Over the next week, Pres. Barack Obama will attend three major summits — of the G20 industrial countries, NATO, and the European Union — hold bilateral meetings with the leaders of Russia, China, India, and the main European nations, and visit Turkey for discussions with the leaders of the growing Muslim nation that straddles Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. He does so at a time of immense upheaval, even chaos, in world affairs.
A relatively stable post–Cold War international order dominated by the U.S. is breaking up before our eyes. Its foundations have been undermined by the international financial crisis, by the rise of China and India, by the aggressive ambitions of a nationalist Russia, and by the continuing impact of jihadism on the Muslim world and on Muslim-Western relations. What will the post–post–Cold War order look like? Will it continue to be dominated by the U.S.? And how should Obama seek to shape it?
These issues are interrelated, but each summit deals with different aspects of the overall systemic crisis. The London G20 summit is principally concerned with solving or at least ameliorating the financial crisis and its accompanying economic recession. As almost every commentator has now argued, the U.S. favors an additional fiscal stimulus to lift Western economies out of recession, whereas most Europeans prefer to concentrate on stricter global regulation of financial instruments and capital movements.
Both are wrong. Europe and America have already injected massive demand into their economies. They are close to exhausting their potential for borrowing — a British government debt issue was not fully subscribed last week — and now risk seriously higher inflation down the road. German leaders are right to argue that further deficit spending may actually erode the consumer confidence that we need if people are to start spending again. We should pause to see the effects of earlier injections of demand before piling on more at a time when the U.S. and European economies might be starting to recover. And from a purely American standpoint, if higher U.S. deficits are financed in ways that spur future inflation and a weaker dollar, then Chinese and Russian calls for a new international reserve currency to replace the greenback will gain wider and more serious support.
On the other hand, Pres. Nicolas Sarkozy’s call for a new global financial regulator is nonsense on stilts (which, as it happens, is not a bad description of Sarkozy himself). Previous attempts to build an “international financial architecture” arguably made the current crisis worse. (We would have been better off with different national standards for rating and provisioning against the risks of mortgage-based securities, would we not?) Some national-regulatory failures resulted from the capture of the regulators by the industry they were supposed to be overseeing. But such systemic failures are more likely in global institutions that are remote from public opinion in any one country and, like U.N. institutions generally, exempt from any real democratic accountability. Sarkozy’s passion for them is inspired by his hostility to “les Anglo-Saxons” and their brand of liberal economics, which fosters centers of power independent of the Colbertian state. Though Obama is ideologically sympathetic to tighter regulation, he is unlikely to support a version that would subject Wall Street to controls administered by the U.N. secretariat on behalf of Paris and Frankfurt.
Nothing good can be expected from the G20 summit, therefore. The best we can hope for is that Europe and the United States will each succeed in restraining the other’s pet solution. Fortunately, it has been leaked that a coordinated world stimulus will apparently be postponed to a G20 summit at a later date—we suggest the Greek kalends. And the president should bargain so that any pact on global regulation is sufficiently trivial to ensure a dramatic walkout by Sarkozy, ideally one in which he would trip on the mat.
We will return to the Brussels, Prague, and Ankara summits in due course. Meanwhile, that would be a happy start to a momentous week.
Trumpism is sometimes derided as an updated know-nothingism that rejects expertise and the input of credentialed expertise. Supposedly, professionals who could now save us tragically have their talent untapped as they sit idle at the Council on Foreign Relations, the economics Department at Harvard, or in the ... Read More
Well, we all knew it wouldn’t last. Weeks after two different Ninth Circuit panels surprisingly upheld Second Amendment rights by blocking California’s confiscation of large-capacity magazines and Hawaii’s ban on open carry, the nation’s most progressive circuit returned to form. In a ruling earlier this ... Read More
Every now and then, I’ll read some news that makes my eyes bug out and my jaw drop to the floor because I can’t believe how stupid it is. This week, it was the news that fired FBI agent Peter Strzok has raised over $400,000 for his legal costs and lost income via a GoFundMe campaign. Let me rephrase: ... Read More
After eight years of displeasure with Barack Obama’s presidency, Carla Johnson was ready for a drastic change. The 41-year-old lab technician from Cresco, Iowa, fell for Donald Trump very early in the 2016 primary season. She loved his “take-no-[sh**]” style, his conservative stances on gun control and ... Read More
Let’s take a short walk down memory lane. Not long ago, on January 2, 2016, a small group of armed protesters seized an unoccupied federal building in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is located in a relatively isolated area in eastern Oregon, and the occupied building itself was far from any ... Read More
People are making this so complicated. A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times editorial board hired a technology writer, Sarah Jeong. When it was revealed that she had tweeted barbs against white people, conservatives formed a Twitter mob to demand her dismissal. While a few on the right said — or claimed ... Read More