Did COP26 Work?

If you look at the recent global climate change Glasgow conference through the lens of negotiation, a great deal of work produced a measurable outcome. John Kerry tried to sell this line. Ian Bremmer agrees (mostly) that COP26 represents a corner turned where the world begins to take some collective action on greenhouse gasses.

But when looking at the science of warming global temperatures, industrial output, and the latest models, COP26 seems weak and inadequate.

Consider this fresh take by writer Nathaniel Rich, who sees that summits and big negotiations with world leaders aren’t where the action happens.

The daily news report is solid. We get a fairly good sense of what’s happening. I think there’s less attention drawn to the fact that these meetings, just like every other climate conference that’s preceded it over the last 30-some years, are more or less symbolic. They’re covered often in the press as if it’s the negotiation of armistice or an arms agreement when in fact they’re much closer to diplomatic meetings between heads of state to express shared principles to say that we believe in human rights, say.

Interview with Brooke Gladstone, On the Media

Also, sees a change in messaging from activists–who tend to be young and represent an entirely new demographic. They take a “moral approach” that is more personal and honest, according to Rich.  He notes, “They don’t really bother to get into those bad faith debates and they move straight past that into, “I am being harmed, you have failed.” It’s a different register, it’s angry, it’s personal, it’s emotional.” And even just in the time from Obama to Biden, it seems to be working.

Trends Undermining Global Cooperation

In his usual strategic approach to writing, Thomas Edsall explains in the NYT that the reality behind nationalism, hyper-partisanship, and ethno-politics stem from larger forces, not just Trump or those who appear to mirror his success surfing “the ubiquity of loss” across workers and groups on the outs.

In a world building walls of steel and tariffs, does cooperation work? Edsall quotes MIT scholar Daren Acemoglu on the urgent need for international organizations:

It is imperative that we build better international/supranational institutions, but I do not see us going in that direction. On the contrary, I think whatever institutions we have (which are highly dysfunctional, including the WHO) are getting weaker and more captured.

Citing Jack Goldstone at George Mason University, we can see how, ultimately, international cooperation works best as a solution, but

… unfortunately, global governance has been a great disappointment. Russia has basically pissed on it; Trump repudiated it, and China sought to benefit from it by seeking to call the shots in old and new multinational organizations in which it has sought a leading role.

Further, Daniel Etsy of Yale explains how these forces decreases the chances for global cooperation:

The broad-based rise of tribalism/nationalism sharpens “us” versus “them” thinking and makes cooperative responses to any realm of international policymaking — pandemic response, climate change, and trade — more challenging.

He ends with Goldstone’s optimism for Joe Biden’s agenda (and a warning if it fails) as well as a pessimistic take from Jeffrey Sachs as “the U.S. is not a constructive problem-solving actor in this drama”.

The piece is worth a read to see all the arguments in full display. (Thankfully, Edsall is a “show your work” kind of writer, which is greatly preferable to the columnists who parenthetically cite their ideas but with less rigor and importance.)

“Weaponizing” Dialogue

When did reportage on politics adopt a sports analogy? Who knows, but we can see a visage of this approach at least 50 years ago:

Writing in 1968, Milton Rokeach, the social psychologist, articulated what would become a perennial complaint. “The kinds of data obtained by public-opinion research and disseminated in the mass media seem designed more to entertain than to inform,” he wrote. “The quality of the information conveyed seems not much different from that conveyed in the sports pages or, better yet, the daily racing form.” The press, especially during election years, frequently failed to exercise “journalistic conscience”; it had internalized a “racehorse philosophy.”

John Herrman, New York Times Magazine, 3/14/17

The Trump era personifies trends that have been steadily rising. Perhaps it has reached its apotheosis in “weaponizing” political dialogue. What does that mean for politicians, journalists, and citizens?

“Weaponization” works as a throwing up of the hands, and as a suggestion — or an admission, or a strategic claim — that the discourse has failed us. Or, more accurately, it suggests that the discourse has become something dangerous: no mere fight but a terminal conflict without decorum or limits. The language of sports had a maddening tendency to flatten and trivialize the serious consequences of politics, creating constant suspense but obscuring life-or-death stakes. Militarized language moves in a different direction: It intensifies the news it’s describing while simultaneously obscuring actual threats.

“Weaponization” is used to describe both rhetoric that might incite violence and criticism of violent rhetoric. It is lodged against the state, with its legal monopoly on violence, but also, incoherently, against those who challenge the state. It is a shortcut to false equivalence, and it manufactures excuses for those with a vested interest in drawing blood themselves.

