Joe Lieberman’s proposal to strip the U.S. citizenship of anyone who is even accused of supporting with a terrorist group, without any due process, is so clearly unconstitutional that both Democrats and Republicans alike have ridiculed it.
But there is a small, admittedly irresponsible part of me that wants this law passed.
The rightwing yahoos, the most wild-eyed wingnuts, love this plan. “You ain’t a real Umurkin anymore, Abu, hit the trail!!”
But they don’t realize that a key provision in the law gives overwhelming police power to the all-time hero of the American wingnut community…Hillary Clinton.
The law prescribes that the Secretary of State has power that is incredibly broad, pardon the expression: the power to decide who should lose their citizenship, and then execute the decision. All Hillary needs to do is make a “determination” and send a letter to the Attorney General, and poof! You’re no longer a citizen.
So the wingnuts are hollering to win passage of a law which will give their worst (imaginary) enemy the power to take away their citizenship, and also supporting other bills which would strip non-citizens of virtually all of the freedoms we take for granted – like the Arizona law, and others under consideration in places like Texas.
So put the pieces together. Hillary declares that a local Texas yahoo militia is a terrorist group, and that its members are no longer citizens. And then the Texas police act on their new-found police powers to arrest the militia members on the street without probable cause and throw them in jail, indefinitely, even if no crime is committed.
Cue scary music!
Cue conspiracy theories!
Cue black helicopters!
And the lesson here, you fascist morons, is two-fold: (a) if you tell lawmakers to take away freedom from others, then you lose your freedom as well, particularly when (b) your rock-throwing, gun-waving behavor makes you look like – what’s the word? Terrorists. Acting like terrorists, and calling for terrorists to be thrown in a cell without trial, all at the same time – it’s a kinda stupid strategy. Giving wingnut nemesis Hillary Clinton the power to take your freedom away, just makes it stupid and funny at the same time.
And for bonus points, did anybody spot the historical irony in this story? Lieberman is getting his ideas about stripping citizenship from undesireables from…that’s right, the Third Reich. Who meted this treatment out to…that’s right, the Jews.
Oh, and a side-note: did you notice that John Boehner actually did the responsible thing, in shooting down Lieberman? That’s because the Republicans are starting to believe their own bullcrap: they really believe they can take the House, so Boehner is starting to act “Speaker-like”.
Showing posts with label diplomacy and security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diplomacy and security. Show all posts
Friday, 7 May 2010
When Republicans commit treason, it's called "citizen's arrest"
As we know, the Republicans like to make stuff up – not only facts, but the very words we use. For every political jihad they fight, the bumper sticker phrases are sure to follow in short order: death panels, permanent bailouts, checkbook tax, tax-and-spend liberal, soft on terrorism, “Support the Troops!”, Kenyan socialism and all the other neologisms.
Their latest gambit: to redefine treason by calling it “citizens arrest”.
As we know, they have set up this incredibly dangerous group called the “Oath Keepers”, which is itself a laughable syllogism because the very intent of the group is to encourage armed men – military and police -- to violate their oaths of duty. Specifically, the aim of the group is to organize armed people to “resist” President Obama because they took an oath to defend the Constitution, and Obama allegedly is violating the Constitution by illegally occupying the presidency.
And now they are putting this into action.
Not long ago, a man in Tennessee demanded that the local grand jury “indict” Obama for his crime, and try him for treason. The grand jury unsurprisingly refused. The man showed up to execute a “citizens arrest” of the grand jury foreman, who is black – to use physical force to stop a legally-selected government official from doing his job. The police arrested the would-be arresting officer. An outraged Oath Keeper, formerly Navy and currently “militia”, showed up with an AK47 to free his ally, and ultimately was also arrested. Other armed men showed up also, and they threatened to bring more. Along the way the Oath Keeper also tried, at one point, to execute citizen’s arrest on the cops who arrested him.
The Oath Keepers are now writing letters to Supreme Court Justice Scalia, demanding justice for their comrades.
The Oath Keepers say they are certain that Obama will come to take their guns and put them in concentration camps. And now that they have been disarmed and arrested, they can say “see, we were right!”
So we have a group of current and former military and law enforcement, concocting plans to use armed violence to stop legitimate government functions.
Also known as “treason”.
For extra credit, look up a bunch called “Repent Amarillo”, a vigilante group that focuses on harassment of gay bars, theatres that should gay-themed plays, a local park (because witches could use it), and eventually a Planned Parenthood site and possibly the entire city of Houston (because they made the terrible mistake of electing a gay mayor).
Next: I took these ideas below from original founding documents. Does this sound like a good working definition of the Oath Keepers? And their teabagger pals?
In the quest for red-blooded American manhood, the group seeks brotherhood with other men who possess the qualifications for membership who share the same beliefs, spirit, character, interest and purpose, united native-born U.S. citizens with no allegiance to any foreign nation or sect, organizing the patriotic sentiment of native-born Americans for the defense of distinctively American institutions, dedicated to the principle that America shall be made American through the promulgation of American doctrines, the dissemination of American ideals, the creation of wholesome American sentiment, the preservation of American institutions. The aim is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and protect the states and the people thereof from all invasion of their right from any source whatsoever. Major offenses include Treason against the United States of America, violating the oath of allegiance to the groupr or any supplementary oath of obligation thereof, and violation of the Constitution or laws of this order by conspiracy, relinquishment or forfeiture of citizenship, or support of any foreign power against the United States of America. All influence that seek to destroy the sanctity of the American home must be destroyed; the home must be protected, and womanhood must be protected.
The group is organized on a military plan for quick, united action. The member will protect order. His resistance is to be unyielding. The true member is a man and will not be moved by threats of enemies, or threats of punishment by any person or power whatsoever, or by persecution of any kind. He can be loyal and true in the face of every sort of impending danger. He will not yield his honor even for the price of his safety. His resistance will be unswerving. He has sworn, "I will die rather than divulge same, so help me God”. Every member is pledged to go at any time without hesitation to the assistance or rescue of a fellow member in any way. With uplifted hand, every member has committed himself; "at his call I will answer."
The reason I ask, is that the ideals expressed in those two paragraphs came from the Ku Klux Klan manual, 1925.
I ask this also because those Oath-Keeper morons just tried to launch an armed revolt against a grand jury session in Tennessee.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/activist_seeking_to_indict_obama_for_treason_says.php?ref=fpb
From the link:
AGJ members believe that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen -- a constitutional requirement to serve as president -- because his father was Kenyan, and therefore a British subject, at the time of Obama's birth. "There was no question that to be natural born, you must have parents of the soil, born on the soil," said Swensson. "By Barack's own admission, his father was Kenyan." The founders instituted this requirement, Swensson added, in order "to prevent the possibility of divided loyalties. And now here we are."
Let's remember to hold the Republicans to their own loyalty standard next time around.
Piyush Jindal's parents are immigrants from a country with millions of Muslims; he was raised a Hindu until converting in high school (unlike Obama, Jindal really was raised in an Asian religion). Jindal named himself "Bobby" after the Brady Bunch character.
Charlie Crist also Americanized his name; he is actually Charles Christodoulos, born to Greek immigrants.
Rudy Giuliani, Italian immigrants.
Sarah Palin has expressed support for Alaskan secession -- would her first loyalty be to the U.S. or Alaska?
Haley Barbour is part Native American. Loyal to the U.S. or to his tribe, which was conquered by the U.S.?
And if McCain runs again -- loyal to the U.S., or to his nation of birth, Panama?
John Huntsman lived extensively in Asia and adopted children from China and India; these children will have dual citizenship. What if we get in a scrape with China during a Huntsman administration? Where would his loyalties lie?
Rick Perry has even more divided loyalties -- his parents were (gasp) Democrats! How can you be loyal to the Democratic party and still be loyal to (sniff) Uhmurka??
So Republicans need to stop and think about how stupid they really want to be about all this.
And one more thought: has it occurred to the Oath Keepers that some 30 percent of the military consists of people who are not white males? Setting aside the fact that demographically, minorities show their bravery and patriotism by joining the military in larger numbers than the white guys, there's also the fact that when these guys come home, they most emphatically do not share the sentiments of the Oath Keepers, particularly respecting Obama. And for that matter, there are plenty of white soldiers who support Obama, particularly since he has supported them better than Bush did (got your armor protection finally, boys?).
Their latest gambit: to redefine treason by calling it “citizens arrest”.
As we know, they have set up this incredibly dangerous group called the “Oath Keepers”, which is itself a laughable syllogism because the very intent of the group is to encourage armed men – military and police -- to violate their oaths of duty. Specifically, the aim of the group is to organize armed people to “resist” President Obama because they took an oath to defend the Constitution, and Obama allegedly is violating the Constitution by illegally occupying the presidency.
And now they are putting this into action.
Not long ago, a man in Tennessee demanded that the local grand jury “indict” Obama for his crime, and try him for treason. The grand jury unsurprisingly refused. The man showed up to execute a “citizens arrest” of the grand jury foreman, who is black – to use physical force to stop a legally-selected government official from doing his job. The police arrested the would-be arresting officer. An outraged Oath Keeper, formerly Navy and currently “militia”, showed up with an AK47 to free his ally, and ultimately was also arrested. Other armed men showed up also, and they threatened to bring more. Along the way the Oath Keeper also tried, at one point, to execute citizen’s arrest on the cops who arrested him.
The Oath Keepers are now writing letters to Supreme Court Justice Scalia, demanding justice for their comrades.
The Oath Keepers say they are certain that Obama will come to take their guns and put them in concentration camps. And now that they have been disarmed and arrested, they can say “see, we were right!”
So we have a group of current and former military and law enforcement, concocting plans to use armed violence to stop legitimate government functions.
Also known as “treason”.
For extra credit, look up a bunch called “Repent Amarillo”, a vigilante group that focuses on harassment of gay bars, theatres that should gay-themed plays, a local park (because witches could use it), and eventually a Planned Parenthood site and possibly the entire city of Houston (because they made the terrible mistake of electing a gay mayor).
Next: I took these ideas below from original founding documents. Does this sound like a good working definition of the Oath Keepers? And their teabagger pals?
In the quest for red-blooded American manhood, the group seeks brotherhood with other men who possess the qualifications for membership who share the same beliefs, spirit, character, interest and purpose, united native-born U.S. citizens with no allegiance to any foreign nation or sect, organizing the patriotic sentiment of native-born Americans for the defense of distinctively American institutions, dedicated to the principle that America shall be made American through the promulgation of American doctrines, the dissemination of American ideals, the creation of wholesome American sentiment, the preservation of American institutions. The aim is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and protect the states and the people thereof from all invasion of their right from any source whatsoever. Major offenses include Treason against the United States of America, violating the oath of allegiance to the groupr or any supplementary oath of obligation thereof, and violation of the Constitution or laws of this order by conspiracy, relinquishment or forfeiture of citizenship, or support of any foreign power against the United States of America. All influence that seek to destroy the sanctity of the American home must be destroyed; the home must be protected, and womanhood must be protected.
The group is organized on a military plan for quick, united action. The member will protect order. His resistance is to be unyielding. The true member is a man and will not be moved by threats of enemies, or threats of punishment by any person or power whatsoever, or by persecution of any kind. He can be loyal and true in the face of every sort of impending danger. He will not yield his honor even for the price of his safety. His resistance will be unswerving. He has sworn, "I will die rather than divulge same, so help me God”. Every member is pledged to go at any time without hesitation to the assistance or rescue of a fellow member in any way. With uplifted hand, every member has committed himself; "at his call I will answer."
The reason I ask, is that the ideals expressed in those two paragraphs came from the Ku Klux Klan manual, 1925.
I ask this also because those Oath-Keeper morons just tried to launch an armed revolt against a grand jury session in Tennessee.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/activist_seeking_to_indict_obama_for_treason_says.php?ref=fpb
From the link:
AGJ members believe that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen -- a constitutional requirement to serve as president -- because his father was Kenyan, and therefore a British subject, at the time of Obama's birth. "There was no question that to be natural born, you must have parents of the soil, born on the soil," said Swensson. "By Barack's own admission, his father was Kenyan." The founders instituted this requirement, Swensson added, in order "to prevent the possibility of divided loyalties. And now here we are."
