Archive for category International Politics

An Oldie But A Goodie

As a follow-up to my previous post about Africa, I saw Instapundit’s post on Max Boot’s column about sub-standard government being the major problem in Africa which reminded me of my earlier post on the same subject: 

What are rogue nations but those with particularly wretched governments – or government of the tyrant, by the tyrant, and for the tyrant. The countries that are the worst to live in are those with the worst governments. Poor countries are poor because their governments keep them poor through (at best) mismanagement and (at worst) deliberate rule for the ruler’s sake. Frankly, no government should be considered legitimate that doesn’t have the consent of it’s people in free and fair elections. The best way to decrease poverty, to reduce war, to reduce human suffering would be to improve government globally.

Tags:

Millions For Cows, Not One Penny for Research

Eamon Fitzgerald reports on the growing respect for Tony Blair in Germany, and includes the eye opening statistic that the EU budget “allocates seven-times more for agriculture as for research and development, science, technology, education and innovation. Forty percent of spending goes into agriculture, where less than five percent of the population works.” Yowza.

Tags:

Great Minds Think Alike

Wretchard at The Belmont Club looks at four seemingly unconnected events and sums up with:

“This survey of events suggests (and it just my opinion) that the real strategic danger to the cause of freedom and democracy isn’t from the noisemakers of the Left but from the temptation to betray principles for tactical gain. It lies on the very same path that Galloway, Martin and Newsweek, in their cunning, have taken. The Left hitched its wagon to the worst men of the 20th and 21st century and it is dragging them into the dustbin of history. Let’s go the other way.”

Amen, brother Wretchard.

Michael Totten, fresh back from Lebannon, looks at just Uzbekistan and instead of lamenting missing the pro-democracy changes in Syria, calls for change in our policy in Uzbekistan quoting George Bush:

“For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy.”

Amen brothers George and Michael.

Thanks brother Jim for the info.

Two From Tom

The ever interesting Tom Maguire informs me that I must be Captain Archer — or at least according to the Pew Research Center now that they’ve divided Americans into nine political viewpoints, one of which is:

Enterprisers are highly patriotic and strongly pro-business, oppose social welfare and overwhelmingly support an assertive foreign policy. This group is largely white, well-educated, affluent and male – more than three-quarters are men. 

It could only be more me if they tossed in that the men were mostly middle aged, out of shape, married to a wonderful wife, volunteered with the boy scouts, and still had most of their hair.

But the esteemable Mr. Maguire, despite having a hard to spell last name (I want to make him Celtic) continues to inform, with a look at Tom Friedman’s look at the problem of nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran, and how it isn’t our fault, well, not directly anyway. I’m sure that the reflexive America bashers will pick up on how it really is our fault because we’re just so darn powerful and bossy that it’s our fault that China and Europe are free riding on us and shirking their responsibilities. You know what I say – polarize the armor and load the photon torpedoes cause we’re taking out the garbage, with or without the Chinese and Europeans.

Diplomacy?

I have to like the diplomatic style of tinpot dictatorships even as I loathe the dictatorships themselves. No “nice doggy” while you pick up a rock for them. It’s mainly in your face personal invective. North Korea insulted President Bush in language considered tame in MoveOn.org circles, calling him Hitler, Jr. So what brought on this tired tirade? Why, we said that we would hold direct talks as part of 6 party talks. What would their response have been if President bush had wrapped a tie around his head, pumped up, oiled down, and slurred into the camera Little Kimmie … I’m coming for you”?

Tags:

Vive La Difference

Another scandal, another politician resigns in disgrace. OK, it happened in the Czech Republic, but it’s something that happens everywhere. And it’s the sort of thing that may lead you to believe that democracies are more corrupt than dictatorships. But the true difference is that in functioning democracies corruption is found out and punished, while in dictatorships even if the corruption is found out it is rarely punished.