Trumpy Rhetoric

How should we understand President Trump’s mode of communication  in terms of effectiveness? Really, how does it work, giving him a lot of credit for disrupting the public sphere with bombast, attention, and large impact? The answers could shape American pubic discourse for a while. Perhaps the answers lie in a careful rhetorical analysis–going back to our foundational views of rhetoric.

A new book that shows why Trump’s discouse is a game-changer in the public square. A few tactics: “argument ad hominem, argument ad baculum, argument ad populum, reification, paralipsis, and more to reveal a campaign that was morally repugnant to some but to others a brilliant appeal to American exceptionalism.” (TAMU Press)

First stop for many is the concern that Trump channels unpleasantness. Shouldn’t that unqualify him? Not so fast, wrote David Denby back in 2015, trying to explain this phenom. “You can’t effectively say that Donald Trum is vulgar, sensational, and buffoonish when its exactly vulgar sensationalism and buffonery that his audience is buying.” He calls what President Trump does an “anti-rhetoric” that channels Alan King and standup acts to entertain through attacks, “an elaborate ficiton.”

In his University of Chicago class on political persuasion, Columnist Bret Stephens explained that Trump primarily seeks one rhetorical goal: “to debase.”

The purpose of Trump’s presidency is to debase, first by debasing the currency of speech. It’s why he refuses to hire reasonably competent speechwriters to craft reasonably competent speeches. It’s why his communication team has been filled by people like Dan Scavino and Stephanie Grisham and Sarah Sanders.

And it’s why Twitter is his preferred medium of communication. It is speech designed for provocations and put-downs; for making supporters feel smug; for making opponents seethe; for reducing national discourse to the level of grunts and counter-grunts.

That’s a level that suits Trump because it’s the level at which he excels. Anyone who studies Trump’s tweets carefully must come away impressed by the way he has mastered the demagogic arts. He doesn’t lead his base, as most politicians do. He personifies it. He speaks to his followers as if he were them. He cultivates their resentments, demonizes their opponents, validates their hatreds. He glorifies himself so they may bask in the reflection.

via NYT

A new book this month explores how Trump does this through his “dangerous rhetoric” according to Jennifer Mercieca of Texas A&M, that allows him to define the terms of debate and shape reality:

Trump has used six rhetorical strategies repeatedly since 2015. Three ingratiate Trump with his followers, and three alienate Trump and his followers from everyone else. The effect is to unify his followers against everyone else and to make Trump the fulcrum for all political discussion and debate. 

via “A field guide to Trump’s dangerous rhetoric” in The Conversation

Against the backdrop of the race crisis featuring a broadcast murder of George Floyd leading to widespread protests of police brutality and a larger discussion about racism, the former Sec Def Jim Mattis spoke out to press the point:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”

And so it appears that President Trump draws on the classic Aristotelian tools of ethos, pathos, and a speaking style that is effective with his existing supporters, even while antagonizing opponents and driving others away.

via The Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg

Is Trump’s rhetoric smart politics embedded in a familiar, direct civic style for a socially-networked era, or as Caroline Mohan writes, an “unprecedented yet effective public rhetorical repertoire”? Or demagoguery as seen in how this matches up with authoritarian rhetoric, using “words as weapons” as Mercieca observes? November may tell us if this continues to work as well a second time around.

A Virtual New Normal at the UN?

What does Multilateral diplomacy look like during coronavirus? The answer: nothing like it did before without face-to-face meetings, regular voting, and willingness to confront difficult political issues.



Meetings seem to be formalities.

“That is the trick — they are not considered formal meetings, but in all effect they are as formal as they can go,” Viñas said.

Voting can’t be done online, due to a P5 member’s opposition, so paper voting isn’t the new norm they April:

“So far, they have only voted on resolutions that are not contentious and have agreed to renew peacekeeping missions. In July, we expect the cross-border resolution on Syria to be quite contentious and the system wouldn’t work. They are trying to figure out as they go what would work,” Viñas continued.
— Via Devex

More importantly for an institution that has been battered and struggling amidst many other crises, leadership has been missing. According to Column Lynch:

“This crisis has shown that neither China nor the U.S. is ready and able to lead the U.N. system,” Richard Gowan, the U.N. representative for the International Crisis Group, told Foreign Policy. “The French deserve credit for trying to pull everyone together, but the P5 [the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council] are so fractured that even Macron has struggled to unite them.”
— Read on Foreign Policy

New York City Officials Warning to UN Diplomats

What happens to international diplomats in NY at the UN headquarters when the Coronavirus knows no borders? Apparently the are on their own., according to Colin Lynch:

New York City officials advised the U.N. diplomatic community on Saturday that the coronavirus has spread widely through the city and could potentially linger as a threat to the health of residents until as late as September.

