Blog entries for aicyr

G20 Summit & Global Economic Crisis: Meltdown or Market Correction?

aicyr — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:00:18 GMT

The Washington weekend conference of leaders of the Group of 20 nations underscores the global financial crisis. The world economy seems defined by wildly gyrating equities markets and frozen credit markets. There is broad consensus a global recession is beginning.

Immediate reactions to the conference include criticism of general statements about cooperation which lack specifics. However, participants did commit to resisting protectionism, promoting transparency, and much stricter regulation of banking and finance.

The history of international economic cooperation in the twentieth century indicates success reflects sustained work over the long term. There are no quick solutions to vexing structural problems, which is what the international economy currently confronts. This conference should be viewed as a sensible beginning; expecting immediate dramatic outcomes is utopian.

Many observers draw parallels between the current period and the Great Depression of the 1930s. There are very significant differences between that era and our own, but durable lessons as well. Shortly after the 1929 U.S. stock market crash, Congress passed the exceptionally restrictive Smoot-Hawley tariff.

Americans were following British example. London’s highly protectionist Imperial Preference cut off the enormous British Commonwealth and Empire in economic terms from the rest of the world. In retrospect, such moves along with unilateral currency devaluations added to the severity of the Great Depression while feeding totalitarian movements and extreme nationalism.

In addition to reconfirming opposition to go-it-alone policies, the conference represents a notable expansion of national participants. In the past, such meetings have focused on the G7, the sizable economically highly developed nations of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. In recent years, Russia has also been included, reflecting geographic proximity, military power and natural resources rather than comparable economic development.

Current emphasis on the G20 indicates consensus that a very small group of nations can no longer effectively lead the global economy. Brazil, China, India and other developing nations are rapidly evolving into major manufacturing powers, along with traditional roles as important suppliers of raw materials and other natural resources.

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil has been notably optimistic in commenting on the conference. His background leading the political left in his country personifies the point that current economic consensus transcends ideology.

Since the Second World War, regular comprehensive negotiations have expanded trade, providing a generally stable foundation for the smaller gatherings representing the major economies. The current Doha Round has been vexed by disagreements on agriculture. Among the most successful was the Uruguay Round during the Reagan administration, spearheaded by U.S. Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter.

In 1944 at Bretton Woods New Hampshire, senior representatives of the Allied powers hammered out the economic structure for the post-war period. New institutions under the United Nations umbrella included the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the World Trade Organization), the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Functions have changed, especially after the Nixon administration in 1971 ended fixed monetary exchange rates, but the institutions have proven remarkably durable. Their founders planned for the long term.

The original United Nations vision was in the Atlantic Charter, announced by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt after their epic Canada summit several months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Many associate FDR more closely than Churchill with the UN. However, the British leader in his history of the Second World War notes proudly that he drafted the Charter.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Macmillan/Palgrave). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Russia's Missile Game

aicyr — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:57:21 GMT

‘Hitting a bullet with a bullet’ is the way even proponents of anti-ballistic missile systems describe the extraordinary technical challenge. Yet there has been sustained pressure within the United States government for a half century to build such weapons.

President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia has brought this complex – and ominous – subject back to the headlines by flamboyantly announcing deployment of Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, a forward area close to Western Europe. The Bush administration some time ago announced planned deployment of U.S. anti-ballistic missiles in Poland, with associated radar installations in the Czech Republic.

Medvedev’s announcement was timed to coincide with Sen. Barack Obama’s election as the next president of the United States. Perhaps Medvedev, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and the others who rule Russia were interested only in upstaging the American elections and the president-elect. Perhaps this move is part of a much larger strategic plan, including the recent invasion of Georgia, to assert Russian military power.

In any case, Obama has not risen to the bait. The president-elect has stressed that our country has only one president at a time, and refuses to get drawn into policy debates about moves by either Moscow or Washington. His staff has described the topic of missiles in Europe as open for future consideration.

Pentagon pressure for anti-ballistic missiles dates back to the 1950’s and the Eisenhower administration. At that time, defense spending absorbed more than half the entire federal budget, and a much larger percentage of gross national product than today. Ike maintained control over the military primarily, though not exclusively, by putting an overall ceiling on the Pentagon budget, effectively setting the Air Force, Army and Navy against one another for available resources.

One byproduct was considerable duplication of effort. Each service, for example, developed a separate strategic missile program, jealously guarding research and development information from the others.

Robert McNamara, defense secretary in the successor Kennedy administration, was instantly offended by the lack of logic in the Eisenhower approach and decisively imposed organization-chart order. The Air Force was given land-based strategic missiles, the Navy sea-based submarine systems, and the Army was removed from the game.

The secretary and his generally young civilian analysts also rejected arguments for anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) because any conceivable defensive systems could be overwhelmed at relatively low cost by simply increasing the number of attack vehicles.

McNamara’s policies and style quickly unified the services against him. The Army pressed successfully for an ABM role. When President Lyndon Johnson forced the secretary to resign, he gave him the choice post of president of the World Bank, but also made him publicly announce support for the ABM system.

