Hurrah! Back to politics!
Jun. 12th, 2003 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyYou know, my LJ has been missing a good old political rant for a while, and ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
applez and raggedhalo might be starting to get bored, so I’m glad to say that Claire Shorts recent crackpot ranting has raised my blood pressure sufficiently for me to feel compelled to put pen to paper. I’ll apologise to a certain Mr. Kamm, whom I am flagrantly ripping off here.
For those of you who don’t know, Ms. Short was a member of the British Government who recently displayed a surprising degree of conscience by becoming the first member of government to quit on a mtter of principle since Michael Heseltine in 1986.
Sadly, any respect she may have got from me for this moment of decency on her part has been shot to tatters by her subsequent whinging.
Demonstrating a desire that nobody ever should ever take her seroiusly again, Claire starts off by saying…
"The terrible reality is that the world is more fragile, divided, bitter and unhappy post-11 September, in exactly the way that Osama bin Laden would want."
From his vantage point under a rock in the Tora Bora mountains, what remains of Mr bin Laden is in no immediate position to say whether he agrees, but it seems unlikely that the routing of his organisation in Afghanistan, the toppling of the theocracy that supported it, the capture or death of nearly half of his senior operatives, and the overthrow of an Iraqi tyrant with nuclear ambitions against the West is exactly what he had in mind.
The rest of Miss Short's article appears to have been compiled - I can't bring myself to say 'written' - by fitting the cliches together in random order. American power 'acts as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism', ensuring that the 'enormous tide of sympathy and support that flowed to America after the attacks – from all corners of the world - has now been dissipated', even while the world 'has become a global village'.
You get the picture.
In truth, as Jonathan Rauch lucidly explains, America has not dissipated international sympathy but spent it, and wisely. The Bush administration recognised that the proximity of Islamist terrorism to weapons of genocide required a change in policy towards bellicose tyrannies that might, and probably would, act as supplier.
US diplomacy had traditionally aimed at stability in the Arab world, and therefore sought ties with rulers who might be repressive but could be relied upon, so it was thought, to ally with the West. President Bush has undemonstratively rejected that approach and stressed – by the removal of Saddam, pressure on Syria and Iran, and the sidelining of the corrupt and duplicitous Yasser Arafat in favour of a man who appears serious about making peace – that the US will pursue democracy in the region. It is one of history's greater ironies that so unexceptionable and progressive a goal should be bitterly denounced by many who suppose themselves to stand on the liberal Left. Get it straight, my brothers and sisters: there is no Humanitarian International for the Preservation of National-Socialist Baathist Dictatorship.
Miss Short at least gets one thing right:
"The current administration has shown its disrespect for the UN throughout the Iraq crisis."
Exactly. Respect is not an entitlement: it is something you have to earn. The UN's performance over Iraq, not just in recent months but over 12 years, entitles it to no respect whatever. Throughout the 1990s the US worked with the UN to formulate its approach to Iraq. The result, was an unambiguous failure. The inspections regime was rendered ineffectual by French and Russian unwillingness to coerce Saddam. When Saddam refused to cooperate even with that arrangement, the Security Council failed to issue him an ultimatum. The UN, in short, wouldn't even demand limited inspections backed by the threat of air power.
The only reason the UN was persuaded to carry a tough new resolution, 1441, last autumn was America's threat to invade Iraq. Had President Bush 'respected' the UN and eschewed unilateralism, the inspectors would never have gone back in. Having returned to Iraq, the inspectors did not receive the cooperation mandated under Resolution 1441, and the UN ignored its obligation to enforce it. Fortunately this US administration – which, absurdly and disgracefully, Miss Short brackets with the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh - and this British government understand that upholding international law, human rights and pacific resolution of disputes still requires agents even if the UN declines the role.
