the arrest of over 500 people allegedly linked to al Qaeda.  Liberals in America will be pleased to hear they won’t be going to Gitmo to suffer the atrocities of the American military prison system, but will instead be comfortably housed in Saudi prisons, where undboubtedly they will be treated with good, old-fashioned Wahhabi hospitality.

In a written statement, the ministry said the cell’s leader was found with a letter from al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, “urging him to raise funds and that [al-Zawahiri] will provide him with the personnel, whom they called the mujahedeen.”

(more…)