Wednesday, April 1, 2009 - 9:21 PM

I don't have strong views about this week's G20 summit. It clearly won’t produce a grand plan to revive the global economy, and so I'm mostly hoping it doesn't do any real harm. It's abundantly clear that there are genuine differences among the various members, which reflect both divergent historical attitudes and traditions and the very different economic circumstances that each state now faces. With bigger safety nets and greater fear of inflation, European powers oppose calls for big fiscal stimulus packages and are emphasizing the need for more regulation. The Obama administration is leaning the other way: acknowledging the need for some regulatory reform but emphasizing the need for more direct efforts to boost economic activity.
These differences won't get resolved at this meeting; let's just hope that evidence of dissensus doesn’t spook the markets or energize the protectionist forces that are already emerging in various countries. A final communiqué that committed the parties to reject the latter would be most welcome.
The meeting is also Obama's debut appearance at such a gathering, and I'm thinking that he needs to walk a rather fine line. On the one hand, he'll want to show that he’s not George W. Bush, and to firmly reject the one-way approach to diplomacy that Bush practiced, especially during his first term. This is the easy part: given Obama's innate confidence, likeability, and penchant for listening to diverse views, he should have little trouble getting on with the other attendees.
But on the other hand, Obama also needs to show that he's no pushover, and that our economic problems haven't made the United States just one out of twenty. Leaders like French President Nicolas Sarkozy have a penchant for grandstanding, and may be eager to score political points at home by hogging the spotlight or by taking pot shots at the United States. Here Obama needs to make it clear that the United States is still a global superpower with ample capacity to defend its interests -- including its economic interests -- and that even close allies will pay a price if they provoke U.S. disfavor. The U.S. economy is still the world's largest and most advanced, and it faces fewer long-term problems than many other G20 members. Key allies in the G20 remain dependent on American military power and on the collective goods that the United States still provides. Now is not the time to look or act (to use Richard Nixon's Vietnam-era phrase) like "a pitiful, helpless giant."
Obama's tough handling of General Motors shows that he's not afraid to play hardball when circumstances require. I hope he finds a way to remind the other nineteen leaders of that fact. But I also hope he does it with some subtlety. Like I said: He's got a rather fine line to tread.
John Stillwell - WPA Pool/Getty Images
EXPLORE:DIPLOMACY, ECONOMICS, FINANCIAL CRISIS, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
including its economic interests -- and that even close allies will pay a price if they provoke U.S. disfavor. The U.S. economy is still the world's largest and most advanced, and it faces fewer long-term problems than many other G20 members. Key allies in the G20 remain dependent on American military power and on the collective goods that the United States still provides. Now is not the time to look or act (to use Richard Nixon's Vietnam-era phrase) like "a pitiful, helpless giant."
Professor is talking in accordance with axiom 11 of the SATFP;->>
11. A State talks sweet but carries her power peeping under her cloak to deterre the potential threats of other states. (McCain the Presidential Candidate 2008)
He has to, otherwise "state" is on stake;->>
make it clear that the United States is still a global superpower
Professor! as a realist when are you going to express the reality that there is not much left out there to play Superpower to your leadership ?
The Devil tempted you and you forgot that you are realist again;->>
Have you read the statistics recently?
"American military power" ?! It is completely out of date, 19th Century Military Power;->
"Your Constitution" ?! It is completely out of date, even Old EU is trying to re-compose its constitution while you are still sleeping.
You couldn't even get North America to be integrated under your so called Superpower during last 200 years, leave alone Cuba;->>
As an FP Professor even you cannot fathom how and why FP of the State shaped this or that way.
Your patriots including yourself started warning your nation that she can't think straight any more;->
I mean anyone who follows this blog closely can see the picture clearly - you are in mess.
You know what, maybe you have to form an alliance with Russia to save the State, why don't you invite them to join NATO;-> That would solve a lot of problems;->>
Remember you are realist!
That is why you are not employed by the State;->
Or, what can I say - enjoy your superiority complex;->
Grand Sen~or.