Now is When

A (OK, The) commentor in my post below China vs. Japan made the remark that “I don’t know anyone who lives in China who seriously believes that the Chinese are ready for democracy.” That got me to thinking – when are a people “ready for democracy”? Is there something that can be done to get them ready?

Was Japan or South Korea ready for democracy when they became democracies? How about Taiwan? They aren’t so bad as democracies after some initial growing pains. 

Now a successful country isn’t built just on democracy (I prefer representative government) – the rule of law, private property, and free markets are probably even more important. But the four do seem to go hand in hand, and all four can be, let’s face it, somewhat difficult. The US is fortunate because we started with all four from our British heritage, but other countries that were once ruled by the British show that it’s a matter of culture, not race.

And I think, just from looking around at the history of nations, the best way to get ready for democracy (and the rule of law, free markets, and private property) is to experience it. Most nations start out shaky but improve over time. They indulge in trial and error and sometimes (like the Wiemar Republic giving way to Nazi Germany) things don’t work out so well. 

If you compare South Korea to North Korea, they were essentially identical in 1945. They were split based on a line of occupation, one side under the US and the other under the USSR. 60 years later, one is a basket case in every way, and the other has become a representative democracy. Not perfect by any means, but then there isn’t a perfect country. Taiwan and Japan have both come become much better at democracy in recent years. 

Just like so much in life, democracy is a process that requires practice to get any better at it. Now that may mean it’s best to phase it in stages, but ultimately “not ready yet” is a copout. If not now, then when? Because the sooner a nation starts the process of democracy, the sooner it will have a well functioning one.

Tags: ,

China Vs. Japan

The semi-confrontation between China and Japan is interesting (though at root very sad) for a number of reasons. One is the reversal in roles – where once China was an ally and Japan an enemy, now Japan is an ally and China a rival. So there is a temptation to dismiss China’s concerns. But the flashpoint – the sanitization of Japanese history in WW2 – is a real one. The Japanese did dispicable things, killed and enslaved on an epic scale, and are still disliked and mistrusted by other asians for it still. While it rankles national pride, the truth should be taught so it can be learned from. But nobody likes to be reminded of their mistakes, and such dislike is only compounded by traditional Japanese (and Chinese) views on honor, respect, etc. (normally rolled into “face”).

On the other hand, one wonders if Chinese history books teach the reality of Mao – the untold misery and death he and his cohorts brought to the Chinese people. He did far more harm to the Chinese than the Japanese ever did. Is that included in Chinese textbooks? Or how about Tibet? But that leads to another observation – people are far more forgiving of who they consider “the same” than those they consider “other”. (You can see this at work in Democratic and Republican partisans in this country who routinely howl and gnash their teeth at actions by the other they ignore in themselves). And both societies historically have been very nationalistic and xenophobic. 

And that leads to the idea that you can’t look to who’s hands are the dirtiest – you have to look at the particular instance and facts. Are Chinese right to be upset about Japanese rewriting history doesn’t really depend on how well China writes history, how well they’ve behave towards other nations, nor even how they currently treat their own citizens (which can be pretty awful). It depends on whether the Japanese can rewrite history to feel better about themselves.

The Chinese response also raises questions as to what is going on in China. First you have a regime that has no legitimacy beyond the fact they are already in power. It’s communist in name but while it’s politics are communist it’s economics are more capitalist (and mercantilist). It’s fearful of internal enemies, which is the only thing that can account for it’s dread and suppression of Falun Gong. And it’s fearful of it’s neighbors – none of whom are friends and allies (with the possible exception of Pakistan). India’s rise and increasing warmth with the US only ads to the to the fear. Given that, you wonder why the ruling elite has embarked upon policies of confrontation – with Japan, with Taiwan, and to a lesser extent the US.

