International Affairs: July 2005 Archives

Foreign Policy has a neat report with statistics about failed states that should prove interesting to anyone interested in international politics. Most of their reasoning appears rational, except for their chart showing the effects of foreign aid and stability.

We compared the amount of foreign aid countries receive per capita with the index rankings and found that the countries at greatest risk of collapse often get paltry amounts of aid. The exceptions appear to be countries that have been the recipients of large-scale international military intervention. Afghanistan, Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, and Sierra Leone are high-risk states that get above-average foreign aid (Bosnia gets the most by far).

But "paltry" is only defined on the chart relative to Bosnia, Iraq, and the Congo, all three of which are statistical outliers that are occupied (or nearly so) by multinational forces. The other failed nations on their chart are spread out evenly across the spectrum of foreign aid, and the chart itself appears to indicate that there's no correlation between stability and receiving foreign aid.

I've written many times that most foreign aid goes straight into the pockets of tyrants and doesn't help oppressed people at all. In fact, it's easy to argue that foreign aid to failed states actually aids oppression by preventing the removal of the dictators who ruined the state in the first place.

(HT: The Belmont Club.)

My brother pointed me to two articles about the six-party talks aimed at containing North Korea and wonders which translation of (apparently) the same Chinese sentence is correct. First, from Forbes is this version (in bold):

China's spokesman Qin said 'joint efforts' are still needed in order to achieve 'positive results' in the talks, which also include China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

'I hope that all sides can demonstrate sincerity, flexibility and pragmatism to move forward step by step,' Qin said.

Then there's this second version from Bloomberg:

``Our impression is all parties are sincere, earnest and realistic,'' Chinese delegation spokesman Qin Gang told reporters in Beijing. ``All the parties are exchanging frank and serious views on how to promote a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.''

It may be the case that these are translations of two different quotes, but the constructions are so similar (except for the "step-by-step" phrase) that my brother's guess that they're from the same Chinese sentence is reasonable. So which is the correct translation? The meanings are quite different, and I hope all the parties involved in the talks know what is actually being said. Of course, it goes without saying that most diplospeak is utterly devoid of meaning no matter how it's translated.

Update:
My brother sends more translations. Houston Chronicle:

Qin Gang, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, also expressed optimism.

"This is a solid foundation for us to usher our talks into a stage of more in-depth discussion and make important progress," he said. "We need to show faith, confidence, resolve and patience. We have to make unremitting efforts."

CRI Online (which also has audio):

Chinese delegation spokesperson, Qin Gang says frequent bilateral consultations have been held between different parties such as between China and the U.S. and North Korea and the U.S. on the first day of the six party talks.

"One characteristic of this round of six party talks is the frequent and intense bilateral consultations between different parties. I believe this demonstrates that all the six parties have taken an active, serious and practical attitude."

China View:

All the delegations participating in the ongoing fourth round of six-party talks on Korean Peninsulanuclear issue have adopted a positive, sincere and pragmatic attitude, Qin Gang said.

"The general impression we have got is that all parties involved are positive, sincere and pragmatic in the discussions," said Qin.

Max Boot has an insightful article that points out some of the indirect ways that China is already waging war against America.

"Unrestricted Warfare" recognizes that it is practically impossible to challenge the U.S. on its own terms. No one else can afford to build mega-expensive weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost more than $200 billion to develop. "The way to extricate oneself from this predicament," the authors write, "is to develop a different approach."

Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters).

Cols. Qiao and Wang write approvingly of Al Qaeda, Colombian drug lords and computer hackers who operate outside the "bandwidths understood by the American military." They envision a scenario in which a "network attack against the enemy" — clearly a red, white and blue enemy — would be carried out "so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network and mass media network are completely paralyzed," leading to "social panic, street riots and a political crisis." Only then would conventional military force be deployed "until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty."

Significantly, these kinds of attacks play to the strengths of totalitarian nations that can eliminate personal freedom and force their subjects into staged events. It's difficult for America to protect itself against these threats without curtailing the liberty that enables our strong economy and direct military might.

(HT: Instapundit.)

It's awful to read about it, but I'm sure the escalating violence in Iraq is far scarier for those who actually have to live through it.

IRAQ is slipping into all-out civil war, a Shia leader declared yesterday, as a devastating onslaught of suicide bombers slaughtered more than 150 people, most of them Shias, around the capital at the weekend.

One bomber killed almost 100 people when he blew up a fuel tanker south of Baghdad, an attack aimed at snapping Shia patience and triggering the full-blown sectarian war that al-Qaeda has been trying to foment for almost two years.

Iraq’s security forces have been overwhelmed by the scale of the suicide bombings — 11 on Friday alone and many more over the weekend — ordered by the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Pray for peace in Iraq, and for wise leaders who will make the decisions necessary to resolve the violence and bring the terrorists to justice.

Next time someone tries to tell you that Saddam Hussein had no connection to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, tell them to listen to that audio clip of ABC News coverage from 1999.

(HT: Instapundit.)

Just because the Global War on Terror isn't a "religious war" for us doesn't mean it isn't for them.

The man accused of killing Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh confessed to a Dutch court that he acted out of his religious beliefs, saying he would do "exactly the same" if he were ever set free.

"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," 27-year-old Dutch-Moroccan national Mohammed Bouyeri told the court in Amsterdam on the final day of his trial.

It would be nice to see our Muslim "ally" nations rebuke these kinds of statements.

The recent bombings in London are terrible in the extreme, and all my sympathy goes out to the Brits as they deal with this atrocity. I don't have any particular commentary to offer, but I'll be following the news as I know all of you will be. I wonder if the attacks could be intended as a security disctraction from the G8 in Scotland?