President Ronald Reagan gave priority to exotic space-based missile interceptors, termed the Strategic Defense Initiative or ‘Star Wars’. The Air Force became the leading service but the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed the effort, with Reagan and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger prime exponents.

The Bush administration has gone to great lengths to deny the current missile defense program is directed at Russia. There has been an offer to include Moscow in planning and emphasis on the limited number of interceptors.

The Czech-Poland deployment can be defended as prudent given possible threats from Iran or other extremist states. Nuclear strategist Herman Kahn used precisely that argument in trying to bolster the humiliated McNamara when the earlier ABM system was announced.

However, the current missile deployment greatly spurs endemic Russian insecurities. The new Obama administration should give high priority to evaluation of this policy. Meanwhile, Ike continues to look better all the time.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

China-Taiwan Summit Historic

aicyr — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:50:53 GMT

While Americans are generally focused on the very intensely fought presidential campaign, historic talks between mainland China and Taiwan have just concluded successfully. Beijing’s top negotiator, Chen Yunlin, is the most senior mainland representative ever to visit Taiwan. His counterpart Chiang Pin-kung is equally senior. These commercial negotiations are profoundly important, with significant political as well as economic implications. Four comprehensive agreements were reached, including direct shipping, expansion of weekly passenger flights from 36 to 108, and introduction of cargo flights up to a maximum of 60 per month. There was agreement to hold senior talks every six months, with the next phase to focus on financial integration, including opening bank branches across the Taiwan Strait. Expectations are that this very great liberalization of banking will give an enormous boost to the already significant investment in China by companies and investors linked to Taiwan, and encourage further financial cooperation in sectors currently unforeseen.

The accord is a major triumph for Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou, leader of the Kuomintang Party (KMT) and former Mayor of Taipei. He was elected to the top Taiwan office in March of this year, providing an important fresh opportunity to reduce tensions and increase cooperation with Beijing. The KMT ticket secured 58.45% of the vote, a landslide.

In the same election, voters rejected two referenda to seek readmission to the United Nations. The island government, formally known as the Republic of China, left the world body when the People’s Republic of China was admitted in 1971.

Ma has worked over time to underscore the importance of consensus and compromise. His predecessor, President Chen Shui-bian of the rival Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), was much more confrontational with Beijing. A commission to manage relations across the Taiwan Strait was abolished. The DPP has also flirted in the past with a possible formal declaration of independence from the mainland, an act that Beijing consistently has declared would mean war.

In a 2006 visit to New York, Ma emphasized the 1992 formal agreement with Beijing to accept the concept of ‘one China’, but differ on features of that China. That accord was fundamental to the comparatively effective dialogue which followed.

This sort of pragmatism generally has characterized Taiwan’s approach to not only mainland China but the world at large. Following Washington’s formal diplomatic recognition of Beijing in 1978, a process begun by President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China in 1972, Taipei immediately launched a comprehensive essentially non-confrontational strategic response.

Consular offices in American cities were greatly expanded. Local and state government officials, along with members of the U.S. Congress, were assiduously courted. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton was among those who visited Taiwan. Positive Congressional ties became an especially important priority, which clearly paid dividends over the years.

The island has also emphasized the complex network of global intergovernmental organizations operating generally under the umbrella of the UN. A recent priority has been the World Health Organization; exceptional scientific and technological expertise has been cited as powerful and persuasive evidence for admission.

The agreements just reached are very promising for greater political stability as well as economic growth. The Taiwan Strait, which has often been the scene of tense confrontations in the past, is now the scene of expanding trade and investment. The next U.S. President has just been presented with a very attractive opportunity to further great power relations between our nation and China, effectively brokered by Taiwan.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author ‘After the Cold War’ (Macmillan/Palgrave and NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Obama Victory American & Democratic