Tags: ,

Syria, Lebanon, and US

I keep asking myself about the Syrian response to Lebanese demonstrations and demands why they don’t carry out the same policies they did in the past — suppression, torture, murder — especially since those methods were effective in the past and are what are still used within Syria. There is a real risk to a strong man regime like Assad’s when it appears weak, and being chased out of Lebanon by a bunch of ordinary people is weak. Perhaps the younger Assad isn’t as sensative to possible danger as his father was, but it would be very interesting to know the calculus he is using to decide its better to leave than stay. Somehow, I don’t think the babeness of the protesters enters into it.

Wretchard has a great post about Lebanon, Syria, and wider American policy. To wit: “If this analysis is correct, the world crisis should accelerate rather than diminish in the coming years and months, not in the least because the United States seems to have no plan to fill the power vacuum with anything. The promotion of democracy is at heart an act of faith in the self-organizing ability of nations; it means getting rid of one dictator without necessarily having another waiting in the wings. It is so counterintuitive to disciples of realpolitik as to resemble madness. Or put more cynically, the promotion of democracy is a gamble only a country with a missile defense system, control of space, homeland defense and a global reach can afford to take. If you have your six-gun drawn, you can overturn the poker table. In retrospect, the real mistake the September 11 planners made to underestimate how radical the US could be. This does not necessarily mean America will win the hand; but it does indicate how high it is willing to raise the stakes.”

How high? Well, the Pentagon just ordered 30,000 more JDAMs to go with the over 112,000 they’ve already ordered. That’s a pretty high raise, but we’re not even close to going all in.

Tags: ,

Right Here, Right Now

I remember the Reagan years quite well. He was mocked as an amiable but bumbling moron who was leading the US to disaster by confronting the USSR. The left admonished him to just get along with the USSR, don’t confront them, don’t apply pressure, and quit calling them names. The evil empire speech caused far more frothing and conniptions on this side of the Iron Curtain than the other. When Reagan responded to Soviet medium range nuclear missiles in Europe with nukes of our own atop Pershing and cruise missiles, we were warned by left and the realists that we were playing chicken with the future of mankind. The Nuclear Freeze movement sprang into being, and amazingly it existed only on one side of the Iron Curtain — the side that was only starting to deploy nukes. But that was the refrain on the left – accomidate, pull back, never criticise, don’t antagonize them because you’ll only make it worse. As it turns out, they were dead wrong. Theirs was the losing strategy.

So excuse me if I find a certain similarity in the response to Bush II — except where Reagan’s critics thought him amiable, Bush’s find him evil. And we’re beginning to discover that maybe, just maybe Bush’s strategy of confrontation, speaking the truth, using force if necessary is having the same effect in the Middle East that Reagan’s same strategy had on Eastern Europe and the USSR. Now there are clearly differences between the two — e.g. Bush has used far more direct force than Reagan, and where Reagan confronted a powerful elite in one powerful nation propping up powerful elites in lesser nations, Bush confronts a diverse stew of tyrannies, factions and groups. So while the collapse of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe was abrupt — once it became clear that the USSR couldn’t stop one, they all fell, I don’t expect the overthrow of tyrannies in the Middle East to be as abrupt – each will have to fall on its own, although clearly people in one country will be emboldened by success (or chastened by failure) in other countries.

The doom sayers have been warning us of the wrath of the Arab street, and it finally made an appearance. Not against the US though, but against Syria. The Lebanese looked at what happened in Iraq and decided they wanted some. Now every tyrant worries that their own people will make the same decision. What did they see happen? They saw the brutal suppression by a dictator, they saw him slaughter over 500,00 of his own people during different revolts against him. Then they saw him toppled by America, and they saw the first tentative steps of the Iraqi’s to live free. They see that America is serious about dealing with tyrants – as witnessed by the continuing committment to Iraq despite the combat deaths. They see America’s committment to free elections – as witnessed by the loss of America’s handpicked man in the Iraqi elections without any response from America. But most importantly, they see the people of Iraq standing up for themselves — still dying at the hands of the remnants of their old tyrants regime, but now not being ruled by their fear.

Tags: ,