After being closed the last several months - more like a year - the Little Red Blog is returning shortly. Older archives will be available in a re-sorted manner. And other features will be added.
All archives listed prior to this entry are from the prior versions of the LRB.
A few hours have passed since Bill and I released the presentation on al-Qaeda and the International Islamic Front's attacks since 1998. The general response has been supportive and understanding of our intent. There have been some, as expected, detractors and others who wondered why this or that terrorist action was left out of the presentation. We purposefully left editorial commentary, methodology and personal ideology out of the presentation and, so, expected that to cause some discussion or disagreement. No problem.
Given the number of attacks, the range of organizations, the inescapable challenge of meeting others expectations or vision for such an effort, it seemed to us that we were better served by providing data on a limited number, an example set perhaps, of what Islamofascist aligned to varying degrees with al-Qaeda had been up to. This also enabled us to make the presentation manageable in terms of length, file size, etc.
Some have questioned our limited use of attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, and frankly that is a justifiable concern, if it is the focus of ones view of the larger war. Our view remains broader. One critic of the presentation, who described it as a "mess" in a comment on one blog, and then challenged it further on his own blog saying "it is very clear to me that Roggio's and Hutchen[s’] flash animation really doesn't do anything to resolve the debate one way or another." That works for me. It wasn't meant to resolve the debate. It was meant to present a portion of the data and to remind those who, as do we all, have lives to live and aren’t constantly focused on these acts.
For those, like the above linked critic, who believe we've made an argument, and by leaving out data we've misrepresented the truth... I disagree. Each viewer brings with them a set of beliefs about the war (and any of its particular fronts) and in doing so this one has chosen to challenge our presumed takes without evidence of it in the presentation. Maybe it wouldn't be as concerning if a Ph.D wasn't attached to his name.
Specifically regarding Iraq and the oft discussed question of it's role in the war, and specifically whether or not it caused or inflamed current terrorist activities, or as the critic says - "expanded the recruitment pool and the broader base of support for Islamic terrorists" - again I must take issue. The base of al-Qaeda's or any Islamofascist organization's recruiting pool doesn't increase or decrease based on our action or any ability to support or deny the al-Qaeda narrative. The ideological fermentation begins without us and when it’s mature the new terrorist will act within the constraints of his convictions and resources available to him. Many peaceful Muslims stand beside tomorrow's terrorist in daily prayers with little to no knowledge of their ideological take or their proclivity toward terror. Is he a terrorist only when he begins to act on his belief or is he a terrorist when the rot of hatred consumes his heart and faith?
Others have also questioned the inclusion of Beslan in the presentation. While it wasn't the most straightforward of choices, the evidence and the State Department's words "Basayev has links to al-Qaeda" were enough to sway me toward the belief that Riyadh us-Saleheen Martyrs' Brigade and Shamil Basayev (who claimed responsibility for the act) are affiliated, although most likely not in a subordinate relationship, with al-Qaeda and the IIF movement and thus warranted inclusion. Additionally, al-Qaeda’s use of the Beslan attacks as a recruitment tool and rallying cry signified their ideological similarity making the decision easier. To exclude the Basayev led terror we would have to accept his word that he seeks only to defeat Russia, and to ignore his direct words of support for the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. In the end, that wasn’t something I could do.
As I noted in my earlier post, it’s your turn to discuss this and provide the commentary. I’ll have more to say later.
It wasn’t a work of joy. On occasion, there are things that should, or rather must, be done.
On Friday evening, Bill Roggio and I began discussing a presentation that to the two of us, clearly fit into this category. Our effort was to document, in a visual manner, al-Qaeda’s attacks since 1998 when the International Islamic Front declared war on you, me, and all those who refuse their radical view of Islam.
The result is a presentation available at Winds of Change.NET in the form of a Flash presentation.
It documents 30 attacks by al-Qaeda and its IIF affiliates since February of 1998. It by no means includes all al-Qaeda attacks during that time. Or all acts of terrorism. Instead, it’s a presentation of select acts of violence in 16 different countries and at the cost of thousands of lives. 4895 lives lost. More than 12345 wounded. As Bill notes in the accompanying post at Winds, many of the victims of al-Qaeda’s terrorism are Muslim. Whether they are collateral damage or purposefully targeted, given al-Qaeda’s ideological intolerance, is not as significant as the response of those under attack.
It’s that thought that remains with me at this hour after completing the presentation. When attacked, we have responded and altered the plans of Sheikh bin Laden and his band of falsely righteous cohorts. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have fallen in the battle to defend us, and the world, against an enemy all too comfortable with indiscriminate killing. Like many of you, and our nations leaders, I’m confident that we can (and will) win the war. That being the case, I can’t help but believe that those who sit by and watch while their religion is abducted for pure evil, while their sons and daughters are taught that death is preferred to life, and that it is morally excusable to commit acts of terrorism are the key to ending the war sooner rather than later, and at a lower cost in lives and turmoil. There are many Muslims who stand with us against al-Qaeda and the IIF. More are needed.
While on the subject, I’ll note that the musical accompaniment for the presentation is in Arabic. It’s title is Mohammad al-Mustafa or Mohammad the Chosen One. It wasn’t selected to stir the pot, so to speak, or to enflame the passions of those who will disagree with our editorial perspectives on the war or any other matter. It was simply a moving piece that, from my perspective at least, speaks volumes in Arabic and should reinforce a desire to see Islam no longer held captive by terrorist. To the ear unaccustomed to Arabic it is simple, resonating and perhaps somewhat haunting.
When looking at the data presented, it is minimal and without commentary or editorial opinion, as much as possible. Tell us what you think; provide the editorial commentary on your blog or in the comments section here or at Winds.
And to close, I’d like to thank Bill for the opportunity. As he notes, we shared a vision and the effort. We struggled with the content and its weight in sheer loss and strife. In the end, more importantly, we share a vision for the end of the war, for life without terrorism and for the role, even when insignificant, that we can play in helping to get the message out. That is a joy.
(Originally posted at The Fourth Rail.)
