Look out hybrid owners, there's a new eco-car in town. This Summer, Honda will release its new "FCX Clarity" hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for lease in parts of Japan and Southern California. It boasts improvements over older models, including a much smaller fuel cell that gives the car ample interior space as well as a lithium ion battery to store excess energy for later use and improve the car's overall efficiency. In case you haven't heard of this technology, the fuel cell basically mixes hydrogen and oxygen to create water and uses the energy from that process to power the vehicle. So the vehicle's byproduct, rather than CO2, is a much friendlier 2-letter 1-number combination: H2O.

The reason the car is being released in such a limited capacity is because the car doesn't use gasoline, so in order to refuel it, you need special refueling station. In parts of Southern California, Honda has created a "home energy station" that would put your gauge back on "F" while the car is in the garage. And though it would be quite cool to always set out on the open road with your car already fueled up, these stations produce hydrogen using natural gas, which is less than ideal. For now, hydrogen refueling stations are not widespread in the United States, but given high gas prices and the fact that the car itself zero emissions and--in my opinion--pretty sporty, maybe they will be soon.

The Atlantic blogger and author of the Heads in the Sand: How The Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up The Democrats talks to UN Dispatch about his new book, explains why Americans need to get in touch with our liberal internationalist roots, and warns against displacing multi-lateral institutions with so-called "concerts of democracies."

UND: Your book offers a political history of the main foreign policy debates that have dominated Washington for the past decade or so. You survey the current sorry state of American foreign policy and pull no punches in laying blame at the feet of Democratic and Republican party leaders alike. In what ways are the two parties responsible for the mess we are in?

MY: Well, I think the Republican responsibility is pretty clear -- they've been running the show. Democrats, however, were deeply complicit in the biggest mistake of the era -- the invasion of Iraq -- with the bulk of the party leadership endorsing the invasion and even most party leaders who didn't sign on for Bush's folly being unwilling to renounce the big strategic concepts like preventive war and a hazily defined "war on terror" that undergirded Iraq.

UND: Following on that, you argue that one grand strategic vision that we would be wise to reconnect to is idea of liberal internationalism. For the uninitiated, can you spell out what sorts of policies underpin liberal internationalism?

MY: In the most general sense, liberal internationalism holds out an ideal of a world in which international relations is conducted through rules and institutions rather than force and coercion. Ever since the failures of Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations, smart liberals have recognized that the internationalist ideal is hard to achieve, but in its wiser moments postwar American policy has always sought to bring us closer to that ideal. In that light, the European Union is very much an instantiation of liberal internationalism, as are other less-developed regional institutions.

But most of all, liberal internationalist policies seek to work through, strengthen, and uphold institutions of global or near-global reach -- things like the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. In this sense, liberal internationalism is a worldview rather than a specific set of policies. But if you look at a specific area of policy like, say, non-proliferation issues, the internationalist worldview leads to the conclusion that the United States must seek to advance its non-proliferation goals through revitalizing the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- including a stepped-up commitment to meeting our own NPT obligations -- rather than through preventive war.

UND: Is this what you mean by "In With the Old?" [a chapter title in the book]. Similarly, by naming one of your chapters "After Victory" are you secretly trying to channel G. John Ickenberry?

MY: I don't think the Ikenberry-channeling is all that secret, I cite him at a couple of points in the text and, yes, the chapter title was a reference to his book -- a reference I think my publishing company didn't get or they probably would have hated it for being too obscure. I titled my last chapter "in with the old" to suggest that contrary to current fashion we don't really need dramatic "new ideas" to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

In part, that's simple humility on my part. The book, structurally, required a chapter of constructive solutions rather than criticism. But it would be silly for a 26 year-old blogger/journalist to claim to have made grand new strides in the theory of international politics. But really I think the main elements of liberal internationalist theory have been in place for a while now. There's been a group of people in this country who, from "rollback" debate in the 1950s on to the "Team B" exercise in the 1980s to today have consistently derided the internationalist approach, but they keep being proven wrong. After 9/11, they were given the opportunity to really seize the political agenda in an unprecedented way and the results have been disastrous. My argument is that we should go back to what was working before.

To cycle this back around to Ikenberry, he has an idea called "strategic restraint" that's very much in opposition to the neoconservative idea that, as Charles Krauthammer puts it, we have it within our power to reshape the world if only we engage in "unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will." In fact, as we've seen in Iraq we have no such ability. What's more, these kind of demonstrations of will actually tend to push potential allies away from us by making the United States look frightening. To successfully influence events far beyond our borders in a sustainable way, we need to act through means that other regard as legitimate.

UND: One new idea on the table that you criticize in the book is creating a "concert of democracies" to supplant traditional multilateral institutions like the United Nations. Supporters of this idea would contend that creating such a forum would help the United States avoid crippling debates among adversaries like Russia or China. What's so wrong with that?

