Friday, January 09, 2004
From the Los Angeles Times Commentary section today:
By John Ellis, John Ellis, a partner in a venture capital firm in New York City, is a contributing columnist for Techcentralstation.com. He is a first cousin of President Bush.
Presidential politics in the United States is largely an argument about three issues: national security, the economy and culture.
In different years, these issues dominate or recede, depending on what's happening around the world.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, for instance, national security receded as a voter concern, paving the way for two relatively inexperienced governors to win the presidency in 1992 (Bill Clinton) and 2000 (George W. Bush).
It was in 1992 that Democratic strategist James Carville famously proclaimed, "It's the economy, stupid," and indeed it was, but only because the Soviet threat had expired.
The elections of 1996 and 2000, by contrast, revolved largely around cultural issues, not least of which was the culture of President Clinton's White House, which proved to be Vice President Al Gore's undoing — despite the tailwind of extraordinary economic growth. Almost no one cared that Gore was more experienced than then-Gov. George W. Bush in matters of national security.
This year, the Democrats would have you believe the election will focus on the economy. "The biggest issue in this election is jobs and economic security," Howard Dean said recently in Iowa.
But that's unlikely.
The simple fact is that Sept. 11 returned national security to the forefront of voter concerns. And President Bush upped the ante when, in a speech to the graduating class at West Point in 2002, he changed U.S. national security policy from one of containment and deterrence to one of "preemption," if need be.
"The war on terror will not be won on the defensive," Bush said. "We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act."
And so it did.
The president expanded the nation's counterterrorism strategy ambitiously. The war in Afghanistan sent the message that there was no haven for Al Qaeda. The war in Iraq sent an equally forceful message to the world that providing terrorists with the technological means (such as a tactical nuclear weapon) or the intellectual property (like a new design for genetically altered smallpox) to cause catastrophe might lead to "regime change," as it was politely called. The postwar reconstruction of Iraq sent another message: The U.S. was determined to change the dead-end dynamics of Middle Eastern politics.
The response of the Democratic Party's leading lights to this dramatic shift in national security policy and its execution has been myopic.
Democrats ranging from Bill Clinton to Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry have expressed regret that the president had acted "unilaterally" and thus had made the United States unpopular at the United Nations and in various world capitals.
And Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, most weirdly of all, has entertained the notion that Bush had prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks but chose to let it happen because … well, never mind.
Whatever one thinks of Bush's counterterrorism strategy, it does have the advantage of being grounded in reality.
The fact is that at the intersection of terror and advanced technology lies the distinct possibility of catastrophic destruction.
A catastrophic event in the United States would do terrible damage not only to its victims but to the national and the global economy, shattering investor confidence, which is the lifeblood of the capitalist system. Without a vital economy, there can be no expanded health-care coverage, job creation or yet more money for seniors.
So everything rides on preventing a catastrophic event from occurring in New York or Washington or Los Angeles. Counterterrorism policy isn't an issue in this campaign. It's the only issue.
The Democrats may believe that they can win on economic issues. But the reality is that until the Democrats convince vast swaths of the electorate that they are every bit as serious about fighting terrorism on as many fronts as is required, until they articulate a plan that is every bit as aggressive and ambitious and steadfast as Bush has been, until they make clear to the country that they will not falter or fail in this struggle, they will remain outside the circle of majority consideration.
The road back to the White House goes through this issue. It does not go left.
By John Ellis, John Ellis, a partner in a venture capital firm in New York City, is a contributing columnist for Techcentralstation.com. He is a first cousin of President Bush.
Presidential politics in the United States is largely an argument about three issues: national security, the economy and culture.
In different years, these issues dominate or recede, depending on what's happening around the world.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, for instance, national security receded as a voter concern, paving the way for two relatively inexperienced governors to win the presidency in 1992 (Bill Clinton) and 2000 (George W. Bush).
It was in 1992 that Democratic strategist James Carville famously proclaimed, "It's the economy, stupid," and indeed it was, but only because the Soviet threat had expired.
The elections of 1996 and 2000, by contrast, revolved largely around cultural issues, not least of which was the culture of President Clinton's White House, which proved to be Vice President Al Gore's undoing — despite the tailwind of extraordinary economic growth. Almost no one cared that Gore was more experienced than then-Gov. George W. Bush in matters of national security.
This year, the Democrats would have you believe the election will focus on the economy. "The biggest issue in this election is jobs and economic security," Howard Dean said recently in Iowa.
But that's unlikely.
The simple fact is that Sept. 11 returned national security to the forefront of voter concerns. And President Bush upped the ante when, in a speech to the graduating class at West Point in 2002, he changed U.S. national security policy from one of containment and deterrence to one of "preemption," if need be.
"The war on terror will not be won on the defensive," Bush said. "We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act."
And so it did.
The president expanded the nation's counterterrorism strategy ambitiously. The war in Afghanistan sent the message that there was no haven for Al Qaeda. The war in Iraq sent an equally forceful message to the world that providing terrorists with the technological means (such as a tactical nuclear weapon) or the intellectual property (like a new design for genetically altered smallpox) to cause catastrophe might lead to "regime change," as it was politely called. The postwar reconstruction of Iraq sent another message: The U.S. was determined to change the dead-end dynamics of Middle Eastern politics.
The response of the Democratic Party's leading lights to this dramatic shift in national security policy and its execution has been myopic.
Democrats ranging from Bill Clinton to Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry have expressed regret that the president had acted "unilaterally" and thus had made the United States unpopular at the United Nations and in various world capitals.
And Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, most weirdly of all, has entertained the notion that Bush had prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks but chose to let it happen because … well, never mind.
Whatever one thinks of Bush's counterterrorism strategy, it does have the advantage of being grounded in reality.
The fact is that at the intersection of terror and advanced technology lies the distinct possibility of catastrophic destruction.
A catastrophic event in the United States would do terrible damage not only to its victims but to the national and the global economy, shattering investor confidence, which is the lifeblood of the capitalist system. Without a vital economy, there can be no expanded health-care coverage, job creation or yet more money for seniors.
So everything rides on preventing a catastrophic event from occurring in New York or Washington or Los Angeles. Counterterrorism policy isn't an issue in this campaign. It's the only issue.
The Democrats may believe that they can win on economic issues. But the reality is that until the Democrats convince vast swaths of the electorate that they are every bit as serious about fighting terrorism on as many fronts as is required, until they articulate a plan that is every bit as aggressive and ambitious and steadfast as Bush has been, until they make clear to the country that they will not falter or fail in this struggle, they will remain outside the circle of majority consideration.
The road back to the White House goes through this issue. It does not go left.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Beware the Soft-Line Ideologues
By David Frum, Richard Perle
Posted: Wednesday, January 7, 2004
ARTICLES
Wall Street Journal
Publication Date: January 7, 2004
Under the leadership of President George W. Bush, two approaches to American foreign and security policy have emerged. One approach is founded on vigorous, decisive action, including a readiness to use military power, against the terrorist enemy. Its exponents are the hard-liners. You know the names: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, and so on.
The other approach holds that diplomacy and international organizations like the U.N. are the key to defeating terrorism. Supporting this camp of soft-liners are: the professionals at the State Department championed by Secretary Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage; some veterans of the first Bush administration, like former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft; and some current and former intelligence and military officials.
