19 September 2001
How to Think About International Politics
I blogged Joseph Farah's recent column not because I necessarily agree with his conclusions, but because his approach is interesting.
The best analysts of international politics -- of politics in general, really -- are able to make such connections or observations (what some would call facts), and then draw important conclusions and/or make predictions based upon them. For example, my boss was one of the few commentators to predict the breakup of Yugoslavia and resulting ethnic wars many years before the fact -- what many thought was a fantastic prediction that eventually came to play out exactly as he thought. He's established a lengthy political-risk track record of making those sorts of predictions, and I hope one day my own record might be so good. Yet nobody believes him when he points out that one line from Montesquieu drove him to a prediction on Yugoslavia that ultimately played out.
Often, in the business of interpreting and analyzing international politics, one little piece of information will help fit all of the puzzle together. That's why it is important to gather plenty of information, from various sources, and to attempt to understand that information on its own terms. Ayn Rand's thought may contribute to the process, but it is important NOT to filter the data THROUGH a Randian framework. Clausewitz's thought may contribute as well, but not if one simply attempts to fit the facts to Clausewitz's framework. The critical skills required for successful analysis of international politics are significant, because it's hard to strip one's biases in the manner I suggest in order to gather relevant facts.
Turning back to the Farah piece -- what do his facts mean?
It IS curious that China signed an MOU with the Taliban last week, something I noted at the time for our China file at work, and emailed to a number of people with the query "What does this mean?" There are always many possibilities to work through. The Chinese could simply be blowing smoke. They could be fomenting unrest on the old Russian flank as part of the ongoing battle between Bear and Dragon. They could be pacifying the Taliban while they suppress a rebel movement within their own territory. They could be encouraging a radical Islamist movement that has always been more opposed to the West than the East. It could be a combination of these possibilities, or none at all. Eventually, the expenditure of blood, treasure, and other resources will enlighten the analyst who is paying attention (or, the lack of same will be an indication that the Chinese were just blowing smoke -- that high policy was NOT at work) and asking the right questions.
Farah's other connections? Somewhat less interesting to me. But that's part of the challenge as well -- to ask the right questions about the right facts. Sometimes it leads good analysts to rather fantastic possibilities. But then, how many people correctly predicted the year of the breakup of Yugoslavia well beforehand?
[Posted @ 11:10 PM CST]
