Uh-Oh

This is quite disturbing. As long as I can keep Blogger I'll be fine. The funny thing is that no one in our office plays solitaire we prefer this.

Why Wolf and Other Stuff

That is the question that the NY Times is asking. It acknowledges that Wolfowitz once wrote "that security and poverty are connected - that the solutions to global conflicts don't necessarily lie in arms control, but in poverty reduction and economic development," but still stated that his selection was "a slap to the international community." In other analysis the Times says that the selection of John Bolton to the UN and Wolfie to the World bank by W. sends the message that "both institutions could benefit from unconventional thinking and stern discipline." Fred Kaplan at Slate seems to have the same take that I do on the Wolfie's nomination. I do doubt his assertion that Wolfowitz sees Robert McNamara's exit strategy as one to emulate. Considering the mess that he made at the WB I doubt anyone would want to follow his example. The Times analyisis, that he is going from one position of strength to another, is probably closer to the truth. If W. really would have wanted him gone he would have done so earlier this year. A Washington Post weighs in saying that Wolfie's critics should relaxe and that from the list of candidates he was the best pick available. The Post also notes the nominee's zeal for democracy and say that the WB could be a good fit for him.By the way Europe is shocked at the selection, shareholders were dismayed, the Wall Street Journal is excited and the Christian Science Monitor expects a bumpy ride for the nominee.

All this stuff about Wolfowitz is sucking the oxygen from other important news. The Iraqi Parliament met for the first time. The Times, Post, Washington Times and the LA Times pretty much all report the same thing. There was mortar fire in the distance, there is still no government in place, no real business was conducted but just getting to this point is a milestone. Amb. John Negroponte left Iraq yesterday a replacement is yet to be named. You would think that one would have been named almost immediately is Iraq not important enough?

Syria has completed the first phase of its pullback and it was made clear that Hezbollah has no intention to disarm. Christian relief organizations are getting kicked out of Aceh by the Indonesian government although some may be allowed to return. Berlusconni was more willing yesterday than the day before.

Lastly Mexico's President Fox is upset about a wall going up along the border saying that its "against freedom" and "discriminatory". Fox pooh-poohs the terrorist threat from the south. Well how's this or the recent round up of 103 members of the "gang" of illegal immigrants known as MS-13. According to a gang expert from the LAPD "Within the United States, these guys (MS-13) pose as much a threat to the well being of ordinary citizens as any foreign terrorist group." The leader who was arrested in Texas allegedly masterminded an attack on a bus in Honduras that killed 28 people. Does that make him a terrorist? Do I even need to mention how these criminals got into the country? There are an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 criminal illegal aliens, 30,000 in LA alone. I am all for immigration and more guest workers, but it has to be done the right way.

Wolfie's World

I am a huge Hurricane football fan. Back during the difficult and painful rebuilding years we fielded some pretty mediocre teams. Nowhere was this more evident than on the offensive side of the ball. It was simply impossible for the "U" to have a consistent offensive effort over the span of four quarters. It became common practice for me to curse the existence of our offensive coordinator and wish him the most extraordinarily painful and prolonged demise in the history of man. Imagine the concern of friends and family when the sainted Butch Davis departed and the bane of my existence ascended to the position of head coach. I surprised all by declaring that maybe, just maybe this was the right time for him to move up. He was the right man for the right job at the right time. The coach was Larry Coker and he confirmed my confidence in him by winning the title that year.

This is pretty much how I feel about Paul Wolfowitz taking over the World Bank. There is every reason to think that he should not get the job, but for some reason I am not as upset as I thought I would be. Wolfie more than any other neo-con is a true believer in development and democracy. Sure others may fall back on the democracy argument for going into Iraq after not finding WMD, but Wolfie wanted this all along. Maybe he is better suited to run an organization that doesn't deploy armed troops. Then again I haven't read Confessions of an Economic Hitman yet so who knows what will happen.

