The Illusion of Foreign Policy Morality

It is disconcerting to read a knowledgeable and experienced person such as Thomas L Friedman fall in an old trap, claiming foreign policy morality for his own country (”Which world do you prefer?“, IHT, July 17).

Mr Friedman is apparently convinced that “America still has some moral backbone” because the USA “put forward a simple Security Council resolution” at the UN, calling for a series of sanctions against the quasi-dictatorial Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. Such a move failed, however, due to “truly filthy” vetoes by Russia and China. For that matter, Mr Friedman throws in the “pure, rancid moral corruption” of South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki.

All hail the USA, then, because “there are travesties America will not tolerate“?

If only!

Doesn’t Mr Friedman know a thing about the US-backed regimes of Egypt and Pakistan, for example? Doesn’t he remember the scores of murderous dictatorships financed by successive US Administrations, on the horrendously immoral belief that it is ok to support a “bastard” as long as he was “our bastard“?

It is telling that a good response to Mr Friedman’s argument has been published in the very pages of the IHT, in the “Letter from China” by Howard W French of July 4, 2008 (”Behind the reluctance to criticize Mugabe“): where we learn for example how a mere twenty years ago, Washington (and London) were “running diplomatic interference for apartheid rule in Pretoria“, going as far as “backing South African guerrilla proxies in places like Angola, prolonging devastating wars there and elsewhere, and staving off independence for South African-occupied Namibia in the name of fighting communism“.

At this very moment, the USA and its “Western” allies are supporting dictators in Equatorial Guinea, and Angola. Is there a need to repeat here what everybody thinks, i.e. that such “travesties” are tolerated, whilst Mugabe’s is not, because Zimbabwe doesn’t have huge oil deposits?

That said, at the end of the day there is little point in starting a USA-bashing rhetorical exercize, just as there is little meaning in Mr Friedman’s clutching at moral straws regarding a particular vote at the Security Council.
This is the world we live in, and if we care for its morality the first step surely is not to delude ourselves into thinking that our side is “of course” the “good side”.

Obama Joke

Is Barack Obama “so polished, he doesn’t seem to have any flaws“, making it impossible to come up with a non-racist, non-religious joke about him?

Let’s hear it from the Saint the Untouchable the Anointed One, oh well, from Obama himself…

Barack Obama: It’s time to begin and to stop a troop pullout
By Barack Obama and Barack Obama

Monday, July 14, 2008
CHICAGO: The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. I am very disappointed by the call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq.

The United States should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States. The United States should not go down the path of beginning the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long opposed, and that is not needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. The differences on Iraq in this campaign are minimal. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. Like Senator John McCain, I supported the war in Iraq before it began, and would continue it as president.

(cont.)(end)

Bernanke and the “Too Big to Fail” Syndrome

I am glad to see that the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bush Admnistration are giving clear instructions on how to succeed in business in America.

Apparently, all you have to do is to make your Company “too big to fail” (TBTF).

Then if anything untowards risks happening to it, Bernanke will step in and save another day. Even if it’s all been your own fault. Even if the Feds have been sitting idly whilst the Company was becoming TBTF.

Directors of TBTFs are surely rejoicing at the idea of unlimited profit opportunities with more or less zero chance of filing for bankruptcy protection, let alone close down the business.

A new wave of acquisitions like there is no tomorrow is surely in order. Obesity does pay, in the US business world.

Duck Season? Rabbit Season? No, It’s Obama Season!

One should have seen it coming…Barack Obama has begun attracting all sorts of attacks, and not just from the usual suspects, including John McCain or even the last remaining Hillary Clinton fans.

Has Obama peaked too soon? Is Obama going to transform the Oval Office into an al-Qaeda den? Is flip-flopping the main characteristic of Obama? Is Obama not a liberal candidate, in the US definition of the term?Has Obama not moved enough to the center?

More probably, it’s the equivalent of the “August silly season” playing up in July as the Democratic National Convention starts at the end of next month.

It’s still 113 days to go before the Presidential Elections. Who knows how many more stories we will be entertained with…

Jackson vs. Obama - a Complex Relationship

Some background details about Rev. Jesse Jackson’s “unkind remarks” about Barack Obama:

The relationship between Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama is multifaceted. For example there is Jesse Jackson, Jr., son of Jesse of course, Representative for the State of Illinois.

Obama is in the Senate in Washington representing exactly Illinois. Furthermore, Jesse Jr. is national co-chairman of the Obama electoral Campaign (as mentioned on International Herald Tribune/New York Times).

