The Beginning

For the first time in my life, I worked hard on for a political candidate... and it was all good.

Here's hoping Barack Hussein Obama, President-elect of the United States, will be the first one president world I want him to be. I wish him all the best.

Now that all the work and hullabaloo is over, I promise to get back to blogging.

Financial crisis may lead to financial integration

Bretton Woods was an momentous step in human integration that 99% of the world's population knows nothing about. That was 60 years ago. It's time in our increasingly integrated world to take another step. I don't know if there is a specific "engine of history". It's been argued that religion, culture, and our human nature are candidates, but I know that economics is important in driving history. What European leaders are contemplating (read the Economist article here) should be the guide for the world. They meet with Bush today, and it is likely that the current administration will balk. But the day will come, hopefully sooner than later.

Culture wars in Gaza

Let Islamist's govern. I've heard that idea before. Islamists are more appealing as opponents to regimes than leaders of regimes. The bloom quickly is off the rose once the Islamist leadership can't run an economy while more worried about head scarves. Of course, I wonder when the United States will tire of it's nutty Republican Party. Perhaps that proves the idea wrong. 

Here's the link to Matt Yglesias' take, Culture War in Garza, and here is the link to the original NYT article, Watching 'Friends' In Gaza: A Culture Clash. 

Nationalism, Clash of Civilizations, and One World

One problem with Huntinton's Clash of Civilizations is the divisions within the so called civilizations. Matt Yglesias comments on an article about Asian nationalisms.  Read Yglesias' short take here in, Nationalism in Asia, or, read the original in the Washington Post, So Far, It Just Isn't Looking Like Asia's Century.

Ditto Matthew Yglesias

Another defense of Obama's cosmopolitanism. Read here. 

"Cosmopolitan" as a pejorative

Giuliani, the New Yorker's New Yorker, derides Obama's cosmopolitanism.

Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic won't forget it (read here). Neither will I.

Appiah on Bloggingheads

Wow, Appiah is on bloggingheads.com. Let's hope we see more of him.

Watch it here. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/13246?in=00:29:38&out=00:35:18.6

"This Isn't the Return of History"

Fareed Zakaria believes Russia's bullying in Georgia is a strategic blunder, not a return to the bad old days. 

Economic growth is producing new centers of influence. And that's leading to greater national pride, confidence and assertiveness. But there are also powerful new countervailing forces—yes, of globalization and integration—that are working to mitigate nationalism and unilateralism.

Read it here in, This Isn't the Return of History

Joe Biden, Universalist

Is Biden a cosmopolitan? He's definitely a universalist according to this quote from the Bork hearings. Read this from Oliver Willis.

Reality filtered.

While she gave a nod toward Pakistan's barely rekindled democracy, Condoleezza Rice was throwing some bon mots of support to Musharraf today. This administration sees everything through the filter of the imagined existential threat of Islamic extremism. Never mind human rights or democratization, damn it, Musharaf was on our side against the terrorists. You know, the ones hiding out in the badlands of his NW Pakistan. 

I have always thought that Pakistan was by far more potentially dangerous than Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan. But why are we always afraid of the messiness of heading toward liberalism? Let's throw some real weight, transparently, in support of that. 

How about a little more praise for democracy in this instance, and a little less for the opportunistic authoritarian?

I believe democracy is a universal value. This administration has poured tons of ink into speeches and declarations in support of democracy. How about some real action? Keep moving forward, inch by inch.

How tolerant?

Appiah, in Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues of Our Time), talks about universality with differences. In his view, there can be universals along with local differences. How far does that go? Are there some practices and behaviors that it is acceptable to be intolerant of? Honor killing? Too much fossil fuel consumption? This also gets into individual rights, but I'll deal with that separately. Are there universal values? Appiah says that it's more important to agree on the "what" of values, and less on the "why". I think that's an acceptable stage in the evolution of common values. Here's an interesting passage on tolerance.

Some relativists confuse two different senses in which judgments can be subjective. The view that moral judgments express desires means that they are, in one sense, subjective. Which judgments you will agree to depends on what desires you have, which is a feature of you. But, in this sense, factual judgments are subjective also. Which ones you will accept depends on what beliefs you have, which is similarly a feature of you. From the fact that beliefs are subjective in this way, therefore, it does not follow that they are subjective in the sense that you are entitled to make any judgments you like. Indeed, to go from the first claim to the second is to make one of the moves from "is" to "ought" that furrowed Hume's brow. It's to commit the naturalistic fallacy. So even on the Positivist view there is no route from the subjectivity of value judgments to a defense of toleration. Toleration is just another value.

Not every cultural practice is acceptable in light of human rights. Tolerating all differences on cultural grounds is not cosmopolitanism. This gets into centuries-old, deep philosophical controversies, but I'll keep working on it. It intersects individual rights which I'll get into later. 

"Universal" health care

Our increasingly integrated world is witness to the (not always) free flow of ideas, goods, people, and now health care. Increased transparency, disparity in costs, and the compelling need of health care makes this development inevitable. One of the concerns about free trade of goods and services has been falling wages in advanced industrial countries. At the same time, however, wages should rise in developing countries. It's going to take awhile to balance the world economic system out. I think one of the important roles left to the nation-state is to make this transition occur smoothly. Furthermore, will better medical service reach the rest of  the populace in medical tourist locations, like Thailand or India? On net, I think this is a positive development. It's definitely in the One World direction. Optimistically, this may push reform on both sides; rich countries will have to reform their costly systems, and people in developing countries will demand better health delivery when they see what top flight care looks like. I might be too pollyanna-ish. Of course, what if giant first world health care providers start buying up foreign providers? We'll see.

