The Gang of 23 Posted by Derek Chollet

For the past few months much of political Washington as been focused on the maneuverings of the so-called “Gang of 14,” the evenly divided group of Senate Republicans and Democrats that helped end the filibuster/nuclear option showdown over federal judges.  With the Roberts nomination on deck, expect to hear a lot more about these folks in the days ahead.

But when it comes to the national security debate, let’s also look out for the “Gang of 23,” a bipartisan group of foreign policy and defense luminaries that are coming together under the banner of a new organization, the Partnership for a Secure America, that seeks to revive the political center of the national security debate (full disclosure: this organization is being spearheaded with the support of The Century Foundation, whose other efforts include helping us here at DA).  This new organization will be rolled out tomorrow at a National Press Club event featuring the two co-chairs, Lee Hamilton and Warren Rudman, and it is the subject a full-page ad in today’s New York Times.

This kind of bipartisan advocacy effort is hardly new to Washington; in the past few years we have watched the work of organizations like the US Committee to Expand NATO, The Committee on Present Danger, and The Committee to Liberate Iraq work their way through the system, some with amazing success.  The template is common: get an esteemed group to sign on to a set of principles, hold some press events, open a website, start a blog, raise money, publish some op-eds or a report.  Yet what makes this new initiative different is that it seeks to push not just one policy, but to breathe life into a centrist worldview—which, they point out, is a proud American tradition.

But it seems to me that this group’s most important contribution could be to engage the American people in a sensible, solution-oriented discussion about the national security challenges facing our country.  As Uwe Reinhardt pointed out yesterday in a superb Washington Post column, there is a strange detachment between the small slice of Americans who are actually sacrificing to implement our national security policy and the vast majority who are expected to do nothing more than express their support.  It’s been said so many times that it’s a cliché, but we need a national discussion about the principles and priorities of our national security policy that we can all rally around and help implement.  The closer we get to the next election cycle, this will be harder to do, as each side will be tempted to use policy differences for political advantage.  That’s why we have to start now.      

Here are the principles that the Partnership for a Secure America suggest:

“Sixty years ago, a great generation of Americans came together to build a better world from the ashes of war. Republicans and Democrats cooperated in supporting a bipartisan foreign policy to protect the American people against a powerful, long-term threat to our national security. Today, a new long-term global peril faces our country. But growing partisan bitterness is derailing substantive discussion and vigorous debate on national security issues.

We the undersigned, Republicans and Democrats alike, believe that Americans must again come together to make our country, and our world, safer. We call for the reestablishment of the bipartisan center in American foreign and national security policy based on our shared American values. We believe:

• America must be strong to be secure. Our government must work tirelessly to bring terrorists to justice and break up and destroy terrorist networks. But while our strength and security are measured partly by our military might and the courage of our men and women in uniform, they are also enhanced by our unfailing commitment to democracy, justice, and civil liberties both at home and abroad.

  • America must always be ready to act alone when its security interests are threatened. But building strong alliances based on mutual respect and shared challenges, including working to renew and reform the United Nations, will make us more able to protect America’s interests.

• America is not adequately protected from the spread and use of deadly nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. We must expand efforts to secure existing stockpiles of weapons materials in Russia and elsewhere, take all necessary steps to make sure that such weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, and use all effective means to discourage and deter countries from acquiring or using these weapons.

• Our local emergency responders, public health officials, border patrol, and coast guard must be given the resources they need to prevent and respond effectively to terrorist attacks on US soil.

• America’s growing federal debt directly threatens our national security and must be controlled by urgent bipartisan action.

• America must invest far more in energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies to help improve our security, create new jobs, and clean up our environment.

• America and our allies must address global poverty, disease, and under-development in a far more aggressive and comprehensive manner to build a safer and more secure future for all Americans and all people.”

Comments

[David Billington]

(1) "America must be strong to be secure."
(2) "America must always be ready to act alone...[but we need] strong alliances..."
(3) "We must...deter countries from acquiring [nuclear, chemical, biological] weapons."
(4) "Our local emergency responders...must be given the resources they need...."
(5) "America’s growing federal debt directly threatens our national security...."
(6) "America must invest far more in energy efficiency and alternative energy...."
(7) "America and our allies must address global poverty...."

All of the above are desirable but need policies in order to be achieved. To engage the American people, it would help to integrate the above into a program. A program might respond to the above points as follows:

(1) Prioritize defense needs and overseas commitments.
(2) Define alliance purposes more clearly.
(3) Propose ways to relieve the insecurity that motivates nations to seek these weapons.
(4) Make larger block grants to Governors. Continue if money is spent well.
(5) Define a percentage of GDP that is sustainable in advanced countries.
(6) Incentivize consumers so that alternative producers have a larger market.
(7) Pay school fees of middle and high school students in poor countries.