There is nothing unusual about divisions of this sort among the president's advisers. And President Bush has made shrewd and discriminating use of the advice he has received. What is unusual is that while the hard-liners have won most policy battles since 9/11, the soft-liners have won nearly complete control of the way those battles are reported. Pick up almost any newspaper account of the war on terror--such as the worshipful profile of State Department adviser retired Gen. Anthony Zinni in the Dec. 22 Washington Post--and you'll learn that the hard-liners are "ideologues," bent on democratizing the Middle East through war, heedless of the dangers in their way. The soft-liners are "moderates," "pragmatists," "realists," whose hesitations, fears, and resentments are represented as subtle, nuanced foreign-policy wisdom.
Yet the truth is the opposite. It is the soft-liners who are driven by ideology, who ignore or deny inconvenient facts and advocate unworkable solutions. It is the hard-liners who are the realists, the pragmatists.
The soft-liners place their trust in institutions and tactics that have consistently failed in the past; it is the hard-liners who have learned from experience. In their devotion to the U.N., their belief in the efficacy of international law, and their nostalgia for the alliances of the Cold War (and Gulf War I), the soft-liners cling to exploded illusions about the way the world should work. They protect themselves from facts with pretenses, insisting for example that negotiated successes--such as the apparent willingness of Libya to come to terms with the U.S.--are achieved by coaxing and cajoling, not toughness and credibility.
Three recent examples prove the point.
Mr. Powell's New Year's call for "dialogue" with Iran. Suppose you were a landlord with a tenant who repeatedly broke his promises to pay his overdue rent. After being stiffed again and again, you show up at his door with an eviction notice. He swears he will pay in full next Tuesday. Would it be "realistic" to believe him?
Soft-liners tend to think that so long as we are talking with other countries, we are accomplishing something--even if everything they say to us is an obvious lie. In 2003, dissidents smuggled out proof that Iran had systematically deceived the International Atomic Energy Agency about its nuclear program. The Iranians replied with more lies--until those too were exposed by later inspection missions.
Over the last year, the rulers of Iran have confirmed that they are indeed sheltering members of Osama bin Laden's family and the senior leadership of al Qaeda. They continue to sponsor Hezbollah terror. In the summer of 2003, the mullahs unleashed brutal repression against activists calling for democracy.
Since the election of Mohammad Khatami in 1997, Western diplomats have again and again hailed the imminence of "reform" in Iran--and called for negotiations and Western concessions to hasten those reforms along. Again and again, the Iranian regime has revealed its true character. Mr. Powell's Dec. 30 announcement of a "new attitude" in Iran that opens the way to a dialogue is only the latest episode of this embarrassing story.
Aren't the real "ideologues" the people who refuse to let hard facts and adverse experience alter their thinking or change their behavior?
Tyranny and democracy. Hard-liners are constantly accused of seeking to impose democracy by force out of blind ideological zeal. Against this, the soft-liners congratulate themselves on their prudent emphasis on continuity and stability. But by now it should be clear that there is no form of government less stable than autocracy. On Christmas Day, two suicide car-bombers crashed into the motorcade of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The blast killed 16 people. Suppose Pakistan's president had been one of those killed? Where would we be then? The U.S.-Pakistani alliance depends on the actuarial chances of one brave man--how is it prudent to rely on those?
Hard-liners are not bent on imposing democracy on anybody. But it is realistic to notice the connection between Middle Eastern tyranny and Middle Eastern terrorism; and it is realistic too to understand that it is sometimes true that societies that yearn for freedom are denied it by force--as Iraq was by Saddam's force. The U.S. may not be able to lead countries through the door to democracy; but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up.
The demise of the "road map." In March 2003, the Bush administration presented Israel and the Palestinian Authority with a "road map" to peace. The idea was that Israel and the Palestinian leadership would each take immediate steps to reduce tensions, with an eye to an agreement in principle on a Palestinian state by December 2003 and a final settlement in 2005.
Not one milestone on the road map has yet been traversed. The very first item listed on the text is this: "Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional cease-fire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel." Well, that has not happened. Nor have the Arab states cut off funds to anti-Israel terror groups. Nor have there been free elections in areas of Palestinian jurisdiction. Nor have . . . well, you get the idea.
Three successive U.S. administrations have sought to broker a peace. All three have made the same assumption: that the Palestinian leadership had abandoned its hope of destroying Israel and was ready to make peace. The job now was simply to negotiate the terms. It is now clear that this assumption was false. The Palestinian leadership's minimum demands, as articulated most recently in last month's Geneva Accord, include control of the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem and an undefined but ominous "right of return" for the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the refugees of 1948. No Israeli government could accept these terms.
When William James and Charles Pierce coined the term "pragmatism" 150 years ago, they meant something more than mere "practicality." James and Pierce were making a point about the nature of "truth." Truth, they argued, isn't some transcendent thing that exists beyond human experience. Truth is found right here on earth. If belief in an idea leads to positive results, then the idea is true; if belief in an idea leads to negative results, then it is false.
The belief that Yasser Arafat's Palestinian leadership will ever sign an agreement that permits Israel to live in peace and security has been tested over the years. The test has ended in the catastrophe of Arafat's terror war. Yet America's professional diplomats, especially those we hire to be knowledgeable about the Middle East, continue to cling to this belief despite its proven and total and repeated failure. If this is "pragmatism," what do the ideologues believe?
U.S. foreign policy will always be debated from different points of view. That is as it should be. But is it too much to ask for a little truth-in-labeling? We'd recommend that the next time a journalist sits down to report a foreign policy story from Washington, he try it this way: "Washington remains divided between two major factions: the pragmatic, neoconservatives and their opposite numbers, the soft-line ideologues." Of course, this story line too is an over-simplification. But at least it is not an outright rejection of reality.
David Frum and Richard Perle are resident fellows at the American Enterprise Institute and coauthors of An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror.
By David Frum, Richard Perle
Posted: Wednesday, January 7, 2004
ARTICLES
Wall Street Journal
Publication Date: January 7, 2004
Under the leadership of President George W. Bush, two approaches to American foreign and security policy have emerged. One approach is founded on vigorous, decisive action, including a readiness to use military power, against the terrorist enemy. Its exponents are the hard-liners. You know the names: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, and so on.
The other approach holds that diplomacy and international organizations like the U.N. are the key to defeating terrorism. Supporting this camp of soft-liners are: the professionals at the State Department championed by Secretary Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage; some veterans of the first Bush administration, like former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft; and some current and former intelligence and military officials.
There is nothing unusual about divisions of this sort among the president's advisers. And President Bush has made shrewd and discriminating use of the advice he has received. What is unusual is that while the hard-liners have won most policy battles since 9/11, the soft-liners have won nearly complete control of the way those battles are reported. Pick up almost any newspaper account of the war on terror--such as the worshipful profile of State Department adviser retired Gen. Anthony Zinni in the Dec. 22 Washington Post--and you'll learn that the hard-liners are "ideologues," bent on democratizing the Middle East through war, heedless of the dangers in their way. The soft-liners are "moderates," "pragmatists," "realists," whose hesitations, fears, and resentments are represented as subtle, nuanced foreign-policy wisdom.
Yet the truth is the opposite. It is the soft-liners who are driven by ideology, who ignore or deny inconvenient facts and advocate unworkable solutions. It is the hard-liners who are the realists, the pragmatists.
