245- "A Time for Every Season"

President Obama said on April 11, in his weekly radio and Internet address that major obstacles such as climate change, the global financial crisis, terrorism and nuclear proliferation demand coordinated action to overcome.  He said. "These are challenges that no single nation, no matter how powerful, can confront alone,"  "The United States must lead the way. But our best chance to solve these unprecedented problems comes from acting in concert with other nations."

It is a nice sentiment, and on the face of it, it seems logical and persuasive.  But can the world act in concert? And on what? The one overriding truth of the nation state system as we know it is that states will act in their own perceived self-interest even if that comes at the expense of other states and long term goals. And the perception of self-interest is almost inevitably short term. It would certainly seem to be in the broad interest of mankind to curtail carbon emissions and at least slow global warming.  But polar bears are not as important as the  survival and competitive advantage of your business community and the jobs and profits they produce.  And the lobbyists and shareholders of those businesses are not likely to let up the pressure on their members of Congress to reach global agreements that give competitive advantage to China or India. 

Recent history has not been kind to global efforts to solve problems.  The Doha round is dead - the victim of conflicting North-South interests and the inability of nation states to compromise when faced with political pressure at home.  The  Fifth World Conference on Women was deferred in 2005 due to fear that the gains of the 1995 conference would be lost in the face of positions on abortion and the human rights of women adopted by the Bush administration.  United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, is set for 7-18 December 2009, but success is far from certain.  The Obama administration is currently in the process of back tracking from early statements on climate change and a cap and trade system for carbon emissions.

The United Nations Security Council has been blocked from effective action in Darfur to save lives and has been unable to confront Sudan’s president Bashir to restore humanitarian aid to its former level. The International Criminal Court issued an indictment of Bashir, which the African Union and Arab League ignored.  The Security Council cannot even act effectively to enforce its own resolution against North Korean missile testing and had to settle for a watered down Presidential statement, which everyone knows who has worked at the UN is a toothless face saver for an embarrassed Council.  Afghanistan is going backwards as NATO countries argue over policy and participation.  The President is rebuffed by the Iranians in his effort to open a door.  And he was far short of his goals at the G20.  Where is the leadership that President Obama is talking about?

In the early 90’s after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world came together and marked major progress on trade, intellectual property, population problems, women’s rights, and a plethora of Security Council, NATO, and AU interventions in global hot spots.  Education about global health and international systems to deal with pandemics were instituted. Growth pulled millions of people out of poverty.  Most of the world, except for the United States came together on climate change at Kyoto. 

The difference between then and now was that then wealth was expanding and more people and states could share in the pie.  Today, contraction means that states and individuals are trying to hold on to those larger slices at the expense of others.  The industrialized country leadership has pledged to avoid protectionism, but protectionism is insidious and does not have to mean new openly restrictive measures.  It can mean the failure to correct existing imbalances that favor the few at the expense of the many.  For example, it can mean the collapse of negotiations over agriculture in the Doha round.  Protectionism can mean the failure to reach agreement on a new climate agreement at the UN Conference in December.  It can mean buy America provisions in legislation and failure to compete for massive new expenditures under the stimulus package.

Perhaps this is not a time for bold new international initiatives.  Perhaps we should take a page out of the book of the organizers of the Fifth World Conference on Women and be satisfied to protect that which has already been gained and defer that which exceeds our capacity right now while we work to restore growth and wealth.  President Obama is correct that our future depends on our ability to act in concert with others.  But in that process, we have to be realistic about the nature of that concert.  Let us focus on what can be done now and leave for later global initiatives that will inevitably divide us today and create a downward spiral of beggar thy neighbor.

Comments

[Ian Stearns]

International coordination is reasonable in theory; however, with the international community’s modest track record in addressing global obstacles such as terrorism, climate change, and poverty, few would argue that the UN and other international institutions are unassailable in practice. Ambassador Walker’s post “A Time for Every Season” is adept in noting that coordinated international actions have slowed and grown less productive since the end of the Cold War, with the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing being one of the last effective international groupings. Especially with a global recession looming in the background, liberalism and coordinated action will succumb to political realism. Calls for climate change initiatives, such as a carbon emissions cap and trade system, have faded with decreasing private sector profit margins. The Doha round died primarily because the South finally coordinated a strong enough voice (with support from the EU and Brazil) to stand firmly against US domestic support for agriculture. Yet the US stood firm in protecting its self interest. The response to this weekend’s North Korean missile launch further shows that international cooperation, even regarding nuclear enforcement, is low on the agenda in the current global setting. In the UN, the Chinese ambassador supported “a cautious and proportionate response” while the Russian ambassador openly questioned whether Kim Jong Il actually violated the terms of Resolutions 1695 and 1718 (which demand that North Korea “not conduct any further test or launch of a ballistic missile”). President Obama gave only a slightly stronger response saying, “Violations must be punished. Words must mean something;” however, the US is unlikely to take any serious action.

Therefore, I agree with Ambassador Walker’s appraisal of international coordination being unsuccessful given the lack of global growth. However, I think President Obama’s statement, “these are challenges that no single nation, no matter how powerful, can confront alone” carries another strategic message regarding his foreign policy. Even though, as Ambassador Walker points out, “the one overriding truth of the nation state system as we know it is that states will act in their own perceived self-interest,” the US must curtail the previous administration’s hegemonic approach to foreign policy. Of course, I fully expect the US to follow the realist standard of international relations that it has held for 200 years; however, the Obama administration must at least appear to be cooperating within the international community. One of many reasons that America has alienated Muslim countries and former “old Europe” allies is its overbearing actions that disregard the international community’s opinion. By actually taking a step back and dictating less within the international community, the US is likely to accomplish more in global initiatives.

[Cameron Tudhope]

Fundamentally, I agree with President Obama in that we share a responsibility in addressing the serious problems that face the global population. That said, Ambassador Walker confronts Obama’s ideal with a harsh and apt reality – that cooperation amongst nations of disparate ideologies is far-fetched. Addressing climate change, war, and social inequality all fit well within the ethical and moral frame of responsibility of each nation state with which we share the globe, but putting them on a uniform course of action to solve these problems is improbable. It is for this reason that I believe that the role of the US is one, not of coordinator, but of leader by example. With American ideologies spread widely across the world by tools of democratization (like American brands), the US must act responsibly at home in order to inspire cooperation and address the problems that we share with other nations as citizens of the world. The case of Pfizer’s abuse of power in Nigeria while testing Trovan comes to mind as the type of global behaviour that must reversed. We must hold corporate America responsible for acting ethically and sustainably, and re-assert the important role of the state in universally protecting individuals and their rights, whether within US borders or abroad. To directly respond to Ambassador Walkers statement that the nation state will act only in its own self-interest, I believe we must show that our self-interests are inextricably liked with global interests, and that we are willing to devote our public might and powerful corporate will towards a better collective future.