There is also Michelle Obama, Barack’s spouse and a long-time friend of one of Jesse’s daughters and once even babysitting at the Reverend’s home (it’s been recently talked about on The Economist).

One should also keep in mind that Jackson, recalcitrant but participant to Farrakhan’s Million Man March in 1995, didn’t have problems at the time in denouncing the large number of African-American absentee fathers, something Obama is currently talking about.

On the other hand isn’t Jesse Jackson an expert in the topic, having has an extramarital daughter himself in 2001?

Poor Reverend: second to Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X, and to Farrakhan, second to Mondale and even Dukakis, and now at risk of disappearing behind Obama and (shcok! horror!) Jesse Jr…

Is America the First Culprit in the Death and Suffering of US Veterans?

Is America the first culprit in the Death and Suffering of US Veterans?

Has anybody caused the deaths of more Muslims than Osama bin Laden? Who’s killed a greater number of Russians and of Communists than Stalin? Who’s been directly and indirectly responsible for the massacre of millions of Germans but Hitler? When did a bigger mass of Chinese met their final destiny than under Chairman Mao?

Such examples are too many to mention. Wouldn’t it be a nice headstart towards global peace, say, if we would all stop killing our own let alone the purported enemies? Some hope! For now, history will continue its history as a murderous farce.

Back to Basics on Iran and the Bomb

Oceans of ink are being wasted without addressing the most basic issue regarding Iran and its nuclear weapons program. The latest example is Peter D. Zimmerman’s op-ed, “Nearer to the Bomb” (IHT, July 8), where we are treated to 674 words in order to state the most obvious of facts (”the real purpose of Iranian enrichment is to provide fuel for weapons, not reactors“).

However, not a comma is dedicated to the problem of Iran’s own security, regularly and openly threatened with talks of war and mentions of foreign-supported “regime change”.

Have we learned really nothing from years of negotiations going nowhere, of sanctions resulting in nothing, and of incentives regularly failing to persuade successive Iranian Presidents and negotiators? Does anybody seriously think that Iran can afford, at this stage, to remain nuclearly unarmed?

Mr Zimmermann rather tellingly is able to contemplate harsh sanctions but only “modest low-calorie sweeteners“. That is exactly the kind of attitude that has brought the “Iran Bomb” issue where it stands at the moment.

When and where will the EU or the USA find instead the courage to offer full security guarantees to the Islamic Republic, in order to achieve a less nuclear, more secure world?

Time to Indict George W Bush for War Crimes?

Requests periodically recur for the indictment of U.S. President George W Bush, perhaps in front of an International Court, for various charges of war crimes, from the making-up of the “evidence” against Saddam Hussein to the list of abuses by American soldiers in Iraq and at Guantanamo against their prisoners, to the use of torture to extract information and confessions from terrorist suspects.

What is the feasibility of all that? It depends. Of the fact that the build-up to the war in Iraq in 2003 was based on nothing, I do not think there can be any doubt. Furthermore, it was definitely not me the one in charge whilst abuses and torture were (are?) being practiced. If Bush were a private citizen, the whole thing would already be in the hands of prosecutors and defense lawyers, trying to establish the boundaries between law, crime and ineptitude.

But Bush is no private citizen. Instead, he has spent eight years at the top of the Superpower. What hope could then be in getting him indicted, let alone sentenced?

First thing to be clarified is, would there be any role for an International Court? I do not think so. What future U.S. Administration would take the responsibility of establishing a precedent, sending a former president abroad to answer for war crimes? The only possibility is via the American own justice system.

Even in that case, one would have to present shock-and-awe evidence of criminal intent. It is true that, however slowly, the Congress is publishing reports very critical of the choices and behaviour of members of the Bush Administration, such as the results of the Senate Intelligence Committee chaired by Senator John D. “Jay” Rockefeller IV (D, W Va.), published about a month ago. But first of all, behind all that it’s simple partisan struggle, Democrats against Republicans in a fight which little interest in finding the truth about the President: because the only thing they care about is of course, getting re-elected.

To leave everything in the hands of various parliamentary committees, from this point of view, only serves to hush-hush the whole thing, with potential defendants more likely to die of old age than of attending a single hearing in a court of law. Ah, and to polarize the electorate for no overall gain (another positive opportunity for the politicians, and a pernicious disaster for the electorate itself).