aicyr — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:45:37 GMT

Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States by a clear majority of the popular vote by 52 to 46 percent and a sweep of the Electoral College. A freshman United States Senator, he is also by the way the first African-American to be nominated by a major party as well as elected to the White House.            Obama and Vice Presidential running mate Sen. Joe Biden prevailed over Republican nominees Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin by increasing Democratic support across the country. The enormous turnout of African-Americans for Obama-Biden is particularly notable, but occurred in the wider context of the national electoral tapestry. Andrew Kohut of the respected Pew Center for the People and the Press reflects analysts generally in emphasizing the demographic uniformity of the Democratic victory.            In 2004, Republican President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney won reelection in a much closer race against Democratic nominees Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards. In that campaign as well as in 2000, Republican campaign chief Karl Rove pursued very aggressive, at times ruthless campaign tactics.            Rove is also credited with disciplined, effective concentration on specific voting blocs. In 2004, the Bush campaign sought the support of 50 percent of white women and 40 percent of Hispanics. Both goals were achieved. The Republicans won the popular vote, in contrast to the 2000, when the Democrats finished ahead by approximately one half million votes.            While Republicans had the organizational edge in the two previous presidential
campaigns, this time the Democrats clearly were superior. The Obama organization has been strikingly successful in mobilizing voters, raising unprecedented sums, and sustaining coherent campaign themes.            The Democrats designated a specific team to track and react to literally every
statement by McCain, Palin and other Republican leaders. On the same September
day that investment bank Lehman Brothers collapsed, McCain declared in a Florida speech in a nearly empty hall that the economy “is fundamentally sound”. Almost immediately, the Obama campaign transformed this offhand reference into national news, underlining the obvious echoes of hapless President Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. Polls up to and including election day showed economic problems were paramount with voters, who blamed the Bush White House and the Republicans.            While both campaigns employed negative ads, Obama was far more successful than
McCain at appearing to be above that battle, leaving the attacker role largely to Biden. Opinion surveys showed that Obama was generally regarded as superior to McCain in the television debates.            Democrats expanded support in particular among female voters, drawing 56 percent this time for Obama-Biden. Before the 1960s, men and women generally voted in tandem patterns, with the latter slightly more Republican. Since that decade, women have become much more active than men to moving between the parties, while over time gravitating in substantial numbers to the Democrats.            The selection of Sarah Palin, who was not well known nationally, generated considerable attention but did not translate into increased Republican support. Hispanic voters also moved strongly to the Democrats in 2008. McCain efforts to support amnesty for illegal residents became caught up in bitter debate within the Republican Party.
            Since the Second World War, suburbs have grown steadily in political importance, blurring the earlier urban-rural divide. By 1960, they held a plurality of the electorate. By the early 1990s, a majority of the voting population was there.            The traditional picture of heavily Republican suburbs actually reflects more the enormous appeal of Dwight Eisenhower than more durable partisan factors. The brilliant political opinion analyst Samuel Lubell argued in his 1955 book, ‘The Future of American Politics’, that Democrats as well as Republicans take party identities with them when they move from the city to more prosperous suburbs.            Contemporary political analysts Michael Barone and Thomas B. Edsall have written extensively on the complex political patterns evolving in new exurban areas close to urban centers, and more traditional suburbs. Democrats this year made great gains in these areas, and Republicans must recover considerable ground.            With the election of John F. Kennedy as our first Catholic President religion was effectively taken off the political table. President-elect Obama has probably done the same for race in American politics.Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Wall Street - Wild West and the Law

aicyr — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:01:02 GMT

The extended Wall Street turmoil resulting from the housing and subprime lending crisis contains major challenges, reinforced by the current media propensity for scare headlines and alarmist editorials.

Political leaders have helped to feed public anxiety. Optimistic declarations by President George W. Bush conjure up eerie images of the unfortunate President Herbert Hoover, who stressed the economy was “fundamentally strong” even as the greatest economic collapse in modern history was unfolding.

John McCain has skidded between comparable optimism and draconian declarations about firing Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, while Barack Obama has said little specific beyond the urgency of removing Republicans from office.

Economic output has slowed this year, and we may have entered a recession, with unemployment now up to just over 6 per cent. Pessimists rightly point out that discouraged job seekers have disappeared from the jobless statistics.

A severe sustained Wall Street slump could touch off a severe recession. The collapse of Lehman Brothers and federal bailout of AIG this week, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac earlier, demonstrate the weakness of the investment banking and closely associated mortgage sectors. Earlier this year, the government facilitated the purchase of bankrupt Bear Stearns by J.P. Morgan Chase, while lowering interest rates. The immediate dramatic upswings on Wall Street after each intervention show global capital remains available for investment, but in a very volatile climate.

The real economic policy challenges we face are very important but also comparatively subtle. First, the Federal Reserve System once controlled the money supply as well as interest rates, but no longer. Since the Second World War, the U.S. dollar has been essentially freely convertible, as part of a very successful basic strategy to encourage global commerce. Farsighted leaders in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations laid the foundation for our enormous long-term world economic success.

A byproduct has been growth of dollar holdings overseas, reducing the influence of the U.S. Fed. No one knows exactly how much of the world dollar supply is directly managed by our federal reserve banks, though informed estimates range from 20 percent to one-third. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s easy money policies, and celebrity style, tended to mask this fact of life. By contrast, throughout the 1950’s Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin remained largely invisible to the American public though extremely powerful.

Second, steady interest-rate cuts over time have diminishing positive effect. The great British economist John Maynard Keynes warned about this phenomenon, which he described as the “liquidity trap”. A slowing economy is like a great sailing ship trapped in a calm windless sea. As the interest rate approaches zero, government loses a fundamental tool to spur economic activity. The Fed decision this week to hold rates steady is therefore extremely wise.

Third, strong government regulation, established during the New Deal, is essential. In retrospect, current irresponsibility was fed by abolition in the mid-1970s of fixed brokerage commissions and in the late 1990s of the Glass-Steagall Act, which segregated commercial banking from other financial services.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a respected student of the Great Depression, has looked to such fresh approaches as lending Fed funds directly to investment banks and a temporary ban on short selling. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson proposes a new structure comparable to the Resolution Trust Corporation, which handled the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s. Principal central banks in the world are now coordinating their market moves.

