Democratic strategist James Carville famously coined the slogan “It’s the economy stupid,” as part of a successful strategy to unseat George H.W. Bush in the 1992 presidential election.  With a sluggish economy, unemployment, and high debt dominating the headlines, it would seem that the election of 2012 should be run on similar lines.  However, to assume our domestic economy operates in some isolationist vacuum would be folly.  While the economy is important, candidates’ ability to outline a cohesive foreign policy in 2012 showing good international relations as essential to economic recovery is of the highest importance.  Consider the following:

Fact 1:  The economy is predictable, the world is not.

With the wild market swings of the last few years, this would seem like the most unintuitive argument.  However, in a world where the only sure things are death and taxes, market cycles come in a close third.  Sure, no one likes a down economy, but they happen… and fairly regularly too.  What are far less predictable are world events.  Were we ready for Pearl Harbor, or 9/11?  Could anyone anticipate the meteoric rise of the Chinese economy in the wake of Mao’s Cultural Revolution?  As late as 1988, a lot of observers were still operating on the assumption that the USSR would be around for quite some time.  Focusing on domestic issues and assuming the world will take of itself is worse than a mistake, it is a dereliction of duty on the part of the world’s most powerful nation.

Fact 2:  Our economy rests on trade.

From the beginning of English settlement in America this country has looked outwards to fill its coffers.  Indeed, it was because our merchant fleet was getting picked apart by the Barbary pirates that presidents Adams and Jefferson commissioned our navy.  In a country that was allergic to the idea of standing armies, we were ready to fork over the cash for a permanent navy to protect our international trade.  It is that important to us.  Today, there are few countries in the world that American does not invest in and even fewer who would refuse to trade with us.  Maintaining the proper relations with countries that are beneficial to trade is essential if we’re going to keep our ports, factories, and retailers in business.

Fact 3:  Free trade is absolutely necessary for global economic stability and security.

A lot of people will assume I’m off my rocker with this one.  “Are you kidding?” they say, “Free trade is why we’re losing jobs.”  Check the numbers friends. For every job America has directly lost due to free trade, she has created more, and higher paying ones too.  Besides the benefits of free trade domestically, free trade has also contributed to stability and security.  Who wants to fight wars, erect barriers at international borders, and raise import taxes when they could be increasing the amount of exports their country is sending out to a waiting world, thereby growing their GDP?  Right, North Korea, but when posters of your “Glorious Leader” are your contribution to world trade who can blame them for getting pissy when we all ignore them?  Still not a good argument for no free trade.

Fact 4:  The American economy benefits from a stable global order.

This is pretty self-explanatory.  Free trade only works when there is global stability.  When there is a threat of war, fears of collapsing markets, failed states, and the possibility of loose nukes opening up our markets to most of the world just doesn’t sound that appealing.

So what needs doing?  We need a foreign policy that is mutually beneficial to the domestic economy and global security.  A few suggestions:

Suggestion 1:  Deal with Iran.

As long as Iran believes that the powers that be are not going to take serious steps to check back their nuclear ambitions and their proxy wars against Israel and other regional neighbors, the Middle East will continue requiring a hyper vigilant stance that sucks time, money, materials, and attention from developing tighter trade relations in the Pacific Rim, which leads to

Suggestion 2:  Stop treating China like a black sheep little brother.

China is not a threat to the geographic American nation, but a regional challenge to American influence. Key distinction here.  We get antsy when we think in terms of the former (building bases in Australia for example), but in terms of the latter, there is room for mutual cooperation.  Both parties want to maintain trade, and both parties need a secure South China Sea to stabilize that trade.  Let’s work together on that.

Suggestion 3:  Expand export markets in Latin America. 

We cannot just be importing goods from south of the border, our goods need to be going that direction too.  In terms of geographic proximity and political stability, Latin America presents an excellent layer of insurance to our trade network that is over reliant on the unstable Middle East and mercurial Asia.

Suggestion 4:  Affirm American commitment to the little guy. 

We have a special place in our hearts for small countries with big dreams; we used to be one of those.  Despite the pounding our image has taken in recent years, many still look to America as a land of possibility and our cultural values of liberty, equality, and freedom remain our top exports.  We need a serious retread of our soft power capabilities and efforts to reach out to smaller countries (particularly in Africa and Eastern Europe) to help them build their own stable countries.