Let's remember to hold the Republicans to their own loyalty standard next time around.
Piyush Jindal's parents are immigrants from a country with millions of Muslims; he was raised a Hindu until converting in high school (unlike Obama, Jindal really was raised in an Asian religion). Jindal named himself "Bobby" after the Brady Bunch character.
Charlie Crist also Americanized his name; he is actually Charles Christodoulos, born to Greek immigrants.
Rudy Giuliani, Italian immigrants.
Sarah Palin has expressed support for Alaskan secession -- would her first loyalty be to the U.S. or Alaska?
Haley Barbour is part Native American. Loyal to the U.S. or to his tribe, which was conquered by the U.S.?
And if McCain runs again -- loyal to the U.S., or to his nation of birth, Panama?
John Huntsman lived extensively in Asia and adopted children from China and India; these children will have dual citizenship. What if we get in a scrape with China during a Huntsman administration? Where would his loyalties lie?
Rick Perry has even more divided loyalties -- his parents were (gasp) Democrats! How can you be loyal to the Democratic party and still be loyal to (sniff) Uhmurka??
So Republicans need to stop and think about how stupid they really want to be about all this.
And one more thought: has it occurred to the Oath Keepers that some 30 percent of the military consists of people who are not white males? Setting aside the fact that demographically, minorities show their bravery and patriotism by joining the military in larger numbers than the white guys, there's also the fact that when these guys come home, they most emphatically do not share the sentiments of the Oath Keepers, particularly respecting Obama. And for that matter, there are plenty of white soldiers who support Obama, particularly since he has supported them better than Bush did (got your armor protection finally, boys?).
Monday, 3 May 2010
Big bad federal gummint identifies bomber in two days
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/times-square-bomb-attempt_n_561673.html
And in two minutes, the wingnuts will start screaming that Big Bad Gummint is depriving him of his rights....
**UPDATE** -- Boy was I wrong! Now the wingnuts are complaining because Obama didn't deprive him of his rights. They are complaining that this U.S. citizen was actually Mirandized. Do these yuckapucks not understand that if we don't Mirandize them, then we lose a big pile of testimony and evidence under the poisoned-fruit doctrine? Do they understand that eventually we're going to need to start living up to that freedom and justice stuff, and actually put people on trial instead of torturing and killing them? Isn't that distinction a key reason why we removed Saddam from power?
That's the thing with Republican illogic -- it can go in any direction. When you're not tethered to reality, you can slam Obama for adhering to the rules too much, or not enough, or even both, all at the same time.
And in two minutes, the wingnuts will start screaming that Big Bad Gummint is depriving him of his rights....
**UPDATE** -- Boy was I wrong! Now the wingnuts are complaining because Obama didn't deprive him of his rights. They are complaining that this U.S. citizen was actually Mirandized. Do these yuckapucks not understand that if we don't Mirandize them, then we lose a big pile of testimony and evidence under the poisoned-fruit doctrine? Do they understand that eventually we're going to need to start living up to that freedom and justice stuff, and actually put people on trial instead of torturing and killing them? Isn't that distinction a key reason why we removed Saddam from power?
That's the thing with Republican illogic -- it can go in any direction. When you're not tethered to reality, you can slam Obama for adhering to the rules too much, or not enough, or even both, all at the same time.
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Graham complains when Obama did what he told him to do: move forward on immigration
Lindsey Graham is throwing a titanic hissy fit, to the effect that he must stop bilateral talks on climate change, because the Democratic effort of immigration is a “cynical ploy” which undermines the legislative process.
The problem?
Graham was working on immigration with Schumer and the other Democrats. In March he even complained that Obama wasn’t moving forward fast enough on it. "At the end of the day, the president needs to step it up a little bit.”
So Obama’s team does exactly what Graham said he should do. Cue the hissy fit.
Which tells us what we already knew: this has nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with peeing all over Obama no matter what he does.
The problem?
Graham was working on immigration with Schumer and the other Democrats. In March he even complained that Obama wasn’t moving forward fast enough on it. "At the end of the day, the president needs to step it up a little bit.”
So Obama’s team does exactly what Graham said he should do. Cue the hissy fit.
Which tells us what we already knew: this has nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with peeing all over Obama no matter what he does.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Another national security win for Obama
Obama has pesuaded the Ukrainians to give up their nuclear materials. This is a huge deal, now that we are trying to round up the fissile material which is being managed, or mismanaged, by up to 40 countries across the globe -- the Ukraine being among the leaders in this regard.
So the obvious question is -- are the Republicans going to increase our risk of a terrorist-run nuclear attack, by opposing this deal just to oppose it?
ADDENDUM -- this comes on the heels of Obama's big win with the Russian nuclear deal. The Republicans immediately began screeching that Obama was leaving us defenseless to nuclear attack, but their lies were so obviously stupid that a recent U.S. poll showed 70 percent support for the deal.
So the obvious question is -- are the Republicans going to increase our risk of a terrorist-run nuclear attack, by opposing this deal just to oppose it?
ADDENDUM -- this comes on the heels of Obama's big win with the Russian nuclear deal. The Republicans immediately began screeching that Obama was leaving us defenseless to nuclear attack, but their lies were so obviously stupid that a recent U.S. poll showed 70 percent support for the deal.
GOP is losing support among the military
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/04/military_poll_advance_041110w/
Support for the GOP has dropped like a rock among military professionals in the last few years. And, more importantly, it has dropped even more since Obama came into the picture.
This is undoubtedly because (a) they know better than anyone else how badly the Bush administration misused them, and (b) they know that Obama hustled to provide them with armor and health care and jobs for wives and better pay and everything else.
If the GOP can't even hold on to the military vote, what is left for them, other than the trailer-trash vote?
The wingnuts have this dream that the military are going to rise up and refuse to obey their "illegitimate" foreign commander in chief. Too bad for them that Obama is playing a dirty trick on them -- giving our troops competent leadership. Which they lacked for eight disastrous years.
ADDENDUM -- However, a tiny lunatic fringe is arising, consisting of both active duty and former military. They are taking the same stance as the Oath Keepers -- we don't take illegal orders from an illegal president etc etc. They overtly state that their aim is to pursue a conservative agenda and oppose Obama: "stand up on the very soil we defended to preserve common sense conservatism and defend our Constitution that is threatened by a tyrannical government".
...and another soldier is in a jam, for refusing to report and follow orders, on the argument that Obama is an illegitimate president. Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin. He's going to be court-martialed. Let the martyrdom begin!
...and the wingnuts, not content with hoping that the conventional military will defy Obama, are now trying to form a militia in Oklahoma to oppose and resist the federal government. They got some state legislators to sign on. And just now John Dean pointed out that the Constitution gives control of state militias to…Obama. So the only way for the Oklahoma militia to execute its stated purpose – fighting the federal gummint – is to violate the Constitution they say they’re defending.
Support for the GOP has dropped like a rock among military professionals in the last few years. And, more importantly, it has dropped even more since Obama came into the picture.
This is undoubtedly because (a) they know better than anyone else how badly the Bush administration misused them, and (b) they know that Obama hustled to provide them with armor and health care and jobs for wives and better pay and everything else.
If the GOP can't even hold on to the military vote, what is left for them, other than the trailer-trash vote?
The wingnuts have this dream that the military are going to rise up and refuse to obey their "illegitimate" foreign commander in chief. Too bad for them that Obama is playing a dirty trick on them -- giving our troops competent leadership. Which they lacked for eight disastrous years.
ADDENDUM -- However, a tiny lunatic fringe is arising, consisting of both active duty and former military. They are taking the same stance as the Oath Keepers -- we don't take illegal orders from an illegal president etc etc. They overtly state that their aim is to pursue a conservative agenda and oppose Obama: "stand up on the very soil we defended to preserve common sense conservatism and defend our Constitution that is threatened by a tyrannical government".
...and another soldier is in a jam, for refusing to report and follow orders, on the argument that Obama is an illegitimate president. Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin. He's going to be court-martialed. Let the martyrdom begin!
...and the wingnuts, not content with hoping that the conventional military will defy Obama, are now trying to form a militia in Oklahoma to oppose and resist the federal government. They got some state legislators to sign on. And just now John Dean pointed out that the Constitution gives control of state militias to…Obama. So the only way for the Oklahoma militia to execute its stated purpose – fighting the federal gummint – is to violate the Constitution they say they’re defending.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Lieberman threatens to screw us again, on nukes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/11/lieberman-nuclear-deal-ob_n_533204.html
Lieberman threatens to block the nuclear arms treaty like he did with the public option.
Now can we strip him of his committee chair and toss him out of the Democratic caucus?
Lieberman threatens to block the nuclear arms treaty like he did with the public option.
Now can we strip him of his committee chair and toss him out of the Democratic caucus?
Saturday, 28 November 2009
The menace from Fredonia
Let’s play a parlor trick on the Republicans.
Let’s send Robert Gibbs out to announce to the White House press corps that America faces an imminent attack from terrorists based in Fredonia.
And then wait for the insanity to begin.
Glenn Beck: (weeping) OMG the humanity! All the women and little children at risk of being MURDERED IN THEIR BEDS by these Fredonians!
Michael Steele: We’re imposing a new litmus test. Anyone Republican doesn’t take a hard line on Fredonians will be drummed out of the party.
Dick Cheney: We warned the Obama people about this Fredonia threat, but they just don’t care about endangering every American man, woman and child.
Sarah Palin: All ya gotta do is look at the dang map, and see the border between Fredonia and Ruritania, and the threat is so obvious that everybody but Obama can see it!
Joe Lieberman: Clearly Obama was remiss in not nuking Fredonia because of the obvious threat to Israel …
Orly Taitz: If Obama was a real American, he would have wiped out the Fredonians months ago!
Mitch McConnell: We’re introducing an amendment that will block all health care reform unless the Fredonian menace is met with military conquest – and all abortions and gay marriages are banned in conquered Fredonia.
Chris Matthews: back in my day, Lyndon Johnson was a real man, he never would have let this Fredonia thing spin out of control!
David Broder: If only Obama had the good sense to listen to the establishment and the moderates in his own party on Fredonia, we wouldn’t be in such terrible danger!
David Gregory: I’ve been to Fredonia many times, and I just can’t understand how the Obama administration lost control of this issue.
Boehner: …and those Fredonians have that creepy brown skin too. Gives me the willies.
Chuck Todd: In an overnight poll, two-thirds of Americans are afraid of Fredonia and think Obama isn’t doing enough to fight them.
McCain: My advisers told me to attack Obama last year for his naïve policy on Fredonia, but I don’t believe in going negative.
George Stephanopoulos: Bill Clinton would have reached a deal with these Fredonians before things got out of hand. Where is Obama on this??
Teabaggers: NUKE FRENODIA! NUKE FRENODIA!
Then we’ll explain to them that Fredonia is a fictional country invented by Groucho Marx.
And they STILL won’t back down. Because they never back down when they’re busted on their lies – they invariably double down on their bets, in the hope that America has more stupid people than smart people.
"I am Captain Spalding, the African explorer..."
Let’s send Robert Gibbs out to announce to the White House press corps that America faces an imminent attack from terrorists based in Fredonia.
And then wait for the insanity to begin.
Glenn Beck: (weeping) OMG the humanity! All the women and little children at risk of being MURDERED IN THEIR BEDS by these Fredonians!
Michael Steele: We’re imposing a new litmus test. Anyone Republican doesn’t take a hard line on Fredonians will be drummed out of the party.
Dick Cheney: We warned the Obama people about this Fredonia threat, but they just don’t care about endangering every American man, woman and child.
Sarah Palin: All ya gotta do is look at the dang map, and see the border between Fredonia and Ruritania, and the threat is so obvious that everybody but Obama can see it!
Joe Lieberman: Clearly Obama was remiss in not nuking Fredonia because of the obvious threat to Israel …
Orly Taitz: If Obama was a real American, he would have wiped out the Fredonians months ago!
