Recognizing the Recognition Lag
Posted on January 2nd, 2009
by Leon Hadar |
|
In a recent piece I tried to lower the expectations of some of my friends in the reality-based community of foreign policy realists that a President Obama would place the Israel/Palestine issue on the top of his policy agenda. Some of these friends interpreted my analysis as an argument against possible U.S. efforts to play a more active diplomatic role in the dormant “peace process.” But forecasting a rainy day doesn’t mean that you are hoping for a bad weather. My geo-political forecast was based on the my reading of the current global balance of power and U.S. domestic politics.
First, the combination of the mess in Iraq/Afghanistan and the entire collapse of the neoconservative agenda plus the economic crisis have diminished the power (which includes public support) of the U.S. to shape global events, including the Mideast. And the organized support for Israel in Washington has become a form of rent seeking in a sense of capturing monopoly privileges in determining U.S. foreign policy and making it difficult to resist it (which tends of happen to imperial powers when domestic players compete to control its growing resources abroad).
Now… it seems to me that because of inertia or vested interests, members of the elites always fail to recognize the eroding influence of a declining great power. Economists refer to Recognition lag when they discuss the time lag between when an actual economic shock, such as sudden boom or bust occurs, and when it is recognized by economists, central bankers and the government. A similar time lag may explain why so many pundits are continuing to demand and/or expect the Obama Administration to reassert U.S. influence abroad and “do something” about this or that (depending on one’s favorite foreign policy agenda).
Interestingly enough, in a foreign policy seminar I led a while ago I asked my students to conduct a content analysis of how the leading powers were covered by the major international dailies in the aftermath of WWII. They were astonished to discover that until the mid 1950’s both Great Britain and France (by then bankrupted economic and military powers) were described as “great powers” more times than the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Only in the late 1950’s was “great” being dropped as an adjective when discussing the Brits and the French and “super” was applied to the Americans and the Soviets. A example of recognition lag in foreign policy.
I certainly don’t believe that the U.S. occupies now the same position that Britain and France did after WWII. But America ceased to be the only-remaining-superpower or the Leader of the Free World. And I doubt very much that if Washington at the height of the Unipolar Moment in 2000 and a time when the Israelis and the Palestinians were less radicalized and led by strong and moderate leaderships, couldn’t get an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, that it would be able to do that today even under a president who probably wants to see some progress in that arena.
Sorry, guys. But the weather is going to be bad and not because I made it bad.
Filed under: Foreign policy
As a Briton my take on this is rather wry: so far as I can tell much of the right here has still not caught up. The dreadful irony of this is that those which wish to keep the nation “Great” and maintain their position upon the “World Stage” are also those who are most slavish and lockstep in their Atlanticism.
Try to get used to your fellow Americans talking like historical characters. I’ve had to.
[...] Hadar applies the economic concept of "recognition lag" to American foreign policy. Posted by Jim [...]
I just am fascinated by how all those on the right who were so against Bush and desperate to see him replaced have now turned their formidable talents to Concern Trolling. It really takes time, talent and a lot of practice to produce this kind of World Class Concern Trolling that we’ve seen of late. Poor progressives…. there, there. It’s all right. You knew he’d fail, didn’t you?
Still, I guess it’s pretty much the only gig y’all have left to you, if you’re not into World Class Whining.
In the early 1950’s, both France and Britian still possessed colonies at various places over most of the globe. Also, England headed up the Commonwealth, and there was a counterpart organization of Frencophone states. The two countries had a great deal of international influence, in other words.
After Suez, after the partition of India and Pakistan, after the French defeats in Indochina and Algeria, after decolonization, the influence of two countries was smaller — justifying the change in attitudes.
MS: GB and Frace were not “great powers” after WWII. Both were American military and economic protectorates. The partition of India and Pakistan as well as Palestine took place in 1947-48, not 1956. France was invaded by Germany in WWII. BTW.
Hal: What,s your point?
Our diminished power may be the ally of sane policy. Middle East peace, (an oxymoron) isn’t within our power to create. One gets the feeling that too many interests are waiting to see what we will do. If the answer is nothing, the rest of the world may get about the business of managing their affairs like adults. We may also seek real alliances with powers with whom we have joint goals.
Now if we can just make the American public see the limits of our power.
BTW, what’s “Concern Trolling”?
“Concern trolling” is e-entryism.
The troll purports to be a member of a group and states that he is “worried” or “disturbed” by something which will damage “their” cause, hoping to affect a disruptive change, start unproductive arguments to waste time or just generally cause trouble, mess & havoc.
Pheck no let’s stay in It’s in the third cupboard on the left, behind the olive oil. ,
Muslim speech just before the elections and after that the BJP gave him a ticket to contest. ,