China in Copenhagen

In a recent post, I wrote that China’s lack of involvement in global governance is because the government’s main concern domestic economic growth. China’s foreign policy is simply its execution of this policy outside its borders, I argued. I think I get partial-credit for a correct prediction, although it was not on my mind when I wrote the post. The consensus is that the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit to come up with any serious policy to deal with climate change was in large measure due to Obama’s poor negotiating skills. Mark Lynas writing in the (UK) Guardian says that this is not true:

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

And why was the Chinese government so intent on wrecking the negotiations?  According to Lynas:

China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal…Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

So I get partial credit, but in a way that bolsters my argument. True, China did play a major role in these negotiations, contrary to what I wrote in the post. But the role it played was to make global cooperation more difficult because the Chinese government understands that combating climate change is bad domestic politics. This is not good news.

Obama way behind the curve on democracy

Around the world, we are witnessing new and ambitious strategies to advance democracy.  The European Union recently released the EU Agenda for Action on Democracy Support.  The strategy boldly states that, “everyone has the right to take part in government” and that “democracy has evolved into a universal value.”  The Government of Canada has announced it will set up a new democracy assistance organization, the Canadian Centre for Advancing Democracy.  The UN Democracy Fund has just announced its fourth round of funding.  And what of the Obama administration?  Entrepreneurship, Science and Technology, and Education.  (sigh)  These things are fine, but the fall far short of affirming that democracy is a universal value.

President Obama uses stirring rhetoric on democracy, such as his recent speech on Afghanistan at West Point:

…we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.

Sorry Mr. President, the road to freedom, justice, and opportunity is not through entrepreneurship, science and technology, and education.  It’s through democracy.  Speaking out on behalf of entrepreneurship, science and technology, and education doesn’t bring moral authority.  Standing up for democracy brings moral authority.  I expect that the Obama administration will eventually come around to supporting democracy more forthrightly.  Until they do, I will pound away at them on it.  After all, it’s my right in a democracy.

Michael Allen at Democracy Digest has more.

Twenty years after the fall

Monday, November 9 will mark the 20^th anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin Wall.  I think this is a worthwhile moment to consider the positive and negative consequences of the end of the Cold War from the vantage point of 2009.

Positive Consequences:

• Spread of Democracy. While the third wave of democracy began in the mid-1970s, the trend gained substantial momentum after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  According to Freedom House, since the end of the Cold War, the percent of not free countries in the world has dropped from 41% to 22%.  The European Union deserves particular praise for its efforts to ensure democratic transitions in Central and Eastern Europe.  More important than the change in the number of democracies is the general perception that democracy is the most legitimate form of government.

• Decline in War. Starting in the early 1960s, the number of armed conflicts began to rise from about twenty active per year, steadily rising to about 55 in 1993.  Since then, the number has dropped to about 35, according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program.  Even more remarkable is the decline in the number of war deaths.  According to the Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO), between 1950 and 1990, about 200,000 people per year died fighting wars.  Since the end of the Cold War, the number has plummeted to about 80,000.

• Reduction in Threat of Global Nuclear War. The Cold War was not a friendly rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union.  As hard as it is for us to remember, the greatest fear during the Cold War was global nuclear war.  When the Soviet Union put nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962, this possibility became all too real.  When the Cold War ended, the fear of global nuclear war did as well.       

Negative Consequences:

• Nuclear Proliferation. Since the end of the Cold War, efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons have faltered.  Today, two unstable regimes, North Korea and Pakistan, both have nuclear weapons, and Iran is attempting to develop them.  As the number of countries who have nuclear weapons rises, the possibility that one country will use them increases as does the possibility that non-state actors, primarily terrorist groups, will acquire them.

• Failed States. Failed states did not exist during the Cold War because the Soviet Union and the United States were prepared to prop up weak regimes in return for political alliances.  Since the end of the war, this exigency has subsided.  The result has been state collapse in a number of places, primarily Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Somalia.  Failed states are not pleasant places.  Close to six million people have died in the DRC’s civil war, making it the deadliest conflict since World War II.  When Afghanistan fell into civil war after the Soviet Union left, the Taliban and its brutal form of justice emerged as the only force capable of providing security. While the cost of keeping these countries together during the Cold War may have been high, the cost of letting them fail seems far higher.

