The Bleeding Rhino

This is war

2008-11-28T18:11:00.005Z

The Times of India recognises this for what it is: war.

"This nation is under attack. The scale, intensity and level of orchestration of terror attacks in Mumbai put one thing beyond doubt: India is effectively at war and it has deadly enemies in its midst."

The editorial also has some familiar suggestions:

"Constitutional experts must put their hands together to see whether under existing laws any special, but temporary, powers can be given to the security agencies. All major political parties should be taken into confidence to see what urgent steps can be taken to prevent the nation from sinking deeper into chaos. There is a pressing need to restructure India's security architecture. A federal agency to deal with terrorism has been suggested by this newspaper and now by the PM. A coordinated effort to process information gleaned by state and central agencies should help to transform randomly collected information into actionable intelligence.

The government should immediately work on an internal security doctrine that demarcates the role of various security wings and a clear command structure to deal with terrorism. This should include contingency plans for various scenarios which lay out in advance how to respond to them. Tougher laws, in consultation with the opposition, may also be needed to control terror."

And observations:

"Besides terrorists coming in from the Arabian Sea, their looking for Americans, Britons and Israelis give the signal that the attack on Mumbai is a spillover from the larger war on terror. Al-Qaeda is, for the first time, feeling the pressure in its Pakistani sanctuaries as it is under Pakistani and American attack. But South Asian borders are notoriously porous. Al-Qaeda affiliated organisations such as Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI) have struck deep roots in Bangladesh.

To tackle terror in India it is urgently necessary to stabilise Pakistan and Bangladesh. And, India should seek international help now to upgrade its own security apparatus, but also to stabilise the entire region stretching from Afghanistan to Bangladesh. There is no time to waste."

Obama lines up more heavyweights

2008-11-25T22:06:00.004Z

Obama looks set to unveil a strong national security team next week with Robert Gates remaining at DOD and former NATO chief General James Jones slotting in as national security adviser.

This illustrates that the president-elect, who is doubtless aware of the "soft power" he oozes, realises that "hard power" is still the currency of international relations when dealing with actors who do not share consonant interests. This is shaping up to be a tough administration, with a keen interest in clever diplomacy, and an unprecedented resevoir of global appeal. That should be a potent cocktail.

Alas, what the White House will be missing

2008-11-21T21:07:00.001Z

Absolute babble once again

2008-11-11T19:46:00.002Z

If Governor Palin wants to have a future in American politics, she needs to salvage her career in Alaska (where her approval ratings plunged 20 points during the campaign) and start studying the many policy areas that prompted her fall from grace. This interview with NBC is riddled with same sort of nonsense we heard from her over the past three months and she's not even discussing foreign or domestic policy. If she keeps this up, she won't give independents, who turned out quite decisively against her, a chance to refresh their opinions because these interviews reinforce her worst impressions. Moreover, she is addressing the gathering of GOP governors shortly - everyone knows she is popular with the base, so this won't change anything. She has plenty of time to learn the ropes and this is the worst way to go. What's the rush?

The Great War ninety years on

2008-11-11T17:13:00.003Z

DULCE ET DECORUM EST

By

Wilfred Owen

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.

*It is sweet and honourable to die for one's country.

Quote of the week

2008-11-09T19:28:00.001Z

"And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world -- our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down -- we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security -- we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright --tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope."

President-elect Barack Obama, Chicago, IL, 11/04/08

What can you say?

2008-11-09T19:21:00.003Z

These Orthodox priests broke into an Orthodox bar room brawl at a chruch service in Jerusalem today.

Apparently Greek and Armenian Orthodox priests in Jerusalem never got the memo about the Second Coming in Washington. Or maybe they're fighting over him?

In any case, this is exactly what Jerusalem needs. Israel is long over due another flare up.

What can you do other than laugh?

Bruni speaks out against Euro-racism

2008-11-09T19:09:00.003Z

Nicholas Sarkozy's glamorous wife, Carla Bruni, has joined the chorus of Europeans who are currenlty decrying European racism in light of Obama's electoral triumph.

Mrs Bruni singled out Silvio Berlusconi for his lack of class in describing Obama's "suntan". The Italian born star said this type of incident makes her glad she became French.

Of course, even the wife of France's president recognizes the country is far from perfect and has signed a declaration calling for positive discrimination, unimaginatively entitled "Yes We Can."

If nothing else, Mrs Bruni well have made her husband squirm. A triumph in its own right.

Joke of the week?

2008-11-09T15:43:00.004Z

Hans-Gert Pottering, president of the European Parliament, is bustling with excitement over the rise of American interest in EU politics:

"It would be wonderful to think that the intense interest with which Europeans are following today's US presidential election might be matched by Americans watching the European parliamentary elections in June 2009."

Right. I would be surprised if Europeans show the same level of interest as they have shown in the American elections, nevermind Americans themselves.

China gets the nod

2008-11-09T14:43:00.002Z

Chinese state media reported this morning that President-elect Obama and President Hu Jintao spoke yesterday on the telephone.

They discussed issues such as Taiwan with Hu stressing respect and accommodation. President-elect Obama allgedly flattered his fellow conversationist: "The relationship between the United States and China is the most vital relationship on today's international stage".

We shall see who what other leaders were lucky enough to be waiting by the telephone yesterday.

What's in a phone call?

2008-11-08T23:42:00.007Z

When trying to assess the exact configuration of President-elect Obama's foreign policy priorities, the Rhino has been trying to track his phone calls to world leaders.

On Thursday he spoke with the leaders of Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, the UK, Germany, France, Israel, and Australia. That would be an obvious first nine calls to make for any president-elect. He has since spoken with the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Italy, Poland, and Pakistan.

Having presumably discussed his suntan with Berlusconi, the call to President Zardari in Pakistan was a wise one. Many experts, Vice President-elect Biden ranking highly amongst them, see the gargantuan danger that the current mess in Pakistan presents. It is very plausible that Pakistan could present the considerable foreign policy challenge of his administration, given that the situation there worsens daily and is inextricably linked to Afghanistan. With that in mind, has he spoken to Karzai or Maliki yet?

And, given the obvious importance that India enjoys on the world stage, not least as the world's largest democracy that has an obvious interest in Pakistan and the potential to be a positive counter-balance to China - why is Obama leaving the leaders in New Delhi lurking by the telephone like lovestruck teenagers? [Added to this is the reality that the US and India recently signed a civilian nuclear agreement that has mammoth geopolitical implications]

The president-elect has also spoken with the manikin that pretends to be in charge in Moscow. Is Moscow more important than Beijing? Or less deserving of some tough love?