Not So Willing & Other News

As I am sure everyone has heard Italy is dropping out of the coalition of the willing. No surprise since election time in Italy is about a year away. Condi Rice thinks that a belligerent China will convince the EU not to lift the arms embargo. I think she gives the EUnuchs too much credit. A big story that didn't get enough play was the sensible shift in admin. policy towards Hezbollah. There is no reason not to welcome the group into the political process if it disarms and renounces violence. Are we asking for too much? By the way they don't have any legitimate beef with Israel other than it is a land full of infidels. The territory they claim to be fighting for is Syrian so if they are really fighting for land they are nothing but shills for Assad.

Upon further review Egyptian activists are underwhelmed by Hosni Mubarak's recent move toward "open" elections. One activist called it the new elections "another coronation of Mubarak." The fear is that Egypt will follow the Tunisian model where the elections are allegedly open but the president still garners 95% of the vote come election time. In the article government officials or those funded by it try to discourage American pressure, note that Islamic parties won't be permitted and celebrate the fact that the reforms guarantee that a military man will not succeed Hosni. Let's knock these down one at a time...American pressure does work if it didn't we would not be having this discussion. The only opposition with broad support is the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood so of course they are trying to keep them out and I am pretty sure that Junior didn't serve in the military so the "shift" to civilian rule is not all that surprising.

Meanwhile the Bushies continue to make a nuisance of themselves pushing for more religious freedom in Eritrea, Vietnam and (drum roll please) Saudi Arabia. Apparently an agreement is in the works after the US threatened to slap sanctions. Iran is the latest country to have anti-government protests.

The most surprising news of the day was an op-ed in the Washington Post siding with W. on the pull-out of the Optional Protocol from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The problem they reckon is the International Court was in a Warren kind of mood and made up a new right out of thin air. This in turn "created a major problem for the justice system in this country. " Mexico had sued the US over 50 death row inmates in Texas who never had asked for consular assistance before their trials. The ICC now says that even though they did not ask it should have been offered.

Democracy in the Mid East a Neo-Con Perspective

Even though many Neo-cons have hung their hat at the American Enterprise Institute it would be wrong to dub it neo-con central, since it does have a stable of fellows that could not even be mistaken for Bill Kristol. Nonetheless they have taken up the neo-con cause in foreign policy and the latest issue of their house organ The American Enterprise is an indication of that. The latest issue is dedicated to Democracy in the Middle East and to set the tone editor Karl Zinsmeister notes a couple of positive op-eds from the mainstream media and declares "The bandwagon is starting to fill--and thank goodness for that." In another article the historian Victor Davis Hanson makes tries to make the case that democracy is the now the realistic policy. Here is the crux of his argument:

Despite these many reservations and pitfalls, George Bush's new idealism may eventually make America's foreign initiatives more consistent and predictable to friend and enemy alike. Personalities and crises of the day may nuance the stance of the United States, but illiberal regimes will ultimately realize there will be no real friendship with the U.S. unless they reform their governments and free their peoples. Statesmen can haggle over protocols, but the main point is that in the future it will be principles of conduct that determine our relationships abroad--not oil, personal chemistry, or blackmail.

The previous "realpolitik," when the United States cozied up to some unsavory authoritarians in order to thwart Soviet hegemony, is at an end. Franco, the Shah, Pinochet, Somoza, Papa Doc, and others were artifacts of the Cold War, when the aberrant condition of 7,000 nuclear missiles pointed at our cities reduced and warped our options. If it was once hypocritical for the land of Jefferson and Madison to support dictators, then it is surely right to walk away from those earlier wrongs now that the Sword of Damocles has been removed.

And while promoting democracy is idealistic, it does not necessarily follow that it is naive. What, after all, prevents wars? Hardly the U.N.; and not just aircraft carriers either. The last half-century of peace in Europe and Japan, and the end of our old enmity of Russia, attest that the widest spread of democratic rule is the best guarantee against international aggression. Ballots substitute for bullets in venting internal
frustrations.

Sure it sounds nice, but there isn't anything new there. The land of Jefferson and Madison did not make establishing democracies and foreign policy objective. The land of Monroe, specifically his secretary of state made it clear that seeking monsters do destroy was not our objective.

