Regardless, I don't see how including Germany makes any sense.

Regards, C

The notion that Germany belongs on the UNSC is particularly puzzling. Europe is moving towards a federal system and already has two seats on the UNSC. Why is a third seat a good idea? Other than, perhaps, you like the way Germany is likely to vote. Would the way Germany is likely to vote be likely to help or injure American interests?

There's more than one reason to place greater reliance on international institutions. If it's to build greater support and consensus for doing the right thing, I'm all for it. If it's as an alternative towards the U. S. taking action itself, it sounds like another word for isolationism.

As the world's foremost proponent of free trade, the U. S. is already the leader in the “global fight against poverty”. Is that what he means? China and India's increased foreign trade have done more to end poverty in those countries than every other anti-poverty program in human history combined. I note with chagrin that, unless this particular bullet refers to free trade, there doesn't seem to be much about free trade in his list. That's a shame because historically opening up trade has been one of our strengths.

Terrorism is no threat to us, our inability to think straight in a crisis and our inability to practice the "stiff upper lip" pose a moderate threat to our financial and civil liberties.

Tlaloc, why don't you send me your home address. I'll come over and run my car into your house. Oh, by the way, have your wife and children in the room where my car is going to smash into and then we'll see how stiff your upper lip is.

And then your whole doom and gloom analyses of our current upswing of global temperature is almost amusing. The earth has been fluctuating its temperature since its creation. There isn't much humans can do about "Mother Nature" and her mood swings. The experts I read state we are in the upswing of a 1500 year cycle. It will cool down when it's time.

In the mean time, hope it isn't your office building or airplane or bus or subway or etc. they target next.

Editor's note: This comment is on the borderline of being in violation of site policies. I'm taking this as a poorly made analogy rather than an actual threat of bodily harm but there are better ways to make a point.

Last time I checked, China was already a permanent member of the Security Council.

Right but not the G-8. That paragraph isn't as clean as it ought have been, I guess.

huh?
Last time I checked, China was already a permanent member of the Security Council.

Richardson is proposing adding "Japan, India, Germany, and one country each from Africa and Latin America."

That’s all innocuous enough, although it’s rather dubious to argue that “environmental crises” and “the consumption of fossil fuels” are now foreign policy threats on par with terrorism;

Terrorism isn't an existential threat, not by the wildest stretch of imagination. 9/11 was the most incredibly spectacular terrorist attack ever and the real physical effect was pretty negligible. Had we not freaked out (the psychological effect) we would have been just fine. Terrorism is no threat to us, our inability to think straight in a crisis and our inability to practice the "stiff upper lip" pose a moderate threat to our financial and civil liberties.

On the other hand environmental issue are a very real existential threat. A mean global temperature change of only a couple degrees will spark off a mass extinction which will directly threaten the ecosystem we rely upon. Shifts in weather patterns may radically alter growing conditions so that our entire current agricultural infrastructure becomes inapplicable. Modern transportation capabilities mean that a bug on par with the influenza pandemic of 1918 could kill, instead of 100 million, billions. Potable drinking water is becoming a scarce commodity. Air quality has seen improvements in the last few decades fortunately.

Don't kid yourself about which has more capacity to harm us, and thus which is a greater policy (even foreign policy) issue- some cave dwelling religious nuts or the awesome power of mother nature.

He has a whole bunch of "what the problems are" listed, but no too many hows.

Half his article is devoted to "hows." Indeed, just my bullet points above are pretty extensive and he fleshes those out in reasonable detail for a three pager.

He says America must repair alliances-okay-what alliances and how?

our reliance on oil (foreign _or_ domestic) could very rapidly become a critical issue.

Not much doubt about that. It's just not clear that there's an IR solution to that. Rather, it seems to me, we need to develop alternate technologies and the infrastructure to replace the current gasoline pump model.

although it’s rather dubious to argue that “environmental crises” and “the consumption of fossil fuels” are now foreign policy threats on par with terrorism

I'm not so sure... considering that China's demand for fossil fuels is expected to grow enormously in the next 10-20 years, and that their economy may be better able to pay higher prices for it, our reliance on oil (foreign _or_ domestic) could very rapidly become a critical issue...