When British Prime Minister Tony Blair asks President Bush, and other G-8 leaders, to increase the amount of aid provided to Africa, and to eliminate the foreign debt of African nations, he is unlikely to be addressing the continents woes with the mindset of Global War on Terror. President Bush is set to announce that the U.S. will further increase aid to Africa, to the tune of $674 million, while continuing his opposition to the remainder of Blair’s plan. He is right to do so for both humanitarian purposes, as well as for national security.
Addressing the humanitarian aspect, I’ll be brief. Provide fish or teach to fish? Provide economic aid via grants (or the elimination of debt) or provide economic incentives to aid (or require) the development of civil systems capable of supporting foreign investment, the development of educational systems, and the legal rights of the people of Africa. I would applaud Blair for his passionate argument for doing more to help Africa, yet I believe he is mistaken in his plan, discounting both the nature of man and the realities of our world. All aid to Africa, beyond the essentials to prevent malnutrition, should be focused on building the infrastructure needed to get beyond subsistence, both in real terms, as well as in terms of cultural and social essentials. It is largely in this area that we have failed, and in this area that money alone will not change anything.
For years the U.S., and the world at large, ignored the spread of Islamist ideals that lead to terrorism in the name of Islam. Our focus was singular… ensure that the U.S. maintained influence in the region, the Middle East, equal to or greater than that of the Soviet bloc. Post Soviet policy was even narrower. Now we fight a war that is likely to outlast many of us, and our former allies have been exposed as at least partially responsible for the development of the hatred of the west built on the regions bigotry, religious and cultural. Despots have largely governed Africa, like the Middle East, and with the cultural value of ethnicity, bloodlines, religious affiliation and race, Africans have waged war on each other while the outside world fed the victims.
The U.S. must address African nations with higher standards. We must not eliminate debt or make grants with the hope that the economic relief felt by the governments will translate to opportunity for the individual. It would merely extend the life of those in power. In place of donations (by the government – I’m completely supportive of individual donations through charity organizations dealing directly with the needy), the U.S. should ratchet up our requirements. This should include direct investments, binding the governments to support and encourage civil opportunities, development of legal and banking systems, expansion of communications, and most importantly - the inclusion of all citizens in a liberal education program. In addition, it should be clear to Africa's leaders that military aid and support of non-democratic leaders will not be an option. You play poorly in the playground, we don't invite you in and serve you dinner, instead, we cut you off and feed those who will work to make things better. If not, we will again silently wait for the next Somalia, Sudan or Zimbabwe to develop. And we’ll pay the man who leads the transition.
Of course, none of this addresses how to end the suffering under the hands of mad men already in place. That’ll have to wait.
[Originally posted at The Fourth Rail.]
The War on Terror has seen a number of nations in transition from enemy to ally of the United States. In Afghanistan and Iraq, despotic rulers were removed, and following first every free elections new leaders have expressed support for continued U.S. involvement and assistance in their evolution toward democratic success, even if they aren’t pro-American in the fuller sense of the term. Elsewhere, there are states in transition from foe to friend. For some, the War on Terror has provided the necessity for such a change. For others the War on Terror also presents a challenge to making the transition.
Indonesia’s newly elected President Yudhoyono, faces many significant challenges in his efforts to improve relations with the U.S. And while he has found success thus far, some of these challenges are worth review.
Foremost among the challenges facing Yudhoyono, leading the world’s largest Muslim population while allied with the U.S. in the War on Terror. This is in no means an indictment of Indonesia’s Muslim population, in large part one of the more liberal in the world. Rather it is due to the existence of Jemaah Islamiyat (J.I.), an al-Qaeda linked terror organization in Indonesia. The prosecution of the War on Terror will not cease so long as this group remains a threat, and for Yudhoyono it remains both a political challenge and a tactical challenge to eliminate J.I.
A constraint earned prior to Yudhoyono’s election is also found in Indonesia’s history of military abuse of power and influence. While not limited to the post Suharto era, Indonesian military forces have not shown restraint in their efforts to quash unrest and independence movements among the various islands that make up the nation post Suharto. Added to the political might the military has maintained historically, it is no wonder that few are eager to see any aggressive action from Jakarta. In many respects, the history of corruption and abuse of power not only limits Yudhoyono’s ability to confront terrorist, it also limits his ability to move rapidly in other reform initiatives. For that reason, I hold that it will not be during Yudhoyono’s presidency that that foreign viewers consider many of Indonesia’s issues resolved. How’s that? Frankly, it’ll take a few turns at the ballot, and significant reform in the command and control of the armed forces to ensure outsiders that the historical relationship between the military power structure and the civilian government are no longer symbiotic.
Additionally, Yudhoyono must revitalize the economy of Indonesia. The nation faces significant infrastructure, education and banking difficulties that limit investors’ willingness to seek out opportunities in Indonesia. Indonesia has also become a net oil importer rather exporter, and coupled with government pricing controls this has severely limited the positives that many nations have found while oil prices have soared.
Yudhoyono’s economic policy’s, termed "pro-growth, pro-job, pro-poor", are essentially aimed at addressing the need for greater transparency in business and encouraging foreign investment to reduce unemployment and stem corruption. Again, however, time and frankness will be the immediate determinants of progress, more so than the resumption of talks such as the Trade and Investment Council. The one significant positive, although I’m hesitant to call it one, is in the rebuilding efforts following last December’s devastating tsunami. Both from an infrastructure perspective and in broader terms of addressing unemployment, the potential for a lift to the economy exist. If wise, Yudhoyono will work to ensure that the needed accountability is given for all foreign aid received, as this may go help to establish some level of confidence in his programs of reform.
Yudhoyono is an optimist. In that regard, he and President Bush are akin. In his visit with President Bush, Yudhoyono told Bush that the economic reforms are underway and that his military is undergoing the fundamental changes needed to end its history of transgressions. Bush believed him - "[t]he president told me he's in the process of reforming the military, and I believe him."
From an outsiders view, it appears that they have cause for their optimism. Likewise both are moving with relative caution, which I would applaud. Given the significance of the Strait of Malacca to international shipping, and Chinese efforts (link includes map of shipping routes) to extend their influence in the region, the U.S. will need an optimist and a strong batch of allies. More so, we’ll need a free and economically stable Indonesia to thwart the violent tactics, and ideology, of al-Qaeda from taking further root in Indonesia. Along with Australia, India and Japan, the U.S. should be both an economic and military friend to Indonesia.
[Originally posted at The Fourth Rail.]
Bashar Assad is in quite a pickle. Having come to power following the death of his father, the Middle East should have been an ideal place for a young totalitarian just learning the ropes. Unfortunately for Bashar he has neither his father’s Machiavellian mastery of politicking, nor the luxury of coming to power an age void of geopolitical focus on other parts of the world, such as the Cold War provided. With the successful U.S. War on Terror just miles from his home, the Arab street becoming more self critical - desirous of self governance and empowered by support from afar, Bashar has found himself forced to withdraw from Lebanon and now sits isolated and fermenting under the eyes of the world.
This week we learned that Syria has "severed all links" to the U.S. military and CIA in Iraq. Much as I would have responded, the U.S. seems to have given this announcement a collective "yawn." Why? Because Syria was never an ally in the War on Terror and their "minimal and sporadic" assistance was an attempt to quiet the criticism of newly free Iraq and U.S. commanders dealing with Syria's either porous border or direct support for the terrorists crossing it.
Popular, in as much as enough discussion has been made to qualify as popular, theories for why Syria has cut its minimal assistance to U.S. operations range from the conspiratorial – Zarqawi being recently injured and running to Syria needing cover; to the openly outlandish – Syria needs to cut ties before moving their forces into place for an attack. I don't subscribe to either, and will offer alternative reasoning. I'll be the first to admit that sufficient data isn't available to support any theory or to predict the next step - unless we believe that Imad Mustapha, Syria's ambassador to the U.S., was telling the truth and Syria just didn't see the point in helping if they are going to be criticized so harshly, poor things.
The two reasons for cutting off aid are: 1) Given the unrest brewing in Syria, a first for Syria, Assad recognized the need to ensure that Islamists don’t refocus their attention on his government – freshly under attack from moderate and secular Muslims; and 2) Assad just doesn't understand that his government, like that of Mubarak in Egypt, needs to embrace the West for support (many Westerners still preferring stability) rather than breaking ties and waiting on the eventual eye of the storm to hit Damascus.
These two reasons leave out the Kurds in Syria, a large and well organized group certainly displeased with the state of affairs in Syria, emboldened by the success of the Kurds in Iraq, and not satisfied by recent concessions such as the establishment of the a government council to deal with Kurd issues. Daily Star writer Ibrahim Hamidi believes the Kurds hold the key to Syria's future, or perhaps to the future of the Assad regime.
While Hamidi may place an extra significance on the Kurd influence, I would grant that the Kurds are influential and not ignored when Assad looks at his future options. Unfortunately, the real key is Assad's unwillingness to separate from Iran. Until he does, Syria will not be free to explore "slow" advancement in self governance, nor will they be able to address U.S. concerns about Syria’s influence in Lebanon (even without the military presence), or support for terrorists in Iraq (or Israel and the Palestinian Territories).
My advice to Bashar:
Break your ties to Iran and implement the process of moving towards becoming a modern and free nation, or else you will eventually face the rapid end to your significance in Syria.
[Originally posted at The Fourth Rail.]
Of our greater virtues one must recognize the end to our acceptance of “the soft bigotry of low expectations” as most significant in the world today. After decades of preferring the stability of the autocrats in the Arab world, the terrible attacks of 9/11 and the President’s unwillingness to count all Muslims among the enemies to the U.S., we are in the midst of a spring of possibilities. Fouad Ajami, writing in the Opinion Journal, describes his meeting with Arab men and women filled with hope, a press opening up for the first time to a critical review of Arab culture and politics, and clearly recognizing that the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq led the way to their new hope.
"As I made my way on this Arab journey, I picked up a meditation that Massimo d'Azeglio, a Piedmontese aristocrat who embraced that "springtime" in Europe, offered about his time, which speaks so directly to this Arab time: "The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on the contrary, it increases the desire to walk." It would be fair to say that there are many Arabs today keen to walk--frightened as they are by the prospect of the Islamists coming to power and curtailing personal liberties, snuffing out freedoms gained at such great effort and pain. But more Arabs, I hazard to guess, now have the wish to ride. It is a powerful temptation that George W. Bush has brought to their doorstep."
Ajami’s conclusion that while some will accept their new found hope with reserve and a willingness to progress slowly, more will seek the path of haste in their desire to bring the gift of liberty to their children sooner rather than later. Likewise, in our tossing aside the value of stability, we are called to forsake the inclination to judge all Arabs or Muslims as terrorists, enemies of the U.S. or villains waiting on their opportunity to rule with an iron hand.
In this effort, as exemplified by recent comments on this blog, many are thus far incapable of finding a proper balance. One of my personal interests in the War on Terror is in the effort to find metrics for measuring our progress toward victory. As Strategy Page notes in their efforts to do the same, it cannot be done in isolation as events around the world have a significant impact as well, whether in direct conflicts, wars or purely in the realm of diplomacy. As such, we should be prepared to recognize the implications of policy decisions around the world. When we compromise our beliefs to permit WTO membership for a non-democratic state, ignore human rights abuses to avoid potential economic hardship, or acknowledge and accept terrorists as politicians, the Arab people who are now so enthused by the possibility of liberty will recognize the inconsistency. Even if justified by pragmatism, we should recognize that for those with only a hint of liberty knocking at their door, such play is less likely to be understood.
Whether by our valuing liberty above tyranny or the expansion of our own economic interests, we must be willing to forsake stability, risk the turmoil of transition and embrace the potential of others to achieve. In doing so, we tell the Arab hopeful that we will stand by them, should things turn awry, and moreover, we tell the non-Arab that it isn’t by terror alone we are prompted to action… it is by our values.
[Originally posted at The Fourth Rail.]
Tougher immigration legislation is in the works. Unfortunately it isn’t the U.S.; it’s France that’s addressing illegal immigration. The BBC reports that France has announced new measures to address the issue. Some highlights:
Visas with biometric data;
Tougher deportation regulations;
Increased border controls;
Improved constraints on illegal workers;
Tighter regulations on marriages by French nationals;
And the creation of an immigration police force.
All this and the French only have between 200 and 400 thousand illegals. The French also admitted that their previous amnesty efforts, in 1981 and 1997, where failures and resulted in further illegal immigration. Washington on the other hand remains asleep at the wheel.
The fine folks at the NY Times (don’t laugh) have published their take on the events in Brasilia. And while the column is largely a regurgitation of the two linked in yesterday's post, its still worth a look. More worthy is Austin Bay’s take on the summit.
As Austin catches, and sorely missing from the previous AP and FT columns, the participants in the summit also expressed their view on terrorism, which the UN hasn’t yet defined.
The Brasilia conference also:
...called for an international conference to define what terrorism is, and endorsed the right of peoples to "resist foreign occupation in accordance with the principle of international legality and in compliance with international humanitarian law."
What will come of the meeting is clear - little of any value aside from a bit more clarity on the scope and scale of anti-American sentiment and moral confusion in both regions.
When leaders from the Arab and South American worlds get together to improve relations, economic and otherwise, it’s just a little something to keep an eye on. On Monday, in Brasilia, Brazil, just such a meeting began and thus far it’s produced several noteworthy events. While the stated purpose of the summit, dubbed the Summit of South American-Arab Countries, is to usher in improved political and economic ties between the regions, thus far the group has managed to challenge U.S. sanctions on Syria, question the UK’s claims to the Falkland Islands, and to press the Israeli’s to withdraw from the occupied territories. A few details for the summit that includes 7 Arab heads of state and 8 of their South American counterparts --
The largest ovations by the esteemed leaders and businessmen taking part in the convention have been for Hugo Chavez, there’s a friendly fellow for you, and Mahmoud Abbas. The event's host, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the first elected leftist leader of Brazil, went on to praise the Palestinian people for their patience. Patience. Palestinian patience. Yup.
In a document to be signed on Thursday, the group asserts that the U.S. violates international law by placing sanctions on Syria, which the U.S. did in response to Syria’s ties to terrorism. The document request that the UK and Argentina return to negotiations over the Falkland Islands, most likely prompted by the EU Constitutional referendum that includes the islands as British overseas territories.
To me it is clear that while efforts to establish "free-trade" between the two regions, as would apply to any or all regions, is an admirable goal. Unfortunately, just as in the hallows of the UN, when the participants only pay lip service to the ideals of freedom, it is unlikely that any positives will be achieved. Of course, in the diplomatic manner appropriate for our age, the U.S. congratulated the participants for their efforts.
Looking the other way is a dangerous move when standing before an enemy. The U.S. has several enemies who require our attention today, and our government seems significantly challenged to keep them all in view. North Korea remains staunchly defiant while toying with nuclear weapons, Iran appears prepared to trash the EU-3 negotiations in favor of a return to uranium enrichment activities, Russia and the EU are moving closer to an agreement which will provide further basis for the former Soviet Union to become a WTO member, and China sits with disdain for Japan, an independent Taiwan and a world unwilling to do without cheap goods built on the back of Chinese laborers.
A friend once said to me that the trouble with the news is there is never anything really happening. After deciding that I might have to rethink whom my friends are, it occurred to me that, at least in the case of this one individual, for some the only news is when the worst has actually occurs. I’m loath to wait for war, the launch of a missile, or the ratification of agreements that are certain to aid the destruction of freedom and liberty before becoming engaged in the debate.
For many, it is enough to pass their time without concern for the larger issues at play, and then to respond with vitriol and misunderstanding when things go in a direction contrary to their benefit. Blogging provides those who choose a different course to have a voice ahead of the event.
All that being said... what’s going on:
In Iran - just a little over a month before their presidential elections, they've officially announced that they’ve converted uranium ore concentrate into uranium tetraflouride gas (UF-4), a step closer to the target uranium hexafloride (UF-6), a key step in the production of highly enriched uranium (HEU) which could be used to develop nuclear weapons. Given how the U.S., among others, have believed that Iran had done so for quite sometime, it is not news, the news is the admission, which is typical of the Iranian practice of admitting critical steps or progress only after significant corollary events have occurred. In this case, one might ask, how much UF-6 or HEU does Iran have if they are now admitting UF-4 production?
Additionally, Iran has once again suggested that their temporary cessation of enrichment activities is likely to end within the next few days. This, of course, would violate the terms of their negotiations with the EU-3, and place the onus on the U.S. and EU to take the issue before the UN Security Council, a step long ago overdue.
With regard to the DPRK – both the U.S. and Japan have responded to the shutdown of the DPRK’s Yongbyon nuclear power plant, and subsequent missile testing with concern. There has been speculation that the DPRK plans to test a nuclear weapon, and as recently as today, the Chosun Ilbo has editorialized that the North may do so as early as June. This while China sits idly by, allowing our interest to focus on North Korea or Iran, and they portray themselves as aghast at Japan’s history books and interested in Taiwan’s opposition parties desire for a united China.
The EU, in their typical fashion, appears to believe that Russia under Putin is ready for WTO membership and is encouraging the Russian’s to sign an agreement with the EU to solidify their credentials for inclusion early next year. The U.S. is apparently not opposed to Russian membership, and why would we be, we supported China’s membership.
Speaking of China, and not of their faux anger over Japan’s history books or their panda bear offering to Taiwan, today China and Pakistan announced they’d co-develop a new fighter jet to replace Pakistan’s aging fleet. Never mind the U.S. offer to sell fighters to Pakistan.
Rant over...
One of the foremost minds, hearts and consciences in the world today, Natan Sharansky, author of The Case for Democracy, has resigned from the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon. His letter of resignation, available at Winds of Change, is a must read for those seeking to understand why he would step down at this time. In his own words:
"As you know, I have opposed the disengagement plan from the beginning on the grounds that I believe any concessions in the peace process must be linked to democratic reforms within Palestinian society. Not only does the disengagement plan ignore such reforms, it will in fact weaken the prospects for building a free Palestinian society and at the same time strengthen the forces of terror.
Will our departure from Gaza encourage building a society where freedom of speech is protected, where independent courts protect individual rights, and where free markets enable Palestinians to build an independent economic life beyond government control? Will our departure from Gaza end incitement in the Palestinian media or hate- filled indoctrination in Palestinian schools? Will our departure from Gaza result in the dismantling of terror groups or the dismantling of the refugee camps in which four generations of Palestinians have lived in miserable conditions?
Clearly, the answer to all these questions is no."
There is little that can be said to challenge his assertions here. The withdrawal from the Gaza is a political move. As such, it is not based on principle or character – attributes that Sharansky, his thoughts and actions are bound to. Prime Minister Sharon is acting as a leader, and in this case, his leadership isn’t intended to impact the Israeli people.
From my take, Sharon’s move is aimed at leading the Palestinian people and world opinion. In the absence of positive Arab or Palestinian leadership, particularly in the autocratic nations backing the Palestinian Authority for years under Yassir Arafat and holding the reigns of power with a perverted blend of false piety and ethnic nationalism, the Palestinian people have failed to establish an sense of democratic normalcy or basic systems of supporting life in a free and open society. Their lack of trust in Israel, as well as moderate Palestinian leaders, cannot be modified from within in short order. To hasten the transition, Sharon takes an unpopular course at home.
Sharansky should be applauded for his principles, while the pragmatically minded will also recognize that his stepping down in no way aids his overall objective. Would I have had it that Sharansky stay despite his disagreement with the policy? Probably not, for a man of his character would be hard pressed to be most effective in that role, and yet, I can’t help but believe that had he been willing to accept the political boldness of the plan, and recognize that while nothing is guaranteed, it is leadership by example for a people who’ve known only negative leaders – the Palestinians.
For want of sleep, the news of "Habemus Papam", and other more mundane tasks that we all must on occasion fulfill, the News and Notes were delayed. Here is a short bit of what I hope will be just a first for today.
Habemus Papam! Pope Benedict XVI is the new pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Congratulations to the faithful and, of course, to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger for his selection. Being a theologian, and 78 years old, it strikes me that his role is one of caretaker and reinforcement of the doctrines of the late John Paul II. May he be a benefit and blessing to all the world.
Today we note that it has been 10 years since the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. 168 lives were lost on that morning. The bombing had a significant impact on me. On that I hope to share more later today.
While working on the new site, I'm constantly reminded of the vast number of potential hot spots around the world. Whether it be the dispute between China and Japan, North Korea's nuclear play, Iran's ethnic clashes or nuclear ambitions, the Sunni attacks on the Shi'a of Iraq or the many, many, more that I could list, I am left feeling a bit like John Adams must have when he wrote "[w]e have not men fit for the times. We are deficient in genius, education, travel, fortune - everything." Yet, as I've noted many times, I am bound in optimism and much of it is due to the many who while visibly offering words (including through blogs), behind the scenes go about the necessary actions to fortify and defend our land.
Back later.
UPDATE: The Watcher's Council has an opening for those so inclined to apply. Its a good thing and the worst that can happen is you'll be rejected, humiliated and laughed out of the blogosphere. Go ahead, apply.
To help feed my appetite for books I've signed up to do reviews for Mind & Media. Some of you are aware of the service Stacy offers, as that's how I was directed to her, but for those who aren't I'll post more in the near future (including her logo) and then when the first book arrives I'll begin the review process.
Yesterday I mentioned how I was using del.icio.us and how pleased I was with it. Well, it was down for a while today, which in conjunction with the need to have more frequent updates led me to an nifty bit of code called MySQLicious. It mirrors the del.icio.us links in your local MySQL database, and then via PHP, Perl or whatever you like, and you can query as often as you like, no throttling from del.icio.us. Of course, the updating of the mirror should still be moderated, so that you don't abuse the service.
John Bolton's vote was delayed. There is no good news in this save the clarity it provides on the character (and lack) of the Senate.
North Korea shuts down a reactor, most likely to permit further weapons development, and still - still - South Korea opposes sanctions on the North. The last 7, or more, years of South Korean leadership (reflective of the culture today) has been more pro-DPRK than it has been supportive of the U.S. As with Germany and Japan, lessons learned can either be forgotten, played for all their worth, or simple become a part of your character. You know which is which.
There's been a lot going on of late, and unfortunately for this space, and the few who still return to it, there has been little added. I would ask that you continue your patience and patronage, and know that soon I will return with the same ferocity and delight that I once had for filling the ever wide channels of the blogosphere with the ringing sound of my thoughts. Or is that some sort of tinnitus. Anyway, here's a bit of catching up that's over due.
The Watcher of Weasels has selected two fine additions to join the Watcher's Council. I must admit that both are better bloggers than I am, and like the other members probably only tolerate my presence as an odd means of blogger charity. I'll have to check into the tax law to see if it benefits either of us. So without further delay, more on Tom later, the two newest members are The Glittering Eye and Carpe Bonum. If you aren't familiar with them, please go and get acquainted.
It's April 15th. You know what that means - it means the 2005 EO Symposium (2nd Quarter) - Judeo-Christian Morality in an Ethically Pluralistic Society is due tonight. Thankfully, my entry will be ready with time to spare. If you plan to submit an entry, you've got until 11:59 P.M. CST. Joe runs a great blog and the responses to this symposium, while perhaps not as numerous, will be just as thoughtful and engaging as the first installment this past January.
Another of the side issues that I've been working on was mentioned today. And by a co-conspirator at that. Along with Bill Rice, Dawn's Early Light, and Tom, the Redhunter, I'm working to build a new site to focus on open source assessments of the various threats against the United States and her allies. I'm confident we'll launch shortly and that it'll be a plus for those interested in the topic.
Now to close the evening out with a flourish I’ll offer a couple of quick items of News and Notes for Thursday and early Friday morning.
Senator John McCain signaled his lack of desire to make a serious run for the White House in 2008 today when he announced that he'd side with the Democrats should the Republican leadership decide to lead and break the Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees. Like many of you I'm fed up with GOP Senators dressed like asses, polling for direction and dancing about on every issue. The principled elephant doesn't bray, hem or haw, it stands firm, does not forget and most importantly - never backs down. Senator McCain has long been heralded, and rightly so, for being a hero. And that he was and always will be, but as a Senator, I'd rather see him go.
Thankfully Senate Majority Leader Frist seems prepared to bring the issue to bear. Should enough salamander skinned Senators side with the obstructionist weasels, like Bird, at least we will know who to leave off the list for our support in '06 and '08. And if I could I'd add another animal to keep this up.
Robert Zoellick goes to the Sudan to press for action. Vice chief murdering thug, Ali Uthman Muhammad Taha, repeated his consistent message of denial saying his government was "working diligently to stop the violence" and "get Darfur back to normalcy." We have to watch out, if Kofi leaves the UN - this is just the guy to take over.
In Central Asia, Hamid Karzai wants to keep the Americans around, and so does Kurmanbek Bakiyev, acting prime minister of Kyrgyzstan, so long as we don't bring our AWACS along.
And while China stages protest against Japan, the EU Parliament affirms a measure to support the binding of the Arms Embargo to China's human rights and cross strait relations with Taiwan. The measure means nothing officially, and in China certainly means less. Just think how little it would mean to someone in... say - North Korea.
DPRK leaders have determined that they'll have to increase their nuclear weapons cache, or as Kim Yong Nam would say - "[w]e will continue increasing our self-defensive nuclear deterrent" - and to think, just a few years back the U.S. was building them a light water nuclear reactor. Ah... the good 'ole Clinton years.
Okay, that's it for tonight. Tomorrow we'll have the EO Symposium, the winners of this week's Watcher's Council, and more news, notes, quips, rants, rambles and the like. And thereafter....
This morning I'm busy with another prospective project and in lieu of more detailed posts on an array of topics, I'll leave you with these news and notes until I'm able to add more.
Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is flying home today after visiting with President Bush and Vice President Cheney over the last couple of days. Sharon and Brigadier General Galant apparently stressed the significance of the dealing with Iran's nuclear development efforts, shared recent intel and satellite photos and called for the U.S. to press for UN Security Council involvement.
On a related note, given the significance the press has made of Bush and Sharon not seeing eye to eye on the issue of settlements, you may find Tom’s post on the subject of interest. And this piece at the always worthy American Thinker is highly recommended.
Lebanon's Prime Minister has stepped down. Again.
Afghanistan is hosting Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and will seek a permanent strategic security relationship with the U.S. according to President Hamid Karzai. This is big, and while it was expected, it remains significant to have Karzai stating that the request will be formally submitted.
Russia's President Putin has ruled out any attempts to create a legal means for him to run again in 2008. Some doubt that this story is nearing its end or the truth. Count me among them.
South Korea's President Roh, the leader of the morally vapid and ungrateful nation, has announced his support of Germany getting a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. His comments came while Roh visited Germany to woo investors.
al-Qaeda's new strategy is to lie. Okay, perhaps not, perhaps that part has always been there. Bill Roggio has the story of how their new direct approach, attacking the U.S. military head-on, has failed and the resulting lies they've told.
That's it for now.
James Pinkerton, of Newsday, writes of three events that combined show the possibility of an "Asian Century" whereas the past century is referred to as the "American Century." As Pinkerton notes, the movement is now peaceful. As others and I have noted on more than one occasion, we are fools to believe that it will remain such. Pinkerton’s three fuses that are burning to create the Asian Century are the formation of a new Sino-Indian movement for a New Asian Order, the renewal of tension, even violence, between China and Japan, and China’s support for nuclear North Korea.
There is little comfort to be found in the current status quo or peaceful tension between China and the United States. China has renewed its political interests and ties with its giant neighbors Russia and India, it continues to pursue arms from an economically, rather than strategically, driven Europe, and as Pinkerton notes it stands at the ready to prevent any U.S. pre-emptive efforts to force change in North Korea. While yesterday I noted that I support Japan in their dispute with China, primarily for the moral lessons learned by the Japanese post WWII, it should also be clear that for purely strategic reasons the U.S. must support Japan as a counter-balance to the growing influence of China in the region.
Pinkerton’s column also notes an alarming bit of news from North Korea.
Japan's Kyodo news service says a top North Korean official declared that his country could strike America not only directly, but also indirectly: "The United States should consider the danger that we could transfer nuclear weapons to terrorists."While I’ve long stressed just such a possibility, that a DPRK official would state it as a possibility is surprising. We are clearly warranted in our attention to the Middle East and the Islamic world in general given the attacks on the Western world that have been spurred by hatred from that portion of the world, yet, as Pinkerton notes, the U.S. must not forget that there are others at work.
The U.S. cannot afford to see the world in a single Global War on Terror view nor can our support for our allies in Asia and the South Pacific be forgotten or left untended. Australia, Taiwan, Japan, Pakistan and the Philippines, in particular, are vital to our security, economic well being and potentially to our ability to balance what is clearly a growing threat in China.
India and China have signed an agreement establishing a framework for settling a set of long-standing border disputes and for increasing the volume of trade between the two nations. Some will no doubt believe that this is simply a matter of China and India attempting to smooth out the tension and little more. My first thought was that this is more of China attempting to rest control of the region, and India, feeling a bit like the forgotten stepchild, unfortunately playing along.
So why am I not optimistic about the deal?
First, Pakistan has traditionally been armed by China. Along comes the decision to supply Pakistan with F-16’s, along with some debt restructuring, as a means of thanks for Pakistan’s support in the Global War on Terror. India, not at all pleased by the deal, and currently going through an extensive beefing up of its military, as well as its military industrial complex, then signs a non-military deal with China. Does anyone doubt that China, as well, was displeased by the U.S. decision to supply Pakistan with F-16’s or more directly, Pakistan’s cozying up to the U.S. in the GWOT? China, while striving to create an increased role in the economic outlook and military security of Southeast Asia determines that it’ll cease to lay claims to disputed lands and work to end other land disputes with India. India, at the same time has aims on becoming a primary military components supplier to European arms manufacturers, the same manufacturers so desperately seeking an end to the EU arms embargo on China.
On more than one occasion I’ve considered, and discussed, the "perfect storm" of Europe, Russia and China aligning against the U.S. Each time an event such as this occurs I’m renewed in my confidence that there are those who seek to displace the U.S. as the leader of the free world, without realization or concern for the consequences of their actions.
Of course, the terms of the current agreement do not affirm any military cooperation or trade related to arms, yet it stands to reason that within the next few months, when India announces its selection, that the Europeans are now more likely than before to be at the forefront. Just two weeks ago India agreed to purchase 12 used Mirage 2005 from Qatar. The Mirage is a French built fighter.
The prospect of war with China is not something that draws lots of attention, at least not for this blog (despite the numerous posts on the subject). That being said, it is something that requires the attention of the various strategists responsible for planning for the defense of the United States and our interests. Today I came across two post on the subject of Chinese power and the potential for war worth sharing (not that others aren’t out there, just haven’t seen them yet).
First, in a post that reminds me of the excellent debate at Bill Roggio’s The Fourth Rail just a couple of weeks ago, Tom, the Redhunter, revises his estimate of the timetable for a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan.
Second, Bill Rice, at Dawn’s Early Light, takes a look at the shifting sphere of influence and power in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. Bill put this up on Friday, but I missed it then and didn’t visit over the weekend.
As I’ve noted in previous post, the prospect for war with China is real and growing at this time. Our defense appropriations for the upcoming year, along with the efforts to transform the military, aren’t entirely in sync with the potential for war with China, particularly the reduction in naval capacity, which Bill notes.
Today, like the last three weeks, I’ll not be presenting any lengthy additions to the debate, I’ll just recommend the above mentioned to you.
The Japanese government selects new textbooks that aren’t sufficiently contrite when addressing Japan’s historic aggression and mistreatment of civilians and POW’s during the first half of the 20th century. In response, the governments and citizens of South Korea and China are incensed. For many, the matter ends there. Japan acted horribly wrong and has failed to act in a conciliatory manner extensively enough to satiate their former victims, or their heirs. Thusly, China and South Korea are right to be upset. I have a different view.
Like Germany, Japan clearly acted in a manner that not only was unacceptable to even the most marginally decent of the world. And like Germany, Japan was remade or rebuilt. Many believe that Germany has made sufficient, or attempted to, recompense for its transgressions. Japan, on the other hand, is given little credit for the nearly sixty years of constitutional required limitations on its defensive or offensive military capabilities. And even less credit for its acceptance of the value of civil liberties, social and religious freedoms, open markets, and charitable giving. Now a movement to place Japan on the UN Security Council, Japan’s alliance with the U.S. in the War on Terror and specifically the war in Iraq, and Japan’s broadening of its strategic defense capabilities, including its ties again to the U.S. and support of a free and independent Taiwan, and out of the wood work comes the fury over Japan’s failure to make apologies ad infinitum for their past.
Being morally inept to a degree that denies their capacity to reform their own nation, China stands as a hypocrite in their uproar over Japans textbooks. As well, so does South Korea, who like Germany, was safely guarded by American forces and finds no ability to support U.S. efforts to spread and defend liberty around the world. Indeed, South Korea’s government has instead taken a path of appeasement with the North, and like China is more willing to subordinate human virtue in favor of their own power and standing in Asia. I haven’t read the textbooks in question, yet I remain confident that Japan has indeed learned more lessons from its past than Germany or than the current Chinese government binding its citizens, Tibet, and aiming at Taiwan, has learned, and for that and the moral clarity associated with those lessons, I support Japan.
UPDATE: 4/18/05 - A reader takes issue with my position, - "If you want to be a moral crusader, at least *pretend* that you actually know whats going on." And then points to a BBC column by William Horsley. Well, I had already read the Horsley column on Saturday, and didn't find any cause to change my position, so I posted nothing further. By paying their respect to the dead, are we to believe that Japan wants to return to a Shinto based age. No, it is much simpler, Japan paid an enormous price and having learned from it, remembers through their heritage - both good and bad. If you want to comment, you have to leave "your" email address.
With each passing day the people of Iraq are closer still to that which few Arabs, living in the Middle East, have ever known – a free and democratic nation governed by and for the people. The man charged with the task of selecting the head of the next interim government is a Kurd, Jalal al-Talabani, he is aided on the president’s council by two vice presidents, a Sunni and a Shi’a (Ghazi al-Yawar and Adel Abdul Mahdi). The three, as expected have named Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a devout Shi’a doctor and member/leader of the Islamic Dawa Party, as the next Prime Minister of Iraq.
The incoming Prime Minister has 30 days to select a cabinet or Council of Ministers and then have the parliament approve it by a majority vote of confidence. In the interim, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and his cabinet will maintain responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the government, this, even though Allawi has already tendered his resignation.
The process afterwards shifts to the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and then the ratification of it by the people of Iraq in a vote to be held no later than October 15. The people of Iraq are building a nation in their image and to reflect their will. For this we should all be supportive and remain enthusiastic. Many Arab or Middle Eastern states remain, well, troubling and somewhat worrisome but the example being set in Iraq will continue to pressure Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran to enact a more democratic form of governance. That being the case, the battle to defeat islamo-fascism in the Arab and Muslim world will find new allies on the proverbial Arab street. As I’ve long been, I am optimistic and hopeful. And with that, I offer my congratulations and support to the Iraqi people and the Muslim and Arab men and women of good will through out the world.
On a visit to Paris, Iranian President Mohammad Khatamei expressed his belief that Iran and the EU-3 are closer to an agreement that would permit Iran to maintain its nuclear technology development efforts without further review by the UN Security Council. Khatamei believes that Iran’s latest counter-proposal presented to negotiators last month has been more openly received by the EU-3, particularly France. What was significant about this proposal?
Iran requested that they be permitted to maintain a “pilot” enrichment facility incapable producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for bomb making purposes, and yet, a face saving measure that would maintain Iran’s efforts to understand and master the technology. Why would we oppose such a move, or more specifically, why would I?
The answers are many, so for brevity, I’ll limit my response to a few more on point issues. First up, Iran has not abided by the conditions of the NPT or IAEA inspections as it is obligated to do. That alone gives me much reason to doubt that Iran would abide by any new agreement to limit the scale of its efforts. Additionally, Iran has a contractual obligation to return spent fuel to its initial provider, in this case Russia. The idea that a complete fuel cycle is required for the “understanding” of the technology is a misnomer at best. In the worst case, it is that Iran seeks to understand the cycle so that it may develop nuclear weapons based on the HEU it could ostensibly gain through the use of centrifuges. And then there is the Iranian heavy water reactor near Arak.