Mitch McConnell: We’re introducing an amendment that will block all health care reform unless the Fredonian menace is met with military conquest – and all abortions and gay marriages are banned in conquered Fredonia.
Chris Matthews: back in my day, Lyndon Johnson was a real man, he never would have let this Fredonia thing spin out of control!
David Broder: If only Obama had the good sense to listen to the establishment and the moderates in his own party on Fredonia, we wouldn’t be in such terrible danger!
David Gregory: I’ve been to Fredonia many times, and I just can’t understand how the Obama administration lost control of this issue.
Boehner: …and those Fredonians have that creepy brown skin too. Gives me the willies.
Chuck Todd: In an overnight poll, two-thirds of Americans are afraid of Fredonia and think Obama isn’t doing enough to fight them.
McCain: My advisers told me to attack Obama last year for his naïve policy on Fredonia, but I don’t believe in going negative.
George Stephanopoulos: Bill Clinton would have reached a deal with these Fredonians before things got out of hand. Where is Obama on this??
Teabaggers: NUKE FRENODIA! NUKE FRENODIA!
Then we’ll explain to them that Fredonia is a fictional country invented by Groucho Marx.
And they STILL won’t back down. Because they never back down when they’re busted on their lies – they invariably double down on their bets, in the hope that America has more stupid people than smart people.
"I am Captain Spalding, the African explorer..."
Friday, 20 November 2009
Bush wanted terrorists tried in U.S.
"I believe they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States." —Bush on terror suspects at Guantanamo, 2006
Good catch from Cesca.
Good catch from Cesca.
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Why Afghanistan isn't Vietnam
In Vietnam, we cherished a lot of Cold-War myths about virtually all of the players involved: we had drunk the McCarthy Koolaid for so long, and terrorized ourselves with fear of Communism for so many years, that we persuaded ourselves that Communism was so obviously horrible that Communism's grip on the North Vietnamese would waver, while the American people and the South Vietnamese would never hesitate in pursuing the enemy. The fact was that Ho Chi Minh was much more a nationalist than a Communist and he was giving his people what they wanted, the expulsion of the invaders; that the South Vietnamese didn't see the difference between northern dictators and southern dictators as worth dying for; and that the American people were ready to take a breath and rethink the whole adventure.
LBJ wanted to get out of Vietnam but he felt as though he was being dragged helplessly to the right; he was positive the right would crush him if he surrendered Vietnam to the Communists. Nixon, contrariwise, felt pulled to the left -- he committed from the beginning to withdrawal, and fatally compromised the South Vietnamese government to get out quickly. Obama is perfectly willing to put troops in or pull them out, regardless of the political blowback -- provided that the strategy is right.
Also, LBJ's decision making process was crippled by the terror generated by the Tet offensive, coming just at the start of the 1968 campaign. Contrariwise, not only has the terror of 911 worn off over eight years, bin Laden has made it almost impossible to terrorize us, by hitting us harder than any future terrorist ever could (probably), and the Bush administration also wore out our Fear Reflex by the constant, endless efforts to push our fear buttons. Day after day: "FOX TERROR ALERT! FOX TERROR ALERT! FOX TERROR ALERT! FOX TERROR ALERT! FOX TERROR ALERT! FOX TERROR ALERT!"
America still has fears and hatred about al-Qa'ida just as we did about the Communists, but that has not blinded us (most of us, anyway) to the notion that the cost/benefit score on this conflict simply may not justify staying the course. We are facing reality about the eating-soup-with-a-knife effort to nail down the Taleban which usually is hiding in Pakistan where we can't go, and about the crooks in Kabul. Unlike 1968, we are allowed to have a public debate about these issues -- Eikenberry and McChrystal are publicly trading potshots. The brickbats which the Republicans are throwing at Obama are being written off as just another slam-Obama effort. And again, Obama has publicly shown his willingness to reject an escalation plan if it is not backed with realistic, well-crafted strategy.
We as a people are more clear-eyed, harder to frighten, more ready to consider crafting Afghan policy based on logic instead of emotion, and led by a man who isn't afraid to make unpopular decisions if he needs to.
So relax! It's not 1968!
LBJ wanted to get out of Vietnam but he felt as though he was being dragged helplessly to the right; he was positive the right would crush him if he surrendered Vietnam to the Communists. Nixon, contrariwise, felt pulled to the left -- he committed from the beginning to withdrawal, and fatally compromised the South Vietnamese government to get out quickly. Obama is perfectly willing to put troops in or pull them out, regardless of the political blowback -- provided that the strategy is right.
Also, LBJ's decision making process was crippled by the terror generated by the Tet offensive, coming just at the start of the 1968 campaign. Contrariwise, not only has the terror of 911 worn off over eight years, bin Laden has made it almost impossible to terrorize us, by hitting us harder than any future terrorist ever could (probably), and the Bush administration also wore out our Fear Reflex by the constant, endless efforts to push our fear buttons. Day after day: "FOX TERROR ALERT! FOX TERROR ALERT! FOX TERROR ALERT! FOX TERROR ALERT! FOX TERROR ALERT! FOX TERROR ALERT!"
America still has fears and hatred about al-Qa'ida just as we did about the Communists, but that has not blinded us (most of us, anyway) to the notion that the cost/benefit score on this conflict simply may not justify staying the course. We are facing reality about the eating-soup-with-a-knife effort to nail down the Taleban which usually is hiding in Pakistan where we can't go, and about the crooks in Kabul. Unlike 1968, we are allowed to have a public debate about these issues -- Eikenberry and McChrystal are publicly trading potshots. The brickbats which the Republicans are throwing at Obama are being written off as just another slam-Obama effort. And again, Obama has publicly shown his willingness to reject an escalation plan if it is not backed with realistic, well-crafted strategy.
We as a people are more clear-eyed, harder to frighten, more ready to consider crafting Afghan policy based on logic instead of emotion, and led by a man who isn't afraid to make unpopular decisions if he needs to.
So relax! It's not 1968!
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Abdullah wipes out another GOP talking point
For weeks Republicans have been trying to peddle the notion that Obama is soft on national security and on supporting the troops because he isn’t caving to the demands of General McCrystal to send a gigantic new contigent to Afghanistan before we even have a strategy. Already the GOP was having trouble with this line of attack: recent polling shows the American people actually want Obama to go slow on expanded deployments (58-37 in a poll). And now Karzai’s presidential challenger showed exactly why we must go slow: by pulling out of the election runoff and implying that the election will be a huge fraud, he is demonstrating exactly why we must wait to see what kind of government we’re propping up in Kabul.
So Cheney’s claim that Obama was “dithering” was a lie. And Cheney was proved a liar again when a new intelligence committee report showed that Pelosi had been right about the CIA after all – the CIA lied to Congress.
So Cheney’s claim that Obama was “dithering” was a lie. And Cheney was proved a liar again when a new intelligence committee report showed that Pelosi had been right about the CIA after all – the CIA lied to Congress.
Friday, 9 October 2009
But Obama didn't ACCOMPLISH anything!!!
Peace Prize winners who didn’t earn it --
So the argument of the wingnuts is that Obama hasn’t COMPLETED his international efforts on arms control, Middle east peace, disengaging in Iraq, outreach to Muslims, climate change, diplomacy, and ending illegal kidnapping, torture and other war crimes.
So let’s look at the other Peace Prize laureates who didn’t actually COMPLETE the efforts they won the award for. There’s only one or two, right?
Well, count for yourselves.
1910, the International Peace Bureau, for their peace efforts. Four years later, WWI broke out.
Woodrow Wilson, for the League of Nations which collapsed, and the Versailles Treaty which was thrown in the trash by Hitler.
Aristide Briand and Frank Kellogg, for drafting the Briand-Kellogg international peace pact “outlawing” war. Ten years later: WWII.
Nicholas Murray Butler, promoter of the Briand-Kellogg pact, see above.
Arthur Henderson for not disarming Europe – in 1932.
Carlos Saavedra Lamas, head of the League of Nations, see above.
Cecil Chetwood, for not preventing world war, in 1937.
Ralph Bunche, mediator in Palestine – in 1950. No problems since then, right?
UN High Commissioner on Refugees, TWO awards for not solving the refugee problem, 1954 and 1981.
Lester Pearson, for not solving the Middle East problem, 1957.
Philip Noel-Baker, for not achieving international peace, 1959.
Linus Pauling, 1962, for not stopping nuclear testing.
Martin Luther King, 1964, before any of Johnson’s civil rights acts had been signed.
Norman Borlaug for not ending world hunger.
Willy Brandt for West Germany palling up with the Soviets who eventually collapsed.
Kissinger – sorry, giving this guy a peace prize for anything….Hahahahahahaha.
Andrei Sakharov 1975, for fighting Soviet totalitarianism, which didn’t end for another 16 years.
Sadat and Begin for not achieving Middle East peace.
Mother Teresa – her whole career was works in progress.
Lech Walesa for freeing Poland – only he didn’t. That happened years later.
Desmond Tutu for freeing South Africa – didn’t happen for ten years.
Dalai Llama for not freeing Tibet.
Aung San Suu Kyi for not freeing Burma.
Yasser Arafat, former terrorist, for Middle East peace, speaks for itself.
Jody Williams for not banning land mines.
Kim Dae Jung for not achieving reconciliation between North and South Korea.
The UN for not achieving world peace.
The IAEA for stopping people like the Iranians from building nukes? Hahahahahaha.
Al Gore for not solving the climate change problem.
Which takes us back to the fundamental question: if Obama's EFFORTS didn't warrant the Peace Prize, who else did, this year?
So the argument of the wingnuts is that Obama hasn’t COMPLETED his international efforts on arms control, Middle east peace, disengaging in Iraq, outreach to Muslims, climate change, diplomacy, and ending illegal kidnapping, torture and other war crimes.
So let’s look at the other Peace Prize laureates who didn’t actually COMPLETE the efforts they won the award for. There’s only one or two, right?
Well, count for yourselves.
1910, the International Peace Bureau, for their peace efforts. Four years later, WWI broke out.
Woodrow Wilson, for the League of Nations which collapsed, and the Versailles Treaty which was thrown in the trash by Hitler.
Aristide Briand and Frank Kellogg, for drafting the Briand-Kellogg international peace pact “outlawing” war. Ten years later: WWII.
Nicholas Murray Butler, promoter of the Briand-Kellogg pact, see above.
Arthur Henderson for not disarming Europe – in 1932.
Carlos Saavedra Lamas, head of the League of Nations, see above.
Cecil Chetwood, for not preventing world war, in 1937.
Ralph Bunche, mediator in Palestine – in 1950. No problems since then, right?
UN High Commissioner on Refugees, TWO awards for not solving the refugee problem, 1954 and 1981.
Lester Pearson, for not solving the Middle East problem, 1957.
Philip Noel-Baker, for not achieving international peace, 1959.
Linus Pauling, 1962, for not stopping nuclear testing.
Martin Luther King, 1964, before any of Johnson’s civil rights acts had been signed.
Norman Borlaug for not ending world hunger.
Willy Brandt for West Germany palling up with the Soviets who eventually collapsed.
Kissinger – sorry, giving this guy a peace prize for anything….Hahahahahahaha.
Andrei Sakharov 1975, for fighting Soviet totalitarianism, which didn’t end for another 16 years.
Sadat and Begin for not achieving Middle East peace.
Mother Teresa – her whole career was works in progress.
Lech Walesa for freeing Poland – only he didn’t. That happened years later.
Desmond Tutu for freeing South Africa – didn’t happen for ten years.
Dalai Llama for not freeing Tibet.
Aung San Suu Kyi for not freeing Burma.
Yasser Arafat, former terrorist, for Middle East peace, speaks for itself.
Jody Williams for not banning land mines.
Kim Dae Jung for not achieving reconciliation between North and South Korea.
The UN for not achieving world peace.
The IAEA for stopping people like the Iranians from building nukes? Hahahahahaha.
Al Gore for not solving the climate change problem.
Which takes us back to the fundamental question: if Obama's EFFORTS didn't warrant the Peace Prize, who else did, this year?
Liberal bias of the media?