The soft-liners place their trust in institutions and tactics that have consistently failed in the past; it is the hard-liners who have learned from experience. In their devotion to the U.N., their belief in the efficacy of international law, and their nostalgia for the alliances of the Cold War (and Gulf War I), the soft-liners cling to exploded illusions about the way the world should work. They protect themselves from facts with pretenses, insisting for example that negotiated successes--such as the apparent willingness of Libya to come to terms with the U.S.--are achieved by coaxing and cajoling, not toughness and credibility.
Three recent examples prove the point.
Mr. Powell's New Year's call for "dialogue" with Iran. Suppose you were a landlord with a tenant who repeatedly broke his promises to pay his overdue rent. After being stiffed again and again, you show up at his door with an eviction notice. He swears he will pay in full next Tuesday. Would it be "realistic" to believe him?
Soft-liners tend to think that so long as we are talking with other countries, we are accomplishing something--even if everything they say to us is an obvious lie. In 2003, dissidents smuggled out proof that Iran had systematically deceived the International Atomic Energy Agency about its nuclear program. The Iranians replied with more lies--until those too were exposed by later inspection missions.
Over the last year, the rulers of Iran have confirmed that they are indeed sheltering members of Osama bin Laden's family and the senior leadership of al Qaeda. They continue to sponsor Hezbollah terror. In the summer of 2003, the mullahs unleashed brutal repression against activists calling for democracy.
Since the election of Mohammad Khatami in 1997, Western diplomats have again and again hailed the imminence of "reform" in Iran--and called for negotiations and Western concessions to hasten those reforms along. Again and again, the Iranian regime has revealed its true character. Mr. Powell's Dec. 30 announcement of a "new attitude" in Iran that opens the way to a dialogue is only the latest episode of this embarrassing story.
Aren't the real "ideologues" the people who refuse to let hard facts and adverse experience alter their thinking or change their behavior?
Tyranny and democracy. Hard-liners are constantly accused of seeking to impose democracy by force out of blind ideological zeal. Against this, the soft-liners congratulate themselves on their prudent emphasis on continuity and stability. But by now it should be clear that there is no form of government less stable than autocracy. On Christmas Day, two suicide car-bombers crashed into the motorcade of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The blast killed 16 people. Suppose Pakistan's president had been one of those killed? Where would we be then? The U.S.-Pakistani alliance depends on the actuarial chances of one brave man--how is it prudent to rely on those?
Hard-liners are not bent on imposing democracy on anybody. But it is realistic to notice the connection between Middle Eastern tyranny and Middle Eastern terrorism; and it is realistic too to understand that it is sometimes true that societies that yearn for freedom are denied it by force--as Iraq was by Saddam's force. The U.S. may not be able to lead countries through the door to democracy; but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up.
The demise of the "road map." In March 2003, the Bush administration presented Israel and the Palestinian Authority with a "road map" to peace. The idea was that Israel and the Palestinian leadership would each take immediate steps to reduce tensions, with an eye to an agreement in principle on a Palestinian state by December 2003 and a final settlement in 2005.
Not one milestone on the road map has yet been traversed. The very first item listed on the text is this: "Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional cease-fire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel." Well, that has not happened. Nor have the Arab states cut off funds to anti-Israel terror groups. Nor have there been free elections in areas of Palestinian jurisdiction. Nor have . . . well, you get the idea.
Three successive U.S. administrations have sought to broker a peace. All three have made the same assumption: that the Palestinian leadership had abandoned its hope of destroying Israel and was ready to make peace. The job now was simply to negotiate the terms. It is now clear that this assumption was false. The Palestinian leadership's minimum demands, as articulated most recently in last month's Geneva Accord, include control of the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem and an undefined but ominous "right of return" for the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the refugees of 1948. No Israeli government could accept these terms.
When William James and Charles Pierce coined the term "pragmatism" 150 years ago, they meant something more than mere "practicality." James and Pierce were making a point about the nature of "truth." Truth, they argued, isn't some transcendent thing that exists beyond human experience. Truth is found right here on earth. If belief in an idea leads to positive results, then the idea is true; if belief in an idea leads to negative results, then it is false.
The belief that Yasser Arafat's Palestinian leadership will ever sign an agreement that permits Israel to live in peace and security has been tested over the years. The test has ended in the catastrophe of Arafat's terror war. Yet America's professional diplomats, especially those we hire to be knowledgeable about the Middle East, continue to cling to this belief despite its proven and total and repeated failure. If this is "pragmatism," what do the ideologues believe?
U.S. foreign policy will always be debated from different points of view. That is as it should be. But is it too much to ask for a little truth-in-labeling? We'd recommend that the next time a journalist sits down to report a foreign policy story from Washington, he try it this way: "Washington remains divided between two major factions: the pragmatic, neoconservatives and their opposite numbers, the soft-line ideologues." Of course, this story line too is an over-simplification. But at least it is not an outright rejection of reality.
David Frum and Richard Perle are resident fellows at the American Enterprise Institute and coauthors of An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror.
War of Ideas, Part 1
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Airline flights into the U.S. are canceled from France, Mexico and London. Armed guards are put onto other flights coming to America. Westerners are warned to avoid Saudi Arabia, and synagogues are bombed in Turkey and France. A package left on the steps of the Metropolitan Museum of Art forces the evacuation of 5,000 museumgoers. (It turns out to contain a stuffed snowman.) National Guardsmen are posted at key bridges and tunnels.
Happy New Year.
What you are witnessing is why Sept. 11 amounts to World War III — the third great totalitarian challenge to open societies in the last 100 years. As the longtime Middle East analyst Abdullah Schleiffer once put it to me: World War II was the Nazis, using the engine of Germany to try to impose the reign of the perfect race, the Aryan race. The cold war was the Marxists, using the engine of the Soviet Union to try to impose the reign of the perfect class, the working class. And 9/11 was about religious totalitarians, Islamists, using suicide bombing to try to impose the reign of the perfect faith, political Islam.
O.K., you say, but how can one possibly compare the Soviet Union, which had thousands of nukes, with Al Qaeda? Here's how: As dangerous as the Soviet Union was, it was always deterrable with a wall of containment and with nukes of our own. Because, at the end of the day, the Soviets loved life more than they hated us. Despite our differences, we agreed on certain bedrock rules of civilization.
With the Islamist militant groups, we face people who hate us more than they love life. When you have large numbers of people ready to commit suicide, and ready to do it by making themselves into human bombs, using the most normal instruments of daily life — an airplane, a car, a garage door opener, a cellphone, fertilizer, a tennis shoe — you create a weapon that is undeterrable, undetectable and inexhaustible. This poses a much more serious threat than the Soviet Red Army because these human bombs attack the most essential element of an open society: trust.
Trust is built into every aspect, every building and every interaction in our increasingly hyperconnected world. We trust that when we board a plane, the person next to us isn't going to blow up his shoes. Without trust, there's no open society because there aren't enough police to guard every opening in an open society.
Which is why suicidal Islamist militants have the potential to erode our lifestyle. Because the only way to deter a suicidal enemy ready to use the instruments of daily life to kill us is by gradually taking away trust. We start by stripping airline passengers, then we go to fingerprinting all visitors, and we will end up removing cherished civil liberties.
So what to do? There are only three things we can do: (1) Improve our intelligence to deter and capture terrorists before they act. (2) Learn to live with more risk, while maintaining our open society. (3) Most important, find ways to get the societies where these Islamists come from to deter them first. Only they really know their own, and only they can really restrain their extremists.