From the Economist, Operating profit.

"But costs have long been much higher in America than in poor countries, so this alone does not explain the new exodus. Two other factors are now at work. One is that the quality at the best hospitals in Asia and Latin America is now at least as good as it is at many hospitals in rich countries. The second, more worrying, factor is that America’s already imperfect insurance safety net is fraying."

Human contact and universal generosity

Does this apply to glad-handers and close talkers? Anyway, we should probably be more generous with our pats on the back.

From the Economist, A touch of generosity

"PEOPLE touch each other a lot, even strangers. We shake hands, slap backs, kiss and caress. Such behaviour can increase co-operation, which is good from an evolutionary point of view. It has even been shown that waitresses who touch patrons tend to be tipped more generously."

The human universals of exultation and defeat

It's true. You don't think about it, you instinctually jump up and thrust your fists skyward. It just happens.

From the Economist, Victory is mine.

"WHETHER you are a gorilla, a four-year-old child, a politician or an Olympic athlete, the signs of victory are obvious for all to see: the chest inflates, the head is thrown back and the victor displays a strutting and confident air. Shame at being defeated is equally recognisable: the head bows, and sometimes the shoulders slump and the chest narrows too..."

Olympic cosmopolites #2

How about the women's gymnastics winners? The American gold medalist, Nastia Liukin, was born in Moscow to Russian gold-medalist and coach, Valeri Liukin, and now resides in Parker, Texas. American silver medalist, Shawn Johnson, is coached by Liang Chow of China, (now an American citizen). Very cosmopolitan. 

Olympic cosmopolites

A friend pointed out that it is not uncommon for athletes to change citizenship in order to compete in the Olympics. The practice is also common in international soccer, basketball, and other sports. While I doubt that these actions were taken for cosmopolitan reasons, isn't the effect the same, nonetheless? 

Sport is interesting when looked at through the lens of cosmopolitanism. Counted positively are both the Olympic virtue of the world's athletes peacefully coming together in a celebration of excellence, and  the participation of athletes of one nation playing for teams in the national league of another nation (the Argentines Messi and Ginobli loved by their respective Barcelona an San Antonio fans, for example). Counted negatively are the riots and violence between fans of different international competitors, most notably in soccer (though these negative passions arise within nations between rival clubs as well.)

I don't think it matters why athletes move around the world to compete in sports for different club teams and even nations. I think the fact that they do helps the cause of cosmopolitanism.

"trustees for humanity"

We are all descendants of the great makers and discoverers. We are human. However...

What makes a cultural artifact property of a particular group? Past cultures, or their ruins, end up inside the borders of modern states, and then become part of that state's "heritage". Odd. The modern Egyptian state wants to copyright the images of the ancient ruins within its borders. Odd. The Mayan civilization rose and fell before the idea of a Mexican mestizo culture or a Mexican state was even a possibility, yet the Mayan is now the Mexican. Odd. In the United States it seems nearly every modern American claims 1/8 Cherokee blood, or some such, and we revere the ideal of some imagined Native American past, though we ran roughshod over nearly aspect of Native American life and continue to disrespect individual Native Americans and whole tribes. Odd. 

There is no mechanism for a "trusteeship for humanity". There are international treaties, and UNESCO, but really, there's no reliable international structure. It's something we can look forward to and look into in an increasingly cosmopolitan world. Again, I direct you to Appiah's chapter, Whose Culture Is It, Anyway" for a fuller discussion of the issues.

Are we set in cultural stone?

In reading Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, I am reminded that we moved across the planet filling it up, one group moving on settling new territory separating from the old group, creating new cultures, new languages, new ways to live as humans. One humanity branching out from the same trunk. When we try to preserve culture, as Appiah describes in the chapter, Whose Culture Is It, Anyway?, what is it that we are trying to preserve? Are cultures set in stone? Cultures evolve. Many things commonplace in a culture today were unthinkable in that culture a few generations ago. 

Cultural tectonic plates are moving against each other as never before, often creating earthquakes in reaction to the friction. One reaction has been to cling to the practices and mores of the known in the worst Burkean tradition. Often it's more than clinging to the known, it's reverting to some imagined past, or a fundamentalist view. 

Why do so many try to set cultures in stone when they are ever changing? We seem to have an innate tendency to put people into cultural, racial, and religious boxes forgetting that we are all humans.

I have no clan.

Perhaps what makes me a cosmopolite is that I have no clan. I had never thought of this explicitly before, though I had thought of all the pieces that make up the idea. I don't have a hometown to which I have an allegiance. I've lived in many towns and I aspire to live in many countries. I have family, but they are here and there and don't tie me to one particular place. I enjoy my country, I'm proud of many things and not so proud of others, and on net think it has been a positive force in the human project. I was asked once what was so special about my country, what made it better and I knew the answer. I believe it is the constitution, which I think, overall, is a masterpiece of arranging human interests. But this constitution and its underlying concepts and framework could work anywhere. It has universal qualities. I don't think the people here are all that different than most.

So, I have no clan. I am a member of the human race. I'm still working on what that means in my life.

