The ‘Pathway’ To a New Liberal Internationalism?

The evolving international order and the role of American leadership in that order were taken up recently by G. John Ikenberry in our Global Institutional Reform Workshop (GIR).  John is Princeton University’s Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs and a leading proponent of liberal internationalism.  His After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restrain, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars (2001) is a much-cited examination of the rise of liberal internationalism.

The GIR Workshop is a partnership in part between CIGI and Princeton University.  This past August (August 25-27, 2008) at Princeton we held the second biennial Princeton Summer Workshop.  John produced a most interesting paper, “The Three Faces of Liberal Internationalism.”  This, like many of the other presentations, (other chapters will be reviewed here at the Rising BRICSAM blog in the next few weeks) will be brought together, and in, the second Continue reading

The Collapse of Demand! The Case of China

We know, or at least think we do, that world demand is ‘collapsing’.  We’ve seen emerging power currencies fall significantly; equity markets deflate; and governments planning and then announcing fiscal stimulus packages.  But assessing the state of the BRICSAM economies is not easy.  None is more difficult to gauge than China.  It remains a rather daunting task to get a handle on the growth/lack of growth of the Chinese economy.

When I was last in China in December, it was impossible to get a ‘read’ on where growth was; or was going.  Could one identify growing domestic demand in China? Was this domestic demand beginning to sop up the ‘over capacity’ Continue reading

Clubs, Clubs Clubs – How to Lead the Way to Better Global Governance?

Much discussion of new international organizations has accompanied the recent examination of global governance reform in the light of the completed US Presidential election and now the global financial meltdown.  There is much contention over the nature of reorganization.

There appears to be three distinct models that advocates of global governance reform have raised.  The first is: the ‘Universalist model of the UN – everybody gets in, everybody has a voice.  This universalist consensus model is modified at least in the security realm (but not only)  by the Security Council that sits atop the universalist Continue reading

‘Entangling Alliances,’ Global Governance and US Sovereignty

It has become rather commonplace for US ‘opposition’ to raise the early perspectives of American political leaders in discussing American foreign policy.  Yet such references to these early alliance warnings and the threat to US sovereignty have become overused and are often offered in an unreflective way.  Those who rely on these early cautions, often call on these nostrums abstractly and without any acknowledgment of the context in which they were expressed and the state of the United States at the time such figures as Thomas Jefferson expressed them.

So it is that the new opposition – read this as those who had influence in the last US Administration but appear to have little cache now –  have begun the campaign to limit US global governance leadership.  Two rather well Continue reading

‘A Plan for Action’ – Managing Global Insecurity (MGI)

The MGI Project, begun in 2007, is the joint initiative of the Brookings Institution Foreign Policy section – led by Carlos Pascaul,  the Center on International Cooperation at New York University – led by Bruce Jones, and the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University – led by Stephen Stedman.  The Project has recently produced it’s major Report – A Plan for Action: A New Era of International Cooperation for a Changed World: 2009, 2010, and Beyond.  This Report will be followed by a book from the three directors, out sometime this year, entitled, Power and Responsibility: International Order in an Era of Transnational Threats.  The Report and the Project is directed to, as the Plan suggests, “[to] build international support for global institutions Continue reading

Brazil’s new Vision: Imagining a Great Power?

Brazil is thinking big.  I mean Big!  On December 19, 2008 President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva – Lula in other words, released a new national defense strategy. This document called for: upgrading Brazil’s military forces and for remaking the defense industry.  And – contentiously for the Brazilian public, it called for Brazil’s mandatory military service to be enforced on all Brazilian classes.

As noted by Alexei Barrionuevo’s New York Times piece: “The new strategic vision, more than a year in the making, calls for Brazil to invest more in military technology, including satellites, and to build nuclear-powered submarine fleet that would be used to protect territorial waters and Brazil’s deepwater oil platforms.  The proposal also calls Continue reading