As my friend Dov Seidman, whose company, LRN, teaches ethics to global corporations, put it: The cold war ended the way it did because at some bedrock level we and the Soviets "agreed on what is shameful." And shame, more than any laws or police, is how a village, a society or a culture expresses approval and disapproval and applies restraints.
But today, alas, there is no bedrock agreement on what is shameful, what is outside the boundary of a civilized world. Unlike the Soviet Union, the Islamist terrorists are neither a state subject to conventional deterrence or international rules, nor individuals deterred by the fear of death. And their home societies, in too many cases, have not stigmatized their acts as "shameful." In too many cases, their spiritual leaders have provided them with religious cover, and their local charities have provided them with money. That is why suicide bombing is spreading.
We cannot change other societies and cultures on our own. But we also can't just do nothing in the face of this mounting threat. What we can do is partner with the forces of moderation within these societies to help them fight the war of ideas. Because ultimately this is a struggle within the Arab-Muslim world, and we have to help our allies there, just as we did in World Wars I and II.
This column is the first in a five-part series on how we can do that.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Airline flights into the U.S. are canceled from France, Mexico and London. Armed guards are put onto other flights coming to America. Westerners are warned to avoid Saudi Arabia, and synagogues are bombed in Turkey and France. A package left on the steps of the Metropolitan Museum of Art forces the evacuation of 5,000 museumgoers. (It turns out to contain a stuffed snowman.) National Guardsmen are posted at key bridges and tunnels.
Happy New Year.
What you are witnessing is why Sept. 11 amounts to World War III — the third great totalitarian challenge to open societies in the last 100 years. As the longtime Middle East analyst Abdullah Schleiffer once put it to me: World War II was the Nazis, using the engine of Germany to try to impose the reign of the perfect race, the Aryan race. The cold war was the Marxists, using the engine of the Soviet Union to try to impose the reign of the perfect class, the working class. And 9/11 was about religious totalitarians, Islamists, using suicide bombing to try to impose the reign of the perfect faith, political Islam.
O.K., you say, but how can one possibly compare the Soviet Union, which had thousands of nukes, with Al Qaeda? Here's how: As dangerous as the Soviet Union was, it was always deterrable with a wall of containment and with nukes of our own. Because, at the end of the day, the Soviets loved life more than they hated us. Despite our differences, we agreed on certain bedrock rules of civilization.
With the Islamist militant groups, we face people who hate us more than they love life. When you have large numbers of people ready to commit suicide, and ready to do it by making themselves into human bombs, using the most normal instruments of daily life — an airplane, a car, a garage door opener, a cellphone, fertilizer, a tennis shoe — you create a weapon that is undeterrable, undetectable and inexhaustible. This poses a much more serious threat than the Soviet Red Army because these human bombs attack the most essential element of an open society: trust.
Trust is built into every aspect, every building and every interaction in our increasingly hyperconnected world. We trust that when we board a plane, the person next to us isn't going to blow up his shoes. Without trust, there's no open society because there aren't enough police to guard every opening in an open society.
Which is why suicidal Islamist militants have the potential to erode our lifestyle. Because the only way to deter a suicidal enemy ready to use the instruments of daily life to kill us is by gradually taking away trust. We start by stripping airline passengers, then we go to fingerprinting all visitors, and we will end up removing cherished civil liberties.
So what to do? There are only three things we can do: (1) Improve our intelligence to deter and capture terrorists before they act. (2) Learn to live with more risk, while maintaining our open society. (3) Most important, find ways to get the societies where these Islamists come from to deter them first. Only they really know their own, and only they can really restrain their extremists.
As my friend Dov Seidman, whose company, LRN, teaches ethics to global corporations, put it: The cold war ended the way it did because at some bedrock level we and the Soviets "agreed on what is shameful." And shame, more than any laws or police, is how a village, a society or a culture expresses approval and disapproval and applies restraints.
But today, alas, there is no bedrock agreement on what is shameful, what is outside the boundary of a civilized world. Unlike the Soviet Union, the Islamist terrorists are neither a state subject to conventional deterrence or international rules, nor individuals deterred by the fear of death. And their home societies, in too many cases, have not stigmatized their acts as "shameful." In too many cases, their spiritual leaders have provided them with religious cover, and their local charities have provided them with money. That is why suicide bombing is spreading.
We cannot change other societies and cultures on our own. But we also can't just do nothing in the face of this mounting threat. What we can do is partner with the forces of moderation within these societies to help them fight the war of ideas. Because ultimately this is a struggle within the Arab-Muslim world, and we have to help our allies there, just as we did in World Wars I and II.
This column is the first in a five-part series on how we can do that.
A new Afghan " Liberal " Constitution,
Municipal Elections in Saudi Arabia,
the liberation of Iraq from 30 years of oppression,
Lybia's disarament,
North Korea' s" Bold Offer " to negotiate an honorable surrender of its nuclear program....
President Bush, whatever have you done to the world?!!!!
Municipal Elections in Saudi Arabia,
the liberation of Iraq from 30 years of oppression,
Lybia's disarament,
North Korea' s" Bold Offer " to negotiate an honorable surrender of its nuclear program....
President Bush, whatever have you done to the world?!!!!
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
A Caucus of Democracies
How to reform the U.N. BY MAX M. KAMPELMAN
Tuesday, January 6, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
The United Nations is perceived by most Americans as indispensable for maintaining stability in the world. That was certainly the intent when it was created at the end of World War II. Its charter proclaims that "faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women" are principles central to peace and security. Regrettably, the U.N. has failed to act upon the centrality of human rights to its mission. Secretary-General Kofi Annan apparently recognized this reality in his Nobel lecture when he said: "The sovereignty of states must no longer be used as a shield for gross violations of human rights."
Since the U.N.'s creation, millions have been killed, maimed, starved, tortured or raped by brutal rulers whose governments nevertheless wield great influence in the U.N. General Assembly and the Security Council. These facts clearly reflect the inadequacies and failures of the U.N. For example, North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Il, has inflicted a holocaust on his people. Defectors and observers have estimated that more than a million people have starved to death in brutal Gulag-type camps. The resulting flood of refugees into China, where an estimated 360,000 North Koreans may now be hiding in an effort to escape brutality, has not produced action in the U.N., though the U.N. High Commission on Refugees is fully aware of this human catastrophe. China classifies these tragic human beings as "economic migrants" and "not refugees," while cynically embracing the refugee convention as the "Magna Carta of international refugee law" and thereby earning the applause of U.N. officials.
The U.N. Human Rights Commission has become a travesty. Two years ago, the U.S.--which has worked diligently to make the commission an effective instrument--was replaced by Syria, a corrupt, totalitarian supporter of terrorism. This year, in spite of American efforts, Libya was elected to chair the commission, an egregious challenge to the commission's integrity considering Libya's rule by a militant tyrant responsible for the 1988 bombing of a U.S. civilian jet in Lockerbie in which 270 people were murdered. U.S. opposition to Libya was supported only by Canada and Guatemala; 33 countries voted for Libya, while our European "friends" conspicuously abstained from voting at all. In electing such states as Syria, Libya, Vietnam, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Zimbabwe to serve on the commission, the ostensible guardian of human rights, the U.N. has forfeited its commitment to those values.
