International Affairs: March 2004 Archives

It's old news by blogosphere standards, but I didn't want to immediately post about the attack on Coalition civilians this morning in Fallujah, Iraq. Why? Because my first instinct was that we should drop a few MOABs on the city and see how much they really like burning corpses. However, I realize that probably wouldn't be the best solution. (Note to the future: if I ever run for President this quote should be presented as suitably hawkish, yet moderated by reason.)

My new thought is to implement a plan similar to Mr. du Toit's suggestion for Africa and Israel's plans for the Palestinians: build a nice big fence, toss in a bunch of guns, and then cut all the water and power. Whoever's left at the end should prove much more amiable. You don't want the CPA running your lives? You want Ba'athist thugs in charge again? Fine, have at it. But just to be fair, this time everyone gets a gun.

The International Court of Justice has ordered the United States to review 51 death-penalty cases on the basis that the Mexicans convicted of murder weren't given consular assistance by the Mexican government. I don't know the details of every single case, and I do think foreign nationals arrested for crimes should be allowed access to their nation's embassy staff.

One important question is whether or not any of these death-penalty cases are actually in federal courts. The federal government doesn't execute many people, so it's likely that the majority of these convictions were in state court. It's not clear what steps the federal government could take to halt state executions, other than passing special legislation.

These convicts all have built-in appeals -- regardless of what the World Court says or does -- and they're free to raise these issues on their own standing in state courts. The idea that some group of men in robes in Brussels could impose its will on the American judicial system is ludicrous. If Mexico has a problem with the US then their ambassador should raise the issue with our State Department, not go whining to the ICJ for relief.

Here's the "Vienna Convention on Consular Relations". Go to Article 36 for the relevant passage. My general understanding is that American courts have ruled that as long as there is no demonstrable prejudice against a defendent created by a lack of access to consular officials, there's no reason for any remedy. See this ACLU brief (which I have not read in full).

In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued, inter alia, that the right to consular notification and access under the Vienna Convention is not equivalent to constitutional or statutory rights. Sorensen v. City of New York, Defendants’ Memorandum of Law Supporting Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (98 CV 3356), June 17, 1999, at 23. Accordingly, Sorensen was required to show prejudice in order to prevail on her Vienna Convention claim. The defendants added that Sorensen could make no showing of prejudice in the case. “She cannot show that the consulate could have done anything for her that her criminal court attorney did not or could not do.” Id. at 24.

Kim du Toit has an essay titled "Let Africa Sink" from 2002. He was born in Africa and since moved to the United States, and he lists off some of the same difficulties facing the continent that I identified in my earlier "Africa is SNAFU" post -- but unlike me he concludes that the best solution is:

So here's my solution for the African fiasco: a high wall around the whole continent, all the guns and bombs in the world for everyone inside, and at the end, the last one alive should do us all a favor and kill himself.

He certainly has more experience with Africa than I do, but I'd like to think there's some other way. But, he argues, everything has already been tried, and nothing has worked. Read the essay and decide for yourself.

I have some friends from South Africa and I'm going to email them and see what they think.

(HT: Who Tends The Fires.)

Lying Media Bastards points to a horrible atrocity in west Africa and writes:

As is the norm for Africa, this story is getting NO play in the American press.

He's right that the story isn't getting much play, just as the much larger Rwandan massacres of the 1990s (supervised by Kofi Annan, who is now the UN Secretary General) didn't. Why is that?

There are a lot of reasons. As I've written before, Africa is all screwed up and atrocities like this are pretty normal. We've tried sending money, but most of it gets stuck in Swiss bank accounts held by oppressive tyrants rather than spent on improving the lives of the African people. Africa has no democratic institutions and no cultural foundation for concensus-based majority rule.

Much of the economic problem stems from the fact that the average African has no way to make money. Just about all they can do is farm, but there's no one to buy their products because both Europe and America heavily subsidize their farmers and impose large tariffs on the foods Africans could grow, like sugar. Norman Borlaug -- father of the Green Revolution and savior of more than a billion lives -- is convinced that Africa could grow food for the world if its people were politically free to do so.

Aside from the lack of democratic institutions, much of Africa lacks the critical infrastructure required to support a thriving agricultural economy -- much less an industrial one. You probably know that many Africans don't have electricity or clean running water, but many Africans don't even have roads, the most basic and primitive form of infrastructure. Why not? According to Normal Borlaug, again, environmentalist groups routinely object to road construction on the grounds that roads destroy the natural environment.