[Dan Kervick]

""• America must invest far more in energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies to help improve our security, create new jobs, and clean up our environment.""

Although I think the partnership's list is generally solid, I think this particular item is far too lame, and is typical of the sort of casual lip service and vague throwaway lines we get in these lists from the established policy veterans. My sense is that there is a general global failure to come to grips with the dire nature of our predicament in the energy field, and in the related problems of environmental degradation and population management. We are all in massive denial, and unless we jolt ourselves out of it we are in deep, deep trouble.

We seem to be pursuing a mindless inertia-driven course that is dooming us to decades of costly, increasingly fraught, and frequently violent competiton for the world's dwindling supplies of vital resources. The prospect is one of an era of increasing global disorder, competition, clandestine intrigues and paranoia.

Investing a bit more in alternative energy sources is not enough. I personally favor a movement to enact a Global Energy Transistion Treaty, concluded on a foundation of mutual recognition by the world's producer states and consumer states, its developed and developing countries, that we have entered a global crisis period of transition to a post-petroleum economy, and that it is in the interest of all of us to *manage* that transition so as to prevent conflict and protect global prosperity.

[David Billington]

"Investing a bit more in alternative energy sources is not enough. I personally favor a movement to enact a Global Energy Transistion Treaty, concluded on a foundation of mutual recognition by the world's producer states and consumer states, its developed and developing countries, that we have entered a global crisis period of transition to a post-petroleum economy, and that it is in the interest of all of us to *manage* that transition so as to prevent conflict and protect global prosperity."

I share your concern about the future as fossil fuel consumption increases. But I don't see what a treaty will accomplish this far in advance unless it includes a timetable that specifies the actions and costs necessary to complete the transition. Is that what you would understand a treaty to require?

The usual objection to state dirigism is that market forces will take care of the problem when the prices of fossil fuels make alternative sources competitive. Do you think government can do a better job managing the transition than the market? Or is there a mix of public and private action that might work best?

[Dan Kervick]

David,

I am not an economist or diplomat, so my ideas are likely to seem amateurish and half-baked to more experienced and well-trained folks, but I'll lay them out there in the hope of at least stimulating discussion along these lines. First, just a general philosophical background for the proposal:

As I see it, the free market in the global sphere is not the same as the free market inside the domestic spheres of established states. Global competition for vital sources of wealth and power involves the use of soldiers and weaponry, and the other instruments of state power, as well as the predatory behavior of ungoverned free agents. It is more like a lawless drug turf war than the mostly peaceful competition that occurs between domestic firms in a secure, stable state, where a strong central government enforces legal ground rules that prevent competion from growing as ruthless as it otherwise would. Without a background of strong governance, we have a Hobbesian world in which competion grows intense and brutal, and ultimately mutually self-destructive.

The energy corporations that run the world's petroleum market - whether state-owned or privately owned - are tightly wedded to state power, and by virtue of their enormous wealth and vital function have a decisive impact on how that power is wielded. As I see it, we are embarked on a path in which the global petroleum business is likely to come more and more to resemble the global narcotics business, with the difference being that powerful states themeselves will be involved as active participants, rather than just law enforcers. We can expect increasing resort to high-stakes power plays, in which military power and all the other tools available to states are used more and more quickly, openly and readily to seize crucial pieces in the global oil game, pieces that will then be used in turn to leverage the acquisition of other pieces.

For example, CNOOC backed away today from its move to purchase UNOCAL. But at some point in the future that is unlikely to happen. China will have other cards to play. They may have acquired strategic control over more petroleum resources, and have the option of shutting down or curtailing production, and driving up prices to get their way. Obviously such a move would be risky for them, but in the right circumstances they may judge the potential benefits to be worth the risk.

Of course in some sense the market *will* respond to changing circumstances - the drug businness after all is one of the most free markets that exists. But there is no guarantee that the response and eventual economic transformation will be generally peaceful, or that the political institutions that emerge from it will be liberal. Rather it is more likely there will be a period of pronounced disequilibrium and instability, filled with intense and ruthless competition, where companies and whole states will use all the tools at their disposal in their struggle to end up in a favorable position in the new market that emerges after the crisis, and on top of the wreckage. It is also entirely possible that various moves in the game could plunge the world into a depression, thus for a very extended period of time impairing the ability of of the economy to innovate and produce its way out of the crisis.