In 1948, the U.N. recognized Israel as a new state and member. Shortly thereafter, Israel's Arab neighbors--refusing to accept the U.N. decision--invaded Israel. Since that time, and until quite recently, neighboring Arab states have publicly considered themselves in a perpetual state of war with Israel, and have acted accordingly. How has the U.N. responded? Since 1964, the Security Council has passed 88 resolutions against Israel--the only democracy in the region--while the General Assembly has passed more than 400 such resolutions. The U.N., an organization committed to peace, permitted Yasser Arafat to address its General Assembly in 1974 with a pistol on his hip, and subsequently formed--under U.N. auspices and with U.N. funding--three separate entities with large staffs which advance the Palestine Liberation Organization's anti-Israel agenda: the Division for Palestine Rights; the Committee for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People. No Arab state has ever been chastised by the U.N. for actions against Israel and for its defiance of the 1948 U.N. resolution.
Is it any wonder that many Americans hesitate to place our security concerns in the hands of the U.N.? Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as he was leaving his role as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in 1976, called it a "theater of the absurd."
The U.N. today remains far short of realizing its potential or its stated aspirations. Its direction and control have been hijacked by authoritarian regimes, the relics of yesterday. We must work diligently toward realizing its original goals: freedom, democracy and human rights for all the peoples of the world. Until then, with our national values and security at stake, we must not permit our interests to be diverted and undermined by the unprincipled.
At a minimum, it is essential that the U.S. take the lead in establishing and strengthening a Caucus of Democratic States committed to advancing the U.N.'s assigned role for world peace, human dignity and democracy. The recently established Community of Democracies (CD) has called for this move, a recommendation jointly supported in a recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House.
In June 2000, the U.S., under the leadership of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and in cooperation with Poland, Chile, Mali and other democratic states, convened the first meeting of the CD to "collaborate on democratic-related issues in existing international and regional institutions . . . aimed at the promotion of democratic government." More than 100 countries participated. It was necessary for the CD to withhold full membership from some countries that sought to be included but did not adequately meet democratic standards. A second such meeting took place in Seoul in November 2002, where participants reaffirmed the need to create a U.N. Caucus of Democratic States. Secretary of State Colin Powell called it "a new tool in the U.S. policy tool bag." A third meeting of the CD is scheduled for Chile in 2005. The CD could be effective in refocusing the efforts of the U.N. to more closely follow its founding principles. At the same time, the CD is uniquely capable of filling the gaps left by the U.N.'s inadequacies, both internally and externally. But the CD's existence seems to be a great secret in the press. How often have you read about it?
The Community of Democracies is not alone in recognizing the need for more ardent advocacy of democratic principles in the U.N. The European Parliament early last year called for the creation of a working democratic caucus at the Human Rights Commission. Recently, Sen. Joseph Biden introduced a resolution in the Senate in support of the establishment of a U.N Democratic Caucus as "an idea whose time has come." It would be enormously valuable for the president of the United States to address the American people and enunciate a strong overall policy on the U.N., its opportunities and its limitations. He should make clear that broad promises about human rights must be replaced by specific implementation of human rights standards.
In order to advance the principles of the U.N. Charter, a strong Democratic Caucus must emphasize human dignity as an essential ingredient for peace and stability. It must challenge and limit the influence of the regional blocs that, for example, decide on the rotating membership of the Security Council and the various U.N. missions and commissions. Decisions and resolutions of the heavily politicized General Assembly--including the selection of states for commissions and other U.N. activities--should be formally approved by the Security Council before being considered decisions of the U.N. This would provide a safeguard for the U.N. Charter's foundational principles and objectives. More difficult is the need to reorganize the composition of the Security Council itself to reflect today's realities and not those of 50 years ago.
A strong case may be made for the need for an international body to which all of the world's states, democratic and authoritarian, belong. Discussion and constructive exchange may flow from it. But let us not bestow on it the appearance of being a forum of principle or wisdom qualified to judge the dimension of our national welfare and value. The changes necessary in the U.N. will be difficult to achieve, and some may not be achieved at all. But the impetus for such change must be a commitment to human rights and democracy. We should put Kofi Annan's statement to the test: "When the U.N. can truly call itself a Community of Democracies, the Charter's noble ideas of protecting human rights . . . will have been brought much closer."
Mr. Kampelman was U.S. ambassador to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
How to reform the U.N. BY MAX M. KAMPELMAN
Tuesday, January 6, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
The United Nations is perceived by most Americans as indispensable for maintaining stability in the world. That was certainly the intent when it was created at the end of World War II. Its charter proclaims that "faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women" are principles central to peace and security. Regrettably, the U.N. has failed to act upon the centrality of human rights to its mission. Secretary-General Kofi Annan apparently recognized this reality in his Nobel lecture when he said: "The sovereignty of states must no longer be used as a shield for gross violations of human rights."
Since the U.N.'s creation, millions have been killed, maimed, starved, tortured or raped by brutal rulers whose governments nevertheless wield great influence in the U.N. General Assembly and the Security Council. These facts clearly reflect the inadequacies and failures of the U.N. For example, North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Il, has inflicted a holocaust on his people. Defectors and observers have estimated that more than a million people have starved to death in brutal Gulag-type camps. The resulting flood of refugees into China, where an estimated 360,000 North Koreans may now be hiding in an effort to escape brutality, has not produced action in the U.N., though the U.N. High Commission on Refugees is fully aware of this human catastrophe. China classifies these tragic human beings as "economic migrants" and "not refugees," while cynically embracing the refugee convention as the "Magna Carta of international refugee law" and thereby earning the applause of U.N. officials.
The U.N. Human Rights Commission has become a travesty. Two years ago, the U.S.--which has worked diligently to make the commission an effective instrument--was replaced by Syria, a corrupt, totalitarian supporter of terrorism. This year, in spite of American efforts, Libya was elected to chair the commission, an egregious challenge to the commission's integrity considering Libya's rule by a militant tyrant responsible for the 1988 bombing of a U.S. civilian jet in Lockerbie in which 270 people were murdered. U.S. opposition to Libya was supported only by Canada and Guatemala; 33 countries voted for Libya, while our European "friends" conspicuously abstained from voting at all. In electing such states as Syria, Libya, Vietnam, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Zimbabwe to serve on the commission, the ostensible guardian of human rights, the U.N. has forfeited its commitment to those values.
In 1948, the U.N. recognized Israel as a new state and member. Shortly thereafter, Israel's Arab neighbors--refusing to accept the U.N. decision--invaded Israel. Since that time, and until quite recently, neighboring Arab states have publicly considered themselves in a perpetual state of war with Israel, and have acted accordingly. How has the U.N. responded? Since 1964, the Security Council has passed 88 resolutions against Israel--the only democracy in the region--while the General Assembly has passed more than 400 such resolutions. The U.N., an organization committed to peace, permitted Yasser Arafat to address its General Assembly in 1974 with a pistol on his hip, and subsequently formed--under U.N. auspices and with U.N. funding--three separate entities with large staffs which advance the Palestine Liberation Organization's anti-Israel agenda: the Division for Palestine Rights; the Committee for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People. No Arab state has ever been chastised by the U.N. for actions against Israel and for its defiance of the 1948 U.N. resolution.
Is it any wonder that many Americans hesitate to place our security concerns in the hands of the U.N.? Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as he was leaving his role as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in 1976, called it a "theater of the absurd."
The U.N. today remains far short of realizing its potential or its stated aspirations. Its direction and control have been hijacked by authoritarian regimes, the relics of yesterday. We must work diligently toward realizing its original goals: freedom, democracy and human rights for all the peoples of the world. Until then, with our national values and security at stake, we must not permit our interests to be diverted and undermined by the unprincipled.