My brother and I stayed at King's Cross, the site of one explosion, when we were in London in 2001. Who thinks this couldn't have happened in Los Angeles, or San Francisco, or Chicago, or New York, or DC? Thomas Jefferson said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and not just against internal, legal threats. Islamofacsists want to annihilate our way of life, but they're too weak to fight us on the battlefield so they bring their bombs to our civilians... which means our civilians must be willing to fight back.

The UK has been our stauchest ally in the War on Terror, and today we will -- and must -- stand by our brothers and sisters across the pond and do whatever we can to avenge these attacks and deter future threats.

Check out The Jawa Report for developments. I encourage anyone who's so inclined to use the picture above to show their solidarity with the Brits.

Mr. Fu Chengyu, chairman and CEO of China's CNOOC Ltd. oil company, wrote an op-ed asking "Why Is America Worried?" about CNOOC's bid to buy Unocal. In the article he explains in great detail how the Chinese company will pay handsomly for Unocal, keep jobs and oil in America, and take prudent measures to avoid control of critical oil infrastructure.

Our company has grown shareholder value from a market cap of $6 billion when it listed four years ago, to $25 billion today. I will continue to focus on bringing value to CNOOC shareholders and am convinced that the acquisition of Unocal can help us. I will also be focused on providing our better offer for Unocal shareholders, on bringing oil and jobs to the United States, and on our assurances that we will be an open and responsible participant in the process.

An increase of more than 400% in four years is certainly attractive, but the bottom line is that CNOOC is a Chinese company that's ultimately controlled by the communist Chinese government. China is not our friend, and they don't pretend to be.

Wesley Pruden of the Washington Times has a great perspective on the nonsensical Live 8 concerts that would be particularly valuable for young people to read.

Tony Blair's No. 2 man, George Brown, talks giddily of a Marshall Plan for Africa, but Nigerian despots alone have already pocketed the equivalent of six Marshall Plans. George C. Marshall's miracle scheme for rebuilding Europe worked because mature European leadership was determined to rescue the continent from the ravages of World War II. There's scant evidence that Africa's "leaders" want anything more than to drink from the fire hose.

Live 8 concerts are nice, and the photographs of starving children will break the coldest heart, but unless Europe and the West accompany aid with the kind of supervision nobody has the courage to impose, the aid will wind up in the usual Swiss banks, and 20 years from now another generation of children will die while naive hearts bleed.

Africa is poor and dying because her leaders are all crooks.

I've never seen a bigger pile of steaming crap than the disgusting load of manure Kofi Annan dumped all over the Washington Post in an op-ed two weeks ago in which he claimed all the credit for progress in Iraq for himself and the UN. How did I miss seeing this before? The poop-pile wrote:

A year ago, in Resolution 1546, the U.N. Security Council set out the timetable that Iraq, with the assistance of the United Nations and the international community, was expected to fulfill. The Brussels conference is a chance to reassure the Iraqi people that the international community stands with them in their brave efforts to rebuild their country, and that we recognize how much progress has been made in the face of daunting challenges.

If by "the international community" he means the United States of America, the UK, Australia, and Poland, then fantastic. However, none of those countries is actually mentioned in his article... somehow the UN ends up getting credit for the blood and sweat of our soldiers. Wait... where there soldiers involved? Krapi Annan doesn't say! Maybe Saddam Hussein decided to peacefully resign in the face of perpetual UN weapons inspections. Kofi also fails to mention that one of the most "daunting" challenges has been getting the UN to do anything other than profiteer off the misery of the Iraqi people.

The United Nations has been strongly urged by a wide spectrum of Iraqis to help them maintain momentum, as we did with January's elections. They have sought our support in constitution-making, in preparing for the October referendum and the December elections, and in coordinating donor assistance for the political transition as well as reconstruction and development.

Oh yeah, Iraqis love the UN, especially the way they flee the country every time a bomb goes off.

Our response has been prompt and resolute. We have set up a donor coordination mechanism in Baghdad, deployed a Constitutional Support Unit, and established an active and collaborative relationship with the assembly's constitutional committee. Today more than 800 U.N. personnel -- both local and international, including security staff -- are serving in Iraq in the U.N. assistance mission.

800? And no mention of the 150,000 American and allied troops? No mention of the thousands of other Americans who have gone to Iraq to work and help them rebuild? How many tanks are in a "Constitutional Support Unit"?

Whether U.N. assistance proves effective will depend largely on the Iraqis. Only they can write a constitution that is inclusive and fair. The United Nations cannot and will not draft it for them. Nor do we need to, because Iraqis are more than capable of doing it themselves. They would welcome advice, but they will decide which advice is worth taking.

Could you be more condescending you enormous turd? I hate the UN; you're worse than useless. Kofi Annan is personally responsible for aiding and abetting genocide, so I'm sure glad the Iraqis have his permission to draft their own constitution -- hopefully they'll leave out the parts where "peacekeepers" rape women and children.

The Iraqi people continue to endure a painful and difficult transition, and they still have a long and tough road ahead. The United Nations is privileged and determined to walk it with them. In doing so, we serve not only the people of Iraq, but the peoples of all nations.

I'm completely astounded by Kofi's relentless lies, hubris, and self-promotion. As Nile Gardiner wrote:

After reading Annan’s piece, readers could be forgiven for believing the U.N. was largely responsible for the democratic changes sweeping Iraq, and for the country’s reconstruction. In truth, the U.N.’s role in post-war Iraq has been half-hearted. The U.N. deployed just 40 staff, including a meager 19 election experts, in support of the historic January 2005 National Assembly elections.

Read the rest of Mr. Gardiner's response to Kofi Annan's defecation all over the graves of the 1,700 allied troops who died to free Iraq, and not a blue helmet among them. The UN is one of the most corrupt, evil organizations ever conceived of by man, and Kofi Annan fits right in.

(HT: The Daily Spork.)