As a member of the Cabinet for six years, Miss Short must know this sorry history, yet she makes no acknowledgement that the UN itself, and not just the US, has responsibilities to uphold international law. She has her mind on a higher calling:
"we have two possible ways forward: either a commitment to greater global justice, sharing knowledge and technology to give everyone in the world the chance of a decent life; or a growth in inequality, bitterness, environmental degradations, disease, war and displacement."
Let me see, now; it's a tough question, but which one should I plump for? Or should I cover my indecisiveness by protesting that the former International Development Secretary shows an alarming disinclination to convey to a popular readership the state of empirical research into international development?
Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University has conducted rigorous statistical tests on the world distribution of income and concluded that global poverty, on Miss Short's own definition, has sharply declined in the last 20 years, while – more surprisingly - global inequality has also narrowed, owing to the rapid growth in that time of populous India and China. The outstanding laggard in economic performance is Africa, where an increasing proportion of the world's poor are concentrated.
To be fair to Clare Short, she did good work in government in highlighting the issue of Africa and the moral obligation western nations have to assist that continent to lift itself out of poverty. She was willing then to incur unpopularity with the anti-globalisation crowd by pointing out that Africa needs trade and private investment, not fantasies of self-sufficiency and indicative planning.
Call me a paid agent of the interests of imperialism, but I prefer the Clare Short who wanted to improve Africa's growth rates to the one who now debases public life with vapid, sanctimonious and tautological ("crucial that we share and care for our planet much more carefully") posturing.
applez and raggedhalo might be starting to get bored, so I’m glad to say that Claire Shorts recent crackpot ranting has raised my blood pressure sufficiently for me to feel compelled to put pen to paper. I’ll apologise to a certain Mr. Kamm, whom I am flagrantly ripping off here.For those of you who don’t know, Ms. Short was a member of the British Government who recently displayed a surprising degree of conscience by becoming the first member of government to quit on a mtter of principle since Michael Heseltine in 1986.
Sadly, any respect she may have got from me for this moment of decency on her part has been shot to tatters by her subsequent whinging.
Demonstrating a desire that nobody ever should ever take her seroiusly again, Claire starts off by saying…
"The terrible reality is that the world is more fragile, divided, bitter and unhappy post-11 September, in exactly the way that Osama bin Laden would want."
From his vantage point under a rock in the Tora Bora mountains, what remains of Mr bin Laden is in no immediate position to say whether he agrees, but it seems unlikely that the routing of his organisation in Afghanistan, the toppling of the theocracy that supported it, the capture or death of nearly half of his senior operatives, and the overthrow of an Iraqi tyrant with nuclear ambitions against the West is exactly what he had in mind.
The rest of Miss Short's article appears to have been compiled - I can't bring myself to say 'written' - by fitting the cliches together in random order. American power 'acts as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism', ensuring that the 'enormous tide of sympathy and support that flowed to America after the attacks – from all corners of the world - has now been dissipated', even while the world 'has become a global village'.
You get the picture.
In truth, as Jonathan Rauch lucidly explains, America has not dissipated international sympathy but spent it, and wisely. The Bush administration recognised that the proximity of Islamist terrorism to weapons of genocide required a change in policy towards bellicose tyrannies that might, and probably would, act as supplier.
US diplomacy had traditionally aimed at stability in the Arab world, and therefore sought ties with rulers who might be repressive but could be relied upon, so it was thought, to ally with the West. President Bush has undemonstratively rejected that approach and stressed – by the removal of Saddam, pressure on Syria and Iran, and the sidelining of the corrupt and duplicitous Yasser Arafat in favour of a man who appears serious about making peace – that the US will pursue democracy in the region. It is one of history's greater ironies that so unexceptionable and progressive a goal should be bitterly denounced by many who suppose themselves to stand on the liberal Left. Get it straight, my brothers and sisters: there is no Humanitarian International for the Preservation of National-Socialist Baathist Dictatorship.
Miss Short at least gets one thing right:
"The current administration has shown its disrespect for the UN throughout the Iraq crisis."