James Carville had it half right when he claimed that the big issue was “the economy, stupid.”  It is not just our economy anymore; the global economy is fundamental to American prosperity, and it is high time that a consistent foreign policy to maintain it is outlined and adhered to.

This is an official blog entry for the YourLocalSecurity.com Blogging Scholarship. If selected, I’ll receive $1000 towards my college expenses in 2012. This scholarship is sponsored by YourLocalSecurity.com

BBC Image from Juba, South Sudan

So I was ecstatic last weekend when the Republic of South Sudan became the world’s newest country.  As a student of international relations, this development was exciting in that it achieved a long advocated end of splitting the massive country of Sudan into northern and southern halves after decades of civil war had destroyed the lives of millions.  This is no small achievement.  As a teacher, I’m excited to share the story of Sudan with my history and geography students when we study Africa this school year.  Despite the challenges still facing the infant country, this is an incredible story of conflict, hope, and fulfilled dreams.  I work hard to get my students to see the bigger world as an ever-changing place and this is a great example of how things are always changing.  Finally, as human being I’m excited to see a people long oppressed finally be given the opportunity to chart their own course.  Yes, there are a lot of reasons to be excited about South Sudan.

However, I cannot help but feel a little frustrated in the midst of the rejoicing when I consider who will be getting the credit for this momentous occasion.  Surely the South Sudanese will look to their armed forces and regale them as heroes, and the world will look to those countries that worked to bring the two sides to the bargaining table and negotiate a successful treaty.  Both were surely key in bringing about the final resolution.

BBC has also addressed an article to another key aspect of the independence movement:  the publicity campaign.  Ten to fifteen years ago, few people in the developed world were even aware of Sudan’s protracted struggle, but then high-profile movie projects like Hotel Rwanda and Tears of the Sun spotlighted the ethnic conflicts of Africa, and A-list actors like George Clooney became advocates for South Sudan’s independence.  We sat up.  We took notice.  International pressure on the regime in Khartoum began to mount as lobbying efforts swung into action on Capitol Hill and in European capitals.  South Sudan, among the world’s poorest regions had come by a massive public relations boon.  And while the glitz and glamor of Hollywood has brought the conflict into the global conversation, I really do believe that George Clooney has stolen the show from an ensemble cast of NGOs that have worked tirelessly in Sudan since the 1970s when most people could have cared less for Sudan.  I applaud the efforts of all who have contributed to the independence of South Sudan, from the Sudanese themselves to George Clooney, but I especially want to recognize the following:

Invisible Children:  For those who have seen the powerful documentary, they will know that this film was not about Sudan, but child soldiers in Uganda.  However, the filmmakers were originally en route to Sudan to film the civil war there when they stumbled across the tragic abuse of children in Uganda.  The result was an award-winning, much talked about film that brought Africa’s many simmering conflicts (including Darfur, western Sudan) into the public eye through the stories of Ugandan children.

World Vision International:  A Christian relief organization, World Vision has been active in Sudan since 1972!  Since that time, WV has had an active presence in the South with faithful workers risking their lives to bring clean water, medical supplies, and other services to a region even in the midst of a 20-year civil war.  Sounds like amazing grounds for a movie (maybe George Clooney would consider playing a Christian missionary?).

Voice of the Martyrs:  One of the most unique advocacy groups in the world, and the one that opened up my eyes to Sudan when I was in junior high and high school in the late 1990s.  VOM focuses are serving the needs of Christian individuals and communities around the world who suffer persecution for their beliefs on a daily basis.  The world pays lip service to the idea of religious freedom, but VOM works in some pretty hostile places to ensure that those who are persecuted for their Christian faith can still receive medical care, spiritual nourishment, and necessities of life.  Their work in South Sudan has included rescuing Christian children taken in slavery, providing medical care to civilians caught in the crossfire of the conflict, and bringing humanitarian aid to the poor.

These organizations, and others like them, have been going about this work faithfully for decades with little public acknowledgment (to be fair they are given a generic mention in the BBC article above), and will continue to work there even after the public once again allows its conscience to slumber where Africa is concerned.  I believe they deserve a lot of credit for their work.

