International Affairs: March 2006 Archives

Most people must be wondering why the minor labor reforms proposed in France have set off such a firestorm of protest, and David Rennie points to the answer: France is in denial about capitalism.

PIPA [Program on International Policy Attitudes], together with the polling form Globalscan, asked 20,791 people in 20 large countries about their attitudes to the free market, and globalization. The key question asked respondents if they agreed or disagreed with the statement that "the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world."

In 19 countries, a plurality said yes - with the Chinese beating even Americans in showing the greatest enthusiasm for the new economic benefits, comforts, opportunities and freedoms that capitalism has brought them.

Fully 74 per cent of Chinese urbanites (the poll did not question rural dwellers in China) placed their faith in free enterprise. Others that were nearly as enthusiastic were the Philippines (73 per cent), the US (71 per cent), India (70 per cent), and Britain (66 per cent).

One country - France - disagreed strongly. Only 36 per cent of the French agreed that the free market economy is the best system, while 50 per cent disagreed.

French distrust of free enterprise far exceeded, by ten points or so, even such losers in the global capitalist rat-race as the Argentines and Russians.

Does anyone really doubt that President Chirac and Prime Minister de Villepin will eventually cave in and reject the proposed reforms? The Franch surrender, that's what they do.

(Here's more information about the survey of global attitudes towards capitalism.)

The death penalty case in Afghanistan against Muslim-turned-Christian Abdul Rahman has been dismissed, but for "lack of evidence" rather than because the "crime" shouldn't be a crime at all.

An Afghan court on Sunday dismissed a case against a man who converted from Islam to Christianity because of a lack of evidence and he will be released soon, officials said.

The announcement came as U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai faced mounting foreign pressure to free Abdul Rahman, a move that risked angering Muslim clerics here who have called for him to be killed.

An official closely involved with the case told The Associated Press that it had been returned to the prosecutors for more investigation, but that in the meantime, Rahman would be released.

"The court dismissed today the case against Abdul Rahman for a lack of information and a lot of legal gaps in the case," the official said Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

So there's no problem with executing people who convert away from Islam, as long as you've got enough evidence. This could be a step in the right direction if the "lack of evidence" thing is just a cover for a lack of desire to prosecute.

Dean Esmay points out that at least some of the Afghan government is emerging from the dark ages.

Think on it: President Karzai of Afghanistan actually felt the need to take phone calls on this matter from the Canadian Prime Minister. And the American Secretary of State. And the German Prime Minster. And the leaders of many other democratic nations. And he felt the need to take their concerns seriously. And he felt the need to assure them all that this man would not be executed. All of which actually happened within the last 72 hours.

Read that all as an indictment of the eville moooslims if you like. I read it as a country that is emerging at astonishing speed from the 12th century into the 21st.

Ben Bateman writes on conflict in general and points out that peace isn't the natural state of humanity. There are always people willing to commit violence to get what they want, just like we see in Iraq, and the only reason they aren't seen more commonly in America is that they realize they can't win. The fighting in Iraq, likewise, will end when the terrorists realize they can't win. Media outlets and politicians that advocate American surrender and claim we're losing give the terrorists the impression they they can win and are winning, and thereby do in fact aid and abet the terrorist cause.

Talking about “resolving conflicts” implies that conflicts just sort of happen, like the weather. On this view, the world is normally at peace, and then these tensions arise inexplicably, so we should try to soothe the tension and return the world to its usual peaceful state.

I see it very differently. In a world of infinite desires and finite resources, people are always in conflict. Everyone wants more: more power, more wealth, more affection, more fame, more whatever. Each of us would like to receive as much as possible while giving as little as possible, so conflict is eternal and ubiquitous. ...

I want to pay less money, the shopkeeper wants to receive more, and so we haggle. Each congressman wants more money for his state or district and less for everyone else’s, and so we have the many complex deals at the heart of American politics. Each country wants to be more powerful, rich, and influential than the others, so they struggle against each other in various ways. And within each country there are out-of-power parties that yearn to rule; they scheme constantly against the dominant party or coalition.

There won't be peace until the terrorists realize they can't win. The media and the opposition politicians could be playing a constructive role and helping America, if they chose to.

It's sad to see France crumble, but it's hardly news. As yet more riots erupt across the country the ruling class struggles to loosen the noose of socialism that's been strangling their economy for decades.

The law would allow businesses to fire young workers in the first two years on a job without giving a reason, removing them from protections that restrict layoffs of regular employees.

Companies are often reluctant to add employees because it is hard to let them go if business conditions worsen. Students see a subtext in the new law: make it easier to hire and fire to help France compete in a globalizing world economy.

Youth joblessness stands at 23 percent nationwide, and 50 percent among impoverished young people. The lack of work was blamed in part for the riots that shook France's depressed suburbs during the fall.

I don't blame the French youths for rioting, because the proposed law is patently unfair to them. Older workers will continue to enjoy untouchable job security, so why should the youth be treated differently? But you've got to start somewhere, and if the law applied to everyone the resulting riots would be unquenchable. That's the danger of a government that tries to be everything to everyone: when it falls, it falls hard. France is already on her fifth republic, and I doubt it will be too long before this one passes away.

All the talk on the shows this morning was about whether or not Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. It doesn't look like it to me, but am I the only one who thinks that a civil war might be the only way to really establish peace? The fighting will never stop as long as both sides can and choose to make war, and I can't think of many (any?) violent conflicts that resolved themselves through choice. The way most conflicts get resolved is when someone wins and the losing side can't continue fighting even though they want to.

In the case of Iraq there are a few problems with just letting the violence play out. First, even if we take our troops out there are plenty of other outside players like Iran and Turkey that will be vying for control of the country. Second, there's no guarantee that the right side will win the hypothetical civil war. Statistics are thrown around claiming that the vast majority of Iraqis support the new government, but will they fight for it?

Wars are effective at bringing about peace because they remind people oh how much violence can really cost. The the current level of harrassment th eterrorists and insurgents receive from our forces isn't enough to deter them from fighting, so they keep it up. In a real war our violence would be much less focused, and not only the terrorists would be in danger but their families and towns as well. People respond to incentives, and we clearly haven't given our opponents enough reason to stop fighting. The only alternative for us, other than surrendering, is to thoroughly eliminate our enemies' ability to continue fighting and to utterly break their will.

This drawing by David Klein captures the nuclear negotiations between Britain, France, and Germany on one side and Iran on the other. (I hate the term "cartoon" for drawings that aren't intended for humor.)

Leon de Winter is right in his analysis of the failure of soft power when it comes to disarming Iran, and his final paragraph is especially chilling.

And yet Britain's Jack Straw, France's Philippe Douste-Blazy (and his predecessor, Dominique de Villepin) and Germany's Joschka Fischer (and his successor, Frank-Walter Steinmeier) talked on, clinging to a postmodern European belief in a world where any conflict can be resolved with enough reason and mutual understanding. The Troika offered the mullahs economic carrots and alternative sources of nuclear power--as if energy had anything to do with it--while Iran did what any football team does when it's ahead: It played for time. This it used very well to push ahead with its clandestine nuclear program.

Did the Troika know that Iran knew that Europe was weak? Of course. Europe's posturing was empty from the start. The only weapon that the EU was willing to consider, as a last result, was an economic boycott that would harm Europe's commercial interests more than Iran's. ...

Thanks to European illusions about soft power, the free world has two options left on Iran: disaster or catastrophe. America and Israel will bleed for Europe's lack of conviction.

Which illustrates why countries don't have "allies", they have interests. Allies are other countries with the same interests as yours in a given context. Unfortunately, America often ends up standing alone.