Posted By David RothkopfMonday, January 9, 2012 - 5:32 PM
In an event that will undoubtedly be as interesting to
mental health professionals as it is to foreign policy wonks, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad has flown directly from his Tehran cuckoo's nest to the padded cell
of his partner in derangement, Hugo Chavez, for the 2012 Summit of the
Nonaligned and Vaguely Unhinged. Despite Chavez' increasing irrelevance this
was an act of considerable courage on Mahmoud's part both because you never
know what's going to happen when you're dealing with El Loco but also because
whenever a despot leaves a country as screwed up as Iran is at the moment, he
can't be sure he's going to have a job when he gets back.
At the moment, given the parlous state of the Iranian economy,
the likelihood of its further decline later this year, the upcoming
parliamentary elections in March that could be another trigger for restiveness
in that country, the increasing global pressure of every type regarding Iran's
rogue nuclear program, and Ahmadinejad's profusion of enemies among Tehran's
empowered classes, he can't be too comfortable, even when he is at home. The
statement over the weekend by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that America
simply will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons and our tough response to
Iran's saber rattling in the Gulf of Hormuz can't make things any easier.
So, what's a would-be world leader -- who is increasingly
isolated -- to do? Well, turn to someone who understands his problems. Other
than Kim Jong-un and Ron Paul, there are few people on the world stage who
understand better than Chavez the plight of being seen as a member of the
lunatic fringe of the global elite. (Sorry, Ron, you're a member of the global
elite whether your tin-foil hat wearing contingent of conspiracy theorist
supporters are willing to accept it or not.) Indeed, like Chavez and Kim,
Ahmadinejad's claim on world attention is based as much or more on his
potential for irrationality as it is on any particular resource or capability of
the country he represents. Oh sure, Iran and Venezuela have oil, and North
Korea and perhaps soon Iran may have nukes. But the point is these are
otherwise marginal countries with the capability of being little more than
regional trouble makers, who have tried like recalcitrant sixth graders to get more
attention than they deserve through acting up.
The only difference between Ahmadinejad -- whose Venezuela
stop is the first on a trip through Latin America in search of Sofia Vergara,
er, that famous Latin warmth and hospitality -- and Chavez and Kim is that if
anything, his grip on power is more tenuous. Which is saying something, given
that Chavez is battling cancer and faces what may be his first real electoral
challenge in years, and Kim is an untested newcomer, the neophyte Pillsbury
doughboy of rogue nations. Come to think of it, the one thing that all three of
these guys have in common is that all three must worry that the day may soon
come when their grip on power is actually weaker than their grasp of reality.
For the rest of us, we can only hope that day comes soon.
Posted By David RothkopfMonday, February 28, 2011 - 2:28 PM
Recently, there have been perturbations in the wonkosphere. While the trembles are so
slight that they wouldn't show up on the Richter Scale of a real human being,
they have generated blog headlines and conversations at conferences full of
people with advanced degrees and too much time on their hands. The stir has
been caused by the assertion that we now live in something that big idea branding
experts are trying to characterize as a "G-Zero" world.
In the words of one
of the term's proponents, Ian Bremmer, the term refers to the assertion that we
now live in a world in which "no country or bloc of countries has the political
and economic leverage to drive an international agenda." Bremmer, and another
supporter of the idea, NYU's Nouriel
Roubini, have been explaining the notion and have done so compellingly
enough that after it came up at this year's World Economic Forum gabfest in the
Swiss Alps, the New York Times called it the event's "buzziest buzzword."
Buzz words are important in the wonkosphere because people
are very busy going from conference to conference, periodically stopping to
Tweet about who they bumped into and how they influenced them, and they have
very little time to really think about anything. So if you can take an idea,
reduce it to a couple of key, easily digestible, tasty ingredients, and wrap
into a piece of shiny gold foil you have ... a Reese's Pieces Mini. Well, actually,
you have something just like it, but not quite as tasty; you have a candidate
for buzz-term of the moment.
Sometimes, it must be said, that even the fizziest of the
buzziest actually contain a core idea of real value. Take a stroll down foreign
policy nerd memory lane and savor past hits like "illiberal democracy" or "the
world is flat" or "clash of civilizations" or "the end of history." Agree with
the core notion of the idea or not (the delicious peanut butter center), you
have to admit these ideas performed a useful purpose, captured a zeitgeist, and
got the conversation going. Some, like "the end of history," were both widely
misunderstood and, when understood correctly, wrong. But it was a compelling
idea thoughtfully arrived at.