All things Appiah... What Cosmopolitanism is.

I just got back from the beach, where I finished reading Kwame Anthony Appiah's Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues of Our Time). I may have just finished reading it, but I may never finish thinking about it. This is the first of many posts prompted by my reading.

"...cosmopolitanism is, in a slogan, universality with differences..." p. 

"Then, as I said at the start, we cosmopolitans believe in universal truth, too, though we are less certain that we have it already. It is not skepticism about the very idea of truth that guides us; it is realism about how hard the truth is to find. One truth we hold to, however, is that every human being has obligations to every other. Everybody matters: that is our central idea. And it sharply limits the scope of our tolerance."

We are in an never-ending search for what works and what is true. We can discover the universals while still relishing in our differences.  Appiah identifies a specific group of non-cosmopolitans as the "Not everybody matters" crowd. From that idea metastasized the Nazi exterminations and the Rwandan massacres. Doesn't the "my country first, right or wrong" notion err in that direction? Doesn't the "clash of civilizations" theory create a slippery slope towards this kind of evil?

Cosmopolitanism is at least a path, or a direction, toward a better way of life. Universality with differences is a good way to start thinking about it.  

Cosmopolitanism and its think tanks

I'll be away from the computer for a couple of days, but this will keep you busy. 

http://www.gtinitiative.org/

We are not alone.

The Shattered Mirror

This is from the book I'm reading now, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues of Our Time), by Kwame
Anthony Appiah. Appiah talks at length about a globe-trotting,
culture-traversing, multi-lingual (reportedly 39 languages)
Englishman of the 19th century, Richard Burton, to illuminate some
key points. There is a passage from a book length poem written by
Burton, The Kasîdah of Hâjî Abdû El-Yezdî, commonly known as the
Kasidah, that is compelling because it's true, or because I agree with
it, but let's pretend they're the same thing :)

All Faith is false, all Faith is true:
Truth is the shattered mirror strown
In myriad bits; while each believes
His little bit the whole to own.

The entire poem is online at
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/burton/richard/b97k/

One Belgium or two?

Whether you think culture is real or not, culture matters. In the case of Belgium, language and relative prosperity matter a great deal. Prosperous, free, long-lived Belgium is pondering its continued existence. Read these two recent articles. 

Why do some Belgians want to become French?

With Flemish Nationalism on the Rise, Belgium Teeters on the Edge

The power and draw of a common language seems to be at the core of this situation. Els Witte, a Belgian historian, is quoted in the NYT article as stating, "A language is a culture. In Belgium the two cultures know very little about each other because they speak different languages. There are singers known in one part, not in the other. Television is different, newspapers, books." It's prompted me to add several books to my Amazon Wish List (which means I'll begin to understand the phenomenon in couple of years when I get around to reading them. My queue is long.) If you've read any of these, please contribute,

Handbook of Language & Ethnic Identity

Languages in a Globalising World

Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious

The Politics of Language: Conflict, Identity, and Cultural Pluralism in Comparative Perspective

I understand the problem of language. I know how it feels to be in the dark in the midst of a conversation of foreign speakers. However, this is a country that's been an entity since 1831. What percentage of Belgians are at least bilingual? How different are Walloon and Flemish cultural practices? 

Relative wealth and social position also play a role. The prosperous Flemish desire more autonomy and relief from what they perceive to be social welfare at their expense. Absolute living standards are never as powerful as comparative living standards. 

How much does it matter if Belgium divides? In his book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, Rifkin discusses how the EU extends its sovereignty, while at the same time recognizing local cultures within nation states and giving them voice. In summary - going above the nation state and going below the nation state. It appeals to me as an interesting way to circumvent the problems presented by the nation state. Currently there's only one body like the EU, though. Furthermore, it may not matter if Belgium divides, economically, since the subdivisions would still be part of the greater European market.

The importance of transparency

One blog and one news article about the importance of transparency in international finance from today's IHT. 

Abandoning U.S. listing bad for foreign companies

The value of transparency

Transparency is a  theme I'll pursue in further posts. It's obviously important financially, but also culturally and governmentally. 

Culture isn't "real". (part 4)

In rereading Muller's Us and Them article in March's Foreign Affairs, and the article in response, Is Ethnic Conflict Inevitable?,  in the July edition, I was struck by this passage by Muller-

There are categories of self-definition that are unfamiliar or uncomfortable to some people's sensibilities - including ethnonational identity, caste (common in India), or tribe (common in much of Africa and the Muslim world). But the fact that some people may find these categories unreal (since they know that beneath the skin humans are ultimately the same: put them in a room together with a game to play, and see how little they differ) does not make them any less real to those who believe in them.

For a fuller context, you'll have to read the articles. Muller points out that Americans (like me) have a harder time understanding ethnic division as a problem because of our relative success with accommodating and assimilating ethnic groups in our society. Granted, we've fought a civil war, had a long period apartheid following a longer period of sanctioned slavery, and bouts of anti-immigrant sentiment, but over time there has been an arc of progress; we are the first universal nation. He further cites the current "comity of contemporary Europe", though the theme of the whole article is that this comity was only made possible after ethnic disaggregation. Friends of mine have pointed out on several occasions the pitfalls of thinking certain cultural differences aren't real. Point taken, however...