Borlaug: Supplying food to sub-Saharan African countries is made very complex because of a lack of infrastructure. For example, you bring fertilizer into a country like Ethiopia, and the cost of transporting the fertilizer up the mountain a few hundred miles to Addis Ababa doubles its cost. All through sub-Saharan Africa, the lack of roads is one of the biggest obstacles to development--and not just from the standpoint of moving agricultural inputs in and moving increased grain production to the cities. That's part of it, but I think roads also have great indirect value. If a road is built going across tribal groups and some beat-up old bus starts moving, in seven or eight years you'll hear people say, "You know, that tribe over there, they aren't so different from us after all, are they?"

And once there's a road and some vehicles moving along it, then you can build schools near a road. You go into the bush and you can get parents to build a school from local materials, but you can't get a teacher to come in because she or he will say, "Look, I spent six, eight years preparing myself to be a teacher. Now you want me to go back there in the bush? I won't be able to come out and see my family or friends for eight, nine months. No, I'm not going." The lack of roads in Africa greatly hinders agriculture, education, and development.

Without roads there's no possiblity for schools, hospitals, electricity, or democracy.

In addition to the lack of democratic institutions, near economic warfare by developed nations in the form of farm subsidies, and little critical infrastructure, Africa also has to deal with political manuvering by its former European colonial masters (and some from America). Europe doesn't like genetically modified crops? Too bad for Africa! Despite the fact that GM products could greatly increase the food supply, Europe refuses to buy any GM food and encourages Africa to avoid the "controversial" technology.

Similarly, Europe and America banned DDT because it tends to soften raptors' egg shells; developed nations can afford more expensive and less effective mosquito poisons and we've all-but-eliminated malaria. Meanwhile in Africa (and Asia) three million people die from malaria each year, and they could be saved cheaply through a judicious use of DDT.

None of these stories are particularly glamorous, but they're the foundation that props up the murderous dictators and warlords who perpetrate the continual rape of Africa. That's the real story that isn't being reported.

I always feel silly posting links to excellent articles by the Big Boys -- after all, you check their sites before meandering over to my corner of the net, right? So consider this post to be for my own edification: I want to be able to find these articles next time I talk to someone who doesn't understand why we attacked Iraq.

- James Lileks on the weekend protests.
- Steven Den Beste on the failure of internationalism.
- Tons of photos from the "peace protest" in San Francisco. This stuff makes me sick.
- First-hand reporting on the anemic protests in San Diego by BFL buddy Citizen Smash.

And on protectionism:
- Pete Du Pont explains how fears of out-sourcing could lead to another great depression.

Joel Thomas, one of my commenters, makes a good point. The War on Terror will make us safer in the long run, but in the short run it might make life more dangerous. Even if our safety level does not increase monotonically we'll be better off in the long-run for having defeated terror than we would have been if we had endured the status quo ante forever.

This argument undermines the the second half of the combined claim that (a) attacking Iraq incited more world terrorism and (b) that such incitement is bad and demonstrates that we shouldn't have attacked Iraq. (a) may be true, but even if it is it doesn't necessarily follow that (b) is true. The goal of the War on Terror is to reduce the long-term threat level, even if we have to make intermediate sacrifices towards that end.

Since there's no real way to know what the long-term effects of the status quo ante would have been, it's impossible to prove or disprove (b). (b) becomes intangible, even if (a) can be numerically demonstrated.

The "spiritual leader" and founder of Palestinian terrorist group Hamas was killed by an Israeli missile strike. Palestinians are outraged, because apparently only Israelis are supposed to be blown up without warning.

Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the founder and leader of the Hamas militant group that targeted Israelis in suicide bombings, was killed by missiles fired from Israeli helicopters as he left a mosque at daybreak Monday, witnesses said.

Hamas confirmed the death in an announcement broadcast over mosque loudspeakers and vowed revenge against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. ...

Thousands of angry Palestinians gathered minutes after the attack, calling for revenge against Israel.

In announcing Yassin's death, Hamas said, "(Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon has opened the gates of hell and nothing will stop us from cutting off his head." ...

Outside the morgue at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh, a close associate of Yassin, had tears in his eyes as he confirmed Yassin's death and pledged revenge.

I'm sure there's more blood to be shed, and it's horrifying, but maybe Israel is finally realizing that band-aids won't cure the disease of Palestinian terror.

"This is the moment Sheik Yassin dreamed about," Haniyeh said. "Sheik Yassin lived and died and offered his life to Palestine. Sheik Yassin was a hero and a fighter and the leader of a nation, and (he) is in heaven now."

He dreampt of the moment, but wasn't willing to blow himself up to take out a few Israeli school-children.

Past Israeli governments were reluctant to target Yassin, fearing a firestorm of revenge attacks.

I pray for peace in Israel every night, but real peace only comes through victory. Negotiated peace between such staunch ideological opponents never lasts -- I can't think of a single example.

French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin is either stupid or a liar. Or both, I guess.

The world is a more dangerous place because of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which may have toppled Saddam Hussein but also unleashed postwar violence and an upswing in terrorism, the French foreign minister said.

Fewer people are dying in post-war violence in Iraq than were killed, raped, and tortured under Saddam's regime. That's a fact, and all the numbers support it. This doesn't even count the lives that improving medical care, access to clean water, and electricity are saving.

"We have to look reality in the face: we have entered into a more dangerous and unstable world, which requires the mobilization of the entire international community," de Villepin said.

Assertions by the administration of President Bush that ousting Saddam would make the world a safer place proved not to be true, de Villepin said.

More dangerous for whom? Iraqis? Terrorists? Cowards who were making hundreds of billions of dollars from selling Saddam weapons and buying Iraqi oil?

"Terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before," de Villepin said. "Today, it is one of the world's principal sources of world terrorism."

Really? Saddam wasn't a "terrorist" because he sent a representative to the UN and lined the pockets of French officials with oil contracts -- but he's responsible for many more deaths than Osama Bin Laden.

And now Iraq is a principle source of world terrorism? Funny, I haven't read any stories about Iraqi terrorists blowing up Spanish trains or French oil tankers. Huh.

If only we could return to the golden age of UN-sponsored graft and corruption! Sure, lots of poor, brown people got butchered, but that's really an internal problem. As long as the oil kept pouring out and the weapons kept pouring in we should have just minded our own business.

Update:
Jay Redding has some examples of pre-liberation non-Saddam terrorism in Iraq (via Slings-n-Arrows).

The Business at Hand.

GeekPress points to some great war cartoons by Dr. Seuss on the topic of appeasement. Spain and Europe should take note of my favorite.

StrategyPage has an interesting take on Europe's affinity for terrorists: it's a hostage game.

European nations have long had an "understanding" with Islamic radicals. The Europeans would grant Islamic radicals in general, and their leaders (and their families in particular) sanctuary, as long as there was no terrorist violence in Europe. This arrangement has largely succeeded, if only because the Islamic radical leaders resident in Europe were, in effect, hostages. Start killing Europeans, and we ship you, your wives and kids back to the countries that want to try you for murder and rebellion.

I hadn't heard it put quite this way before, but it makes a lot of sense. Ironically for "liberal" Europe, this is a very conservative (as in "safe and historically common") strategy.

Kings and other nobles have long taken mostly-voluntary hostages from each other in the forms of adopted children, wives, and concubines. According to the Bible, King Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (who caused him no end of trouble), largely taken for political purposes. Such hostages were used to cement alliances and enforce subjugation in the days when communication was no faster than a man could walk. If an alliance was broken or a subject nation rebelled the hostages were either killed or used as bargaining chips.

Taking wives and concubines had other obvious benefits as well, since they would bear children of mixed nationality who could be raised loyal/friendly to the king. Such offspring could later be sent back to their mothers' countries to as ambassadors, messengers, or what-not.

Unfortunately for Europe, it doesn't appear that the Arab Muslim populations they're sheltering are assimilating or becoming loyal or friendly to their hosts. Although taking female hostages and slaves was historically common, the women were always married to native men and thus forced to assimilate; Europe's strategy seems to be to give their immigrants free socialized benefits with no strings attached.

I'm stunned, but it looks like the recent terrorist attacks in Spain have actually thrust the underdog Socialist party into power.

The leader of Spain's victorious Socialists said Monday he will withdraw his nation's support for the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, restating a campaign promise a day after his party won elections overshadowed by terrorist bombings.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, calling the war that ousted Saddam Hussein an "error," said he would recall Spanish troops from Iraq by June 30 unless the United Nations assumes control of multinational military operations there.

The Spanish contribution hasn't been large, but its symbolic value has been an important refutation of the charge of American "unilateralism".

It's amazing how spineless some people are, and how eager they are to surrender rather than fight. One bomb and the UN scuttles off from Iraq to Cyprus, and now the terrorists have knocked out Spain with one blow. It's pathetic.

The events in Spain should serve as a warning to America -- not because we should be afraid for our trains, but because we need to strengthen our will against the possibility of future attacks aimed at us. It's virtually certain that America will be successfully attacked by terrorists again sometime in the future, but it's critically important that we don't let such attacks break our will to fight. That's the only way the terrorists can win. They can't beat us militarily; the only way we can lose is if they frighten us and send us cringing into the corner.

The Spanish Socialists are cowards, and so are the Spaniards who put them in power. So is anyone who would hide behind the dictators that run the UN rather than stand up and fight against tyranny and terror. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty."

Grow up, world. Get a pair.

Update:
I want to know the demographic breakdown of the Spanish vote, specifically age and gender. Any links?

Update 2:
Jacob Levy over at the VC has a different take, but he misses my primary point.

I'm more than a little disturbed by the widespread blogging to the effect that the Spanish election results represent a great victory of al-Qaeda, that they show that European countries can successfully be blackmailed by terrorism, etc. It's particularly grating to see such commentary from Americans who, collectively, had had much less experience with terrorism on their home soil than had Spaniards.

If the Socialists were not appeasers before M-11-- if a victory on their part wouldn't have been a victory for terrorism-- then the intervening act of terrorism doesn't change that.

(Emphasis his.) But the attacks do change the equation. The terrorist attacks potentially changes the minds of many voters who had, up until then, suppressed their cowardice. That's not meant to be an insult -- suppressing cowardice is generally called "bravery". But these attacks pushed the Spanish electorate over the edge and broke their will. Which is exactly what the terrorists were trying to do. Therefore, Mr. Levy may not think the effects of this terrorist victory are very substantial, there's no denying victory itself.

Everyone seems pretty sure that these bomb attacks in Spain that killed almost 200 people and wounded 1200 weren't the work of Islamofacists. The only point against that conclusion is that the Basque separatists everyone is blaming haven't claimed responsibility yet.

A top Basque politician, Arnold Otegi, denied the separatists were behind the blasts and blamed "Arab resistance," noting that Spain's government backed the Iraq war despite domestic opposition. Many al-Qaida-linked terrorists also were captured in Spain or were believed to have operated from there.

Terrorists are normally eager to put their names to their actions to ensure they get the right people's attention, but I don't know if the Basques generally operate in the same way.

Update, a minute later:
Now Drudge's top headline is that documents and recordings in Arabic have been found....

As I've said before: gas prices are too high, it's time to invade another oil country. I just paid $2.23 for a gallon of 87 octane! I think Liberty Bob has the right idea, even though he doesn't have any permalinks.

That leaves the oil producing countries. What can we do about that? Well, there are two options; either they know that they are causing us economic harm or they do not know. If they don’t know, we’ll just give them a jingle and say, “Hey, you guys aren’t making enough oil and that’s hurting our economy. Could you make some more, please?” Then they’ll say, “Oh, our bad. We didn’t know. We’ll make more right away. And while we’re on the subject of more, can you send us more blue jeans? These dresses all of our men wear make us look goofy and it’s getting embarrassing.” Then the problem will be solved. ...

Naturally, if you have one country intentionally going out of their way to cause harm (not the harm that may be caused through regular competition) then it is surely an act of war. How does one deal with an act of war? That’s easy, one resorts to saturation bombing. This time when we give them a little jingle we say, “Did you guys know that you’re low oil exports are causing us harm?” They’ll respond, “Of course we are causing you harm. We don’t like you and will continue to cause you harm to the best of our ability. Ha, ha, ha.” Then we say, “Been nice talking to you. By the way, you may want to head to the basement.” (Note for those living in coastal areas of Louisiana and Florida: A basement is a room underground beneath the house. Note for those from Louisiana: These are letters which are markings used to draw sounds.)

I've heard this sentiment from several liberal Californians, as well. The thing is, in California at least, much of the blame for high prices lies with environmentalist wackos who won't let us build new refineries or drill for cheap oil off the coast. Maybe we should give them a jingle.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave an excellent speech yesterday discussing the reality of the threat posed to civilization by terrorists and terrorist nations. You should go read the whole thing -- I wish President Bush and his speechwriters were this clear and direct.

One of the most interesting and important points comes at the end, and signals a potential sea change in international relations.

Which brings us to how you make the rules and how you decide what is right or wrong in enforcing them. The UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a fine document. But it is strange the United Nations is so reluctant to enforce them.

I understand the worry the international community has over Iraq. It worries that the US and its allies will by sheer force of their military might, do whatever they want, unilaterally and without recourse to any rule-based code or doctrine.

But our worry is that if the UN - because of a political disagreement in its Councils - is paralysed, then a threat we believe is real will go unchallenged. ...

It means reforming the United Nations so its Security Council represents 21st century reality; and giving the UN the capability to act effectively as well as debate.

It means getting the UN to understand that faced with the threats we have, we should do all we can to spread the values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, religious tolerance and justice for the oppressed, however painful for some nations that may be; but that at the same time, we wage war relentlessly on those who would exploit racial and religious division to bring catastrophe to the world.

I haven't heard this kind of talk from a national leader before; although President Bush came close at times, I don't remember him openly calling for the UN Security Council to be "reformed".

Still, the UN has exactly as much power and credibility as the nations its built of. I'm not sure a reformed UN with liberal democratic principles would be of any more use than our current model of "coalitions of the willing".

My impression is that this kind of last-minute manuvering is typical in Arab politics.

There's a lot that could be written about the follies of foreign aid, but let's look at just a couple of examples.

First, the post that prompted these thoughts: Perry de Havilland says that most foreign aid is a crime based on a lie.

It will come as no surprise to anyone with a 100+ IQ and a modicum of knowledge about how the world works that Robert Mugabe and his murderous kleptocrats have appropriated more that £100 million (US $190 million) in aid sent to Zimbabwe by Britain and the EU.

As that was only to be expected, I cannot say it adds significantly to my loathing of the Mugabe regime. What does fill me with utter contempt is that the people responsible for this utterly predictable outcome still allowed the money to be sent in the first place.

As I have previously argued many times before about foreign aid, to send money for ostensibly humanitarian aims to a nation governed by a tyranny is to become the logistic support arm of that tyranny: insulating the regime from the economic (and hence political) consequences of its actions and thereby indirectly, but in a very real sense, making the regime more likely to survive than would otherwise be the case. That is true even if the humanitarian aid does indeed reach the people and projects it is targeted at.

Read his post for specific examples of how Zimbabwe has used Britain's money (like running youth camps that teach kids how to rape each other).

Similarly, I've argued that America's lax immigration policy serves as a crutch for Mexico's kleptocracy. Without the constant influx of American money, Mexico would have been forced into reform long ago.

Here's a short piece from the National Center for Policy Analysis that explains exactly what our foreign aid buys us (data from 1998).

- In the 1997 UN session, 74 percent of U.S. foreign aid recipients voted against the United States a majority of the time -- up from 68 percent in 1996 and 64 percent in 1995 (see figure).

- Of the 10 largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid, six voted against the United States more than half the time, the same level as in the 1996 UN session. (see figure)

- Furthermore, the 10 countries with the highest percentage of votes against the United States are scheduled to receive some $230 million in foreign aid in fiscal year 1998 (see figure).

In other words, we're financing our enemies.

Finally, for now, here's an article by the Cato Institute's James A. Dorn that advocates eliminating foreign aid and instead opening markets to third world products. As a specific example, US and EU sugar subsidies keep prices artificially depressed and prevent African sugar producers from being able to sell us their product. Instead of sending cash to corrupt dictators, why don't we eliminate these harmful subsidies and buy sugar from the cheapest international sources? It's a winning solution for everyone (except domestic sugar producers, who'll have to find something else to grow).

Some details of Iraq's new interim constitution have been released, and there are a couple troubling details.

The document "strikes a balance between the role of Islam and the bill of individual rights and democratic principles," the official said.

It's nto clear what the "role of Islam" will be, but whatever it is I'm sure it'll be more that would be ideal.

The details of how the northern Kurds would be integrated into the system haven't been addressed yet, apparently, but:

Kurdish leaders had demanded the right to keep their peshmerga militia as a distinct armed force and to control oil and other resources in their region. They also sought to add districts to the autonomous area. ...

Shiites, who dominate southern Iraq, insisted that if the Kurds had the right to self-rule in their northern strongholds, Shiites should enjoy the same privilege in areas of the south where they predominate.

Nothing will guarantee failure better than the existence of multiple, autonomous military forces.