“Everyone in New York should assume that they have been in contact with COVID 19,” according to a read out of a conference call with New York-based diplomats, which was reviewed by Foreign Policy.

— Via (subscription required) foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/14/new-york-officials-tell-un-coronavirus-has-spread-throughout-city/

Dirty Politics Works, and Other Ethical Dilemmas

What does it mean that Netanyahu, facing corruption charges, appears to be the winning Prime Minister–against all odds. Schmuel Rosner writes, citing a memorable story with Golds Meir that you ha e to “want it” to win. Bibi wants.

The lessons we take away are not pretty. If you are concerned about the ethical implications when anything goes, it appears that might makes right.

For Israelis, the real bad news in Mr. Netanyahu’s victory is that we learned once again that ugly campaigns are effective. Divisiveness works. There is real danger that the prime minister’s rivals will learn a lesson from his success and imitate him in future elections — somewhat similarly to the way American leaders could be tempted to imitate the unrestrained ways of Mr. Trump. And if his rivals do learn from him, Mr. Netanyahu, who has already shown that he wants the job more passionately than all others, will surely up the ante, making Israel more polarized and less tolerant.

Via NYT Opinion

What to See on Diplomacy at Sundance 2020

Here’s an aggregated list of diplomacy and international relations film picks from a sea of options at the Sundance Film Festival 2020, just up the street from me. The films touch on politics, global issues, and diplomacy skills (conflict resolution, negotiation, peacemaking, persuasion) and should afford fresh insights–but be prepared. Not every film at Sundance is ready to impress. (I find a lot of films each year reveal important topics but aren’t great films. Some lack fit the niche but fall short in narrative or run too long.)

Even so, it’s an exciting scene and fun be at the screening of brand new films in Park City or at venues across the Wasatch Front with a very non -local crowd.

---

Via EW.com:

A Thousand Cuts / U.S.A., Philippines (Director and screenwriter: Ramona S. Diaz, Producers: Ramona S. Diaz, Leah Marino, Julie Goldman, Chris Clements, Carolyn Hepburn) — Nowhere is the worldwide erosion of democracy, fueled by social media disinformation campaigns, more starkly evident than in the authoritarian regime of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. Journalist Maria Ressa places the tools of the free press—and her freedom—on the line in defense of truth and democracy. World Premiere

Welcome to Chechnya / U.S.A. (Director: David France, Producers: Alice Henty, David France, Askold Kurov, Joy A. Tomchin) — This searing investigative work shadows a group of activists risking unimaginable peril to confront the ongoing anti-LGBTQ pogrom raging in the repressive and closed Russian republic. Unfettered access and a remarkable approach to protecting anonymity exposes this under-reported atrocity–and an extraordinary group of people confronting evil. World Premiere

The Earth Is Blue as an Orange / Ukraine, Lithuania (Director: Iryna Tsilyk, Producers: Anna Kapustina, Giedrė Žickytė) — To cope with the daily trauma of living in a war zone, Anna and her children make a film together about their life among surreal surroundings. World Premiere

Epicentro / Austria, France, U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: Hubert Sauper, Producers: Martin Marquet, Daniel Marquet, Gabriele Kranzelbinder, Paolo Calamita) — Cuba is well known as a so-called time capsule. The place where the New World was discovered has become both a romantic vision and a warning. With ongoing global cultural and financial upheavals, large parts of the world could face a similar kind of existence. World Premiere

Influence / South Africa, Canada (Directors and Screenwriters: Diana Neille, Richard Poplak, Producers: Bob Moore, Neil Brandt) — Charting the recent advancements in weaponized communication by investigating the rise and fall of the world’s most notorious public relations and reputation management firm: the British multinational Bell Pottinger. World Premiere

Once Upon A Time in Venezuela / Venezuela, United Kingdom, Brazil, Austria (Director: Anabel Rodríguez Ríos, Screenwriters: Anabel Rodríguez Ríos, Sepp R. Brudermann, Producer: Sepp R. Brudermann) — Once upon a time, the Venezuelan village of Congo Mirador was prosperous, alive with fisherman and poets. Now it is decaying and disintegrating–a small but prophetic reflection of Venezuela itself. World Premiere