Doesn't Muller acknowledge that these differences aren't real, but they are only perceived as such? I know, I know, perception is reality and all that. People act on these beliefs in a real way. I'm not an idiot, I know, in fact, that millions have died due to these perceptions. I know. However, that only prods me further into thinking that something fundamental must change about this. Shouldn't we take seriously what is real and what is not? Don't we continue to make huge mistakes over and over again by not recognizing what is real and what is not? The fact that we are all human seems paramount to me. There needs to be an effort, (a school of thought, a think tank, an international organization), that works to shift world understanding of this concept.

Instead of dismissing the American experience as an oddity, and stipulating all the greatly terrible contrary examples in its history, isn't there something in that experience that can be of value in making progress toward a peaceful One World?

Cultures within cultures, what's real, and the problem of dehumanization

Despite the titles of previous posts, culture IS real, and if you read the posts, hopefully you understand what I'm talking about. I had an interesting conversation with someone about that this morning. One of the things I was trying to convey is that people of different cultures tend to see each other, well, differently. Sometimes we view a member of a different culture as a different species. We know it's true of race. We had laws prohibiting marriage between the races in the United States, which was part of a greater regime of apartheid to keep the races separate. We had unwritten rules about intermingling between sub-cultures; the Irish guy couldn't marry the Italian girl from the nearby neighborhood. This phenomenon exists, and has existed, everywhere. 

These differences aren't real. They are imagined. Unfortunately, they become real to the believers and then behavior is guided as though it was real. We become Sen's "imaginary slaves of an illusory force."

This in not only manifested across cultures; it occurs within cultures, either between sub-cultures or across social cleavages. This article in today's IHT, sheds light on class distinction in India, and how we dehumanize each other by imagining there is something real, a real difference when, in truth, there is none. Read the article here. 

Is one world culture the answer? No. What is the answer? I think we'll find it in transparency, contact, education, understanding, and the acceptance of a common humanity. I will say that over and over and over. Get used to it :)

Interesting stuff to keep you busy while I write a longer post, or News and Opinion of the day

IHT - 

Is Globalization in Rut? I say...of course not, this is a wave of history, maybe a wave that never ends. 

In Gaza, a blurry line between enemies and friends A topic about which I need to be better informed, but is this a confrontation where we just hang in there until a future generation decides that they've just worn themselves out over this and come to some form of peace? I have no idea.

The Economist-

In death's shadow - Someday, I'll have to take up the question of religion and it's relevance to One World. That ought to be interesting. How do we accomodate/work around/get past the issues addressed in this article? There's no universalism here, unless it's universal Islam. I keep telling you, this is a 10,000 year project.

The discreet charms of the international go-between - This was like discovering a secret. Who knew? It's an interesting way to make a living.

Unusual guests, a most unusual host - I think the drive to make alternative energy work is not just a good idea environmentally, but also if you're a one worlder. The money we provide to oil producers (most of whom are working against a cosmopolitan One World) isn't advancing our cause.  

The return of Mr Nyet - What's old is new again.

News and opinion of the day.

From the Economist-

Undoing the damage: What Italy hopes to gain by making amends to a former colony

The Long Dark War: Two saddening accounts of the botched war on terror 

From the International Herald Tribune-

Two ways of looking at the Lisbon Treaty

A close call for democracy in Turkey

With Flemish Nationalism on the Rise, Belgium Teeters on the Edge

The Veil of Ignorance

To create a peaceful world order there needs to be rules. The rules need to apply to all. When I first heard of John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance, or the idea of Original Position, it made perfect sense; it gave a name to something I had been thinking of for a some time.

One World of One People, the dreamed of future of the Boundless Cosmopolitan, will require rules to be made behind a veil of ignorance. I know of the wayward steps of the past, but the United States I grew up with seemed to at least lean in that direction. Today, I think we will find it difficult to take a moral position against nations that torture and preemptively invade other countries until we get our own affairs in order. If we are indeed entering a multi-polar world, the rules of the game will be even more important. 

One of these days, I'll get around to reading all of Rawls' A Theory of Justice: Original Edition. 

Time to get back on track

Not only was every single American shaken by the events of 9/11, but so were most citizens of the world. There was great consensus in the immediate aftermath, and the commandeered state of Afghanistan was the consensus first target in setting things aright. After that, it seems to have all gone wrong.

Time gives us perspective. We can look back now and see that. What really happened? Twenty some guys hijacked some airplanes and flew them into buildings. No new technology, in factit was very low tech, no mobilization of great armies, no existential threat. So, what did we do? We created a war on terror. We jumped into the clash of civilizations with both feet. And in so doing, we lost track of the big picture; the rise of rest, the danger of true existential threats like nuclear proliferation and precarious warhead security, and most importantly, we lost track of the things that make America the model for a better world.

I've just finished Zakaria's The Post-American World, (this is the first of many posts motivated by this source), and this passage needs to be emphasized

Before it can implement any of these specific strategies, however, the United States must make a much broader adjustment. It needs to stop cowering in fear. It is fear that has created a climate of paranoia and panic in the United States and fear that has enabled our strategic missteps. Having spooked ourselves into believing that we have no option but to act fast and alone, preemptively and unilaterally, we have managed to destroy decades of goodwill, alienate allies, and embolden enemies, while solving few of the major problems we face. To recover its place in the world, America first has to recover it's confidence.