Hezbollah

The Council on Foreign Relations has a Q & A on Hezbollah and the Wall Street Journal reminds us that the so called "Party of God" has targeted Americans in the past.

Another Day, Another Protest

The opposition in Lebanon is responding to the coordinated Hezbollah/Syria rally with a coordinated rally of their own. According to an AP Report the anti-Syrian rally easily topped a pro-government rally held last week. Pretty amazing when you consider that Assad's boys bused in Syrians for the event. A pic of today's event can be found here. The Daily Star has started posting a whole bunch of pictures here and here. Updates and round-ups are available here and here. By the way, Robert Fisk is reporting that the UN investigation into the murder of Rafik Hariri will reveal a devastating cover-up implicating both Syrian and Lebanese intelligence authorities.

More China Talk

Posted today on Drudge is a link to an interview of Washington Post Managing Editor Philip Bennett by the People's Daily, Red China's official paper. It is kind of long so I will just touch on a number of bombs and pandering remarks.

Bennett on the US as the leader of the world:

No, I don't think US should be the leader of the world. My job is helping my readers trying to understand what is happening now. What is happening now is very difficult to understand. The world is very complex. There are various complex forces occurring in it. I don't think you can imagine a world where one country or one group of people could lead everybody else. I can't imagine that could happen. I also think it is unhealthy to have one country as the leader of the world. People in other countries don't want to be led by foreign countries. They may want to have good relations with it or they may want to share with what is good in that country.

That is also a sort of colonial question. The world has gone through colonialism and imperialism. We have seen the danger and shortcomings of those systems. If we are heading into another period of imperialism where the US thinks itself as the leader of the area and its interest should prevail over all other interests of its neighbors and hers, then I think the world will be in an unhappy period.

That sounded like an opinion that was driving the paper's coverage, but two questions later Bennett states:

We have a little bit different roles in newspapers compared with our counterparts in Europe and other countries. We don't have any political point of view that we are trying to advance. We don't represent any political parties. We are not tied to any political movement. On the news side of the paper we try not to give opinions. So I think the role the Washington Post should play is to hold the government accountable for decisions made by it.

Bennett on the subjective nature of democracy:

Democracy means many things. How do you define democracy? As a Chinese journalist, you may have your own definition of democracy which corresponds to your history and your way of seeing the world. I may have another definition. Someone else may have their own definitions. Democracy means a lot of different things.

Bennett on the perception that his paper's coverage of China focuses on dissidents:

No, it is not true. If You look at all the stories published on the major newspapers about China last year, you would find the widest variety of stories of any time since US journalists were allowed back in China...In the past the party congress is the center of journalism, but today it is no longer the center for our reporters. We are more interested in the environment, the students, the business, the corruption and all sorts of different issues.

On being objective and balanced in the Post's China coverage:

Does the coverage see everything from the perspective of Chinese government? No. I think there are periods in which US government or political figures go through the moments of China bashing or very negative talking about China. But the media is more balanced than that. I don't think we are running after those negative issues. We are trying to see the big picture, not the little points of disputes.

Bennett's final boot lick:

Yes, but we have difficult in the access to the information here in Washington DC too. I don't expect Chinese government to become completely open just because American journalists want them to become more open.

It is very important for us to be able to reflect the views of China on major issues. To reflect the views accurately requires us to have access to the people who have those views. So being able to speak to the officials is very important for the accuracy and balance of our coverage. But I feel we do pretty well on that.

For a time when it was difficult for us to get visas, to travel in China, those things have improved dramatically. I don't know why but I would surmise one of the reasons is that Chinese government has recognized the value of having foreign journalists have access to China and write about something good or bad and get as much freedom as the law provides to write stories without fearing retaliation or punishment.. If I were a young journalist today, figuring out where I should go to make my career, I would go to China.