The Washington Post and the NY Times whine that the Peace prize is a burden and a liability to Obama.
MSNBC, the Communist Network? They’re whining that people are stumped over the award, they’re dismissing it, it’s a disaster.
CBS is calling it Obama’s fake “Mission Accomplished” moment.
ABC actually reprinted a big stack of anti-Obama jokes about the Peace Prize, collected by a conservative activist.
CNN – waah waah waah, it doesn’t feel right.
If the media are shitting all over Obama when he just won the FREAKIN’ NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, it’s small wonder that these media clowns are also crapping all over the health care reform process, and failing catastrophically in their civic duty to shoot down the endless lies and attacks by the Republicans.
MSNBC, the Communist Network? They’re whining that people are stumped over the award, they’re dismissing it, it’s a disaster.
CBS is calling it Obama’s fake “Mission Accomplished” moment.
ABC actually reprinted a big stack of anti-Obama jokes about the Peace Prize, collected by a conservative activist.
CNN – waah waah waah, it doesn’t feel right.
If the media are shitting all over Obama when he just won the FREAKIN’ NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, it’s small wonder that these media clowns are also crapping all over the health care reform process, and failing catastrophically in their civic duty to shoot down the endless lies and attacks by the Republicans.
Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize
The Nobel people cited Obama’s efforts in the following areas:
--Arms proliferation: after the Bush gang threw the ABM treaty in the trash and worked to put missiles into Eastern Europe before they were even proved to be functional, while also ignoring the nuclear ambitions of “Axis Of Evil” member Iran, Obama got us back on track to combat nuclear proliferation.
--The Middle east peace process: Bush ignored this critical effort, Obama got the wheels back on the tracks.
--Outreach to the Muslim world: After eight years in which Bush officials proclaimed Islam to be a false religion and that a “crusade” was in the works, Obama reopened the dialogue with the Muslims.
--Climate change: After the Bush gang trashed the Kyoto treaty and sat passively as their wingnut allies screeched that climate change was a hoax, Obama finally pointed out that unclothed state of the emperor.
--And fifth area which they didn’t mention, but which had to be on their minds, was the recognition by Obama and Holder that Bush’s reign of terror with respect to war crimes – Guantanamo, holding people incommunicado, torture – had to stop, and be investigated.
He also helped America rediscover, ya know, diplomacy. After eight years in which Bush strained U.S. relations with, literally, every nation on earth, including every one of our former allies.
So, given all that, who else should have gotten the award instead? Who has done more to improve the international situation? When some wingnut starts screeching about Obama’s award, you can shut him up pretty easily with that question – if not Obama, who? Give me a name.
Better yet – go through the list of previous Peace Prize winners, and show me who has done more to move the world in the right direction.
…crickets…
The international community has given the peace prize to three Democratic leaders in the last seven years: Carter, Gore and Obama.
The message is a thunderous rejection of the brain-dead, sledgehammer neocon foreign policy pursued by Reagan, the Bushes and the Republicans over the last 30 years. It is a message of bottled-up rage from all the nations of the world, that the foreign-policy half of the Republican platform is a disastrous, destructive failure. And that they don't really like Republican domestic policy either, on issues such as climate change.
Actually you could also add Paul Krugman, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics -- an ardent opponent of Republican policy, particularly on our 30-year nightmare of Reaganomics and deficits, and on health care, and on race relations, and on welfare policy.
Or, in briefer terms, all the world despises the Republican party. Including a lot of our erstwhile allies in Europe and the civilized world. Every time we elect a Republican president, we're shooting ourselves in the foot, on the world stage. Because all the world knows they're destructive morons.
What’s really sad is that there are wingnuts out there who really believe that Bush should have got one, for allegedly saving the world from al-Qa’ida and Saddam’s imaginary missiles. He wuz robbed!
So the Republicans are down to ten percent popularity in the U.S. outside the south, and they’re at about zero percent popularity on the rest of the entire planet.
Of course the right wing is going to be grownups and congratulate Obama, right? Hollow laugh! There is thunderous condemnation of the choice from two quarters: America’s right wing, and the Taliban.
The American wingnuts, and the Taliban.
I’m just going to let that hang in the air.
Oh, wait – the award was also criticized by another terrorist group, Hamas.
In a matter of days, the Republican party has celebrated America’s loss of the Olympics just because they think it makes Obama look bad, and now they are crapping all over the Nobel Peace Prize. Their buddy Drudge is whining – it's a mockery, an embarrassing joke….
After Michael Steele – the head of the party – slammed the Nobel choice, the DNC hit right back:
“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim.”
Of course some in the media are working with might and main to spin this against Obama, just as they’ve been working furiously to damage his health care effort. The crowd on Morning Joe was at it as soon as the sun rose, screeching – OMG the damage is done, there’s no upside, he’ll have to turn it down, what a disaster!
That is how far the knee-jerk reflex at Obama bashing has gotten in the so-called liberal-dominated media: the man wins the freakin’ Nobel Peace Prize, and it’s A Bad Thing.
Nobel Prize, it’s a disaster.
I’m just going to let that hang in the air.
--Arms proliferation: after the Bush gang threw the ABM treaty in the trash and worked to put missiles into Eastern Europe before they were even proved to be functional, while also ignoring the nuclear ambitions of “Axis Of Evil” member Iran, Obama got us back on track to combat nuclear proliferation.
--The Middle east peace process: Bush ignored this critical effort, Obama got the wheels back on the tracks.
--Outreach to the Muslim world: After eight years in which Bush officials proclaimed Islam to be a false religion and that a “crusade” was in the works, Obama reopened the dialogue with the Muslims.
--Climate change: After the Bush gang trashed the Kyoto treaty and sat passively as their wingnut allies screeched that climate change was a hoax, Obama finally pointed out that unclothed state of the emperor.
--And fifth area which they didn’t mention, but which had to be on their minds, was the recognition by Obama and Holder that Bush’s reign of terror with respect to war crimes – Guantanamo, holding people incommunicado, torture – had to stop, and be investigated.
He also helped America rediscover, ya know, diplomacy. After eight years in which Bush strained U.S. relations with, literally, every nation on earth, including every one of our former allies.
So, given all that, who else should have gotten the award instead? Who has done more to improve the international situation? When some wingnut starts screeching about Obama’s award, you can shut him up pretty easily with that question – if not Obama, who? Give me a name.
Better yet – go through the list of previous Peace Prize winners, and show me who has done more to move the world in the right direction.
…crickets…
The international community has given the peace prize to three Democratic leaders in the last seven years: Carter, Gore and Obama.
The message is a thunderous rejection of the brain-dead, sledgehammer neocon foreign policy pursued by Reagan, the Bushes and the Republicans over the last 30 years. It is a message of bottled-up rage from all the nations of the world, that the foreign-policy half of the Republican platform is a disastrous, destructive failure. And that they don't really like Republican domestic policy either, on issues such as climate change.
Actually you could also add Paul Krugman, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics -- an ardent opponent of Republican policy, particularly on our 30-year nightmare of Reaganomics and deficits, and on health care, and on race relations, and on welfare policy.
Or, in briefer terms, all the world despises the Republican party. Including a lot of our erstwhile allies in Europe and the civilized world. Every time we elect a Republican president, we're shooting ourselves in the foot, on the world stage. Because all the world knows they're destructive morons.
What’s really sad is that there are wingnuts out there who really believe that Bush should have got one, for allegedly saving the world from al-Qa’ida and Saddam’s imaginary missiles. He wuz robbed!
So the Republicans are down to ten percent popularity in the U.S. outside the south, and they’re at about zero percent popularity on the rest of the entire planet.
Of course the right wing is going to be grownups and congratulate Obama, right? Hollow laugh! There is thunderous condemnation of the choice from two quarters: America’s right wing, and the Taliban.
The American wingnuts, and the Taliban.
I’m just going to let that hang in the air.
Oh, wait – the award was also criticized by another terrorist group, Hamas.
In a matter of days, the Republican party has celebrated America’s loss of the Olympics just because they think it makes Obama look bad, and now they are crapping all over the Nobel Peace Prize. Their buddy Drudge is whining – it's a mockery, an embarrassing joke….
After Michael Steele – the head of the party – slammed the Nobel choice, the DNC hit right back:
“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim.”
Of course some in the media are working with might and main to spin this against Obama, just as they’ve been working furiously to damage his health care effort. The crowd on Morning Joe was at it as soon as the sun rose, screeching – OMG the damage is done, there’s no upside, he’ll have to turn it down, what a disaster!
That is how far the knee-jerk reflex at Obama bashing has gotten in the so-called liberal-dominated media: the man wins the freakin’ Nobel Peace Prize, and it’s A Bad Thing.
Nobel Prize, it’s a disaster.
I’m just going to let that hang in the air.
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Dems save us from Cheney's secret murder squads
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/15/AR2009071503856.html?hpid=topnews
How appalling is it, that the crimes and follies of the Bush crime family have been so manifest and manifold for so long, that hardly anybody blinks at that headline. A sitting Vice President worked for eight years to set up illegal, secret murder squads, and the program was stopped in the nick of time -- and it barely raises an eyebrow anymore.
**UPDATE** -- from TPM:
We may have gotten a good piece of the answer here: The Washington Post reports today on how the program had been revived and then put on hold several times since 2001. But it also says, referring to the "presidential finding" with which President Bush authorized the program in 2001:
"The finding imposed no geographical limitations on the agency's actions, and intelligence officials have said that they were not obliged to notify Congress of each operation envisaged under the directive."
So this stuff could have been going on in the U.S.
How appalling is it, that the crimes and follies of the Bush crime family have been so manifest and manifold for so long, that hardly anybody blinks at that headline. A sitting Vice President worked for eight years to set up illegal, secret murder squads, and the program was stopped in the nick of time -- and it barely raises an eyebrow anymore.
**UPDATE** -- from TPM:
We may have gotten a good piece of the answer here: The Washington Post reports today on how the program had been revived and then put on hold several times since 2001. But it also says, referring to the "presidential finding" with which President Bush authorized the program in 2001:
"The finding imposed no geographical limitations on the agency's actions, and intelligence officials have said that they were not obliged to notify Congress of each operation envisaged under the directive."
So this stuff could have been going on in the U.S.
Friday, 3 July 2009
Russia's foreign policy backfires
There's a great piece in the Times on how Russia's sledgehammer diplomatic tactics have backfired, badly.
Belarus — which was promised $2 billion in Russian aid — is in open rebellion against the Kremlin, flaunting its preference for Europe while also collecting money from the International Monetary Fund. Uzbekistan joined Belarus in refusing to sign an agreement on the Collective Rapid Reaction Forces, an idea Moscow sees as an eventual counterweight to NATO. There are other examples, like Turkmenistan’s May signing of a gas exploration deal with a German company, and Armenia’s awarding of a major national honor to Moscow’s nemesis, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia. But the biggest came last week when Kyrgyzstan — set to receive $2.15 billion in Russian aid — reversed a decision that had been seen as a coup for Moscow, last winter’s order terminating the American military’s use of the Manas Air Base there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/europe/03russia.html?_r=1&hp
After WWII people realized that eventually Germany would need to be reincorporated into Europe. Now the post-cold-war thinking is pointing toward the same for Russia. But only if they themselves see the need.
Russia’s superpower status was based on intimidation rooted in its military might – which was exposed as powerless in Chechnya, and as almost comical in Kosovo. In terms of actual military might, the US still accounts for 48 percent of global defense spending; Russia can never catch up.
Russia has a thirst to be respected as an equal which is pathetic. They are so eager to restore their self-image that they actually crowed about how proud they were, as Russians, that they killed large numbers of Georgians last year for no earthly reason. The Russians thought they were scoring points abroad, arguing that action in the Kosovo enclave justified the Georgia incursion, but they lost face abroad: nervous Europeans now support the U.S.-NATO presence more enthusiastically, almost no one recognized Ossetia’s “independence” (I think it was recogized by Nicaragua and Belarus), and that independence effort may actually give Russia’s own internal minorities ideas.