We are not at war with Islam. We ended up giving our true enemies more of what they wanted than we suspect. The cry was, "we will fight them over there so won't have to fight them here". And we are, spilling enormous amounts of blood and treasure while doing so. Zakaria points out that the world really is going our way. The processes we set in motion after WWII - economic integration, bringing all nations into an orderly world system, democratization - are still going strong. It's time to reset our focus and put the system of international relations back on track. It is not just military strength that makes us great.

Btw, the Rand Corporation recently released this study that shows policing is far more effective at eliminating terrorist groups than military action and calls for and to the so-called "war on terror".

Brussels, not Berlin?

Steve Clemons of the Washington Note, suggests that Obama should have given the A World That Stands as One speech in Brussels, the institutional heart of Europe, rather than Berlin. Interesting. I think Obama and his staff wanted the comparisons with JFK and Reagan, they wanted the visuals, and they wanted the big crowd in Berlin.

Even more interesting is Clemons' take on the speech, and time spent in Israel vs the Occupied Territories.

Check out the article here. 

Should the U.S. just call it quits and join the E.U.?

While the subject of the title only makes up a small fraction of the discussion, the serious nature of the handling of the topic made my heart flutter. Anyway, 

Henry Farrell, a poli-sci guy at George Washington U shares ideas with Jacob Heilbrunn of the publication The National Interest on blogginghead.tv

The link to their conversation is here. 

Highlights, thoughts, observations:

*Obama is a world citizen! That's what they said, I'm just reporting.

*Obama has seized the foreign policy initiative in the campaign. 

*Will there be a foreign policy civil war within the Republican party?

*I want to have pizza and beer and conversation with Henry Farrell. Can somebody hook us up?

*Farrell thinks Krauthammer's evil. To which I say...duh.

*Is all this talk about bombing Iran serious?

*Heilbrunn thinks McCain's more of a neo-con than Bush and more radical. (Damn.)

*Heilbrunn says McCain should bash Obama on domestic issues like tax and spend. Farrell says McCain is ignorant of domestic issues.

*Heilbrunn says Bush has left an enormous mess to clean up. To which I say...duh.

*Germany will balance it's budget next year. To which I say...wow.

*They have a serious discussion of the US joining the Euro, or even the EU. Farrell, of Ireland, therefore the EU, thinks not. Funny.

*Russia in the EU. Farrell says not in a hundred years.

*Farrell thinks its disgraceful that the EU hasn't admitted Turkey. I agree and will bring that issue up in future posts.

*Heilbrunn questions more effort in Afghanistan. To which I say...After 7 years why doesn't Afghanistan look like Iowa? Without the tragedy and distraction of Iraq we could have Marshall-planned Afghanistan all the way into the first world by now. 

*I agree with Farrell that Pakistan is a huge problem. A problem almost completely unrecognized by the general population of the US.

*Heilbrunn used the word interstices. Oops, where's my dictionary. You should go look it up too, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interstices

Fukuyama vs Kagan

I don't know if you often have an hour to spend in intellectual conversation (as a spectator, that is), but if you do check out bloggingheads.tv. Each day they have two pundits/columnists/intellectuals participate in a one on conversation. The one I'm linking to is a match-up of two heavyweights, Francis Fukuyama, of End of History fame, and Robert Kagan, chief intellectual of the neo-con set. They discuss how China and Russia fit into the world order. The link is here.

Some quick thoughts and observations of this blog-isode:

*(Personal thought) Would territorial wars return if the US wasn't the world's policeman?

*Kagan is a rock-solid nation-statist

*Kagan seems to want US-China confrontation

*Fukuyama sees an existent social contract in China based mostly on economic performance

*I think Fukuyama is smarter and more nuanced, sorry Bob :)

*Is Kagan's great power historical paradigm correct?

*Kagan doesn't like Zakaria's view of world affairs... Boo!

*Fukuyama doesn't want to make China the new USSR.

*(Personal thought) How do you create a world system that guides or ties international actors, mainly states, into good behavior?

*I think Kagan is right about Russia having no legitimate stake in Kosovar independence. Fukuyama wanted to postpone indefinitely as a bargaining chip.

*Fukuyama makes an interesting point about Kosovar independence and the Basques and Scots.

*(Personal thought) The US support of torture was wrong, because now we don't have the moral authority to tell others they can't do it. Doing it because you can is never a legitimate reason.

Forget One World, how about One Nation

One World is not just around the corner. Before we're One World, it would be nice to be One Nation.

From Bob Herbert's column yesterday in the NYT,

There was nothing subtle about that attempt to position Senator Obama as the Other, a candidate who might technically be American but who remained in some sense foreign, not sufficiently patriotic and certainly not one of us — the “us” being the genuine red-white-and-blue Americans who the ad was aimed at.

We've gotta lot of work to do.

The reality of culture, explored

Now that I've got this ball rolling, I've been looking for further paths down which this ball may roll. Let's see...

As globalization continues and the world becomes more integrated, cultures will compete. I think this is a good thing if there is transparency and communication. Let's take the old expression 'the marketplace of ideas' and tweak it to, 'the marketplace of cultural ideas'. To pursue this line of thought I've come across a book that may be worth reading, Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures, by Tyler Cowen. If anyone has read it or knows of some interesting reviews, chime in. Results from google seem to show that it was well received in mainstream conservative circles. From what I can glean, this book concentrates on physical manifestations of culture like McDonalds and art. I'm more interested in cultural beliefs and practices. For example, in a transparent, global society, doesn't the idea of honor killing get eliminated?