This G-Zero thing, not so much. The idea, of course, plays
on all the discussion that has swirled around recent international summits as
the attendance lists changed and the labels were altered accordingly. We went
from the G-8 to the G-20 and then, keen observers, eager to build their own bit
of buzz in the pundit-hive, pondered whether we weren't really seeing a case of
a G-18 wrapped around a G-2 (the United States and China.) The Chinese didn't
much like this and wished pundits would leave their g-darned labels off of
them.
Bremmer and Roubini and company make the case that the
United States and the Europeans and the Japanese are too deeply under economic
water, and the emerging powers like China and India are too busy developing all
the time for anybody to be able to step up and drive the international agenda. And
while I know and like Ian and think both he and Roubini are smart guys, this is
as an idea that looks like what it is: not much built around a big zero.
Posted By David RothkopfWednesday, February 9, 2011 - 7:12 PM
While the attention of the media is largely devoted to
looming storm clouds over the Middle East, it may well be that the next tempest
to shake the world may in fact be expected in your teapot. Not to mention your
shopping cart. And your gas tank.
In fact, while the uprisings in the Middle East may well be
harbingers of historic change in the region, they are also a direct result of
another set of factors that could conceivable eclipse them as the big story of
the year for 2011: rising global commodity prices. In Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Jordan among the most notable complaints of protestors has been
the skyrocketing food prices.
As noted here, that fact is part of a vicious circle that is
worrying markets. Bad global grain crops last year produce unrest in the Middle
East this year. That in turn pushes up energy prices due to concerns about
disruptions in energy flows. That in turn pushes up food prices further as
something like 30 or 40 percent of the cost of most food products is related to
energy costs associated with processing, packaging, and transportation.
But that's not the whole story. Look at the headlines coming out of China this
week about a spreading and significant drought that is
likely to further negatively impact food supplies and push up prices. Look at
the other headlines about Chinese and Brazilian concerns about inflation. Or
the headlines from today (and many recent days) about how inflation worries are
depressing stock prices.
In fact, among the very few people who are not that worried
about inflation is U.S. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke who, testified Wednesday,
said that while it may be a problem for the emerging world, "inflation is
expected to persist (in the United States) below the level Federal Reserve policymakers"
feel they have to worry about it. Of course, just because he doesn't worry
about inflation here in the United States, doesn't mean Americans aren't going to feel
the pinch if food and fuel prices go up. In a rough economic environment like
this one for many Americans that squeeze will be particularly acute ... and
included in that group are the politicians who will hear the howls of their
constituents if prices get above the level average people feel is fair to them.
Furthermore, if inflation in places like China, Brazil, or elsewhere in the
emerging world causes them to tighten their monetary policies or it negatively impacts real growth, there could be meaningful negative knock-on
consequences for the United States.
Posted By David RothkopfMonday, November 15, 2010 - 2:42 PM
While we Americans contribute to global warming with
overheated rhetoric (and little else) about 21st century competitiveness, our
enemies around the world are employing a different strategy. Being sensible
arch-villains, they know that the future is uncertain. (Just what exactly are all
those green jobs anyway? And weren't we all supposed to have flying cars by
now?)
So, they have concluded, "Why fool around with tomorrow when
yesterday is a sure thing?"
That is the only way to explain the most recent move by Hugo
Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Daniel Ortega -- yesterday's men, each and
every one of them -- that proclaims loudly that those who repeat the past may
not be doomed to be forgotten.
According to a
story in Ha'aretz, Venezuela,
Iran, and Nicaragua are quietly hatching a plan to build a competitor to the
Panama Canal along an alternative route that was considered and dismissed
roughly a century ago -- back when canals were the "plastics" of their era.
Given the megalomania of this trio, one can only imagine
that they will soon join with like-minded maniacs elsewhere on the planet to
boldly go where everyone has been before.
Among their likely next initiatives:
A major project with the Burmese thugocracy to
transfer Naypyidaw airport into the world's leading dirigible port.
The establishment of a maritime skunk works in
North Korea to produce an entire navy of stealthy (absolutely silent), green
(wind-powered) vessels (clipper ships).
And revealing his particularly sweeping
retroactive vision, Mahmoud the Backwards Looking, will soon unveil his plan to
actually set back clocks around the world by 1400 years or so -- or as he likes
to call it, Tehran Standard Time. This will put us all squarely in his favorite
century which featured, among other highlights: major Muslim military victories
in Palestine, the sack of Mexico's most important city, the establishment of Guanzhou, China as one of the world's most important ports, major Persian
attempts to gain influence in what is today Turkey, the conquest of Kabul,
multiple Islamic civil wars, and the beginning of anti-Christian persecution in
China. (Come to think of it, it's no wonder he feels perfectly comfortable in
the 7th century.)