An opportunity for this type of action can be seen on the environmental front especially, where I believe the US is in a position to exert substantial influence and change. But what we are desperate for is a nation-wide attitude adjustment: we must realize that we are not living sustainably and have developed bad living habits that are reinforced by national corporate interests. Giving bailout money to automakers without condition was silly. In a situation where the government had leverage over desperate automakers (as well as banks) to reform the industry by earmarking bailout funds for use towards green initiatives, policy-makers acted without foresight. During WWII we saw the conversion of auto plants to be used for munitions productions. Just as easily, today we could have incentivized automakers to supply manufacturing for improved public transport, or in the production development of new battery technology for electric and hybrid automobiles. Such actions may see the automakers (as they have existed traditionally) fail, but will save the jobs of their workers and ensure real future profits by leading global markets into a new era of sustainable products. We are in a period of great opportunity, but we must act intelligently towards new goals, rather than reinforcing the institutions that landed us in our current predicament by reinvesting in their dated ideologies.

[Lachlan Markay]

As the Ambassador notes, any multilateral attempt to tackle the climate change problem will run up against significant resistance during a time of global economic stagnation or contraction. But this is not, I think, due to frantic reactionary efforts by the countries of the world to pursue their own interests at the expense of those of other nations or of the world generally. Rather, the unwillingness of major global powers to muster the resources and political will to make a significant impact on the global rise in temperature stems from a calculated cost-benefit analysis that surely shows that in such troubled times, the billions--even trillions--of dollars needed to have such an impact on global climate change must be spent on other equally noble efforts that will most likely yeild more immediate and significant results.

Governments must discover, in deciding where to allocate money, where the best returns will occur. Though certainly a fasionable and noble cause, a dollar spent combating climate change may not yield as large of a return (in terms of future dollars NOT spent) as a dollar spent combating poverty, disease, or illiteracy. Neither governments nor pundits know what the numbers of those returns are. But nations should, and do, weigh the compteing needs of their citizens, and (ideally) allocate their limited resources as they see fit to tackle their nations' problems. In the terrible global economic climate we are now in, national governments are faced with a litany of problems that must be addressed to ensure future prosperity (even survival). Many of these problems have disasterous short-term consequences. Some governments have prudently decided that the immediate woes of their citizens demand large expenditures. Those governments have weighed the costs and benefits of public spending on the prevention of CO2 emissions, and on other causes also in dire need of funding, and in many cases have determined that the ROI for public expenditures in areas other than climate protection will produce larger net gains for their citizens.

Ambassador Walker notes that the world seemed after the fall of the Soviet Union to finally be taking up some of the noble yet neglected causes of the world community, and that the global prosperity of the 1990s allowed governments across the world to focus their efforts on such causes. Those governments calculated at the time that such spending projects would yeild considerable gains for their citizens. As we experience the worst economic decline in decades, however, those same governments may reconsider the cost-benefit analyses made during the previous decade and decide that that money could be better spent elsewhere. This calculated decision is essential to addressing the ever-changing needs of the global communuity. Once we return to prosperity, governments may redirect much of those funds to combating global climate change. I am confindent that we will recover, and that that redirection will promptly occur.

[David Schlifka]

President Obama is correct in his assessment that multiple nations must unite to combat global crises. Even the superpowers have neither the resources nor the right to interfere with every country's traditions that contribute to problems such as climate change or oppression against women. If the United States, for example, were to individually mandate that communities in India must cease to cook outside with open stoves that emit carbon dioxide or impose western hiring practices based on equal opportunity regardless of gender on Asian businesses, those people would see Americans as merely imperialists. U.S. efforts in that sense could prove counterproductive. Situations such as these require international cooperation and multinational pressure. Global pressure against environmentally unsustainable or chauvinistic practices appears less imperialistic, and it also allows for more careful and local enforcement of pollution or equal opportunity laws.

Ambassador Walker is correct in that economic incentives often deter international cooperation, which has historically proved more difficult during periods of economic turmoil. Examples range from protectionist efforts such as Hoot-Smawley, which was implemented in response to the Great Depression, quotas on automobile imports as a result of the U.S. recession of the early 1980s, and President Obama's current favor for further protectionism as a means to protect domestic employment. Just like nations, individual firms pursue their economic interests at the expense of international cooperation and fighting global crises, such as when the energy and automobile industries lobbied against the U.S. ratification of Kyoto. If both nations and corporations have throughout history consistently pursued realist agendas to benefit themselves before the international community, it remains unreasonable to expect that Obama's wish for more cooperation(which, incidentally, he undermines with his own vision of increased protectionism) will become a reality in the near future, especially given the current world financial crisis.

[David Schlifka]

President Obama is correct in his assessment that multiple nations must unite to combat global crises. Even the superpowers have neither the resources nor the right to interfere with every country's traditions that contribute to problems such as climate change or oppression against women. If the United States, for example, were to individually mandate that communities in India must cease to cook outside with open stoves that emit carbon dioxide or impose western hiring practices based on equal opportunity regardless of gender on Asian businesses, those people would see Americans as merely imperialists. U.S. efforts in that sense could prove counterproductive. Situations such as these require international cooperation and multinational pressure. Global pressure against environmentally unsustainable or chauvinistic practices appears less imperialistic, and it also allows for more careful and local enforcement of pollution or equal opportunity laws.

Ambassador Walker is correct in that economic incentives often deter international cooperation, which has historically proved more difficult during periods of economic turmoil. Examples range from protectionist efforts such as Hoot-Smawley, which was implemented in response to the Great Depression, quotas on automobile imports as a result of the U.S. recession of the early 1980s, and President Obama's current favor for further protectionism as a means to protect domestic employment. Just like nations, individual firms pursue their economic interests at the expense of international cooperation and fighting global crises, such as when the energy and automobile industries lobbied against the U.S. ratification of Kyoto. If both nations and corporations have throughout history consistently pursued realist agendas to benefit themselves before the international community, it remains unreasonable to expect that Obama's wish for more cooperation(which, incidentally, he undermines with his own vision of increased protectionism) will become a reality in the near future, especially given the current world financial crisis.

[Sean McCann]

It is clear that the best, and perhaps only, way for the economy to properly recover is through the cooperation of all the major actors in the global economy. However, the problems standing in the way of this are numerous. The problem with international cooperation for democratic countries is that the government must answer to the people, many of whom might not understand the concepts of individual gain through collective advancement. In America, politicians must deal with the populist rage that goes along with the shipping of American jobs overseas, despite that being better for the economy in the long run. Political pressure for democratic countries to act in self-interested ways, despite the long-term benefits of cooperation, will limit the opportunity. Additionally, major non-democratic economic powers, specifically China, are strongly reliant on nationalism, and would just as soon go it alone economically. What you have is a group of nations that are too scared of offending the sensibilities of their constituents to do the things that would be of the greatest benefits to those same people.