Sergio / U.S.A. (Director: Greg Barker, Screenwriter: Craig Borten, Producers: Brent Travers, Daniel Dreifuss, Wagner Moura) — A sweeping drama set in the chaotic aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, where the life of top UN diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello hangs in the balance during the most treacherous mission of his career. Cast: Wagner Moura, Ana de Armas, Garret Dillahunt, Will Dalton, Bradley Whitford, Brían F. O’Byrne. World Premiere

The Dissident / U.S.A. (Director: Bryan Fogel, Screenwriters: Mark Monroe, Bryan Fogel, Producers: Bryan Fogel, Jake Swantko, Mark Monroe, Thor Halvorssen) — When Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi disappears after entering Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Istanbul, his fiancée and dissidents around the world are left to piece together the clues to a brutal murder and expose a global cover up perpetrated by the very country he loved. World Premiere

Hillary / U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: Nanette Burstein) — A portrait of a public woman, interweaving moments from never-before-seen 2016 campaign footage with biographical chapters of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s life. Featuring exclusive interviews with Hillary herself, Bill Clinton, friends, and journalists, an examination of how she became simultaneously one of the most admired and vilified women in the world. World Premiere

---

Suggestions from Kenneth Turran, LA Times

Ironbark”: Based-on-fact spy dramas are always a treat, especially when starring Benedict Cumberbatch as an ordinary man drawn into the maelstrom of the Cuban missile crisis.

“Boys State”: A high-energy fly-on-the-wall look at what happens when 1,000 Texas high school students gather over a week to wheel and deal and attempt to construct a representative government.

“The Mole Agent”: Wry, charming, gently observational, this Chilean doc introduces the world’s oldest undercover agent, an 83-year-old man hired to see how a nursing home is doing its job. An AARP version of a John LeCarre film, and none the worse for that.

Collective”: A knockout Romanian doc, already a hit at Venice and Toronto, that shows a variety of citizens who refused to be intimidated by entrenched corruption.

Assassins”: The story of the two women who took out the half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is so bizarre you almost can’t believe it happened.

The Go-Go’s”: A thorough and detailed account, made with current and past band members, detailing the rise, fall, and rise again of the beloved L.A. all-female band. [Not directly related to diplomacy–except that thanks to many things from #MeToo to a rise in female leaders around the globe, it’s quickly becoming a woman’s world. This film shows off some late 20th century rock trailblazers.]

An Inside Look at Diplomacy through Text

How do diplomatic negotiations look when you break them down into snippets…literally text messages between ambassadors and heads of state? This week we got a unique look–thanks to President Trump’s Ukraine scandal–and The Daily podcast from the New York Times–and it gives us the essence of the controversy.

One memorable exchange:

Michael Barbaro: So the fact that these two countries are negotiating, that’s not the problem …its like, in some ways, that’s what diplomacy is all about. Its the content, its what is on the table that is so unorthodox.

Julian E. Barnes: Absolutely. Countries, diplomats constantly do negotiations about what one side will do and what the other will do. But diplomacy is about negotiating for the national interest. And here, we have the Ukrainians negotiation for their national interests and we have the Americans negotiating for the interests of Donald Trump. … and his reelection.

The House Democrats leading the impeachment inquiry of President Trump called their first witness: Kurt Volker, a top American diplomat involved in the negotiations with Ukraine. We look at what Mr. Volker’s testimony — and the text messages he turned over to Congress — revealed about the inquiry’s direction. Guest: Julian E. Barnes, who covers national security for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. 

Background coverage: A text exchange appears to show a dispute among American diplomats over whether President Trump was seeking a quid pro quo from Ukraine.A second whistle-blower, said to have firsthand knowledge about the president’s dealings with Ukraine, has come forward.

Country Focus: Venezuela

This week on 10.2.19 Frank Mora of FIU will talk about prospects for Venezuela as part of the Council on Foreign Relations conference call fall 2019 series.

These readings will be useful as a background for the discussion and overall country research:

1) “The Venezuelan Exodus,” In Brief, Council on Foreign Relations, July 8, 2019.

2) Frank O. Mora, “Stabilizing Venezuela: Scenarios and Options,” Contingency Planning Memorandum Update, Council on Foreign Relations, June 14, 2019.

3) Frank O. Mora, “What a Military Intervention in Venezuela Would Look Like: Getting In Would Be the Easy Part,” ForeignAffairs.com, March 19, 2019.

4) “Venezuela: The Rise and Fall of a Petrostate,” Backgrounder, Council on Foreign Relations, January 24, 2019.

5) Moisés Naím and Francisco Toro, “Venezuela’s Suicide: Lessons From a Failed State,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2018.

Mora is Director, Kimberly Green Latin American and Caribbean Center, and Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, Florida International University