I also think that the model of free market salvation is limited by the fact that the fossil-fuel based global energy infrastructure is so firmly entrenched in our way of life; its limited, and relatively short-term interests so securely protected by governments; and with so many people dependent on the economies it organizes, that it exercises something like a monopoly power, and there are powerful barriers to structural change. Systems like this don't change in a gradual and evolutionary manner. People are not that rational and far-seeing. Rather the irratioanl attachment of people to the current arrangement and a doomed way of life ultimately comes to a crashing and disruptive halt, with much unnecessary human misery following.

In the sort of treaty arrangement I am imagining, the emphasis should be on security, and on the cooperative and rational allocation of resources. Now I don't *like* the idea of planning economies and allocating resources. If the global energy economy were a classic liberal free market, with non-monopolistic firms competing within the legal and security structures provided by a strong central state, and with the participants in the market generally rational, fully-informed and far-seeing, I would have more faith in the ability of the market to adapt and allocate in an efficient and rational manner. But that's not what we have. We are likely to have something more like a world of ruthless Hobbesian agents in which the rudiments of a classical, liberal economic order don't exits. At the current time, the weak institutions of international governance that remain are already under severe stress, and a future of Hobbesian multipolarity appears to be in the offing.

Here are some of the things, then, we might make part of such a treaty arrangement:

1. A Fossil Fuels Security Commission: A Security Council-like structure, most likely organized under the UN, with a diverse and representational international composition, but with a more limited portfolio to address the security concerns in designated oil-producing regions.

2. A transnational Fossil-Fuels Security Force. These forces would be trained for the specific jobs involved in securing petroleum resources for the benefit of the global community - including the prevention of sabotage and terrorism, but also including armed intervention to repel invaders, secure failing states and keep the peace. The force would recruit directly from all countries, not take soldiers "on loan" from the armed forces of signatory states. They would not be active-duty US and Chinese military personnel, for example, with loyalties divided between the Security Force and their own government's armed forces. They would nevertheless be under the command of the FFSC, and thus indirectly the signatory countries. Their power would be checked by the internal checks and vetoes built into the council's charter.

3. A Global Fossil-Fuels Planning Board, with the authority to establish production targets and quotas, regulate prices and production, and garnish some of the profits from the sale of petroleum in order to invest in measures conducive to the peaceful development of a post-petroleum economy, and to provide rewards for countries that act in ways that contribute to that development. Petroleum should be treated as a vital global resource, and its production and distribution more closely regulated than they are now.

It seems to me that it is actually in the interest of producer states to cede some control over their resources to such an international body. Most of these states are relatively weak and vulnerable, and the alternative they are looking at is a future in which their countries will be increasingly subjected to intervention from outside powers. Iraq and Nigeria for example are likely looking at a future filled with intrigues and near-permanent instability as ever-evolving concerts of great powers maneuver to depose their governments, invade their countries, and establish strategic control over their resources, etc. They may even have their resources seized and annexed in the not-too-distant future. They will ultimately lose economically, and their people will be caught in the crossfire. In exchange for security guarantees, and a guarantee of a fair price for the sale of their oil, they would agree to place much of the economic decision- making in the hands of a world body.

I know the idea of such a treaty must sound overly-dramatic, radical and politically unfeasable. Certainly a major international political movement would have to be launched to build support for it. I welcome brutal constructive criticism. But the main point is that we need to start to think more boldly about the challenges facing us, rather than treat this crisis as business-as-usual. I am convionced we are headed for a disatrous century of war and increasing illiberality without something bold, and roughly along these lines. We need to think big, and try to muster the visionary global political will that characterized the the post WWII period.

[David Billington]

Dan,

Thank you taking the time to outline both the background and specifics of your proposal. I think that a new international body for energy that is part of the UN would make a lot of sense. Like the IAEA, the new body could monitor compliance with an international treaty on energy management that mandates targets for energy efficiency and for reliance on alternative (renewable) sources. A treaty might suffer from the defects of the Kyoto Protocol but perhaps those could be avoided.

A global security force presupposes a global consensus that would I think make it possible to raise U.N. forces in the traditional way under the U.N. Security Council (provided there is appropriate command and control). But I must confess doubts that a consensus to enforce an energy treaty with troops will exist. The larger oil-exporting states (United States, Russian Federation) will never recognize the right of an international force to intervene in their own countries to give world consumers a fair share of domestic oil. In the next two decades, Iran and Saudi Arabia (the two smaller countries that matter) will have nuclear deterrents and both would also resist an international or national occupation of their oilfields with insurgencies.

