International Affairs: July 2003 Archives

David Bernstein over at the Volokh Conspiracy writes about what he calls the Palestinians' "suicidal fantasies":

In my view, the fact that the Palestinian public has apparently made the release of cold-blooded murderers its first priority--ahead of the security fence, new settlement activity, travel restrictions, employment in Israel, and a host of other concerns that do not involve releasing cold-blooded murderers--shows that the Palestinian public is not yet ready for a peace agreement. The average Palestinian in the street apparently still sees blowing up children in a pizzeria as heroic resistance, and as long as that is true I see little hope for a lasting peace agreement.

He's right about that, but I think he's misjudging the motives of the Palestinian public. The Palestinians are being manipulated by their leaders (and the leaders of some Arab nations), many of whom don't want the conflict in Israel resolved. David notes that the Palestinians are only a thorn in Israel's paw compared to Iran, al Qaeda, and (potentially) Pakistan, but as long as the Arab despots of the world can keep twisting it they can prevent those civilized nations that are sympathetic with the Palestinians from wholeheartedly supporting Israel.

The Palestinian public is continually deluded by its leaders, just as most Arabs have been for decades; the Arab rulers depend on this delusion to stay in power. If the conflict in Israel is ever resolved, these dictators will have to either address the real problems facing their people, or find another scape-goat. It's not a fantasy for them, it's a strategy -- but it's still suicidal.

The Israelis are building a 300-mile-long wall around Jerusalem to protect themselves from Palestinian terrorist attacks from the north and south. While meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon yesterday, Bush expressed "concern" about the wall. Four days ago, President Bush met with Palestinian "Prime Minister" Mahmoud Abbas and called the wall "a problem".

It seems like the real problem is that Palestinian kids keep jacking up on crack, strapping on bombs, and blowing themselves up at Israeli birthday parities.

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, whom the Bush administration has snubbed in favor of Mr. Abbas, says the barrier is a new "Berlin Wall" that will divide Palestinian areas into ghettos.

East Berlin was a ghetto because its government made it that way. Arafat and Abbas are the Palestinian government. Do the math.

Jails have walls. Zoos have walls. Not every prisoner is dangerous, nor every animal, but you don't want them just wandering around, especially when it's hard to tell the difference. Palestinians aren't prisoners or animals, but many of them are devoted to wreaking as much havoc in Israel as possible. Unfortunately, it seems like the Israelis are forced to wall themselves in because President Bush would prefer that they make peace with the lions rather than hunt them down and kill them.

Update:
I highly recommend Setting the World to Rights' Short History of Israel for anyone who feels that Israel and the Palestinians share equal blame for the current situation, or who simply wants to know more about the recent history of the region.

John Callender at Lies writes that many advocates of the battle in Iraq see our invasion as a direct result of 9/11. This is true. He goes on to say, however, that because there as been little evidence of a direct relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda (he might say no evidence) that this reasoning cannot be used to justify the invasion.

However, there can be no denying two facts:
1. Saddam did have direct relations with other terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. He funded terrorist attacks within Israel, and facilitated these groups' operations all around the world.
2. Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people was a part of the vast swamp that encourages and contributes to the Arab Muslim terrorist mindset. If, as many leftists claim, such terrorism flourishes due to repressive dictators that the USA has propped up, eliminating one of those dictators directly addresses one of the "root causes" the leftists are so fond of.

Furthermore, don't forget that after the US entered WW2, our first step in Europe was to invade Morocco. Why would we do such a horrible thing? What did Morocco do to us? For strategic reasons, Morocco was a sensible place to start our counter-offensive against the Germans in North Africa. Similarly, Iraq was the low-hanging fruit among our enemies (and they were our avowed enemy); even if I concede a lack of direct connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, there's no shortage of indirect connections.

Even though different people had different motivations, they all led towards the same intent: topple Saddam Hussein. Some of those motivations may have been selfish, or logically flawed, or noble, or anything, but the cumulative effect of them was widespread and irresistable. Though different people may have had different reasons, everyone agreed on what had to be done, and so it was.

My own personal reasons are based on the overall War on Terror, and so I justify our battle in Iraq on those grounds. The liberation of the Iraqi people is an important step towards our victory in the greater war; not merely because I think everyone deserves to live free (although I do), but because until the Arab Muslim world is free we will continue to be in danger.

