After a long day’s travel, GSJC has reached Prague!

Andel's Hotel - home away from home

So, we’re prepping for the charming flight across the Atlantic to Heathrow here at Dulles Airport, home of the airport shuttles untouched by time, and I’m hoping to avoid any situation like in Airplane! when Stryker forces that grandmother to hang herself. I’m also FAIRLY certain that if I were to announce to my seatmate that the flight attendant has supple, pouting breasts and firm thighs, I would be removed from the plane for sexual harassment. That hypothesis will not be tested.

If you care for a little in depth discussion of foreign defense policy, the mechanics of economic sanctions, and investigative journalism, other people here on the old Prague Blog (…blague?) can do it better than I can. Here, no, we will not discuss that. Last night, we had the CN Alumni & Friends event (infamously known as the Thing Katherine Fell Down the Stairs At Two Years Ago) at the University Club in D.C. Jonathan Karl of ABC News spoke — which, sweet — and then post-dinner after the event we met up in Dupont so we could go to the basement bar of Russia House. It basically looks like a hybrid of the Gryffindor and Slytherin common rooms, with like, “Dragostea din tei” meets “Listen to Your Heart” meets a Russian Shakira music blasting right next to the Lakers-Magic game.

Continue reading this entry »

After listening to yesterday’s speakers, I was struck by the fact that there was no mention of the possibility of trying to reduce nuclear weapons and move in a direction that eliminates the use of them as both weapons and negotiating tools or “bargaining chips.”

Given the situations in North Korea and Iran, such a view may seem foolish or naïve to some, and it would be a very distant vision. But when we’re talking about perpetuating a system that could actually lead to the destruction of mankind, it concerns me that our only options seem to be building more weapons, or focusing on more defense systems that may or may not deter other countries from attacking us.

James Carafano said that developing a “robust” missile defense system would keep us safe because other countries would realize that they could not keep up and would therefore know not to attack the United States. But what if the opposite is true? Certainly it might take them years to come up with the capability to outdo the United States or to get past our missile defense system, but that does not mean they are simply going to let the idea go.

Obviously there needs to be some caution, and the U.S. should not give up and leave itself defenseless while places like North Korea and Iran further develop their nuclear capabilities. President Reagan and President Obama declared themselves committed toward working for a nuclear-free world, but pledged to do so while still protecting Americans from potential threats. It will be interesting to see how Obama intends to do this, and what his stance will ultimately be on missile defense.

We’ve heard that the Iranian government and people are unified behind their country’s nuclear program, and that it is unlikely that they will abandon it on any account. A country that wants to be a major world power has a definite interested in developing nuclear capabilities because it forces other nations to take them seriously. But if there was a concerted effort to remove nuclear weaponry from the equation, there wouldn’t be a need for them as bargaining chips, and perhaps we could eliminate threats in a less violent, more peaceful way.

Maybe it won’t ever happen, and it’s not likely to happen anywhere in the near future, but it seems that while we are concerning ourselves with developing missile defense and nuclear capabilities, it is in the interest of everyone to work toward more humane means of negotiation and diplomacy. It’s difficult to imagine that a world that sees more and more nuclear weapons and threats would not be more dangerous and oppressive than one that is stable and free.

Mr. Robinson’s talk to the Collegiate Network detailed a new way to fight countries that support terrorism. Using the financial prowess of the United States to discourage countries from supporting terrorism is an excellent idea which may give policy makers an alternative to conventional warfare. At present, Mr. Robinson’s ideas are based on free market values, encouraging companies to divest in corporations that are based in, or do substantial business in, terrorist-sponsoring states with the assumption that these companies will be naturally more volatile and have a greater risk of collapse.

The problems with this economic argument are twofold. First, it is based upon the assumption that the random walk theory is incorrect. This is an enormous assuption that has been widely proven through empirical evidence. If the current market assumptions, however, do not take the risk of terrorism into account, then Mr. Robinson’s arguments would be correct. Secondly, Mr. Robinson does not present a valid sample size for his volatility argument. Simply put, there have not been enough companies exposed to the risk of unstable, terrorist-sponsoring states in order to argue that they are unduly risky.

In many ways, Mr. Robinson’s method does have the potential to be a very successful way to fight terrorism. If the United States made a cohesive effort to punish companies dealing with terrorist states, it could force them into non-existence. An enormous percentage of the world’s resources flow through the financial institutions of the United States, even if these institutions are mere third parties in the transaction. In fact, the United States directly controls over 40 percent of the world’s usable capital. Furthermore, if these companies were labeled as risk assets by the SEC, corporations would have to divulge their holdings in these companies, alerting share holders to their presence.