The United States, as the world’s largest economy, must, and will, lead the way in organizing the recovery from the economic meltdown. Sitting back and being contented that the system is not as badly broken as it could be, waiting for our country and others to realize that acting in narrow self-interest is not the way out, these things are simply not an option. In an economy built so heavily on international trade and consumer confidence, waiting for the world to realize that beggaring their neighbors is the same as beggaring themselves is unacceptable, and will only lead to a greater downward spiral. Obama and the members of Congress might be afraid of what public opinion might say if they make concessions to other nations, but they cannot allow another buy American provision, no matter how toothless it is, to make its way onto a bill. They cannot give in to demands for protectionism. And, most of all, they cannot allow that protectionism to crop up anywhere around the world. Yes, their public opinion polls will drop a bit, and yes, in the short term, it might be an unpopular plan. But in the long run, the only plan that will be popular is the one that will lead the country out of this recession, and that is certainly not the plan of economic protectionism that some around the globe are clamoring for. And so, while we have not yet seen the leadership that Mr. Obama seems to be demanding of the Congress and of himself, there is no doubt that he is correct when he claims that it is necessary.

[Cora Katz-Samuels]

Ambassador Walker identifies a valid critique to President Obama’s statement. There are many obstacles (i.e. climate change, financial crisis, terrorism, nuclear proliferation) that if dealt with in concert with others, may only further divide the world. In the midst of global economic contraction and instability, we cannot afford to exacerbate a spilt among nations. Embracing “bold new international initiatives,” according to Ambassador Walker, stands as a potential threat and could potentially cause a “downward spiral.”

While I am generally in agreement with this declaration, I believe there are some issues that, despite the risk of triggering a divide, need to be addressed now and handled in a united effort. To begin with, attention must be brought to the issue of global warming and pollution in China. Prioritizing the development of its economy, China has eliminated the existence of a sustainable and healthy environment. The effects are far reaching: every year up to 460,000 Chinese die from diseases caused by pollution and in 2009 it is projected that China will be the world leader in greenhouse gas emissions. On another note, women face severe unequal treatment and suffer tremendously due to gender disparities in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and southern Asia. With Bush out of the White House, it would now be possible to hold the Fifth World Conference on Women without the fear of backtracking gains made in 1995. Another issue in need of consideration is the HIV/AIDS pandemic. A threat to both poor and rich nations, this disease is a threat to national stability and security – killing all infected, AIDS weakens health systems, economies, and military regimes. If these issues are not attended to in the near future, the long-term effects will be appalling and further weaken the global economy.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge the extent of disorder and drama that Ambassador Walker highlights (the failure of the United Nations Security Council in Darfur, the disregard of Bashir’s indictment, the backtracking of the situation in Afghanistan, etc.), and the impending division that could result in the event of collective action at this point in time. Recent events have proven that we live in an era of instability and state protectionism.

In view of that, I come to the following belief. The situation is not as black and white as Ambassador Walker makes it out to be. He maintains that we should “focus on what can be done now and leave for later global initiatives that will inevitably divide us today.” But the fact of the matter is that several issues that could potentially divide us must be collectively addressed now (i.e. pollution in China, unequal treatment of women, HIV/AIDS pandemic). Some obstacles are so complex and far-reaching that they may only be dealt with in concert with others to be successfully resolved. Not to mention, putting off these issues will have negative long-term effects on global stability and prolong human suffering. In other words, the United States needs to prioritize issues, and determine which ones require the help of others to be remedied. We cannot apply Obama’s “bold new international initiative” to every situation because this will inevitably create a colossal divide among nations – per chance resulting in a “downward spiral” as Ambassador Walker suggests. But we do need to weigh out the pros and cons of using this initiative on a case-by-case basis and decide what issues specifically are in dire need of attention. By applying Obama’s initiative to select obstacles, the potential divide will be less significant and easier to overcome in the future, and we will still be able to deal with important matters.

[Danielle Raulli]

It is certainly hopeful, perhaps even an idealistic idea that the international community can act in concert on increasingly pressing issues, however, I do not believe it is impossible. Furthermore, I do not believe issues that will cause further divide should be put on the backburner for the future. We must be smart in our strategy to approach and solve these problems--meaning we cannot afford to stand by the aged policies that are no longer applicable in the new global arena.

The world can act in concert, and in going with President Obama’s assertion, it is imperative that it does in order to solve current challenges. Working in concert, however, may only apply to certain issues. States will only collaborate on solving issues if they see that collaboration as beneficial to their own state. For example, working to root out terrorist cells and preventing bioterrorism is in the interests of almost every nation. Likewise, the global community does not want to face the prospect of another nuclear war. When addressing issues such as these that greatly threaten international and national security, it is not difficult to convince the world to act in concert.

On the other hand, when addressing issues that directly affect a nation’s economy, the world will be hard-pressed to find state’s willing to put individual interests aside. This is particularly true in the current global financial climate, while a state such as China is clamoring to continue its emergence as a global superpower regardless of the consequences of its actions on other state’s economies.

Peacekeeping is another problem area where it is difficult to get nations to agree on action, especially when lives are at risk. Journalist Michael Kavanaugh underscored this idea when he broke down the linguistic, cultural and political barriers preventing coordinated action in the U.N. mission in Congo. It is precisely this placement of individual interest above collective interest that prevents peacemaking and peace building missions from being successful. However, we must look at successful U.N. missions—namely UNTAET, UNTAC, UNAMSIL—that prove multilateral peacekeeping is possible. In these missions, the peace building process was most successful due to the international effort. In nations such as Somalia and Rwanda where U.N. presence lacked a strong international support system, peacemaking fell by the way side and escalated into wide-scale civil war.

I agree that we must be realistic in our approach to collaboratively solving global problems. We must realize that in the present economic and political climate, it is only feasible to reach multilateral agreements on a few issues. Nations will always act in the best interest of themselves particularly on economic issues. However, I do not believe this means stop pressing for continued international involvement on issues that can ultimately evolve into global crises. Issues such as the climate change, nuclear proliferation, the economy, and even Darfur will only further divide the world in the future. Now is the breaking point. Our global community has been dismantled, and it is up to these nations to collectively rebuild a cooperative future by pressing ahead with new and innovative cooperative efforts to solve these problems. Now is simply not the time to be selfish.