At a minimum, it is essential that the U.S. take the lead in establishing and strengthening a Caucus of Democratic States committed to advancing the U.N.'s assigned role for world peace, human dignity and democracy. The recently established Community of Democracies (CD) has called for this move, a recommendation jointly supported in a recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House.
In June 2000, the U.S., under the leadership of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and in cooperation with Poland, Chile, Mali and other democratic states, convened the first meeting of the CD to "collaborate on democratic-related issues in existing international and regional institutions . . . aimed at the promotion of democratic government." More than 100 countries participated. It was necessary for the CD to withhold full membership from some countries that sought to be included but did not adequately meet democratic standards. A second such meeting took place in Seoul in November 2002, where participants reaffirmed the need to create a U.N. Caucus of Democratic States. Secretary of State Colin Powell called it "a new tool in the U.S. policy tool bag." A third meeting of the CD is scheduled for Chile in 2005. The CD could be effective in refocusing the efforts of the U.N. to more closely follow its founding principles. At the same time, the CD is uniquely capable of filling the gaps left by the U.N.'s inadequacies, both internally and externally. But the CD's existence seems to be a great secret in the press. How often have you read about it?
The Community of Democracies is not alone in recognizing the need for more ardent advocacy of democratic principles in the U.N. The European Parliament early last year called for the creation of a working democratic caucus at the Human Rights Commission. Recently, Sen. Joseph Biden introduced a resolution in the Senate in support of the establishment of a U.N Democratic Caucus as "an idea whose time has come." It would be enormously valuable for the president of the United States to address the American people and enunciate a strong overall policy on the U.N., its opportunities and its limitations. He should make clear that broad promises about human rights must be replaced by specific implementation of human rights standards.
In order to advance the principles of the U.N. Charter, a strong Democratic Caucus must emphasize human dignity as an essential ingredient for peace and stability. It must challenge and limit the influence of the regional blocs that, for example, decide on the rotating membership of the Security Council and the various U.N. missions and commissions. Decisions and resolutions of the heavily politicized General Assembly--including the selection of states for commissions and other U.N. activities--should be formally approved by the Security Council before being considered decisions of the U.N. This would provide a safeguard for the U.N. Charter's foundational principles and objectives. More difficult is the need to reorganize the composition of the Security Council itself to reflect today's realities and not those of 50 years ago.
A strong case may be made for the need for an international body to which all of the world's states, democratic and authoritarian, belong. Discussion and constructive exchange may flow from it. But let us not bestow on it the appearance of being a forum of principle or wisdom qualified to judge the dimension of our national welfare and value. The changes necessary in the U.N. will be difficult to achieve, and some may not be achieved at all. But the impetus for such change must be a commitment to human rights and democracy. We should put Kofi Annan's statement to the test: "When the U.N. can truly call itself a Community of Democracies, the Charter's noble ideas of protecting human rights . . . will have been brought much closer."
Mr. Kampelman was U.S. ambassador to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
From " Iraq the Model ":
"....Many anti-Americans (and many Americans as well) blame us, and call us naive or slaves that are only good at a** kissing, and I still remember a very strange and saddening comment that goes something like ”those westernized Iraqis and their sickening (we love you)!!” well, if speaking English and believing in freedom and democracy makes us westernized then it’s ok with me. As for (sickening love): now that was the 1st time I know that loving people of other nationality and religions beside yours is sickening.
Anyway I’m not going to be emotional here and will not answer them in a similar manner. In contrast I’d like to look at their objections in a rational manner if I could only maintain it.
The most common objection, these days, against supporting the USA is that she had (installed) Saddam, supported him and supplied him with destructive and chemical weapons that he used against the Iranians and his own people, and that just when he became not useful to them they decided to get rid of him.
In the beginning I’d like to put the people of the USA and any other nation out of this subject as I believe that people are generally good everywhere and should not be blamed for their governments’ mistakes and I see no reason to hate the people of the USA, on the contrary I have every reason to love them together with all the good people on earth, and if you think that they should take some of the blame, then I should remind you that by doing so you also give me, and others, the right to blame ALL the people of Russia, china, France and Germany(as well as Arab and Muslim people) for their governments’ support to Saddam and their attitude towards the war; something I never did and will never do. If you don’t agree with that then I should advice you not to waste your time on reading the rest of this post.
However, I find myself compelled to agree that some of these assumptions (about previous American administrations) are true to some degree.
Yet, if we track back Saddam’s life, his connection to previous American administrations or to the CIA we will find that these are not strongly proved or documented and at least much less than people like Michele Aflak, Sa’adon Hummadi, Tariq Aziz or Al-Bakir had. These facts were made clearer lately by confessions from senior bath members who left the party in the early 80s(check Salah Omar al Ali interviews and Hassan Alawi books for example). Saddam had made his way to power mainly by eliminating his enemies, the support he got from some of the names mentioned above and surely by support of many powerful nations and their intelligence as they saw that he was the most one qualified to win that bloody war among the Ba’athists and other parties for the power in Iraq at those times. And they wanted to make sure they have good connections with the next leader of Iraq.
Here there is no evidence whatever that the American administration or the CIA had helped Saddam more than Russia with her KGB, France, china, England and many other Arab nations.
As for Saddam’s weapons it’s well known that his weapons were mainly made in Russia and France and that France provided the nuclear reactor with the help of many Arab countries (in financing) and German and Italian private firms. While I’m sure that most of you know that there is no such thing as (technology for producing chemical weapons) as these are very easy to manufacture and do not require western or eastern help.
As for the present American administration and particularly GWB I don’t see reasonable cause to blame them for the mistakes of the previous administrations, especially when I see that the present government had declared more than once that their policy towards international affairs (mainly the ME and Iraq) has changed, and I can see these statements put into actions in Iraq as well as regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which America probably for the 1st time is taking a more neutral stand; supporting the peace process, the moderate powers on each side and opposing extremists on both sides as it’s obvious from her attitude to (the wall) for instance.
People who blame the USA for every evil event in the world rely on the fact that she is the strongest nation on earth and thus they belief that she is the only power capable of doing that, so if something evil happens it’s either the doing of the USA or it happened because the USA didn’t want to prevent it.
Yet, I don’t see many people point out good things as caused by the USA, or her refrain from preventing it!
These people overestimate the power of the USA and seem to confuse it with God’s power, as it appears well when it comes to Iraq (saying for example that the USA went to war without plans for the post war period, or that she is not doing enough to help bringing peace and order to Iraq). Here I’d like to remind them with some facts:
-God is almighty; USA is not.
-God (knows) the future; USA does not.
-God cares for all human beings and creatures; American administration has to care fore its people first.
-God is most merciful; American administration cannot be so.
-When it comes to the ME, God is very popular; USA is very unpopular.
-As a summary God is perfect, American administration is not.
Maybe those people should try-just for a change- to compare the American administration with other human powers such as the governments of France, china, Russia and others, especially when they were dominating the world. I’d be happy to receive any comparison.
To be continued….
-By Ali.
- posted by Omar @ 18:58 "
"....Many anti-Americans (and many Americans as well) blame us, and call us naive or slaves that are only good at a** kissing, and I still remember a very strange and saddening comment that goes something like ”those westernized Iraqis and their sickening (we love you)!!” well, if speaking English and believing in freedom and democracy makes us westernized then it’s ok with me. As for (sickening love): now that was the 1st time I know that loving people of other nationality and religions beside yours is sickening.