The only mistake Obama can make on Georgia is to show weakness, or eagerness to negotiate – if he does, the Russians might invade outright. Russia succeeded in driving investment away from Georgia with its incursion: Obama should promise the Georgians arms and aid. He should avoid too enthusiastic an embrace with Georgia’s hyper-active leader who has fired both his foreign minister and his defense minister. He should also see to it that the gas pipeline is protected – that is the tool Europe will use to evade Russian blackmail on energy supplies.
Obama should be careful about anything which fans the flames of Russian paranoia. We can talk to the nervous Europeans about NATO enlargement, but only when we figure out how and why we are doing it. Likewise weight the costs and benefits of outreach in Eastern Europe, and bases and pipelines in Central Asia.
Medvedev wants to ignore international institutions which he sees as tools of the west, drive a wedge between the US and Europe, replace America as the big player in Europe, intimidate Europe via military power and economic coercion, boot us out of their “near abroad” so they can pursue their “privileged interests”, and set up an anti-NATO with China and other potential partners. A bit much.
Missiles in Europe: Bush wanted to put anti-ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe, with the aim of shooting down Iran’s missiles (even though the technology is still unproven); Russia retaliated by threatening to put its own missiles near Poland. So far there is a lot of fencing. We offered to allow Russian monitors at the missile sites, but the Poles and Czechs balked. Putin did offer to accept the missiles given certain conditions. Medvedev swore to neutralize the missiles, then back off a bit. Obama has not said clearly whether he will move forward; he doubts whether it will work.
Again, the only wrong move for Obama is showing weakness: Eastern Europe is watching to see how Obama handles Russia. Consider how utterly stupid this debate is: the US could potentially deploy anti-ballistic missiles which only work against other missiles even when they do work, and Obama is not convinced they do work, and won’t deploy them until they are proven. And Medvedev threatens to retaliate by deploying, to Kaliningrad, an Iskander missile which is laughably inaccurate, which couldn’t be used against Obama’s missiles, and which has no strategic target to shoot at. What are they going to shoot at? Downtown Warsaw, just to prove a point? This sounds like something pretty stupid for either side to spend political capital on.
The NY Times noted last year that Russia is trying to force its way to the top of Obama’s agenda. Dealing with people who are too eager for attention is child’s play -- I’ll pay attention when you do what I want.
All the chest-thumping by Medvedev is for domestic consumption – there are many stakeholders who have an interest in continued international confrontation, to include generals, political ideologues, bureaucrats and contractors – but it is doing nothing but damage on the international front, particularly among investors.
Eastern Europe still feels as though they are an odd security anomaly, still stuck between Russia and NATO. Russia is still active in Transdniestria for reasons no one can understand. Russia will look for trouble in the Baltics, and with Ukraine which has an ethnic Russian majority, and whose Russian fleet base lease deal (in Sebastopol) runs out for Russia in 2017.
The Russians do have other opportunities for mischief – giving Iran nuclear technology or topnotch air defense missiles, the S-300. But not much else. Just threaten to embarrass them publicly – problem solved.
Russia is now claiming half of the Arctic Ocean as Russian territory, because it has around 90 billion barrels of oil under it, to say nothing of the natural gas. They specified that they would defend their claim. Their Federal Security Service (read: KGB) launched an all-new Arctic Directorate for the purpose, and its boss flew to the North Pole to plant a Russian flag there. We may have to go up there and fight for it. A potential problem: who do you think has the upper hand: the men of the U.S. navy, who made their bones in the sunny Pacific, or the Russians, who know cold-weather ops inside and out?
Meanwhile the Russian navy began joint exercises with Venezuela. I’m shaking in my boots.
Russia’s economic ambitions
The only thing more laughable than Russia’s strategic ambitions are their economic ambitions.
Their political humiliations are matched by their economic humiliations. Not only were they outperformed by the west during the Cold War, they are now being outperformed by their former Warsaw Pact clients. Without natural gas they could have become the economic basket case of the former Soviet Union.
They dream of using energy as a political weapon by building a global gas cartel with Iran and Qatar so the Europeans can’t free themselves of Russia by diversifying energy supplies, and maximizing its control over Central Asian gas by threatening the pipeline that runs through Georgia. That was a risky prospect since gas often requires long-term contracts. Also Russia’s behaviour makes that prospect even less attractive (and what would they offer potential allies, other than gas? Arms?). And Russia even now has only 6.5 percent of Europe’s energy supply; Europe is neatly diversifying with gas from Algeria and Nigeria, and even petroleum prices are dropping so much that OPEC can’t prop up its own prices for oil. Once gas prices crater, so do Medvedev’s dreams – and then Medvedev will have domestic problems too.
Although the other gas producers have reservations about Russia, the Central Asian gas producers will hesitate before approving pipeline deals that make them independent of Russia. That would be provocative.
The delusions of grandeur are endless. Medvedev wanted Moscow to be a global financial market and establish the ruble as a major global currency, but nobody takes the sagging ruble seriously and their stock market dropped 65 percent. They are succumbing to dropping gas prices, unemployment, inflation, rapidly disappearing foreign currency reserves; they need foreign investment, which they won’t get if they persist in angering the US and Europe.
Who is really running Russia?
Neither Putin or Medvedev is a real leader. Putin never bothered with the issues of diversification, modernization or corruption, and Medvedev only paid lip-service to the problems. Accordingly foreign investment is hesitant.
The unstable dynamic between Putin and Medvedev is fascinating to watch.
Putin, I’m sure, thinks he’s the James Bond of the (now non-existent) Soviet bloc – he thinks he’s so hard to read, but in fact he’s the big “E” on the eye chart, for anyone who has any perceptive ability. Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and thought he was looking into his soul; Clinton, on the other hand, immediately pegged Putin as soulless.
Medvedev is trying to out-macho Putin, and if Putin gets too chesty, Medvedev may push back.
Medvedev has sometimes criticized Putin’s record -- very softly.
Perhaps we should wait to see how this foolishness works itself out.
Belarus — which was promised $2 billion in Russian aid — is in open rebellion against the Kremlin, flaunting its preference for Europe while also collecting money from the International Monetary Fund. Uzbekistan joined Belarus in refusing to sign an agreement on the Collective Rapid Reaction Forces, an idea Moscow sees as an eventual counterweight to NATO. There are other examples, like Turkmenistan’s May signing of a gas exploration deal with a German company, and Armenia’s awarding of a major national honor to Moscow’s nemesis, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia. But the biggest came last week when Kyrgyzstan — set to receive $2.15 billion in Russian aid — reversed a decision that had been seen as a coup for Moscow, last winter’s order terminating the American military’s use of the Manas Air Base there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/europe/03russia.html?_r=1&hp
After WWII people realized that eventually Germany would need to be reincorporated into Europe. Now the post-cold-war thinking is pointing toward the same for Russia. But only if they themselves see the need.
Russia’s superpower status was based on intimidation rooted in its military might – which was exposed as powerless in Chechnya, and as almost comical in Kosovo. In terms of actual military might, the US still accounts for 48 percent of global defense spending; Russia can never catch up.
Russia has a thirst to be respected as an equal which is pathetic. They are so eager to restore their self-image that they actually crowed about how proud they were, as Russians, that they killed large numbers of Georgians last year for no earthly reason. The Russians thought they were scoring points abroad, arguing that action in the Kosovo enclave justified the Georgia incursion, but they lost face abroad: nervous Europeans now support the U.S.-NATO presence more enthusiastically, almost no one recognized Ossetia’s “independence” (I think it was recogized by Nicaragua and Belarus), and that independence effort may actually give Russia’s own internal minorities ideas.
The only mistake Obama can make on Georgia is to show weakness, or eagerness to negotiate – if he does, the Russians might invade outright. Russia succeeded in driving investment away from Georgia with its incursion: Obama should promise the Georgians arms and aid. He should avoid too enthusiastic an embrace with Georgia’s hyper-active leader who has fired both his foreign minister and his defense minister. He should also see to it that the gas pipeline is protected – that is the tool Europe will use to evade Russian blackmail on energy supplies.
Obama should be careful about anything which fans the flames of Russian paranoia. We can talk to the nervous Europeans about NATO enlargement, but only when we figure out how and why we are doing it. Likewise weight the costs and benefits of outreach in Eastern Europe, and bases and pipelines in Central Asia.
Medvedev wants to ignore international institutions which he sees as tools of the west, drive a wedge between the US and Europe, replace America as the big player in Europe, intimidate Europe via military power and economic coercion, boot us out of their “near abroad” so they can pursue their “privileged interests”, and set up an anti-NATO with China and other potential partners. A bit much.
Missiles in Europe: Bush wanted to put anti-ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe, with the aim of shooting down Iran’s missiles (even though the technology is still unproven); Russia retaliated by threatening to put its own missiles near Poland. So far there is a lot of fencing. We offered to allow Russian monitors at the missile sites, but the Poles and Czechs balked. Putin did offer to accept the missiles given certain conditions. Medvedev swore to neutralize the missiles, then back off a bit. Obama has not said clearly whether he will move forward; he doubts whether it will work.
Again, the only wrong move for Obama is showing weakness: Eastern Europe is watching to see how Obama handles Russia. Consider how utterly stupid this debate is: the US could potentially deploy anti-ballistic missiles which only work against other missiles even when they do work, and Obama is not convinced they do work, and won’t deploy them until they are proven. And Medvedev threatens to retaliate by deploying, to Kaliningrad, an Iskander missile which is laughably inaccurate, which couldn’t be used against Obama’s missiles, and which has no strategic target to shoot at. What are they going to shoot at? Downtown Warsaw, just to prove a point? This sounds like something pretty stupid for either side to spend political capital on.
The NY Times noted last year that Russia is trying to force its way to the top of Obama’s agenda. Dealing with people who are too eager for attention is child’s play -- I’ll pay attention when you do what I want.
All the chest-thumping by Medvedev is for domestic consumption – there are many stakeholders who have an interest in continued international confrontation, to include generals, political ideologues, bureaucrats and contractors – but it is doing nothing but damage on the international front, particularly among investors.
Eastern Europe still feels as though they are an odd security anomaly, still stuck between Russia and NATO. Russia is still active in Transdniestria for reasons no one can understand. Russia will look for trouble in the Baltics, and with Ukraine which has an ethnic Russian majority, and whose Russian fleet base lease deal (in Sebastopol) runs out for Russia in 2017.
The Russians do have other opportunities for mischief – giving Iran nuclear technology or topnotch air defense missiles, the S-300. But not much else. Just threaten to embarrass them publicly – problem solved.
Russia is now claiming half of the Arctic Ocean as Russian territory, because it has around 90 billion barrels of oil under it, to say nothing of the natural gas. They specified that they would defend their claim. Their Federal Security Service (read: KGB) launched an all-new Arctic Directorate for the purpose, and its boss flew to the North Pole to plant a Russian flag there. We may have to go up there and fight for it. A potential problem: who do you think has the upper hand: the men of the U.S. navy, who made their bones in the sunny Pacific, or the Russians, who know cold-weather ops inside and out?
Meanwhile the Russian navy began joint exercises with Venezuela. I’m shaking in my boots.
Russia’s economic ambitions
The only thing more laughable than Russia’s strategic ambitions are their economic ambitions.
Their political humiliations are matched by their economic humiliations. Not only were they outperformed by the west during the Cold War, they are now being outperformed by their former Warsaw Pact clients. Without natural gas they could have become the economic basket case of the former Soviet Union.
They dream of using energy as a political weapon by building a global gas cartel with Iran and Qatar so the Europeans can’t free themselves of Russia by diversifying energy supplies, and maximizing its control over Central Asian gas by threatening the pipeline that runs through Georgia. That was a risky prospect since gas often requires long-term contracts. Also Russia’s behaviour makes that prospect even less attractive (and what would they offer potential allies, other than gas? Arms?). And Russia even now has only 6.5 percent of Europe’s energy supply; Europe is neatly diversifying with gas from Algeria and Nigeria, and even petroleum prices are dropping so much that OPEC can’t prop up its own prices for oil. Once gas prices crater, so do Medvedev’s dreams – and then Medvedev will have domestic problems too.