One should therefore more than welcome the latest proposal by Nicholas D Kristof, from the pages of International Herald Tribune: forget the parliamentary committees, the courts, the discussions on the legality of Presidential decisions, in favor of a “Truth Commission” (TC) modeled on the one that helped South Africa become a democratic nation without bloodshed.

The TC would be something coming out of the U.S. themselves, thereby dismissing suggestions of “international interference”; it would only establish a single precedent, namely the fact that Presidents are responsible for what they do, and for what they leave behind; many of the “crimes” would be out in the open, because perpetrators just as in South Africa would prefer sincerity in front of the TC, to the danger of being brought in front of a criminal court.

At the end of the day, what Justice is the one that never comes to conclusions? It is much better to “know the truth”, because it allows us to dream to be able to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

John “July 4th” McCain to the Rescue

Coincidences pile up in the extremely good news of the rescue in Colombia of Ingrid Betancourt and 14 other hostages: among them, the fact that US Presidential Candidate John McCain, outspent at home and behind in the polls, is visiting Colombia in the same period, just by pure chance of course.

McCain is so lucky he will be able to bring home three American hostages just in time for the 4th of July. Furthermore, it is now known that Colombian President Alvaro Uribe considers the US Senator trustworthy enough to reveal all details of an extremely risky rescue attempt, the night before.

The only thing missing is a picture of Obama with an “I love FARC” t-shirt and the White House will see another Republican President.

US Supreme Court’s Double Blow Against Death Penalty

With a 5-to-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled yesterday June 25 against the capital punishment of child rapists.

Of course those rapists better spend a few decades in prison. But it is quite momentuous finally to hear affirmed in the USA the principle that the death penalty cannot be applied to crimes where victims have not died.

One may start wondering if, according to the Supreme Court, capital punishment is “just” a “State revenge”, a death to compensate another death. But we can leave that to a more appropriate time.: because the other important achievement in the majority’s opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy:

When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint

Justice Kennedy has thus confirmed what already known to those fighting for the abolition of the death penalty: the very application of capital punishment means (running the risk of) brutalizing the entire legal system of the whole nation, including the professional executioners, the prosecutors arguing to terminate a human being’s life, and the judges and juries deciding to end that life.

Three “hoorays” for Justice Kennedy.

Bush: Right about the Surge?

I usually appreciate David Brooks’ peculiar take on many subjects, but am not sure I follow his reasoning about the Surge (”Look at that surge…“, IHT, June 25).

Brooks tells us President Bush and VP Cheney have made the “right” decision when they increased the US presence in Iraq by 20,000 troops. That may be correct but…wouldn’t it be more meaningful to discuss why exactly they made the right decision?

As the saying goes, not even the astrologer can be wrong all of the time. Among the hundreds and hundreds of decisions made by the Bush admnistration over the course of more than seven years in office, surely some “have” to be “right”, whatever the astuteness and courage of the people in charge.

Does the fact that the Surge appears to have achieved “large, tenuous gains” help build up confidence for the remaining six months of President George W Bush? One wonders what Brooks would say about that…

Obama’s True “Dream Ticket”

How can Barack Obama win back the core Hillary Clinton voters, namely hispanics, women and “white men without a college education”?

It’s easy, because the question contains its own answer: just select as candidate VP a hispanic woman able to elicit interest among white men of whatever schooling.

If Obama wants a “Dream Ticket”, his dilemma is therefore quite simple…

…Salma Hayek, or Eva Longoria?

Getting Rid of Poison Billary

What is Barack Obama supposed to do now that there is little sign that Hillary Clinton will openly “concede” without being offered the Vice-Presidency, to the point of organizing “No-bama” chants at a very public appearance?

How can he get rid of the lady, and of her big-mouthed, inconvenient, gaffe-prone, press-hated, reputation-tearing, ladies’ favorite anger-bag of a husband?

For were Obama to accept Ms Rodham as his VP candidate, he would appear weak, unable to stand on his own, way too ready to compromise with somebody that after all he has been unable to shrug off. If instead, all the purring from the Clinton campaign about her readiness to have a shot as VP were ignored or rebuffed, then Obama would appear weak, cast adrift among college-educated Americans with not a single Latino or poor White in sight.

(Perhaps up to 27% of Democrats do not want to vote for Obama…isnt’ there a saying about the mother of the idiots being always pregnant?)