Anyway I’m not going to be emotional here and will not answer them in a similar manner. In contrast I’d like to look at their objections in a rational manner if I could only maintain it.
The most common objection, these days, against supporting the USA is that she had (installed) Saddam, supported him and supplied him with destructive and chemical weapons that he used against the Iranians and his own people, and that just when he became not useful to them they decided to get rid of him.
In the beginning I’d like to put the people of the USA and any other nation out of this subject as I believe that people are generally good everywhere and should not be blamed for their governments’ mistakes and I see no reason to hate the people of the USA, on the contrary I have every reason to love them together with all the good people on earth, and if you think that they should take some of the blame, then I should remind you that by doing so you also give me, and others, the right to blame ALL the people of Russia, china, France and Germany(as well as Arab and Muslim people) for their governments’ support to Saddam and their attitude towards the war; something I never did and will never do. If you don’t agree with that then I should advice you not to waste your time on reading the rest of this post.
However, I find myself compelled to agree that some of these assumptions (about previous American administrations) are true to some degree.
Yet, if we track back Saddam’s life, his connection to previous American administrations or to the CIA we will find that these are not strongly proved or documented and at least much less than people like Michele Aflak, Sa’adon Hummadi, Tariq Aziz or Al-Bakir had. These facts were made clearer lately by confessions from senior bath members who left the party in the early 80s(check Salah Omar al Ali interviews and Hassan Alawi books for example). Saddam had made his way to power mainly by eliminating his enemies, the support he got from some of the names mentioned above and surely by support of many powerful nations and their intelligence as they saw that he was the most one qualified to win that bloody war among the Ba’athists and other parties for the power in Iraq at those times. And they wanted to make sure they have good connections with the next leader of Iraq.
Here there is no evidence whatever that the American administration or the CIA had helped Saddam more than Russia with her KGB, France, china, England and many other Arab nations.
As for Saddam’s weapons it’s well known that his weapons were mainly made in Russia and France and that France provided the nuclear reactor with the help of many Arab countries (in financing) and German and Italian private firms. While I’m sure that most of you know that there is no such thing as (technology for producing chemical weapons) as these are very easy to manufacture and do not require western or eastern help.
As for the present American administration and particularly GWB I don’t see reasonable cause to blame them for the mistakes of the previous administrations, especially when I see that the present government had declared more than once that their policy towards international affairs (mainly the ME and Iraq) has changed, and I can see these statements put into actions in Iraq as well as regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which America probably for the 1st time is taking a more neutral stand; supporting the peace process, the moderate powers on each side and opposing extremists on both sides as it’s obvious from her attitude to (the wall) for instance.
People who blame the USA for every evil event in the world rely on the fact that she is the strongest nation on earth and thus they belief that she is the only power capable of doing that, so if something evil happens it’s either the doing of the USA or it happened because the USA didn’t want to prevent it.
Yet, I don’t see many people point out good things as caused by the USA, or her refrain from preventing it!
These people overestimate the power of the USA and seem to confuse it with God’s power, as it appears well when it comes to Iraq (saying for example that the USA went to war without plans for the post war period, or that she is not doing enough to help bringing peace and order to Iraq). Here I’d like to remind them with some facts:
-God is almighty; USA is not.
-God (knows) the future; USA does not.
-God cares for all human beings and creatures; American administration has to care fore its people first.
-God is most merciful; American administration cannot be so.
-When it comes to the ME, God is very popular; USA is very unpopular.
-As a summary God is perfect, American administration is not.
Maybe those people should try-just for a change- to compare the American administration with other human powers such as the governments of France, china, Russia and others, especially when they were dominating the world. I’d be happy to receive any comparison.
To be continued….
-By Ali.
- posted by Omar @ 18:58 "
The Asian Dollar Mystery
By David Ignatius
Tuesday, January 6, 2004; Page A17
The new year begins with a financial mystery: Why have China and Japan continued to accumulate large dollar surpluses -- financing the U.S. trade deficit in the process -- even as the value of those dollars has continued to plummet?
The Asian dollar hoard certainly looks like a stupid investment. The dollar, after all, fell about 20 percent against the euro last year because of worries about U.S. trade and fiscal imbalances. And many analysts (me included) have warned that a further sharp slide is likely this year as China and Japan begin to dump their surplus greenbacks.
Among the leading worriers is the International Monetary Fund, which warned in its latest "World Economic Outlook" in September that a further decline in the U.S. currency is likely and that "a disorderly adjustment -- or overshooting -- remains an important risk."
But let's consider a contrarian answer to our New Year's financial puzzle: Perhaps the Asian nations are pursuing an entirely rational strategy -- one that seeks to maximize domestic employment rather than financial return. If that's so, then financial traders can stop fretting so much and applaud a dollar that's playing much the same stabilizing role it did 50 years ago, during the golden days of Bretton Woods.
This counterargument was presented to an IMF forum two months ago by Deutsche Bank economist Peter Garber. If an abstruse economic theory can be said to be generating "buzz," that has happened with Garber's work.
Garber argues that Asia's seemingly irrational accumulation of surplus dollars is the inevitable consequence of its export-led development strategy. To increase domestic employment, the Asians keep their exchange rates artificially low and sell cheap goods to the United States -- in the process accumulating those ever-larger surpluses of dollars.
"The fundamental global imbalance is not in the exchange rate," Garber told the IMF forum in November. "The fundamental global imbalance is in the enormous excess supply of labor in Asia now waiting to enter the modern global economy."
Garber estimates that there are 200 million underemployed Chinese who must be integrated into the global economy over the next 20 years. "This is an entire continent worth of people, a new labor force equivalent to the labor force of the EU or North America," he explains. "The speed of employment of this group is what will in the end determine the real exchange rate."
Garber likens the global labor imbalance to the collision of two previously independent planets -- one capitalist and one socialist. "Suddenly they were pushed together to form one large market," he says. The best way to restore equilibrium is for the former socialist economies to pursue export-led growth -- and for the United States to act as a buffer and absorb the world's exports.
If this all sounds a bit like the world after 1945, that's the point. What's really going on is a revival of the Bretton Woods financial system that created the IMF, Garber and two other economists noted in a paper that was published in September by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
"In the Bretton Woods system of the 1950s, the U.S. was the center region with essentially uncontrolled capital and goods markets," they write. That, in effect, is the sort of world that has now returned, contend Garber and his fellow authors, Michael P. Dooley and David Folkerts-Landau.
Without realizing it, the authors argue, we have returned to a fixed-exchange-rate world, with China and other Asian developing countries keeping their currencies artificially low by pegging them to a falling dollar. The Asians today are like the Europeans after World War II -- using cheap exports to the United States to power their economic revival. And the wonder of it is that this neo-Bretton Woods system works as well as the old one did.
"In spite of the growing U.S. deficits, this system has been stable and sustainable," Garber and his co-authors argue. They cite the 1965 comment of French analyst Jacques Rueff about why the United States prospered under the old Bretton Woods regime despite its big trade deficits: "If I had an agreement with my tailor that whatever money I pay him returns to me the very same day as a loan, I would have no objection at all to ordering more suits from him."
To be sure, this perpetual motion machine can't continue forever. At some point, those 200 million Chinese will find jobs, and China will graduate to parity with the United States. At that point, we'll have a real dollar crisis.
Along the way, we're sure to have more political protests from American workers who fear their jobs are being sacrificed in this neo-Bretton Woods world. But for now, perhaps Wall Street should be less gloomy about the dollar.
