Never, Ever Forget

It is hard to believe that eight years have passed since the attacks of 9/11. Like many anniversaries, it is a good time to take stock of what happened, what is happening, and what will happen.

I am dismayed by the fact that 9/11 has quickly become ancient history for many people, especially the pundits, bloggers and the rest of the commentariat. Many are complaining about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The war in Iraq, whatever its outcome, is a boondogle and never should have been undertaken. There was no al-Qaeda or weapons of mass destruction; so whatever its supporters say, it was a strategic failure. There is no arguing this point.

On the other hand, the war in Afghanistan is a "just" war, which has been treated like a neglected step-child, especially by the Bush Administration and their misguided "War on Terrorism". Underfunded and undermanned, the war in Afghanistan has been floundering for awhile now. The Taliban, it seems, is getting stronger by the day. Osama bin Laden has yet to be found. And our chief ally in the region, Pakistan, has been wishy-washy at best.

The time has come to rethink this war and the war on terrorism.

We can quibble over how to go about it, but leaving Afghanistan is not an option. We need to fight smarter. After all, the price of peace is eternal vigilance.

Eid Greetings

To all Muslim around the world, a happy and safe Eid-ul-Fitr...

Beijing Olympics: Smooth As Expected

I've been reading editorials about the recently-concluded Beijing Olympic games all day, and I'm surprised to read that many are surprised China did so well, both off and on the field. I'm not. When you spend $40 billion, not including billions spent on a state-supported athlete factories, and the ruthless ability to control every aspect of the games with little or no dissent, things should go smoothly. It would be a shock if things didn't go smoothly as planned.

Doha Round Collapses: Everybody Loses

The Doha Round of trade talks have officially collapsed. These negotiations, which have been going on for what feels like forever, would have reduced or eliminated odious agriculture subsidies and tariffs and make trading of agricultural products simpler and cheaper. Who to blame for this failure? Depends on whom you ask. Here's an editorial from the The Daily Star, a Bangladeshi newspaper, who is blaming the developed world, specifically the United States and the European Union:

The final impasse was the demand from the G-33 which wanted special safeguard mechanisms to protect farmers in the developing world against temporary surges in cut-price imports of cotton and rice. When one considers that these safeguards would be the only thing standing between hundreds of millions of subsistence farmers and penury, to say nothing of the stability of billions throughout the developing world, it is hard to fathom the opposition.

What is really outrageous about opposition to this from the West is that it insist not only on its own tariffs but also on massive agricultural subsidies that protect its handful of farmers and massively distort the international price of goods, causing further hardship to farmers in the developing world.

But the developed world, in turn, and led by the West, is blaming the developing world for trying to have its cake and eat it too; all at the expense of their farmers. The Washington Post is leading the charge on this score:

Still, as last-ditch talks moved into last weekend, the United States and European Union had made some concessions on farm supports, and WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy had submitted a compromise plan that seemed to draw at least tentative approval from most participants. It was at that point that India and China essentially torpedoed the talks, asserting a broad right to raise tariffs to protect their poor farmers from "import surges," price drops and other vicissitudes of the world market. China, which had been relatively quiet throughout most of the talks, was particularly vituperative, blasting U.S. arguments as "absurd," even though Brazil and several other developing countries agreed with Washington.

China's role in the demise of the Doha Round is particularly dismaying, considering China has reaped huge benefits from global trade in the seven years since it joined the organization -- with strong U.S. support. Chinese exports have quadrupled from $300 billion in 2002 to $1.2 trillion in 2007, thanks in large part to free access to the U.S. market. U.S. supporters of Chinese inclusion in the WTO argued that drawing China into a system of multilateral give-and-take would mute its nationalistic tendencies. Evidently, the Chinese see the matter differently. They, and the world, will be poorer because of it.

It's safe to say that obstinacy on both sides led to the demise of the Doha Round. The developed world insists on paying subsidies to farmers, which in this era of high food prices is absurd. The developed world then demands open access to the developing world markets for their "cheap" food, giving local farmers an economic disadvantage. I believe the developing world has the right to protect its farmers as the developed world protect theirs.