[Max Currier]

I understand Ambassador Walker’s recent blog post to suggest that the United States protect our domestic interests and focus more on bilateral relations than multilateral negotiations and institutions. I agree in part because I believe many serious problems could be confronted through a series of bilateral relations on any given issue; by, perhaps, working independently with dozens of other countries to reduce trade barriers--and doing so without Doha. To use an economics analogy, multilateralism leads to a baseline market price acceptable to enough buyers to cover the cost of production; whereas bilateralism, like price discrimination, allows you to negotiate the highest possible concession that each partner is willing to forgo in favor of whatever you offer in return, whether its cereal or military equipment. I agree with Amb. Walker that recent multilateral efforts to solve global problems have proven ineffective. The Kyoto agreement, the Doha round, and the perennial G20 summits are oft-cited examples of the larger international community’s inability to cooperate, even on the gravest of issues. Less common examples include the European Union, which, despite its soaring rhetoric on issues as diverse as human rights and the environment, has proven too disunited on nearly every issue except economic integration. In Afghanistan, NATO is effectively proving itself as essentially an American organization in which even our closest allies participate only reluctantly and often non-substantively. And even while the U.S. proudly advertises itself as a founding member of the United Nations after WWII, the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China conveniently hold veto power at the Security Council and are not beholden to anybody. The world has arguably never genuinely operated multilaterally through grand institutions, and the common recommendation for increased global engagement appears simply nostalgia for a false history.

Yet, I do not believe that the past failure of multilateralism must necessarily condemn our future to the same fate. I am encouraged that, if there was a person and a time who could travel around the world as a respected symbol of opportunity and progress and who could persuade governments or (and sometimes as well as) large percentages of other nation’s citizenries, it is President Obama, who is enormously popular around most of the world. The most important skill President Obama must have (and I believe he does) is the ability to persuade other nations to internalize global problems, to understand that they will be harmed by current challenges such as the global economy, global warming, terrorism, drug trafficking, and nuclear proliferation; similarly, each nation will benefit from progress against our current challenges. Over the last several months, the U.S. under Pres. Obama has begun to show that it has genuinely (and rightly) internalized global problems and, still as the world’s greatest aggregate of power in a non-polar world (Haass, The Age of Non-polarity, Foreign Affairs), can now legitimately reclaim its moral authority in international relations. This moral authority may allow the U.S. government to conduct the concert of multilateralism with more power than at any time since Bill Clinton (power that Clinton just sort of let atrophy and Bush bullied away). We haven’t seen much of an outgrowth of this new concert yet, and perhaps it never develops as such, but it’s still early and I do believe it is possible.

President Obama defended his ambitious agenda by reminding the nation that inaction, deferring problems, and waiting on hope was what led us into many of our problems in the first place, or at least made many of them much worse. I agree. By harnessing America’s moral authority and by employing creativity, expertise, and determination in the foreign policy establishment, I don’t think America has to keep waiting to solve our most challenging global problems.

[Andrew Witkowski]

The world can act in concert, but that will only happen when every individual country’s decision making happens to be in line with the world’s best interest. As Ambassador Walker asserts in “A Time for Every Season,” the world made great strides in the early 90’s in regards to working in unison. Fueled by the emergence of neoliberalism and rapid integration of Europe, the world was truly starting to globalize. This only happened though because individual countries were acting in their economic and political best interests, which also happened to have many spillover benefits for the global community. After the Cold War, for example, the US spearheaded the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe to expand its sphere of influence in the world as well as to secure world democracy. Eastern Europe worked with the US in hopes of increased stability. As a result, the world benefited from increase cooperation, an increase in war deterrence and increased trade. Similarly, the EU, founded essentially on mutual economically beneficial trade unions, in the 90s expanded and gained political presence and power. The establishment of an integrated Europe showed the world how a diverse group of nations could come together and work in concert, while each member individually benefited.

After years of progress, the world today cannot seem to compromise on any major global issues. Although political leaders refuse to admit it, I agree with Ambassador Walker’s argument that protectionism is blocking new international initiatives. At the London G20 summit French President Sarkozy emphasized the importance of not partaking in protectionist measures. He must of forgot that he was one of the first to initiate blatant protectionism in the wake of the financial crisis when he passed a six billion Euro automotive plan that stipulated French automakers keep their business operations in France. Many leaders take to the more subtle route. The US, China and India refuse to agree to a cap and trade system to reduce emissions because they are not willing to reduce their competiveness in international trade. The US also essentially killed the Doha Round after refusing to compromise on agriculture import rules. The world depends on US support on international agreements. This is not the time to hold off on international initiatives. Now is not the time for the US to take the backseat. The US has too much political power and influence to not take action. The US needs to guide the world through the current crisis by leading by example. They have the opportunity to table their short run selfish restraints and a chance to support long-run internationally beneficial initiatives. They can support environmental conservation, nuclear proliferation and an internationally regulated financial system. If US takes a step back from its realist policies the world will be better off in the long-run, and therefore the US will be better off as well.

[Kristen Daniels]

Global economic contraction prevents international unification and instead fosters national self-interest. As President Obama notes in his April 11th address, the international community must unite and tackle issues of common concern; the global financial crisis, climate change, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation are vulnerabilities requiring international coordination. Nevertheless, individual countries are more concerned with the affects of international participation on its own citizens rather than the whole world. Ensuring economic stability amidst the global financial crisis is the most pressing issue at hand. As Ambassador Walker points out, the faltering polar bear population is not as important as the “survival and competitive advantage of your business community and the jobs and profits they produce.” I agree with Ambassador Walker’s argument: the international community must refine its focus to realistic challenges, and after restoring international wealth and growth, revisit the global initiatives dividing nations. It must be noted that the problems separating countries hold plaguing repercussions and many, such as the climate change, are intrinsically linked to economic failures and political instability. If we ignore the obstacles preventing international coordination, current challenges may manifest and produce irrevocable and catastrophic consequences. As we move forward amidst the global crisis, we must emphasize global initiatives according to their global importance and the international capacity and willingness to successfully meet the challenge.

In reaction to the global recession, political realism and economic reforms replace liberalist values concerned with social and environmental issues. Protectionism prevents progress; UN talks regarding global warming are stymied by national concerns. At the First Meeting of the Fifth Session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, nations argued over proposals regarding the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions. In the last week’s Economist, the article “When glaciers start moving” discusses the divided environmental interests of rich and poor countries. Todd Stern, America’s negotiator at the UN meeting, proposed that the United States reduce emissions to the 1990 level by 2020. Seventy poorer countries, “most faced with rising waters and withering crops,” opposed Stern and instead requested rich countries reduce emissions to 45%, a level below 1990s output. In the most ironic but appropriate sense, the unproductive UN discussions were interrupted by a report stating an “ice bridge” connecting the Wilkins ice shelf to the Antarctic Peninsula had broken. The natural disaster not only reflects delayed international action and coordination regarding environmental policies, but the need for momentous and unified measures to challenge current conditions. Joseph S. Nye’s article “The Worst of all Worlds” synthesizes the effects of globalization and environmental concerns that are currently taking a back seat to economic reforms. Nye states: “global climate change will affect the lives of people everywhere…the rate at which the sea level rose in the last century was 10 times faster than the average rate over the last three millennia.” While climate change may be a difficult issue to agree upon, nations must continue pushing for new policies that may curtail the effects of climate change. Waiting may not be an option.