If the strategy of financial warfare is to be used successfully, it must be done on as large of a scale as possible. Companies must divest,the  United States must deny use of its financial institutions, and the treasury may take additional action, such as releasing currency reserves to drive up that nation’s inflation. In this way, the terrorist nation will experience a shock that will result in the downfall of its national economy within a matter of weeks or months. This would cause minimal damage to the civilian population, and allow the economy to quickly recover once reforms are in place. On the whole, Mr. Robinson’s idea presents much promise, but still has to be defined further if it is to reach maturity.

This morning we met with a representative of the Czech Embassy for a brief talk, and we (and the 35 pieces of luggage) are now on our way to Dulles for our journey to Prague.

Mr. Robinson argues for a strategy of financial divestment of ‘at-risk’ nations to counter terrorism.

I am unsettled that Mr. Robinson has made this strategy something of a mandate by using the authority of the SEC to enforce his idea. Doing so, he added yet another level of bureaucracy to the SEC (I have read the SEC is currently estimated to consume about 2.5 of blue chip revenue due to its red tape) which is unpalatable.

However, my objection is to the strategy, not the method, of Mr. Robinson’s idea. Divestment is in my opinion a strategy somewhat akin to the old Puritan idea of stoning the rebellious child to prevent him from sin and, by extension, eternal damnation. To save the child, his life is forfeit and that is absurd. Divestment prevents corporations from trading with what Mr. Robinson deems as undesirable nations, and, as a direct result, will greatly increase the time it takes for these peoples to come out from their stone age and develop a middle class. In a thought, I believe that divestment is a feel-good strategy which entraps the world’s poor. Because poor people are more easily dictated by evil men and can be more easily led to embrace violence (they have literally less to lose), entrapment is, in a word, bad. 

It is my understanding of history that the nations with a large middle class are the peaceful nations. How else does Mr. Robinson propose wealth come to these poor peoples if not by trade with the industrialized world? It appears to me that it is chiefly through an anti-divestment strategy (i.e. strong trade) with China that we, US, intends to transform that land into one flowing with Starbuck lattes and gas guzzling SUVs. A nation which once survived on rice now enjoys beef, and a people which only knew bicycles now is seeking the automobile: they are becoming a middle class society and much more amenable to the Western ways, as a people and politically.

Incidentally, this reality is an example of the social argument proposed by Asimov in his “Foundation.” It is through trade that you make a backwards people want to change into a prosperous people who prefer peace, the condition which protects their wealth.

I also believe it is unfortunate that Mr. Robinson sells his idea as an ”anti-terrorism” act of the common man. This, I believe, is propaganda which takes advantage of the average American’s patriotic inclinations and also unfairly demonizes American corporations which do some business in the nations Mr. Robinson says not to. There is a good reason why the Dartmouth Review and, among other intellectual conservatives, Mr. Buckley argued against the divestment of South Africa and it is the same reason why most liberal ideas are opposed: such ideas appeal nicely to emotion but, upon evaluation of their real world consequences, are seen to have unintended and regrettable consequences.

Afterthought: did it unsettle anyone else that Mr. Robinson was excited to be on the same team as liberal radicals? Traditionally, (and conservatives love tradition) I have found it to be a sound strategy to listen to, for example ex-President Carter’s foreign policy ideas, and support the exact opposite idea. I favor this advice on this policy as well.

Check out the slideshow in the sidebar to the right for live images being uploaded regularly. (Once you click play, move the mouse off the image to make the controls disappear. Otherwise they cover up a lot of the pictures.) You can also see them on our Flickr photostream.

Also, expect pretty non-camera-phone images to be uploaded now and then from John Stevenson, our photo journalist attending GSJC.

Roger W. Robinson, who also worked with the US China Security Review, spoke to attendees of the National Security Seminar about missile defense in the Czech Republic and the new administration, global security,NATO, and the upcoming trip to Prague for students in the GeoStrategic Journalism Course. He noted the seventh anniversary of the relationship between the CN and PSSI and said that he looked forward to seeing the group in Europe.” The Czechs have been put in a very tight spot” by recent complications regarding US missile defense in the country, making the visit particularly timely.

He then moved to a broader discussion of foreign policy. Robinson mentioned a WSJ piece that explained possible new sanctions against North Korea that, in his view, lacked the necessary teeth. He was particularly bothered by the lack of strong enforcement and the broadness of regulations. He reminisced about his experience in the Reagan Administration working to weaken the Soviet economic infrastructure. He then returned to the opic of North Korea, saying that more questions needed to be asked regarding financial sanctions.

On the topic of Iran, he noted how the US has shut down access to American markets for some Iranian banks. He then discussed how his company,Conflict Securities Advisory Group, linked the markets with national security and introduced the concept of limiting companies from working in countries that support anti-American elements. “Using money as leverage”, as he said. He worked on the Sudan divestment campaign and has worked on “shareholder activism”. He also helped to create a “terror-free” mutual fund and investment products.