Will cultures form hybrids? Will there be a cultural melange? My google skills turned up these possibilities, Jan Nederveen Pieterse's Globalization and Culture: Global Melange, and Hybridity, Or The Cultural Logic Of Globalization, by Marwin M. Kraidy. The publisher's notes state that Kraidy's book uses case studies that make "an argument for understanding the importance of the dynamics of communication, uneven power relationships, and political economy as well as culture, in situations of hybridity." That seems worthy of further investigation. I don't think anyone is for a homogenized global culture, at least I'm not, but there are cultural differences that will have to be overcome.

Where does culture come from? How do we develop these attachments? Walter Goldschmidt's The Bridge to Humanity: How Affect Hunger Trumps the Selfish Gene looks interesting. He describes affect hunger as “the urge to get expressions of affection from others.” According to a review of the book (link to review), Goldschmidt is of the school that finds merit in the new developments in neuroscience and how they inform anthropology, though he takes issue with Steven Pinker. That looks interesting.

If culture can sometimes be an "illusory force", as Amartya Sen phrased it, what of nationalism? I'm going to roll the ball down this reading path, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, New Edition, by Benedict Anderson.

That ought to keep me busy for awhile. Here's my dilemma, I can acquire these books faster than I can read them. I need a USB port for my brain.

Culture isn't "real". (part 3)

From Will and Ariel Durant's, The Lessons of History, page 31.

"Racial" antipathies have some roots in ethnic origin, but they are also generated, perhaps predominately, by differences of acquired culture - of language, dress, habits, morals, or religion. There is no cure for such antipathies except a broadened education. A knowledge of history may teach us that civilization is a co-operative product, that nearly all peoples have contributed to it; it is our common heritage and debt...

Culture isn't "real". (part 2)

Amartya Sen, from his Identity and Violence, page 103.

The world has come to the conclusion - more defiantly than should have been needed - that culture matters. The world is obvioulsy right - culture does matter. However, the real question is: "How does culture matter?" The confining of culture into stark and separated boxes of civilizations or religious identities...takes too narrow a view of cultural attributes. Other cultural generalizations, for example, about national, ethnic, or racial groups, can also present astonishingly limited and bleak understandings of the characteristics of the human beings involved. When a hazy perception of culture is combined with fatalism about the dominating power of culture, we are in effect, asked to be imaginary slaves of an illusory force.

Culture isn't "real". (part 1)

That got your attention. 

There are obstacles to work around on the way to 'One World for One Human Race'. Language. Religion. Geography. Culture. Let's talk about culture.

When we think about culture as art and dress and food and music, we love culture. Cultural diversity, in that sense, is cool. But culture is also social mores, behavioral constraints, gender relations, tradition, and many other serious things. These are the things that trip us up on the road to One World. Socialization is a powerful force, and learning the cultural traits of your home society has a strong influence on you the rest of your life. Look up culture in the dictionary, Merriam Webster for example, and you'll read that culture is the passing on of customary beliefs and social forms to the next generation. We don't pick our culture. It is given to us by our parents. It is an accident of our birth. In the real world that has positive and negative effects. It provides us a frame of reference, allows for continuity, gives us an identity. On the other hand, as a friend recently told me, "Kids are kids no matter where they grow up and with whom - all human. They all laugh, they all cry, they all burp, and they all feel pain. Adults teach hate. If we all understood that we're one world, things would be so different - no?"

The thing is, most of our cultural traits are arbitrary. There isn't anything at the core, it's just the way things have developed over time. At the core, we are all human beings. If a Bulgarian child is adopted by Asian parents in Toronto, she's not going to exhibit Bulgarian traits. She'll always be a human wherever she lives. 

Of course culture is real, in fact, it is universal. Culture exists, or has existed, in every known human society, past and present. Culture matters, but culture is not immutable. Culture should not be allowed to be a dictator.

In our increasingly integrated world, cultures are going to rub up against each other, and oftentimes there will be nasty consequences. It was ever thus. So what should we do about that? Understand. Experience. Open. Empathize. Educate. I am not a Clash of Civilizations proponent. I want One World.

I hope to explore culture more fully in future postings. What do you think?

The World's Most Livable Cities

I can't find the complete list, but this one has pretty pictures. Business Weeks List of Best Places to Live, 2008. 

I could live there. Doesn't matter, pick one. New Zealand sounds nice. Hey, where's Barcelona? Seattle? Portland? They're on my list. 

Why can't I live in Barcelona? Or Johannesburg? Or Mumbai? I can, but it's difficult. I look forward to the day when moving from Omaha to Lima is as easy as moving from Houston to Minneapolis. I will admit that one of the selfish reasons for desiring One World is the right to live where I want. 

If anyone finds a more complete article, let me know.

Is David Brooks a secret boundless cosmopolitan? Nah...

David Brooks, conservative columnist for the NYT and pinata of the liberal blogosphere, has some interesting things to say today. 

Let's start with this...

Today power is dispersed. There is no permanent bipartisan governing class in Washington. Globally, power has gone multipolar, with the rise of China, India, Brazil and the rest.

True. Brooks first acknowledges that the Post WWII Atlantic alliance was able to create an international framework that led to freer trade, the rise of the EU, and global democratization, because they could. In their sphere they were unchallenged. But today, as Zakaria has coined, it is becoming a Post-American world. It's much harder to get all countries to agree. Thus, the Doha Round of trade talks grinds to a halt, Darfur boils on, Zimbabwe grinds it's people ever downward.