While global action is difficult to initiate, I believe the United States should remain committed to obstacles of shared international concern. Economist Joseph E. Stiglitz discusses international obligations in his article “Developing Countries and the Global Crisis.” Stiglitz makes a critical point: “The global crisis requires a global response, but unfortunately, responsibility for responding remains at the national level. Each country will try to design its stimulus package to maximize the impact on its own citizens- not the global impact.” While government reforms proposed to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are finally being considered, Stiglitz notes: “the reform process is slow, and the crisis will not wait.” Advanced countries must put aside their political imperatives and help prevent the bankruptcy of developing countries. On a broader note, gender inequalities in the Middle East, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons all require “a global response.” Women across the world deserve the right to an education. North Korea and Iran’s weapons pose the threat of a nuclear war. Roughly 1 in 5 adults in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV and nearly 33 million in the world suffer from the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Although “responsibility for responding remains at the national level,” countries will withhold their efforts out of self-interest. As markets open and the financial regulatory systems are reformed, we must continue facing the issues plaguing our world. In light of the current financial crisis, it seems all progress is reliant upon the restoration of the global financial network. Although we leave for tomorrow what should be dealt with today, we must prioritize global initiatives in regards to their potential global effects and our current economic capacity to overcome such obstacles. Quite simply, one must give way to the other.

[Caroline Maran]

I agree with your comment that in the world systems “states will act in their own perceived self-interest even if that comes at the expense of other states and long-term goals” and understand your hesitations surrounding Obama’s pledge to solve global initiatives such a climate change, the global financial crisis, and nuclear proliferation through global action.

Realistically, all countries cannot act in concert on specific global initiatives. This disunity is evident in the recent UN Conference on Racism, which the US and other world powers refused to attend (since they were insulted by Iranian president Ahmadinejad comments about Israel at the same conference 8 years ago). At the recent conference Ahmadinejad did it again! His words at the conference on racism prompted 23 EU members to get up and leave the room. The Iranian president insulted Israel yet again except this time instead of calling Zionism racist (as he did in the 2001 conference) he referred to Israel’s two state plan as an attempt to “establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine”. Overall, I believe this global effort was not a success given that members of the international community did not attend, aware that global efforts to stop racism were unlikely to work.

As you cite “recent history has not been kind to global efforts” and I completely agree. The Doha round is just one of many examples of global efforts gone wrong as you fittingly describe the trade negotiation as “ the victim of conflicting North-South interests and the inability of nation states to compromise when faced with political pressure at home” The DOHA round or the developmental round of multilateral trade talks between the North and South was supposed to aid developing countries by integrating them into the global economy. However the end result of the Doha round proved to be a self-interested method of the North (Specifically the EU and the US) to gain open markets in developing countries. Overall the DOHA round’s failure to integrate two thirds of the world into an international set of trade rules and regulations, exemplifies the difficulties surrounding global efforts to solve global problems and reveals the selfish interest of nation states to succeed at the expense of other nation states and the implementation of long term trade initiatives.

Obama should look to instances like the recent UN Conference on Racism and the failure of the DOHA round when vowing to act in “concert” with other nations to resolve global issues, especially with the economic crisis and its social and political implications at home.

Now, I don’t completely agree that global initiatives should be abandoned in order to deal with national issues, because of globalization in our 21st century world, most issues are international and thus require efforts from the Obama administration as well as others to overcome. In light of the financial crisis, it is evident that many more countries can unite in order to deal with economic collapses and ultimately a global financial problem. However, such concerted efforts in the global arena are rarely seen in regard to issues such as climate change and women’s rights.

As you cite, the world acted as one after the fall of communism and the Berlin wall in the early 90s. This is most likely because of the mass economic and political shift that occurred, the opportunity for the rest of the world to gain a market, and the global aftershocks that could occur if Germany went back to the communism.

In the final analysis, I think that the self-interested policies evident in the DOHA round and other international efforts need to be recognized and abolished in order to avoid division and the downward spiral of beggar thy neighbor, which Ambassador Walker discusses. However I disagree that Obama should solely focus on the effects of the global financial crisis at home since dealing with the crisis involves dealing with domestic and global issues. I think that Obama should mainly focus on the economic crisis and the national effects such as the loss of American jobs, but he must combat global issues such as climate change and terrorism at the same time. If Obama “leaves global initiatives” for later as you say to focus on the now (the economic crisis) global situations like climate change and the worlds dependence on decreasing oil reserves will worsen and ultimately be harder to resolve.

[Abdelwahab Abdelghany]

Ambassador Walker couldn’t be more right that countries, just like individuals, act in their own best interest. While “climate change, the global economic crisis, terrorism and nuclear proliferation” must be dealt with in concert with other nations and while these issues need to be dealt with now rather than later, saying it won’t make it happen. The only way to have a concert response with other nations to these global issues is by illustrating to every individual country how it will be personally be affected in the short term by these threats. The United Nations and how it functions is great example that illustrates why the President is going to need to do a lot more than speak passionately about these dangers we face to get global cooperation. In the UN, a member knows that the way to get the support/votes that it needs on a particular issue is by either convincing others that it is in their best interest or by repaying the favor at some later time on another issue. There are many examples of in which the idea that ‘in order to get something you must give something in return’ such as the US being willing to overlook China’s human rights violations for the time being in order to assure that China continues to buy our debt. The methods used between individual nations as well as in the United Nations as whole to attain cooperation and understanding must be implemented in order to achieve the long term goals that the president addresses in his speech.

It is unrealistic to expect that countries, for example, will simply lower their carbon dioxide emissions because a series of scientific studies argue that global warming will cause disastrous effects. Every country, including the United States, considers cost before setting a goal. Historically, the United States has wanted the global community to address issues that it will not willingly address itself because of costs. To achieve long term solutions, the US must consider the timing in which it requests nations to make a particular sacrifice as well as be able to address each nation’s concerns.

President Obama requesting that the international community act as one entity in addressing issues that essentially affect every nation sounds fundamentally feasible. That being said, a clear and well thought out plan needs to be put in place to insure that agreements can and do get implemented. The other factor that needs to be addressed with honesty is the short term costs and losses that may occur, for example, when cutting back on CO2 emissions many jobs may be lost because of corporations cut backs. While all the issues that the president addresses are urgent in both the risk they present and the time that we have to act, I agree with Ambassador Walker’s statement that there is “A time for every season.” It is difficult to ask people to make sacrifice for things that they haven’t experienced and the same goes for nation. We need to be opportunist and strategic in our requests and timing. It is easier to convince people to make sacrifices regarding credit when they are already suffering due to debt rather than getting an agreement on climate change.

[jamon r.]

In Ambassador Walker’s “A Time for every season” he outlines the recent political destiny created by President Obama. In response to the recent global economic crisis and other challenges facing the world, Obama maintains, “The United States must lead the way. But our best chance to solve these unprecedented problems comes from acting in concert with other nations."