Mohammed VI of Morocco

The Middle East has been characterized by growing instability in the first half of 2011 with multiple regime changes (Tunisia and Egypt), civil war (Libya), and continuing waves of protest (Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria).  The surprising rapidity with which this new “wave” of democratization has swept across the region has challenged many assumptions that scholars and policy makers have held regarding the adaptability of democracy in that region, and has led to wide speculation as to which countries would be next to topple their regimes.  Among these countries to go on the proverbial chopping block was Morocco, but with the passage of constitutional reforms late last week, Morocco has once again defied the odds, remaining a monarchy.

Despite widespread poverty and a restive population of jobless youth, Morocco has largely escaped the broader violence of the region.  This does not make the political situation any less precarious, but Mohammed VI, the current king, has chosen to adopt a path of slow, but progressive reform in the face of mounting domestic political pressure.  Though critics of the regime continue to call for greater change and decry the corruption in the regime, the gradual process of democratization that the king has embarked upon since his coronation in 1999 has enabled a greater degree of stability.

When I first started this blog, I briefly wrote about the prospects of democracy in Morocco (Part 1 and Part 2) and came to the conclusion that the process of democratization in Morocco would be slow and difficult, and success would not necessarily be capable of replication across the region.  Events of the last months have confirmed this initial analysis.  While “reform” has stormed into countries inciting civil war and bloodshed, Morocco’s protests have been generally mild by comparison, though some did result in loss of civilian life.  And while reform measures were passed in other countries only with the overthrow of governments, Morocco has shown itself able to change without throwing its government out on its ear.

The reason for this is the constancy of the monarchy.  This institution has been at the head of Moroccan society for over 400 years and enjoys tremendous respect and admiration among the people.  The king has successfully used this influence to push forward reform measures on education and women’s rights, which is no small thing.  This process has culminated in perhaps the greatest reform in this recent referendum:  The monarchy surrendering executive power to a prime minister.  While parties loyal to king will certainly be in the majority for some time, and the status of opposition groups remain unclear, this is a systemic change in the political structures in this country.  The fact that it was done without institutional collapse speaks volumes on the Moroccan government’s ability to see these reforms through.

Liberalization is a slow process and the Moroccan reforms are not sudden and stormy like their regional counterparts. However, in the midst of this blustery Arab Spring, a gentle thaw is taking place in Morocco that bodes well for the eventual flowering of democracy in that kingdom.

BBC Coverage of the Moroccan Election

Gates at 9/11 Pentagon Memorial, 2010, US Army

As the Fourth of July approaches, and we prepare to celebrate our independence, it’s not a bad idea to remember the many brave men and women who continue to fight and die to maintain that independence.  Though we may generally think about our brave men and women in uniform when we think of those who defend us, we should also consider the people who write their orders, specifically:  Robert Gates.

As of today, Robert Gates is no longer our Secretary of Defense.  After five years of distinguished service in that position, and a career in public service in the intelligence and defense fields, Gates is retiring as he announced last year.

Not many people are familiar with Robert Gates, but he deserves a place among the great statesmen of the last half century, right up there with Kissinger, McNamara, and all the others.  Why?  Because not only has he demonstrated clear-sighted leadership in a difficult job in difficult times, but in his retirement he demonstrates the ideal of the American system:  Civil servants serving faithfully, then handing off the baton and going back to their private lives.  It is because of people like Gates that we have a military that truly serves the citizenry of this country.

It should also be noted that Gates inherited two messy wars and an equally messy bureaucracy from his predecessor Donald Rumsfield.  So intent was Rummy on mishandling two wars that things became cluttered at home too as was evidenced by the 2007 scandal of poor treatment of soldiers at the Walter Reed Medical Center.  Gates calmly and sincerely addressed the needs of soldiers and their families here, while simultaneously implementing the “surge” policy in Iraq and later Afghanistan, perhaps the policy he’ll be most known for.

In adopting the “surge” policy, Gates committed America to not just ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (troops were scheduled to be out by 2011), but ending it well.  It would have been easier to just hold position and wait it out, but Gates knew what soldiers desired:  honorable victory, a job well done, and he went for that.

Reading through his biography on Wikipedia, or on the DoD’s website one is impressed with the man’s singular focus on keeping America safe, but in a manner befitting our highest ideals.

His short farewell speech early this week was both humble and distinguished.  We need more like him.

There’s been thousands of pages written about the man, and unfortunately for the reader with little time (like me), those thousands of pages often appear in single biographical works.  However, Stephen Mansfield has written an excellent little biography on this great man entitled Never Give In:  The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill.  I’ve written a review of the book here.  If you need some good summer reading, this is a great place to start!