By David Ignatius
Tuesday, January 6, 2004; Page A17
The new year begins with a financial mystery: Why have China and Japan continued to accumulate large dollar surpluses -- financing the U.S. trade deficit in the process -- even as the value of those dollars has continued to plummet?
The Asian dollar hoard certainly looks like a stupid investment. The dollar, after all, fell about 20 percent against the euro last year because of worries about U.S. trade and fiscal imbalances. And many analysts (me included) have warned that a further sharp slide is likely this year as China and Japan begin to dump their surplus greenbacks.
Among the leading worriers is the International Monetary Fund, which warned in its latest "World Economic Outlook" in September that a further decline in the U.S. currency is likely and that "a disorderly adjustment -- or overshooting -- remains an important risk."
But let's consider a contrarian answer to our New Year's financial puzzle: Perhaps the Asian nations are pursuing an entirely rational strategy -- one that seeks to maximize domestic employment rather than financial return. If that's so, then financial traders can stop fretting so much and applaud a dollar that's playing much the same stabilizing role it did 50 years ago, during the golden days of Bretton Woods.
This counterargument was presented to an IMF forum two months ago by Deutsche Bank economist Peter Garber. If an abstruse economic theory can be said to be generating "buzz," that has happened with Garber's work.
Garber argues that Asia's seemingly irrational accumulation of surplus dollars is the inevitable consequence of its export-led development strategy. To increase domestic employment, the Asians keep their exchange rates artificially low and sell cheap goods to the United States -- in the process accumulating those ever-larger surpluses of dollars.
"The fundamental global imbalance is not in the exchange rate," Garber told the IMF forum in November. "The fundamental global imbalance is in the enormous excess supply of labor in Asia now waiting to enter the modern global economy."
Garber estimates that there are 200 million underemployed Chinese who must be integrated into the global economy over the next 20 years. "This is an entire continent worth of people, a new labor force equivalent to the labor force of the EU or North America," he explains. "The speed of employment of this group is what will in the end determine the real exchange rate."
Garber likens the global labor imbalance to the collision of two previously independent planets -- one capitalist and one socialist. "Suddenly they were pushed together to form one large market," he says. The best way to restore equilibrium is for the former socialist economies to pursue export-led growth -- and for the United States to act as a buffer and absorb the world's exports.
If this all sounds a bit like the world after 1945, that's the point. What's really going on is a revival of the Bretton Woods financial system that created the IMF, Garber and two other economists noted in a paper that was published in September by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
"In the Bretton Woods system of the 1950s, the U.S. was the center region with essentially uncontrolled capital and goods markets," they write. That, in effect, is the sort of world that has now returned, contend Garber and his fellow authors, Michael P. Dooley and David Folkerts-Landau.
Without realizing it, the authors argue, we have returned to a fixed-exchange-rate world, with China and other Asian developing countries keeping their currencies artificially low by pegging them to a falling dollar. The Asians today are like the Europeans after World War II -- using cheap exports to the United States to power their economic revival. And the wonder of it is that this neo-Bretton Woods system works as well as the old one did.
"In spite of the growing U.S. deficits, this system has been stable and sustainable," Garber and his co-authors argue. They cite the 1965 comment of French analyst Jacques Rueff about why the United States prospered under the old Bretton Woods regime despite its big trade deficits: "If I had an agreement with my tailor that whatever money I pay him returns to me the very same day as a loan, I would have no objection at all to ordering more suits from him."
To be sure, this perpetual motion machine can't continue forever. At some point, those 200 million Chinese will find jobs, and China will graduate to parity with the United States. At that point, we'll have a real dollar crisis.
Along the way, we're sure to have more political protests from American workers who fear their jobs are being sacrificed in this neo-Bretton Woods world. But for now, perhaps Wall Street should be less gloomy about the dollar.
Monday, January 05, 2004
A New Year and Old Habits:
Schröder sets deadline for EU Constitution
Gerhard Schröder - not willing to compromise on the new voting system (Photo: Danish EU Presidency)
German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has upped the stakes in the EU Constitution talks by setting a deadline by which the new text should be agreed.
In an interview with the German news magazine Der Spiegel, Mr Schröder said "We have put on the table what we believe is right".
"We must see by the end of 2004 at the latest whether we can reach a decision on this basis".
The Chancellor was uncompromising on the issue of a new voting system - the main reason why negotiations on the Constitution failed at last month's EU Summit.
"Of course we will have to see where we can give ground to one or another (country)", he said, "but concessions on the weighting of votes are out of the question".
The new voting system, which is based on double majority system of a majority of countries representing 60% of the population, pitted Germany - with most to gain - firmly against Spain and Poland - with the most to lose.
Germany also threatened to go ahead with a core Europe, if talks on the Constitution are not finished by the end of this year.
"I don't want this [core Europe]," Mr Schröder told Der Spiegel, "but I must prepare myself for the fact that developments could go in this direction".
His comments follow those of French President Jacques Chirac who, directly after the failed summit, spoke of "pioneering groups" who could move forward in areas such as defence, the economy and justice.
Ireland against two-speed Europe
The German Chancellor's words will add to the pressure facing Ireland which has just taken over the EU Presidency and is currently assessing whether an agreement can be brokered.
However, the Irish Prime Minister has already spoken out against the idea of a two-speed Europe - the threat of which has been mentioned several times by Commission President Romano Prodi.
Speaking on Irish Radio Mr Ahern said such comments were "not helpful".
Mr Ahern will begin a two-month round of consultations with EU leaders on Thursday when he meets Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. This follows a meeting with the European Commission tomorrow (6 January).
Written by Honor Mahony
Schröder sets deadline for EU Constitution
Gerhard Schröder - not willing to compromise on the new voting system (Photo: Danish EU Presidency)
German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has upped the stakes in the EU Constitution talks by setting a deadline by which the new text should be agreed.
In an interview with the German news magazine Der Spiegel, Mr Schröder said "We have put on the table what we believe is right".
"We must see by the end of 2004 at the latest whether we can reach a decision on this basis".
The Chancellor was uncompromising on the issue of a new voting system - the main reason why negotiations on the Constitution failed at last month's EU Summit.
"Of course we will have to see where we can give ground to one or another (country)", he said, "but concessions on the weighting of votes are out of the question".
The new voting system, which is based on double majority system of a majority of countries representing 60% of the population, pitted Germany - with most to gain - firmly against Spain and Poland - with the most to lose.
Germany also threatened to go ahead with a core Europe, if talks on the Constitution are not finished by the end of this year.
"I don't want this [core Europe]," Mr Schröder told Der Spiegel, "but I must prepare myself for the fact that developments could go in this direction".
His comments follow those of French President Jacques Chirac who, directly after the failed summit, spoke of "pioneering groups" who could move forward in areas such as defence, the economy and justice.
Ireland against two-speed Europe
The German Chancellor's words will add to the pressure facing Ireland which has just taken over the EU Presidency and is currently assessing whether an agreement can be brokered.
However, the Irish Prime Minister has already spoken out against the idea of a two-speed Europe - the threat of which has been mentioned several times by Commission President Romano Prodi.
Speaking on Irish Radio Mr Ahern said such comments were "not helpful".
Mr Ahern will begin a two-month round of consultations with EU leaders on Thursday when he meets Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. This follows a meeting with the European Commission tomorrow (6 January).
Written by Honor Mahony