Clearly, President Obama seeks a multilateral approach to dealing with these challenges. Over the last few months Obama engaged multiple governments and plans to hit the “reset button” throughout the world. Ambassador Walker counters Obama's conciliatory efforts with the notion “that states will act in their own perceived self-interest even if that comes at the expense of other states and long term goals.”

As the global economic crisis continues to force nations into financial insolvency and recession, multilateral efforts will undoubtedly falter due to this self-interest. In times of crisis, states and their citizens will seek to hold onto what little resources and power they possess. Furthermore, economic needs will take precedence over all other global initiatives.

Without question this is no excuse for a breakdown in the international system. Instead, this is time to redesign the paradigm in which the world congregates to make decisions. If the U.N. Security Council does not work, well then we need to find something that does. If the Doha round is dead, the world still needs to find a set of trade regulations that fit the current situation.

In times of uncertainty, people and organizations always learn to adapt to the situations they are in. The world must do this with current global initiatives and institutions. If “self-interest” is a problem, then compromises and mutually beneficial deals will need to be brokered.

Clearly the world is changing, but the institutions that govern it must change as well. Like any good concert, the best parts usually come when the musicians improvise. Maybe it is time for world leaders to improvise a new international paradigm. The changes they make will not fit the old score, but they might just make for a good performance for the times we are in.

P.S.
(If Obama sings as well as he orates, we might just have a good show)

[Helen Quigley]

While I agree that Obama’s call for coordinated action between the nation states to overcome the various global problems that we are facing may just be political rhetoric, I believe that it is an important step toward actually achieving these goals. Obama was right when he said it is no longer just “Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room” making decisions for the world, and it is important that other countries be included. That being said, the United States still wields enormous influence, and it is necessary that it take a leadership role in addressing these crisis.
The economic theory of hegemonic stability is that a hegemonic power is needed to provide the carrots and the sticks to maintain the collective good of free trade for all, and keep the world from spiraling off into war and mercantilism. Since WWII, the United States has played this role, but its power and influence has waned considerably. The previous administration’s aggressive, self-interested policies have contributed to this decline in the United States power and the general anti-American sentiment that is so pervasive. However, since taking office, Obama has worked hard to distance himself from the previous administration's policies, and so far he has come through on his campaign promise of “speaking to our enemies” as opposed to isolating them. Obama’s desire to change the United States’ image from that of a bullying hegemon to a more benevolent one, who will work well with others to generate change is clearly shown in Obama’s proposal to re-organize the IMF to be a more democratic institution, that isn’t dominated by the interest of the North countries. This new, more open foreign policy of the United States may actually may actually create positive backlash, and I believe it will generate this coordinated change that is necessary. Therefore, like the economic theory of hegemonic stability, if the United States steps in and fills this role as a benevolent hegemon, and provides the “carrots and the sticks” to ensure coordinated action, this will encourage more countries to act likewise.

[James Giroday]

A very pertinent part of this line of reasoning is to pinpoint the nature of the 'concert'. Organizations are often subject to flawed communication and discord within their constituents. As Ambassador Walker effectively points out, the failure of particular UN, NATO and other organizational initiatives is recurrent.

However, the nature of President Obama’s message appealed to me as mental, not organizational. I understand it as an appropriation of John F. Kennedy's remark, "ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country". This version is extended to the global scale, approximately, "ask not what the world can do for your country--ask what your country can do for the world."

The environmental and economic state of the United States has suffered under incompetent leadership. Although it is not within President Obama’s powers to force other countries to take a magnanimous approach towards addressing current issues, encouraging a global mindset could be effective (albeit optimistic).

It has been said that seasons develop character due to the necessity of developing foresight--planning and economization are implemented by those equipped with foresight to survive the austerity of winter. Since the global economic meltdown could be characterized as the onset of winter, and President Obama is attempting to address impending issues, taking a less reactionary stance to a call for cooperation will be vital.

[Bryan Erickson]

As Ambassador Walker alludes in “A Time for Every Season,” President Obama’s April 11 address seems to portray our president as an idealist. While most would agree with the president’s remarks that the world would be a better place if there was a concerted global effort to address problems, there has been little to no evidence through the history of the world to suggest that such collaborative endeavors are possible. One such indication of this reality which the Obama administration has already seen stems from the closure of Guantanamo Bay. In the process of closing down the prison, Obama asked for nations in the European Union to take on 60 to 245 of the prisoners he feared would be persecuted if they returned to their home nations. In response, multiple countries including Austria and the Czech Republic refused to take any of the prisoners, and France agreed to take in one single detainee. As this showing illustrates, most countries will look out for their own self-interest rather than the well-being of the world as a whole, and this makes it quite infeasible to make great accomplishments as a global community.

This issue of how to solve the world’s problems was explored in 2007 by Min Geh, the President of the Singapore Nature Society, while examining how to effectively deal with global energy problems and promote energy conservation. In dealing with this problem, Geh noted that even when global laws are fair and contain some substance in how to monitor and enforce the law, it is difficult for them to work because there will always be certain nations that feel that such law puts them at a comparative disadvantage or that they simply can not practice the law. His belief of the most effective way to deal with this obstacle is to have global leaders take charge of concerted efforts. In order to avoid conflict-of-interest issues which currently exist, such global leaders should be proven and established political leaders who no longer directly run a country. He hopes that under such circumstances, these politicians could be objective leaders for the world, and it is Geh’s belief that by working with the United Nations, such leaders would provide our best chance at making positive global changes. In my mind, such a solution presents one of the more feasible solutions in the current world. While it would represent a more collaborative effort, in the mode that President Obama has called for, it would present a new approach to the problem of obtaining concerted global efforts in the quest to solve issues such as climate change, the global financial crisis, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.

[George vm]

Ambassador Walker highlights the important split between the aptly titled “sentiments” exchanged between politicians on the news and the reality of every nation’s self interest. Regardless of what President Obama, or any politician for that matter, says on the news, a leader quickly becomes unpopular, or an ex leader for that matter, if he does not keep the interest of his country at the fore front of his political agenda. A perfect example is the United States’ use of coal in electricity generation. Coal powered electric plants in the US are responsible for 10% of global CO2 emissions, yet American’s would be reluctant to accept any government policy reducing the use of coal, as there would most certainly be economic side effects. At the same time, in a bout of hypocrisy, the developed world expects emerging markets and LDCs to take careful consideration for the environment in their attempts to compete in the global market place. While self-interest is most certainly a reasonable strategy, especially in times of economic turmoil, shouldn’t the US be worried about “sentiments” diluting the legitimacy of its foreign policy?