MY: Well, it's all a bit confusing because oftentimes proponents of the idea deny that they want to supplant the United Nations. But basically, it's true that the U.N. Security Council voting process is cumbersome and, at times, annoying. But it's the very cumbersome nature of the process that lends it it's unique legitimacy. An endeavor that can secure the kind of broad-based support necessary to win the blessing of the [Security Council] can't be dismissed by its targets as reflecting the narrow interests of any one power or any particular ideological quirk.

A league of democracies could be a useful supplement to the international arena if its activities were kept on an appropriately modest level. But some have suggested that one function of the league might be to authorize military activities outside the Article 7 process. I'm doubtful that any of the world's major non-U.S. democracies would actually go along with this idea but if they did it would set us on a path for a new cold war style conflict with China and Russia with dire consequences for the world. John McCain appears to think this is a good idea, but the concert of democracies concept has some proponents who don't want to see a new cold war and don't want to reorganize the world around Sino-American conflict but I have a hard time understanding what it is those people think they're doing.

Ivo Daalder and Paul Stares argue for Security Council action on Burma.

The United States and Britain should join with the French government and introduce a resolution in the UN Security Council demanding that the Burmese government immediately allow the entry of international relief supplies and personnel into the country and allow the UN to take charge of the relief mission. To make the case, Washington should show detailed imagery of the suffering and the extent of devastation in Burma (as it did so effectively in the cases of Bosnia and Darfur to shock a disbelieving United Nations).

The resolution should hold open the possibility of additional measures - including air drops of relief supplies - if the government did not comply at once. And the Security Council could commit to return to the matter in 24 hours, assess Burma's response, and consider additional actions.

I completely agree with the sentiment expressed, but the authors do not address the tricky question of what happens to the relief after its been airdropped. As a number of UN aid officials have warned, simply dropping in supplies without setting up proper distribution mechanisms can be as dangerous as not dropping in supplies at all.

Their broader point, though, makes sense. Taking this to the Security Council could help pressure to the junta so that they do cooperate with relief efforts. They key here is China. Should Beijing lend its support to a Security Council measure demanding the junta cooperate with UN relief agencies, we may just see the junta budge.

>>China - A 7.8 magnitude earthquake jolted Sichuan yesterday leaving nearly 12,000 dead so far. The shock, felt as far away as Bangkok, severed road, rail, air, and phone links to the region, hampering relief efforts and forcing some Chinese troops to march as much as 100 miles to reach affected areas. Tens of thousands are still trapped in collapsed buildings, including 900 teenagers in a school in Dujiangyan city. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao flew to the scene and made an emotional statement on CCTV.

>>Iraq - Violence flared again in Sadr City yesterday, as U.S. troops were attacked by who are thought to be supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr. These attacks put into question the agreement reached on Saturday between the government of Iraq and Sadr to end fighting and the amount of control that Sadr has over his supporters.

>>Lebanon - Yesterday, as violence eased across Lebanon, the Lebanese Army, long seen as a neutral institution, said that it would begin to use force to stop fighting between government supporters and Hezbollah. The army remains deployed to the mountains east of Beirut and northern Lebanon as part of an agreement for them to take over militia positions and collect arms. Reportedly, some government supporters are beginning to distrust the army because it did not stop Hezbollah from seizing control of western Beirut on Friday.

• The Pop Becomes Political
• Gareth Evans on Myanmar Situation and R2P

Africa

• Nigeria - Obasanjo denies power corruption
• South Africa - South African mob kills migrants
• Sudan - Sudan briefly detains Islamist for alleged rebel links
• South Africa - Apartheid court case can go ahead in New York
• Sudan - Chad closes its border with Sudan
• Kenya - In Kenya, Violence Shakes Running Community
• Sudan - Fear after mass arrests in Sudan
• Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe MDC says regional observers enough for run-off

Americas

• Bolivia - Morales sets Bolivia recall date
• Venezuela - Venezuela takes over steel firm
• Haiti - Haiti MPs reject new PM candidate

Asia

• China - Dalai Lama Expects Talks With China to Resume
• Philippines - Philippines pardons coup leaders
• Timor - Horta wants UN to stay in E Timor
• Japan - Japan's teenage smokers face wrinkle test
• Korea - S.Korea to discuss North's nuclear list with China

Europe

• Serbia - Serbia Braces for Electoral Showdown
• Serbia - Socialists hold key to power in Serbia
• France - France to liberate retail industry

Middle East

• Lebanon - Lebanese troops fail to stop violence between Hizbullah and pro-government forces
• Israel - Israel police seize Olmert papers
• Israel - Gaza Rocket Kills Another Israeli
• Lebanon - Bush offers help for Lebanon army
• Iraq - Violence flares in Baghdad's Sadr City despite truce