Decision-making In a Changing System

This is what was billed repeatedly to me by my professor as a lecture on counterterrorism in foreign policy. That's not what it turned out to be, which isn't my fault I swear. But it's still interesting, so I'm posting it anyway, operating under the assumption that you're intelligent and will want to see interesting things.

The guest lecturer was Terrell E. Arnold, a retired Minister Counselor for Foreign Affairs. In simple terms, he was a Senior Diplomat with the US State Department serving in Brazil and Cairo before being made Deputy Director of a Counterterrorism committee. His work is widely available on the internet, and he's quite opinionated so it may be worth a look; a google search nets lots of results. His discussion was on the changing nature of the international system, and what he sees as necessary in the future given those changes. Here are my notes. I'll probably have my own discussion of it later.

-------------------------------------Go--------------------------------------------
-For the US, historically the focus has been freedom while at the same time expanding and improving a power base to enter the imperial game with Western European powers. This was before WWII.

-Since WWII, world population has doubled and the international system has seen 140 new countries. US was the only developed economy left standing, undertook work of rebuilding Europe and Japan until 1970s, at which point competition began limiting US options. At the end of the 20th Century, globalization is the major question to answer, and the US is in the process of reimagining its role in the world.

-Rules of the game are changing. President Lula of Brazil speaks for many: G-7 not big enough, G-20 not big enough. The old core powers will not be able to move the smaller powers for much longer, and the system needs to be opened to them because of the rise in interdependence.

-Military has been an important part of US economy historically, but the role needs to be reconsidered in light of a many-power system emerging.

-UN is the new face of the international system but US dominance has prevented a transfer of powerful institutions to the UN. Forming powers also didn't fully grasp the post-colonial reality of the post-war system, leading to less concentrated power in UN. System is US-centric, and the US military abroad is there to serve the US interest. UN should be the new dominant power center, nation-state system is beginning to expire in utility.

-Current trend: regional groups beginning to cluster together for defense, creating a low-intensity arms race. System is in transition. It matters how the dominant powers deal with aggregates of smaller powers like ASEAN, OAU, WHO, OAS. G-7 is staring these groups in the face.

-Financial crisis is a demonstration of the level of interdependence and illustrate that decisions aren't always our own due to the potential for global impact. International system to regulate the international economy is necessary and may be coming.

-Critical issues will include currency utilization. Dollar dominant for 70 years and currency is a sign of dominance. Others are emerging, including possibility of the IMF using SDRs (special drawing rights) as a replacement standard.

-Management of world resources may need to be internationally organized. Current system of few-power dominance of global resources can't be expected to last forever, and those powers don't have an answer to "then what?" Same goes for energy resources.

-Global commons needs to open up because the US won't dominate it forever; US power here is a shrinking prospect.

-Political & economic power is redistributing, and needs to be addressed. Some developing countries have not yet come to their full measure of power.

-Unassimilated populations matter; groups that don't believe the nation-state system should be dominant abound, and the Muslim Brotherhood serves as an example. Not clear how the system should handle these groups.

-Going into debt creates a double-bind; us power will suffer as a result, but debt-holders lose their shirts if US power fails.

-US is the only actor capable of being a global police force, but this power needs to be handed on. The UN isn't capable of taking it on, but that's what needs to happen.

-Foreign policy has changed due to the sheer number of actors involved; agencies put their own players in to represent their own interests, and that's what sets US policy in many places. It's not all State Department work; there are lots of other interests involved now.

-Exceptionalism needs to end: no longer acceptable to go anywhere we want anymore. Long-lived double standard about US interests and pursuit of them versus everyone else's interests won't stand for much longer. Arguably, terrorism is part of a backlash involving that at least partially.

-US has to realize that exceptionalism can be provocative, and that's dangerous with a shifting balance of power in the global system. US needs to read the situation carefully through the lens of increasing restriction on US policy options and capabilities. "The old game won't last much longer".

-Re North Korea's missile - good example of small powers willing to push great powers. DPRK is going to launch despite international tension, and it won't profit to get over-aggressive about it. Gates knows that.

-------------------------------------Stop-------------------------------------------

I'll have my own thoughts on this at some point.