Brooks laments in a way that almost makes him a boundless cosmopolitan, too...

But globally, people have no sense of shared citizenship. Everybody feels they have the right to say no, and in a multipolar world, many people have the power to do so. There is no mechanism to wield authority. There are few shared values on which to base a mechanism. The autocrats of the world don’t even want a mechanism because they are afraid that it would be used to interfere with their autocracy.

This is the challenge. Finding shared values and building mechanisms that work. Brooks, the conservative, sees this as a conservative would, it's obvious to him that each of these poles of this multi-polar world each represents a different culture, and therefore common values are non-existent. That's too easy. In terms of free trade, none of the powers that be can afford to go backward. The status quo may hold for awhile, but if the growing economies of China and India and Brazil want to keep growing, they'll have to find a way to keep improving the international structure. The Chinese experiment with autocratic capitalism continues, but I'm of the school that thinks rising living standards will eventually force a more open political system. 

We need bold, clever leadership that creates an international structure which channels economic and political development towards openness and prosperity. No individual leader can go too far yet; there is no critical mass of support for One World. 

Brooks concludes with his support for the nascent concept of a League of Democracies.

The best idea floating around now is a League of Democracies, as John McCain and several Democrats have proposed. Nations with similar forms of government do seem to share cohering values. If democracies could concentrate authority in such a league, at least part of the world would have a mechanism for wielding authority. It may not be a return to Acheson, Marshall and the rest, but at least it slows the relentless slide towards drift and dissipation.

I haven't yet given much thought to the League of Democracies concept. I do believe that democracy is the answer for all countries of the world because I think democracy is a universal value. (See Amartya Sen's Democracy as a Universal Value.) But I have questions to answer for myself first. Will the League once again make democracy a "western" notion since most members of the club will be western? Is an exclusionary league the best way to integrate non-democracies like China into the world system? What is the historical success of exclusionary international clubs like this? 

Russia, national interest, and international values

When will we reach the stage of One World, One People? I'm still thinking it's a 10,000 year project. Let's face it, national self-interest is still the driving motivation in world affairs. And even where progress is made, backsliding is sure to follow. 

The resurgent Russians want to remake several international organizations, most importantly the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, in their image, a plan not likely to come to complete fruition, but trouble-making nonetheless. 

This Economist article, Vague but Sinister, explains recent Russian proposals to remake European and international security agreements more to their liking. As a boundless cosmopolitan these passages stood out-

That is because, put bluntly, Russia now thinks it got a bad deal when the old cold war ended. The OSCE promotes an interfering “western” agenda of human rights and open elections.

Human rights and open elections are good things. Are they strictly "western"? One of the themes I'd like to develop with The Boundless Cosmopolitan, is the wrong-headedness of associating an idea with a culture, or with a place on the map. Ideas do indeed originate somewhere, a human being, or group of them, creates a concept, and though that person may be from the east or west, north or south,  it's still a human idea. As a friend told me, dismissing an idea because of where it came from is like refusing to read a book because you didn't write it.

I agree with the Economist in that-

The main response should be that security is not just about powerful countries and blocks striking legalistic deals; it is also about values...If Russia now chokes on the notion of a Europe-wide commitment to political freedom, the rule of law and the rights of small countries to determine their future, that is troubling. But it is says more about what’s wrong with Russia than about anything else.

Exactly.
 

I can even check my email in Madagascar...

How long before every place on earth is effectively and redundantly connected to the world telecommunications grid? Not long it seems. The island nations of the Indian Ocean have spotty satellite connectivity now, but an international effort is afoot to connect them to each other and the grid, via Africa, by fiber optic cable. (The five nations of the Indian Ocean Commission are Madagascar, Mauritius, Réunion, Comoros and Seychelles.)

 

Here's an article from One World Africa and another from PC World.

Of particular note is the cooperation between these nations, the EU, and the UN.

The Addis Ababa ICT forum was organized by the European Commission, the European Union's executive and regulatory body, the United Nations Commission for Africa (UNECA) and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

Now if I can only get my cell phone to work in my house here in the United States.

News of the day.

While several of these countries don't get along very well, at least they're still talking. I do wonder about these regional unions - EU, ASEAN, African Union, NAFTA, MERCOSUR, CAFTA, etc. I think each union is progress, but can integration get stuck at this level? I choose to be optimistic. The article is about SAARC, South Asia Association of Regional Cooperation.

Moment of Truth. Religion poses interesting obstacles to the idea of one people, one world. This Economist article discusses the entanglement of politics and religion around the world, and difficulty, if not danger, of conversion. 

Turkey's top court rejects ban on governing party. It will be interesting to see how this development affects Turkey's dance with the EU over membership. One EU MP is quoted as saying, "There is a great sense of relief among Europeans."

The half-century trend toward trade liberalisation has been stymied for the moment. China and India are important players now, and this IHT article shows just how much. They're concerns about food security, and the US recalcitrance on agricultural subsidies threw a wrench into trade talks. What trade talks? The Doha Round, of course, which appears to have come to a screeching halt. The Economist explains.

The First One World President?