At the same time, the developing world, led by China and India, insist on keeping mechanisms protecting its farmers against the onslaught on "cheap" food, even if the developed world ends its subsidies and tariffs. This will give developed world an advantage while penalizing western farmers for being more efficient and productive. This is a non-starter as well.

But ultimate loser in this fiasco are the consumers in both the developing and developed world, who will continue to pay high prices for agricultural products. It is also a defeat for free-trade, and a disturbing win for protectionism, which will only punish the entire world.

Why Is India Silent On Zimbabwe

Perhaps I've been living in a fog, or just may have missed reports in the media, but what is India's official position on the current situation in Zimbabwe?

Everyone except Robert Mugabe knows full well that recent elections were a sham. The United States and Europe (and even the United Nations) have rightly denounced the elections as illegitimate since the atmosphere was poisoned with fear and violence. Yet India and many non-Western countries have been eerily quiet.

I can only guess why. For all his dictatorial tendencies and his calamitous economic policies, Mugabe is still a popular figure and continues to draw respect from many countries, especially those who were themselves under colonial rule. To them Mugabe is a legend, whose reputation as an independence leader is beyond reproach. And Mugabe is banking on this sympathy to help him weather the storm. This also explains the bellicose statements made by Mugabe's spokesman during an African Union summit in Egypt. To quote:

Charamba had harsh words for Western pressure: "They can go hang. They can go and hang a thousand times."

The African Union, under whose auspices its leaders are trying to convince Mugabe the error of his ways, will be ineffective given the fact that most of its members are worse than Mugabe. So don't expect anything to happen on that front.

Instead countries like India should take the lead in condemning Mugabe for what he is and resist the temptation to engage in knee-jerk anti-Western histrionics. A condemnation from non-Western countries like India carry a heavier weight than those by the west, whose legacy of imperialism and colonialism taint their calls for Mugabe's ouster.

The question is: will India rise to the occasion, or say nothing, thus affirming Mugabe's actions?

Vinod Explains The Food Crisis

Vinod aptly explains what I've been wanting to say but didn't have the time or the eloquence to say it: blaming the West for the food crisis is nothing more than a red herring.

High Food Oil Prices: Who To Blame? Everbody

The developed world is accusing the developing world for higher food and oil prices; and the developing world is accusing the developed world for the same. The truth is not that clearcut, or simple. There is enough blame to go around, but no one responsible enough to accept it.

Cyclone: Burma's End Or Beginning?

The United Nations is not happy with Myanmar:

The UN says it is extremely disappointed at the slow progress made in securing access to victims of last weekend's cyclone in Burma.

Humanitarian chief John Holmes told reporters that Burma's response was "nothing like as much as is needed".

If there's to be one positive outcome of this cyclone it is for the people in Myanmar to finally rise from their stupor and overthrow the generals, an insular and paranoid bunch, who have been autocratically ruling this nation for years. Bangladesh would not have demanded independence from Pakistan if it weren't for the latter's lack of action during a devastating 1970 cyclone. And don't forget: Myanmar is another client state of China.

China And Olympics: A PR Stunt

I don't know how the rest of the world feels about the Olympics, but it has no charm for me whatsoever. The Olympic spirit, so to speak, has been suborned by crass commercialism and political expediency.

China is using the Olympics strictly as a public relations gimmick: to propagandize its achievements; a sort of gaudy coming out party. They want the world to know that China has arrived. So it pains them to see their efforts sullied by silly protests over Tibet. So, in response, China has attacked the Dalai Lama, who has been nothing but supportive of China. China has also attacked the West, the usual standby, for its neocolonial mindset: they can't stand the idea of China succeeding. That old chestnut.

China is on the verge of being a superpower (something it always aspired to be), it has the world's second biggest economy, yet it is offended by harmless protests. It's only going to get worse. China would to like the world to see China strictly on its own terms. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. When you put yourself on display like China is doing, the whole world will see everything, good and bad. It's the price of being a superpower. Deal with it.

A Castro Lovefest...