Fortunately, we have little to worry about. Because we are
protected against the plans of this Axis of Nostalgia by our own advanced
defenses and worldview, which, although firmly rooted in the last century,
still place us decades and in some cases millennia ahead of our potential
opponents.
Posted By David RothkopfWednesday, September 29, 2010 - 11:27 AM
If one of the secrets to success in any job is choosing
the right predecessor, then Dilma Rousseff may be starting out with one strike
against her.
Her current boss and
political champion Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva could well be the toughest act to follow anywhere in
the world. Despite the efforts of some
commentators to take him down a notch or two (much like young guns in the old
American west who used to try to boost their reputations by going after the
fastest gun in town), Brazil's charismatic president has done a remarkable job. Confounding -- and consigning to the trash heap
of history -- old distinctions between left and right, Lula has overseen an
economic boom, major social reforms and the elevation of Brazil's standing to
the top ranks of nations in the world. (See the excellent story in today's Latin Business Chronicle ... rapidly
becoming required reading for anyone interested in Latin America ... summarizing
Brazil's recent economic accomplishments.
It's pretty dazzling stuff.)
The question is: What's a girl to do? Dilma, who almost certainly will become
Brazil's first woman president -- despite a recent slight slip in the polls due to
a scandal that doesn't in any way implicate; her one of those curiously timed
dust ups that happen to come to light in the weeks before an election -- is going
to inherit a country with very high expectations. Some critics expect that absent Lula's
extraordinary gifts that she will falter. But read her story and you discover an exceptionally accomplished, tough
as nails, politically canny, professional manager who will come to office much
better prepared and equipped than some other leaders who have taken over major
powers recently.
In fact, given that a centerpiece of her tenure will be
the efforts to tap the enormous oil reserves off Brazil's shores -- thus making
Brazil a major petropowerhouse -- her background as former energy minister is
ideal. The fact that in that capacity
she chaired Petrobras, the state's oil giant that recently completed a massive
financing that made it the fourth most highly capitalized company in the world,
gives her much more business understanding than many political leaders ... even
if her views on the national responsibilities of that company make some market
purists uncomfortable.
Posted By David RothkopfMonday, September 13, 2010 - 12:40 PM
We are not in Kansas anymore. More importantly, Kansas is not even where it once was.
Once upon a time and in the minds of most living Americans,
Kansas was more than just a synonym or a metaphor for America's heartland, it
was the actual geographic mid-point of the United States. You could debate
whether the exact location deserving of this honor was closer to Lebanon or
Grenola, but at the end of the day, all would agree that by virtue of the power
and position of the United States, somewhere out there in the middle of nowhere
was the center of the world.
No more. America may be the richest and most powerful nation
on earth. But the world's economic center of gravity is shifting away from
Kansas much more rapidly than anyone had any reason to expect it would even a
decade or so ago. (I know this for a fact -- as a senior economic official in
the Clinton Administration who helped put together and run the first U.S.
inter-agency effort focused on the world's largest emerging markets, I remember
how officials would smile patronizingly and roll their eyes, "Yes, China,
India, Brazil, yes... important, but not in our lifetimes.")
Posted By David RothkopfWednesday, October 7, 2009 - 4:35 PM
This may have been the best month for Brazil since about
June 1494. That's when the Treaty
of Tordesillas was signed granting Portugal everything in the new world
east of an imaginary line that was declared to exist 370 leagues west of the
Cape Verde islands. This ensured that what was to become Brazil would be Portuguese and thus develop a culture and identity very different from the rest
of Spanish Latin America. This guaranteed the world would have samba,
churrasco, "The Girl from
Ipanema," and through some incredibly fortuitous if twisted chain of
events, Gisele Bundchen.
While it took Brazil sometime to live up to the backhanded
maxim that it was "the country of tomorrow and always would be," there is
little doubt that tomorrow has arrived for the country even if much work
remains to be done to overcome its serious social challenges and tap its
extraordinary economic potential.
The evidence that something new and important was happening
in Brazil began to build years ago, when then President Cardoso
engineered a shift to economic orthodoxy that stabilized a country racked
by cycles of boom and bust and mind-blowing inflation. It has gained momentum
however, throughout the extraordinary term of the country's current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Some of that momentum is due to Lula's commitment to
preserving the economic foundations laid by Cardoso, a courageous political
move for a lifelong labor leader from the opposition Workers Party. Some of it
is due to luck, a changing global energy paradigm that helped make Brazil's 30
years of investment in biofuels
start to pay off in important new ways, massive discoveries of oil off
Brazil's coast and growing demand from Asia that has enabled Brazil to become a
world agricultural export leader and assume the role of "breadbasket of Asia." But
much of it is due to great skill on the part of Brazil's leaders in seizing a
moment that many of their predecessors likely would have fumbled.