Sunday's Best

Of course the Mid East still reigns supreme in op-ed world. NY Times thinks that we should go along with France and soften up on Hezbollah and focus solely on Syrian withdrawal. Then we need to get France to help us go after Hezbollah. Sounds great except that while the EU just labeled the Hezbollah as a terrorist group individual members have yet to do the same.

Thomas Friedman is his normal brilliant self noting that just because autocrats fall down it does not mean that democracies will spring up. The Mid East also needs civil society and a middle class. Mona Eltahawy confesses in the Washington Post that Iraq War was the "equivalent of a bucket of freezing water thrown in the face of an Arab world in deep slumber." She goes on:

There is away to talk about the effect of the Iraq war on the rest of the Arab world
without actually supporting that war. This time last year and the year before, I marched in demonstrations in New York against the war on Iraq, which I did not believe was launched in the name of democracy and freedom. But we would be lying to ourselves if we didn't acknowledge that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is a major catalyst for what has been happening lately, be it in Egypt, Lebanon or Saudi Arabia.

She still goes on the rip Bush for not doing enough for Egypt and Saudi Arabia and credits civil society for being another catalyst in the Mid East. She's right on the latter but a bit harsh on the former. Of course the Bushies in defending American interests will be more tolerant of Saudi and Egyptian indiscretions, but there are nudging slightly nonetheless. After all Egypt's slight opening came on the heels of a cancelled trip by Condi Rice protesting the detention of Ayman Nour. Mr. Nour was released yesterday.

Marcela Sanchez applauds Bolivian President Carlos Mesa's reach out to coca producing leader Evo Morales. Even though it is not an opinion column the LA Times has a piece on the growing frustration of the white minority in Bolivia with the indigenous population. They seem to prefer a firm hand a la Alvaro Uribe to an outstretched one.

One last bit in the LA Times Arthur Herman says that a multipolar world is not the way to go. He feels that that having only one superpower makes the world safer. He points to Pax Britannica as his shining example.

The fact is, a unipolar world is a safer world and has been historically. For more than 100 years, from the defeat of Napoleon to the start of World War I, Britain was the world's lone superpower. Its Royal Navy enabled it to do the heavy lifting across the globe that no one else could or would, just as the U.S. military does today. Despite an inevitable crisis or two, the world enjoyed a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and stability. Now, with so many worried about the U.S. dominating the world, it's worth passing along the lessons Britain learned in its years as lone superpower.

The lessons are - be prepared to make enemies, be prepared for the long haul, your best ambassador is your military and watch your back. Aceh seems to prove his penultimate point. By the way Herman's book To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World is a great read.

The Book Pages

Here's something new that I want to try out since we are after all a book discussion group. So here it is a round up of book news and reviews. In the Washington Post Harvard Prof. Jorge Dominguez takes on Alvaro Vargas Llosa's Liberty for Latin America. While Dominguez declares that the "feisty book, which will provoke and annoy people across the political spectrum, is a great read", he does support it unequivocally. He knocks it for some inconsistencies and for not exposing the "overrated" economic performance of Chile under Pinochet. Dominguez is also underwhelmed with Varas Llosa's prescription for change but applauds his faulting US policy for keeping Latin America down. Just a reminder Vargas Llosa will be at MDC Wolfson this Friday, March 18.

China is big in the book news owing in part to an American banker's new bio of former Red Pres. Jiang Zemin. The NY Times has a broad (and long) profile on the book biz in China. The Washington Post has a story on the Jiang book and contrasts it with another political book the explosive Political Struggles in China's Reform Era, which touches on the role that the late Zhao Ziyang had in redefining China and his vision for the country. The Post has a review of three new China books including The Man Who Changed China, the Jiang hagiography, China Inc., the latest in the China rising ouevre and The River Runs Black on the enviromental challenges facing China. Of these the review says that The River Runs Black "ring truest." China Inc. loses points for somehow managing to avoid politics and The Man Who Changed China gets dutifully ripped. By the way how sad is it that the most controversial of all these works is written by a 35 year veteran of the New China News Agency and the weakest and most fawning is written by an American businessman.