Frontline magazine, the unofficial news magazine of the Left Front, has devoted the cover of its latest issue to Fidel Castro, who is reluctantly stepping down from his various posts due to poor health. Surprisingly, there are no articles by foreign editor John Cherian, Fidel Castro's number one fan (though Aijaz Ahmed comes in a close second with this sycophantic article), and is no doubt rushing to Cuba this very second to kiss El Presidente's ass, and write glowing articles about him, before he expires.

Unfounded Fears Of An American Theocracy

M. Abdul Hafiz, columnist for The Daily Star, proffers his opinion on who will be the next President of the United States. Like most international commentators, he leans Democrat, of course; and naturally he’s weary of Republicans, especially of Huckabee. He writes:

The US constitution, in its first amendment, prohibited state support for the establishment of a religion -- a stipulation further articulated and reinforced by Thomas Jefferson, the third US president. However, much of the recent invocation of religion can be attributed to the increasing enthusiasm of the fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. Their activities were openly promoted by the Republicans during Bush's presidency, which, inspired by the neo-conservatives, produced a heady mix of religion and politics. The result is that an obscure Baptist Christian preacher Rev. Mike Huckabee surged forward in the polls in Iowa on the strength of his religious background. This trend has already distorted the secular character of American polity. Unless checkmated, the entire civilisational achievement of the great nation will be at stake.

Fundamentalist Christians have been involved in American politics off-and-on since the United States was founded, but they’ve never been successful in turning the United States into a theocracy that Mr. Hafiz fears. We can thank the Founding Fathers for their vision: first, for separating religion and government, which was a novel idea in the 18th century; and second, for constructing a constitutional mechanism— a system of check and balances—that makes a theocracy almost impossible. If somehow Huckabee became president, the prospect of American turning into a “Christian” nation would be next to nil.

World Bank Fires Anti-Corruption Head

An employee does her job and gets fired for her efforts:

The World Bank on Wednesday announced the resignation of Suzanne Rich Folsom as director of its anticorruption unit, or INT. "She was not forced out, she was not asked to leave," said external relations chief Marwan Muasher. That's one way of putting it.

Ms. Folsom is, in fact, leaving the bank of her own accord for a private-sector job, having recently completed a devastating report on $569 million worth of corrupted bank projects in India. But this is a story of a resignation by a thousand cuts. Along with her top deputies, Glenn Ware and Allison Brigati, Ms. Folsom departs having survived years of relentless vilification by a bank staff and even senior leadership determined to undermine her anticorruption efforts

She “left to pursue other opportunities” is a popular euphemism for being forced out, one step short of being fired. I had hoped Ms. Folsom would stick to her guns and force the World Bank to fire her. The ensuing publicity would have brought much needed attention to an organization that—like the International Monetary Fund and United Nations—is rife with corruption and bureaucratic malaise.

This incident also underscores the need to either reform both the IMF and WB, or eliminate them entirely. The United States, which provides the lion’s share of the funding for both entities, should demand changes in order to increase transparency and accountability—American taxpayers demand it from their government, why not international insitutions? Failing that, the United States should unilaterally withdraw from both the IMF and WB.

What's More Dangerous: Iran Or A Dirty Bomb

What’s more scarier: a nuclear-armed Iran, or this?

An underreported attack on a South African nuclear facility last month demonstrates the high risk of theft of nuclear materials by terrorists or criminals. Such a crime could have grave national security implications for the United States or any of the dozens of countries where nuclear materials are held in various states of security.

Shortly after midnight on Nov. 8, four armed men broke into the Pelindaba nuclear facility 18 miles west of Pretoria, a site where hundreds of kilograms of weapons-grade uranium are stored. According to the South African Nuclear Energy Corp., the state-owned entity that runs the Pelindaba facility, these four "technically sophisticated criminals" deactivated several layers of security, including a 10,000-volt electrical fence, suggesting insider knowledge of the system. Though their images were captured on closed-circuit television, they were not detected by security officers because nobody was monitoring the cameras at the time.

I think the world community should focus its attention and energies on these kinds of incidents rather than attack Iran. I’m not defending Iran or its odious regime, of course, but the right of a sovereign nation to defend itself by any means necessary, including nuclear weapons. I have a hard time accepting the argument proffered by the United States and its allies that Iran has no right to possess nuclear weapons while the P-5 (China, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States) are allowed by virtue of the fact they had it before everyone else.