Both McCain and Obama are suddenly emphasizing more regulation, and Congressional leaders in both parties must do the same. Simply bailing out failed financiers will not be enough.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

GOP Finds Unity

aicyr — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:53:30 GMT

Republican presidential and vice-presidential nominees Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska have largely succeeded in generating enthusiasm among Republican faithful at the St. Paul, Minn. Convention. To win this fall, they must promote a vision that will be persuasive with the electorate as a whole.

Both candidates’ acceptance speeches generated very favorable reactions in the convention hall, reflected at times in visible emotional waves. McCain, not generally an inspiring orator, ratcheted up his rhetoric in his Thursday acceptance speech. The address included very emotional reference to the torture and pain he experienced as a prisoner of war in Hanoi during the Vietnam War. National newcomer Palin proved exceptionally effective at establishing rhetorical rapport with delegates in her address on Wednesday.

McCain has been a loyal supporter of the Bush administration on the Iraq war but is also famous as a Republican maverick. Several times in his speech, he criticized people who go to Washington and become captives of “the special interests”. Unpopularity of the Republican Bush administration was reflected in Democratic gains in both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections. McCain was very explicit that Republicans bear responsibility for the problems in Washington.

Palin before this week was not well known outside of Alaska, and has become quickly defined as very conservative. She is a strong advocate of gun rights and opponent of abortion as well as a fundamentalist Christian. As partner on the ticket, she can strengthen McCain’s standing with evangelicals and other extreme conservatives.

McCain has differed with the White House and the Republican right on a range of issues. Early in the Bush administration, he opposed tax cuts unless accompanied by spending restraint. He also favors certain forms of stem cell research, while generally opposing abortion.

The Republican platform acknowledges but does not emphasize climate change, while McCain for some time has given a high priority to energy and environmental concerns. In contrast to the laissez-faire approach of many conservatives, he has advocated government initiatives to develop nuclear power and use market-oriented trading to limit pollution.

McCain independence has also been apparent in bipartisan efforts on such concerns as campaign finance and immigration reforms, where his political partners have included respectively Democratic Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Emphasis in his speech on the priority of education also relates directly to a strong bipartisan continuing Congressional effort.

Considerable public and media attention is devoted to convention acceptance speeches at the time of delivery, but generally they do not endure. One exception is Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech at the 1932 Democratic convention in Chicago, which included the very memorable statement that their generation had “a rendezvous with destiny”. FDR’s speech is superb but also was delivered against the backdrop of very severe national economic crisis.

A much more typical example is John F. Kennedy’s acceptance speech at the 1960 Democratic convention. The event was held in the enormous outdoor Los Angeles Coliseum. The Democratic Obama campaign has drawn parallels with their man’s similar appearance in the fresh air of Denver.

In fact, at the time Kennedy’s presentation was considered unimpressive, in part because staging and the television technology of the era conspired to diminish his impact. Some believe this helped persuade Republican nominee Richard M. Nixon to accept the Kennedy camp’s challenge to have television debates, and four were held.

Since then, television debates between candidates for the White House have become extremely important. After the first 1980 encounter between Pres. Jimmy Carter and Republican challenger Ronald Reagan, the latter enjoyed a rapid boost in poll ratings. By contrast, in 1960 lagging JFK did not suddenly gain on Nixon after their first debate. Rather, the debates over time significantly evened the race.

Notable vice presidential debates include 1988. Republican Dan Quayle had an uncertain style and fondness for comparing himself to JFK. Skilled Democratic debater Lloyd Bentsen seized the opening to describe Quayle as “no Jack Kennedy”. The Republicans still won the White House, but new President George H.W. Bush and his running mate were weakened.

The campaign this fall will include three presidential debates, the first at the University of Mississippi on September 26, and one vice-presidential debate. McCain ended his speech with a dramatic appeal to national unity. The debates challenge candidates to buck up partisans while simultaneously reaching out to the rest of the electorate.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of “After the Cold War” (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Dems Pick Biden, Find Unity

aicyr — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:49:27 GMT

The big news just before the August 25 kick-off of the Democratic convention in Denver Colorado has been the selection of Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as the vice-presidential running mate of presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

The choice of Biden represents a form of political continuity, while in other ways the 2008 Democratic Convention marks an historic departure. If all goes according to plan, this will be the first time a major political party has selected an African-American candidate for President of the United States. The convention is also an historic first in the prominence of women leaders.

Obama’s principal competitor for the nomination has been Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. While Clinton ultimately could not overcome Obama’s early lead in delegates, she finished a close second, well ahead of the other contenders and victor in most of the later primaries.

Sen. Clinton and her husband former President Bill Clinton will be featured speakers on two separate convention nights. While Sen. Obama locked up the nomination and Sen. Clinton conceded several months ago, her supporters insist her name be placed formally in nomination to have a public state by state delegate vote. Late reports in the media indicated she was seeking to forestall that in the interest of party unity.

In 1984, Rep. Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic vice presidential nominee on the ticket headed by former Sen. and Vice President Walter Mondale. They were defeated by incumbent Republican President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush.