All this campaigning by Hillary and Bill Clinton has then turned the couple into a “poison pill”, the best thing that happened to McCain since Giuliani started excelling at foot-shooting practice. As things stand now, Hillary Clinton is indispensible, and the Democratic Party cannot go anywhere she doesn’t like it to go.

But in her latest moment of glory, there are also all the reasons to make her irrelevant.

===========

It is good practice in people management to identify the resources that one “cannot do without”…in order to get rid of them.

Anybody able to maneuver themselves into an “indispensable” position is in fact too loose a center of power, a practical nuisance for everybody around, a threat for the cohesion of the group and an inordinate risk were the person to move to a different job or disappear from view for any reason (eg due yet another sex scandal involving Mr C).

And one should not disregard the possibility of a leadership challenge at every single minute that passes

(I am sure Hillary Clinton is dreaming of the Party delegates begging her in Denver this coming August,to become the Presidential Candidate by acclamation. Can’t anybody find a picture of Obama with a prostitute, a lover, a wad of dirty cash, cocaine on his nose? Shaking hands with OJ Simpson? Praying at a mosque? Having dinner with Iran’s Ahmadinejad? Anything would do…)

That’s why if anybody is indispensable, they must be dispensed with asap, instead of letting things hang by a thread, with a possible major unmanageable crisis looming every day in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and weak leadership,

(How to get rid of somebody that one cannot ged rid of? By definition, it may look impossible. But that’s really never the case: US society would not collapse were Hillary Clinton to become a hermit tomorrow. If one is “indispensable”, dispensing of them will be painful, but a group exercise, that will inspire the best effort of the rest of the team)

===========

Obama can free himself from Billary by choosing one of three options: (a) going hard, immediately nominating somebody else as VP candidate; (b) going safe, doing nothing in the hope few will care about an also-ran with no hope to be anybody; (c) going soft, openly leaving all possibilities open, just in case, with no actual intention of choosing Hillary for the Vice-Presidency.

The choice is a matter of long-term political strategy. It can be argued that (a) is a sign of weakness, but the sooner the tooth is pulled out, the sooner the pain will go (and the more time there will be for campaigning against McCain). Option (b) needs plenty of nerve and plenty of friends in the media. Option (c) is an absolute gamble, and only the strongest and most determined candidate should think about it.

Options b and c assume that the Clintons will make a nuisance of themselves, with Bill growling too much, and Hillary squeaking too often, so that among the general nausea only their staunchest supporters will remain loyal. And so on and so forth.

(Personally I would choose option b but only after preparing a massive media campaign, in order to bury any Clinton news item by sheer force of numbers)

===========

Obviously, the above presumes Obama can show enough toughness (and callousness) so as to be his own antidote against Poison Billary. That’s something still open to question, a fact that in itself may be a symptom of the same inability to find that single final political punch that could have stopped all this Democrat squabbling long time ago.

Barack Obama can still choose Hillary Clinton as VP Candidate. But if that happens, nobody should kid themselves by talking of an “Obama Presidency”.

At the White House, the one with the trousers wouldn’t be the current junior Senator from Illinois.

Straw Men vs. Obama

(UPDATE: a shortened version of the text below has been published in the Letters section of the International Herald Tribune, May 25, 2008)

Truly there must be something powerful in Barack Obama’s message for the US Presidential Campaign of 2008, if critics are so busy setting up flawed arguments about his heritage, or foreign policy ideas.

First we had Luttwak’s improbable stint as a Shari’a scholar, somehow “demonstrating” that Obama’s Muslim father would be a liability… in the Muslim world. And now, how do N Thrall and J J Wilkins criticize Obama’s suggestion that, in foreign policy, talks are better than wars-by-proxy?

Why, they try to make a rather esoteric analogy with a Kennedy-Khrushchev summit of 47 years ago (”Kennedy talked, Khrushchev triumphed“, IHT, May 23).

Never mind that Obama has never suggested starting off by meeting face-to-face with the Presidents of Iran or Hamas, for example; that the world is vastly different from 1961’s; and that as anybody living in the real world knows very well already, the Administration of President George W Bush has engaged in talks with “America’s enemies” such as Lybia and North Korea.

And rightly so! Well, if Messrs Thrall and Wilkins are so convinced that the mere act of talking brings huge risks of being considered “too weak”, perhaps they should suggest closing off much of the State Department.

A flawed argument is also known as a “straw man”. Well, I for one think there have been enough of those scarecrows set up, especially against Obama. Please, can we have now some serious political discussion instead?