The world should be more concerned about low-yield nuclear weapons like “dirty bombs”. As the attempted theft has proven, a “dirty bomb’ going off is a more viable possibility than, say, Iran blowing Israel off the map. Iran will never do such a thing because they realize Israel—and the United States—would retaliate ten-fold, it’s mutually assured destruction for the new millennium.

I believe Iran getting nuclear weapons is a fait accompli. Pakistan not only has nuclear weapons, but sold the technology to whoever wanted it, including, ironically, Iran! In my opinion, Pakistan is more dangerous than Iran, yet there are no plans to defang Pakistan of its nuclear weapons (and the subsequent punishment were laughable); in fact, the United States is giving Pakistan billions in aid. Iran knows it’s just a waiting game.

Knowing this, isn’t it better to enlist the Iranians in securing existing supplies and hunt down and arrest would-be thieves? After all, Iran could just as easily be a target of a “dirty bomb” as the United States.

[via connecting the dots]

More Corruption At United Nations

More evidence from James Kirchick, over at Contentions, that the United Nations is nothing more then a den of thieves:

In what’s unlikely to be a surprise even to casual observers of the United Nations, an internal audit conducted by the international organization has discovered corruption involving hundreds of millions of dollars regarding the disbursement of contracts for peacekeeping missions. The UN these days seems to be little more than an elaborate racketeering organization for wanna-be crooks and gangsters—too cowardly to participate in actual crime in their home countries, and thus taking advantage of the miserable and oppressed people entrusted into the organization’s care. This latest scandal is only rivaled by the Oil-for-Food heist of some years prior.

The results of this latest investigation are the latest fruit of the Volcker Commission, established in 2004 to investigate similar kickbacks and bribes disbursed under the ill-fated UN program in Iraq. The task force that uncovered the peacekeeping abuse had hired some of Volcker’s investigators, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, to his credit, has requested that the investigative body’s mandate be funded further. Unsurprisingly, developing nations are using parliamentary tactics to hold up the reauthorization process.

It’s must be noted that a majority of members of the United Nations are venally corrupt: when they’re not stealing from their own people, they steal from others, and the United Nations, with its loose controls and open pots of gold, seems like a good a place as any for an ambitious grafter on the make.

But corruption in the upper echelons is only the tip of the iceberg for the United Nations. It extends all the way to the peacekeepers themselves, many of whom engage in various illicit activities like smuggling and gun running; and many of them pray on refugees themselves through rapes, intimidation and outright extortion.

Is it any wonder why many donor countries, especially the United States, are so reluctant to fund peacekeeping missions?

US Navy Battle Pirates: Soft Power At Work

The U.S. Navy battling with pirates off the coast of Somalia is not getting the media attention it deserves. It’s an important new role for the U.S. Navy—the role of maritime policeman—and its implications are far reaching. By protecting trade routes from marauding pirates, the United States is doing a service that will earn it respect in the world community, something that has been quite fleeting of late. It’s an example of “soft power," something the United States should use more of, not less.

Being a “policeman” requires retooling the U.S. Navy from top to bottom. Presently, the U.S. Navy is built to fight major wars, with its aircraft carrier battle groups central to its strategy, which is overkill for battling pirates, who tend to operate in small groups. No, what the Navy needs to be is more nimble, something akin to the U.S. Army, which increasingly uses small, highly mobile groups (company size or less) instead of large, lumbering groups (divisions). What the Navy needs are more patrol boats and attack submarines rather than aircraft carriers, cruiser and destroyers.

Robert D. Kaplan, who writes about defense matters for The Atlantic, has been talking about restructuring the U.S. Navy for quite some time now, echoes what I have written above:

In essence, this new maritime strategy represents a restrained, nuanced yearning for a bigger Navy, albeit one whose mission will be cooperation with other navies. That requires more than just new ships. “A key to fostering such relationships is development of sufficient cultural, historical, and linguistic expertise among our Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen to nurture effective interaction with diverse international partners.” Such training costs money and creates bureaucratic challenges, but it helps lay the groundwork for an exceedingly gradual, elegant decline of the Navy’s capabilities—a future in which it has fewer platforms but gets more out of the ones it does have by working more closely with others.