What I don't understand is why so many economists, and even more than economists, pundits - especially from the conservative side but many liberals as well - who always insist that protectionism is the one thing that can screw us all over.
I get the whole notion of country specialization, and how that makes everything cheaper in the long run etc etc. But I don't understand how, for instance, "Buy American" provisions regarding steel or a minor dustup against Mexican trucks are threats to world economic stability on par with anything else. Everywhere one turns, we are warned against the dangers of protectionism, as if free trade was about to whither and die. Somehow the notion that there are massive corporate lobbies with tremendous political clout dedicated to expanding free trade (which, incidentally, went hand in hand with 1980-2000 era deregulation) is ignored.
It seems to me that if pundits and or economists took an issue like income inequality as seriously or regarded it as much as a threat to capitalism as they do protectionism we'd be in a much better place.
I just can't wrap my head around why it is such a big deal. I mean, aren't the economic models "proving" free trade is the end all be all the same models proving that unregulated capitalism is teh awesome? And isn't India one of the few countries doing pretty well in the midst of this, all while staying quasi-socialist and pretty protectionist?
Bottom line: I hope the G20 has something more important to do - protect poor countries from collapse, climate change work, finance reform, etc than complain about something that, as far as I can see, is more hype than substantial threat.
I agree--it is time for the US to reclaim the leadership role ceded by the neocrazies, and if Sarkozy get's put in his place that would be even better. I speak as a European.
As Putin called it, under Bush all boundaries vanished. Now would be a good time to re-establish them.
All true. And I learned a new word--dissensus.
The view must be different on the other side of the atlantic
All these heads of little european states speaking in strange tongues used in states which do a lot of posturing and socialism and forge unions like for example agreeing to print the same type of little leaflets calling that 'money'. It's not to be trusted!
The view must truly be different on the other side of the atlantic. (Yep, I'm from europe.)
In the real world European leaders now speak out on anglosaxon economic reasoning, because they think it too one-sided. Better late than never: we can agree here that it leaves a lot to be desired. Mr. Walt expects Obama to come to the G20 and dictate 'New Old Rules=No Regulation' or something? Quite Neocon.
Obama is in London to make deals, and summits always have a lot of posturing. Nobody here expects him to roll over, but when even the Chinese start to openly talk about finding an alternative to the dollar as a world reserve currency, maybe, maybe, there is a small problem with the old hegemonistic perpective, and it might be a good idea to take note.
"Key allies in the G20 remain dependent on American military power and on the collective goods that the United States still provides."
Who exactly do you think the other G20 countries need America to protect them from? Unless of course you mean protection as in 'protection racket'. The US has been making enemies at an unprecedented rate and those who stand to close get tarred with the same brush and so become targets. The safest course is to keep your distance not huddle close hoping the ABM shield works.
One interesting point wich hasnt come up in blogs much is the split between the "anglos" and the "euros" on taxhavens, wich Germany/France want to crack hard down on but not UK/US.
All yor previous posts have been trying to convince us that US should stop seeing itself as the mightiest guy in the world and start behaving accordingly.
But, here don't you contradict yourself by affirming that the US is the greatest?
Or, maybe this post shows that nobody is always purely realist. In your case, you seem bothered by the possibility of Obama being overshadowed by Sarkozy during one gala, and this pushes you to react with pride and arrogance.
Let's get one thing straight. Iran is rational and will not launch a premptive nuclear strike on Israel. Israel most surely has submarines and ships capable of a devastating response and the Iranians know it.
The danger lies in the high emotion and visceral hatred that is engendered when Israel defends itself by bombing the bejesus out of some hapless neighbor.
One of those haters might be an Iranian crazy with his finger on an Iranian nuclear bomb. Hatred can short circuit the rational mind. And Israel knows that.
The consequences of an Iranian nuclear device would have to be a civil and well behaved Israel. And that is not in the nature of Israel. Therein lies the problem.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(9)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE