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 later, and as always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
North Korea isn't friendly with those who disagree with the Dear Leader Lunatic. Via North Korea Zone comes the story by the Daily NK of public executions in the Huiryeoung.
The photographs that accompany the story, really tell the story. While graphic they are not far enough from the scene to remove any detail.
The inestimable Bill Roggio offers an excellent analysis of the potential for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. In general, I believe that Bill is correct in his analysis and conclusion:
China's near term problems of insufficient military strength to conduct and sustain an amphibious assault, the superior firepower of the opposing American military, the potential economic strangulation from its source of oil and the political implications make it highly unlikely that a full scale invasion is on the horizon. The key factor to consider in this equation is the fortitude of American leadership. President Bush's commitment to freedom and democracy, and his demonstrated willingness to back up his words with actions makes it unlikely any invasion would occur before 2008. Future American leaders must clearly and consistently state the forcible reunification of Taiwan with China is unacceptable, and must show a willingness to back up its words and defend Taiwan from Communist aggression. Strength, support and vigilance are the best deterrents.Bill is absolutely correct that future American leaders must "clearly and consistently state the forcible reunification of Taiwan" is unacceptable. They must also demonstrably provide evidence of U.S. resolve and capability to defend Taiwan both from a conventional and nuclear perspective. On that footing we are in good shape today.
In his analysis Bill did not discuss China’s efforts to develop a strategic oil reserve (evidenced by their higher than consumption purchases over the past year), non-traditional delivery means (see my post on the "string of pearls"), or China’s efforts to expand their naval reach or capability (as Bill says - "it's the logistics stupid"). All of which point to the realization that China’s leaders are aware of the limitations, as would be expected, of their current capability and are simply acting to reduce those shortcomings. Taken into consideration with their efforts to co-opt their recently announced military exercises with Russia, which they are attempting to reorient as a practice exercise mimicking an invasion of Taiwan, it is clear that China is at a minimum signaling their willingness to address their shortcomings and at worst they are delusional enough to believe that they could succeed in doing retaking Taiwan.
I’m confident that our economic strength, military capacity and diplomatic resources are sufficient to defeat any Chinese aggression, but as regular readers of the Little Red Blog know, I do not believe that we can ignore this or any potential threat based on our assumption (even if proper) that we would defeat the enemy.
Bill’s piece is excellent and worth reading, as are many of the comments that follow.
The latest rally in Beirut calling for Syria to withdraw. Estimates of between 800k and 1 million participants make this the largest rally thus far. Perhaps the best news for is the inclusion of Sunni Muslims in this rally. The Shi'a supporters of Hezbullah are increasingly being isolated, as are Syria and Iran. The possibility of violence remains but thus far it has been largely avoided to the credit of all those involved. They have my respect and support.
AP Photo
In Iraq, where protests have continued since the bombing in Hilla, Shi'a took to the street, and the Jordanian embassy, demanding that all foreign Arabs leave Iraq. The latest protest followed word of the Jordanian hometown of the murderer hailing him as a martyr after he killed 125 in Hilla. If only the Shi'a in Lebanon could divorce themselves of their allegiance to Hezbullah and their hatred of Israel. It is amazing to see Iraqi Shi'a leading the charge toward peace in the Middle East. Amazing.
Europe’s team of negotiators, the EU-3, are most likely negotiating in good faith. It is reasonable to believe that their offers, concessions, incentives or bribes are presented with full backing of their respective governments and that their full intent is to bring about improved relations with Iran and to secure the cessation of uranium enrichment efforts in Iran. The Bush administrations decision to support those negotiations can also be seen as one of ‘good faith.’ That is, even if the administration has little or no confidence in the negotiations, their intent would be to support the negotiated agreement between the EU-3 and Iran should an agreement be reached.
And then there are the mullahs and their spokesmen. Are they negotiating in good faith? Can we afford to assume that their intent is an agreement to end Iranian nuclear weapons development?
Iran has stated clearly that their intent was not to end their uranium enrichment efforts, only to temporarily suspend their efforts while negotiating. They have stated that they have no obligation to end the program. Despite the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the IAEA’s finding that Iran has failed to be forthcoming and transparent in its nuclear development efforts Iran maintains that they have a right to continued enrichment efforts.
Iran has no history of being a willing and trustworthy ally of freedom or peace. Have we forgotten that Hezbullah, the Lebanese terrorist organization, has been and remains an instrument for Iranian influence in the Levant and as such continues to call for the end of Israel. Iran’s support of terrorism, through Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, evident from the outset of the regime in 1979, has not ceased nor waned. If anything, it has increased given their role in supporting the terrorist now attacking Iraq’s people on a daily basis.
Iran’s initial response to word of the U.S. support for the EU-3 negotiations was predictably lacking in value. Sirus Naseri, the chief negotiator, or perhaps chief stalwart for the mullahs, called the U.S. offer "too insignificant to comment about." [See previous post.] Now comes word of Iran’s newest set of conditions. The mullahs believe the U.S. should unblock frozen assets, lift sanctions and cease hostile actions.
Why were the assets frozen and what has changed since that action?
Why were sanctions put in place and what has changed since that action?
Iran is counting on the world to have forgotten the cause of their isolation and to stand against the U.S. when the negotiations fail and it becomes an issue for the UN Security Council. Of course, our media has done little to remind the people of the West of Iran’s history under the mullahs.
Iran just isn’t going to play nice. Rather than drawing a line in the sand..., or taking Iran’s nuclear weapons programs and violations of the NPT to the UN Security Council, the U.S. decided to give a little. Just a little, but to openly admit a willingness to support the EU3’s negotiations and bribery of the mullahs. WTO membership is even on the table. Not something I'd favor.
Sirus Naseri responded to Secretary Rice’s comments. Sort of.
"What is being suggested is very much insignificant," Sirus Naseri, a senior Iranian negotiator in nuclear talks with the European Union, told Reuters in an interview. "In fact, it (the U.S. offer) is too insignificant to comment about."As I’ve said before of the potential for U.S. support of the EU3 plan. It’s a no win, no lose situation for the President. Iran will not give up its program and will not come clean on its existing efforts. By going along with the EU3, the President shows a willingness to find a solution, diplomatically, and knows full well that it will never happen. The EU3 will then have to support taking the issue to the UN Security Council.
The only truly negative aspect of this arrangement is the additional time it provides Iran. Here's the AP report for those inclined, it only covers the U.S. position at this point.
Wednesday I had planned on attending a gathering of bloggers and political folks at a local grill/bar. Put together by the Independence Institute, the plan was to watch Rather's final edition of the CBS Evening News. Life interrupted, the Mrs. was called away on business to Calgary and I drove her to the airport. And this thought occurred to me:
Tickets to Calgary: $1200.00
Hotel Room: $300.00
Missing Rather's goodbye: Priceless.
Although I was looking forward to meeting some of the local bloggers, I wasn't all that interested in sitting through another segment with Rather.
Here are a few of the items in the news worth a comment.
Taiwan has delegates in the Chinese parliament. Most interesting, given that some have never been to Taiwan and none are elected by the people of Taiwan.
"I may not have been born in Taiwan, but my parents raised me to love Taiwan, and I care deeply about Taiwan's future," said delegation member Cai Guobin, the mainland-born son of Taiwanese parents.The future of China, Taiwan, the Middle East, Europe, Africa and just about every other place are concerns for me, but that doesn't make me representative of the people. There is still much to be gained through self-representation. A future of ones choosing over a brighter (or darker) future at the hand of another should be a clear objective, unless it is your hand that’s doing the controlling.
India loves its cricket. So does Pakistan. India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has invited Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf to a visit in India to watch their respective teams play. Musharraf has accepted, now let's hope that their negotiations continue to progress.
UN chief bureaucrat for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief says that far more than 70,000 have died in Darfur. Genius. Still not genocide apparently, just as homicide/suicide bombings by Palestinian's isn't terrorism.
UN chief bureaucrat Kofi Annan wants a treaty making terrorism illegal. Hang on, I have to go outside and yell... Okay, I'm back. Read it here. While discussing terrorism, let's remember that good 'ol Kofi announced just a few days ago that the UN must accept Hezbollah as a force in Lebanon.
Spain has the first Muslim organization, that I'm aware of, to issue at fatwa against Usama bin Laden. Given that today is the anniversary of the 3/11 attacks, I'll have more say about Spain later. And as Charles at LGF notes, the organization behind this fatwa is committed to defeating terror, so long as it doesn't mean "taking 'disproportionate' measures similar to those which the Sept 11 attacks sparked in the US." How exactly are we supposed to fight terror?
There are many more items to discuss, but not until Carolina finishes off Clemson. One other note, Dr. George Friedman, of Stratfor, is on Dennis Prager's show this hour, very interesting discussion. Back in a bit.
A few items for your consideration, or maybe just mine.
Anne Applebaum offers a defense of John Bolton's nomination to become the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. As I’ve posted before, I like the selection and see it as a positive for the U.S. and potentially for the UN.
Amir Taheri has an excellent, must read, column in the Gulf News. While we can in no way interpret the quotes of pilgrims in Mecca as representative of all Muslims, I do believe we should help them spread their views. Taheri's column is one way to do so. Here are a couple of excerpts.
Just outside the Grand Mosque we fall into conversation with a group of Sri Lankan pilgrims, coming to "pray for all our peoples, including Buddhists and Tamils", in the wake of the tsunami that has ravaged parts of their country. The subject of terrorism creeps into our conversation.Taheri had opened his column with a description of Saudi Arabia's progressing through the stages that follow terror attacks. He closes with this."We are the only community in Sri Lanka that has not only stayed out of terrorism but has opposed it," says a toothless pilgrim with a defiant face. "I think Muslims everywhere should lead the fight against terrorism, the scourge of mankind."
Other Lankans nod in approval. They have suffered for decades what the Saudis are experiencing today.
At the Riyadh Conference, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal almost lost his temper during a press conference. He demanded: "Why do we need to fight over a definition of terrorism. Don’t we all know what a terrorist does?"Now if only the Saudi's would insist on the UN defining terrorism as what we all know it is.On that balmy day in Makkah many pilgrims seemed to agree. They believed that the world should name terrorists after what they do and not after what they claim to represent.
American Society of Civil Engineers report that the nations infrastructure is failing. I am somewhat skeptical but will reserve commenting further until I can read the report.
Tanalee Smith gives some perspective on the ties between Syria and Lebanon. There was much more that could have been said, but having the AP say any of it is progress. This one we'll revisit shortly.
Omar Karami has been renominated to become Prime Minister of Lebanon and form the new government. 69 of the 128 members of the parliament nominated pro-Syrian Karami for the post. Not the solution that I would have hoped for. Like you, I'll have to wait to see what the reaction in Lebanon is.
Answering the call of Hezbollah, a very large rally took place in Beirut today. Here are some opening paragraphs of the media coverage.
Nearly 500,000 pro-Syrian protesters waved flags and chanted anti-American slogans in a central Beirut square Tuesday, answering a nationwide call by the militant Shiite Muslim Hezbollah group for a demonstration to counter weeks of massive rallies demanding Syrian forces leave Lebanon. – AP, BeirutOf course. Those who oppose foreign intervention, see the U.S. as the great Satan, and seek to destroy Israel couldn't count on huge crowds without strong-arm tactics and other shenanigans. Caveman has a personal account of his barber defying orders to attend the rally and accounts from Future TV that the intelligence services are bussing in people from remote villages for the rally. [HT: Across the Bay]Chanting "Beirut is free, America out," tens of thousands of people swarmed into the Lebanese capital Tuesday for a mass rally led by Hizbullah to counter global demands for an end to Syria's domination. – Naharnet, Beirut
Hundreds of thousands of pro-Syrian protesters poured into a central Beirut square this afternoon in a demonstration called for by the militant group Hezbollah that vastly outnumbered recent rallies demanding that Syrian forces leave Lebanon. – NYTimes
Syria flexed its Lebanese political muscle Tuesday as hundreds of thousands of people, responding to a call from the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah, took to the streets of Beirut in a show of support for Damascus. Several eyewitnesses, however, told United Press International that large numbers of demonstrators were brought in from Syria to swell the numbers. – UPI via Washington Times
Hezbollah has put itself in a tenuous position. While seeking to become a more legitimate political party, it has taken a position that will eventually fail. And afterwards, without the support of Syria and Iran, the party will have little left but its hatred of Israel and the U.S. to stand for. The question may be whether or not the Shi’a in Lebanon will continue to support them in such a climate. Tony, at Across the Bay, has more including a look at the not so good day for Hezbollah.
Whether we acknowledge it or not, the world became a little more dangerous today. The People’s Republic of China took another step, a mostly ceremonial step, toward the passage of its anti-secession law. The law, which will soon be approved by the NPC after having been unanimously being approved by the NPC Standing Committee, establishes Beijing’s policy and expectations with regard to Taiwan in very direct terms.
In Wang Zhaoguo’s introduction of the anti-secession law to the parliament he reaffirmed China’s position that "There is but one China in the world, and both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division." He asserted multiple times that the issue of China and Taiwan being reunified is an internal affair, adding "we will not submit to any interference by outside forces." In his words, reunifying China and Taiwan is the "sacred duty of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included."
One of my favorite portions of his speech is his description of the potential for a reunified mainland and Taiwan where Taiwan would maintain a "high degree of autonomy" followed by a description of the measures the state would take to encourage reunification. If Beijing had shown any of those traits with its own people, it would be a stirring argument. Clearly knowing that Taipei isn’t going to jump to the chance to negotiate reunification under Beijing’s authority, the next portion of the speech concerns "non-peaceful" means to stop Taiwan’s independence.
"We have never forsworn the use of force. No sovereign state can tolerate secession and every sovereign state has the right to use necessary means to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. ...The draft legislation provides that in the event that the "Taiwan independence" forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The draft legislation also provides that the State Council and the Central Military Commission are authorized to decide on and execute non-peaceful means and other necessary measures, and promptly report to the Standing Committee of the NPC."
The NPC, after approving the law, will have given the military commanders the go ahead to act in the defense of the one-China policy based on the actions or words of the "Taiwan independence" forces.
This weekend protestors in Kaohsiung took to the streets to express their concern over the pending legislation. Vice President Annette Lu said "Taiwan will face a serious military threat from China as the new law will provide Beijing with a legal basis for using force against the country." She noted that is China who is changing the status quo, not Taiwan. Lai I-Chung has a similar take.
I couldn't agree more. China is setting the chess pieces up just as they want them, and we'll all have to play catch up at some point.
Bashar Assad said that if the cameras zoomed out they find that few protestors. Between 150k and 200k responded today.
Saturday Assad disappointed Lebanon's newly confident populace, and today along with Lebanon's President he announced details of Syria's pullback. Not a withdrawal plan but the pullback of Syria troops to the Bekaa valley. Perhaps a nice place to dig up some stored weapons. Both agreed that at a later date they would announce plans for a complete withdrawal.
After North Korea, Without Rancor and N. Korea Lists Conditions for Negotiations, in the LA Times, the journalist behind both pieces has responded to Hugh Hewitt’s questions. Barbara Demick doesn’t expect to be on his show however. Hugh has posted her response and has sent three additional questions to her. Here are the questions and her responses, along with my commentary.
"Hello. I still need to get permission from my keepers to appear on the program, but I suspect it will not be forthcoming. Sorry about that. Here, though, are my answers to your questions.Indeed we can judge from "there" that you have reported a portion of his evil actions, but we cannot see that you believe him to be evil. Your latest coverage effectively ignored his actions and intent, choosing instead to report only his agents view of North Korea.Best, Barbara Demick
Do you think Kim Jong Il is an evil man?
- We reported last summer that Kim Jong Il spent millions importing gourmet foods, cookbooks and chefs for himself while his countrymen were starving. One can judge from there.
Do you think Kim Jong Il and his government are responsible for the famine of the '90s.Good, good and good. Why then wasn’t it offered as a portion of the “Without Rancor” column? It would have been very simple to have reported the travesties suffered under the regime, and to have done so without unwarranted rancor. It is simply reporting the truth in conjunction with the propaganda offered by your businessman agent. Choosing not to showed a willingness to espouse the lies of the regime without the well justified inclusion of counter evidence. It was wrong to do so.
- YesHow many people does your research tell you died in the famine?
- Up to 2 million, about 10 percent of the populationDid Kim Jong Il and his government obstruct international relief efforts during the famine?
- Yes
Do you believe Kim Jong Il and his government breached the 1994 Agreement with the United States by secretly pursuing nuclear weapons via uranium enrichment?Technically no. You’ve got to be kidding. The agreement called for the DPRK to live up to its 1992 agreement with the ROK to a denuclearized Korean peninsula and it called for the freezing of the graphite moderated nuclear plants and related facilities and for the IAEA monitoring of those facilities. The DPRK failed to act in good faith with the agreement by continuing its efforts to enrich uranium and by restarting the pre-existing nuclear plants without IAEA supervision or monitoring. Their assertion that they were building a deterrent and then eventually that they have nuclear weapons is not a spirit only violation of the agreement. It is a direct technical violation of the agreement and its requirement that they act to ensure a denuclearization of the peninsula.
- technically, no, but in spirit, yes. The original agreement had several loopholes, which is why the administration now is insisting on CVID (Complete, Verifiable, Irreversible Dismantlement)
How many Japanese and Koreans do your researches suggest the Kim Jong Il regime and his father's regime had kidnapped over the past forty years?This is amazing. You recognize that the regime aborts the children of pregnant women trying to leave the DPRK, recognize that the DPRK has used prisoners as subjects for chemical testing, recognize that the DPRK has kidnapped Japanese and South Korean citizens, and recognize that they possess the means to asymmetrical attack Japan or the South without warning, yet they aren’t evil and none of this was included in your "Without Rancor" column.
- Around 20 Japanese. South Korean intelligence says 486 of their people.Has North Korea been forthcoming about these kidnap victims?
- Only about some of the JapaneseIs Japan correct to insist on an accounting of these kidnap victims?
- YesYou have reported on the allegations of chemicals being tested on prisoners in the North. Do you believe these accounts?
- I believe the guy I interviewed for a story that ran March 2004. Can't vouch for the others.Do you believe the accounts that pregnant North Korean women, caught attempting to escape from North Korea, are subjected to abortions as punishment? Do you believe the accounts that North Korean women, caught attempting to escape from North Korea, are forced to watch their children executed?
- Yes to the first. Not sure if it's a direct punishment for trying to escape the country, but NK women prisoners who are pregnant are required to abort. I'm not sure about the latter.If North Korea were to open its borders and pursue an economy with the same policies as South Korea, do you expect it would be as successful as the South has been in building an industrial base and economic growth?
- NoIs Kim Jong Il capable of launching an attack on the South or on Japan without warning?
- Conventional, no. Assymetrical, yes.
How many people do you estimate are kept in the prison camps of North Korea and how would you describe conditions there.This form of moral ambivalence is astonishing. I would applaud a journalist for the effort, and risk, taken to meet with and interview foreign nationals and agents such as "Mr. Anonymous" who was interviewed for "Without Rancor." But only on the condition that the journalist was acting in the interest of reporting the truth. The truth would include the perverted view of the DPRK and the highly relevant facts that do not jive with the DPRK version. I can’t say more now. Maybe later.
- The State Department says 150,000 to 200,0000 are held in extremely harsh conditions.Do you believe the man you met with in Bejing and interviewed for Thursday's story was an intelligence operative of the North Korean government?
- His job is to bring foreign investment and development aid into North Korea. As all North Korean business is owned by the Workers' Party, government or military, he is a government official -- or agent, as it were. He spoke in ways that other people would get imprisoned for, which means, not necessarily that he was a spook, but definitely that he is elite with some kind of tie to the top that is his source of protection."
Having been unavailable yesterday, this list is a bit more extensive than normal. Some of the notes will be expanded in future posts.
China is the subject of Newsweek’s latest issue's Soft Power, Hard Choices. It’s a look at China’s use of diplomacy, backed by economic incentives and largely executed by China’s businesses, to expand China’s power and reach around the world. The story doesn’t exactly gloss over the potential for war over Taiwan, but fails to discuss the anti-succession legislation about to be passed, the EU arms embargo about to be lifted, China’s expansion of its naval reach, or China's human rights abuses. The issue also includes an interview with Chen Shui-bian, President of Taiwan.
China's response to the aforementioned U.S. human rights report. And their actions leading up to the parliament meeting.
Also, China has announced an increase in military spending. Of course.
Russia also expressed their displeasure with the U.S. report on human rights abuses. Here is the reports analysis of Russia.
North Korea, where human rights are essentially non-existent, may begin testing missiles again. Now there is a way to reassure the region of your desire for peace, trustworthiness, and cooperation. Perhaps they had forgotten their agreement to end testing the missiles, and now that they've remembered it, must break it. Consistency matters to them apparently. Treaties, like parliament meetings, aren't binding in the DPRK.
After yesterday's propaganda piece, one might have thought the LA Times would think twice about such reports. Instead, today we get the DPRK's list of conditions for a return to the negotiation table. UPDATE: Hugh has more on today's Demick column, and a list of those posting on yesterday's propoganda piece.
Syria, also a human rights hell hole, is under additional pressure to remove its troops from Lebanon. Assad may tell his parliament that he'll do so shortly. Yet, President Bush rightly reminds us again that it is more than the troops, its the intel operatives.
Iran, are we noticing a human rights trend here, has stepped up the rhetoric given this weeks IAEA meetings on their lack of transparency (Iran says the IAEA has too much transparency) with regard to their nuclear programs. The U.S. may finally, press for the IAEA to take the issue to the UN Security Council. Given their deception, tunnel building, new efforts, etc. it is an over due step. Reports of the President moving toward support for the European effort are frankly misguided. He has supported the negotiations throughout and appropriately not committed the U.S. to direct communications, eased up on the IAEA, or removed any alternative options from the table. The EU-3 plan will fail, whether adopted or in negotiation.
Libya, a future friend. So says Gadhafi. Here's the human rights report on Libya.
Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama are building a "rapid-response force to combat drug trafficking, terrorism and other regional threats." Good news.
How to Write Compelling Blog Posts, via SmartChristian. I should have known. None, other than the linking, would be a fitting description of my post. Darn.
And finally, thanks for the purchases via Amazon. Added two weeks ago, the links have generated $9.20 thus far, and it is appreciated. All funds from the links, tip jars, etc. will go to expanding the resources available for coverage or analysis at the Little Red Blog. Thanks.
In his Washington Times column, Arnaud de Borchgrave begins by asking us to "Imagine a world where Russia and the European Union of 25 nations, and Russia and China, and the EU and China, all find more in common with each other than with the United States." Frequent readers of this space will recognize that I do that indeed. The trouble being that it isn't entirely an effort of the imagination, and while de Borchgrave says, "Unimaginable, you correctly say," he goes on to provide a portion of the evidence of the potential anti-U.S. entente.
In the opinion of this blogger, de Borchgrave only nipped at the possibility, intimating rather than announcing the potential threat. I’ve blogged on many occasions my concerns regarding Russia’s support of Iran’s nuclear technology development efforts, the potential (almost certain) lifting of the EU’s arms embargo on China, on Russia’s cozying up to China militarily and economically, and the view of China, Russia and the EU that they are the counter balance to the U.S. in the world today. Here, I’ll expand, hopefully, on de Borchgrave’s column.
Russia and the EU
De Borchgrave notes that in Brussels the President made it clear to the EU-3 that it was their responsibility to "quash Iran's nuclear ambitions and the United States would not negotiate directly" with Iran. To the European’s it was absurd "before Mr. Bush arrived. And it was still deemed absurd after he left." This comes with the recognition that Europe is not equipped with the ability to change Iran’s view, through sanctions as a potential penalty or through improved trade as a benefit. Russia, even farther removed from the American position, remains satisfied that the Iranian’s have no intention of developing nuclear weapons, just signed the agreement to supply fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant which has recently been completed with Russian guidance and has sold missile technology to Iran.
Effectively this is Russia and the EU having more in common, even if only on this one issue, with each other than with the U.S. There are, of course, other issues.
China and the EU
The EU, as de Borchgrave notes, has effectively done all they could to supply China under the terms of the embargo. It is hard to imagine a course of events that will prevent the end of the embargo for the EU believes "China is headed for superpowerdom in the foreseeable future." Whether it is in 2080 or 2010 doesn’t matter to Europe for they see in China, what they don’t see in the U.S., an expanding market for their products. Cha-ching.
The EU believes that U.S. civilian and military technology transfers to China (thank you Mr. Clinton) have aided the Chinese military and, of course, the U.S. economy. Can’t have that. And despite the warning volley from the House in its 411 – 3 vote to end technology transfers to Europe if the embargo is lifted, it remains all but done.
Russia and China
De Borchgrave notes that the majority of China’s defense imports come from Russia, he doesn’t note the increased military cooperation, the improving economic ties or China’s offer to purchase or finance the theft of Yukos’ assets under the hand of Putin. The most striking similarities between China and Russia have come in recent months when Putin has stepped back from the idea of liberal democracy and more toward the central authority one would expect from Russia’s history.
The Perfect Storm Today?
No. But the potential remains, and despite de Borchgrave’s unwillingness to pointedly admit it, the likelihood is growing. Driven by Europe’s continued consolidation under the EU, their greed and abject moral abyss when presented with threats China and Russia are emboldened by the prospect of dethroning the U.S. as the world’s sole superpower. Additionally, the UN serves to enable the potential triumvirate through obfuscation and delay in addressing critical security threats to the United States while giving additional unearned or deserved authority and voice to those who see international sovereignty and will as more significant than that of the United States.
While the storm will not complete its development tomorrow, it should be clear to those concerned for the future of our nation that we must continue to support the advance of democracies in parts of the world that have not historically led the fight against any of the three great evils we faced over the previous century. It may be that our newly developing allies and supporters in the war on terror will serve as a counter balance against the new wave of socialist grabbing at any and all tethers in hopes of being important, powerful and most significantly, not following the lead of the U.S.
This post has been thrown into the traffic jam, where technical difficulties are the current Perfect Storm.
UPDATE: Arthur Chrenkoff and Richard North offer a look at the EU's efforts to become a military superpower. They agree that it is unlikely, despite the big talk and the ambitions of those in Brussels. It strikes me that the effort also serves the purpose of enhancing the image of Europe as an arms provider, which may succeed. But as both recognize, the infusion of former Soviet states into the EU makes not only foreign policy difficult, it makes military policy and defense nearly impossible. Unless it is truly defense. The real threat in Europe isn't a weapon, its the values or lack thereof.
The World Tribune reports that China believes the U.S. monopolizes the Internet.
Chinese Ambassador Sha Zukang told a UN conference that controls should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.Certainly China is a model of "multilateral, transparent and democratic" society."It should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning," he said at the conference on Internet governance.
Sha said China opposes the "monopolization" of the Internet by one state, a reference to the Untied States, which ultimately controls the digital medium.
Pot meet kettle.
A few small bits on not so small items in the news.
ANWR in the works... Perhaps. Senate Republicans are signaling that they'll include opening ANWR to drilling in the budget reconciliation process, where a filibuster is not permitted, just as the President requested. It's also good to see Senator Thune among those heading to Alaska this weekend to show their support for the measure.
Senator Salazar, D-CO, has requested that President Bush withdraw the 12 judicial nominees that the President resubmitted to the Senate. Republican Senators, and I, had hoped that Salazar would support an up or down vote on the nominees and help end the Democratic practice of filibustering nominees. His letter says the "decision to renominate these individuals will undoubtedly create the animosity and divisiveness ... that is not helpful to our nation and will sidetrack our collective efforts to work on other crucial matters." Salazar has not stated how he will vote on any nominee or on efforts to prevent a vote.
Senator Ted Stevens is wrong to want to apply the FCC's decency standards to cable and satelite communications, as is Congressman Barton. More later.
Syria should be aware that the ducks are being aligned. "We do have firm evidence that the bombing in Tel Aviv was not only authorized by Palestinian Islamic Jihad leaders in Damascus, but that Islamic Jihad leaders in Damascus participated in the planning," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
Russia boasts of a new missile - "there is not and will not be any defense against these missiles." Sergei Ivanov, Russian Defense Minister, added that "Russia is stretched across 10 times zones, we have many neighbors, and not all of them are as predictable as European states" and that the weapons would be based on the Russian Topol-M ICBM and Bulava, a sea based missile. Of course, he didn't mention U.S. efforts to develop anti-ballistic missile defense systems specifically.
Iran has denied a request by the IAEA to revisit Parchin. In January when the IAEA inspection team visited Parchin, after a seven month wait, they requested to return to visit areas of Parchin not inspected during their initial visit. The denial was announced at a briefing by Pierre Goldschmidt to the IAEA's Board of Governors. Mr. Goldschmidt's report will be covered in a post tomorrow and is available here.
More tomorrow...
The initial report that it was Raid Juhi has been corrected. It still reflects the significant risk those engaged in building a new Iraq face.
Via Drudge:
"BRIAN WILLIAMS INTRO:And from MSNBC.Good evening. We're going to begin here with an NBC News
We've learned tonight the violence in Iraq has claimed another victim, and this time, it is a high-profile target: a man who knew he had a dangerous job. There is word from Baghdad this evening -- confirmed by NBC News -- that the presiding judge in the trial of Saddam Hussein has been assassinated. American television viewers at the time remember him as the brave man on the bench but at the time only the back of his head was visible on television because the risk to his life was that obvious. He lived amid heavy security. Tonight his death is a graphic reminder of the everyday danger still in Iraq. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski is with us from the Pentagon tonight. Jim good evening.
JIM MIKLASZEWSKI REPORTING:
Good evening Brian. NBC News has learned that the judge, 35 year old Raid Juhi was apparently gunned down today as he left his home in Baghdad. Now Juhi was seen on video but just barely last July during the initial court appearances of Saddam Hussein.
The young judge at the time gained widespread respect and admiration when he stood his ground against the belligerent former dictator who launched into a lecture during the proceedings.
Juhi had already been the target of several assassination attempts, and was forced to move into a walled compound with his wife and three small boys behind concrete walls that could withstand bombs.
He normally traveled with armed escorts, but the details around his assassination today remain unclear.
He was a former prosecutor under the former Saddam Hussein regime -- and as an investigative judge was handling 12 high profile cases, including Saddam Hussein and the infamous Chemical Ali.
U.S. officials see the assassination today as an attack not only on the judge, but the entire Iraqi judicial system. Nevertheless, they predict despite today's assassination, the legal proceedings against Saddam Hussein will remain on course. A date for Saddam's next court appearance has yet to be scheduled."
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the person killed by unidentified gunman was not Ra’id Juhi, the 35-year-old chief investigative judge of the special tribunal set up to try Saddam and senior officials, but was another judge working for the tribunal.The officials did not immediately identify the victim.
The killing came a day after the tribunal announced that five former members of Saddam's regime — including one of his half-brothers — will go on trial for crimes against humanity allegedly committed in retaliation for a failed attempt to kill the former dictator.
The terrorist bombing in Hilla was a terrible act of murder. The Iraqi people know this and 2000 of them took to the streets to say so.
After reading the comments on the previous post, Dan Darling’s post at Winds of Change, and the columns referenced in it, I think more discussion of Iran is warranted. Particularly, I’d like to look at the options on the table and a search for alternative courses. Once again I’ll state, I’m not a professional foreign policy analyst nor do I suspect that those who read this site are, however, I, like all Americans, have a vested interest in the resolution of the issues between the US and Iran.
First off, the objectives must be clear. I say "objectives" not objective because we have multiple objectives with regard to Iran. As I see them they are:
Preventing nuclear weapons development,There are others I’m sure. But with those objectives we are able to look at the actions, diplomatic, economic and military, that are most likely to secure our objectives. Additionally, we must make clear, as I believe the President has done, what our objectives are. This must be done here at home, for our allies and the international community and, of course, for the benefit of the current Iranian government (official and unofficial).
Promoting liberal democratic reform or eventual self-governance,
Ending Iran’s support of international terrorism, and
Re-establishing normal relations with Iran.
Option A is the course that has thus far been followed. Negotiation between the EU3 and Iran for Iran’s agreement to abstain from nuclear weapons development in exchange for significant economic and trade incentives from the Europeans. The U.S. supporting the effort from afar, yet holding firm to the idea that Iran must move toward removing doubts about its nuclear program or face possible referral of the issue to the UN Security Council. The latest round of discussions in the press have centered on the potential for the U.S. joining the effort. Examples being Robin Wright’s Washington Post column or Steven Weisman’s NY Times column. A counter argument that the European course has failed is available in Jeffrey Bergner’s Weekly Standard column.
Option B would be the extension of the EU3 to include the US, as espoused in the columns mentioned above. Essentially this option works if one believes that the prevailing word from Iran is both truthful and economically guided. The evidence required for such a belief is unclear to me. It, like the first option, does nothing to address any objective beyond the nuclear issue.
Option C is the ever-present expectation of impending military action. It appears that this is the end of the punditries ability to address the issue. To read much of the discussion on the topic one would think that either we follow the EU3 or we go to immediate and full scale war against Iran. The advantage of such a course of action would be an end to Iran’s nuclear program, an end to their support for terrorism (though the terrorism in Iran would likely rise), and the end to the human rights violations of the current regime. Effectively all the objectives would be met, but at significant cost both diplomatically, financially and most importantly in human lives.
Option D, and again I’m just making this up, would be requiring the IAEA to refer the issue to the UN Security Council. Therein the international community would be forced to address the crisis and potentially support the levying of sanctions and the further ratcheting up the pressure on the regime. The internal pressure, a young and liberal minded reform movement, might then be squashed or as we’ve seen most recently in Lebanon, it may resolve the issue itself. The significant drawbacks I see to this are getting the support of Russia, China and France at the UN, and time. The more time we take before acting, the closer Iran comes to nuclear weapons.
Option D+ is essentially the same as D with the added support of a blockade on Iran and international support for the reform movement on the streets of Iran.
Option E is Israel. More than any nation Israel is threatened by Iran’s progress on nuclear weapons, and more than any nation, Israel is apt to act unilaterally to remove the threat. The consequences, likelihood of success, and effect on other objectives remain unclear. This could be yet another argument for the U.S. taking a more immediate course of action, so as to avoid Israel becoming the lone party forced to act against Iran.
I’m sure other options can and have been developed. Yet I’m also certain that action, backed by force (economic and potentially military) is more likely to create the incentives for change in Iran. Our current course offers no reason to change. Thus far Iran has won the chess match and the Mullahs have rightly counted on dissension between the U.S. and the world’s alternative leaders (EU3, Russia, China). The President has a huge decision to make, and soon, and then he’ll have to apply all of his diplomatic might to bring others on board.
I remain convinced that a solution, other than war, will avail itself to us. Likewise, I’m willing to support effort, whatever form it takes. What I can’t support is more of the same.
UPDATE: As if more reading is needed, sorry Tom, I'm adding a link to the EU Referendum which has an excellent post entitled the Wages of Appeasement. He points out a column by Reuel Marc Gerecht in the Financial Times. I found it at the AEI site but not at FT. The WSJ column he mentions requires a painless subscription.
And then Revolution by Michael Ledeen at NRO.
In his comments on the challenge before the Bush foreign policy team, Gregory Djerejian, questions whether the administration will follow the course of action represented by Pollack-Takeyh framework or that of what he terms the interventionist, such as Michael Ledeen. Ledeen responded in the comments and rightly so.
By way of background, the Pollack-Takeyh framework can be found in Foreign Affairs and describes their model for dealing with Iran’s defiance. The summary of their essay:
Summary: If Washington wants to derail Iran's nuclear program, it must take advantage of a split in Tehran between hard-liners, who care mostly about security, and pragmatists, who want to fix Iran's ailing economy. By promising strong rewards for compliance and severe penalties for defiance, Washington can strengthen the pragmatists' case that Tehran should choose butter over bombs.Prompting Mr. Djerejian’s comments was the news of the Bush administration’s consideration of the EU3’s proposal for dealing with Iran by means of economic and trade incentives in exchange for an end to the Iranian nuclear weapons program. I do not have the diplomatic expertise that Mr. Djerejian has, nor that of Ledeen, for I am but an amateur commentator on this issue basing my opinions my reading of the foreign policy journals and commentary of those who are educated in the field. Yet it strikes me that on this point, Djerejian is wrong, and by a long shot. Having linked to him and agreed with his commentary more than once, this isn’t a tirade against him.
First, the term interventionist is, as Ledeen notes, a term used for those advocating military action. Ledeen defends himself well enough on that issue. It strikes me that Djerejian has determined that any effort to hold Iran responsible for its actions or inaction is interventionist. The real trouble with the P-T framework is the requirement that our weak allies join us in a stand against Iran. As I’ve noted before all (the IAEA, the UN, the EU, Russia) have all failed to stand firm against Iran primarily due to their own economic ties to Iran or desire for greater economic ties.
I’m not opposed to the U.S. taking a look at all options. I would loudly oppose any policy that rewards Iran for obeying the law without clear and longstanding evidence of cooperation and compliance. The EU3’s plan, if reworked to significantly punish the Iranian economy, effectively ending trade through UN sanctions with additional significant sticks attached to any nation that violates the sanctions, would be the first step. If agreed to, thereby avoiding sanctions, and after sufficient openness and reassurance that no nuclear weapons program is being developed, then and only then would I favor more open trade with Iran. Of course this ignores the human rights abuses and support of terrorism by the hard-line mullahs.
We are not in a position to permit the carrots first approach for reasons that should be clear to all. Iran’s missile technology, terrorist ties, and advocacy for the destruction of Israel prevents any policy that permits them to either usurp the system or delay intervention until they’ve developed nuclear weapons. Does that make me an interventionist? If that means that we should act in support of the reformist in Iran, that we should act to prevent further delay, and that we should stand by our realization that Iran’s Mullahs must never possess nuclear weapons, then yes, I suppose it does. The alternatives are to do nothing or to feed the camel that bites you.
The reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief Mohammed El-Baradei chiding Iran for the "confidence deficit" created by Iran’s previous failures to disclose clandestine aspects of its nuclear program aren’t entirely accurate.
The words of the Chief:
Last November, the Secretariat provided to the Board a comprehensive report on the Agency’s verification of Iran’s compliance with its NPT safeguards obligations and its voluntary suspension of enrichment and reprocessing related activities. Since that report, Iran has facilitated Agency access under its safeguards agreement and additional protocol to nuclear material and facilities, and has also provided access to other locations in the country, including a transparency visit to a military site. We have continued to implement the measures of the additional protocol by reviewing declarations made by Iran and conducting complementary access and other verification activities. The Agency has also continued its verification of Iran’s voluntary suspension of enrichment and reprocessing related activities. The Agency has been making progress in two important issues, regarding the origin of the contamination on equipment at various locations in Iran in cooperation with the country concerned, and regarding follow-up on information provided by Iran on its centrifuge programmes. The Deputy Director General for Safeguards will provide more details on our verification activities in Iran. As the Agency continues to work towards completing its assessment of all outstanding issues related to Iran’s nuclear programme, I would encourage Iran to provide full transparency with respect to all of its nuclear activities, by providing in full detail and in a prompt manner all information that could shed light on some of the outstanding issues. In some cases, the receipt of information is still pending, which in turn delays our work. As I mentioned at the last Board meeting, in view of the past undeclared nature of significant aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, a confidence deficit has been created, and it is therefore essential that Iran works closely with the Agency in a proactive manner in order for us to build the necessary confidence and achieve the required degree of assurance.Without altering a word of it, does it strike anyone, even using the soft-edged wording associated with the world of diplomacy that this is chiding?
The IAEA serves a significant purpose in monitoring and reporting on the development and use of various nuclear technologies. What it does not do is hold nations accountable for violating the terms of their agreements or abuse. As I see it, this report simply states in the most diplomatic or tactful terms possible that Iran isn't cooperating. The IAEA will give them more time and it is likely will give them enough time to create nuclear weapons.
Here's what the IAEA has to say about the DPRK or North Korea.
The nuclear activities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), which continue to be outside international verification, remain a serious challenge to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Since 31 December 2002, when at the request of the DPRK the Agency’s verification activities were terminated, the Agency has been unable to draw any conclusions regarding the DPRK’s nuclear activities. The recent declaration by the DPRK that it possesses nuclear weapons is a matter of the utmost concern and has serious security implications, and highlights yet again the importance and the urgency of finding a diplomatic solution through dialogue. The Agency stands ready to work with the DPRK — and with all others — towards a solution that addresses both the security needs of the DPRK and the needs of the international community to ensure that all nuclear activities in the DPRK are exclusively for peaceful purposes.The IAEA wants to work with the DPRK to address security needs of the DPRK. Really. Huh...
Anyone feel secure having Mr. El-Baradei on the job?
Back to Iran. In September 2003, yep, 2003 the following statement was made:
Indeed, we urge Iran to take this final opportunity and cooperate fully with the IAEA and to demonstrate a genuine commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. Continued failure to do so must result in the IAEA taking this matter promptly to the UN Security Council. [emphasis mine.]Was it the war mongering neo-con dominated United States representative to the IAEA? No. That was Canada. And yet, no report push by the IAEA to take the matter to the UN Security Council and no compliance from Iran. In the 400+ days since that statement Iran has continued to work toward nuclear weapons. What has the IAEA done but ever so gently chide them?
Just walked by the television where Fox News decided to interrupt their coverage of the trial, you know which one don’t you, with live coverage of the rally in Beirut. Like many of you, I believe that they, and their kindred "news" sources, are wrong to cover the trial so much.
The unfolding of events in Lebanon should have our attention and our support. More lives are touched by those events than any celebrity trial, despite its sensationalist coverage, will ever touch. The world at large, all its inhabitants, is impacted by the spread of liberty and self-determination. Yet, a people demanding that the son of a tyrant, a tyrant himself, leave and that a government that has supported his presence ceases to, receives only secondary coverage.
Sissy Willis, Capt. Ed, Publius Pundit, and many other bloggers have stepped up to delivering news that serves the truth, spreads the message of support for those involved in the struggle and sheds appropriate meaning to the events of our lives. When experts debate who and what a journalist is, they would be well served to consider more than the professional attributes of journalism. As we’ve seen almost daily, sensationalism supplants significance in our 24-hour news culture.
Previous coverage here, here and throughout the Little Red Blog.
No links yet, but it appears that Lebanese Prime Minister Omar Karami has announced his governments resignation. He apparently did so before parliament while protestors demanding a new government not beholdened to Syria called for change from outside the building.
A most promising development.
Publius Pundit and Caveman in Beirut report it first.
UPDATE 10:15 MST: - FoxNews now has the story posted.
"I am keen that the government will not be a hurdle in front of those who want the good for this country. I declare the resignation of the government that I had the honor to head. May God preserve Lebanon," Karami said.I'm with them. Cheering that is. Still much to do, but a great bit of progress it is.The announcement prompted cheers from more than 25,000 flag-waving demonstrators protesting against the government and its Syrian backers outside the parliament building.
Via Publius Pundit links from Reuters and the Boston Herald add to the story.
This from Reuters.
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's Syrian-backed Prime Minister Omar Karami, under popular pressure after the assassination of an ex-prime minister, says his government is resigning.And more from the Boston Herald."Out of concern that the government does not become an obstacle to the good of the country, I announce the resignation of the government I had the honour to lead," Karami told parliament in Beirut on Monday.
Karami made the announcement during a parliamentary debate called to discuss Hariri's Feb. 14 assassination in a bomb blast that killed 16 others. The announcement prompted cheers from more than 25,000 flag-waving demonstrators protesting against the government and its Syrian backers outside.More as it arrives. Congratulations to all those in Lebanon who are working toward freedom.The resignation was the most dramatic moment yet in the series of protests and political maneuvers that have shaken Lebanon since Hariri's killing.
Many in Lebanon blame Syria for being behind Hariri's slaying and have pressed hard since then for the resignation of the pro-Syrian Lebanese government and for Syria to withdraw its 15,000 troops positioned in Lebanon.
Both governments have denied involvement in Hariri's assassination.
Earlier Monday, Karami asked the legislature to renew its confidence in his Cabinet, which took power in October after Hariri's resignation in a dispute with Syria, the main power broker in Lebanon.
UPDATE 10:45 MST: The story is out. BBC and others now posting coverage.
UPDATE 11:25 MST: LEbanon's The Daily Star has the story up now.
As noted in the previous post, Publius Pundit has coverage of events in Lebanon.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, there are stories I've yet to mention specifically, although yesterday's rambling on hope was driven by some of these events. Others, more recent, and just as terrible are the acts of monsters attempting to destroy hope. They will fail.
Iraq - in Hilla, south of Baghdad, a terrorist armed with an explosives laiden car, blew himself up and killed over 100. The initial reports look as if this was a huge blast, not quite on the scale of the blast that killed Rafik Hariri, but larger than what we've seen as a general rule in Iraq.
Also, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, Saddam's half-brother and others were captured yesterday. Amazingly, the AP report doesn't mention Syria, while the initial reports pointed to Syria as playing a role in the capture of al-Hassan.
Iran and Russia completed their agreement on the supply of fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Well... so much for holding out hope that Vladimir would share our concern regarding Iran.
Egypt's tyrant Hosni Mubarak says he wants multiparty elections. Cool... if he means it.
And Israel was attacked Friday night and they believe Syria was behind it.
More on that and other stories after the sun rises.
It was difficult to rest last night knowing that the people of Lebanon would be awake and once again challenging tyrants.
Publius Pundit had set the stage well, and now has the details on today's demonstrations.
The best news thus far is the pro-Syrian counter protestors have called off their rally. A wise move and one likely to reduce the possibility of violence. Also worth noting is the arrival of David Satterfield in Beirut. He is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs and has already made clear the U.S. position in support of a free and independent Lebanon.
"Rhetoric that threatens violence and instability as a consequence of Lebanon achieving its own sovereignty or independence ought to be unacceptable. They are insulting to the people of Lebanon."The AP report for is here, although the Daily Star and Publius Pundit have better coverage.
Publius points out that Syrian forces "may", as predicted by Thomas Friedman and Joseph Farah, act at any cost to protect their interest in Lebanon. It would be a huge mistake for Assad to believe that it is possible, should the people of Lebanon, supported by the free world, want freedom. If he is as bad a strategist as many have stated, he may just do it. I for one hope he's wiser and pulls out. Then Syria can eventually join the growing revolution peacefully or Assad can throw them into it as a molotov cocktail.
So many Arabs, and nearly all Arab governments, despise - no loath - no hate Israel. That hatred and only one other thing guide their every move. Power. They act on their hatred of Israel and thirst for power to such a degree as to make even the simplest gesture of cooperation seem significant. Hence we herald the reforming of the Palestinian cabinet as a breakthrough, or the election of Mahmoud Abbas as a step toward peace. Neither accurately, for the true pressure on Israel stems not from the Palestinian’s. It is the Arab neighbors that reflect the great threat, fuel the Palestinian’s arms with hatred, and, most certainly, possess the power to end the war against Israel.
The most meaningful and impressive aspect of the Iraqi election was the willingness of people to vote, despite threats against their lives, to form a democratic government. Their resolve has been met by continued violence and attacks on the Shi’a during a sacred time of remembrance. The enemy, fed and fueled by the powers in Syria, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, has not diminished in their battle for a return of what never was. That idyllic state whereby Islam ruled the hearts of men and governed the government accordingly has never existed. Yet, their romanticized view of the days of the companions, whether Abu Bakr, Umar, ‘Uthman or Ali, serves their thirst for power, and under the banner of Islam gives them righteous authority to attack their brother, neighbor, and friend for choosing instead to believe in the rights of man, to choose his faith, his government, his life’s work, and to live on the merits of his deeds.
While undertaking a study of the Qur’an (as well as the Hadith) some years ago, I was never left with the belief that Islam afforded its believers with the rightful hatred of any man. Like the Torah, and the Bible, it instead called to our higher, and significantly more challenging, character. Perhaps I was mistaken. For the unrelenting hatred espoused in the Middle East leaves little room for doubt. And no room for interpretation. While the Qur’an may state that there is no compulsion in religion, its adherents clearly compel Palestinian violence, terrorism in Iraq and the most immoral governments on this most un-heavenly earth.
Is it possible that peace may someday come to the Middle East? I’m left doubting my optimism, for it has little basis in reason, little supporting historic evidence, and moreover, little support from those whose efforts it will be built upon. Even so, I do remain an optimist.
Ungrounded optimism is foolish. Despite the email or comments of those who assert that that is indeed what I am, I believe that there are grounds for optimism. None are wishful platitudes of humanities goodness. For humanity is not predisposed to goodness, indeed the opposite is true. It is the goodness that men will bring forth, even against their nature that guides my optimism. Having seen the unprecedented voting in Iraq, I believe that there are men of good will, men who identify themselves as Muslim, that are at this very moment bound by their government, hindered by their clergy, and restrained by years of suppression, readying their plans to support freedom in the Middle East.
What prevents them from being heard, from establishing their freedom, is the governments teetering on the thin margin of power that suppresses the free. This, even if in order to hold power over even worse potential tyrants, must change. The challenge being to make such changes in a manner that prevents ideological tyrants from becoming rulers, and ensures that their governments secure their freedom rather than contain it. Is there reason to believe that the governments of the Middle East support such change? Limited evidence at best. Yet even that, is new and inspiring, for if it has reached the level of the leader, the people are most surely readying for their day.
Our nation, without significant aid from Europe’s old allies, our northern neighbor, or multi-national governing bodies has taken the lead in guiding the Middle East toward freedom. In many ways, this is due to the high price we have paid and continue to pay to prevent terrorism. It also stems from the realization that in today’s world, the light of freedom, more than ever before, is both needed and missing. Why others fail to share in the effort can, and will, be argued until the mission is accomplished. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that someone stands against terror, stand for freedom, and acts accordingly. That is our role, and that we do so should breed optimism in us all.
Pennywit's idea for discussion: [HT: The Moderate Voice]
President Bush should appoint a prominent American Muslim as a quasi-official ambassador to the Muslim world.Democratic candidates Kerry and Edwards supported just such an idea:Why?
- Such an appointment could highlight the diversity of American religious faith.
- It could nullify the idea that fighting America is a "holy war" and further highlight that attacking America hurts fellow Muslims.
- Discussion of doctrine, religious law, and other religious issues is a large part of Islam.
- Such an "ambassador" could publicly contribute to such discussions, if selected from a moderate strain of Islam, could do so with credibility.
- The "ambassador" could meet with prominent Muslim cleric's on the United States' behalf. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for example, refuses to meet with non-Muslims.
- The "ambassador" and individuals like him could bridge the gap between Christian American officials and religious Muslims.
"Appoint a Presidential Envoy to the Arab and Muslim World. John Kerry and John Edwards will appoint a presidential envoy to the Arab and Muslim world. The envoy’s task will be to promote dialogue and understanding by building social, cultural, and economic relations in key nations."During the campaign, and now, I don’t have a strong argument against doing so. There are diplomatic opportunities behind the appointment of an "ambassador" or envoy and in the context of the global war on terror, relations with the Middle East or Southeast Asia, and the general advocacy of American policy and religious freedom generally only positive opportunities would be presented by such an appointment. Of course, no guarantee of any of those opportunities being realized can be had, but the cost would be low and the potential benefit significant.
Ambassador Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad, currently U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and Special Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan, and previously Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Islamic Outreach and Southwest Asia Initiatives for the NSC, has largely served in such a capacity.
The real challenge before us, with regard to building relationships with the Muslim population, here and abroad, stems from their unwillingness to hear (and in the Middle East lack of opportunity to hear) the real message of America's foreign policy. Groups such as MAS and others in the U.S. ignore the existence of Dr. Khalilzad and others because of his support for the U.S. and the war against terror.
Perhaps more can be done, but it strikes me that we've made a great deal of effort to "reach out." It takes two hands to shake hands.
My first thought was - two more terrorist leaders caught, sweet! Almost as good as two more terrorist leaders killed. But really it's better, because they'll help us get to Zarkawi.
"Iraqi forces captured the leader of an al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist cell allegedly responsible for carrying out a string of beheadings in Iraq, the government said, and 30 people were killed in a string of bloody attacks, among them three American soldiers.The two terrorist, er... alleged terrorist, no I'll stick with terrorist, are: Mohamed Najam Ibrahim and Talib Mikhlif Arsan Walman al-Dulaymi, also known as Abu Qutaybah.Also Monday, the Iraqi government said that Iraqi forces had captured a key aide to Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who leads an insurgency affiliated with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network."
The war on terror is indeed global. The initial engagement with the Taliban was a success. Witness al-Qaeda no longer has the security of operating in Afghanistan and the initial tactical effect of the war is therefore a success. In Iraq, the removal of Saddam’s regime was significant if for no other reason than ending the likelihood of further collaboration between Saddam and al-Qaeda or likeminded groups. But there were, of course, other effects associated with that victory. Primary among those was the light shined on Iraq’s neighbors as supporters of Islamic terror and the growing tide of confidence from Middle Easterners to stand against terror and the tyrants that support it.
Syria, having hugely miscalculated its ability to support terror and squelch the Lebanese autonomy movement by taking part in or supporting the murder of Rafik Hariri, may now finally be forced to withdraw from Lebanon. And it’ll do so with Lebanon’s citizens calling for it at a much higher pitch than when it was the U.S. and UN demanding change. Assad’s regime is weakened and is more likely to fall or fall in line without conflict than the Mullahs of Iran are. Still continued pressure is needed to ensure follow through on the troop withdrawal, and moreover should be increased to demand the end to support for terrorist targeting Iraq.
Iran’s isolation has been less successful thus far primarily due to the EU3 and Russia. Both have shown an inability to take the necessary stand against Iranian support for terror and nuclear development efforts. While the movement for reform grows on the streets of Iran, the Mullahs continue to tighten their grip and reinforce their fist. This will likely be the single largest battle of the war on terror; whether diplomatic resolved or resolved on the battlefield, it will require more of our resources and resolve than either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Yet the war has other fronts, as the Belmont Club’s Wretchard the Cat notes in recent posts regarding the war in Southeast Asia (Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore). Like you, I’m looking forward to future post regarding Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Sayyaf, Moro Islamic Liberation Front, or any of the indigenous groups supportive of al-Qaeda’s ideology. The latest version of Congressional Research Services report on Terrorism in Southeast Asia, offers significant detail on the spread of the movement through the region, and the ties between al-Qaeda and the region, as well as the as yet unmentioned core of islamofascism, Saudi Arabia.
As many Saudi citizens will tell you, the rulers are significantly not Muslim in their living, yet they use the religion as a means of control and suppression within the Kingdom. They’ve also permitted, and supported, its spread around the globe. This, significantly more Arab than Muslim version of Islam is the prime ideological vain of islamofascism that we fight today, the other being that of the Mullahs in Iran. Whether it be in Virginia, Europe or Southeast Asia, the Saudi financed masjids, mosques and madrassas have not ceased their indoctrination nor have they acknowledged the tie between their teachings and terrorism (the latest CRS report states that no data exist pertaining to the amount of funding from Saudi sources). Last July, I noted the significance of Muslims in non-Arab states becoming more Arab in their view. Given the recent developments in the Middle East, one might think that Arab Muslims are beginning to see the light. And yet, they are only beginning.
Only when Arabs more fully express a willingness to address the terrible strain of Islam behind islamofascism, then, and only then, will we have the real means to address the enemy in Southeast Asia and around the world ideologically. Until then, cutting their financial support out from under them, displacing and disrupting their cells and plans, and killing them on the battlefields of our choice, not theirs, has to be the primary means to achieve victory.
Bryan Preston, of Junkyardblog, writing for TCS, believes that Japan would develop nuclear weapons, if... well read his column for that.
I don’t agree with him. I agree that Japan could rather quickly become a nuclear power, yet I believe that Japan’s constitution, and now cultural, prohibition against offensive force would prohibit it. They know, with all certainty, that the U.S. would protect their interest and our nuclear force would do the job for them. Is it possible that public sentiment could change and that the threat could cause Japan to alter its legal prohibitions and become a nuclear state? Sure. But highly unlikely.
It’s one thing to take a more "hawkish" stance and move toward a more pro-active defense capability and posture, and an entirely different thing to add nuclear weapons to your arsenal. [HT: Mark at Conserva-Puppies]
There are times when the incalculably talented Mark Steyn’s words are too difficult to read. His latest offering, Atlanticist small talk is all that's left, is a masterpiece and at the same time terribly saddening. Steyn shows the nature of the cleaving of U.S. European relations, and moreover, the future of a bureaucratically inclined Europe in an age when values matter more than men are willing to admit.
After reading Steyn, I moved on to read Janet Daley’s Freedom? Why Europe's not bothered, also in the Telegraph. I’m not familiar with Daley’s works, but the truth of her words, particularly her closing comments regarding Europe’s substitution of values shipped to the colonies and fundamental to not only the founding of the United States, but central to the character of our nation still, is simply, dead on.
The United States nearly stands alone in the world today. And as both Steyn and Daley point out, Europe isn’t an enemy; it just isn't much of a friend.
Today, President Bush continued his diplomatic visit and along with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder affirmed that Iran must end its nuclear weapons development efforts. This, like yesterdays NATO discussions, is a continuation of putting the best face on what is clearly a decrepit alliance. And as the EU grows in significance, the NATO alliance will creep further into disrepair until it is no more. The EU, like the UN, is at its best when perpetuating the status quo. And accordingly, both are more likely to benefit our enemies than they are to aid our battle against terror and tyranny.
Tomorrow, President Bush will meet with Vladimir Putin in Bratislava. There will be the same type of glad-handing. President Bush will publicly support Putin’s efforts to fight terror and he will restate, both privately and potentially publicly, our concerns that Putin’s Russia is, as Putin has suggested he prefers, like Russia’s past. Russia, like the EU, has determined that success is measured by economic terms rather than by the values of the nation and the freedom of its people. Hence the ease with which Putin supports aiding Iran in its development of the Bushehr nuclear power plant.
When President Bush comes home, Europe will continue its push to sell arms to China, it’ll continue to lodge complaints at enemies rather than taking up arms or ending trade relations, and it’ll continue to slide into a morass of immoral living, blind to the threat that grows within and across the Mediterranean. Syria, Iran, China, Zimbabwe, Togo, Sudan, Egypt and others are not going to be hindered by Europe. Each nation has but one freedom, they are free of European willingness to stand against them. A less gracious people than Americans might move to free themselves of the responsibility of defending Europe.
Now troubled in the always welcoming traffic jam.
UPDATE: Austin Bay's take is less dire. I like the general thesis of his post, just don't share the optimism about change in Europe or the remainder of Europe's ability to sing a different tune than France. Read it.
The New York Times says that Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari is an Islamist.
The headline for Wednesday’s story on his becoming the candidate of choice for the United Iraqi Alliance is more fear mongering than it is truth - "Shiite Alliance in Iraq Wants Islamist as the Prime Minister." The article is just as false as the authors paint the picture of disunity and contentions bickering, as if any nation, including our own, was ever formed without debate, negotiation and compromise. Burns and Filkins knew what they were writing, and they knew that it portrayed the situation in a negative light. Exactly the color if light they desired.
The truths - the United Iraqi Alliance is a majority Shi’a body and it won a majority of seats in the new government. Also the UIA has apparently chosen Dr. al-Jaafari as its candidate for Prime Minister. Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari is the leader of Iraq’s Dawa Party and lived outside Iraq for 20+ years (London and Iran).
But where does the idea that al-Jaafari is an Islamist come from, and why would the New York Times want to make you believe he is an Islamist?
First, a bit of background on the term Islamist. Some rather simple minded folks would say that any Muslim is an Islamist. If so, it would seem rather odd that the headline of a New York Times column would be "Shiite Alliance in Iraq Wants a Muslim as the Prime Minister." That is clearly not what Burns and Filkins meant.
By Islamist, did they mean a Muslim who believes that the state and religion should be one, as in Shari’a Law should rule the land? Or did they mean, Islamist as the less pejorative form of islamofascist? Neither one being a choice that would make American or European readers of the NYTimes comfortable with the selection of Dr. al-Jaafari. And neither one an accurate description of Dr. al-Jaafari’s view.
Dr. al-Jaafari is a pragmatic and realistic politician who clearly values his faith and the traditional faith(s) of his fellow countrymen. He also values freedom. We’ll hear how he’s lived in Iran and how his party is associated with the spreading of the Islamic message, yet what is more important is his words and actions.
While he initially balked at signing the interim constitution, Dr. al-Jaafari did eventually agree, and has since been both an advocate of a federalist styled government, and an advocate of inclusion, ethnic and religious, far beyond what Iraq has known for the last 50+ years. He makes statements regarding the Islamic identity and tradition of Iraq, just as an American president might make remarks about a Judeo-Christian ethos of the U.S., and likewise he insists that the people of Iraq will not have a theocracy, i.e. Iran, instead they will have a government that supports their faith while securing their freedom.
Perhaps once again I am just an optimist. The NYTimes could be right and any non-secular Muslim would be an Islamist and therefore a threat. I just don’t believe that to be the case. Read the column and see for yourself. The photo, included in the column, has the following caption: "Ibrahim al-Jaafari, right, the Shiite faction's choice for prime minister, at a news conference in Baghdad Tuesday. He won only after Ahmad Chalabi, left, withdrew and promised to support Dr. Jaafari, an Islamist." [emphasis mine.]
In a predictable statement French President Jacques Chirac endorsed German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s call for reforming NATO to reflect Europe’s growing bureaucracy, the EU. Schroeder advocates the EU take a larger role in transatlantic defense and foreign relations. This, of course, is due to NATO’s stubborn tie to individual European nations, none of which hold the political or economic weight of the United States.
Chirac noted that the U.S. and Europe are "real partners." Adding, "so we need to dialogue and listen to each other more." Not yet satisfied, Chirac added "We must also, as the German chancellor has underlined, continue to take account of the changes that have occurred on the European continent."
Chirac, in a Kerry like moment, alludes to the global test: "Wherever we share the same objectives and where NATO is mandated by the United Nations, France will fulfill its obligations."
While the individually sovereign nations of Europe vote on the EU Constitution, Chirac and Schroeder are already moving to limit the smaller voices in favor of a larger unified voice of Europe. Chirac attempts to be respectful of NATO, and thereby the U.S., and the role NATO has played in Europe’s defense. Yet even there, he wholly fails by offering up the virtue of the alliance as "first and foremost a military alliance." This after saying "“European defence is progressing. This development is an opportunity for our alliance, because a stronger, more united Europe, obviously means a stronger, more efficient Atlantic alliance." [Here is the full text of Chirac's comments.]
It is no surprise to those who visit this blog on a regular basis (thank you) that I’m no fan of the EU. What strikes me here is the brazen trumpeting of this message by Chirac while the President is in town. It would be a huge mistake to replace the individual nation members of NATO with an EU body which is clearly not driven by increasing the strength or effectiveness of the alliance. Chirac and Schroeder are interested in being a counter force to the U.S. and as they’ve shown with their nearsighted push to end the EU arms embargo, they’ll do whatever is politically expedient to achieve their aims (not to mention their prior ties to Saddam or current efforts to buy peace with Iran).
President Bush has a better understanding of NATO's role: "Because of Nato, Europe is whole, united and at peace."
Last July, NATO agreed to help with the training of Iraq's fledgling defense forces.
Today, we are told that they've done so again. This time all 26 members agree to support the effort in Iraq either with personnel, financial support or equipment. President Bush remains diplomatic and gracious. I'm not. NATO isn't what it used to be. Not because we've changed but because old Europe, the folks we liberated nearly 60 years ago, and protected for the next 4 plus decades, has changed. They, like the current and previous South Korean leadership, are ungrateful and have failed to learn the nature of tyranny.
Also, the EU is opening its first offices in Baghdad. The EU is training judges for Iraq, and thus far has done so only from the safety of Europe. The opening of the office does not indicate that training will move to Baghdad, it only indicates the future possibility of moving the training to Iraq.
From the man who signed the "Agreed Framework" and now possesses nuclear weapons comes the word that North Korea will resume the six party talks if the United States will show "trustworthy sincerity." Kim also added that North Korea would "as ever stand for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and its position to seek a peaceful solution to the issue through dialogue remains unchanged."
Clearly the loon of the north was impressed by the Chinese envoy, Wang Jiarui, as he added "we will go to the negotiating table anytime if there are mature conditions for the six-party talks thanks to the concerted efforts of the parties concerned in the future."
The state department’s initial response is appropriately reserved. Spokesman Lou Finter says "the United States remains ready to resume the six party talks at an early date without preconditions."
Also today, the DPRK denounced Japan's new defense posture as a plot to reinvade the DPRK. Did you laugh when reading that? I did.
"The 'military threat' touted by the Japanese militarists is a far-fetched allegation fabricated by themselves. They have joined in the US hostile policy toward the DPRK and its moves to stifle the DPRK and, therefore, the situation in the Korean Peninsula has reached the worst phase."Earlier DPRK post are here, here and throughout the Little Red Blog.
On a related note, China expressed concerns today that the U.S. threatens their security on three fronts – east, west and south.
"The weekly [the source for this Dong-A report] says that the U.S. considers Japan and Taiwan as the first encircling net in the east and accordingly tries to strengthen its military alliance with Japan, sell advanced weapons to Taiwan, and push forward the establishment of an air base in Shadidiao.Recent coverage of China is available here, here and elsewhere.Also, the U.S. is nurturing Guam as it core military base in Asia, setting the island as the second encircling net. To that end, the country augmented B-52 and B-2 strategic bombing planes, and deployed 64 air-launched cruise missiles to regions other than the U.S. mainland for the first time ever. It also decided to station three attack nuclear submarines at all times and deploy a Carrier Battle Group.
Meanwhile, the U.S. completed the western encircling net against China by setting up its military base in central Asia, while carrying out wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The country currently has 13 military bases in nine central Asian countries, including Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tadzhikistan. Against this backdrop, China faces a direct military threat from the U.S. also on land for the first time ever."
As you know, the President is visiting Europe this week. Here are several worthwhile columns discussing the President’s visit.
Sebastion Mallaby, in the Washington Post, has an excellent opening paragraph. Unfortunately, from there Mallaby dives headlong into a pit of junk science, bad ideas and bad politics as he calls for the President to make nice with Europe on global warming, debt relief for Africa and the international criminal court. The great issues of our time are covered in the first paragraph, and if Europe is on the wrong side of them, why should the President compromise on his, and our, values.
Niall Ferguson, in the Guardian, explains the three issues that will prevent Europe and the US from "making nice" during the President’s visit. The first is Iraq, or more aptly, Europe’s (specifically France and Germany) refusal to take part in the liberation and securing of Iraq. Next up, Iran, or specifically Iran’s nuclear weapons program, human rights abuses and continued support of terrorism and Europe’s (the EU Three) attempts to bribe the Iranian’s into agreeing to greater transparency in its nuclear program. Add to that Russia’s role in developing Iran’s nuclear power facilities and continued confidence in the Mullah’s assertion that they have no nuclear weapons program or the Kremlin's tightened grip on the Russian political and economic system. And finally, the EU’s move to end its arms embargo on China, in place since 1989. We may like to think, as does no less than Ralph Peters, that China isn't on a war path, but the reality is that China isn't on a path of reform, and the embargo was laid as a result of their actions in Tiananmen Square.
Elaine Sciolino, in the New York Times, describes the difference between Europe and the U.S. from a values perspective, even if that may not have been the purpose of the article. Is it poverty that causes terrorism, or the lack of freedom and democracy? Europe thinks it is poverty. Just as they recognize Hezbollah as a political party in Lebanon but not as a terrorist organization, the Europeans are wrong.
Financial Times editors note that the significance of the effort, the historical precedent from Ronald Reagan, and the inevitable challenge in an effort to mend fences on issues that aren’t political.
Gerald Baker, an editor at the Times of London, and contributor to the Weekly Standard, has an excellent column on the President's visit. Read it alone, if you can't read the rest of these.
The President's initial speech in Brussels has been made. The transcript is available here. Or at the White House website where no registration is required. The title of this post comes from the speech.
I will have more as the week passes.
Mark Steyn does it again. His must read commentary on the President's visit to Europe is both hilarious and spot on.
Cox and Forkum sum up the irony of the USS Jimmy Carter.
Ruud Lubbers has resigned in an effort to escape the scandle of his inappropriate behavior.
Doug Wead tapes the future president and then allows the NYTimes to hear a dozen or so of the tapes. Next comes the story in the Times.
Spain has agreed to the EU constititution. The voting was light and pro-EU. Too bad the remainder couldn't get out of bed to vote for their nation and against the EU.
Sergey Lavrov, Russia's Foreign Minister, admits that the Ukraine and Georgia are "absolutely sovereign, absolutely equal states in the new geopolitical architecture." Long time coming and certainly timed to ease tensions for this Friday's meetings between Bush and Emperor Putin. Lavrov also added some advice for Western leaders seeking to help former Soviet states:
"Russia wants to respect the interests of different countries - those neighboring us as well as those that would like to be more active in this region," he said. "But ... their interests here and their purposes should be understood and should not contradict the norms of relations between civilized countries."
Today, the eve of Ashoura, has seen a marked increase in the number and scale of attacks by terrorist on the people of Iraq, and particularly on Shi’a Muslims. This is Muslim on Muslim violence and yet, the worldwide Sunni population has not stepped forward to demand it stop, to stand between the terrorist and their intended victims or to support the brave American, Iraqi and allied troops who are doing so.
How long must we wait?
Before I go on, I am aware that there are small groups of Muslims, in the U.S. and abroad, who have spoken out against the terrorists and their tactics. Yet they’ve not taken to the streets, the governments (none democratically elected and representative of their citizenry) have remained silent and absent in Iraq, and no cry or call to admonish their behavior has been made. Is it because they fear being next? Perhaps some do, Faud and company for example, but clearly that isn’t the totality of the reason.
For far to many years the Muslim people have silently and not so silently supported the Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israel. Having made the arguments that the murder of Israeli people, attacks on the military, government and civilian targets are warranted and even called for by their faith and its demand for struggle against those who oppose the will of God. This jihad has now been turned against fellow Muslims and the voice of the majority is absent.
So I ask again: How long must we wait?
I believe that we’ll have to wait a very long time. Imams, mullahs and sheikhs around the world have abandoned reason, moral and ethical teachings within the Qur’an, and the real and terrible consequences of sitting in silent support of evil. And in response, that evil now strikes at their own. The streets of the world have been filled with men and women who believed they had been wronged, that injustice was being done, and that their voices must be heard. Whether in protest of war, electoral shenanigans, or political corruption the memories are clear. Yet the last time we recall the Muslims taking to the streets it was in celebration of the worst attack ever on this nation. How many Muslims will die at the hand of terrorist before they see the terrible error of their past and present and take to the streets to demand an end to such acts. How long will Muslim children have to wait before their parents and grandparents demand an end to terror in their names or in the name of their god?
I’m waiting, but not holding my breath.
The Washington Post reports that Japan will sign an agreement with the U.S. marking Taiwan as mutual security concern. The agreement to be signed on Saturday aligns Japan with the U.S. and Taiwan with regard to the "common strategic objectives" found in the Taiwan Strait. This along with Japan’s continued move toward modifying their post-WWII developed constitution to permit military actions beyond defense against direct aggression is a welcome move.
Unfortunately Australia, a great ally in the GWOT, has decided not to support the U.S. in our demands that the EU not end its arms embargo against China. Given China’s desire and capability to extend the reach of their military forces, one would think that Australia would take a more cautious stand. Unfortunately, economics are probably driving the deal as trade with China, and the highly valuable sale of uranium to China are taking the drivers seat in this decision. China has thanked Australia for their decision. [HT: Mad Minerva] I'm sure that makes it all worthwhile.
Previous post regarding China's military and economic expansion, the arms embargo, etc. are here, here and elsewhere.
UPDATE: I thought China's response to Porter Goss' comments before the Senate deserved inclusion here. The official response from spokesman Kong Quan.
"The U.S. warning has severely violated the conventions of international relations," Kong said. "The United States has severely interfered with Chinese internal affairs and sent a false signal to the advocates of Taiwan independence."Kong is incorrect. The U.S. has not interferred with internal affairs, sent false signals or otherwise been misleading. China is a threat to Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and the world. The Bush administration has been quietly reflecting on and responding to China's advances and are only beginning to strengthen the security of the world by bringing their actions to the attention of Congress and our allies.
Kofi Annan called Darfur "Hell on Earth." The killing, starvation, and destruction of villages continues in Darfur. Talks to end the non-genocidal movement to exterminate the non-Arab, non-Muslim persons residing in the Darfur region are going to resume. Someday. Not sure when, but they are going to. Really they are. The AP says so. I mean it. Well, they don’t give out a source or anything but they say it. Really.
The AP also says that the trouble in Darfur started when African tribes in the region took up arms. Only then did the Arab's respond in kind. They never mentioned the "janjaweed” by name, or described the conditions that brought the non-Muslim, non-Arab people to the point of defending themselves. Nor does it mention that they are largely Christian and largely black.
The AP has apparently learned much from the UN.
As always, Sudan Watch has all the latest on what has to be one of our most shameful hours.
From the Center for Security Policy comes word of another nuclear threat. This one being electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack by means of nuclear detonation high above the U.S.
The Center for Security Policy points out a congressional mandated commission to determine the nature of the threat and U.S. vulnerability. The executive summary from the commissions report to congress is available as .pdf file.
Its clear that a return research, development and testing of nuclear weapons and their potential use (and means to protect against them in any form of use) is necessary. Within the last week I heard in testimony on Capital Hill, trying to remember where and get the source (I believe it was on FoxNews, Shepard Smith), that the U.S. cannot currently manufacture a nuclear weapon (legally and technically). The legal aspect allows for the modification of the current arsenal, hence work on "bunker busters" may be permitted. The inability to manufacter them, test them, and additionally recognize the affect they have on other military and civilian systems is more troubling.
Israel has ended its practice of demolishing the homes of Palestinian terrorist. This is a good move. There are times when the hand of vengeance and retribution must be held in check. And Israel’s defense minister has determined that the program did nothing to deter further violence and may have contributed to greater hatred of Israel.
It’s good to see Israel take this step, yet reading the full AP report, by Karin Laub, I was surprised to see quotes from an al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Bridgade leader in Balata. Ala Sanakra states that the demolitions "motivated me to send more people on missions and gave more motivation to our fighters" in a phone interview with the writer. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that reporters can reach terrorist on the phone.
Two items to discuss.
Iran's former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, now head of the Expediency Council, says that Arab states remain vigilant against U.S. and Israeli plots to create division among the Islamic states in the region. His comments come a day after asserting the united front of Syria and Iran to oppose on all grounds to confront threats.
Syrias Prime Minister Naji al-Otari met with Rafsanjani after arriving in Tehran for a joint Iran Syria meeting on economic cooperation between the two states. al-Otari also met with current Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.
al-Otari stated that Israel was the source of instability in the region and confirmed that Syria would continue its struggle, along with Lebanon and the Palestinians, to vindicate its lost rights.
Original text of IRNA report. [Originally included due to lack of this link.]
Tehran, Feb 17, IRNA -- Visiting Prime Minister of Syria Naji al-Otari in a meeting with Head of Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani here on Thursday stressed that Damascus was determined to upgrade its economic ties with Tehran to keep pace with bilateral political ties.
And now:
Al-Otari arrived here on Wednesday at the head of an economic-political delegation to attend the meeting of Iran-Syria High Committee on Economic Cooperation.
Referring to Tehran-Damascus strong relations, the head of Iran's Expediency Council expressed satisfaction with expansion of political, cultural and economic ties between the two countries.
He said that in light of the current circumstances, further cementing of relations between Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and other Islamic states of the region was of great importance.
Rafsanjani noted that those countries could create a powerful alliance through their close cooperation so that it would benefit the interests of their people.
The EC chairman added that division among regional states was the wish of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel and for the same reason, he argued, countries of the region should "stay completely vigilant vis-a-vis the US and Israeli plots in this
regard."
Rafsanjani also said that Tehran and Damascus could play a key role in Iraq's reconstruction.
Al-Otari, for his part, said that Iraq's occupation only benefitted [sic] the big powers. He added that efforts should be made to restore the country's sovereignty and wealth to their real owners (people of Iraq).
The Syrian prime minister stated that the Zionist regime of Israel was "the source of instability" in the Middle East region and that Damascus would continue its struggle along with Palestinian and Lebanese nations, to vindicate its lost rights. 1394 / 1412
Russia and Iran are set to sign a long awaited, and U.S. opposed, deal for Russia to provide nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Assadollah Sabouri, deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization says the deal will be signed on February 26th, while Russian Atomic Energy Agency chief Alexander Rumyantsev is in Iran. The assumption is that Russia and Iran have agreed on terms for spent fuel to be returned to Russia after 10 years of use. This, of course, is an unsettling development.
---
It should be clear (and is to those who are willing to see) that Iran and Syria are enemies of the U.S. and after the success in the Iraqi elections, are stepping up their rhetoric against the U.S. This is no doubt an effort to draw additional support from islamofascist, ba'athist and anti-American or anti-Israel groups.
Add to that, Russia's inability to recognize the threat Iran poses to world peace, most likely due to their greed. And the window is closing quickly on the U.S., EU, UN and world to take a stand against Iran. While much attention is pointed to Syria, it must be clear that should the Mullah's fall, Syria would most likely quickly come to order (save what now has to be expected in any Arab or Islamic state reforming or being liberated, an "insurgency" of islamofascist).
Thomas Friedman's response to the murder of Rafik Hariri.
Lebanon must give Syria the "purple finger." I couldn't agree more. If only the French, and the UN would stand as resolute as a purple finger.
How can anyone be so dim? French Defense Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie is urging the end of the EU embargo of arms sales to China. The reasoning… well I’ll let Ms. Alliot-Marie’s words do the talking.
"The lifting of the embargo could be a better protection for us than maintaining it," she said.This strikes me as similar to the faulty logic used throughout the American left. We don’t want kids to ... so we provide them with ... in case they do. Or we don’t approve of illegal drug usage, but giving paraphernalia (implements) prevents misuse and disease."China is rapidly developing its industry, and today our experts say that in five years China could make exactly the same arms that we have today. And they will do it if they cannot import. So maybe if we can sell them the arms, they will not make them. And in five years' time, they will not have the technology to make them."
And - "The embargo was made about 15 years ago, and the evolution of China and of its international relations have been very significant since then," she said. "We cannot have relationships with China in all these fields - economic, medical, research and so on - and conserve the embargo as it is today." [source: FT]
China is developing the technology, manufacturing capabilities and stores of arms on their own. The idea that by selling arms to China, the Chinese will no longer pursue such arms or the means to produce them is ludicrous. It stems from the EU’s greed and nothing more. China wants the arms and the EU wants China’s money (or anyone’s for that matter). The U.K. may be the exception, while they support the removal of the embargo, their contention is that it is ineffective and greater oversight can be achieved through a lifting of the embargo and the creation of an organ for monitoring trade with China.
The Financial Times notes that the U.S. has been quietly opposed to the removal of the embargo, in an attempt to prevent further tension between the U.S. and our European allies. Here, again, the official U.S. policy believes that the EU is somehow friend of the U.S. (See my previous look at China and the EU.)
UPDATE: Porter Goss changed the tone with regard to China, compared to previous years, in his statements regarding Red China's efforts to counter the U.S. before the Senate Intelligence Committee today. It's about time.