Although the other gas producers have reservations about Russia, the Central Asian gas producers will hesitate before approving pipeline deals that make them independent of Russia. That would be provocative.
The delusions of grandeur are endless. Medvedev wanted Moscow to be a global financial market and establish the ruble as a major global currency, but nobody takes the sagging ruble seriously and their stock market dropped 65 percent. They are succumbing to dropping gas prices, unemployment, inflation, rapidly disappearing foreign currency reserves; they need foreign investment, which they won’t get if they persist in angering the US and Europe.
Who is really running Russia?
Neither Putin or Medvedev is a real leader. Putin never bothered with the issues of diversification, modernization or corruption, and Medvedev only paid lip-service to the problems. Accordingly foreign investment is hesitant.
The unstable dynamic between Putin and Medvedev is fascinating to watch.
Putin, I’m sure, thinks he’s the James Bond of the (now non-existent) Soviet bloc – he thinks he’s so hard to read, but in fact he’s the big “E” on the eye chart, for anyone who has any perceptive ability. Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and thought he was looking into his soul; Clinton, on the other hand, immediately pegged Putin as soulless.
Medvedev is trying to out-macho Putin, and if Putin gets too chesty, Medvedev may push back.
Medvedev has sometimes criticized Putin’s record -- very softly.
Perhaps we should wait to see how this foolishness works itself out.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Nation-building and "Mission Accomplished"
As we know, last week was the sixth anniversary of Bush’s declaration of “Mission Accomplished” in that sexy Top-Gun photo op on 1 May 2003. He did this after only 42 days of fighting.
It’s not just that he didn’t even understand what kind of war he was fighting – the few weeks of WWII-style conventional warfare were only a prelude to years of counterinsurgency fighting, with the result that 98 percent of the casualties happened after “Mission Accomplished”.
It’s also that he had no clue how hard building a nation is. Building a government, a constitution, a financial sector, an education sector, security, utilities, health care, communications, transportation, the oil sector, and making it all work effectively – he had no clue.
A clear sign that he had no clue, is that he essentially took the foreign policy portfolio away from the State Department – the people who actually know how to do that stuff – and gave it to the Pentagon. For all intents and purposes, Rumsfeld was both Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.
Let me illustrate how badly Bush underestimated the task in Iraq, by looking at how Constitutions are built.
America was very fortunate in its founding fathers: incredibly talented, selfless, high-minded men came together for a noble purpose. But even they screwed it up completely. The first time they tried it, they came up with the Articles of Confederation, which proved very quickly to be so unworkable that within a couple of years they were talking about a do-over. Finally they went to Philadelphia, agreed to throw out the Articles, and started over, eventually drafting our current Constitution. And even then they realized that they had got it wrong, and would need to keep making changes. Accordingly they made a provision for amendments, and added ten of them almost before the ink was dry on the original Constitution. And it’s been amended many times since.
Britain: for a thousand years they have bumbled along with no written Constitution at all. It’s all a jumble of tradition, statutory law, case law, Parliamentary procedure and whim, and other bits and bobs.
France: the reason they have the Fifth Republic is that that first four Republics collapsed.
Germany: after WWI they put together a very admirable effort to draft a new, progressive Constitution. Within 14 years the constitution led to...Hitler and the Nazis.
My personal favourite: for about 200 years, the Polish parliament or Sejm, consisting of about 135 people, actually required that laws pass by unanimous vote within six weeks and also win the approval of the king. To make such unanimity even remotely possible, exhaustive discussions were necessary. Also, for most of this period, if a bill was vetoed in a particular session, then all of the legislation from the entire session could be nullified, because the body of law passed in that session was considered to be one unit. By the late 1600s the government was paralyzed. Finally in 1791 the veto rule was abolished. But it was too late: by the time the Poles fixed the problem, Russia, Prussia and Austria had taken advantage of the Polish chaos to rip Poland to pieces and annex its territory. Poland ceased to exist because, in two hundred years, its leaders couldn’t figure out how to build a flexible governing body.
The thing is, these were mostly countries with much more stability than Iraq in 2003: they didn’t have to deal with the simmering hatreds between Sunni and Shia and Kurd, or the interference from Iran and Syria, or the volatile issues such as oil revenues and dealing with the Baathists.
Nation-building takes time, usually money, clear thinking, and a bit of luck.
If Bush’s putrid inner circle – the few people Bush actually listened to – had include even one person who knows the history of these things, he might have been persuaded not to do his touchdown victory dance until we were actually in the end zone.
It’s not just that he didn’t even understand what kind of war he was fighting – the few weeks of WWII-style conventional warfare were only a prelude to years of counterinsurgency fighting, with the result that 98 percent of the casualties happened after “Mission Accomplished”.
It’s also that he had no clue how hard building a nation is. Building a government, a constitution, a financial sector, an education sector, security, utilities, health care, communications, transportation, the oil sector, and making it all work effectively – he had no clue.
A clear sign that he had no clue, is that he essentially took the foreign policy portfolio away from the State Department – the people who actually know how to do that stuff – and gave it to the Pentagon. For all intents and purposes, Rumsfeld was both Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.
Let me illustrate how badly Bush underestimated the task in Iraq, by looking at how Constitutions are built.
America was very fortunate in its founding fathers: incredibly talented, selfless, high-minded men came together for a noble purpose. But even they screwed it up completely. The first time they tried it, they came up with the Articles of Confederation, which proved very quickly to be so unworkable that within a couple of years they were talking about a do-over. Finally they went to Philadelphia, agreed to throw out the Articles, and started over, eventually drafting our current Constitution. And even then they realized that they had got it wrong, and would need to keep making changes. Accordingly they made a provision for amendments, and added ten of them almost before the ink was dry on the original Constitution. And it’s been amended many times since.
Britain: for a thousand years they have bumbled along with no written Constitution at all. It’s all a jumble of tradition, statutory law, case law, Parliamentary procedure and whim, and other bits and bobs.
France: the reason they have the Fifth Republic is that that first four Republics collapsed.
Germany: after WWI they put together a very admirable effort to draft a new, progressive Constitution. Within 14 years the constitution led to...Hitler and the Nazis.
My personal favourite: for about 200 years, the Polish parliament or Sejm, consisting of about 135 people, actually required that laws pass by unanimous vote within six weeks and also win the approval of the king. To make such unanimity even remotely possible, exhaustive discussions were necessary. Also, for most of this period, if a bill was vetoed in a particular session, then all of the legislation from the entire session could be nullified, because the body of law passed in that session was considered to be one unit. By the late 1600s the government was paralyzed. Finally in 1791 the veto rule was abolished. But it was too late: by the time the Poles fixed the problem, Russia, Prussia and Austria had taken advantage of the Polish chaos to rip Poland to pieces and annex its territory. Poland ceased to exist because, in two hundred years, its leaders couldn’t figure out how to build a flexible governing body.
The thing is, these were mostly countries with much more stability than Iraq in 2003: they didn’t have to deal with the simmering hatreds between Sunni and Shia and Kurd, or the interference from Iran and Syria, or the volatile issues such as oil revenues and dealing with the Baathists.
Nation-building takes time, usually money, clear thinking, and a bit of luck.
If Bush’s putrid inner circle – the few people Bush actually listened to – had include even one person who knows the history of these things, he might have been persuaded not to do his touchdown victory dance until we were actually in the end zone.
Saturday, 2 May 2009
...and the Chinese economy
The current economic crisis which began in the U.S. housing sector has now spread to many sectors in many countries, China included. Like the U.S. in 1929, China is succumbing to real trouble despite their gigantic cash reserves and their huge trade surplus. They were partly protected from external financial troubles during the Asian financial crisis on the late 1990s, but now they are much more integrated into the global economy, with exports that are at twice the level of India’s, so they are more vulnerable. Export-driven growth was the solution to all their problems – rural poverty, unemployment, the works – and now that is in peril.Recession in the U.S. means demand for Chinese goods goes down. Chinese firms are loaded with debt; thousands of factories closed in southern China even before the fiscal crisis; half their toymakers went bankrupt; automakers want protection from foreign competition. The government tried to prop up their markets but the Shanghai market dropped seventy percent and a hundred million stock investors were in a state of shock. Also, they will have infrastructure problems – overcoming their long supply chains and transport costs.
They are making little progress on either productivity or innovation: many of their college “graduates” are glorified mechanics, most of their research scientists are working in government labs, they have almost no track record in setting up their own brands or products as the Japanese have done, and the government is still giving privileges to foreign firms which Chinese firms don’t get. Furthermore, China like India has a long history of throwing manpower at a problem rather than innovating. Also, China is heading toward an aging population: innovation comes from young minds.
Even the things the Chinese did well, to get them where they are, are not forever. The forces of recession and competition from other developing countries are reducing their competitive advantage in low-skill industries like clothes and toys.
Employment has gone from bad to worse: as it was, they needed to find millions of new jobs each year, and now the task has gotten even harder. Millions are out of work, particularly among factory workers and college graduates – and the middle class as a whole is in a jam too. Their whole reason for economic success is cheap labor, but it’s unskilled and the government doesn’t spend as much on education as Mao did.
Another inhibitor to growth: much of the recent growth occurred when foreign firms moved production to China, but now most of the firms who want to go that way have done so. Outsourcing has limits as a labor strategy. So their growth rates are even less likely to sustain themselves.
Two poor choices by the government are turning China inside out: the one-child-per-family policy, and the refusal to set up a national pension system. Because government cannot or will not set up a pension system (it would involve a tax increase), Chinese couples need a son to support them in their old age (daughters go off to care for their in-laws). The aging of China will only make it worse. Add the one-child-per-family policy, and parents are aborting, abandoning or murdering their daughters, to retain their chances of having a son. Also, the pension issue means that the Chinese save much more, which means they invest less in the economy: they don’t buy as much in the stores or invest as much in the stock market, depressing the economy further. Also, their level of savings is increased by the fact that they have no system of land registry so they can’t use property as collateral for loans or for long-term investment plans . Also, the one-child policy is setting up more problems down the road, as the surplus of forty million unmarried men jacks up rates of prostitution, rape, forced marriage, and reducing women into commodities.
The National People’s Congress is considering a package of unemployment benefits, pensions and universal health care (health care is declining currently).
We are at a political disadvantage vis-à-vis China because we have borrowed hundreds of billions from them, to finance our deficits. It is hard to press them on political issues while we are also asking them for money. If they were to dump our financial instruments or slow down their purchases of them, it would hurt both countries, but even the threat opens us up to economic and political blackmail. In 2007 some Chinese officials were talking openly about using this sort of blackmail, but in 2008 they were acknowledging that a financial pullout would hurt both countries.
We got a vivid lesson in all this recently, when Britain asked China to donate money to the IMF, in exchange for an increased voting share – and then backed away from its previous recognition of Tibet’s autonomy, and even apologized for not changing their stance earlier, although they still call on China to accept Tibet’s autonomy. This is clumsy because it also affects China-India relations. But China handled it clumsily too, bragging openly that Europe is backing down from a fight due to the current fiscal crisis. How smart are these guys, really?
The problem is that now, thanks in part to us, the Chinese have their own economic problems. There are two ways the Chinese can try to alleviate them.
The first is to encourage more domestic consumption: the world cannot continue to absorb all the Chinese products, but perhaps China itself can. Although they are hustling to create millions of new jobs each year, they haven’t yet turned these people into consumers. The Asian fiscal crisis of a decade ago, and the erosion of the socialist safety net, encouraged the Chinese to save rather than spending. There is really no comparison to the US consumer market: to say nothing of the disparity in wages, in China people aren’t even purchasing homes, let alone $300,000 homes; shifting from a primarily export economy to a primarily consumption economy will simply take time. Perhaps those 250 million internet users will learn the joys of e-commerce. The government may also repeal laws which were passed to encourage exports vis-à-vis consumption. One bright spot: Chinese tourism spending is skyrocketing (or was, before the crisis). The world needs not just China but all the new economies to spend more.
The second way to get things back on track is government spending. The Chinese President, flush with mountains of cash and a budget with much more black ink than ours, will spend more than two trillion dollars on roads, railways, airfields and the power grid; there is plenty of work to do in the transportation sector.
