The Economist is Wrong
And they are wrong because of basic economic theory, which is ironic. American Future pointed me to this article which argues against the Indian nuclear agreement because "rule-bending for India is bound to encourage some other countries to rethink their nuclear options too... Giving India a freer ride is also likely to embolden Iran and North Korea in their defiance, with potential repercussions for the security of all their neighbours, from Saudi Arabia and Egypt to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan."
That is ridiculous.
To understand why one must remember that the international arena is not one of law, where rules apply to everybody and are enforceable unilaterally and monopolistically by a state. Instead, it is a more complex system of interaction where the various players seek to maximize their own self-interest. In otherwords, it is an economic, incentive-based market, where the currencies are power and resource.
In such an un-administrated system, there are no laws -- there are ethics. Ethics in the international arena are enforceable only insofar as power-blocks of individual players buy into them; any decision to purchase will be informed by a conscious and sub-conscious measurement of incentive.
If a country with nuclear ambition was to take a snapshot of the last week--comparing Iran's referral to the Security Council with Bush's validation of India's nukes--a very clear picture would form: If one is a friend of the Americans, effort is made and rules are bent to see you get what you want. If, however, one is an enemy of the US, one will find oneself operating under the magnifying glass of an aroused superpower and its allies -- a "community" with real powers that can be used to impose tangible costs on one's country.
In the absence of law--which needs an element of inevitable cost to be effective, something not to be found in the current non-proliferation regime--an incentive-based approach is the only available supplement in the geo-political world of quiet diplomacy. To not understand this and complain about sophomoric concepts like "fairness" and "hypocrisy"--in a world of evil agents no less--is to do a great disservice to responsible discourse.
That is ridiculous.
To understand why one must remember that the international arena is not one of law, where rules apply to everybody and are enforceable unilaterally and monopolistically by a state. Instead, it is a more complex system of interaction where the various players seek to maximize their own self-interest. In otherwords, it is an economic, incentive-based market, where the currencies are power and resource.
In such an un-administrated system, there are no laws -- there are ethics. Ethics in the international arena are enforceable only insofar as power-blocks of individual players buy into them; any decision to purchase will be informed by a conscious and sub-conscious measurement of incentive.
If a country with nuclear ambition was to take a snapshot of the last week--comparing Iran's referral to the Security Council with Bush's validation of India's nukes--a very clear picture would form: If one is a friend of the Americans, effort is made and rules are bent to see you get what you want. If, however, one is an enemy of the US, one will find oneself operating under the magnifying glass of an aroused superpower and its allies -- a "community" with real powers that can be used to impose tangible costs on one's country.
In the absence of law--which needs an element of inevitable cost to be effective, something not to be found in the current non-proliferation regime--an incentive-based approach is the only available supplement in the geo-political world of quiet diplomacy. To not understand this and complain about sophomoric concepts like "fairness" and "hypocrisy"--in a world of evil agents no less--is to do a great disservice to responsible discourse.
posted by John Aristides at 3/12/2006 04:00:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home