Exactly. Respect is not an entitlement: it is something you have to earn. The UN's performance over Iraq, not just in recent months but over 12 years, entitles it to no respect whatever. Throughout the 1990s the US worked with the UN to formulate its approach to Iraq. The result, was an unambiguous failure. The inspections regime was rendered ineffectual by French and Russian unwillingness to coerce Saddam. When Saddam refused to cooperate even with that arrangement, the Security Council failed to issue him an ultimatum. The UN, in short, wouldn't even demand limited inspections backed by the threat of air power.
The only reason the UN was persuaded to carry a tough new resolution, 1441, last autumn was America's threat to invade Iraq. Had President Bush 'respected' the UN and eschewed unilateralism, the inspectors would never have gone back in. Having returned to Iraq, the inspectors did not receive the cooperation mandated under Resolution 1441, and the UN ignored its obligation to enforce it. Fortunately this US administration – which, absurdly and disgracefully, Miss Short brackets with the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh - and this British government understand that upholding international law, human rights and pacific resolution of disputes still requires agents even if the UN declines the role.
As a member of the Cabinet for six years, Miss Short must know this sorry history, yet she makes no acknowledgement that the UN itself, and not just the US, has responsibilities to uphold international law. She has her mind on a higher calling:
"we have two possible ways forward: either a commitment to greater global justice, sharing knowledge and technology to give everyone in the world the chance of a decent life; or a growth in inequality, bitterness, environmental degradations, disease, war and displacement."
Let me see, now; it's a tough question, but which one should I plump for? Or should I cover my indecisiveness by protesting that the former International Development Secretary shows an alarming disinclination to convey to a popular readership the state of empirical research into international development?
Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University has conducted rigorous statistical tests on the world distribution of income and concluded that global poverty, on Miss Short's own definition, has sharply declined in the last 20 years, while – more surprisingly - global inequality has also narrowed, owing to the rapid growth in that time of populous India and China. The outstanding laggard in economic performance is Africa, where an increasing proportion of the world's poor are concentrated.
To be fair to Clare Short, she did good work in government in highlighting the issue of Africa and the moral obligation western nations have to assist that continent to lift itself out of poverty. She was willing then to incur unpopularity with the anti-globalisation crowd by pointing out that Africa needs trade and private investment, not fantasies of self-sufficiency and indicative planning.
Call me a paid agent of the interests of imperialism, but I prefer the Clare Short who wanted to improve Africa's growth rates to the one who now debases public life with vapid, sanctimonious and tautological ("crucial that we share and care for our planet much more carefully") posturing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
First response - the Clare Short article from Beebs...
Date: 2003-06-12 09:26 am (UTC)First, the article.
1) In broad general terms, the spirit of her argument is entirely correct - the US, as that formal political body, apart from the American people, has not been terribly positive about the UN in recent years. I personally suspect that the US has not grown with the UN since the end of the Cold War, where the UN ceased to be solely a vehicle of US communication, and US-alliance-building for such successes as the Second World War or interdicting 'evil communism' (TM) in Korea. The UN has grown to become much more of a multilateral, multinodal forum - which necessarily slows things down, but also present an opportunity of great global strength when consensus or agreement is reached.
2) Short is incorrect in technical respect on the Kyoto treaty. Clinton did sign the treaty, but was unable to ratify it - a classic problem with the US Congress and international treaties they don't feel they were party to. Also as far as the ICC is concerned, Clinton did put a lot of effort into designing the treaty with US concerns, especially those expressed by a conservative Congress (having been burnt on Kyoto) - when it came to signature and ratification, he passed that on to the subsequent President, since he was very much in his 'lame duck' period, and no Congress will ratify during that period.
3) The US no longer wants to use the UN to "tell everyone else what they must do" - since frankly, this administration no longer sees the utility of doing so - not with global news networks and an independently-virile military.
That's all for now.