Another thing Kaplan writes about is the fact that the U.S. can’t go it alone. It will need the cooperation of many countries and, yes, including China, which, given its export-oriented economy, needs to keep trade routes secure.

Che: A Marketing Success Story

Leftists the world over are celebrating the death of Marxist revolutionary, Ernesto Che Guevara, who died in Bolivia forty-years ago doing what he did best-- overthrowing governments and committing acts of senseless violence. He was a hardline communist, through and through, who dedicated himself to spreading revolution throughout the world; and who fanatically believed that the only way to deal with opposition, in whatever its forms, was to liquidate them. This is why liberals like Paul Berman are dismayed by all the hero worship Che receives. He writes:

The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims.

Yet Che still cuts a romantic figure: handsome and brimming with charisma. These days he's treated more like a celebrity, or a rock star, than a political figure. It helps that he's also a marketing darling, his iconic image used to peddle everything from t-shirts to key chains. Communism has been discredited, for the most part, but the cult of Che still thrives.

One Of Ahmadinejad's Admirers

From a laudatory letter in The Daily Star, a Bangladeshi professes his admiration for the Iranian president.

I am writing to you in regard to the recent visit by Dr. Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, to the United States. He was subsequently invited by Columbia University to deliver a speech to interested students. I am sure you are aware of the media frenzy this event generated in America. I have listened to his entire speech at Columbia University (http://www.president.ir/en/) and as many conscientious people would agree, I believe he did a great job.

Ahmadinejad’s speech was absurd. Honestly, how can anyone believe, while keeping a straight face, Ahmadinejad when he says there are no homosexuals in Iran, or the Holocaust didn’t happen; and not wince with his unflinching support of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, or calling for the destruction of Israel. That much of the Muslim world, including the letter writer, believes what Ahamdinejad peddles is disturbing but not surprising.

China World's #1 Polluter

Guess which country is the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide? No, it’s not the United States, the perennial whipping boy, but China. From The Guardian:

The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year.

No surprise given China’s breakneck growth rate; and with a population four times the United States (and still growing), carbon dioxide emissions will only increase, and at a quicker rate. If anything, it proves how flawed the Kyoto Protocols are to begin with, which gives deferential treatment to “developing” countries—like China and India—in reducing carbon dioxide emissions while shackling “developed” countries like the United States because the latter consumes more energy than the former. China topping the list proves this premise wrong.

Global Peace Index

Yet another pointless global survey to digest. Lately, it seems everything is reduced to a metric of some kind, measuring previously incalculable things, like happiness. This time it’s the Global Peace Index, which, according to this press release, ranks countries, by: “peacefulness and the drivers that create and sustain their peace.”

And how do SAARC members measure up?

• Afghanistan (not listed)
• Bangladesh (86)
• Bhutan (19)
• India (109)
• Maldives (not listed)
• Nepal (not listed)
• Pakistan (115)
• Sri Lanka (111)

If you take out the hermetic kingdom of Bhutan, it’s not an impressive list. Pakistan scores poorly for obvious reasons (Afghanistan, military rule, and Islamic militancy, to name some of the problems), and not because there is a conspiracy to malign it as The Pakistan Observer contends. And I’m not engaging in Pakistan bashing, just pointing out the stupidity of the folks at The Pakistan Observer, who smell conspiracies everywhere but refuse to look in the mirror— for the truth is there for all to see. It’s not like India did all that great. It has its own problems, of course, including insurgencies and terrorism. As does Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. I’m surprised, though, that both Afghanistan and Nepal are not even listed given their problems of late.

In the end, you can either take the survey seriously, or with a grain of salt. Not everything about a country can be reduced into neat columns on a spreadsheet (but it would be nice, no?). Personally, I think a lot of people are spending too much time playing with Excel (like myself!) and not enough time observing ground realities. At the same time, I’m not going to dismiss this survey outright, it does seem to utilize a sound methodology.