This discussion of political self-interest also ties into another one of Ambassador Walker’s points: now is not the time to tackle every issue facing the international community. While I agree with this assertion, I think there is need for an incredibly important distinction, especially in the context of the discussion above regarding the trade offs between economic growth and environmental responsibility. While there are some problems than can be addressed regionally, without a concerted, unified global effort, others are both time sensitive and global in nature. For example, CO2 emitted in China today is just as problematic as CO2 emitted in South Africa or Gambon next year. In times of economic contraction or recession, while I agree the international community should pick its battles so to speak, I don’t think that means abandoning important issues, even extremely contentious ones, that require international action.

[Russ Thickstun]

It is entirely understandable to state that the world is too pessimistic or self-interested to allow any form of progressive change to occur, especially in the form President Obama is proposing; however, it is not so to encourage the belief that we should be constantly striving to better ourselves. Global actions require global cooperation, not single states acting alone; I agree with Obama that changes need to be made now, both in our foreign policy, and in the foreign policies of others in order to ensure that we don’t make mistakes today which could cause ramifications for centuries. As a nation, the United States is perceived badly across the globe, a perception that is only now beginning to slowly change. If proper action is not taken now, at this turning point, to allow other nations to see us in a better light than in past years, countries across the globe will return to their belief that America is a lost cause.

Yes, international efforts faltered in recent years, which is understandable considering the massive hit US foreign policy itself has taken over the last decade, as well as global perception of NATO and the UN. And understandably questions arise: If the members of the security council can’t make a decision, then what is to be done? If NATO high command cannot agree on what the most effective solution to the Afghanistan problem is, who can? These questions are demoralizing and tend to encourage a sense of complete distrust in organized ventures. But distrust and demoralization are not excuses for ignoring or evading hard decisions and issues. Demoralization may further itself if an issue is not solved, or if progress is not being made towards a goal. But it can work in both ways: a single breakthrough in international discussion could lead to a cascading effect which would never be seen in good times.

As to the proponents who say we should stake a claim in what advances we have made and ensure that they do not slip through our fingers, such efforts will only ensure that certain vestiges of humanity will remain while we allow the rest of the world to slip into chaos. A failing economy is not a time to pull back measures, it is a time to expand them, while labor and materials are cheap, before the conditions of the worst become the conditions for all. Global connectivity and mutual effort is the only plausible solution to the issues that are facing the world today. In facing such a global relations change, measures that are necessary will be difficult to achieve, and people will have to accept terms and compromises that may seem hard to allow. But necessary measures are labeled as such for specific reasons, and usually their terms are very close to unchangeable. Focusing on what can be done now is a good start, but it cannot be the end; humanity must be in progression, or else regression, and even an uncomfortable step in one direction is better than a comfortable step in the other.

[Chris Kasdorf]

President Obama has preached bi-partisanship throughout his campaign and into the beginning of his presidency. He wants both Republicans and Democrats to come together to compromise on solutions to problems that the US faces. Knowing this, it is not surprising that he has said, "The United States must lead the way. But our best chance to solve these unprecedented problems comes from acting in concert with other nations." Ambassador Walker has brought up the point that at the end of the day countries tend to act in their own interests. People may not be concerned in saving polar bears when people are losing their jobs.
How has President Obama’s strategy of preaching bi-partisanship in the US faired so far? The war in Iraq is essentially staying the strategy that President Bush set up. Troops are leaving in 2011 and there will be slow decline in troops. In 2010 there will be a residual troop force of 50,000. Generally, both parties like this strategy. Although this issue had a bi-partisan solution, it is not the same with other important issues. The current financial crisis there was a huge division between what Obama wanted in members of Congress. Long story short 0 Republican house members voted for the bailout. Now this result probably had political motives behind it but the point of the outcome is that Republican obviously did not feel that the bailout package makeup was the right one. If agreement cannot be met within our own country on pressing matters like the one just described, how is the world community supposed to come together and make decisions on important issue concerning the world community? The UN is a world organization that creates resolutions to help solve world problems. In UN Security Council 5 countries have veto power and these may veto a resolution that does not align with their own interests even if the resolution is the “best” for the world. For example, the US has aligned itself with Israel multiple times and has vetoed resolutions that sanction Israel.
These 2 examples are just few of many that support the notion that people coming together to solve a problem is easier said than done. Countries have their own interests at hand when attempting to solve a problem, whether it is global warming, genocide in the Sudan, or Iran’s attempt to create “nuclear power.” Although Obama is correct in coming together he will have to realize that working together to achieve a common goal will be difficult even when the global economy is doing well again. In my opinion even if financial times got better and the world came up with a completely different structure of working together there will still be major barriers in getting cooperation. The Kyoto treaty is a great example of barriers. The world came together for a common cause yet the most powerful nation in the world did not sign the treaty.

[Robert Eisenhart]

In his final analysis, Ambassador Walker suggests that we “focus on what can be done now” to maintain global advances in human rights, nuclear nonproliferation, poverty, and climate change that were achieved prior to the financial crisis. Fearing that the advancements made in these areas maybe undone if well founded; these highly volatile issues are can be divisive in times of uncertainty and economic crisis. While it is certainly true that previous gains must be maintained, it is also true that they cannot simply be put on the back burner and dealt with at a more convenient time. As Walker points out, all of these issues are tied together. Economic prosperity brought millions out of poverty and concerns of climate change and global warming lead nations to willingly sacrifice aspects of industrial production in favor of environmental protection. As the economy falls apart and these social gains begin to erode and nations backtrack on their promises, the world is faced with multiple options in how they will face these issues that range from Walker’s feared realist protectionism to his suggestion to “suspend” discussion on these issues and finally Obama’s optimistic global “concert” that advocates actively discussing these problems. Although the first two options will most likely occur, I believe there is hope that President Obama can strategically approach these issues through global leadership as we look to solve the global economic crisis. At the recent G20 summit in London President Obama declared Brazil’s President Lula de Silva, “the most popular politician on earth” (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/thats-my-man-ri.html); coming from Obama, who may actually be the most popular and/or famous politician on Earth, this compliment shows that the US is leading the way in an effort to include a voice from the developing world. Brazil’s input offers a new and powerful voice that can push these social issues forward so that they are addressed in the solution to the economic crisis.

The “Obama Doctrine,” as this new approach to foreign policy has been termed, accepts US responsibility for past mistakes, realizes the limitations of the United States power, and seeks international cooperation over unilateral action (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041502902.html ). The current war in Iraq, the weaknesses of the dollar, and the financial crisis have weakened US global power and created domestic divisions. Just last week the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning against domestic right-wing radicals while the governor of Texas attended pro-states’ rights rallies and reaffirmed his state’s right to declare independence. One would never think that a nation as strong as the US could fall apart, but these events are eerily similar to the radical predictions of the current dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry Academy, the once former KGB analyst turned scholar, Igor Panarin, who believes the US will erupt in civil war and break apart (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html ). By all accounts this idea is ridiculous and considering the source must be read with an eye towards bias and propaganda, yet Panarin’s prediction touches upon the bitter truth that the global crisis is as much a threat domestically as it is internationally. The United States can’t afford to be the leader it once was as it attempts to balance internal and global concerns; in recognizing this concern the US must look towards new allies to push social concerns towards the forefront. Although additional voices to global leadership may create more conflict as Walker fears, it also represents a chance for a more unified solution that will be difficult to arrive at but could potentially produce greater and more widespread prosperity in the end. The consequences of avoiding the tough issues now will be felt further down the line where they will be no easier to solve and may only compound in complexity. The most unfortunate outcome of the current crisis could be one in which the world finds itself in the same place as before, having grown no closer and learned nothing from the shared burden of dealing with this crisis making it imperative that we actively discuss these concerns.