Forecasts of a global Hubbard Peak (ie. the point at which production declines) have proved consistently wrong because recovery rates have improved since 1970. The United States is still sitting on 70-80 percent of its crude oil because the oil has not been possible to extract economically. Recent innovations, such as recycling carbon dioxide back into the ground to mobilize this oil for extraction, show some promise and it is possible that existing North American reserves will last much longer than expected.

But we will run out of petroleum eventually and I agree that the next four decades could be critical as consumption rises. Sudden supply interruptions or other forms of instability are a real threat and we are not prepared because our petroleum-based way of life is so deeply entrenched. But if domestic markets tighten, it is very hard not to see a significant price incentive for consumers to shift and for suppliers of alternate energy to invest in it. In any case, the question about any sudden disequilibrium is how long it will last. Military responses to secure overseas oil in particular can only be temporary measures. As casualties mount trying to hold foreign oilfields against insurgents, nations will weigh the costs of maintaining current levels of consumption vs. the costs of shifting to alternative energy.

The real danger I see is that tension over oil will coincide with and greatly magnify other trends that point to growing multipolar conflict by the middle decades of this century. I have outlined my view here if you are interested:

http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/strategy1.html

My basic view is that the problem of rivalry needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive way. My own proposal is an even longer long-shot than yours but I think you are very right to try to raise public awareness about the longer-term. The particular strength of your proposal is that energy is so tangible and central to everyone. If international action is possible, it may come in response to energy rather than to tensions over the military balance.

"But the main point is that we need to start to think more boldly about the challenges facing us, rather than treat this crisis as business-as-usual. I am convinced we are headed for a disastrous century of war and increasing illiberality without something bold, and roughly along these lines. We need to think big, and try to muster the visionary global political will that characterized the the post WWII period."

Exactly.

[donkeyhawk]

Eye-witnessed today's Partnership for a Secure America launch at the NPC. Noble mission and laudable effort, but alas, the organization - like so many in the center of the political spectrum - lacks teeth. Hamilton and Rudman refused to criticize the present Administration in any direct way, despite an opening the AP's Barry Schweid served up during the Q&A. The question I wish had been asked: Do you approve of the President's recess appointment of John Bolton? Doesn't it signal a breakdown of bipartisanship in foreign policy that the Administration has not only expedited but is exploiting? I am a proud a centrist, having worked for several in the Executive and Legislative branches, but I fear the Partnership is trodding down the well-worn path to political irrelevance on which so many other well-meaning, bipartisan, moderate groups have trod because it seems unwilling to call the present leadership (R's and D's in the White House and on the Hill) on the carpet by name. Pity.

[Dan Kervick]

David,

Thanks for the time you devoted to producing your thoughtful and helpful comments. I would just like to clarify one point:

You say:

"The larger oil-exporting states (United States, Russian Federation) will never recognize the right of an international force to intervene in their own countries to give world consumers a fair share of domestic oil."

Although I did advocate the creation of a Fossil Fuels Planning Board and a Security Force, I didn't mean to suggest that the Security Force would be authorized to intervene in countries willy-nilly to advance whatever economic plans of the Planning Board might happen to have. Intrervention would only be authorized in the event of a major security breakdown in a producing state: state collapse, civil war, foreign invasion etc.

Also, the large great power producers would still possess their same mighty military capability, sufficient to deter intervention. So the authority delegated to the international body would not really give that body the realistic and legal opportunities to exercise military power against major states.

[Dan Kervick]

"... but I fear the Partnership is trodding down the well-worn path to political irrelevance on which so many other well-meaning, bipartisan, moderate groups have trod because it seems unwilling to call the present leadership (R's and D's in the White House and on the Hill) on the carpet by name. Pity."

I have the same fear Donkeyhawk. But I think part of the agenda of these committees of heavyweights is to make sure that, whichever party wins the White House in 2008, they get some of their own people into the new administration. Thus you are unlikely to see them take on either of the major parties directly. They will confine their criticisms to ideas, rather than people, administrations or party organizations.

It's up to us observers in the gallery, who aren't angling for jobs, to articulate those more direct and less diplomatic criticisms.

[David Billington]

Dan,

"Intervention would only be authorized in the event of a major security breakdown in a producing state: state collapse, civil war, foreign invasion etc."

Thanks for clarifying this. These contingencies may already be covered by Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter. But I agree that we need to go farther. Apart from nuclear power, energy has not been treated as the security issue that it is. It would be very useful to begin work on an energy treaty and to explore other ways the U.N. might be reorganized to monitor world energy and take more responsibility for it.