And that takes us back to our original problem: it was bad enough when we had to go to the Chinese to borrow billions to finance our debt. Now they’re telling us – “sorry, we can’t finance our recovery and yours too”. China and the U.S. need to work together to solve international economic problems, but to some extent it’s every man for himself. We are not the only ones holding out a tin cup: the whole world wants China to use its currency reserves to save the world, put money in the IMF and so forth.
Hillary Clinton warned the Chinese that if they pulled out of our financial market, the U.S. market for their goods would collapse, and the Chinese don’t want to pull out drastically because that could be seen as an overt attack; and the Chinese, like other investors, know that the U.S. is still a stable place to invest, with Europe and Japan being relatively unattractive places to put their money. So with luck, the effort to wean the U.S. off of Chinese money will happen slowly, if at all. Nevertheless, China will have less to lend.
We need them to dial back the value of the yuan: the Chinese had allowed the yuan to creep up over the last three years, but after the crisis the People’s Bank of China pegged the dollar/yuan rate very high, to spur Chinese growth. The currency then took a nose dive, closing the Chinese market even more. That might have been their signal to Obama: “don’t get in our faces”. With a weak yuan the Chinese can barely afford food, to say nothing of consumer goods. Obama was among the Senators to support a bill imposing restrictions on imports from countries whose currencies are out of kilter. Fiscal protectionism could ensue, wherein foreign investors could really hurt the Chinese banks by dumping the yuan and pulling out of the investment market.
Trade: again, the Chinese are going to tell us – “sorry, we have our own problems”. For twenty years we have given away our manufacturing jobs and the Chinese, like the rest of Asia , simply hoovered them up. Now they have an incredibly strong trading position. We want China to open its markets, and lower tariffs and other barriers as their WTO accession agreement stipulates; in the 1990s they did cut tariffs but now they have tacked on some short-term export subsidies. We also want them to meet WTO standards on intellectual property rights, and do better on product safety and labor issues.
American businesses have finally joined labor in pushing for protectionism, on the argument that cheap labor is skewing the market; they forget that labor is only a small part of the cost of goods anyway, and that if Chinese goods lower some U.S. salaries, they also lower prices for the goods those workers buy. Meanwhile the Europeans have also warned the Chinese that if China keeps dumping huge volumes of production out into the international market as a safety valve to solve their over-capacity and other problems at home, just when everyone else is trying to get their own products on the street, then a wave of protectionism could indeed begin.
The Chicken Littles of the world should remember a few things. The Chinese government knows that whatever hurts us hurts them: their vice president was yelling at our Treasury Secretary to get our fiscal house in order, because they don’t want us to go down. The Chinese know that we are all in this together, so getting them to work with us on trade, carbon, arms proliferation and everything else should be workable. They know they benefit greatly from their relationship with us, and so do we: among other things a close relationship will help bring about the Chinese transformation everyone seeks. And remember that the Chinese Communist party did in fact reinvent itself thirty years ago under Deng, so hoping for a reprise is not entirely unrealistic. And that was with the old Mao leaders: now a new generation of leaders is bound to rise, people with no memory of the age of Mao.
Environmental issues will be an enormous part of our engagement with China for the next 20 years. Carbon is currently the big issue. China gets 70 percent of its energy from coal and opens new plants every year because coal is cheap. The pollution-related health problems are mounting. At the very least they need to make some positive commitment toward a strategy with the end state of meeting international carbon standards, but when the Kyoto process is reopened in Copenhagen this year, China will continue to be slippery, claiming they are doing all they can, using its economic clout to buy some time. They are in fact working with hydroelectric and trying to build new eco-friendly cities. If they put solar and wind farms out west, would that give the west political power, or would building a connective grid be too much trouble?
A related problem is the pollution closer to home, particularly water. Half the population cannot get clean water, and one third of the Yellow River, the water source for millions, is too polluted to use.
Clinton issues warning on China
Secretary Clinton is warning about China's diplomatic overtures in Latin America.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/01/clinton.latin.america/index.html
The World Domination Quarterfinals ended sixty years ago when we beat Germany; in the semi-finals we beat Russia. Now it’s the finals: U.S. versus China. The winner rules the world. I hope someone has the good sense to hire a small army of Chinese experts.
China’s quest for respect didn’t begin with the Olympics. For millennia they saw themselves as the center of human civilization, the Middle Kingdom; the rest of the world was filled with barbarians. A century and a half ago they were stunned to be humiliated by those very barbarians in the Opium War and the intrusions which followed; the Righteous Fists, the loss to Japan in 1895, the Versailles Treaty which handed territory to the Japanese without consultation with China, the Japanese invasion, the rape of Nanking – a century of lost face. To regain it they have been flexing their muscles in Korea and in border fights with India, Vietnam and Russia; they have blustered at the Japanese over the Senkaku Island which has oil reserves nearby. Hu Jintao does not share Deng’s reluctance to put China out there as an assertive power, and he needs the army to maintain power, which would explain why he his putting himself forward globally, wooing the generals, and giving the army fat budgets.
China wants a seat at the table when major global issues are addressed, and wants to see international systems rebuilt to their liking; they had little say the first time around in the 1940s. They also need the international economic system. We do want China to be a full partner in the major international organizations: the more we wire them into it, the fewer incentives they will have to wreck it. We don’t want to poke them in the eye and scare them off so that they make other, less savory alliances and give up on reform. Contrariwise we don’t want them gumming up the works, forging anti-American alliances with Russia and France, vetoing everything at the UN. On that front, proliferation will be a thorny issue: they provide arms technology, anti-ship missiles and other goodies to countries such as Iran and North Korea. They see that as leverage against us. We need to make that a priority.
Provided they get the respect they feel is due, they are unlikely to take a confrontational stance on the world stage, at least not overtly or directly. They will become a great power, but quietly (unless challenged on Taiwan), ruffling no feathers; Fareed Zakaria predicted that they would not supplant the U.S. as the Number One power. They will think of long-term strategy rather than immediate gains. They will try to be the international good guy, as opposed to Big Bad Uncle Sam, so the U.S. will need to continue to market itself and its ideals. Because the prevailing philosophy in China, Confucianism, is not a religion at all – Confucius taught about society and knowledge, and warned people not to bother with the divine – the Chinese will not try to convert the world to their philosophy as America does.
The Chinese believe in relationships and trust, rather than laws and rules. They don’t grasp that laws and contracts are important, so their participation in international institutions will be a tricky business.
One way or another, the sheer immensity of China is going to change the world politically and economically as they become more integrated into the outside world.
They are already providing a lot of international aid, although they are probably playing their own regional geopolitical games while they do it. Some of their efforts might be shortsighted: they give Zimbabwe arms and political protection at the UN, and arm Sudan as well, something which the Africans might not appreciate in the long run. They helped in Afghanistan and provided aid in Iraq, and we will want help on more terrorism and crime issues such as computer crime and human smuggling, as well as WMD inspections in Chinese ports. Other issues: bird flu, AIDS and Darfur.
The bad news is that a lot of people are worried about the rise of China. The good news is...that a lot of people are worried about the rise of China. In recent years the popularity of China has fallen in Russia, Japan, India and Europe. Many expect the Chinese to replace the U.S. as the dominant world power. And as we remember from our balance-of-power lessons, the next thing everyone will want to do is form an anti-China alliance; India (possibly), Australia, Japan and Vietnam could be interested. Europe, a key trading partner for China, would be important: if America and Europe are not on the same page regarding relations with China, things could get sticky quickly, and the Chinese would be looking for a crack of disunity to exploit. The U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement may have been crafted with one eye on China. Just don’t get so close to India that we foul up our relationship with Pakistan and increase Pakistani paranoia. Tricky, isn’t it?
When Britain saw America rising a century ago, they cultivated that relationship, partly for selfish reasons. We might do the same to China: offer friendship and as much guidance as they can tolerate.
The Chinese are configuring their military to fight our military. This is yet another area which will require a total overhaul of US strategic doctrine. Our current doctrine, such as it is, differs little from the nukes-and-overwhelming-firepower combo we were using fifty years ago, little of which will help in a strategic contest with China today. We outspend them militarily by roughly six to one, but we have the whole world to worry about while they focus only on their own front yard, and their strategic doctrine is quite low-tech, so the balance of forces is more even than one might think. As we learned in 2001 when they punched one of our airplanes out of the sky, they are not adverse to poking us in the eye, if they think we’re crowding them. They also have, or can obtain, asymmetric advantages such as cyber warfare which could disrupt US military deployments; they successfully tested an anti-satellite weapon in 2007. In the end they would prefer to use political or economic tools, rather than military tools, to get what they want.
In one of his moments of political lucidity MacArthur warned Kennedy not to indulge in a land war in Asia (Kennedy intended to get out of Vietnam after the 1964 election). We are very unlikely to get into a land conflict with China ’s gigantic army, so if there is a fracas in the western Pacific, it may happen at sea.
A key issue will be the Straits of Malacca and its route into the South China Sea, which carries more merchant traffic than Suez and Panama together, including eighty percent of China’s oil. Our navy – ironically built with a fair amount of Chinese money, which must drive them bananas -- is at either end of the strait, at the Changi base in Singapore and on Diego Garcia. We are in the neighborhood because we want to prevent any disruptions in the shipping routes, and because other Asian countries want us there, to keep China (and some other folks) honest. Also India has military facilities nearby on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. If we do joint exercises with India, the Chinese will go insane, but generally, provoking them on the Straits issue is more trouble than it’s worth.
China intends to compete as a leading sea power, although they have a long way to go; it may occur to them to stop giving us money for our navy and spend considerably more on their own. They have no carrier (although they’re building one) so they can only project power so far. So far they have been relying on other navies to keep their sea lanes clear of trouble, although they sent destroyers to Somalia to help with the anti-piracy effort. They have alliances with countries which can host their ships as needed: Pakistan, Cambodia, Thailand and Burma. According to a press report they have put a nuclear-missile submarine and other naval vessels at Sanya and Yalong Bay on the southern coast of Hainan Island; they have bought Russian submarines.
They dislike U.S. military moves near China, particularly surveillance. One Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of a U.S. carrier group not far from China, the one thing that is absolutely certain to get the undivided attention of a carrier-group commander. That’s how you say “Yankee go home” in Mandarin. In 2001 they attacked a surveillance aircraft, and in 2009 they harassed a U.S. vessel hunting subs near the Sanya base, trying to snag our sonar array and using debris to try to prevent our departure from the area. They claim ownership of a 200 mile belt of water as an economic zone, and claim the right to regulate shipping there under the terms of the UNCLOS treaty; the U.S. never signed the UNCLOS and doesn’t recognize the claim.
Since they really don’t want their energy supplies dependent on the good will of the U.S. Navy, they are also looking for alternative energy routes, and generally strengthening ties to energy suppliers: pipelines across Venezuela and Canada to the Pacific, pipelines in Iran and Sudan, tidying up relations with the Saudis and Central Asians.
Soon we would need to decide: if Taiwan makes a move toward independence, and China uses its navy to blockade, how hard and how fast do we react?
Some assert that the mostly like cause of a US-Chinese war will be Taiwan, a humiliating issue for the Chinese, but both sides have been cautious for the most part. The US has recognized that Taiwan is part of China and that neither side should disturb the status quo unilaterally, China accepts our contacts with Taiwan, and the Taiwanese Kuomintang is seeking good relations with Beijing. Temperatures have risen occasionally but never for long: when China objected to our arms sales to Taiwan we dialed it back; when the former Taiwanese president visited the US, China sent ships to the straits on exercises, the U.S. Navy went to keep an eye on them, and things cooled down. China could use missiles to attack our ships and Taiwan’s missiles, but they do not have landing craft. If they were to make a military move and fail, the humiliation would be catastrophic, and other outlying regions could get uppity. They think time is on their side – they’re doing things to make Taiwan more dependent on the mainland, for example on the trade front.
The Chinese know we are very sensitive about human rights. After Tiananmen we suspend arms exports, reduced aid and investment, and blocked IMF credits. And they know we have an eye on Tibet.