• 9/11. It would not be accurate to argue that terrorism was a consequence of the end of the Cold War (ask the British about the IRA).  It would also not be accurate to argue that fundamentalist Islamic movements were a consequence of the end of the Cold War either.  Rather, because the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and because the Mujahideen were the main force fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, fundamentalist Islamic movements were more a product of the Cold War than a consequence of it.  One can plausibly make the claim, however, that 9/11 was an unintended consequence of the end of the Cold War.  After the Soviet Union left Afghanistan and the US pulled its support as well, Afghanistan collapsed into civil war.  The Taliban emerged as the only force that was able to provide security and by the mid-1990s was governing large parts of the country.  It also allowed Al-Qaeda to use its territory for terrorist training camps.  Although we can never know for certain if 9/11 would have happened without Al-Qaeda using Afghanistan as a base of operations, that it was able to do so should give pause to those who think the country poses no threat to the US today.  I am not saying that if the US leaves Afghanistan Al-Qaeda will return.  In fact I do not believe this would happen.  Rather, my point is that we need to have some imagination when thinking about unintended consequences.

On balance, my belief is that things could have turned out much worse.  In the mid-1990s, many thought they would.  Wars in the Balkans, the Caucuses, and Central Asia led many to believe that the collapse of the Soviet Union unleashed frozen conflicts that would engulf the region in an endless series of bloody wars.  That has not happened.  Instead, democracy has spread (thanks in part to the EU’s admirable efforts in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe), wars have become less frequent, and the threat of nuclear annihilation does not exist.  True, terrorism, failed states, and nuclear proliferation are big problems, and Afghanistan in particular looks increasingly hopeless.  However, in my estimation things could have turned out far, far worse.  Perhaps there is hope for humanity after all.

Zimbabwe’s Sham Government

On Friday and Saturday, the European Union held its first talks with the Zimbabwean government in seven years. The EU delegation’s reaction was cautiously optimistic over the future prospects of the power sharing agreement (the GPA, or Global Political Agreement), euphemistically describing the deadlock over the GPA as “They do not have the same reading of the same document. They have a different reading on how this should be done and at what speed.” While the delegation was quick to say that because of significant humanitarian problems, no sanctions will be lifted just yet, their willingness to reengage with the government was enough to give hope to President Robert Mugabe.

Zimbabwe has been making international headlines recently not for harassing opposition leaders and stealing elections, but for its attempts to reengage with the international community and solicit funds. Headlines on major papers are debating the questions of whether to lift sanctions and provide aid (with moderate amounts of aid and loans from the US, UK, EU, China, Germany, and now the IMF). While most countries’ responses are negative on sanctions and tepid on aid, few papers these days are carrying the specific and ongoing reasons why we should not be helping out the regional basket case. This absence of bad news from the headlines (beyond the cholera epidemic a few months ago) might lead one to believe that the situation in Zimbabwe has improved, which is not the case.

The “different reading” of the GPA is that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) saw it as a way to form a unity government and transform the country democratically, while ZANU-PF saw it as a way to get the international community off its back; it seems unlikely the party ever really intended to cede any meaningful powers.

While economic conditions have certainly improved, the state of democracy in Zimbabwe has not advanced much further than where it was when ZANU-PF and the MDC agreed upon the GPA a little over a year ago. Mugabe and his party ZANU-PF have subverted the agreement and the “partnership” at every turn. Beyond the most egregious act, the “accidental” killing of MDC leader Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s wife in a car crash that easily could have killed the PM himself,  ZANU-PF agents continue to kill, abuse, harass, arrest, abduct, and detain MDC supporters. Mugabe and his party undermine the power and legitimacy of the MDC whenever possible, through propaganda (recent examples in the state paper here and here), unilaterally reassigning ministerial duties counter to the GPA, failing to consult the MDC on important decisions, refusing to swear in key MDC appointees, and delaying work on a new constitution.

For whatever reason, whether it is inability or unwillingness, Morgan Tsvangirai has failed to push the MDC successfully into a meaningful partnership with the government to achieve democratic reform. The economic improvements are certainly welcome, but it would have been difficult for the situation to decline further than last year’s worthless currency and lack of goods. Lasting improvements and attracting international investment are unlikely in the current uncertain political climate.

The EU delegation’s talk of “progress” is misplaced, unless one can count as progress making fewer international headlines for blatant attacks on the opposition. Mugabe has certainly made some progress in his approach to public relations – instead of saying the opposition will come to power over his dead body, he now claims to have given it substantial power without really having done so and while more quietly subverting it. The international community, particularly the Southern African Development Community (SADC, a regional organization that has repeatedly failed to denounce Mugabe), should be much more critical of the sham government in Zimbabwe.