As the world turns...

Duncan Green has a thought-provoking, and downright frightening, post on how institutions may shape the climate change debate in the coming years.

I tend to be optimistic that this will not be the case; but more because I think technology will propel us forward, not the magnanimous actions of politicians or the scepter of international cooperation. Climate change is something we here at zzeitgeist are worried about. Let's hope Mr. Green's fiction is much stranger than the truth.

On the G20

On the G20:

One risk is that the group, if it seeks consensus, will produce an anodyne statement that adds little or nothing to the existing efforts to respond to the global slump. A greater risk is that the summit is so badly divided, and the outcome is so feeble, that dashed expectations actually worsen confidence.

Unfortunately, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. I have a feeling "confidence" - whether of investors, politicians, or pundits - is going to be eroded either way. In fact, the only people coming away with a morale boost will be either the protesters or the police.

(Photo from G20London2009)

Feeding humanity

* Posts on agriculture represent my personal opinions on the subject.*

Yesterday, Rory made an important observation: the global food crisis isn’t over. Indeed, many of the long-term changes in global food supply and demand haven’t changed since last year’s price spikes. And as the world’s population continues to grow, finding a way to feed everyone will become an increasingly central challenge for humanity.

When it comes to the feasibility of significantly increased food production, I am no Malthusian. The great promise of genetically-modified crops, combined with current low levels of agricultural productivity in most of the developed world, suggest that current yields can be substantially increased. To this end, we should support programs that aim to increase productivity in the developing world through better rural infrastructure, mechanization of agriculture, increased fertilizer use, seed pilot programs, etc. We should also encourage biotechnology research and development in rich countries.

However, agricultural land, like any natural resource, is distributed unevenly. Some countries are better positioned to grow food than others. Because of this, we need to advocate strongly for total liberalization of international agricultural trade. This is the only way to ensure that every country, including those with poor resource endowments, has equal access to market-priced agricultural staples. Let’s not forget that a significant trigger of global food price spikes were temporary export controls enacted by major wheat and rice exporting countries. Improve agricultural productivity wherever possible and work simultaneously toward agricultural free trade.

But agricultural trade liberalization would require an unprecedented degree of global policy cooperation. I am particularly worried that the economic crisis will actually result in a breakdown of international cooperation, which could herald a significant domestic retrenchment of politics. History shows us that globalization is hardly the natural state of international affairs. However, some of the most dangerous problems that humanity faces, like climate change and food security, will require global solutions. If we can’t find a way to cooperate, our shared future will be bleak.

New protectionism

This Vox EU piece on post-G20 summit protectionism sheds a lot of light on the current state of international trade. Two World Bank economists have tracked the implementation of 47 new protectionist measures since November. Most of these have had negligible effects on trade, but they're part of a worrying trend of domestic economic retrenchment, which spans agriculture, industry and finance. Also of particular note is a sharp increase in the number of anti-dumping cases.

Hello G20, goodbye G7

In a new piece on Vox EU, the legendary Barry Eichengreen considers some of the repercussions of the G20's rise as the new forum for addressing global economic issues. My two cents: the G20, while more unwieldy than the G7 and yet not as representative as one would like, is still the most logical place to tackle global economic problems right now. Hey, path dependence can be a real pain.

Public diplomacy in the new administration

Is it just me, or does the term “Public Diplomacy” seem to buzzing all over DC these days? Particularly since the election of President Barack Obama, there has been a renewed discussion of how the new administration could/would/should rebuild America’s image abroad. And for those who are only convinced by concrete rankings… the GAO recently listed “improving the United State’s image abroad” as No. 5 on its list of urgent issues for the new administration.

Traditionally, public diplomacy has been seen as “the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals.” This typically includes activities such as exchange and visitor programs, language training, and cultural events- all activities that tend to be one-way communication. While it is undeniably important for the United States to educate other populations on American interests, culture and policy, I would argue that today public diplomacy serves an even greater purpose: creating a relationship between Americans and people of other nations.

Personally, I like the approach taken at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Professor Nicholas J. Cull describes public diplomacy as being made up of 5 main practices:

1. listening
2. advocacy
3. cultural diplomacy
4. exchanges
5. international broadcasting

Of these, I consider LISTENING to be the missing link in current US public diplomacy efforts. The development world seems to have a similar fault… too much talking and “teaching” and not enough listening and learning. Diplomacy should be, and can be, a two-way interaction. Mr. Michael Doran, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy, nails it:

It’s our view that excessive focus on us [the United States] is
counterproductive… In the current information environment a lot of strategic
communication is talking to foreign audiences about themselves – giving foreign
audiences information about themselves. That’s different than sending a U.S.
government message.