Unlike the light water reactors that gain most of the attention, such as the one in Bushehr, the spent fuel from the heavy water reactors is much more readily used for weapons development. The residual spent fuel from light water reactors require the extensive use of centrifuges to collect or create the HEU. Heavy water reactors produce plutonium. The Iranian resistance organization, National Council of Resistance, believes that Arak will be fully operational within two years and will produce 22 pounds of plutonium per year. Iran says the facility is set for completion by 2014 and will be used to develop radio isotopes for medical purposes.
What we know is that Iran has 40 tons of spent fuel that has been processed, prior to their cessation of such activities per their agreement with the EU-3, and that they processed that spent fuel without the approval or supervision of the IAEA or its inspectors. Believing that they’ve done so only to gain the knowledge of how to do it, or to reuse the fuel is not only naïve but potentially deadly.
The Bush administration has my support in its efforts to end the standoff, including the willingness to back the EU-3’s negotiations. That being said, there are many issues that prevent me from being optimistic and there are many conditions that are not, and should not be on the table. Iran must end their enrichment efforts permanently, cease their heavy water reactor efforts, and once and for all open their facilities to full and permanent IAEA oversight. Not likely, and therefore once again I say its time to take the issue to the UN Security Council.
The Volcker Committee, or rightly the Independent Inquiry Committee, investigating the UN's Oil for Food program, has released a second interim report.
Would you be surprised to find that it claims no significant evidence exist to suggest that Kofi knew of Cotecna's bid for a UN contract, even while Kojo, his son worked for Cotecna? Neither would I. How about finding out that Kofi met with Cotecna three times yet previously failed to disclose the meetings? Still not surprised. How about finding out that Kojo was employed, then contracted, and then simply on the payroll even while he and Cotecna denied a continuing relationship between them? What's that, no surprise.
Well there is one. The report concludes that Kofi Annan didn't know of Cotecna's bid for the contract and had no influence in their selection. What... you don't think that's surprising either. Right, neither do I.
The report in pdf format is available here or should the IIC block external origination here. And here's the AP coverage of the story.
Hold onto those bullets, bombs, tanks and, okay... well you get the picture. The EU is holding off on its lifting of the embargo of arms sales to China. Aside from the obvious moral propriety of not selling arms to China, there are many positives to be seen in this decision and how the EU arrived at it. I first mentioned the potential for a delay on Friday, in my News and Notes post, and am pleased to present further data here.
Secretary Rice on Sunday, while in China, let the Europeans in on a little secret. "It is the US, not Europe, that has defended the Pacific." You’ve just got to respect a woman who says it like it is. The Times of London also reports that last week, while European delegates were attending briefings on Capital Hill, that they were given more subtle advice. The anti-secession law, passed recently in China, gives the EU an out – "a “fig leaf” that would enable it to retreat with honour intact." Very subtle compared to the 411 to 3 vote in the House to urge the EU to maintain the embargo.
The NY Times reports that European diplomats have admitted that the timeline has slipped due to pressure from the U.S. and the concerns of some of the 25 member states. No "official" statement has been given, and we shouldn’t expect one. In diplomatic parlance we’ll hear that the timeline has slipped or is taking the "slow-track" and that the EU remains committed to the end of the embargo. Reality is slow to arrive at the gare de diplomatique. [Sorry if my French is, well, poor.]
The issue isn’t over, its broadened, and that has to be seen as a good thing. The EU has for some time now been determined to treat their economic and trade issues as separate from issues of security and human rights. This time, at least, the larger issues at hand have had an impact.
A brief round up of some of the news from Asia, Europe and the Elsewhere.
Japan will cease to provide aid, in the form of loans, to China in 2008. This is said to be recognition by Japan that China will have reached a level of economic maturity in 2008, while hosting the Olympic games. China has not reached the normal cut-off of $5k per capita earnings and will not have done so by 2008. My take is that Japan is recognizing the potential threat in China, and along with China's expanded economic and military capability simply understands that aid dollars sent to China are not in their best interest. Additionally the aid was seen as a form of reparations for Japan’s prior aggressions, an argument for it that I would never have supported.
EU plans to end the embargo on arm sales to China may be delayed. Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy chief, says that the "political will [to lift the embargo] remains... but I cannot guarantee [the timing]." The primary force behind the delay appears to be U.S. pressure against the effort and the Chinese passing of the anti-secession law.
Ukraine prosecutor-general Svyatoslav Piskun confirms that 18 cruise missiles were sold to China (6) and Iran (12) between 1999 and 2001. The Kh-55 missiles, also known as AS-15 Kent missiles, are mid-range (1860 miles), air launched, terrain hugging missiles used for attacks on preprogrammed targets. They were not armed with nuclear warheads and the defense attorney representing the chief executive of the company responsible for the sale claims they will not function due to their age and poor storage conditions.
Jordan may present an alternative strategy for ending the Arab-Israeli conflict at an upcoming meeting of the Arab League. The AP reportedly has seen a proposal by King Abdullah II of Jordan that does not require Israel to return to pre-1967 boundaries and calls for Arab states to declare their "preparedness to end the Arab-Israeli conflict and establish normal relations between the Arab countries and Israel through just, comprehensive and lasting peace." As the AP notes, the proposal is unlikely to adopted but is a sign of improving sentiments toward Israel, even if only from Jordan, which has signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994. The idea that Arab states would "normalize" relations with Israel, ahead of and as an encouragement for the ending of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is somewhat far fetched but another sign of the ever changing winds in the Middle East.
U.S. Secretary of State Rice will press for a permanent membership on the UN Security Council for Japan. This is the first public statement of support for Japan's membership by the U.S. I'll have to come back to this one, after further research, thought and your comments.
Venezuela is concerned that the U.S. is plotting an attack or assassination. Okay, maybe it’s just Chavez and his lunatic supporters. Given his support for Iran and Cuba it only seems reasonable that Chavez would feel the heat of some scrutiny at home and abroad.
More la