Another woman legislator, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, is prominent at this convention. The California Democrat is the first woman to hold that extremely central leadership post. In the 2006 elections, the Democrats captured a majority in the House, and indications are the party will probably build on those gains in 2008. This would further increase her national visibility and influence, within and well beyond Washington D.C. Obama’s wife Michelle will be featured prominently early in the convention as well.

Historically, race relations have been particularly divisive within the Democratic Party. At the 1948 convention, Hubert Humphrey, the young major of Minneapolis, led the effort to include a civil rights plank in the party platform, which succeeded after a very bitter battle.

In reaction, Southern Democrats led by Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina bolted the convention and established the separate States’ Rights Party or
”Dixiecrats”. With Thurmond as the presidential candidate, the party carried several southern states but did not prevent Democratic President Harry Truman from winning an upset reelection. In 1964, Thurmond switched to the Republican Party, a precursor of the massive increase in Southern support for that party in the years since.

Many predicted Humphrey’s own political future would be destroyed, but he went on to a very influential career in the U.S. Senate, served as Vice President with President Lyndon Johnson, and in 1968 as Democratic presidential nominee came from far behind to a very close finish with Republican Richard Nixon, who won the White House.

In 1860, an earlier Democratic Party literally shattered over North-South sectional issues closely tied to increasingly intense conflict over slavery. Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, principal rival of Abraham Lincoln in Illinois, led the Northern Democrats, while Vice President John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky led the Southern Democrats. The fracturing of the Democratic Party provided the opening for Republican presidential nominee Lincoln to win the White House with approximately 42 percent of the popular vote. The Civil War ensued.

Sen. Joe Biden arguably is a relatively conventional choice as running mate, a long-term influential Washington insider, albeit with a populist style which emphasizes the concerns of working people. Critics argue that in fact he is too beholden to powerful corporate interests. Delaware traditionally uses attractive public policies to encourage business headquarters to locate in the state.

First elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972 at the age of twenty-nine, Biden had barely reached the constitutional minimum age of thirty when he began his term. He was the sixth youngest person ever to serve in the body. Over the past three and one-half decades, he has established a reputation as a highly effective legislator. Currently in his sixth term, he is now one of the longest serving senior members of the body. He unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year and also in 1988.

Biden is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with a demonstrated long-term interest in foreign policy. He voted in favor of the resolution providing President George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq. More recently, he has been a critic of U.S. Iraq policies, including the serious problems accompanying the military occupation of the country. He has advocated dividing Iraq into three regional governments, in part to address the concerns of the distinctive Kurd minority.

Joe Biden’s first wife and young daughter were killed in an automobile accident. Now remarried, for years he juggled caring for his two young sons with his Senate responsibilities. While the Senate is in session, he still commutes daily from and to his Delaware home by Amtrak.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Fourth of July - Reflection and Renewal

aicyr — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:06:56 GMT

“Fourth of July – Reflection and Renewal”

by Arthur I. Cyr

The Fourth of July celebrates community, local as well as national. Parades featuring people in uniform - scouts, firefighters and police as well as the military and others – traditionally are a fixture. Military uniforms remind us of the role of war in our history – and our present.

From ancient times, parades have been vital to the reintegration of warriors into society. War is profoundly disruptive and disturbing as well as dangerous. Even the rare man who finds combat invigorating and rewarding is in severe need of an honoring welcome after the killing ends.

Homer, chronicler of the Trojan War, is extremely sensitive to this. The great classic is presented in two parts. ‘The Iliad’ focuses on the fighting and related interplay involving Greeks and Trojans; ‘The Odyssey’ describes the very long voyage home of Greek leader Ulysses and his men. They traverse allegorical geography, struggling to put the horrors of killing, and the dangers of being killed, behind them.

Gen. George S. Patton Jr., a very great American combat leader, was extremely mindful of this dimension. He and Gen. James Doolittle, who led the first air raid on Tokyo, were featured in a special ceremony in the Los Angeles Coliseum after the surrender of Nazi Germany.

Patton celebrated the accomplishments of the U.S. Third Army in the victorious drive across Europe. In honoring his troops, he stressed in particular the 40,000 who lost their lives in that final year of the war. Patton made such statements regularly in the few months remaining until his own death.

Such confirmation is particularly important for warriors representing modern democracies. Our egalitarian ethos and efforts to abide by the rule of law contrast starkly with the traditional martial spirit.

In the Second World War, Allied troops were often welcomed warmly by peoples liberated from Axis occupation. Understandably, our media gave special emphasis to this dimension. The Korean War created very strong bonds between the U.S. and the people as well as very effective military of South Korea. The first Gulf War liberated an oppressed population.

The Vietnam and Iraq wars have been different. During Vietnam, military personnel were often discouraged from discussing the subject with civilians. Opposition to the war became hostility to our own military. There was no collective welcome home. Many middle aged vets of that war suffer without a Ulysses, troubled – and troublesome.

The Iraq War has evolved differently, without this problem. A recent trip to Washington provided a reminder of the visibility of the uniformed military, especially on public transportation. Pres. Richard M. Nixon’s end of the military draft has been crucial in the change.