Of those leaders, much of the credit goes to President Lula
who has become a bit of a rock star on the international scene, harnessing
energy, drive, charisma, uncanny intuition, and common sense so effectively that
his lack of formal education has hardly been an impediment. Some goes to other
members of his team, such as his chief of staff Dilma Rousseff, a former energy
minister who has become a very tough chief of staff and a possible successor to
Lula. But I believe a large amount of it ought to go to Celso Amorim, who has
masterminded a transformation of Brazil's role in the world that is almost unprecedented
in modern history. He has been Lula's foreign minister since 2003 (he also
served in the same role in the 1990s) but I think there is a fair case to be made
that he is currently the world's most successful foreign minister.
It is impossible to pinpoint just one turning point in
Amorim's efforts to transform Brazil from a lumbering regional power of dubious
international clout into one of the most important players on the world stage,
acknowledged by global consensus to play an unprecedented leading role. It may
have come when he played a central role helping to engineer a pushback by emerging
countries against a business-as-usual power play by the U.S. and Europe during the
Cancun trade talks in 2003. It might have been the canny way the Brazilians
have used issues such as their biofuels leadership to forge new dialogues and
influence either with the United States or with other emerging powers. It certainly
involved his embrace of the idea of transforming the BRICs from acronym to
important geopolitical collaboration, working with his counterparts in Russia,
India and China to institutionalize the dialogue between the countries and to
coordinate their messages. (Arguably the BRIC helped most by this alliance is
Brazil. Russia, China and India all earn places at the table due to military
capabilities, population size, economic clout or resources. Brazil has all
these things...but less than the others.) It also involved countless other things
from the Brazil's deepened and tightened ties with countries like China, it's
promotion of both investment flows and a reputation for being comparatively
secure in the face of global economic reversals, the comfort level
America's new President has with his Brazilian counterpart -- even extending to
encouraging them to play a role as a conduit to, for example, the Iranians. Agree or not with their every move in places like Honduras or in the OAS on
Cuba, Brazil has also continued to play an important regional role even as it
is clear its focus has shifted to the global stage.
Nothing illustrates how far Brazil has come or how effective
the Lula-Amorim team has been than the events of the past few weeks. First, the
countries of the world cashier the G8 and embrace the G20, guaranteeing Brazil
a permanent place at the most important table in the world. Next, Brazil
becomes the first country in South America to be awarded the right to host the
Olympics. Yesterday's FT
carried news that "Asia and Brazil lead rise in consumer confidence", a
reflection on the reputation that the government has effectively sold (with the
bulk of the credit going to a resurgent Brazilian private sector.) And this
week's stories out of the IMF-World Bank meeting in Istanbul show a further
institutionalization of Brazil's new role with agreement to change the
structure of the International Monetary Fund. According to today's
Washington Post: "The nations also preliminarily agreed to reshape the
fund's voting structure, promising a blueprint for giving more clout to
emerging giants like Brazil and China by January 2011."
Not a bad few days work. And while it's Brazil's Finance
Ministry you'll find at IMF-World Bank Meetings, the undisputed architect of
this remarkable transformation of Brazil's role in Amorim.
Much work remains to be done, of course. Part of it has to
do with the new role that has been shaped. Brazil wants
a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council and more of a leadership role in
other international institutions. It may well earn these, but it will have to
maintain its growth and stability to get there. Further, Brazil seems inclined
to minimize regional threats such as those posed by Venezuela (Brazilians tend
to look down their nose at their neighbors to the north almost as much as they
do toward their Argentine friends to the south ... and thus they under-estimate the
ability of men like Hugo Chavez to do too much damage.) And they have an
election coming up that may change the cast of players and of course, that can
alter the current trajectory in any number of ways -- good and bad.
But it is hard to think of another foreign minister who has
so effectively orchestrated such a meaningful transformation of his country's
international role. And that's why if I
were asked today to cast a ballot, my vote for world's best foreign minister would
likely go to Santos' native son, Celso Amorim.
One note on yesterday's post: I received a note late
yesterday from a spokesperson for the British Embassy taking issue with my
assertion that the British Ambassador had joked that he wasn't getting much
attention from the Obama administration.
The thrust of their point was that "the Embassy denies categorically
that the Ambassador made these remarks, even in jest, and that in our view the
relationship between the UK and USA remains as close as ever -- whatever the
noises off by febrile commentators in the media." While I stand by my story, their email to me
on this was so civil and well-argued that I felt it only fair to pass on their views. I would take the "febrile commentators" point
personally, but I had a flu shot only yesterday so they can't possibly mean me.
COMMENTS (8)
Read More