There have been some interesting developments in the Middle East today.
Iran may be six months from having the knowledge to construct a nuclear weapon. Or so says, Israel’s Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom. Iran, of course, continues to deny assertions that they have a nuclear weapons program.
Iran’s Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi stated that Iran would shoot down unknown flying objects, which he had stated were primarily American spying equipment, i.e. unmanned aerial vehicles. Thus, reaffirming Iran’s position since December, 2004.
Additionally, Iran’s Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref has agreed to support Syria on "all grounds to confront threats." This, like the others, is not a "new" development, as much as it is a new statement of what has been the de facto position for some time. It is also telling given Syria’s renewed significance under the microscope given the death of Rafik Hariri. U.S. policy with regard to Syria may now be less likely to achieve a "balanced" resolution of tensions, with Syria foolishly believing Iran levels the playing field. Again the EU and UN must be willing to address the issues with something other than bribes and platitudes.
And then, this morning, Iran startled the world and many Iranians when they announced that a missile fired by an unknown aircraft had caused an explosion near the Bushehr nuclear reactor. They later clarified and stated that the explosion was caused by construction work for a dam.
Here in the U.S., Porter Goss and Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, in a refreshingly direct tone, updated Congress on the threat of al-Qaeda, Iran and islamofascist terror groups aligned with al-Qaeda.
Tensions have definitely increased. I’ll say it again; the EU and UN need to step forward. Similar to the tension with North Korea, the voices most likely to be heard remain either silent or a distant whisper at best.
Ralph Cossa, of Pacific Forum CSIS, points to Roh and South Korea, who haven't stepped up to the plate with the North, and says that it's their lead we'll have to follow. As a matter of practicing their "sunshine policy" and later the "Policy of Peace and Prosperity", Seoul has told the North that they can either have nuclear weapons or have economic and political cooperation. As Cossa notes, it's time to see if the South was bluffing.
Ibrahim al-Jaafari, interim vice president of Iraq, former London based physician and leader of Hezb ad-Daawa Islamiyya, looks to be the choice for Prime Minister. He has thus far, at least of late, seemed rational, supportive of U.S. forces being present and focused on the right things (i.e. establishing a secure Iraq and including all Iraqi's).
A national journey is underway. And like any journey, a national journey requires the knowledge of not only where one wants to end up, but also, from what point one begins the journey. Who among us would question that the Iraqi people more than any foreign observer or policy maker knows both the starting point of their journey, and where they would like to be?
Our character at the outset of our nation was set and firm. It had been forged by years of economic repression, religious persecution, and various ignoble attacks on the very nature of those who made the colonies their home. No matter what course of action the crown had taken, the character that had developed within the hearts and minds of the colonial leaders was such that their course could be set not just against the crown, but rather toward their own objective. They knew were they wanted to be and where they were.
The setting of the course within, as seen in the founders of the United States, took place prior to the first efforts at creating a nation. Over the years that have come and gone, many within our borders have lost sight of the necessity for such an internal course setting. They represent a hodgepodge of special interest groups lost but for their singular vision for the issue de jour and as such are bound together wandering toward no particular destination. Thankfully, there are those whose course remains firmly set nearly the same as our founders. They defend the true principles held in the founding documents. And in a similar vane, the people of Iraq are soon to set their course and pass on to their progeny the values for which their course should use as guideposts.
We know little of what the course will hold for Iraq. Its guiding values will most certainly be the creation and extension of their various ethnic and religious heritages into a national heritage. Like our founding fathers, the Iraqi people have known repression in any and all areas of their lives. This too will have an impact on their choice of guiding principles and on their aspirations for untangling the biases that have previously caused dissension between them. And with newfound bearing, the Iraqi’s will set out to become that which they’ve never been.
Of course, there are those who are not yet adjusted to the new reality, or who hold no course settings for which to guide them toward something new, seeking rather to return to the old. They too will be heard. The point is that Iraq’s course is to be determined by the hearts and minds of Iraq’s people, putting their values into action, and setting sail on a course of their choice. And to guide them, the course within. We may not know, or ever understand the destination they chose, who around the world understands the American ideal so well as Americans, but our guiding principles should assure us that it is right and honorable that they are at the helm. Finally.
Roh Moo-hyun, President of South Korea, is facing opposition to his policies of appeasement with North Korea. Finally! As noted before, I believe Roh’s policies have aided and strengthened the DPRK rather than "bridging the divide" or creating a mutual softening of relations from the North. Also, Roh's military has recently suggested they will participate in high-level military discussions with the North, as a means to avoid accidental clashes.
Japan continues to redefine its defense posture, now permitting the military to utilize its missile-defense system, currently being developed with the U.S., should Japan be under attack. Rather than a pacifist posture, the new defensive posture is well suited for the realities of the world.
U.S. missile-defense systems during testing failed to launch an interceptor rocket early Monday morning. Despite the nay-sayers outspoken opposition, it isn't that bad a thing. Just remember the number of failures during our initial attempts to develope rockets for orbital flight. Time is still on our side, and the effort, so long as we continue it, will be worthwhile.
Bashar al-Assad, Syrian President, condemned the killing of Rafik al-Hariri, yet the government press shifts the blame for the death of Rafik al-Hariri to Israel in a detestable, yet predictable, response.
"What happened was an attempt to shatter national unity in Lebanon, to sow anarchy and divisions which lead to a climate of civil war," said government newspaper Tishrin.This while the UN struggles to make a statement regarding the murder or the terrorist claim of responsibility. And in Lebanon, the people take to the streets to blame Syria.While the opposition to the pro-Syrian government in Beirut openly blamed Syria for the assassination, the official Damascus media in turn pointed a finger at Israel without even reporting the accusations against Syria.
Israel "continues to work to sabotage Lebanon's achievements to try to bring anarchy to the country and to be able to continue its occupation of the Shebaa Farms", a disputed strip of land along the Israeli border, said Tishrin.
Margaret Scobey, U.S. Ambassador to Syria, is being recalled to Washington in response to the terrorist killing of Rafik al-Hariri. Clearly there are those in the Bush administration who remain unconvinced that Syria wasn't involved. Added to the tensions between the U.S. and Syria over Syrian troops in Lebanon and influence in the government, and the concern over the Syrian border being used as a point of entry into Iraq, and well, perhaps the Ambassador should have been recalled previously.
The results of Iraq’s election were released yesterday, and as expected the MSM has joined the likes of Juan Cole in their analysis of the results as somehow unsatisfactory and problematic. The reality is that for the first time in their history, the Iraqi people, no matter their tribal, religious, ethnic or other affiliations had an opportunity to vote, and, in most cases, did. Yes, many Sunni’s didn’t vote. In fact, a vast majority of Sunni’s didn’t vote, but that was to be expected. The Sunni are either supporting the terrorist, or held by fear of the terrorist.
The headlines offered by the Washington Post - Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision - or the NY Times - Split Verdict in Iraqi Vote Sets Stage for Weak Government. Like the press, Cole’s view, that the U.S. lost, in his case because Allawi’s party didn’t win, is wrong. Each of these enlightened expert views would have us believe that ill winds dominate the Iraqi landscape and it would behoove the U.S. to accept our failure and go. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What truth is that? Neither the U.S. nor the existence of U.S. forces in Iraq was the primary point of the vote. It was the beginning of the establishment of a free Iraqi nation. Not a pro-America Iraq or an anti-Iranian Iraq. Neither was the point of this election. Iraq’s election, and the forming of the new government, no matter its make-up is an opportunity. For Iraqi people, not the U.S.
The tired and gloomy response of the media and the expert analyst they call upon is just that tired and gloomy. A more fitting response and analysis would have headlined the opportunity found in the vote. The story would have focused on the self-determination, possibility and freedom it affords Iraq.
The institutions, education, and moral foundations needed to maintain a free and democratic Iraq may not exist to the degree necessary. Yet without them, they will have to forge ahead and construct a nation from a diverse group of peoples. Our response should be applause and encouragement. We should continue to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq, and provide security, until they’ve determined a course for our withdrawal. Instead, our press would have us believe that the only aim of our government in Iraq was to secure our needs in Iraq. It was never the case. Our invasion ended the threat of Saddam Hussein reinvigorating his means of making war and of his colluding with terrorist to attack the U.S. or our allies. After having done so, the purpose has been the establishment of what is now taking form, a free elected Iraqi government.
For once, it would be a marvel of marvels to see the press look at an occasion such as this with the eyes of children. Children, naïve and innocent, see the opportunity, the great expanse of possibility and the joy of building that which had only been a dream. For those nay-sayers who will no doubt ask, but what if it Iraq becomes pro-Iranian or anti-American, my response is simple. They will have chosen that course, and our response to this day, no matter the following course, should remain the same – joy filled and optimistic.
When looking through the technorati listing of references to Thomas Friedman’s Sunday NY Times column, No Mullah’s Left Behind, I was disappointed to see little refutation of Friedman’s column. And more disappointed to see Glenn Reynolds agreeing with this Friedman statement:
As a geo-green, I believe that combining environmentalism and geopolitics is the most moral and realistic strategy the U.S. could pursue today. Imagine if President Bush used his bully pulpit and political capital to focus the nation on sharply lowering energy consumption and embracing a gasoline tax.Thankfully, Glenn goes on to suggest that nuclear power plants as a solution. Still, however, he appeared to focus on energy for our cars, he describes the nuclear power plants as a means to producing hydrogen as a replacement fuel for autos. All fine by me, except that the majority of our energy needs aren’t our cars or transportation (35% to 40% of our energy consumption is for transportation, of which almost all is petroleum based). [For stats on U.S. Energy consumption see the Energy Information Administration. - ed.]
Is the objective to reduce our dependence on foreign (read Middle Eastern) oil, or to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Or both.
The primary issue I take with Friedman’s suggestion is the gasoline tax as a means to alter behavior. The idea of changing our behavior through taxing the consumption of gasoline is abhorrent to me. The proper means to accomplish the objective of reducing fossil fuel dependence, and the attached relationship to despotic leaders in the Middle East, is through altering our own production capabilities and sources.
We have untapped resources in petroleum and we’ve nearly completely abandoned the use of nuclear energy. If we moved toward greater use of nuclear energy for non-transportation sector supply, the cut in fossil fuel usage would be significant, although, clearly 35 percent or more would remain due to transportation requirements. That component could be reduced through means such as Reynolds’ suggestion of hydrogen-fueled vehicles, but the time, and cost, between that solution and now is significant. The first step has to be opening up ANWR and other domestic sources for petroleum based exploration and production.
Whether geo-green or not, the administration needs to act to cut off U.S. backing of repressive regimes in the Middle East, and further, to create a more independent and viable long term solution to our energy needs. Our fear of nuclear technology, the cost associated with alternative fuels, and the lefts environmentalist ideals all serve as constraints to change rather as proponents of change. Another constraint is the attachment to stability. For years our economic policy has been propped up by the idea that through our continued use of Middle Eastern oil we foster stability in the region. This has to go. Maintaining the stability of despots neither advances the liberty of people around the world, nor does it enhance our security.
The Saud family may have come to power via Islamist ideology, or at least with the aid of it. And may have and still use it to maintain control over their people. But, as I've noted before, the islamofascist are no friends of the Saud's.
Today's killing of Rafik al-Hariri is yet another example of the islamofascists hatred of all things Saud. A group calling itself, the Group for Victory and Holy War in the Levant, has claimed responsibility for the killing. Their statement "For the sake of our Mujahideen brothers in Saudi Arabia ... we decided to implement the just execution of those who support this regime."
al-Hariri had earned a fortune, estimated at over $1 billion, in construction.
UPDATE: It has become clear to most, that Hariri's death was not "for" Saudi Mujahideen. No matter the claim.
China has both permitted some negative commentary on North Korea’s nuclear admission and withdrawal from the six-party talks, as well as asserted that they will remain in contact with all six-parties while working to restart the now year dead discussions. [HT: Powerpundit]
As I'v mentioned before, I don't believe that South Korea has followed the right course with the North for the past few years, and it appears they are going to continue providing aid to the North. Is it greed, after all the North's per capita GDP is 1/16th that of the South, compassion, being more wealthy and providing charity to distant family, or just an ill advised belief that Kim and Co' aren't that bad a bunch of guys?
Hamas on its best behavior. Good news for all, especially Chairman Abbas.
"Hamas's position regarding calm will continue unchanged and Israel will bear responsibility for any new violation or aggression," Ismail HaniyahEffectively meaning that Hamas will not act unless "incursions and assasinations" provoke them. And then, according to Mahmoud al-Zahar, they'll consult with the PA prior to acting. Hasn't that always been the case?
Michael Barone believes that the left leaning blogs have done what many of us have suspected for some time. Helped those they oppose. [HT: Instapundit, who is right that it didn't have to be that way.] Dean, Kerry, Carter, Pelosi, Gore, Moore - after all Bill did to make the Democrats seem not so lefty (post '94, with a Republican House and Senate), the Dems have gone out and become more leftist, more radical and more likely to lose. Save Hillary, Lieberman, and the wonderkund Obama. There is always Koch and Miller, but they've had enough.
Iran is being watched by U.S. drones launched from Iraq. The Sunday Washington Post delivers the story Drudge headlined late Saturday.
As usual, unnamed sources, but easily believable storyline. I for one hope that we have as many eyes on Iran as possible. As for the cat and mouse game of getting them to turn on radar, if that's what they want to call it, okay by me. There are many other advantages to the fly-overs beyond radar recognition.
I've been reluctantly, or perhaps, cautiously optimistic, with regard to Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Years of watching the Palestinian terrorist, reading the works of Islamic apologist for their terror, and witnessing the UN's duplicitous support for Palestinians and unwillingness to define terrorism due to the realization that it would have to include Palestinian terror as such. Yesterday, in response to the latest rounds of terror, Abbas fired the heads of security responsible for preventing such attacks.
Today, we learn that he has gone to the Gaza Strip to confront the terrorist leaders, demanding that they stop their attacks on the Israeli people. Whether or not he is successful, it is good news that he is attempting to do so. The steps that might follow should his request not be heeded are difficult to imagine, yet due to his forthright and immediate response thus far, one can remain hopeful.
UPDATE: Krauthammer says more and says it better. [HT: Betsy's Page]
Here's an interesting account of Akbar Rafsanjani, former President of Iran, speaking on the nuclear ambitions of Iran and the adventures of the U.S.
"The Persian Gulf is not a region where they can have fireworks and Iran is not a country where they can come for an adventure," cleric and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told worshippers at Friday prayers.And then just before the end of the article..."It is not acceptable that developed countries generate 70 or 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear energy and tell Iran, a great and powerful nation, that it cannot have nuclear electricity. Iran does not accept this," he added.
Although France produces close to 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power stations, most major industrialized nations derive under 30 percent, U.S. Energy Information Administration data says.
Rafsanjani is often hailed by analysts as a pragmatist who wants to restore diplomatic relations with the United States.
Rafsanjani reiterated Iran could not give up uranium enrichment, a key process in making nuclear fuel, but could work out a diplomatic solution by offering further assurances the fuel was not being diverted to bombs.A red dawn sky in Iran doesn't symbolize spilt blood, it is just a red dawn. Rafsanjani, the Mullahs and the current "moderate" government have made clear that they aren't giving up their "right" to enrich uranium. When will we give up our belief that they don't mean it."This confidence has to be built in the next few months. When this period this is over, we will, God willing, continue enrichment and nuclear technology," he added, stressing Iran's co-operation with the U.N. atomic watchdog.
Yesterday, Dear Leader, and his comrades announced they possess nuclear weapons and that they are no longer participating in multi-lateral talks. Today they announced that to defuse the tension they want to meet with the U.S. That has been their aim all along.
For years, North Korea's leaders, and everyone else's, could count on the U.S. to buy their support, or to bribe them for their support, in many cases that being exactly what the supposed enemy wanted. It is here. The DPRK officials are starving their nation. And the U.S., among others, are key to reversing the economic starvation that the 'Il' leaders have put on the North Korean people.
Should the U.S. participate in bilateral talks? I don't think so. The DPRK having nuclear weapons threatens all the people of the world, even if its the U.S. that recognizes the point of the barrel.