3)
Responses to your comments (I)
Date: 2003-06-12 02:52 pm (UTC)a) One cannot assume Bin Laden's death, so don't jump to convenient assumptions for subsequent conclusions.
b) The damage to the Al Qaeda network *is* real, but that does not measure ultimate success. I think assessments of Al Qaeda's regrouping, recharging, and long-term planning is equally valid. Moreover, the real fight against terrorism isn't won by force of arms, it is won by winning a credible sense of justice, and not for solely one's own either. That is perhaps the most important lesson to learn from Ireland, even with continued difficulties, and that at least was a conflict sprung by relatively political sophisticates. In the case of Al Qaeda and that 'real' fight, one can most charitably say that the jury is still out on the US's effort.
2) re: Reason.com & Rauch -
a) I quite agree that Bush has spent that goodwill, but I seriously doubt that it was 'wisely' spent. Reverting to realpolitik security gains works in the short-term, but leaves a hell of a mess in the long-run...and as the dominant global power, the US needs to think and act on that timescale.
b) I think we need to question several base assumptions in this whole dialogue as well. Bush has a clear vision of an outcome - a democratised Middle East, he knows what tools he has at his disposal, but he's really stumbling all over the place - most prevalently in foreign relations, to get to that 'goal.' Bush's means of realising his vision is Napoleanic, and very odd given that what indigenous populist movements for change that do exist are Islamicist. Bush is placing the US between corrupt regimes it doesn't particularly like (allegedly), and the natural revolutionary spirit of the Islamists - and I fail to see how that enragement of both will produce a self-sufficient credible democracy. Bush's '3rd Way' looks very unlikely to succeed.
So just what is this democratic vision anyway?
c) The Bush administration recognised that the proximity of Islamist terrorism to weapons of genocide required a change in policy towards bellicose tyrannies that might, and probably would, act as supplier.
I think this comment of yours confuses your main point, and ignores several salient points:
- Genocide doesn't seem to particularly be a goal of these terrorists, that requires a whole order more of sophisticated personnel and command&control that doesn't seem to be Al Qaeda's style. Mind you, NBC weaponry hasn't historically been the prevailing tool of genocide (US Army diseased blankets aside) ... good old machetes and an army of dedicated warriors is usually the best ticket (as the citizens of Congo can well attest to). In this regard, knife-wielding 11 September terrorist certainly are proximate to 'weapons of genocide' ... but then so are you and I every time we go to the kitchen.
- Since you bring supply into the argument, then one has to seriously question the real and continued support the US has given to these regimes. There is absolutely no realistic answer why the US chose to sell, and even give away, weapons of all varieties to the Iranians, Iraqis, and Egyptians (we can include Israel as well, wherein IDF reservists have been passing on surplus M-16s given by the US to Palestinian militants). So just who is supply this conflict then?
Granted, as far as the Middle East is concerned, it was unrealistic to simply isolate these regimes and let domestic movements eventually rise to take them down - there is oil at stake. But that doesn't mean we had to sell them the tools of their power enforcement, or to let others sell them those tools either.
- Also, if you accept the argument that the current approach wasn't working, that doesn't mean 'a bellicose approach was required' - it merely means something different should be tried.
Re: Responses to your comments (II)
Date: 2003-06-12 02:54 pm (UTC)d) As mentioned in the Rausch article, some Democrats have quickly risen to suggest that Bush's efforts have only generated a world united against the US. I, for one, disagree with this view...we aren't there - yet. Rather, the US has so infuriated and disrespected natural allies that the US is forced to explain itself and try to generate support amongst them as it hasn't had to before. There's a very utile reason why politeness is such a valuable social rule.
Also, you completely mischaracterise the liberal dispute with Bush's policies as support for the Baathists of Iraq ... but you're allowed some right-wing bile. :-)
3) disrespecting the UN -
I think you mischaracterise the UN's policy towards Iraq when you say it was an 'unambigious failure.' Did the policy fail to remove Saddam - yes (but then that was never a goal of the UN approach). Did the UN policy cause tremendous suffering to the Iraqi people - yes. Did the UN inspections through the 1990s turn up stores of weapons that lead to their destruction - yes (I would argue that they were so successful that it precipitated the strife of 1998-on that had Saddam gambling with some fairly desperate sabre-rattles that had those inspectors removed). Did the UN isolation strategy limit Saddam's military reach and threat to Iraq's neighbours - yes. Hardly an ‘unambigious failure.'