Could Taiwan be brought into the fold under the Hong Kong model?
So once we wrap up Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a few other things to worry about...
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/01/clinton.latin.america/index.html
The World Domination Quarterfinals ended sixty years ago when we beat Germany; in the semi-finals we beat Russia. Now it’s the finals: U.S. versus China. The winner rules the world. I hope someone has the good sense to hire a small army of Chinese experts.
China’s quest for respect didn’t begin with the Olympics. For millennia they saw themselves as the center of human civilization, the Middle Kingdom; the rest of the world was filled with barbarians. A century and a half ago they were stunned to be humiliated by those very barbarians in the Opium War and the intrusions which followed; the Righteous Fists, the loss to Japan in 1895, the Versailles Treaty which handed territory to the Japanese without consultation with China, the Japanese invasion, the rape of Nanking – a century of lost face. To regain it they have been flexing their muscles in Korea and in border fights with India, Vietnam and Russia; they have blustered at the Japanese over the Senkaku Island which has oil reserves nearby. Hu Jintao does not share Deng’s reluctance to put China out there as an assertive power, and he needs the army to maintain power, which would explain why he his putting himself forward globally, wooing the generals, and giving the army fat budgets.
China wants a seat at the table when major global issues are addressed, and wants to see international systems rebuilt to their liking; they had little say the first time around in the 1940s. They also need the international economic system. We do want China to be a full partner in the major international organizations: the more we wire them into it, the fewer incentives they will have to wreck it. We don’t want to poke them in the eye and scare them off so that they make other, less savory alliances and give up on reform. Contrariwise we don’t want them gumming up the works, forging anti-American alliances with Russia and France, vetoing everything at the UN. On that front, proliferation will be a thorny issue: they provide arms technology, anti-ship missiles and other goodies to countries such as Iran and North Korea. They see that as leverage against us. We need to make that a priority.
Provided they get the respect they feel is due, they are unlikely to take a confrontational stance on the world stage, at least not overtly or directly. They will become a great power, but quietly (unless challenged on Taiwan), ruffling no feathers; Fareed Zakaria predicted that they would not supplant the U.S. as the Number One power. They will think of long-term strategy rather than immediate gains. They will try to be the international good guy, as opposed to Big Bad Uncle Sam, so the U.S. will need to continue to market itself and its ideals. Because the prevailing philosophy in China, Confucianism, is not a religion at all – Confucius taught about society and knowledge, and warned people not to bother with the divine – the Chinese will not try to convert the world to their philosophy as America does.
The Chinese believe in relationships and trust, rather than laws and rules. They don’t grasp that laws and contracts are important, so their participation in international institutions will be a tricky business.
One way or another, the sheer immensity of China is going to change the world politically and economically as they become more integrated into the outside world.
They are already providing a lot of international aid, although they are probably playing their own regional geopolitical games while they do it. Some of their efforts might be shortsighted: they give Zimbabwe arms and political protection at the UN, and arm Sudan as well, something which the Africans might not appreciate in the long run. They helped in Afghanistan and provided aid in Iraq, and we will want help on more terrorism and crime issues such as computer crime and human smuggling, as well as WMD inspections in Chinese ports. Other issues: bird flu, AIDS and Darfur.
The bad news is that a lot of people are worried about the rise of China. The good news is...that a lot of people are worried about the rise of China. In recent years the popularity of China has fallen in Russia, Japan, India and Europe. Many expect the Chinese to replace the U.S. as the dominant world power. And as we remember from our balance-of-power lessons, the next thing everyone will want to do is form an anti-China alliance; India (possibly), Australia, Japan and Vietnam could be interested. Europe, a key trading partner for China, would be important: if America and Europe are not on the same page regarding relations with China, things could get sticky quickly, and the Chinese would be looking for a crack of disunity to exploit. The U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement may have been crafted with one eye on China. Just don’t get so close to India that we foul up our relationship with Pakistan and increase Pakistani paranoia. Tricky, isn’t it?
When Britain saw America rising a century ago, they cultivated that relationship, partly for selfish reasons. We might do the same to China: offer friendship and as much guidance as they can tolerate.
The Chinese are configuring their military to fight our military. This is yet another area which will require a total overhaul of US strategic doctrine. Our current doctrine, such as it is, differs little from the nukes-and-overwhelming-firepower combo we were using fifty years ago, little of which will help in a strategic contest with China today. We outspend them militarily by roughly six to one, but we have the whole world to worry about while they focus only on their own front yard, and their strategic doctrine is quite low-tech, so the balance of forces is more even than one might think. As we learned in 2001 when they punched one of our airplanes out of the sky, they are not adverse to poking us in the eye, if they think we’re crowding them. They also have, or can obtain, asymmetric advantages such as cyber warfare which could disrupt US military deployments; they successfully tested an anti-satellite weapon in 2007. In the end they would prefer to use political or economic tools, rather than military tools, to get what they want.
In one of his moments of political lucidity MacArthur warned Kennedy not to indulge in a land war in Asia (Kennedy intended to get out of Vietnam after the 1964 election). We are very unlikely to get into a land conflict with China ’s gigantic army, so if there is a fracas in the western Pacific, it may happen at sea.
A key issue will be the Straits of Malacca and its route into the South China Sea, which carries more merchant traffic than Suez and Panama together, including eighty percent of China’s oil. Our navy – ironically built with a fair amount of Chinese money, which must drive them bananas -- is at either end of the strait, at the Changi base in Singapore and on Diego Garcia. We are in the neighborhood because we want to prevent any disruptions in the shipping routes, and because other Asian countries want us there, to keep China (and some other folks) honest. Also India has military facilities nearby on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. If we do joint exercises with India, the Chinese will go insane, but generally, provoking them on the Straits issue is more trouble than it’s worth.
China intends to compete as a leading sea power, although they have a long way to go; it may occur to them to stop giving us money for our navy and spend considerably more on their own. They have no carrier (although they’re building one) so they can only project power so far. So far they have been relying on other navies to keep their sea lanes clear of trouble, although they sent destroyers to Somalia to help with the anti-piracy effort. They have alliances with countries which can host their ships as needed: Pakistan, Cambodia, Thailand and Burma. According to a press report they have put a nuclear-missile submarine and other naval vessels at Sanya and Yalong Bay on the southern coast of Hainan Island; they have bought Russian submarines.
They dislike U.S. military moves near China, particularly surveillance. One Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of a U.S. carrier group not far from China, the one thing that is absolutely certain to get the undivided attention of a carrier-group commander. That’s how you say “Yankee go home” in Mandarin. In 2001 they attacked a surveillance aircraft, and in 2009 they harassed a U.S. vessel hunting subs near the Sanya base, trying to snag our sonar array and using debris to try to prevent our departure from the area. They claim ownership of a 200 mile belt of water as an economic zone, and claim the right to regulate shipping there under the terms of the UNCLOS treaty; the U.S. never signed the UNCLOS and doesn’t recognize the claim.
Since they really don’t want their energy supplies dependent on the good will of the U.S. Navy, they are also looking for alternative energy routes, and generally strengthening ties to energy suppliers: pipelines across Venezuela and Canada to the Pacific, pipelines in Iran and Sudan, tidying up relations with the Saudis and Central Asians.
Soon we would need to decide: if Taiwan makes a move toward independence, and China uses its navy to blockade, how hard and how fast do we react?
Some assert that the mostly like cause of a US-Chinese war will be Taiwan, a humiliating issue for the Chinese, but both sides have been cautious for the most part. The US has recognized that Taiwan is part of China and that neither side should disturb the status quo unilaterally, China accepts our contacts with Taiwan, and the Taiwanese Kuomintang is seeking good relations with Beijing. Temperatures have risen occasionally but never for long: when China objected to our arms sales to Taiwan we dialed it back; when the former Taiwanese president visited the US, China sent ships to the straits on exercises, the U.S. Navy went to keep an eye on them, and things cooled down. China could use missiles to attack our ships and Taiwan’s missiles, but they do not have landing craft. If they were to make a military move and fail, the humiliation would be catastrophic, and other outlying regions could get uppity. They think time is on their side – they’re doing things to make Taiwan more dependent on the mainland, for example on the trade front.
The Chinese know we are very sensitive about human rights. After Tiananmen we suspend arms exports, reduced aid and investment, and blocked IMF credits. And they know we have an eye on Tibet.
Could Taiwan be brought into the fold under the Hong Kong model?
So once we wrap up Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a few other things to worry about...
Saturday, 25 April 2009
Pakistan, explained
So what’s going on in Pakistan?The Taleban are trying to widen their footprint in Pakistan, imposing their will on a wider area in northern Pakistan. The locals, even conservatives, don’t want the Taleban or their medieval ideas – they even tried to fight them, but the government wouldn’t back up the locals. The government is appeasing and negotiating with the Taleban. They have neither the will nor the strategy to fight the militants.
So people are asking: what is Zardari doing? It makes no sense.
The answer: it ain’t Zardari. And it makes perfect sense.
Pakistan is ruled not by Zardari but by the army and its intelligence arm, the ISI. Zardari tried to assert himself by disbanding the ISI’s political wing, and then sought to send the ISI chief to help India with the Mumbai attack, but the army blocked that move.
The main tool the army uses to maintain power is the national siege mentality, based on the notion that Afghanistan and India are colluding against them; Kashmir is central to this idea. This is the tool they use to control national politics and budget, and to keep their army in a frozen stalemate over on the eastern border with India – a perfect excuse not to tackle terrorists along their western border. The army and the ISI throw gasoline on the flames by sponsoring the Taleban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, to make mischief in Afghanistan and India. They allow those groups and al-Qa’ida to use the FATA area for safe havens and staging areas for attacks into India and Afghanistan, pretending that the FATA area is outside army control (which it may well be at this point). They also fan the flames through the legal system which is embracing more Shari’a, and through tolerance of fundamentalists who attack sellers of CD’s and DVD’s, and even juice bars where the young may meet.
Zardari wants to neutralize that weapon by resolving the Kashmir issue, reaching out to India and scaling back support for Kashmiri separatists. Currently India manages the rich part of Kashmir while Pakistan manages the poor part, a formula which is unlikely to change; Zardari’s predecessor, Musharraf, proposed making that permanent, with a “soft” border. But there may be limits as to how far the army will let Zardari go on the peace track.
America can assuage the siege mentality by letting the Pakistanis know they will be protected, by being careful in its dealings with India and with the Afghan Northern Alliance which is seen as pro-Indian (the Pakistanis see us as part of the India-Afghanistan alliance against them too, which is why our military presence makes them nervous). They probably want the same nuclear deal that India got, and IMF money.
With the help of the Pakistani army, the Taleban possibly can be split – separate the hardliners from the weekend hackers -- and then neutralized. Things which the Taleban might want: a voice in government, the departure of the hated Karzai. Of course what they may really want is to get in the face of the new, untested U.S. president, at least once. We would want them to stop protecting al-Qa’ida and launching attacks against our forces, girl’s schools and other targets. For the Taleban diehards, we will need the Pakistani army to cooperate on their side of the border (as well as a crackdown on heroin, which funds the Taleban) – making that happen might make it easier to talk to the non-hardliners.
Without the help of the Pakistani army, little progress is likely in Afghanistan. Things are already hard enough there. Afghanistan is the puzzle which defeated the empires of Britain and Russia. There is little tradition of strong central government, and the Kabul regime will need much more propping up than the one in Baghdad; longterm funding for their army and police will be needed. It will not be resolved in a quick U.S. surge. Add to that the fact that our NATO allies are overdue for a spanking, for their lackadaisical efforts in Afghanistan.
This is one of the many areas in which China might help. China wants a route to transport its goods from under-developed western China to the Indian Ocean; they helped build the Pakistani port of Gwadar, which India countered by building roads to facilitate transport through the Afghan ring-road system to Iran, thus bypassing Gwadar. China is also Afghanistan’s largest investor, spending a pack of money on a copper mine near Kabul. Of course China has its own interests in the area: among other things, they are not thrilled to see U.S. forces in the region (Iran, Russia and India are also nervous).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)