UPDATE: As expected, and appropriately, the Bush administration has refused bilateral talks with North Korea.
"It's not an issue between North Korea and the United States. It's a regional issue," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "And it's an issue that impacts all of its neighbors."
Secretary Rumsfeld is in Iraq. Very good, there should be a nearly constant flow of senior level administration officials touring Iraq, speaking with the troops, and meeting with the soon to be announced new government of Iraq.
This line, or something similar, will be repeated often in Iraq. "It is the Iraqis who have to over time defeat the insurgency." And rightfully so.
In dealing with North Korea, see previous post, the U.S. under President Clinton and the diplomatic expertise (cough!) of former President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. failed. We now face a real crisis.
And then there is Iran.
As with North Korea, DPRK, the Clinton administratin plays a large role in where we are today. With Clinton's authority, Vice President Gore negotiated with Victor Chernomyrdin, in what was known as the 'GCC', or Gore Chernomyrdin Commision, and the result was that Russia was to sign no further agreements with Iran. President Yeltsin, whom President Clinton had stated had agreed to scuttle the Bushehr light-water reactor deal, never did so. It, along with the centrifuge technology now at the center of the current issues between Iran and the U.S., could have been stopped in 1995. The plant’s construction is now complete, the centrifuges are being used in the process of creating enriched uranium.
Essentially, Clinton and Gore, assured the Russians that the U.S. would look the other way on their existing arms sales to Iran, and as well, we would permit certain defense and satelite corporations to do business with Russian firms, permit the Russians to participate in the Wassenaar Arrangement, and finally, we would only require that Russia not continue arms trade with Iran, i.e. no new deals. For the remaining years of the Clinton administration, the focus became preventing missile technology transfer to Iran.
And just as with North Korea, where Clinton also focused on missile technology development and transfer, Iran has advanced missile technologies now capable of reaching their perceived enemies, and are moving toward ICBM and nuclear warhead additions. (The U.S., nor any other nation has confirmed DPRK or Iranian delivery capabilities for nuclear weapons - ed.).
In essence, both North Korea, and Iran are crises that the Clinton administration turned a blind eye to, and as a result, both are much more capable of terrorizing their neighbors and holding the world to the point of a nuclear gun.
How could we possibly consider any Democratic nominee for the White House, Senate or House as serious on defense and national security issues in the wake of their support for Clinton? Perhaps some will step forward, but as of yet, the only stepping forward that’s been done is by the Bush administration. The President and Secretary Rice are trying to clean up the mess of the Clinton Gore debacle.
North Korea has nuclear weapons. Of course this isn’t news, it’s just an admission of the truth. The history of North Korea’s dealings on this issue does not bode well for those who believe that diplomacy will resolve the issue. Diplomacy requires a level of participation and trustworthiness on the part of all involved that North Korea cannot supply.
Here’s a look at the history that leads me to that conclusion, although this is by no means comprehensive in that it does not address the human rights issues or missile technology sales issues relating to North Korea’s trustworthiness, or South Korea’s questionable moves, since 1998, and negative impact associated with them.
After North Korea claims to no longer participate in the IAEA, former President Jimmy Carter negotiates North Korea’s "freeze" on its nuclear weapons program. The "Agreed Framework" between the U.S. and North Korea is signed, negotiated by Robert Gallucci. Under the "Agreed Framework" the U.S. will move to normalized economic relations, provide aid, and agree to the development of light-water nuclear power facilities in North Korea; the North Korean’s agree to eliminating their existing facilities and the weapons program, and to special inspections by the IAEA.
The focus of U.S./North Korea diplomacy shifts to missile technology proliferation.
The U.S., along with Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, should move immediately to have the U.N. Security Council demand, with a Chapter 7 resolution, compliance from North Korea. It is unlikely that it will happen, and less likely that if it does, that the sanctions would create a real change in North Korean policy. It would, however, show a global resolve for the economic and diplomatic isolation of North Korea. This too is a dangerous maneuver, as no one can know how Kim Jong Il will respond.
Similar to Iran, the people of North Korea would be the proper means to ending the situation, and the regime. Unfortunately there is apparently even less likelihood that the citizens of North Korea are prepared, inclined or capable of such a move. Isolation will, in this case, lead to further suffering.
Should China truly seek to have the Korean peninsula remain nuclear free, their response will most likely be the key. Thus far, they’ve not yielded a significantly strong enough voice against North Korea, and in all likelihood, they will not. Cutting off aid, in particular oil supplies, and supporting the complete economic and diplomatic isolation of North Korea, even if it never happens, would go along way to show that China is serious in its desire to see an end to the crisis.
A quick and proper Chinese response would go a long way toward relieving concerns I have about their efforts to weaken the U.S. I don’t expect it.
(Other coverage: FT, Xinhua, WaPo, Times of London, Scotsmen)
Why would anyone be skeptical of Abbas or the Palestinian Authority's recent cease-fire with Israel? Hamas.
During Arafat’s reign it was clear that he could stoke the fires of Hamas and increase the terror brought upon the Israeli people. It was never clear if he could stop it. [Primarily because he never sought to. – ed.] The challenge today is for Abbas to end Hamas’ terror while Hamas openly asserts that the PA alone has agreed to a cease-fire.
Will Abbas take steps to root out and break Hamas’ hold on the Palestinian view, or will he simply wait for Hamas to once again strike at innocents? The answer will greatly influence his ability to negotiate a settlement with Sharon.
A few items of news, while I continue reading the voluminous budget proposal.
Togo has a new president and the hollow voice of the UN is screeching in protest to the military backed succession of Faure Gnassingbe, son of the late President Gnassingbe Eyadema. While I can't rightly say I'm pleased, it just strikes me as a clear example of the UN's ineptitude. Even Togo stands defiant before the UN.
---
Dollar hits a 3-month high against the Euro. China's leaders can't be pleased.
---
Israel and the Palestinian Authority are to declare a cease-fire formally tomorrow. Secretary of State Rice has certainly not been the failure the left was hoping for. That being said, it's still a long way from cease-fire to peaceful coexistence. Hopeful, yet, I remain.
---
China is going ahead with its first, the world’s first, "pebble-bed" nuclear reactor. Treading where none since the Titanic have gone, it's being called "melt-down proof." It may be that it is safer than the old technology, seems plausible with the few details provided, the claim isn’t one I’d make. Would love to hear from Steven Den Beste on this, but don't expect it.
---
Hassan Rohani after stating that Iran would retaliate if attacked by the U.S., stated that Iran would "definitely accelerate our activities to complete our [nuclear] fuel cycle." Does this sound like the words of a nation with a peaceful nuclear technology program, or one hell bent on developing nuclear weapons?
If true...
KIEV, Ukraine -- A senior lawmaker on Wednesday called for Ukraine's prosecutor-general to investigate alleged sales of nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran and China in violation of international nonproliferation treaties.And taken in consideration with Ali Agha Mohammadi’s comments regarding Iran’s nuclear program and their unwillingness to give it up.The appeal, by Hrihory Omelchenko, follows allegations he made in a letter to new President Viktor Yushchenko. Omelchenko is a parliament member allied with Prime Minister-designate Yulia Tymoshenko and is a reserve colonel in Ukraine's intelligence service.
Yushchenko, who succeeded Leonid Kuchma, has promised a thorough investigation of corruption and misdeeds that allegedly flourished during his predecessor's 10 years as president. Kuchma allegedly sanctioned the sale of sophisticated radar systems to Iraq in 2002, contravening U.N. sanctions.
"I want him to begin his mandate with a clean record," Omelchenko said of Yushchenko.
In his letter to Yushchenko, Omelchenko said an investigation launched last summer "proved that some 20 air-launched Kh-55 and Kh-55M cruise missiles with nuclear capability were exported to third countries" in contravention of international treaties.
"Six missiles destined for Russia ended up in Iran ... six missiles destined for Russia ended up in China" the letter said. It said the sales occurred in 2000-01.
Vyacheslav Astapov, a spokesman for Ukraine's prosecutor-general, said the office began an investigation into the alleged sales last summer and "this year, we received new information."
Astapov also said a top-ranking Iranian diplomat in Ukraine met with Prosecutor-General Svyatoslav Piskun, but he did not elaborate. [source: Seatle Post-Intelligencer, HT: TBTN]
Not good news.
UPDATE: Financial Times - Europe has coverage as well.
The notion is far too common in our nation today. First, it was does President Bush’s reelection vindicate his efforts in the war on terror, specifically with regard to Iraq. And now, does this past weekends election in Iraq vindicate the war effort. Neither does. In response to this weeks Homespun Symposium question:
Do you think that the elections in Iraq vindicated President Bush's decision to invade Iraq?The war was a just war. It needs no further vindication. While reporters and commentators are more than willing to question the decisions that led to the war, to point to the lack of having found WMD’s in Iraq after the war, and to the violent actions of the terrorist following the President’s announcement that major military action had ceased, few are availed to report on the truths behind the conflict or the positives that may arise from it (including the many that have thus far, such as the election this past weekend).
The case for the war was based on several points, and the lack of an existing surplus of WMD’s, or active manufacturing of them, does not invalidate any of those points.
From the President’s case for the war, as delivered in his State of the Union address in January of 2003 and elsewhere (HT: OTB):
The threat of a rogue nation with WMD’s for their own use or transference to terrorists is the gravest threat to the U.S. [Something both the President and Senator Kerry generally agreed with during last year’s debates. – ed.]Our liberation of Iraq, and by extension relieving the threat of further aggression from Saddam Hussein and the potential for terrorists to partner with Hussein, should be hailed on its on merits. That afterwards, we have remained an active participant in the reconstruction of the nation, aligned against terrorist who seek to destroy Iraq’s fledgling government and prevent its further development, should also be praised. The voting of Iraqi’s doesn’t vindicate our actions. It is yet another sign of the truth of our objective, we did not go to conquer, but to free. In defense of our freedom, we have lain the foundation to another’s, and while their future remains untold, it is most certainly one of their own, rather than the one of Saddam Hussein.Saddam Hussein agreed, as a component of the cease-fire to end the 1991 Gulf War, where I served as a Marine, admitted possession of and agreed to destroy his WMD’s. Further, the UNSC endorsed the cease-fire in Resolution 687, requiring Hussein to disclose the locations and manner in which his WMD’s were destroyed, and to verification by the U.N.’s weapons inspectors, which was supposed to last four months.
Saddam Hussein failed to account for his WMD’s, and through intimidation, coercion and various forms of manipulation he attempted to prevent U.N. inspectors from determining the nature and capabilities of his weapons programs and the existing (or destroyed) weapons caches, despite 12 years of U.N. resolutions and the threat of war.
As late as 1998, inspectors found evidence of vast amounts of various WMD’s or the capabilities to produce them, and after Saddam's eviction of UN inspectors in 1998, the U.S. launched Operation Desert Fox against Hussein. If Saddam destroyed the weapons and programs, he did so in continuing violation of international law and the cease-fire agreement, which did not allow for unilateral disarmament but required verification of the destruction of the stockpiles, programs and research associated with WMD’s.
As evidenced by the attacks of September 11th, 2001, we cannot wait until the threat is “imminent” and must ensure that it does not become so. The previous year’s State of the Union address noted that Iraq, along with other Axis of Evil nations, was a “grave and growing danger.” Hence the effort to have U.N. support for the war, as no one would expect or require U.N. support to repel an imminent threat.
Saddam Hussein has murdered, tortured, and oppressed the people of Iraq and started two wars.
No connection between 9/11 and Saddam is evident or suggested, however, it is clear that Saddam Hussein has hosted, supported and protected terrorist and al-Qaeda members prior to 9/11 and afterwards.
Other Homespun Responses:
Nixon's Memoirs
Secure Liberty
Ruah
The Redhunter
Ogre's Politics and Views
Major Dad 1984
Dagney's Rant
In a previous blog entry, I noted three columns worthy of some attention. The three deal with to varying degrees America’s place in the world, our use of power, in particular soft-power, and the move by much of the world to non-American spawned means of economic, social or political governance. By way of introduction, a brief review of each column, and then my thoughts.
Europe Is the Next Rival Superpower.
But Then, So Was Japan.
by Jonathan Rauch, National Journal
The premise, gained by no more than the title, is that many are proclaiming Europe to be the next superpower, or moreover, that Europe is a superpower. Rauch, to his credit, shows a bit of restraint or skepticism, yet he like, Rifkin, Reid and Leonard, who he quotes, portrays the sense that America isn’t what she used to be or never was. At least not in the use her influence or soft power, and he dutifully derides American culture as "cowboy individualism" while the Europeans are seen as having a communitarian ethos that "better suits the times."
The Bushies’ New Groove
by David Brooks, NYTimes
In a nutshell, Brooks details his impression that the Bush administration has a renewed vigor for building during the second term, as opposed to tearing down, i.e. war, in the first. He notes that the administration has even shown a strong appreciation of soft power for this term and is looking beyond the Middle East. Perhaps because he writes for the Times, he has the obligatory, not sure where they’ll use it (soft power) comment but all else aside, a fine column.
Dream On America
The U.S. Model: For years, much of the world did aspire to the American way of life. But today countries are finding more appealing systems in their own backyards.
by Andrew Moravcsik, Newsweek International
The central thesis: Anti-American sentiment isn’t an aberration and U.S. soft power isn’t as influential as it once was in the face of alternatives from Europe or Asia. There are dubious statements that weaken his argument, and the glossing over, or outright ignoring, of factors that are antithetical to his view. And still, it’s a good read and at a minimum may lead some to ask, what is America’s place in the world.
America’s Place
The reward of guiding men or nations to freedom is seldom, if ever, their eternal gratitude. The effervescent feeling of "free at last" is quickly replaced by the needs and desires of day-to-day life and governance. While many nations, and peoples, are fondly pro-American in their stance in the days following their deliverance from war, enemies at arms, or economic peril, it is wrong to believe that it will last indefinitely. We should neither expect, nor feel shorted, when time passes and those who had been concerned with survival turn a cold shoulder to the U.S. after shifting to the higher challenges of self-governance, foreign policy, or creating economic opportunity.
Whether it is the European nations who survived with American intervention and continued presence, or Japan, whose world view was so thoroughly reconstructed and improved, the evidence of American might was unquestionably clear in the 20th century. Both, however, experienced more than the military capability of the U.S. The American spirit guided our actions as the U.S. strove not to remake them into American satellites, but instead to free them to a course of their own selection. Just as we’ve begun to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is common, even here, to discuss the anti-American sentiment of much of the world. In doing so, I, like many others, often fail to distinguish between those who culturally express disagreement with the U.S. and those who express through economic or foreign policy anti-U.S. objectives. With the advent of the European Union, this is far too easy to do, as much of the EU can be seen as anti-U.S. while the nations that make up the EU are more apt to simply be hands stretching for greater opportunity. France excluded. ;)
We have taken a leading role in the development of freedom and opportunity throughout the world not by our drive, but rather out of the absence of such leadership from older nations or soft powers such as the UN. Of course, national security has led the way in determining where and when we would exert overt force, and diplomatic and economic force have long been the standard elsewhere. As such, how is it that others see our influence waning?
It is simply a matter of the shrinking world. As Drezner notes, there are fewer poor dictators around and therefore fewer people living under the circumstances that most glaringly differ from the life of Americans. This is a sign of success. That those who’ve recently been freed may choose to become more European, Indian, or Japanese in their economic or political being, reflects only on our past success and as a reminder that where we have stepped in, it has lead to much gain.
Should the President’s administration increase its reliance on soft power? Yes and no. Build alliances, strengthen bonds, and compromise when the parties involved are aligned with the interest of those who are at greatest risk. Otherwise, if necessary, stand alone as a light unto others.
Ansar al-Islam has claimed responsibility for the downing of a British C-130 Hercules that killed 10 British service men. al-Jazeera showed video of the missile launch and subsequent crash. The video is now available from Fox News.
Just a few items well worth consideration...
Arthur Chrenkoff has the 20th edition of underreported good news from Iraq. The list is long, and I for one am happy to see it.