By TWR Cartoons, http://www.toonpool.com/cartoons/Superpower%20China_100070#

As a debate coach at Biola University, I’m very excited about events in China this summer.  A member of the National Forensics Association, Biola will be participating in Lincoln-Douglas debate that will focus on foreign policy with China this year.  As I’ve begun studying China and its global position this summer, I’ve been struck by the fact that no one seems to be addressing China’s superpower status.

Maybe it’s because everyone longs for the oddly more secure days of the Cold War that they look to find another power to balance America and they think China fits the bill.  Or maybe it’s because some individuals, even in this country, want the Age of America to be superseded by someone, anyone, else….  Again, China seems to fit the bill.  The most populous country, the fastest growing economy (currently #2 in the world), a military aiming for a broader global role, nuclear arsenal, and manned space flights all seem to indicate that China is indeed the superpower it claims to be.  Indeed, it seems like China’s superpower status is no longer a question in the minds of most observers.  However, after closer inspection of the Chinese economy and military I really am beginning to think that what people are commenting on is really a facade, and that China’s claim to, and hold on, superpower status is in fact fragile to false.

First, consider the economy.  So they’re #2.  But this economic growth is built on a shaky foundation.  James Petras notes that the Chinese economy is split in two:  A weak, domestic Chinese economy, and an industrial powerhouse that is predominantly run by multinational corporations.  Petras argues that this is creating some deep socioeconomic fissures in Chinese society as those participating in the multinational economy are growing increasingly more wealthy and powerful while those in the domestic economy continue in poverty.  Battles over land use and ownership are an excellent and heart breaking illustration of Petras’ analysis.

Second, the military.  Yes China is increasing its budget, and their worst kept secret is that they’re getting ready to launch an aircraft carrier.  This understandably has its neighbors jittery as well as US military planners, but hold on.  This “new” aircraft carrier is a refitted Soviet era ship that was originally constructed in 1985!  When it’s launched, the Chinese will have one carrier group to our 11.  Yes, China is increasing its military spending, but let’s not forget that such spending is still a fraction of what the US spends and its being used on old technology.  But what about their stealth fighter?  Please, stealth was so Desert Storm.  While the Chinese are working are a stealth fighter, we’ve deployed the F-22 and will be deploying the F-35.  For the Chinese, stealth tech is new technology, for us it comes standard.  I would also point out that in military deployments the Chinese currently deploy fewer peacekeepers than Bangladesh!  Bang…..la……desh.

Is China a strong country?  Sure, but a little perspective is still necessary, particularly in the world of international relations.  China is certainly growing and seeking a bigger global role, but does that necessarily mean that it is able to sustain that?  Is the Chinese regime experiencing a little hubris regarding its sphere of influence?  What does this mean for the future of Chinese-American relationships?  NFA debaters, I’m looking at you.

We love public scandals.  Not only do they give us reasons to dislike those whose politics we disagree with, it provides a public measuring rod to which we can sanctimoniously hold ourselves and move on with life assured that we’re not as dirty as “that guy.”  We’re also doing more than that.  The public disgrace and scandal that is layered on public figures who find themselves in situations similar to Weiner’s paints these individuals as having no character and integrity, and what is created is an impossibly high bar of moral perfection for our leaders.  But is integrity measured by moral perfection?  I don’t think so.

For an example I look to the ancient Israelite King David.  In one of the great scandals of the Judeo-Christian tradition, David slept with Bathsheba, another man’s wife, got her pregnant, tried to cover it up, and, failing that, murdered the husband so that he could marry the woman.  Weiner is a novice at scandal compared to this guy.  However, the biblical story does not end there.  When confronted with his crime, David immediately acknowledges his wrongdoing as being a violation of God’s moral law, and humbly accepts the consequences.  He’s not called a man after God’s own heart for just being a morally upstanding figure, but also because of how he responds to his mistakes.

Now those among the Republican party, giddy over another scandal to knock the Democrats with, and having the potential to pick up another seat in the 9th District may mockingly say that Weiner has no integrity, which is why he was behaving the way he was.  However, I disagree with such a suggestion.  Integrity does not mean perfection, but somehow it has come to mean that in our political landscape and its created a larger moral problem for America.  We have become so cynical that we accept the reality of individual’s sexual dalliances, but still require the more public among us to somehow live to a higher standard of perfection.  In applying such a double standard, we lose our understanding of integrity, and our ability to show mercy. 