Update:
The post originally said "Monaco", but as SDB points out, I meant "Morocco". No wonder my Google search for the date we invaded Monaco turned up nothing.

I always hesitate before linking to blogs that are vastly more popular than mine; I mean, what are the odds that you're reading this, but managed to miss SDB's defense of his previous strategic overview of the War on Terror?

His critics are calling him a raving lunatic-idiot, and there are only two cases in which a person will resort to such ad hominem attacks: when the person being attacked is so obviously in the wrong, and their position so clearly devoid of merit, that there's just no reason to respond rationally; and when the attacker has no logical, coherent ammunition of his own. Clearly the attacker would always like his listeners to assume the former, but more often than not that's just a bluff, and the true situation is actually the latter.

SDB uses a lot of words, but the real meat is near the end:

Many on the left are still spending their time mooning those of us over here who've been advocating war. And it's becoming apparent that they are frustrated by the fact that it doesn't seem to be having any political impact.

They're also deeply worried because we advocates seem to be getting a lot more attention. For instance, in the Yglesias comment thread, Peter Jung says, "Den Beste is a raving psychotic, and it is alarming that someone of his ilk is allotted space on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal."

When someone tries to use a strategy which is dictated by their ideology, and that strategy doesn't seem to work, then they are caught in something of a cognitive bind. If they acknowledge the failure of the strategy, then they would be forced to question their ideology. If questioning the ideology is unthinkable, then the only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn't executed sufficiently well. They respond by turning up the power, rather than by considering alternatives. (This is sometimes referred to as "escalation of failure".)

Attempts by the leftists to show how emphatically they oppose war don't seem to be having any impact. Invective and ridicule has failed to discredit those of us who have been advocating war. (And that's puzzling, too. In college, denouncing someone as being "conservative" would instantly discredit them and silence them. Why hasn't that been working in the debate about the war?)

So they're turning up the intensity of the ridicule and invective. If they can somehow find the right magical ad hominem characterization for their opponents, the opponents will vanish and take their dangerous messages with them. (So if "conservative" doesn't work, maybe "psychotic" or "racist" will.)

By refusing to consider the idea that they might need to engage in cogent debate on the issues, including making attempts to present credible alternatives, they're taking themselves out of the game.

Welcome to Real Life, where sincerity alone counts for just two things, and Jack just left town.

The coup in Sao Tome that Bill Hobbs called attention to has collapsed, according to Strategy Page (no permalink).

July 23, 2003: The military junta signed an agreement with a 30-strong
group of international mediators, allowing the reinstatement of the elected government. The platoon of diplomats came from Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Congo, Gabon, Mozambique, Nigeria, Portugal and the United States were led by Congo-Brazzaville foreign minister Rodolphe Adada. President Menezes flew back that night, accompanied by Nigerian President Obasanjo. - Adam Geibel

Who cares? The former Portuguese colony is/was a stable democracy (what's a coup now and then?), non-Muslim, and sits on top of an ocean of oil.

This Telegraph article about Tony Blair's visit to China indicates that China intends to help with the North Korean problem.

Mr Blair held talks with his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao and said: "They made it clear they would continue to work for a peaceful solution to this issue and one that does definitively put a stop to North Korea's nuclear weapons programme."

Not exactly a strong or verbose offer of assistance, but at least China is now acknowledging that it does have a stake in the matter.

Because the US has been urging him to resign his "presidency", Charles Taylor of Liberia says that our country has "blood on its hands". Then again, he offered to step down two weeks ago and reneged. Seems like that's happened a few times now.

Taylor said he did not know if the U.S. would require his departure before their arrival in Liberia.

"I don't understand why the United States government would insist that I be absent before its soldiers arrive," Taylor told a meeting of Liberian clerics. "It makes a lot of sense for peacekeepers to arrive in this city before I transit."

Maybe it's important because we don't want you to suddenly change your mind again once everything is peaceful?