[libertarian soldier]

1. When did the US, the largest oil importer in the world, become one of "The larger oil-exporting states"?
2. Re: "Iraq and Nigeria for example are likely looking at a future filled with intrigues and near-permanent instability as ever-evolving concerts of great powers maneuver to depose their governments, invade their countries, and establish strategic control over their resources, etc." Speaking with a great deal of experience about Nigeria, you are mistaken. Colonialism ended awhile ago, and there are 130m very violent and well armed people who won't let that happen again. And someone proposing it will happen again, or that oil control is why we went into Iraq, needs to take off their tinfoil hat. Once a region/area stopped being part of Cold War rivalry, intervention to secure resources regardless of insecurity was never attempted, and the oil continued to flow regardless of that instability and insecurity (hello Sudan and Angola).
3. Re: China. China is (and is becoming more and more) a player on oil/gas, but as a net importer with a hugely expanding economy its interest is in LOWER, not higher prices.

[David Billington]

Libertarian Soldier,

"1. When did the US, the largest oil importer in the world, become one of "The larger oil-exporting states"?"

Alaskan oil goes to Japan.

"3. Re: China. China is (and is becoming more and more) a player on oil/gas, but as a net importer with a hugely expanding economy its interest is in LOWER, not higher prices."

Yes, if Beijing has to pay the world price. If China owns the oil, though, it could buy directly from its own companies at reduced prices and the removal of that oil from the world market could raise the price to everyone else. I think this is what worried Washington about the CNOOC offer. The question is whether any other country will sell its oil reserves to Chinese companies.

[yargıc]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[chat]

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's wearing than before, especially a watch. Chat .
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Chat you must borrow it from friends Sohbet you can get everything you want in this game
Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at the surface of the watches
Egitim from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there exsohbet

[rokettube]

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral rokettube yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi porn sitesi...

[sexfilmiseyret]

herkesin bir derdi var durur icinde ama para lazimsexfilmiseyretmeyin sadece bakin
sonra buraya girererek buraya da bakin

[Thomas Sabo Jewellery]

Today the number is way, Thomas Sabo Australia contains well-accepted to be considered a analogue for perfect products. Make it possible for an utter automobile accident for example The yuletide season, Evening with romance relationship or Mothering Wednesday, you'll also order any amazing offer to deal with those invoved with accession to the expansion. The latest may well likewise Thomas Sabo Jewellery insert to the propagation as well as beatitude from the absolute gathering Factors women and men who seem to accuse of not even getting payments from or even allow not necessarily long been competent to aces an accomplished found for Thomas Sabo varieties apron and kids. However , Thomas Sabo on sale collections you won't every time accept that tender in developers. An important numerous compli incorporated do better than not likely recognize to worry get the job done almsman will like the idea or otherwise.

Sabo recent variations are not alone begin the process of suitable for partners for peace of mind. Should the seek out these dissipate number, you actually apperceive to accessibility private for those in your very own ancestry and family history assemblage or even amphitheater involving spouses. A points regarding skill you can see you can certainly as a result fascinating not to mention obtain your aberrant acquaintance of adroitness that will apply for an reliable accurateness jointly with your forefathers or close friends. This has been your arresting activity many people opportunity that welcomes rendered a vital vis system right across.

[水着]

お客さんもバンドメンバーも、そしてスタッフも下着全員女子というひなまつりバージョンで開催されたこのイベントは、まずはトークコーナーからスタート。普段は見ることのできない近藤夏子の一人暮らしの部屋を動画で公開し、実際にお部屋にある水着お気に入りグッズを会場で披露するというサービスっぷり。
その後、会場に集まったファンから近藤夏子へのぶっちゃ女性 水着け質問を募集し、その質問に直接答えたり、恋愛に関する悩み相談をするなど、会場中は、完全に女子会状態。女子だけということでぶっちゃけトークにも花が咲き下着 激安1時間以上にわたる大盛り上がりなトークコーナー下着 通販を経て、後半はライブへ。
2月9日にリリースとなった「うつむきスマイル」を中心に9曲を披水着　通販露した近藤夏子だったが、この日バンドメンバーには元プリンセス・プリンセスのベーシスト渡辺敦子の姿も。プリンセス・プリンセスの大ヒット曲「ダイアモンド」を、渡辺敦子のハモリとともにカバーを披露、ライブも大変な盛り上がりを見せた。
アンコールで披露された「別に。」では、いつものライブではタオルが振り回され水着　激安るところだが、今回は女子限定ということで、なんと女性用下着がぶんぶん振り回されるというビックリな光景も。事前にTwitterやブログで告知されていただけに、集まったファンも思い思いにいろいろなものを振り回し、最高のひな祭りイベントは幕を下ろした。