Men and women of integrity are not perfect, but are humble enough to quickly acknowledge their failings when confronted with them, correct them, and receive the consequences without complaint.  Is Weiner such a man?  Hard for me to say, but the reactions this scandal has engendered leaves me wondering at our capacity for mercy when a public figure fails to meet our impossible standards.

However, as I consider the sheer amount of information that will be going back and forth on our campus and the recent unveiling of Apples new iCloud service, I’m left to ponder the moral ramifications of the power of information, its use, and its security.  More and more, personal information is becoming accessible on the internet without our knowledge.  This poses an ethical dilemma in terms of what third parties can/should do with the freedom they have to gather this information, and the power they wield once they have it.  The need for a moral framework to inform our technology application and use is explored by Damon Horowitz in the video below.  I think it was rather apropos that I found myself watching this video today on my brand new iPad as I was hunting for ways in which this awesome technology could be put to educational use.

By Tim Robinson

The 1970s were a lost decade in the history of the American economy with high energy prices, high inflation, and high unemployment (the triple threat).  Coming on the end of almost 30 years of consistent growth and wealth creation, economists were baffled by this seemingly permanent cycle of recession.  The Keynesian model found its great antithesis in the stagnated 1970s just like the laissez-faire model founds its antithesis in the Great Depression, and a new economic term was coined:  stagflation.

Simply put, stagflation occurs when inflation and unemployment are happening at the same time.  Under the Keynesian model, controlled inflation was thought to create economic growth, which would mean more jobs as consumers spent their money and producers used that revenue to create more goods for consumers to spend their surplus wealth on.  Relative surplus that is, since inflation meant that purchasing power dropped….  No worries, however, since an industrial economy and synthetic materials enable cheap mass production of most consumer items.  Under this model a phenomenon like stagflation was impossible.  The 1970s changed that real quick.  Inflation was too high and as consumers felt their purchasing power diminish in the face of the inflation, and their energy costs go up because of oil embargos, they stopped purchasing consumer goods.  With a hesitant consumer market and increasing production and transportation costs, businesses shut down and unemployment rose.  It was a perfect storm.

Jump forward to 2007 and the onset of the credit crunch plunged America into its latest economic crisis.  The economy shrunk, people got laid off, and value of the dollar dropped against competing currencies.  The Bush and Obama administrations responded with retreads of Keynesian ideas:  Pumping money into the system to spur consumer spending and business output.  Though these policies seemed to stop the slide, the hoped for growth has failed to materialize and what had been voiced as plausible is now becoming very possible:  a Double Dip Recession.  Put another way, it’s the return of Stagflation.

CNN, in cooperation with Fortune, reported today that five key indicators  of the economy (hiring, home sales, stock market, family income, and manufacturing)  have failed to achieve sustainable recovery levels despite four years of government bailouts and subsidizing.  

Worse yet, those indicators show that despite some signs of recovery, certain variables have canceled out any gains.  Home sales are a great example of this.  Standard & Poors/Case-Shiller home price index has recently reported a new low in falling home prices despite tax breaks and credits for new home buyers.  This is an excellent example of stagflation at work:  The market fails (credit crunch, foreclosures, etc), the government steps in with subsidies that drive up inflation (to encourage consumers), but the market does not respond because other variables are affecting it (unemployment, lack of available credit, etc).

Stagflation occurs when an administration fails to account for economic variables that would affect consumer behavior and choice.  The result is often misguided policies and wasted money (home buyer credits, Cash for Clunkers, etc.).  One could claim initial gains and successes, but these mask a systemic instability, and on this count the market doesn’t lie.  Major indicators are showing that government-generated inflation has failed to create a consumer-driven economic reboot, and that the economy is not recovering as businesses and families turn inward to shore up their own financial holdings. 

The market is not demanding more goods and services, the demand is clearly for stability and less debt at both national and individual levels.  When the government finally recognizes this demand and begins working to supply it by stabilizing the money supply, balancing the budget, and reducing its market controls, we can expect systemic stability and a return to investor confidence that will make a more sustainable recovery possible.

Graphic Organizer of the American Economy Since 2007