So what's the deal with Africa? Conventional wisdom ascribes the near-perpetual civil wars to ethnic divisions and tribalism, but I just read a fascinating paper titled "Why Are There So Many Civil Wars in Africa? Understanding and Preventing Violent Conflict" which argues persuasively that such heterogeneity may in fact be beneficial, if proper democratic institutions can be developed.

The authors, Ibrahim Elbadawi and Nicholas Sambanis, suggest that there are three main factors hindering Africa's development: heavy dependence on natural resources, a lack of democratic institutions, and a lack of political freedom. The dependence of Africa's economy on natural resources is important because such resources can be easily looted by rebels, and tend to concentrate geographically in the territory of a handful of ethnic groups. Little can be done to diversify Africa's economies, however, until there is significant economic growth away from agriculture and mining.

That economic growth will come about once the last two problems are solved: the need for political freedom and democratic institutions. The authors claim that based on their statistical analysis, political freedom isn't required for a ethnically homogenetic nation to prosper, but Africa's fractured cultures make it a necessity. (On a side note, America's broadly diverse population also flourishes under a strong democratic system; Europe's weaker democracies are floundering with an influx of immigrants.) Past attempts to introduce political freedoms in Africa have failed because they did not construct institutions that practically allowed Africa's various ethnic groups to bargain politically and reach acceptable compromises.

Such institutions are the critical building block. They must be created with Africa's tribal culture in mind, and the authors suggest giving major ethnicities formal political recognition. In my own mind, a federal-type system would seem ideal; using America's political system as reference, imagine the bicameral Congress of an African nation composed of a Senate wherein each tribe is equally represented, and a House built of representatives from geographically-based districts all of nearly equal population. There are certainly significant details that need to be worked out during the process of creating such a government -- which tribes get representation, for instance -- but such a bicameral system should allow both the large and small tribes to reach a concensus.

As economic development takes hold, the opportunity cost of civil war rises. As employment rises, fewer men are available for fighting, and there are fewer grievances to fight about. What disagreements still exist can be resolved peacefully though the democratic institutions in place. The important thing to realize is that economic developement follows political development, and not the other way around. Siphoning money from rich nations into Africa won't solve anything if there aren't significant political reforms first. And once the political reforms take place, Africans will have no use for our money; they will prosper on their own.

Update:
Clayton Cramer gives an example of how graft and corruption run rampant in Africa.

Update 2:
Via Donald Sensing, here's an excellent two part description by Vessel of Honor of Charles Taylor's ties to Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, and al Qaeda. It's almost too incredible to believe.

Tony Blair and the British government want special treatment for British illegal combatants.

The British government has said it would be unacceptable for Moazzam Begg, 35, and Feroz Abbasi, 23, to be denied a fair trial, and has said it has "strong reservations" about such a military tribunal.

Britain is opposed to the death penalty and the Blair government said it would raise the strongest possible objections to any chance of capital punishment being applied in the Britons' cases.

The Brits have proven their friendship time and again, and I would have no problem releasing these prisoners into their custody. Although that would probably mean that the prisoners would get lighter treatment than they would if tried by a US military tribunal, if the Brits want to spend some of the friendship-capital they've earned on their behalf, I think we should smile and hand them over.

When other countries complain that their citizens aren't getting the same treatment, and when we refuse (for example) to hand the French illegal combatants over to France, it won't be hard to justify: sorry, that's only for our allies.

Update:
Meanwhile, we've released 37 prisoners from Gitmo. I hope the civil libertarians are taking note. (Noticed via Drudge.)

Here's a WaPo article that describes rising anti-Semitism in France, and the frustrations than many French Jews are feeling.

The alarm bells first started ringing for Zenouda in October 2000, as he watched television coverage of pro-Palestinian demonstrators in the Place de la Republique shouting "Death to the Jews" and other anti-Semitic and anti-Israel slogans. That month, five synagogues were firebombed and there were attempts against 19 other synagogues, homes and businesses.

The official response, he says, was "glacial silence," followed by rationalizations. Many officials denied there was any pattern or meaning to the unrest. Others portrayed the violence as either the isolated acts of troubled Arab youths or street brawls in which both sides were equally to blame. And in his view, everyone appeared to hold Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's hard-line policies ultimately responsible. A controversial letter by Socialist Party adviser Pascal Boniface suggested that politicians concerned with reelection ought to pay more attention to Muslims, who outnumber the Jews by 10 to 1.