Did US threats of unilateral intervention give 1441 the robustness to make it real - yes. But to then into war despite the repeated negative findings from Blix and El Baradei is quite another matter. It signifies US impatience, not UN failure...a view bourne out by the CONTINUED FAILURE of occupation forces in Iraq findings any proscribed weapons.
4) re: UN, and 'declining the role' of human rights et al.
The UN isn't just about these universalists values, it is also fundamentally about stability and gradual change - it was not conceived as a tool for revolution - precisely why it declines on many of these national initiatives...for better or worse. So careful about what you criticise the UN on
Re: Responses to your comments (III)
Date: 2003-06-12 02:55 pm (UTC)- Environmental degradation continues apace, with little action on climate change, limited moratoria on fishing (which, frankly, is OVERDUE), and only limited success on habitat conservation - especially where it intersects with timber and mining interests (ITTO has been mostly a failure, as people in Burma, Benin, and Madagascar can attest to; ‘sustainable timber' certification for timbers has been a limited success, as has ‘fair trade' coffee and tea - but these are but drops in the sea). The ultimate ecological outcome from GM/GE is unknown.
- Disease: Headline-grabbing SARS aside, or equally theatrical $15bn to combat AIDS...the world has several critical disease problems to contend with. Very little effort has been put into curbing antibiotic-resistance (especially in the abuse of antibiotics in agriculture) for a variety of disease that will likely come back to haunt us. Compared with research budgets for the next sexual-enhancement drugs, research for the next strains of killer-disease solutions is woeful. AIDS remains A MASSIVE problem, threatening the foundations of economic development and social stability everywhere. I'm very dubious about Bush's proposition of $15bn that goes primarily to therapies whose only real interdictive impact will be on pregnant mothers. Good, but more can be done, both in terms of vaccine research, and also in good inexpensive condoms. There's little point getting therapieutic drugs out there if risky behaviour isn't addressed - if anything that'll only increase the spread of AIDS amongst better-feeling hosts. Conservatives may not like it, but that means talking and working with prostitutes, family clinics, and fuzzy cultural values (like polygamy or widow-marriage).
-War: depends on what baseline you use...since the Cold War, the numbers of wars certainly seem to have gone up, especially smaller-scale ethnic conflicts both within nations and across borders. Otherwise, we're probably back to 19th century standards ... thing is, we have 21st century values now. In any event, as an absolute, the US has certainly been on a great many offensives in the last 2 years...certainly more than in the preceding 20. A significant commitment of military resources in a new conflict every year now, discounting smaller but significant missions to places like the Philippines. That's slightly higher than the average brigade-sized commitment every year, and a division-sized commitment to a new operation every 2-3 years. Accepting the ‘overhead' commitment of places like Saudi Arabia and Korea.
-Displacement: besides continuous displacement, one of the biggest changes in the last 15 years has been the increase of *internal* displacement that isn't often captured by UN statistics. These people are no less badly off than international refugees.
Re: Responses to your comments (III)
Date: 2003-06-12 03:00 pm (UTC)There's a lot more than can be done on persistant diseases, like malaria...an inexpensive treated bed-netting can make a huge difference, besides drugs priced in the tenths of cents to produce and ship.
The biggest gain against disease is to be made with modernised treated water infrastructure utterly lacking, not just in Africa, but in parts of Latin America and Asia as well. Russia too for that matter.
Whilst I'm generally quite positive about channeled capitalism in this matter, the Latin American experience with privatised water utilities should be taken as a word of warning.
Re: Responses to your comments (III)
Date: 2003-06-13 01:13 am (UTC)