Republican Alert: Major Presidential Speeches Warning

The Economist quotes outgoing Republican congressman Tom Davis:

When Bush tries to articulate a vision, he will butcher the Gettysburg Address. Obama, he will make an A&P grocery list sing.

Obama has already managed to star in a “presidential speech” in Philadelphia, when challenged about race. The risk for McCain is to inspire more exceptional performances, eg about women (after attacks on Michelle Obama) and white working-class poverty (if remarks of Obama being too sophisticated for his own good keep coming).

Yet more signs that this is going to be a sedate campaign, with two candidates simply too nice to each other to inspire any enthusiasm…

Another Good Reason to Vote McCain

(read here for Four-to-One Reasons to Vote McCain)

Albert R Hunt correctly reminds his readers that “the Republican political establishment is looking to the devil to deliver them, the man many have depicted as the incarnation of evil: John McCain“. That makes the upcoming elections of relatively higher importance than usual, in the long run.

Were McCain to lose, in fact, the Nasty Faction of the US Republican Party will simply come back and drag (ruin) the GOP in several more years of rather outdated anti-liberal resentments.

If the senior Senator from Arizona succeeds instead, against incredibly powerful odds, then there could be some basis to get the whole American political system into the XXI century. Finally!

 

Luttwak Goes Ga-Ga on Obama

How else to interpret this rambling Op-Ed where renowned Edward N. Luttwak, “fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and author of Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace” transform himself into an improbable Shari’a expert, declaring Obama an “apostate”?

President Apostate? By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK - Published: May 12, 2008

I am perfectly sure that even in the darkest Afghanistan at the time of Mullah Omar, somebody’s religious choices in his 20’s, starting from an almost perfectly blank slate, would not have been considered evidence for “apostasy”.

Luttwak disingenuosly tries to justify his poor arguments with “all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic“. Methinks there is one way to improve relations with the world’s Muslims, and that is to have a President that is not called George W Bush.

Blissfully, the US Constitution will make that happen, on January 20, 2009.

252 days to go…

Time for Hillary Clinton To Let Go

Wouldn’t it be a great time for Hillary Clinton to halt her campaign to become Democrat candidate for the 2008 USA Presidential elections? While she’s still appearing to be “riding high” even if not high enough.

Also because, she’s kind of “officially lost”.

With the media machine moving onward and forward, in fact, it is possible to understand what exactly has happened in the Pennsylvania primaries:

Popular vote:
Clinton: 54.6%
Obama: 45.4%
Difference: 9.2%. Note that newspaper reported a 10% difference instead, by mishandling the decimal digits…

Estimated national delegates:
Clinton: 85
Obama: 73
% Difference: 7.6%

With Clinton desperate for a double-digit win, I do not see how these figures can be interpreted as anything else than an invitation for her to find something else to do with her life.

USA 2008: Four-to-One Reasons to Vote McCain

Four reasons to vote McCain on Nov 4, 2008

(1) Obama has said McCain is not as bad as George W Bush

(2) Hillary Clinton has said McCain is ready to be Commander-in-Chief

(3) Considerable numbers of Obama supporters say that will vote for McCain rather than for hated Hillary Clinton

(4) Considerable numbers of Hillary Clinton supporters say that will vote for McCain rather than for hated Obama

One reason not to vote McCain on Nov 4, 2008

(1) Considerable numbers of Republican supporters are as warm as liquid helium about “their” Candidate

At the rate things are going, a Gus Polinski Tribute Band will have to be recruited to provide some excitement on Election Day…

Feeling Just Fine About USA 2008

I am not that worried this year about the results of the Presidential elections in the USA.

If Hillary Clinton wins, we’ll get four years of Clintonism. Nothing to celebrate, but not that bad either.

If Barack Obama wins, we’ll get kick-started into the XXI century, with an experimentally fresh jump in the unknown (a bit like Reagan in 1981, and Clinton in 1993…).

If John McCain wins, there’ll be the steady hand of a maverick commanding the Superpower nation. Who knows, maybe like fellow ex-serviceman Eisenhower in the 1950’s, President McCain will be able to isolate the centers of power from the Military-Industrial Complex that has been pushing the USA towards an interminable series of wars and ingerences, for more than a generation.

Plenty to be optimistic about 2009 onwards then…

My personal preferences:

Obama-Clinton: Obama.
McCain-Clinton: McCain
McCain-Obama: I’d likely stay home as a sign of my approval, whatever the result.