"I was shocked," recalls Zenouda, who had voted Socialist all his life. "I felt like I was passing from being a Frenchman who happened to be Jewish to being a Jew who lived in France."

I'd like to personally invite every Jew currently living in France to come live in America; if France doesn't want you, we do.

(Link via Instapundit.)

Here's an edited transcipt of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's speech before the US Congress, via The Independent. You can read the whole thing, but I want to point out a few paragraphs that illustrate that Tony Blair really does understand the world situation, and really is America's friend and ally.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defence and our first line of attack. In some cases, where our security is under direct threat, we will have recourse to arms. In others, it will be by force of reason. But in all cases to the same end: that the liberty we seek is not for some but for all. For that is the only true path to victory. ...

There is no more dangerous theory in international politics today than that we need to balance the power of America with other competitor powers, different poles around which nations gather.

Any alliance must start with America and Europe. Believe me if Europe and America are together, the others will work with us. But if we split, all the rest will play around, play us off and nothing but mischief will be the result of it.

We are part of Europe - and want to be. But we also want to be part of changing Europe. So don't give up on Europe. Work with it.

It is not the coalition that determines the mission but the mission, the coalition. But let us start preferring a coalition and acting alone if we have to; not the other way round. True, winning wars is not easier that way. But winning the peace is. And we have to win both.

Excellent. America is really fortunate to have such a committed friend in Tony Blair and the UK. As Blair points out, our coalition is strong because we share the same mission. He is a worthy recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal that was awarded to him today.

It really bothered me last year when I realized that after all the blood and money we spent overthrowing the Taliban and establishing order in Afghanistan, the American military wasn't going to destroy the pre-existing warlord power structure. The various warlords control their territory and people using mercenary armies, and they pay for the mercenaries with drug money, primarily heroine.

I am pleased to read on Strategy Page:

July 7, 2003: Uzbekistan scientists have discovered a naturally occurring fungus that destroys poppy plants. Such a fungus could be used to destroy large poppy crops used to support drug gangs in Afghanistan and other Central Asian nations. This would change the economies and military situations in many countries, especially Afghanistan.

Good work, Uzbekistan -- I didn't even know you had scientists.

(Heroine is made from poppies, if you weren't aware. So are morphine and other opiates.)

Best of the Web Today points to a Washington Times article which indicates that the Saudi royal family is starting to fire and ban jihad-loving, al Qaeda-sympathizing Wahhabi clerics in the wake of the al Qaeda suicide bombings in Riyadh two months ago.

I suppose this is good news, but wouldn't it be even better if there was some hint of actual religious freedom, rather than just a switch to state religious tyranny that's more to our liking? After all, American approval of friendly dictators is supposely one of the Arab street's prime grievances against us. Taranto looks at these moves as "halting steps toward joining the civilized world", but in the civilized world the government doesn't tell you what is and is not accepted religious doctrine.

So yes, I'm glad that our staunch allies in Saudi Arabia are firing the most anti-American clerics, but not as glad as I'd be if the Saudi government fired all the clerics and took their mitts out of the religion business entirely. Iraq, even under Saddam Hussein, has had one of the most religiously free governments in the region, and I hope now that a truly free nation is being established there will be some concrete moves away from state-sponsored/-mandated Islam.

Three months ago, Time Magazine ran an excellent interview with Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Although I'm sure that many non-Christians cringe when they read about Christian missionaries lining up by the hundreds to spread the gospel to Arab Muslims, this interview might give you a new perspective.

"No one is going to flip a switch and make Iraq a Christian nation. America is not a Christian nation; it's a mission field. Conversion can't come at the point of a gun. I think this is a true test, in a post-modern, post Cold War age, of how America is going to establish a model for the recovery of freedom. Religious freedom has to be at the center and foundation of that freedom. If Iraq were to be established in a way that religious freedom was honored, it would stand out from its neighbors in the area."

"It would be an appalling tragedy if America were to lead this coalition and send young American men and women into battle, to expend such military effort, to then leave in place a regime that would lack respect for religious liberty. I think one of the major Christian concerns, and one of my personal concerns, is to see religious liberty, religious freedom," take a prominent position in "the vision of freedom that America holds up to the world."

Steven Den Beste has a few fascinating posts on nuclear proliferation, and Iran and North Korea specifically. In the most recent post, he briefly describes the nuclear-acquisition precedent that has been set over the past decade, as it relates to our desire to deter our enemies:

That establishment of a deterrent will be part of Bush's calculation. The decision on those attacks, should it come to that, will in part be based on the consequences specifically of those cases. But it will also be based partly on whether it's necessary to establish an object lesson for other nations who might be contemplating the same thing.

The big problem here is India and Pakistan. They did the same thing and succeeded, and it's not likely at this point that there's going to be any significant attempt by us to try to force either or both of them to disarm again. Indeed, Israel is perhaps an even more important case. They represent a positive example to those attempting to develop nukes, by showing that once you've done so, you probably won't be forced to disarm again.

South Africa did, but that was pretty much voluntary. If it had refused to, it's not clear the kind and extent of pressure which would have been applied.

A lot of pernicious precedents got set in the 1990's; part of why we're in a mess now, and part of why things have gotten as bloody recently as they have, is that we're having to change the perception of those precedents. That means in some cases we're having to perhaps use a stronger military response than might otherwise have been needed, because we need to set an example for the future. That's going to be part of Bush's decision this time, too.

SDB doesn't mention it, but I think he knows that the nuclear cat is out of the bag, so to speak. He's right, it is difficult to enrich fissionable materials -- and it's especially difficult to hide the process -- but India and Pakistan did it handily enough, and it's only getting easier. In time, maybe a decade or two at most, every country that wants to have nuclear weapons will be able to either build them or buy them, that that will fundamentally alter the balance of power in the world.

Conventional military force serves as the ultimate recourse (and foundation) of diplomacy, but nuclear weapons give their owner near complete immunity from conventional warfare. In order to win a war you need to put troops on the ground, and any army is vulnerable to a single van (or ambulance) carrying a nuclear device. North Korea and Iran are making big gambles by trying to construct nuclear weapons, but if they are successful they will win major victories: although the United States may be considering military options against their hostile regimes now, if and when they acquire nuclear weapons that possibility will be essentially off the table. Just as nuclear weapons deterred the United States and the Soviet Union from all-out war for 40 years, these rogue nations will successfully deter the United States.

What then? Iran will buy itself virtual immunity for its support of Hizbollah and its encouragement of terrorism around the world, particularly against Israel. The need for nearly-plausible deniability will vanish, and the marginal cost for stopping each of their terror attacks will increase greatly for the United States and Israel. How many busses will need to be blown up before Israel can retaliate, knowing that it risks nuclear escalation? Alternatively, what if Iran slips a device to some terrorist group that then uses it to blackmail Israel? (It's unlikely that Iran would attempt to blackmail Israel or the US directly, since such blackmail would invite immediate nuclear retaliation by either country.) A terrorist group that's hiding within Israel and can't be found won't be deterred by nuclear weapons.

Blackmail is a way of life for the North Korean government. They've been using the threat of a conventional infantry/artillery invasion over the DMZ into Seoul for 40 years to force the world's powers to buy them off. The North Korean government would have collapsed long ago without the oil and food they've extorted from the United States and others over the decades. Now that those payments have nearly stopped, the North Korean government is on the brink of implosion and believes that if they are able to attain nuclear weapons they'll be able to force us to acquiese to their preposterous demands. It's unlikely that they would be crazy enough to resort to direct nuclear blackmail, but their standard threat of conventional attack becomes much more difficult to thwart if it's backed by nuclear weapons

Not to mention the fact that North Korea has recently tested missiles that could deliver a warhead to Japan. Japan doesn't have nuclear weapons (because the US bears the primary responsibility for Japan's defense), but if North Korea gets them then Japan will insist upon it. China certainly wouldn't like to face a nuclear-armed Japan, and so China has an added incentive to defuse the North Korean situation.

However it plays out, the world gets much more complicated and the United States will be in a weaker position than it's in today. Total nuclear proliferation is only a matter of time, and I hope that someone is giving some thought as to how the world will operate once every nation has nuclear capability.

It's an interesting thought experiment. If everyone has nuclear weapons then conventional forces may become entirely obsolete. Any conventional attack could immediately escalate to nuclear, so what would be the point of maintaining an army? It could make the world very peaceful, but it could also result in an unstable equilibrium -- like a soda bottle balanced on its mouth, it's steady, but a single wobble could bring the whole system crashing down. Unless some new technology is created that can nullify ground-delivered nuclear weapons (as opposed to mere missile defense), it's hard to see how the current world order can hold sway for much longer.

Update:
I wanted to add that there's a race on between nuclear proliferation and the spread of democracy and freedom. Democracies don't go to war with each other as a general rule, even when they have nuclear weapons. It's the dictators that we have to be scared of. So, if democracy can spread more quickly than nuclear weapons do, everything should be peachy. It just doesn't seem inevitable to me.

Pseudononymous blogger Philippe de Croy states as fact his opinion that President Bush's credibility is particularly poor in the wake of revelations that Saddam Hussein probably did not buy "yellowcake" uranium from Africa. Even the New York Times doesn't assume outright that the President's reference to African uranium was wrong (much less a lie).

"There is other reporting to suggest that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Africa," the statement said. "However, the information is not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that attempts were in fact made."

In other words, said one senior official, "we couldn't prove it, and it might in fact be wrong."

Separately tonight, The Washington Post quoted an unidentifed senior administration official as declaring that "knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." Some administration officials have expressed similar sentiments in interviews in the past two weeks.

So, it looks like the President and the CIA might have been mistaken. It's understandable that President Bush wanted to play this angle up during this State of the Union address, and I haven't read any evidence to suggest that he knowingly lied about it. The situation doesn't sound particularly nefarious to me. Even still, let's say take the worst case: he die lie. Where does that leave us?

Well, it wouldn't have been an unimportant, inconsequential lie about something as minor as oral sex, and so I could understand the American people questioning the purpose behind it. That's not the issue Philippe pursues, however.

Internationally, though, this will not wash. I am sure some countries will continue to provide us with ample respect and cooperation in any case because they regard it as so strongly in their interest to do so. But at the margin the cost in credibility will have to be high. I should think that most countries -- their people and their leaders -- will look back at the war on Iraq and remember the incredulous indignation we heaped upon those who would not go along with us. Then they will look at what came out afterwards and conclude that we are clowns or worse. They will not focus on what we claimed that was true. They will focus on what we claimed that was false. This is natural.

Let me put it this way: Imagine events occurring over the next five years that would make international respect and cooperation urgently valuable to us. It isn’t particularly difficult, is it? Now given the state of the record on Iraq, is George Bush the man you would want to send forward in those circumstances to make promises and representations abroad?

I don't think Philippe understands that all the cooperation we receive and should expect to receive from foreign countries is based on intersecting interests. The betrayal of France and Germany over the past six months proves this point powerfully; they had every reason to respect our past friendship and cooperate with us out of loyalty, but because their own national interests did not align with ours they chose to stand in opposition.

On the flip side, Britain and Australia were staunch allies in every sense of the word. However, they didn't line up shoulder to shoulder with America because they owed us favors or because they respected President Bush's integrity, they fought by our side because their interests line up with ours. And because our interests are aligned -- and have been for quite a while -- there is a sense of brotherhood between our three nations.

Loyalty and friendship are built on common goals. Philippe and others who believe like him think that once we have loyalty and friendship, the goals will become aligned, but that's putting the cart before the horse.

Well, it's not really a "truce" when one side doesn't stop fighting, is it? Nevertheless, the "peace process" is succeeding, because people say it is. Let's take a look at how the terrorists and the Israelis are acting, now that everything's so peaceful.

In an early morning raid, Israeli troops killed a local leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a militia linked to Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement,

Oh no, the Israelis are killing people! No, wait...

when an arrest turned violent in the West Bank city of Qalqiliya, the army said. The man killed was identified as Mahmoud Shawer, an assistant to Ibrahim Mansour, the militia leader in Qalqiliya, who was arrested.

So they were trying to arrest a militia leader, not kill anyone. I assume the assistant tried to resist and got shot.

About 30 gunmen from Al Aqsa and another armed group were among thousands marching in Shawer's funeral. A speaker from the militia promised revenge within 24 hours.

Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a senior aide to Arafat, called Shawer's killing an "assassination" and accused Israel of trying "to bring us back to the cycle of action and reaction."

Maybe there's a difference between an assassination -- which would have been a violation of the cease-fire -- and an attempt to arrest a criminal.

Anyway, what have those Palestinians been up to?

Also, Palestinians fired four anti-tank shells at the isolated Jewish settlement of Kfar Darom in the Gaza Strip late Wednesday, wounding four Israelis. In response, Israeli soldiers closed for six hours a key intersection on the main Gaza road.

Hmmm... that doesn't sound like an attempt to enforce the law, that sounds like a terrorist attack to me! In response, Israel fired artillery into a Palestinian residential area, right? Oh no, they stopped traffic for a while while they searched for the terrorists.

Gosh, the situation is so morally ambiguous! It's hard to tell who's the good guys and who's the bad guys!

According to The European Court of Human Rights, Britain is guilty of a serious human rights violation because it didn't carry out a vigorous enough investigation into a murder 14 years ago.

The court did not award damages or order a fresh investigation. However, the Government was told to pay £30,000 towards legal costs incurred by Mr Finucane's widow, Geraldine, who brought the case. She alleged that there had been "no proper, effective investigation" into the death of her husband.

Article 2 of the Human Rights Convention says: "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law." Article 1 requires governments to ensure that people within their jurisdiction can exercise their convention rights.

The court has said this means that there must be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force.

That's totally insane.

Hey, that guy's driving recklessly and the police aren't anywhere to be found! Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

I have no idea whether or not Britain will pay this wacko fine, but they may be obligated to do so by treaty. This is exactly why the United States should never ever ever sign any of the nutso transnational treaties that Europe scribbles out every few years like the International Criminal Court or Kyoto. All the Euro-bureaucrats want to do is get their feet in the door so they can start meddling with things.

Fortunately, it looks like Bush is taking the issue seriously. Effective July 1st, 2003, the United States has cut off military aid to 50 countries that have so far refused to agree to exempt American citizens from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

No, shoo, bad bureaucrats!

Here's a WaPo article built around some rather disaffected and discouraged soldiers manning a police station in a bad Baghdad neighborhood.

"U.S. officials need to get our [expletive] out of here," said the 43-year-old reservist from Pittsburgh, who arrived in Iraq with the 307th Military Police Company on May 24. "I say that seriously. We have no business being here. We will not change the culture they have in Iraq, in Baghdad. Baghdad is so corrupted. All we are here is potential people to be killed and sitting ducks." ...

He once sat at a desk outside, then moved indoors. "Let the Iraqis guard the gate," he said, next to a sandbagged window.

The way Pollard sees it, the Iraqi police should be taking the risks, not his 13 reservists at the station.

"It's not fair to our troops to build a country that's not even ours and our lives are at risk," he said. "They've got to take control. They may have to kill some of their own people to make a statement that we're back in control. No doubt." ...

The neighborhood is dangerous, he said, and fighting crime here might require twice the 86 police officers they still have. But of the 86, he said, at least half should be dismissed for corruption or ineptitude.

"This is a crooked cop sitting here," he said, pointing to a major who didn't understand English.

He walked through the station, leaning into a room with two officers busy at a desk. "Here's a room where they're acting like they're doing real important paperwork," he said. He walked outside to a balcony where three officers were sitting on newspapers and a green burlap sack, one with his shoes off. "This is a couple more lazy cops, sitting down when they should be outside," he said. They all greeted Pollard with cold stares, forgoing the traditional greetings that are almost obligatory in their culture.

I'm sure there's much more to this story than the paper reports, but it sounds like poor leadership among the American soldiers to me. It's discouraging to read about such low morale among troops that have been in Iraq for barely more than a month, but maybe that's to be expected when we are forced to rely so heavily on reservists who are torn away from their ordinary lives.

Nevertheless, people aren't having their ears cut off for travelling without the proper papers and children aren't being executed and tossed into mass graves, so I still call it an improvement. It will take years to get all the details sorted out. Surely the author, Anthony Shadid, must know this, but he managed to find the worst in the situation anyway,