However, constant rotation of active duty personnel back to Iraq has been unfair as well as counterproductive. Enormous psychological strains have been added to physical dangers, and families suffer heavily. Too often, military personnel needs have been sacrificed to domestic political considerations and calculations.

July 4 is not a day best suited for specific foreign policy discussion but is particularly appropriate for recognizing and honoring veterans, individually as well as collectively, wherever and whenever you find them.

Please also encourage them to run for public office. We won the Cold War in part because members of Tom Brokaw’s ‘Greatest Generation’ who served in the military also served in government. Every U.S. President from Harry Truman through George H.W. .H.HHBush was a veteran.

What Washington needs above all is the sort of sensible realism such men and women often bring to policy.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

RFK Legacy - Fact & Fiction

aicyr — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:18:36 GMT

“Legacy of Robert F. Kennedy 40 Years Later”

by Arthur I. Cyr

Shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was shot in Los Angeles while seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Sen. Hillary Clinton’s recent reference to the event made news, but mainly in terms of the current campaign.

Folklore casts a successful RFK on the way to nomination. In fact, he was struggling hard when death took him. He had just been defeated by the other anti-Vietnam War candidate, Senator Eugene McCarthy, in the important Oregon primary – a fact overlooked in most contemporary media recounting of those days.

A big win in the June 4 California primary might have undone that damage, but Kennedy barely edged out McCarthy in the vote. Democratic Vice President Hubert Humphrey had lined up a majority of the convention delegates even before that primary.

And yet, there is just a chance that RFK could have secured the nomination. Had publicly uncommitted Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley decided to support him, other Democratic power brokers could have been swayed, especially in the violent turbulence of the 1968 Chicago convention.

Beating the odds, in the context of privilege, sums up Kennedy’s distinctive path. The one Kennedy brother who was short, slight and lacking in natural athletic ability, he was also the only one to win a Harvard letter in varsity football. Teamster leader Jimmy Hoffa, a particularly dangerous enemy, described him as “the runt of the litter”. In light of what the runt accomplished, this can be viewed as an unintentional compliment.

In the political storm immediately sparked by John F. Kennedy’s announcement that Bobby would be attorney general, the president-elect quipped that he wanted to give his brother a little useful experience before the young man went out to practice law.

One domestic issue always on the front burner in the Kennedy administration was organized crime. Attorney General Kennedy was relentless in pursuing the mafia, and a very large number of gangsters had been imprisoned at the time of the assassination of Pres. Kennedy. Dallas abruptly ended this crusade, and nearly a decade passed before the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) legislation reignited the effort.

In foreign policy, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by anti-Castro exiles clouded the administration from the start. The image of weakness was not overcome until White House success in the Cuban missile crisis the following year.

After the Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy brothers greatly expanded efforts begun under Pres. Eisenhower to disrupt the Cuban regime and assassinate Fidel Castro. Top-secret ‘Operation Mongoose’ was run directly by the attorney general, and included recruiting some of the most violent mercenaries money could buy.

After JFK was assassinated, people around Robert Kennedy were puzzled by his marked lack of interest in pursuing vexing questions concerning possible conspiracy. In light of current knowledge, RFK avoided going down that dark twisted road at least in part because he feared coming face to face with himself.

On his own after Dallas, he secured election to the Senate and immediately became a very public champion of civil rights and the poor. Over time, he became a critic of the Vietnam War, readily acknowledging his responsibility in creating the problem.

After being shot, Robert Kennedy lingered for two days. Doctors concluded there was absolutely no hope of recovery; the bullet wounds in his brain were too devastating. Life support had to be removed, however, because his heart refused to stop beating.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and the author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Macmillan/Palgrave). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

D-Day June 6 - We Owe Ike

aicyr — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:16:33 GMT

“June 6 1944”

by Arthur I. Cyr

From ancient times to the present, amphibious military operations have been rightly regarded as particularly challenging. The largest such enterprise was the Allied invasion of France in World War II on June 6, 1944 – D-Day.

The Normandy invasion combined thorough planning, mobilization of vast matériel, and great imagination. When the operation already underway was publicly announced, a U.S. newspaper highlighted a front-page drawing of Allied soldiers cascading into Europe, as a terrified Hitler fled. A year of very brutal almost continuous combat lay ahead, but the end of Nazi Germany was in sight once the beaches were secured.

The rule of supreme allied commander Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was crucial. He demonstrated great executive ability in supervising an unprecedented logistical challenge, and his remarkable interpersonal skills welded and held together the most diverse military alliance in history. Related to this, Ike was able to establish overall unity of command. This was never achieved even among the American military alone in the Pacific theatre, where Gen. Douglas MacArthur constantly pursued one strategic vision, while Navy admirals took a competing approach.

Extensive bombing of transport routes and supply depots in France was proposed as part of the enormous effort to prepare the way for invasion. Such air action would bring an estimated minimum of 60,000 civilian casualties, and perhaps many more. For that reason, American and British air commanders resisted widespread destruction, and argued for a much more limited bombing effort.

Eisenhower was adamant about the absolute need for extensive bombing, arguing that less would put the invasion at severe risk. He was able to turn to the leader of the Free French, Gen. Charles de Gaulle, whose nation was the target. De Gaulle agreed completely, and gave unequivocal support. Ike had managed to establish an effective working relationship with the very difficult French leader; few others could.

Simultaneously, the American leader never lost awareness of the terrible human costs of war, borne primarily by the enlisted ranks. He constantly stressed the fundamentally important role of the combat soldier, and regularly went to see troops in the field. This dimension is captured especially by classic photographs of his visit with young American paratroopers about to depart early on D-Day.

Ike had the gift of imagination. During heavy fighting for Sicily in 1943, Gen. George S Patton Jr. slapped two U.S. soldiers suffering from combat stress, and in the ensuing very public maelstrom he was almost fired. Simultaneously, the controversy was dismissed as propaganda by Nazi leaders; the German military annually routinely executed thousands of their own men for various infractions.

Eisenhower responded by isolating Patton in England, where an entirely fictitious army was created around him. Actors were assigned roles, bogus information generated, phony structures constructed of cheap materials. The great trick worked. On D-Day and immediately thereafter, crucial German units were held back, in part because Patton’s (fictitious) forces had not yet moved.

Carthage College faculty over the years have made good use of the ancient classic ‘The Art of War’ by Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu, who stressed the importance of deception. I don’t know if Eisenhower read the book; I do know he could have written it.

When Eisenhower died, newly inaugurated Pres. Richard M. Nixon rightly compared him to George Washington as ‘first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen.’

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (Palgrave Macmillan and NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Carthage Visitor - Public Service and the Public good

aicyr — Mon, 19 May 2008 21:23:34 GMT

“Public Servants and the Public Good”

by Arthur I. Cyr

Gen. George C. Marshall is what we used to refer to as a dedicated public servant. As chief of staff of the U.S. Army, he did essential work to get a dangerously unprepared America at least partially ready for World War II, and then lead the mammoth organizational effort required for victory. He later served as secretary of state and secretary of defense during the trying post-war years, when the Cold War and Korean War both began.

Marshall wanted very much to lead the Normandy invasion but that mission went to his protégé Dwight Eisenhower. FDR considered Marshall indispensable in his wartime role and stated he would not be able to sleep at night if the general were out of the country. Ever the good soldier, Marshall apparently never directly discussed his very intense personal desire with the president. He did his duty with dedication, consistently putting the national interest above his own.

Along with remarkable administrative ability, Marshall demonstrated great diplomatic and political skill. Following Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Imperial Army surrounded American forces in the Philippines under the command of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, a man widely disliked and mistrusted among fellow officers and more generally in Washington. President Roosevelt nevertheless did not want the American commander to become a Japanese prisoner and ordered an evacuation to Australia.

Marshall followed up thoroughly to ensure that media and public, at home and abroad, knew that this was not MacArthur’s decision, and that the government of Australia provided a positive and supportive welcome. The ultimate professional, he never let personal opinions of MacArthur interfere. The ultimate staffer, he devoted the time necessary for operational success.

This leader is not much discussed today, reflecting his notable modesty, which stands out especially in Washington. Marshall himself put very little personal information in the public record, and never wrote memoirs, likely in part because he feared inadvertently revealing details about the war and aftermath that were best kept private, and in part – incredibly from a contemporary perspective – because he felt strongly that patriotic citizens should not benefit financially from government office. For him, public service was literally just that. Fortunately, Forrest Pogue authored a masterful comprehensive biography of this great leader.

This brings the discussion to Charles Bowsher, who this week addressed the Business and Professional Coalition of Carthage College. For sixteen years starting in 1981, he was Comptroller General of the United States, a low-profile but vitally important post which oversees budget management on behalf of the Congress.

Earlier, Bowsher spent a total of a quarter century with top accounting firm Arthur Andersen. He visited Carthage thanks to Dave Brunn, Rogers Palmer Distinguished Professor, who is also a senior veteran of Arthur Andersen.

In public remarks, the former Comptroller General provided a detailed tour of the government horizon. He gives high marks to Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton for impressive budgetary discipline, even in the face of harsh criticism, which probably cost the former leader reelection. In comments echoing Eisenhower, he emphasized that wars are easy to start but very hard to conclude, and that Iraq fits this picture.

His presentation was a persuasive reminder of the vital role of government in handling financial crises, from the collapse of the Penn Central Railroad in the 1970s to Bear Stearns today, and also the great difficulty of managing change in the public sector.

Like Paul Volcker, who served as head of the Federal Reserve during the same time, Bowsher has demonstrated commitment to the public good through government service. Like Marshall, Volcker and many others, his modest competence is essential to our continued national success.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Ag, Yeutter, Zoellick & Your Food Bill

aicyr — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:10:30 GMT

“Agriculture Remains Basic to Trade”

by Arthur I. Cyr

World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned Sunday at the Washington conference with the International Monetary Fund that food price inflation may drive one hundred million of the world’s poor much deeper into need. His call for a ‘New Deal’ in agriculture underscores the interconnections of developed as well as developing countries.

President John F. Kennedy quipped to John Kenneth Galbraith that he wanted to hear about farming only from the Harvard professor, who had started his career as an agricultural economist, and he didn’t want to hear much from him either. By 1960, when Kennedy won the White House, a plurality of American voters was in the suburbs. Rural America was already rapidly declining in population.

Yet U.S. farming remains more powerful than ever. Our nation is the largest agricultural exporter as well as importer in the world. Trade related to food underwrites much of our current prosperity. Accompanying this enormous success is the great political influence of agricultural lobbies.

Clayton Yeutter, former Secretary of Agriculture as well as U.S. Trade Representative, just completed several days at Carthage College in Wisconsin, where he emphasized both the dangers of protectionism and promise of science. Virtually all nations shield agriculture, including the U.S., reflecting the exceptional political clout of this primary sector. Much of our sugar, for example, is produced behind large trade barriers.

Biotechnology is becoming steadily more important, reflecting the innovation as well as productivity of American farms. In contrast to the U.S., European nations have generally been skeptical about and resistant to this trend.

This complicates trade relations, but also promises the U.S. global leadership. Dr. Yeutter believes the biotech revolution will be at least as profound as the information revolution of the 1990s, which was also driven by technology.

During the now legendary 1960 presidential debates between Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, both candidates referred explicitly to the importance of the American farmer. Presidential candidates today are much less likely to single out the tillers of the soil, especially since machines rather than people are how doing most of that labor. Mechanization facilitates the application of science to production.

The current growing support for protectionism, especially in the Democratic Party, is significant for agriculture as for our economy as a whole. The U.S. today holds 5 percent of the world’s population, and that proportion is shrinking steadily. Yet the more we restrict our domestic market, the more we exclude ourselves from rapidly growing markets elsewhere.

Kennedy appointed Galbraith Ambassador to India, where he was notably successful, and Yeutter singled out that country along with China as particularly promising as well as challenging for American market expansion. In the 1960s as today, farming provided a shared dimension spanning very different cultures – as well as an arena for economic cooperation, competition and profit.

Zoellick’s New Deal is to be financed by $500 million, about half of which has been raised. World Bank initiatives include conditional cash transfers, new plantings and food-for-work programs. Continued technological innovation is crucial to the success of such development aid.

The World Bank president urges that one percent from the approximately $3 trillion held by sovereign wealth funds of national governments be devoted to investment in Sub-Saharan Africa. Emphasis on biotechnology could be highly persuasive in encouraging such investors.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press/Palgrave Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Taiwan Election Provides Opportunity

aicyr — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:16:57 GMT

“Taiwan Election Provides Opportunity For China”

Arthur I. Cyr

Ma Ying-jeou, leader of the Kuomintang Party (KMT) in Taiwan and former Mayor of Taipei, has been elected president of Taiwan, providing an important fresh opportunity to reduce tensions and increase cooperation with Beijing. The KMT ticket secured 58.45% of the vote, a landslide.

In the same election this past weekend, voters rejected two referenda to seek readmission to the United Nations. The island government, formally known as the Republic of China, left the world body when the People’s Republic of China was admitted in 1971.

Ma has emphasized the importance of consensus and compromise. He would welcome an opportunity to visit politically hostile mainland China, without preconditions. Outgoing President Chen Shui-bian, leader of the rival Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), at times has been confrontational with Beijing, for example in abolishing a commission established to manage relations across the troubled Taiwan Strait. The DPP has also flirted with formal declaration of independence from the mainland, an act that Beijing consistently has declared would mean war.

Congressional ties became an especially important priority. During the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration acceded to a demand by Beijing that Taiwan President Lee-teng Hui be prevented from visiting the United States. This decision was reversed through a forceful, very skillfully conducted direct appeal to the U.S. Congress.

Taiwan has become an essential banker to the enormous industrial revolution taking place on the mainland. Commercially successful, generally well-educated overseas Chinese in turn are a vital source of investment capital. Expatriate Chinese also vote in Taiwan elections. During Ma’s 2006 visit to the U.S., which included speeches at Harvard University in Cambridge Massachusetts as well as New York City, he was addressing a vast population well beyond his immediate audience.

Taiwan has emphasized the complex network of global intergovernmental organizations operating generally under the umbrella of the UN. A recent priority has been the World Health Organization, where Taiwan’s exceptional scientific and technological expertise was cited as powerful evidence for admission.

The same capacities argue for involvement in a wide range of intergovernmental as well as nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations around the globe. The decision of the Taiwan electorate to turn down a direct effort for formal UN membership, thus avoiding a highly charged confrontation with Beijing, was wise and should facilitate continuation of this more subtle approach.

An indirect approach, avoiding frontal assaults whenever possible, was the hallmark of Sun Tzu, philosopher of strategy and war in ancient China. Sun Tzu traditionally has been popular with a wide range of military professionals, including career officers of the U.S. Army. Taiwan’s leaders clearly emulate his work, with new President Ma the principal contemporary example.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (Macmillan/Palgrave and NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu