International Affairs: September 2004 Archives

The recent hurricanes have devestated Haiti, so please keep the people there in your prayers. If you can do more then please consider it.

GONAIVES, Haiti - Doctors are performing amputations without electricity or running water while waste from this city's shattered sewage system contaminates mud and floodwaters, infecting wounds that threaten to turn gangrenous.

Photo
AP Photo

More than a week after the passage of Tropical Storm Jeanne, the calamity in the northwest city of Gonaives has overwhelmed Haitians and foreign rescue workers.

Thousands remain hungry. Jean-Claude Kompas, a New York doctor who rushed to his native Haiti to volunteer his services last week, says he has treated 30 people for gunshot wounds received in fights over scarce food. Another of his patients was a child whose finger was chopped off with a machete — possibly also over food.

Jeanne killed more than 1,500 and left 200,000 homeless in the northwest city of Gonaives. With another 1,000 people reported missing, the toll is sure to rise.

"It's sad but true that the missing will slowly be started to be counted among the dead," said Brazilian Army Gen. Augusto Heleno Ribeiro Pereira, in charge of a U.N. peacekeeping force in Haiti.

The Bible teaches:

James 2:14-16
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?

Matthew 25:34-40
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

We who favor smaller government and less coerced compassion should be eager to step up to the plate and demonstrate that it doesn't take a tax collector to open our wallets.

(HT: Hugh Hewitt for the link to WorldVision, a Christian relief organization.)

CNSNews posts a summary of President Bush's remarks to the UN today, and right below it is a response by Senator Kerry.

"People everywhere are capable of freedom and worthy of freedom," President Bush told the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. "The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat - it is to prevail. The advance of freedom always carries a cost - paid by the bravest among us." President Bush said the United States "will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled." ... In his speech, President Bush proposed the establishment of a Democracy Fund within the U.N. "This is a great calling for this great organization," he said. "The fund would help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting the rule of law, independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions." He urged all other nations to join the U.S. in contributing to the Democracy Fund.

To which Kerry said:

The same day that President George W. Bush addressed the United Nations on the subject of Iraq, his Democratic challenger Sen. John F. Kerry criticized Bush for living in a "world of fantasy spin" instead of a "world of reality" when addressing the current conditions in Iraq. ... "After lecturing them instead of leading them to understand how we are all together with a stake in the outcome of Iraq, I believe the president missed an opportunity of enormous importance for our nation and for the world," Kerry said, calling the president's credibility into question.

In this instance I think Mr. Kerry is right. President Bush is delusional if he really thinks the despots that make up the majority of the UN are at all interested in promoting democracy around the world. However, if the President was instead attempting to draw a contrast between the liberty and freedom that America stands for and the corruption and oppression fostered by the United Nations, then I think he did a good job.

Hey terrorists, if Allah is so great then why don't yet let him do some kidnapping and beheading for a while? Or is it possible that you aren't really in line with what he wants you to be doing? Maybe the reason you're expending so much effort for so little gain is that God is working against you. Theory is fine and good, but when it doesn't work in practice then it may be time to reconsider.

Maybe I don't fully understand this AP piece citing an intelligence report's claims that Iraq's future is bleak, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

A highly classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by some of the government's most senior analysts this summer provided a pessimistic assessment about the future security and stability of Iraq.

The National Intelligence Council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined -- at best -- the situation would be tenuous in terms of stability, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic."

That sounds bad, but what about this key bit of information?

The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for President Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005. But the official noted that the document, which spans roughly 50 pages, draws on intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there.

So the report is just a prediction from before the invasion of what could happen? Is it really fair to say that the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated since January 2003? I don't think so. In fact, every report I've read points to a continually improving situation, even if it's improving more slowly than we might like.

The estimate contrasts with public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.

Well yeah, the report is an 18-month-old prediction that apparently isn't turning out to be true. If it doesn't match with what we're hearing now, shouldn't we conclude that the prediction was wrong? Or should we conclude that the prediction was right and that the President is lying to us?

This looks like a non-story to me. See here for more dire predictions that didn't come true.

Anyone who thinks the American media is a tool of the government should read a bit about how the Russian state media operates.

The Russian government admitted Sunday that it lied to its people about the scale of the hostage crisis that ended with more than 300 children, parents and teachers dead in southern Russia, making an extraordinary admission through state television after days of withering criticism from citizens.

As the bereaved families of Beslan in southern Russia began to lay their loved ones to rest Sunday, the Kremlin-controlled Rossiya network aired gripping, gruesome footage it had withheld from the public for days and said government officials had deliberately deceived the world about the number of hostages inside School No. 1.

"At such moments," anchor Sergei Brilyov declared, "society needs the truth." ...

Sergei Markov, a political analyst with close ties to the Kremlin, said the deadly outcome of the school standoff had left Putin at a loss for how to respond beyond the former KGB colonel's instinct to strengthen police powers and centralize control over government institutions. "They don't know what to do," he said. "Vladimir Putin didn't explain in detail what will be happening."

Speaking before the Sunday-night broadcast of the state television news program "Vesti", Markov said it had been clear that the government had engaged in a clumsy cover-up. "Everybody understands they are lying," he said. "Everybody can do the math and know there were more than 1,000 people inside the school."

The Kremlin sought to distance Putin from the deceptions through Sunday's broadcast, in which the anchor chided "generals and the military and civilians" for failing to act "until the president gives them ideas what to do." Pavlovsky said Putin had given Russia's political system "a no-confidence vote" for its handling of the crisis.

Such statements could never be aired unless the Kremlin directly ordered them, according to political analysts here. Criticism of the president is never broadcast on state television, the continuing war in Chechnya is almost never mentioned and even mild questioning of government policy is not allowed without prior approval from the Kremlin.

"Nothing happens on Rossiya television without the permission of the Kremlin," said commentator Andrei Piontkovsky.

If you've got the heart and stomach for it, read the second page of the article and share the grief of the hundreds of families shattered by this most-recent barbarity of Islamic terror.

I haven't mentioned the Russian school-hostage situation (or the plane bombings) because honestly I just don't know what to say about it. Any people who would do such a thing are profoundly evil. It's not a "different way of life". It's not a culture we have to understand. It's a cancer we have to ruthlessly and relentlessly purge from humanity. And now the terrorists have fired on children who tried to escape and were apparently dying of thirst.

There were scenes of pandemonium, as children ran terrified and half-naked through the streets grabbing water bottles from medics.

One boy described his escape.

"I smashed the window to get out," he told Russian TV. "People were running in all directions... [The rebels] shot from the roof."

Ambulances ferried hundreds of people to hospital. Our correspondent says at least 150 children were among them.

It sounds like the Russian troops tried to assault the school when they saw the terrorists shooting at the fleeing children. They had been intending to negotiate, but I don't imagine they could sit idly by while the children were gunned down, so they had to at least lay down some suppression fire. The details aren't very clear yet though, so we may not know exactly what's happening for a while.

FoxNews has more background.

Officials also told FOX News that 10 of the 20 terrorists killed by Russian soldiers were Arabs. ...

The hostage-taking was an unprecedented event in the region, according to a FOX News military analyst.

"The is a whole new escalation," said Air Force Lieutenant General (Ret.) Tom McInerney.

McInerney cautioned against criticizing Russia's security forces for their handling of the three-day-long standoff.

"You can't do a pinpoint strike. We have never seen such a large number of hostages taken by terrorists [in this region] before."

McInerney also said Washington had reason for alarm. "The question is whether it's going to roll West into Europe and into our own country," he said.

One reason something like this would be harder in America is because we have an armed citizenry. Of course, most people aren't allowed to carry guns in schools....

Wow, I hadn't read this elsewhere:

About a dozen [] hostage-takers escaped, with the Interfax new agency reporting that they split into three groups to blend in with the hostages and took refuge in a home nearby. Tank fire was heard from the area of the house, Interfax said, and gunfire rang out through the town for hours.

It's pretty surprising that some of the terrorists were able to escape, but they used a good strategy. Most hostage scenarios end with the death or capture of all the terrorists.

"They are very cruel people, we are facing a ruthless enemy," said Leonid Roshal, a pediatrician involved in the negotiations. "I talked with them many times on my cell phone, but every time I ask to give food, water and medicine to the hostages they refuse my request."

The ignorance of Kerry and Edwards and their refusal to learn from history defy comprehension. They want to reach an agreement with Iran that sounds remarkably similar to the failed agreement with North Korea.

Kerry aides said that, if elected, his administration, in cooperation with the European Union, would offer a deal to Iran that would allow the Islamic republic to retain its nuclear facilities. In return, Teheran would have to pledge to return all imported nuclear fuel acquired for its reactor at Bushehr.

Do any Democrats find it unseemly for their candidate to be making foreign policy announcements before winning the election? I believe this is without precedent.

"If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said.

And we know this how? All of Europe opposed Israel's strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, and they haven't been too keen on helping us do anything else recently. Oh wait, he said "friends"... I was thinking of France and Germany.

"At the end of the day [Bush officials] can argue all they want about their policies," Edwards said. "But the test is: Have they worked? And Iran is further along in developing a nuclear weapon than they were when George Bush came into office."

Dude, can we please just attack a few countries at a time? We've got troops surrounding Iran now, which you forgot to mention, so just give the President a little bit of a break.

Update:
Meanwhile, John Kerry gives us a detailed explanation of how he would have handled Iraq.

Under fire from some in his own party for failing to draw crisp and clear differences with Bush over the war in Iraq, military service and terrorism, the Democratic nominee offered one of his sharpest and most detailed explanations of how he would have handled the conflict and its aftermath differently. "When it comes to Iraq, it's not that I would have done one thing differently, I would have done almost everything differently," Kerry told the national convention of the American Legion here.

Whoa, don't overwhelm me with so many details.

Kerry said that the only aspect of the invasion on which he agreed with Bush was how swiftly and decisively the United States would win the initial war with Iraq. After that, Kerry said, Bush failed the "most solemn obligation" as commander in chief: "to make certain we had a plan to win the peace." He faulted Bush for stubbornly ignoring the advice of military commanders on the ground and politicians back home, dismissing the State Department's concerns about a postwar Iraq, and failing to secure Iraq's borders and draw in allies to relieve the burden on U.S. troops. Once inside Iraq, he said, the president botched opportunities to share responsibility with NATO or the United Nations, train indigenous Iraqi forces, safely secure prisoners of war and adequately guard nuclear waste and ammunition storage sites. Kerry said he would have not made those mistakes -- which Republicans counter is easy to say in hindsight.

Those aren't details of what he would have done differently, that's just a list of things that went wrong. Well duh, it would have been nice if they hadn't. If I had been President I would have converted Saddam's army to our side and handed out candy canes to everyone. But what would have been the cost of re-allocating resources to avoid these problems? Doing so might have fulfilled even more dire predictions.