When interacting with foreign audiences we need to focus less on talking about ourselves, and more on what is most relevant to our audience: themselves. Of course, it is in our interest as a country to fund programs and campaigns around the world that will improve the image of the US- it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise. BUT, as Mr. Doran so astutely pointed out, making this the focus of public diplomacy programs is often counterproductive. Outside of the United States, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who cares (or, frankly, believes) any message the US government would attempt to disseminate. The credibility of the US government abroad is, as we are all so often reminded, questionable at best, especially in the Middle East.

The best thing we can do for our image abroad at this point, is to stop focusing on articulating the message of the US and spreading specifically American values, and focus instead on giving people the knowledge and tools they need to improve their societies within their own cultural context. In her confirmation hearing Hillary Clinton stressed the importance of collaboration and cooperative engagement in today’s global environment, and highlighted the importance of bringing people together by investing in the bond of humanity (I know, cliché, but still…):

We must find common ground and common purpose with other peoples and nations so that together we can overcome hatred, violence, lawlessness, and despair… The
Obama administration recognizes that, even when we cannot fully agree with some
governments, we share a bond of humanity with their people. By investing in that
common humanity we advance our common security because we pave the way for a
more peaceful, prosperous world.

She went on to emphasize the “importance of a ‘bottom-up’ approach”. Public diplomacy efforts, particularly in the Middle East, have the potential to do a lot of good- but they can also do a lot of harm. While it is logical that the US government would focus on public diplomacy, I would argue that the best public diplomats are American citizens. Just as career diplomats play a critical role in government to government strategic communications, shouldn’t strategic communications with the general public be people to people?

While traditional approaches to public diplomacy are unlikely to change much, perhaps for its next public diplomacy strategy the US government should launch initiatives that encourage American citizens to engage directly with their peers in other countries. Microfinance, especially in the Islamic world (no-interest loans are highly palatable in the Muslim world), is a perfect way to encourage this type of interaction. And the reason I love this idea so much is that it essentially cuts out the government from the process, and allows individuals with resources to create a relationship with individuals with ideas (and no resources). What better way to encourage a “bottom-up” approach to diplomacy?

As Hilary Clinton noted during her hearing, President-elect Obama’s mother (Ann Dunham) was a pioneer in microfinance in Indonesia… just some food for thought.

China: cooperation or competition?

It seems clear that combating a global recession will require a good deal of international cooperation. There are a number of policy arenas where coordinated government action makes sense, such as monetary, fiscal and trade policy. So far, world leaders have said the right things in regards to working together, and they’ve explicitly acknowledged the dangers of protectionism. So what do you do when a rising economic power decides that it will do whatever it takes to avoid recession, even if it means harming other economies?

From the Asia Times:

As for the beggar thy neighbor, it has become clear over the past week that
Chinese government officials intend to export their way out of the global
economic crisis. This is all too readily apparent in the recent downward
movements of the Chinese yuan relative to the dollar. Stripped of any rhetoric,
this movement represents a "competitive devaluation" designed to boost Chinese
exports to the US at the expense of both domestic US manufacturers and competing
countries such as South Korea and Japan.

Such a move, if deliberate and sustained, is potentially disturbing for three reasons. One, as Martin Wolf has argued, in order for the root causes of this recession to be addressed, the world’s massive surplus countries (ahem… China) must expand domestic demand to mitigate imbalances. China is neglecting its systemic responsibilities to satisfy domestic concerns, which brings me to my second point. I tend to think that when a government’s legitimacy and mandate to rule are predicated on delivering sustained rapid economic growth, such a government will be more tempted by “beggar-thy-neighbor” strategies.

Finally, in this particular economic climate, we really do need to be wary of the ghosts of Smoot-Hawley. I’m not fear-mongering, nor am I suggesting that we’re entering a new period of trade-destroying protectionism; in fact, I’ve argued the opposite. But there is a lot of damage to trade that could be done legally, without violating existing WTO commitments, mainly due to the gap between applied and bound tariff rates. This sort of posturing by China merely provides fodder for the Lou Dobbs crowd and makes international cooperation all the more difficult to sustain politically.