Dan Darling, at Winds of Change, offers an excellent review of the gamble, and loss, of Zarqawi.
Reuters is reporting from the Sudan that the U.N.’s long awaited report on Darfur, will NOT conclude that it is genocide. Given that they can’t call suicide bombings, or rockets from the Palestinian territories terrorism, should we be surprised? And to think, last week they were playing to the crowds with affirmations to never again permit genocide.
Undersecretary of State John Bolden is talking with Middle Eastern nations about Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
From Time, an article describing the increased number of Russian spies in the U.S. They claim it is as significant a number as during the Cold War. It’s good to be allies. Right?
The Times Online offers a hopeful picture of a declining kingdom. Of course, if true, this too could make the risk of aggresive action greater.
An interesting discussion on the ethics of blogging for money: John, Hugh, LeShawn and Karol.
And finally, the Watcher extends his weekly offer of linkage.
Nearly four and a half hours into the elections in Iraq. There have been few incidents of violence thus far, and despite them, the crowds are growing at most polling stations. Fox News is broadcasting live throughout the night (day in Iraq) and thus far it has been good coverage from Mosul and inside the Green Zone. Blue fingers rule!
The vote in Iraq is nearly 3 hours from beginning. In 14 countries it has begun. There are few things I’d like to offer prior to the elections. To the coalition forces in Iraq, to the men and women who are working to build a free nation, to the citizens voting for a free and democratic nation, to the morally confused media, and finally, to the terrorist who are threatening those who vote, I have a short number of things to share with you.
No matter the nation that sent you, no matter your service, religion, race, or political ideology, I want to thank those who serve in the coalition of the willing. Your efforts are not forgotten. Your sacrifice, and the lives of those who’ve been injured or died beside you, will not be forgotten. What was once a despotic regime of terror is no more. And in its place, the people of Iraq will build a more free and hopeful nation. Thank you.
To the American military who serves in Iraq, or elsewhere, a special thanks, for you are leading the effort to do that which is right and just in defense of your nation, and for those who may not recognize your sacrifice. Thank you.
To the employees and aid workers of all sorts who have taken to the streets of Iraq, your hours of toil, your personal risk, and your desire to be a part of something greater than yourself will not be in vain. You too, have lost friends and coworkers to the hands of villains of the worst kind, and they too are not to be forgotten. I will not, nor will those who stand with me, forget your diligence and perseverance. Thank you.
To the Iraqi voters, I don’t know where to start. You, like the brave men who liberated your nation, are heroes. Vote! Hold your blue tipped index fingers in the sky in defiance and yell to the heavens that you’ve voted. While night envelopes my home and you will be in my prayers; morning on your streets will be a new beginning for you and your nation. And here at home, far from the danger you will face, I will be thankful to those of you who will brave the streets and take what is yours. Take Iraq and make her anew.
To the media… I will not read your headlines, no matter what violence may or may not occur; I will not fall for your condemnations or your dour predictions. I understand that you are supposed to be free and objective. I await evidence of your ability to be.
And finally, to the filth of man, the most abhorrent of all, the supposed holy warriors fighting against the occupiers or the new government, to you I offer but one thing. Be warned. You had the gall to threaten those who vote not out of vice or avarice, but out of duty to build, where there was nothing, something great. You have attacked and killed men, women and children who serve the same god that you claim to serve, but we know better. You serve yourself and none other. Be warned! Our brave Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are looking for you. They’ll bring you to justice. And long after they’ve gone, the good people of Iraq will recall your warnings, your bombs and your murder, it is you who will perish. The eternal desert of hell will be your home. For Iraq will again rise to be an oasis, a blooming flower for all to see that hope is never to be lost. Not while we remember.
Confounded. That’s the word that sums up the way I felt after reading that Prime Minister Tony Blair believes that in order for the world to join the U.S. in our agenda, we must join in theirs. The U.S. agenda is summed up by the spread of liberty, in all its many facets of life, whether economic, civil or religious. The world’s agenda that Prime Minister Blair was speaking of is the Kyoto Protocol and the International Finance Facility, both of which can, and should, be seen as directly counter to the agenda of the United States.
It is admirable that the Prime Minister is so eager to assist the poorer nations of the world, and further to seek a balance between economic prosperity and environmental responsibilities, as he stated. Unfortunately, neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the IFF would accomplish his aims. What both would do is to further burden the economy of the United States while creating additional world debt to provide aid rather than providing systems whereby those in crisis are able to establish the tools necessary to self-sustain.
Somehow though, the Prime Minister’s comments where the least odd among those reported from Davos. Take Jacques Chirac’s reaffirmation of his desire for international taxation to be used to fight AIDS. His ideas – tax international financial transactions, tax airline tickets, tax maritime and airline fuel, or taxing capital movement in nations which permit banking secrecy. While the old taxer is correct that the size of the tax, particularly on financial transactions, could be very small, he is well aware that once the seal is broken, the likelihood of future, and larger, international taxation will increase.
And then we have the Chinese blustering about the weakness, or rather, the "instability" of the U.S. dollar, this from a nation whose currency is pegged, for now. Did the dollar become unstable when it climbed over the last two months, or during the nearly 3 yearlong decline? My guess is it happened when China realized that its climb represents a greater level of confidence in the U.S., and our policies, following the election and preceding the Iraqi election. So take a shot at it while you can, and before the G7 gets together again. Which leads to the question of the G7 and whether or not more pressure will be placed on China to loosen the yuan. Asian gamblers are betting on the yuan having its reigns removed, wishfully, and the real money seems to be on little being done by the G7 just yet, and therefore, little being done by Beijing. What’s this got to do with the price of tea in China?
Generally I’ve come to believe that the Chinese are actively moving to weaken the U.S., even if only in the eyes of those the Chinese are wooing, while increasing the diplomatic, economic and military reach of China’s sphere of influence. If we ignore the slight diplomatic gestures such as their blustering today, we will find an increase in the number of nations that are confident in their ability to stand against the U.S. in a variety of manners. Where many once walked with trepidation, others will skip and dance before us. My take thus far is that the agenda in Davos has been to challenge the U.S. rather than to determine the means for other nations to increase their economic opportunities. Looks like all is just as it has been.
On days like this, it is useful to remember that darkness precedes light. And along comes Arthur Chrenkoff to provide some good news from the Middle East. He also has a post showing that while the media trumpets the "escalation" of violence leading up the election in Iraq, the liberators have seen a 50% drop in violence. Even if only a temporary lull before the election, it is welcome and potentially a sign of the weakness of the terrorist, being incapable of keeping up the pace of violence.
An Italian judge, Clementina Forleo, ruled that three men, who were accused of recruiting suicide bombers to be sent to Iraq, are "guerillas" rather than terrorist. Clearly the judge has fallen victim to the media’s version of the violence in Iraq being an insurgency rather than a continuation of islamofascist violence against the civilians, government, and U.S. forces securing the nation while it is rebuilt. Rightly, the ruling has caused a great deal of anger around the world and in Italy. In three years, we can look forward to the release of the three who were convicted of assisting in illegal immigration and dealing in false documents.
One other alternative view might be that the judge was following the U.N.’s lead. The world body has not as of yet determined what an acceptable definition of terrorism is.
And then in France, 11 were arrested for recruiting "insurgents" to go Iraq. Eurabia anyone...
In a previous post, I’ve mentioned Tom’s on going series on Just War Theory. Joe Carter, of the Evangelical Outpost, points to two other discussions of Just War Theory. One, by Mark Olson, is a worthy, if mis-numbered, review of the Theory with a conclusion that reviews many wars and their applicability as either Just or Unjust. The second, by Jon Trainer, offers a brief statement of the principles of Just War Theory, and a look out how Biblical passages can be viewed to support Just War.
All are interesting takes on the subject, and recommended.
Introduction to Just War Theory
I. Recourse to War - jus ad bellum
On Just War (Part 1)
On Just War (Part 2) Who?
On Just War (Part 2) Why?
On Just War (Part 3) How?
On Just War: Conclusion
Personal Trainer
Enjoy.
Yesterday the United Nations marked the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz with a special commemoration ceremony. Over the last 30 years the U.N. has been seen a progressively becoming more anti-Semitic and the commemoration was an effort to deflect some of that criticism. The same U.N. which still has not determined if genocide is taking place in the Sudan, or defined terrorism due to the unwillingness of Arab and Muslim nations to come to terms with Islamist and Palestinian terror. And then there is the news that a group of Russian lawmakers are attempting to outlaw Jewish religious and ethnic organizations as extremist.
The pogroms of years gone by are quickly forgotten in much of the world where men attribute their woes to those who, for no other reason than being Jewish, are seen as the cause of all ills. Putin, and the Duma, should act immediately to secure the religious freedom of Jews in Russia, or else, the sentiments of a minority, given the inaction of men of good will, will once again have a foothold in a nation known for its history of persecuting Jews. In just the last 130 years, the Russian’s under the Czar, guided by Constantine Pobedonostev, or the Soviet Union, and it’s state sponsored anti-Semitism, the Jews of Russia, and allied states, have been under nearly constant attack.
Pobedonostev advocated that one third of all Jews be converted to Christianity, one third be expelled from Russia, and one third be put to death. Being a Jew in Russia was to be illegal. In the Soviet Union, from its outset, being Jewish was a high risk, even among the non-practicing Jews, three of the five leaders of the Revolution where non-practicing Jews, the Jewish people and Judaism where seen as a threat to the state.
---
Today, we fight an islamofascist movement hell-bent on destroying Western civilization, both from within, and from afar. One of the primary characteristics of this movement is its anti-Semitism. And at a time when many of us are concerned that Vladimir Putin has taken steps that limit freedom and public participation in government in Russia, we witness a reminder of the fickle nature of man and his ability to forget the lessons of history. Our silence on the murders in Darfur, the moral ambiguity of the United Nations, and our inability to recognize the nature of islamofascism, whether in the Palestinian territories or Iraq, are not signs that bode well for our ability to recognize the warning signs of a renewal of anti-Semitic movements around the world. Our eyes and ears must remain attuned to the threats within us, just as we are watchful to the threats from abroad. Link via Sherry.
It appears that Vladimir Putin gets what he wants. He wanted to renationalize the oil industry in Russia, and he has effectively done so. And with the help of China no less.
A U.S. bankruptcy court blocked the sell of Yukos to Gazprom, the largest oil producer in Russia, of which the Kremlin owns 36%. So what does the Kremlin do, it auctions off Yugansk, the core component of Yukos to an unheard of company, Baikal Group, which is then sold to the state owned Rosneft. Rosneft, a 100% Kremlin owned business, is now to be merged with Gazprom, and viola, Putin gets what Putin wants. Gazprom will be majority owned by the Kremlin and be the largest oil producer, or nearly, in the world.
To fund Rosneft’s purchase of Yugansk, the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation (CNCP) may loan $6 billion to Rosneft (the Kremlin).
So that leaves the Russian oil industry effectively renationalized (over 50% Kremlin owned) and backed by nationalized Chinese oil. Taken with todays earlier post, it becomes even more concerning.
Gertz’s column from the Washington Times, briefly noted here, needs further attention. It is surprising that it has received so little analysis from the blogosphere thus far, or perhaps we are all just focused on other issues. And speaking of other issues, it seems we are rather quite on yet another significant China related issue, the EU and arms sales to China.
First thoughts.
It is clear, as Gertz covers the contents of the Energy Futures in Asia report, that China has taken significant steps to ensure their supply of oil from the Middle East. Earlier this year there was speculation that China’s increased oil purchases were perhaps hoarding, as it outpaced the expected demand, and Chinese demand has continued to beat expectations. As Gertz points out, China has taken steps to create a “string of pearls” between the Arabian Gulf and the South China Sea, to ensure that their supply is not interrupted. From the Chinese perspective, we are to believe that it is due to U.S. pre-emptive action in Iraq, and China’s concern over our unpredictable government that seeks to encircle China. The map belies their validity of their version of the story.
Gwadar, Pakistan, is the home of a new naval base and listening post for the Chinese navy. This, the most western of ports discussed in the report, gives China the reach to monitor naval traffic through the shipping lane from the Arabian, or if the Mullahs insist, Persian, Gulf to the southern tip of the Indian subcontinent.
To monitor the Bay of Bengal and down through the Strait of Malaaca, China has bases in Burma. They’ve also given extensive military aid to the military regime holding reign over Burma.
To lessen the necessity of the Strait of Malaaca, China is said to be considering a canal through the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand. Given the enormous amount of traffic through the Strait, and the waters bordering Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, this would at a best be a measure to reduce risk in the narrow shipping lane or more likely, to provide an alternative path more direct to Chinese controlled waters.
In the southern portions of the South China Sea, China has increased its military establishment on the island of Hainan and improved its military airstrip on Woody Island. Woody Island is interesting due to its location in the Paracel Islands and the extension of China’s eyes and ears farther out into the South China Sea.
Here’s a map, from David Rosenberg of Middlebury College, of the shipping lanes through the region.
This all comes at a time when our naval forces are considered stretched and others are considering cutting weapons systems from the defense budget. Let’s be clear. It is, or would be, a great thing to see the military increase its ability to fight in a more netcentric and small unit manner. I believe the idea of eliminating heavier capabilities or programs that replace the heavy weight systems without adequate specialized replacements would be harmful, should we ever come face to face with the sheer girth of the Red Army.
EU Arms Sales
China wants the EU to end an arms embargo. Many European leaders agree that it is time to end the embargo. Their reasoning appears to be that it is a remnant of the Cold War. The U.S. has thus far stood resolute against it.
We should all be boisterous in our support for the administration as it goes toe to toe with the EU on the issue. The administration has expressed "fury” over the possibility, yet many in Europe, including in the U.K. continue to promote the idea that it is time. This despite the EU’s vaunted claims to be advocates of human rights, of which China is among the most egregious violators, or the clear ramifications that such a move would have a significant chilling effect on U.S. – EU relations. Why then would the EU take up the issue at this time, aside from the fact that China is seeking such a move?
Money. As we know, Europe is aging, its economic outlook is not shining bright, and to maintain the incredible cost of failed social programs, new markets must be found. China is just such a market, as was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. What the Europeans have shown, as recently as today when they demanded Thailand purchase six A380 aircraft at a cost that is in the range of all the aid the Europeans have sent to Southeast Asian tsunami victims or face a fishing tariff, is that money is their primary motive. Not good policy. Not freedom. Not liberty. And not charity.
This, and other topics, will continue later. And now linked into the Beltway Traffic Jam.
Despite the valiant efforts of Arthur Chrenkoff, and others, good news from Iraq is not given extensive coverage in the mainstream. In less than two weeks, the people of Iraq WILL VOTE. This is good news, even if there is violence and cries of illegitimacy. This weeks Homespun Symposium takes up the question of the elections in Iraq. While my answer will have to wait... others issues will not.
Candidates Killed
Three candidates for office in Iraq have been killed. It is my sincere hope that the Iraqi people recognize these men as patriots for free Iraq. It is unclear what their political views may or may not have been, other than party affiliation or being of the Sunni (2) and Shi’a faith, but these men have chosen to participate despite the obvious threats and intimidation, and have given their lives for Iraq. For that, they should be remembered.
Additionally, a homicide bomber blew up his vehicle at a security gate outside the SCIRI offices in Baghdad. SCIRI is a Shi'a party, seen by many as close to Iran, and a party likely to have some success in the upcoming elections. Two guards were reportedly killed.
D.C. Standoff
A man in a red van has threatened to blow it up. Some reports claim that this a domestic issue, he wants his daughter back, and the authorities are apparently still in talks with him.
China and the Big Blue
A must read article from Bill Gertz at the Washington Times. The Chinese are strengthening and lengthening their sea power. We'll discuss this more later tonight, hopefully with the aid of the blogosphere's better analysts.
Well, I haven't read the report, and may not, but the initial response I have to this story is NO.
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - More than 500 million people can escape abject poverty, 250 million people will no longer go to bed hungry and 30 million children can be saved if rich countries double development aid over the next 10 years to $195 billion, a new U.N.-sponsored report said on Monday.