Wilson had his League of Nations. FDR and Truman got the ball rolling on the United Nations and Bretton Woods. Kennedy started the Peace Corps and famously claimed to be a Berliner. Nixon went the China and Bush 41 thought out loud about a New World Order. Unfortunately, Bush 43 has decided it's us against the world in a bloody clash of civilizations, but hopefully that will soon be an unpleasant memory. 

If elected, might Barack Obama be the first One World President? Black African father, white American mother. Raised in multi-cultural Hawaii with a several-year stay in Indonesia. Last week, in a speech in Berlin, Germany, he mentioned his fellow global citizens twice. While the right-wing and the ultra-nationalists are in a bother over his Berlin comments, might Barack Obama move the world closer to unity? I don't know for certain, but I'm hopeful. 

Here's a link to the Berlin speech, A World That Stands as One (video, pics, transcript). The talking heads spouted that anyone, even McCain could have given this same speech. I couldn't disagree more. They fretted that it was banal and unspecific, I say it was a global picture in broad brush strokes. 

President Barack Obama, of the United States of America. If we are able to say those words come January 2009, doesn't that mean the world has changed, at least a little bit?

Rethinking the World Can Start Anywhere

Even automobile marketers are encouraging us to rethink things...

Saturn, Rethink American.

The Internet Brings Us Closer Together... And Makes it Easier to Hate Each Other

I was just discussing with someone today how the ease of global travel and the reach of global communications are forces bringing us together. In the case of the internet, what the internet giveth, it also taketh away. 

This week's Economist details how hate groups are using the internet for dark purposes. Read The Brave New World of e-hatred.

Excerpt below...

"What is much more disturbing is the way in which skilled young surfers—the very people whom the internet might have liberated from the shackles of state-sponsored ideologies—are using the wonders of electronics to stoke hatred between countries, races or religions. Sometimes these cyber-zealots seem to be acting at their governments’ behest—but often they are working on their own, determined to outdo their political masters in propagating dislike of some unspeakable foe."

Countering the Clash of Civilizations

The Economist should be considered essential reading for all global citizens because of its...well...global coverage. Some recent articles show some cautiously hopeful signs that Huntington's Clash of Civilizations may not be as bad as he speculates.

There may be growing links between the EU and the Mediterranean states of northern Africa.

Club Med

The Med's Moment Comes

The View from Club Med

Sarko's Southern Dream

Common Terms

For those desirous of joining the conversation, it's always beneficial to have a common understanding of the terms. For those playing at home, I direct you to Wikipedia...

Cosmopolitanism

Transnationalism

Internationalism

World Federalism

Let's stipulate that Wikipedia may be imperfect and go from there. This ought to keep you busy for awhile.

Fareed Zakaria for Secretary of State

Ok, maybe I'm being overly enthusiastic, but I've read Zakaria's The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, Revised Edition, and I'm reading The Post-American World and both are outstanding. I'm thankful to Fareed for helping me out with a recent discussion I've had with some friends. Here's the pertinent excerpt from pages 61-62...

"The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, America's leading scholar-senator, once said, "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself." That gets it about right. Culture is important, terribly important. But it can change. Cultures are complex. At any given moment, certain attributes are prominent and seem immutable. And then politics and economics shift, and those attributes wane in importance, making space for others. The Arab world was once the center of science and trade. In recent decades, its chief exports have been oil and Islamic fundamentalism. Any cultural argument must be able to explain both periods of success and periods of failure."

Zakaria states this in a section titled, Is Culture Destiny?, where he discusses the waxing and waning of civilizations based on characteristics of their culture. Examples include the heights of Arab culture in science and commerce at a time that Europe was a backwater, and China's turn inward at a time when it was arguably the most technologically advanced civilization on the planet. It's important to me because it highlights the fact that cultures do change and cultural characteristics that create conflict between peoples must not always remain so. I would like to learn the mechanisms by which cultural changes occur so that cultural conflict can be reduced. 

I think it important also that Zakaria (through Moynihan) points out a core difference between the academic conservative and liberal viewpoints. It seems to me that tradition-and-order-loving conservatives the world over believe the world is the way it is and certain cultural elements are immutable. You could probably follow this line of thought from Burke to Buckley. Liberals, or Progressives, believe that things can always get better, things can change, that we can make progress. 

By the way, a certain mover-and-shaker, likely future-leader-of-the-free-world, has read The Post-American World (besides me). Follow the link here.

Further btw, I will be joining a group to discuss Post-American World next week and will have a book report for you afterwards.

Human Universals

I read Donald Brown's Human Universals several years ago, and in developing a discussion of the prospects for long-term peaceful coexistence of humankind, pointing out the things we have in common is a good starting point. I will probably read the book again in the near future. It's still for sale, but only used copies are available. 

The list of human universals was also extensively cited in Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. Read the list here. Interestingly, these are characteristics for which there are NO known exceptions. 

Following up on a recent discussion some of us have had, I will point out that culture is on the list. Culture is universal. It's the specific manifestations of cultures that differ and often trip us up. When you read the list it should come as no surprise that we all cry, we are all jealous, we are all proud, and we are all empathetic. There is a level at which we are all the same.

 

In looking for the cover art for the book online, I came across humanuniversals.com, which is the link to a college course on human universals (in which I'd love to enroll!) though it doesn't say which university, only that it's in the DC area. The link includes a great reading list, a cool FAQ, and other worthwhile bits of information. I've bookmarked it... I'll be reading it in detail.