[Jenn Anderson]

As is stated in the post above, President Obama has created an agenda that places a tremendous amount of importance on the connectedness of the international community to solve many of the ongoing international problems. The problem with this strategy for change is the inevitable inability to disconnect an individual country’s agenda from their international policies. Because nations in today’s globalized environment are forced to have at least some level of protectionism in order to remain viable and competitive economically, there can be no clear line drawn between a country’s efforts in international affairs and their individual agendas.
This idea can be highlighted by analyzing the impact of increased loan conditionality within IMF lending agreements over the past fifty years. The increase in loan conditionality can be proven as a detrimental change to those countries receiving aid, specifically hurting their economic stability and their ability to act as sovereign nations. In addition to this, this increase further serves to promote the agendas of the strongest member countries within the IMF. These lender countries self-interest is inevitably protected through the conditions, and foreign policy or economic agendas can be furthered through specific inclusions. There are very few opportunities for debtor nations to make changes or revise agreements because of their minimal power within the negotiations, and therefore powerful lenders are able to impose conditions in their favor with very little limitation. Subsequently, however, because the debtor nations have little ability to negotiate these terms, many conditionality agreements are insensitive to social impacts or the burden of adjustment that the terms will have on the populations in the country, further creating negative impacts on the receiving population. It is through all of these implications that the increased scope and number of conditionality agreements ultimately hinder the growth and prosperity of the debtor nations, while helping promote the agendas of the most powerful lender states. Through this it is apparent that even in an organization such as the IMF in which the goals are to help struggling nations as a collective global community, it is impossible to take out countries’ individual agendas, and thus it seems that though President Obama’s strategy could be a good way to rhetorically connect the global political community but cannot realistically be put in place in the current global environment, that is so focused on individual nations’ success.

[Kate Marek]

It is very unlikely that the major superpowers, at this point in time, would be able to come together to conquer the global challenges that face the world. The growing gap between the rich and the poor, which has vastly increased over the past decade, has left the world divided and has simultaneously exasperated the global issues to a more dangerous level than before. As developing countries, such as China, become more powerful they will continue to put their principal national interests before global challenges. This has been made evident by their oil ties with the Sudanese government and their resistance to the United Nations Security Council resolutions in their dealings with Khartoum. In addition, how are the United States and other democracies expected to work with the likes of China when human rights and international humanitarian law have continuously taken a back seat in their agenda. Ambassador Walker is correct in stating that nations will always “act in their own perceived self-interest” and will continue to do so while knowing that half of the world’s population struggles to live on less than $2.50 a day.

While President Obama is ambitious in thinking that it is possible to act in a concert with other nations, he must first take care of the imbalance that exists on the home front. How can we step up and fix problems abroad when we are struggling to bail out greedy businessmen who are partially responsible for our economic downfall to begin with? The United States has the ability, as a world superpower and dominant member of the UN, to lead the way in taking a proactive stance on major issues, even if it goes against global markets. However, the U.S must keep this stance and take action on issues instead of continuing to talk about what needs to be done, which has been the case thus far with Darfur. When the United States does this other nations will follow suit. As for global warming, at this point in time nations are not viewing this problem as an immediate global threat. In all likelihood, in time, climate change will eventually bring nations together because it is a challenge that requires us to take action and it cannot be conquered alone. Again, the United States can lead by example by taking action and acting in accordance to the Kyoto Protocol.

[Roman Kolosovskiy]

The pessimism about countries working in concert is completely understanding. During such troubled times, a leader must first of all take care of their own country, and then help other ones. The attitude at recent UN conference regarding the North Korean Missile launch inspires even more fear that during the next few years of crisis, countries will continue to be even more selfish. However, it is important that the world now is completely different from what it was even five years ago. The current world economic crisis happened because countries are so intertwined economically, and they did not use caution when they performed various financial operations. So it would only to make sense that in order to untangle this mess countries must work together so that countries could prosper again. In no way am I arguing that globalization is the best economic structure possible, but so far it worked well, until the crisis. Leaders must see what mistakes and learn from them in order to avert such a crisis in the future. More importantly countries should not only work together because of the degree of globalization achieved, but also because this process is not reversible.

Countries should most certainly work together when it comes to issues such as global warming and security. Issues such as nuclear non-proliferation or peace in the Middle East will never be worked out on their own. US and Russia must lead the process of Nuclear non-proliferation and force other countries to go along with them. That will be the only way to prevent terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear weapons. By no means am I naïve enough to believe that countries around the world will happily start working together, no. But I do hope that G20 countries will realize that they must work in together if they wish to resolve issues. Working in concert would not only help resolve global problems, but countries would be able to benefit domestically.

[Max Brindle]

I agree with Professor Walker that now “is not the time for brave new initiatives.” The current financial crisis has drastically increased anti-globalization sentiments and decreased the efficacy of multinational cooperation. Many countries economically affected by a crisis originating from the housing market of the United States are understandably weary of further or even continued globalization and, as Professor Walker suggests, protectionism is the natural and obvious response. Yet I do not think increased protectionism and decreased international cooperation signal fundamental changes in the way nations conduct diplomacy with one another. Rather, they illustrate changing issues that dictate the way countries conduct diplomatic relations. Before the current global recession post-modern issues such as global climate change and women’s rights provided a relatively easy means for nations to come together and agree (somewhat). These issues are, at least in the west, relatively unchallenged and widely accepted goals. The same is not the case for the economic problems of today.
Professor Walker writes, “The one overriding truth of the nation state system as we know it is that states will act in their own perceived self-interest even if that comes at the expense of other states and long term goals.” It’s all about economics; not in the financial sense, but as the study of relative costs and benefits. Nation-states weigh their personal costs and benefits and act accordingly, always. The successes of the 90’s created an atmosphere of cooperation because numerous countries all agreed the personal costs of these actions were less than the benefits. Overarching, popular, and easily recognizable philosophies provided the necessary framework. Now complicated, economic problems exist without any clear and agreed upon solution and countries accordingly cannot cooperate. Different countries feel their unique economic needs require unique economic solutions at odds with other countries. The world will only act in concert when everyone involved in the process feels they have something to gain, and in this case they do not. The rules of diplomacy between nations do not change, only circumstances do.