Surely a call to Brasilia is on the horizon shortly. Given Obama has to address some pressing humanitarian matters as well, calls to Bangkok [on Myanmar] and Pretoria [on the entire continent, not least the current flare up in the DRC] would be prudent. I do add that South Africa is my native land so that may explain any personal bias. However, I do feel that given the scale of the challenges posed by the continet, it would be wise for the president-elect to start cultivating meaningful relastionships in a region where he is now the number one celebrity. He could, of course, be forgiven for not knowing who is actually in charge in South Africa - God only knows.

One cannot read too much into phone calls, but on first glance no fundamental realignment in international relations suggests itself. What is worth watching is where India and China figure on the pecking order, given Beijing and New Delhi have yet to receive the magic phone call, even though President Bush attempted to befriend both.

On another point of personal bias, Irish-Americans are feeling a little discomfort at the fact that the president-elect has yet to return the phone call made by the Irish Prime Minister [Taoiseach]. This same group were, quite unreasonably, perturbed when Obama did not include the emerald isle on his photo-call tour of Europe. Had Irish-Americans wanted a president who would pay lip service to Ireland then Clinton or McCain would have been better choices - remember, McCain is so infatuated with Ireland he brought her up in every debate. The reality is, with peace in Northern Ireland achieved, Ireland actually having a higher per-capita GDP then the United States (not for long), and with Obama elected, he has no reason to rank Ireland too highly on his list of foreign policy priorities. Nevertheless, one is confident that The One is not too bitter over being last in line in the 2004 Chicago St. Patrick's Day parade, as he siezed on St. Patrick's Day 2008 as an opporutinty to hold palaver with then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, don his favourite green tie, and address a group of Irish-Americans, who he duly informed of his own Irish heritage.

As then Seanadoir Baraic O'Bama pointed out: "it never hurts to be a little Irish when running from for the presidency of the United States." Indeed. It worked for sixteen others.

He has already expressed his desire to follow in the footsteps of Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton and visit the ancestral homeland of over forty million Americans, himself included. He will, no doubt, stay true to his words. Perhaps as election 2012 fast approaches.

Probably not the message the post-racial president-elect had in mind

2008-11-08T23:23:00.004Z

The Irish Times has this little gem nestled in the middle of a report on the President-elect's day on Friday:

'The new chief of staff's [Rahm Emanuel] father, Benjamin Emanuel, an Israeli who fought with the Irgun guerrilla group, told an Israeli newspaper that the Jewish state would have a good friend in the White House.

"Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," Ma'ariv quoted him as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House [cringe, cringe, cringe]."'

No, Mr Emanuel, your son is not an Arab. But according to a few of McCain's supporters, his new boss is.

Europe is a long way from producing an Obama, nevermind electing him

2008-11-08T19:14:00.003Z

Trevor Phillips, the head of Britain's equality watchdog, has claimed a British Obama could never become prime minister because of the obstacles posed by "institutional racism". He misses the point entirely. The implicit suggestion that there is some British version of Obama lurking in the shadows, being impeded by racism, is off the mark. The reality is the structures of British society and culture prevent the creation of a British Obama.

Obama is a product of the United States. Only the US - I add the mandatory caveat that it has its problems of course - with its fluid racial and class structures could, not only facilitate Obama's rise, but allow for his very creation.

President-elect Obama is a uniquely American product that will not be effortlessly replicated elsewhere. This notion that there are European Obama's being held back is belied by the fact that they do not seem to exist at all.

A lot of societal change would have to occur before such a character could arrive on the British political scene. That unfortunate reality rings true for every European country. However, as always, what happens in the US slowly makes its way over the Atlantic waves - if Obama teaches European minorities anything, it is that they too will have their day. However, a whole lot more will have to change in the meantime.

General paralysis of the insane

2008-11-08T18:40:00.003Z

A reader informs me that Fox News and their latest media darling, Governor Mike Huckabee, are consoling themselves by reminding each other that the electoral map is really just a sea of red with a few blue dots sprinkled in there.

Those blue blue dots wouldn't happen to be the states of Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska's second congressional district, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, would they? The states that that were red mandates four years ago?

Indeed, whatever helps them sleep at night.

President Palin's first term: much done, much more to do

2008-11-02T23:55:00.002Z

Thinking back, November 5, 2008, was a strange morning in America. A nation awoke, hungover, unsure of who it had gone to bed with the night before. Obama bagged Virginia early. Things were clearly on track as Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota all fell blue one by one. But events moved to a different beat in the rust belt. Ohio was tight the broadcasters repeated. Then, Pennsylvania went red. The world fell silent. How did this happen? Joe the Plumber was interviewed on Fox: “Americans are clearly rejecting this Islamo-socialist coup.” The hosts agreed.

His own state of Ohio followed suit shortly thereafter. So too did Indiana and West Virginia. Then Florida fell to the Republican hordes. There was a brief fight back in the Traheel State. But the joy was ephemeral. Iowa and Missouri fell in unison. Now the battle lines were clearly drawn. Three states remained, it was approaching early morning. The Republicans had 260 votes; the Democrats 259. New Mexico sided with the valiant Obama. Yet, Nevada fell to McCain. Civilization now rested on Colorado’s shoulders. Obama’s troops prayed. Remember the Greek columns Denver. Remember. Time slowed to a standstill. The fateful words were uttered: “NBC projects Colorado for McCain/Palin. John McCain will be the 44th president of the United States.” But strangely, they were wrong.

Thereafter, events moved at a fast pace.

Inauguration day came as a shock. President McCain’s infamous first act: resigning the presidency in favour of his running mate. “It’s what the base wants,” he kept repeating. Palin, now president, appointed McCain as her deputy in a move that had constitutional scholars crying foul. “We’re not gonna listen to the mainstream gotcha legal media,” the president said.

Vice President McCain returned to his arena. In a foreboding speech, he informed the US Senate, “my friends, I built this chamber with my bare hands... the president has informed me that the duty of the vice president is to control the flow of legislation in Congress, and I will not disappoint our beloved executive.” McCain’s first act was to introduce legislation conferring citizenship on all residents of Georgia. Congress demurred, but the president just issued an executive order. “Things are gonna be different around here,” Governor Saakashvilli said after he recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The Kremlin protested this move and announced its intention to re-annex Alaska, the Russian Valley area of California, and half of Canada. However, in the Battle of the Bering Straits the Russians were defeated by the US military’s new elite snowmachine unit. With victory assured, the president ordered the nuclear bombing of Moscow for good measure. Questioning this move was subsequently made an act of sedition.

With US power firmly established, President Palin announced some major “structural changes” would be forthcoming. The populace was clueless, but the blanks were soon filled in. The president was to become known as the Supreme Executive President, and the Vice President would be known as the Deputy Maverick. The United States Congress was to be disbanded forthwith. Speaker Pelosi protested, but was swiftly told that fake Americans did not have the right to petition their government. The US Supreme Court was abolished – they hadn’t done anything notable anyway, the president said. It was replaced by a collection of appointees, not subject to ratification. The US Dept of Corrections was ordered to adopt Guantanamo Bay as the paradigm of incarceration. Reading detainees their rights was no longer a requirement, the mavericks decreed.

Secretary of State Bolton also announced certain changes to State’s mandate. Firstly, so as not to confuse priorities, the headquarters of the State Department would be transferred to Jerusalem. He also declared, with the president’s full confidence, that second guessing Israel would be regarded as weak vacillation that runs counter to American interests, and would be grounds for dismissal from the US Foreign Service. Secondly, that foreign service was to undergo massive cuts, as 70% of American embassies and consulates would be closed. Diplomacy was not an arm of US power, the secretary said.

Not long afterwards, President Palin announced US intentions to withdraw from the United Nations. The UN was allowed to maintain its headquarters in New York, because as the president pointed out, that’s not really America anyway.

The mainstream media suffered an unscrupulous purge. This was perhaps best symbolized by the nailing of Katie Couric to the top of the Jefferson Memorial, but the cold reality was that by January 2010 there were only ten newspapers remaining in America. In a seamless transition, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News became the official mouthpieces of the state.

February of that year was fairly quiet, the only major public announcements coming from the president – decreeing that the capital was being moved from Washington DC to Juneau, Alaska – and Supreme State Prosecutor Rove who decided to review the status of all “Americans” who voted for Obama.

Vice President McCain then announced the successful creation of The League of Democracies. In a stirring address he said the US, Georgia, Columbia, and Israel would now lead the free world out of the stupor it finds itself in.

That summer SSP Rove appeared on Fox News to signal to government’s intention to adopt the Rove Electoral Map as the actual map of the United States. The red areas were to be considered the United States of America. The blue areas would be known as Anti-America. Its citizens would be subject to higher taxes – “since that’s what they want” – and travel restrictions. The White House – now named after the fact that it’s covered in snow all year long – also imposed a levy on Rhode Island for being the only state in the union not either drilling for oil or exploring hard enough to find it. White House Press Secretary Hannity said the president was unable to comment on the move as she was air raiding wolf dens in Montana – the species now being extinct from Alaska.

In October the cabinet held an emergency meeting led by McCain to discuss the need to do more to meet the threat posed by the swathe of countries “that don’t like us very much.” Not long after, the US declared war on Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and France.

Canada was also annexed because the latest census figures showed more US citizens actually lived there than Canadian citizens as a result of a massive exodus in 2009. Though there was very little resistance shown, Ottawa was carpet bombed just in case. However, Viceroy Harper was said to be ecstatic with the new arrangement.
In the ill-fated daily’s last move, the Anchorage Daily News leaked that President Palin was said to be unhappy with McCain’s complicated “war-games” and ordered the nuking of Teheran, Caracas, and Pyongyang. France surrendered just in time. The following morning the New York Post ran with the headline “gotcha”, accompanied by a picture of a mushroom.

The end of year review painted a bleak picture of the US economy as trade was down over 200%, and the country had just endured its tenth quarter of negative growth. Even Wal-Mart, the government subsidised procurement service, was alleged to be struggling through this time of austerity.

Nevertheless, the president delivered an impassioned state of the union written by her senior aide William Kristol. The speech was entitled “Isn’t government so much more efficient, you know, now that we don’t have mid-terms”. She effortlessly tapered over the hardships facing America and touted her administration’s successes, such as the completion of the Baghdad-Miami bridge/pipeline. “You’re not nowhere to me, (and thanks for the oil),” she told the Mesopotamians on a state visit.

Upon conclusion of the address, the President left the country and travelled to New York City to lay a tombstone where the Wall Street bull had once proudly stood in a move symbolizing the death of the American financial system. President Palin was strangely gleeful, and all too eager to point out that she was ready to engage in foreign travel, like she was doing at that moment.

Throughout the course of 2011 the economy suffered so drastically the White House was forced to act. The federal government decided to sell all the Washington DC monuments on E-Bay, so as to generate capital to inject into the ailing economy. Nevertheless, economists were sceptical of the move.

Immigration to Mexico had become so intense by summer 2011 the Mexican government, following intense debate, concluded it had no option but to build a wall along the US border. Ambassador Limbaugh laughed off the move and called it “mutually beneficial.” He added, “we wanted the wall, they have the cheap labor to build it.”
In an effort to streamline government, and further reduce pork, the administration decided to merge the Department of Defense with the Department of State considering their mandates were one of the same thing. Thus, Secretary Schwarzenegger became Secretary Bolton’s deputy. The two men then departed on a “show of intent” tour of Europe, where they made a particularly controversial stop in postwar Paris. However, Bill O’Reilly, the US Ambassador to France, was delighted to receive the two men at the new US Embassy in Versailles.

Secretary for Commerce, Joe Plumber, delivered the end of year review in 2011, and quietly brushed over the fact that foreign trade was now virtually non-existent. He touted the incredible growth in pig iron production as an unequivocal success. He dismissed reports that China’s economy was now five times larger than America’s, as “a deliberate attempt by the liberal media to subvert the country we love into pursuing a socialistic path.” When asked by a foreign journalist what he planned to do to re-ignite the economy he said, “I ask the questions around here.” The man was subsequently shot.

Early in 2012 Mayor Obama announced his second candidacy for president of the United States, pending approval by the president, who mercifully, and certain of victory, obliged. However, his bid was subject to certain limitations such as the incapacitating rule that he had to raise $1 trillion to offset the damages the 2008 bailout and his fundraising in that year did to American democracy. Bizarrely, Obama raised the money in a week. Deputy Maverick McCain dismissed this notion as ludicrous. He saw subversion at work too. “The American people are not going to be cheated out of destiny by this deliberate attempt by Obama and his ACORN comrades to beguile the Democratic process,” he said at a campaign stop in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.

Nevertheless, Obama continued to confound all odds. By June he had raised a war-chest larger than the US economy.

The president turned down the request by the Obama campaign to engage in three debates as had been customary. “I’m not gonna be fooled out of the hard business of being an executive by, you know, pretty words,” Mrs Palin said.

Obama said in a statement: “this is but the latest entry to the litany of vacuous attempts by the administration to besmirch my honor and deny me my birthright.”
The president shrugged this off at a G4 summit. “Obama,” she said, “sees our world as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists.” The present world leaders and the Canadian viceroy all agreed. Prime Minister in exile of Australia, John Howard, weighed in saying a vote for Obama “would be a vote for Osama [the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghan-i-Pakistan].”

Meanwhile, Obama continued to draw millions to his campaign rallies. “They’re trying to bamboozle you into seeing me as foreign,” he said. His audience chanted “no they can’t” in response.

Obama’s grandiloquence reached it’s zenith when he delivered his convention speech in Richmond, VA, from the peak of a manmade pyramid draped in the attire of Ramses the Great. A crowd of one million strong had come to worship.

Sensing an Obama surge in the polls, Palin and McCain, took the decision to run against themselves, the strategy clearly having been successful last time. They were, they assured the American people, the only viable option to bring real change to Juneau.

President-Mentor Bush worked the campaign trail tirelessly.

They all said Obama had only eloquence to offer. He had no real plans to secure America from the threat posed by the nation of Afghan-i-Pakistan which was was consuming more of India daily. What would he do about Iran, which now had more nuclear weapons than Russia? He had, they maintained, no ideas about how to build on their immense successes with the iron and tin industry. He couldn’t be trusted they said. He doesn’t appreciate small town values, Americans were reminded.

And thereupon, Americans found themselves faced with two distinct visions of what next for the country, as a familiar tale was told again.

You need a chief of staff to hold the measuring tape

2008-10-31T00:44:00.007Z

AP have a very unfortunate and untimely leak - from Obama's perspective - on prospective chiefs of staff in an Obama White House. We've heard the names floated before but this AP piece suggests that Obama approached Rep. Rahm Emanuel with the offer. Naturally, Emanuel's office denies it, and Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic convincingly refutes it but one can already hear McCain clearing his voice and bellowing "not only has my opponent measured the drapes, he's already picked his Chief-of-Staff, and they can't wait to raise your taxes and spread the wealth around. Now that's why Joe the Plumber and I, you there Joe, are going to...real Americans...but they forgot to let you decide."

Let's wait for Obama to close it out or McCain to pull off a comeback win before the transition speculation begins in earnest.

However, briefly consider the options that have been floated around for Obama. Rahm Emanuel, John Podesta, and Tom Daschle.

Rahm Emanuel (Rahm-bo) is from Chicago and worked in the Clinton White House. He may be a likely choice, but, as Ambinder notes, his personality could well disrupt Obama's messaging.

John Podesta, who's heading Obama's transition team, also hails from Chicago and was Clinton's final Chief-of-Staff.

Tom Daschle, a former Senate Majority and Minority Leader, comes from South Dakota.

Obama may be "inexperienced" but he's lining up some very familiar hands - these candidates have very solid, convincing, and Clintonesque (he has little choice here) experience, nicely coupled with voices from his familiar Midwestern stomping ground.

This resonates neatly with the Biden pick. Meanwhile, is McCain scouring Guam and the US Virgin Islands for some obscure, yet popular legislator to be his chief of staff?

The audacity of hope on Iran

2008-10-28T19:18:00.005Z

Legend has it that Mr Sarkozy finds Obama's policy on Iran 'arrogant' and 'utterly immature'.

There is no disputing Sarkozy's judicious assessment here. He is, after all, the undisputed global authority on both arrogance and utter immaturity.

Unhealthy politics: sifting through the rubble of McCain and Obama's healthcare proposals

2008-10-16T01:36:00.004+01:00

Note: please see Healthcare.com's HealthDecision 08 for a comprehensive and nonpartisan breakdown of Barack Obama and John McCain's healthcare plans.

The day of reckoning for Barack Obama and John McCain is now just under three weeks away. The campaign has intensified to a level that could hardly have been anticipated last June when Obama secured his victory in the primaries. General interest has peaked, as has voter registration. People throughout the world are obsessing over every development in this campaign, as two inherently likeable, yet unorthodox characters battle it out in order to win the right to lead the world’s most powerful nation, which is itself at such a critical juncture.

The US economy is in a frightful state and worsening as every day draws on, despite massive and unprecedented government intervention. The United States is involved in direct wars on two fronts, and an indirect war on terrorism on countless others. For the first time in decades, Washington faces credible global competition. All the while, dissatisfaction with the state of the country on behalf of ordinary Americans has reached historical proportions. There is no doubt it will take prodigious skill, unequalled intellect, and original vision to lead the US out of this quagmire and renew the country’s great promise. Each presidential candidate can, in their unique ways, make a convincing case to be that person. Both Obama and McCain have profound biographies, far-reaching vision, and unfaltering dedication to their country.

However, they each approach problems from their own divergent philosophies.
There is one subject, which is of immense importance that illustrates their disparate beliefs. Healthcare, as the election approaches, is foremost on the minds of many Americans. There is no wonder why. Prescription drug costs are high. Medical costs are sky-rocketing. Many Americans receive their health insurance through their employers which bears some notable negatives. As the National Review points out, rising premiums have a harmful impact on take-home pay. Employees are often deprived of agency in deciding their healthcare package as the choice is made by employers. And very often, termination of employment will leave someone, not just unemployed but, lacking medical coverage. Most staggering of all, approximately 47 million people in the United States live an uncertain life without health insurance.

With such a stark reality in mind one would think that the issue of healthcare has been the preponderant focus of the presidential campaign. It has not. It’s easy for everyday realities to be overshadowed by fundamental changes such as Russia’s invasion of Georgia or the current financial crisis. However, less excusable is the ease with which the candidates have allowed this campaign to be distracted by debate on peripheral or trivial issues of fleeting importance. For quite some time, there was far more discussion of gaffes, East Coast elites, toasters, and lipsticked pigs then there was of the 47 million uninsured.

Thankfully, though belatedly, healthcare has made an entrance in the last week. One reason for this is because the candidates’ positions on the financial crisis have been more nuanced than substantive (both supported the bailout, both opposed welfare cheques for CEOs, both transformed into raging populists). Their criticisms of each other have been more personal than policy-oriented. One was “erratic”; the other “phoned it in”. On healthcare, however, the gulf is more apparent.

Naturally, that did not translate into an honest debate automatically. Obama and McCain both sought to paint their opponent’s healthcare plans as radical, outside the mainstream, and unworkable. Meanwhile, they both attempted to present their own as an original solution to a crippling problem that is, at the same time, straight down the middle politically. McCain has invoked the presence of Reagan and the spectre of socialized healthcare when berating Obama’s plan. He frequently argues that the Democrat will plant government in between the citizen and his/her doctor. Conversely, Obama has attempted to portray an out of touch McCain who will endeavour to tax the middle class and turn over more revenue to insurance companies.

Obama has placed greater emphasis on healthcare in his advertising, carefully preying on McCain’s favouring of market solutions and deregulation to somehow create an underlining impression that healthcare will follow the financial system down the tubes if McCain is allowed to touch it. In one ad, entitled “Coin”, Obama and McCain’s positions are juxtaposed in order to carefully carve an impression that Obama stands beside the middle class, while McCain envisages Wall St. solutions for health. In unmistakeably clear language the narrator claims, “McCain would deregulate insurance giants letting them bypass patient protections.” Obama has an acute sense of timing and the power of the word “deregulate” in the current climate is considerable.

The Obama campaign has also made great play of McCain’s proposal to offer a $5,000 tax credit on health insurance. In at least four ads (“Taketh”, “One word”, “Prescription”, and “Can’t explain”) the claim has been advanced that McCain’s tax credit would be transferred directly to insurance companies. Obama has additionally argued that McCain would tax employer based health benefits which amounts to a middle class tax hike. As the Democrat put it in the second presidential debate, “one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.” He was fully supported by his running mate who argued, with the best line of the vice-presidential debate, that taxing these benefits was “the ultimate bridge to nowhere.”

What then does McCain really propose? Thanks to Healthcare.com there is now a comprehensive and bi-partisan source that breaks down, with clarity and precision, the proposals of both candidates. Fundamentally, McCain intends to lower the total cost of healthcare, and would do so using the market as a hinge or a “lever”. Following this, McCain’s primary avenue for lowering costs will be the creation of greater choice in the healthcare market giving consumers agency. He would indeed introduce a tax on the money company’s pay for their employee’s insurance premiums, with the goal of bridging the gap between employee based healthcare and insurance from other sources. This is predicated on the belief that greater choice will cause costs to plummet. McCain also proposes a $5,000 tax credit for families ($2,500 for individuals) with the aim of reimbursing employees for the rise in company based premiums, or offsetting the costs of a private health plan, depending on which option a citizen elects.

There is no doubt that McCain’s plan is rooted in solid logic and would, as Healthcare.com notes, increase competition and give consumers greater choice. For some Americans, in light of the current economic atmosphere McCain may well be battling history on his market solutions. One potential pitfall is the development of “coverage gaps”. Moreover, those with a diagnosed condition, and those without the financial wherewithal, would struggle to get insurance. To counteract this McCain proposes to use federal and state assistance to aid those afflicted in what is a more complicated aspect of his plan. This might also be where it would unravel in the eyes of conservatives.

Ronald Brownstein of National Journal writes, in a detailed assessment of McCain’s healthcare proposals, that considering so many American’s use employer based health insurance, “McCain would upend that system.” An additional proposal to allow insurance policies from any state be sold in every state would, according to Brownstein, “undercut state laws requiring insurers to cover specific treatments.” On the whole the writer concluded: “The real problem with McCain's idea is that, without the economic incentive provided by the exclusion, more employers might stop offering coverage. And even employers who want to continue could find it difficult because younger workers would be likely to use their credit to buy stripped-down, cheaper coverage on their own. That would leave employers covering only older and sicker workers, which could quickly swell premiums to unaffordable levels.”

In contrast to McCain, Obama has struck an emotional chord with voters on this subject. Whereas McCain has performed quite poorly, Obama has poignantly recounted the days of his ailing mother battling insurance companies. His proposals are predictably compassionate. The primary focus is to greatly increase the levels of coverage. Obama would guarantee coverage for any American or permanent resident who requested it by opening a national health plan based on the system available to employees of the federal government. However, health insurance under the Obama plan is not mandated, as it would have been under Hillary Clinton. For Healthcare.com some of the primary benefits of the Obama plan would be the greater access it would offer the uninsured, and the incentives it would provide for small-businesses to offer health coverage to employees. Moreover, the plan includes “a market-place mechanism for standardizing, regulating and extending coverage for health insurance plans by way of the National Health Insurance Exchange.”

On the downside, Obama’s reforms are seen as so sweeping they would suffer a troubled legislative existence, with congressional passage far from assured even with solid Democratic control of congress. Moreover, it may be difficult to raise the requisite level of funding in the current economic environment. An editorial in the National Review contended, “Obama’s plan amounts to putting the whole country on Medicare, which would reduce the quality of care, empower bureaucrats over doctors and patients, and, quite possibly, bankrupt the federal government.” This argument is effectively along the lines of McCain’s charge that it would put government in between the patient and the doctor.

A supporter might retort, it’s better to have government in the middle than an insurance company. This underscores the fundamental disparity in the approaches of both candidates. McCain’s proposal sees an active role for the market, with the state as a guarantor. Obama, on the other hand, would use the market, but has generally drawn up a plan that would see the state become more of a protagonist. With the financial crisis, McCain’s private sector solutions may seem out of date to some onlookers. Nevertheless, Americans are historically averse to big government, and it is far too early to claim there has been a fundamental shift in outlook on this subject.

There is no appetite for socialized healthcare. It must be stressed that, despite the charges, Obama’s plan is not tantamount to state controlled health services. Greater government involvement yes, but certainly not socialized healthcare. McCain argued at a rally recently, anyone advocating socialized healthcare should travel to Canada or England and take a look at the quality of services there. Funnily enough, Canadians tend to be more proud of their healthcare system than anything else.

Writer Fareed Zakaria draws another link between the two neighbors’ health systems. He asserts that one of the reasons Ontario has outpaced Michigan as North America’s auto-manufacturing hub is because employers are not burdened by the provision of healthcare in Canada as they are in the United States. The candidates are right to focus on how to stimulate business through financial, economic, and tax packages. They would also do well to remember that healthcare is an economic issue too. One does not need to go as far as Zakaria does to see this reality. With premiums becoming so costly and outrageous numbers of people off the radar, healthcare should feature prominently in people’s thinking about who to elect. Similarly, it would be unwise for anyone, voter or candidate, to be too wedded to a particular ideology when thinking of healthcare. Ideological healthcare has proven itself to be a failure on both sides. The rewards will be reaped by whoever harnesses the benefits of all approaches. Even though there is little doubt that the quality of care in the United States is unrivalled, the American healthcare system is broken. The question therefore is not how to improve services so much as access; that should be a priority for voters and prospective presidents alike.

Note: please see Healthcare.com's HealthDecision 08 for a comprehensive and nonpartisan breakdown of Barack Obama and John McCain's healthcare plans.

Looking ahead to the final debate

2008-10-15T17:55:00.004+01:00

The Obama campaign's pre-debate talking points for surrogates were accidentally leaked this morning. Politico's Ben Smith reports that the underlying goal that seeped through the memo was a desire "to raise the stakes" and emphasis that is McCain's last chance to turn it around.

The talking points are iterative on the subject of McCain being erratic, and one can expect Obama to push that line tonight. It also seems that the Obama camp is practically goading McCain into mentioning William Ayers. They've obviously concluded that the Ayers strategy has been a miserable failure- hardly a groundbreaking thought- and therefore have little to lose from McCain mentioning it and allowing Obama to appear wronged. McCain indicated recently that it would be raised. However, considering he did not do so in the second debate, while his campaign was in anti-Obama overdrive, it would be peculiar for him to do so now, after he has tempered the tone of the campaign in the face of a public hardened towards political attacks.

McCain is clearly in a losing position overall though, and it is unlikely he'll have as promising a stage to launch a game-breaking move again. It all depends on what he designs. His campaign "reset button" earlier this week was an absolute failure. It had no impact on the polls, it didn't address economic concerns coherently, and, above all else, it was in no way new or original. With that in mind, and McCain's history of spectacular Haily-Mary gambles (Palin, campaign suspension etc), expect the maverick to throw a final pass tonight. Just don't expect anyone to catch it.

As MacArthur said, "old soldiers never die, they just fade away."

"The last leader of a developed country to follow the Bush doctrine"

2008-10-15T01:40:00.004+01:00

Thus, with a cold lack of originality, Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, was described by Jack Layton the leader of the NDP, in a transparent effort to link the Canadian Prime Minister to George Bush. Layton's strategy was such a hit, the leader's of Canada's other political parties have been tripping over each other to land the latest quip linking the two North American conservatives together.

However, what passes for comedy amongst the chattering classes rarely strikes the same chord with voters. It is safe to say that hell will freeze over before Canadians elect anything that resembles George Bush, and that standard applies to Prime Minister Harper. Indeed, the only similarity the two men share is being right of centre. Harper has kept the off-putting and polarising hard right in his party in check since he has been leader. Bush, on the other hand, let them run riot in his. Harper has demonstrated a committment to the war in Afghanistan, where Canada is ably shouldering a burden many its NATO allies are loath to consider, but he could hardly be described as a military adventurer (indeed Afghanistan is a legacy of the pervious liberal government). The merits and demerits of Bush's foreign policy are not up for discussion here, but suffice it to say that comparisons between Bush and Harper on this front are weak. Though Harper has tried to trim regulation in Canada, the financial institutions there are healthy, on the surface level at least, and the Commonwealth member is ably trudging through the credit crunch. The US has lost an inconceivable number of jobs this year, where as over 100,000 jobs were created in Canada last month.

Harper will surely score a rout then in today's election? Apparently not. He has clearly run the country competently, yet true political popularity evades him. He has picked needless fights in this election campaign- one in particular over the arts may have cost him dearly in Quebec- and he has foundered on his strong suit, the economy, as polling day beckoned.

Nevertheless, he remains not just the only viable choice for Prime Minister, he is certainly the right choice. On the basis of Canada's current economic performance alone, he deserves re-election. The Harper government received a string of endorsements from national newspapers (the highlights of which are here), a reality which reflects its solid performance. As the Economist put it: "In what is the first credit-crunch election in a big Western country, Mr Harper’s ejection would set a dispiriting precedent that panic plays better politically than prudence." The Ottawa Citizen too was on the mark: "There are no Obama-esque promises to repair the world. But Mr. Harper offers the steadiest hand and clearest judgment to steer Canada through the rough waters that lie ahead.” This summarises the situation neatly. Harper offers wise and solid stewardship in an age of turmoil. But please do not expect any tingling feeling to shoot up your legs.

That Canadians would dethrone Harper, while doing so well in such chaotic times, would be a masochistic move. Reasonably, polls suggest that outcome to be unlikely. Harper is on course for re-election with a stronger minority government, but it is most probable that the Conservatives will be deprived of the much sought-after majority.

So are the liberal North Americans on the verge of re-electing Bush II? Despite the best efforts of other politicians to frame it that way, not quite. It would seem that Canadians are more clued in to Harper's quips than those of Layton or Dion. The Prime Minister remarked recently, "look the other guys keep talking gloom and doom, talking about recession, they've got the policies that will make it happen."

That should be enough to see him returned as Prime Minister.

Fox News need some relief

2008-10-12T18:46:00.003+01:00

Fox News are in an absolutely frantic state these days, searching for anything at all to help them forestall an Obama presidency.

Obviously the Ayers affair is a hot sell, but so too is Acorn. On an hourly basis, some other person who has been harassed by Acorn activists isn't interviewed. Conveniently, Fox pointed out that the states where Acorn has been most conspicuous are battlegrounds leaning towards Obama. Fox are clearly using their experience from expausing fraud in Florida in 2000 to address it this time around.

Anything to avoid the issues.

Earlier, Scott Rasmussen was on and he was repeatedly implored by Fox to give them, and McCain fans, anything to be hopeful of and to do diminish Obama's lead.

He was given a perfect opportunity to say that Obama's six point lead in Rasmussen's tracker today is really quite insignificant. However, he never took the bait and maintained that Obama's position is really quite commanding considering no president has received more than 51% since 1988.

Rasmussen was given plenty more opportunities to correct his erroneous ways, but he decided to be an actual analyst, and reiterated that Obama's position is prime at this point.

Later, Fox's new media superstar, Mike Huckabee, was interviewed and was presented with the chance to reaffirm that McCain is right to push the Ayers link. Unfortunately, Huckabee dissented and said McCain ought to make the case for himself, rather than the case against Obama

That comment left a lot of head scratching in its wake.

Shuffling to the right

2008-10-11T22:13:00.006+01:00

John McCain moved to the right of President Bush today, over the administration's decision to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsor's of terrorism.

North Korea represents, without a doubt, one of the vilest regimes to ever stain the planet. Craving a legacy, Bush has pursued a slight thaw with North Korea since the micro-Stalinist state developed nuclear weapons, and this, two months before he leaves office may well be the culmination.

McCain has criticized the development as the product of "hasty and incomplete" diplomacy while his opponent has called it "appropriate".

This brings to mind the Georgia crisis recently, when Obama stood square with the president while McCain marched on to the right. McCain always seems to be a bit loose with his bellicose rhetoric but in each instance has been closer to the mark. Obama was overtly cautious when Russia invaded Georgia, where as McCain rightly called premeditated aggression as it was.

Given Obama's candidacy has partly been a product of the failure of Bush's foreign policy and when one considers his strategy of linking McCain to Bush, it is somewhat ironic that during two significant foreign policy developments of the general election, he has stood squarely with the president. This has everything to do with Bush having greatly moderated his positions, of course, and it is inconceivable that Obama is mimicking the president.

However, McCain's position is not to be brushed aside as some attempt to put distance between himself and the White House, or worse yet, some incarnation of the maverick galloping off into battle. He raised legitimate concerns about the agreement.

As McCain noted it is incredibly difficult to accurately assess developments inside Kim Jong-il's little ice kingdom, so the prospects of the US being fully aware of North Korea's true levels of disarmament are cloudy. McCain rightly asked how the US would gauge Pyongyang's disarmament.

More ominous is the timeline of events. The US effectively lavished aid upon the megalomaniac's regime in response for disarmament following the successful detonation of North Korea's first bomb. Recently, it was rumoured that North Korea threatened to resume its weapons programme if it were not removed from the list. Now it has been, and according the State Department, North Korea promises to resume disarmament. It is very difficult to really know what is taking place, but the fear remains that Bush is craving any success to sign off on. Up until recently, North Korea was that success. Then Pyongyang stopped playing along and started making demands. Now Pyongyang's out of the sin bin and back on the pitch. So the question arises, is North Korea exacting leverage over the United States? That would be a terrifying precedent.

US policy to North Korea is easily formulated: all efforts must be devoted to creating the perfect conditions for the soft collapse of the regime so as not to flood the region with calamity, refugees, and possibly war. Under no circumstances should Washington partake in prolonging the life-span of the anachronistic horror that is Kim's reign. If Washington believes that this deal will further push the tyrant to the wire - one fails to see how it could - than so be it. For now, the fear is it that it will do the complete opposite.

He really must be the messiah

2008-10-11T19:56:00.003+01:00

Apparently Obama can see into the future:

I distinctly remember the McCain camp crying foul over this speech and charging that Obama had injected race into the camapign.

Well, it didn't take very long for McCain's coterie of goons to oblige Obama's predictions. That an Obama stump speech - after all stump speeches are in themselves engineered to exagerate- could actually understate what eventually has transpired really sheds light on how shameful and disappointing McCain's presidential run has been.

Dispatches from the McCain/Palin revolution

2008-10-11T02:43:00.004+01:00

Here's a few nuggets that some journalists have observed or concluded about the fires being fueled by McCain/Palin (see my earlier post "playing with fire").

Jonathan Martin, Politico:

"Terrorist!” one man screamed Monday at a New Mexico rally after McCain voiced the campaign’s new rhetorical staple aimed at raising doubts about the Illinois senator: “Who is the real Barack Obama?”

"He's a damn liar!” yelled a woman Wednesday in Pennsylvania. "Get him. He's bad for our country."

At both stops, there were cries of, “Nobama,” picking up on a phrase that has appeared on yard signs, T-shirts and bumper stickers.

"Obama Osama!" one woman called out.

John Weaver, McCain’s former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.

“People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Sen. Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Sen. McCain,” Weaver said. “And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive.”

“Sen. Obama is a classic liberal with an outdated economic agenda. We should take that agenda on in a robust manner. As a party we should not and must not stand by as the small amount of haters in our society question whether he is as American as the rest of us. Shame on them and shame on us if we allow this to take hold.”

Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic:

The saddest thing about many Republicans isn't just that they disagree with liberals on race--it's they are largely ignorant on race. When the McCain campaign cast the spell of diabolical jingoism, they have no idea of the forces they are toying with. We remember Martin Luther King's murder as a sad and tragic event. Less remembered is the fact that ground-work for King's murder was seeded, not simply by rank white supremacy, but by people who slandered King as a communist.

Let me be clear--This is the ghost that McCain Campaign is summoning. This is the Ring Of Power that they want to wield. The Muslim charge, the "Hussein" thing is nothing more than today's red-baiting, and it is what it was then--a cover for racists. You may say I'm overreacting, and I really hope you're right. 999,000 out 1 million times we'll go on like normal and proceed to Election Day. But if some shit pops off, the thug and thug-mongers will not be able to throw up their hands and say "How could I have known?" Ignorance will not save them. Their stupidity is a scourge on us all.

Joe Klein, Time:

"I'm beginning to worry about the level of craziness on the Republican side, the over-the-top, stampede-the-crowd statements by everyone from McCain on down, the vehemence of the crowds that McCain and Palin are drawing with people shouting "Kill him" and "He's a terrorist" and "Off with his head."

Watch the tape of the guy screaming, "He's a terrorist!" McCain seems to shudder at that, he rolls his eyes... and I thought for a moment he'd admonish the man. But he didn't. And now he's selling the Ayres non-story full-time. Yes, yes, it's all he has. True enough: he no longer has his honor. But we are on the edge of some real serious craziness here and it would be nice if McCain did the right thing and told his more bloodthirsty supporters to go home and take a cold shower. But McCain hasn't done the right thing all year. His campaign is appalling, as the New York Times editorial board said today--and more, it is a national disgrace."

David Brooks, The New York Times:

The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. The smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.

This year could have changed things. The G.O.P. had three urbane presidential candidates. But the class-warfare clichés took control. Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking “eastern elites.” (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.

Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.

She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch.

And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away.

Kathleen Parker, National Review:

The McCain campaign knows that Obama isn’t a Muslim or a terrorist, but they’re willing to help a certain kind of voter think he is. Just the way certain South Carolinians in 2000 were allowed to think that McCain’s adopted daughter from Bangladesh was his illegitimate black child.

But words can have more serious consequences than lost votes and we’ve already had a glimpse of the Palin effect.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reported that media representatives in Clearwater were greeted with taunts, thunder sticks and profanity. One Palin supporter shouted an epithet at an African-American soundman and said, “Sit down, boy.”

McCain may want to call off his pit bull before this war escalates.

Troopergate finding: Palin's actions were unethical, not illegal

2008-10-11T02:11:00.003+01:00

The concluding report on the Troopergate affair in Alaska has been released, following a 12-0 vote by Alaska's Legislative Council.

Totalling a mean 263 pages, the report produced by investigator Steve Branchfower concludes, among other things, that Governor Sarah Palin did in fact violate ethics codes for state executives, and thereby abused her power.

Alaska's executive branch ethics act maintains that "each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

Nevertheless, the report is sympathetic to the ordeal which the family was enduring due to the abusive trooper and recommends a course of action to assist families who make complaints arising out of similar ordeals in the future.

The report also concludes that Palin acted within the law when firing Walt Monegan, Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner, even though his refusal to fire the trooper was a "contributing factor" in his own eventual dismissal.

The Anchorage Daily News has a neat summary of the findings to make digesting the document a tad bit easier.

Playing with fire

2008-10-10T23:54:00.005+01:00

John McCain is in Minnesota today facing down yet another angry mob of supporters who have been riled to fever pitch by Sarah Palin's race-baiting politics of division. At a town hall in Wisconsin yesterday, the mavericks answered a series of questions that neatly fell into the theme we've been seeing all week. McCain/Palin supporters are frothing with rage because they are only beginning to realise that the prospect of Obama being the next president has gone from a possibility to a likely outcome. Added to that has been the McCain/Palin policy of scorched earth politics, rooted in the realisation that they can only win if the make Obama absolutely unacceptable to 50.1% of people. What about the divided country? Apparently they're indifferent to it. So a barrage of anti-intellectual and anti-media sentiment turned into a torrent of anti-diversity populist rage.

The theme from their rallies, Palin's in particular, has been clear: Obama is not one of us, and therefore he's not really American. Such messaging has been far from subtle, and has recently been compounded by the links to William Ayers. The combination of Obama (who a frightening amount of McCain/Palin rally-goers seem to believe is a radical Islamic terrorist) with Ayers (a downtrodden domestic terrorist) is a corosive cocktail, partly because the concept of domestic terrorism was obliterated by 9/11, so when Palin accuses Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists", it hardly matters that the terrorist in question is white (nor does it matter that the link is misleading), because the word terrorism is enough to associate Obama with the mountains of Afghanistan, where too many people already place him.

Needless to say these tactics are shameful. Even more so considering McCain promised to wage an honest campaign. However, he has long since made the political version of a Faustian pact, and as such, everything is on the table. Once McCain lambasted an introducer who had in turn lambasted Barack Hussein Obama. Now the recital of Obama's full name at McCain/Palin rallies is a mandatory feature on the menu (this reached a nadir when performed by the Lee County Sheriff).

The shameful nature of the some characters turning out to these rallies has been displayed through a number of videos on the internet. These are easy to find, but they will not be linked here as I have no interest in contributing to the situation in any way at all, nor do I care to give idiots a platform to take the bait and display their unfathomable stupidity. Suffice it to say that these videos illustrate how people turning out to these rallies believe, apparently on masse, Obama to be a terrorist, because of his "bloodlines" and his name, or at the very least a "commy faggot". Again the nadir- there always is one- was when a child said of Obama, "you need gloves to touch him." That his parents should be arrested is beyond question. However, it is just a small part of the tale. Calls for Obama's assassination at these rallies is routine. Meanwhile, Palin just smiles on, stoking the fires.

Another thing that is clear beyond doubt is that McCain is uncomfortable and unhappy with the situation. It provides a small piece of solace that McCain is visibly disturbed by the events, and at his town hall meetings when yet another lunatic emerges to wax lyrical about Obama taking over America, McCain usually shuffles nervously and turns around. However, it is his name that is displayed on the campaign. He is responsible, and the buck stops with him. McCain unleashed Palin, allowed her to construct a public persona founded lies, and then allowed her to spew forth venom which has helped foster division, and create an image of Obama as un-American, not American, or as a terrorist.

The enraged tone of the last week is also recieving mainstream attention, precisely because it has gotten so out of hand. Many conservatives have also written about the negative impact of the Palin effect, while others have speculated that violence could be on the horizon. Simply to watch a McCain/Palin event would lead one to that conclusion easily.

John McCain has lost control of his campaign, and his tactic of making Obama unacceptable has already created apparent fissures in the nation's electorate. Doubtless, it is putting independents off, and Obama continues to soar in the national and battleground polls. Therefore, it is likely that the tragic end to this campaign will pitch a President Obama against a chunk of the citizenry who view him as an un-American alien imposter, clandestinely plotting the downfall of America. It did not have to be this way, of course, but McCain ceded control of his campaign to the architects of the Bush war room (presumably after giving them steroids) and ultimately to his running mate. The final levy was breached recently, when McCain clearly gave the green light for all chips to be put in.

If ever there was proof that McCain has been overruled by his campaign, his running mate, and his supporters it came today in Minnesota (a state Obama is approximately ten points clear of McCain in). After a week of negative coverage of the shameful turn his campaign has taken, McCain pleaded with his supporters to be "respectful". "We have to fight and I will fight but we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments and I want to be respectful," McCain said. His crowd were less than enthused. If ever there was proof that events have outpaced the angry and disoriented Senator it came subsequently in the event. A supporter stood up and said he was "scared" by the prospect of an Obama presidency, to which McCain responded: "I have to tell you Senator Obama is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as President of the United States." Too little to late. What happened? McCain was booed by his own crowd at his own rally.

Obama supporters attend rallies holding on to hope and cheering "yes we can." Some McCain supporters attend rallies reeling with rage and filled with fear, while a few scream "kill him", "off with his head", and "nobama". This is the fruit of McCain's negative campaigning, it's his child, and he's now reaping his own whirlwind.

It is a truly disappointing condition for the world's original democracy- for a country founded upon the highest of ideals. McCain must now do everything in his power to return his campaign to the issues that are dominating the country, and everyone else's minds, and state in no uncertain terms that racially tinged and divisive politics will not be tolerated. First and foremost, he must tell his running mate.

In Bethlehem, PA, some McCain supporters were chanting go back to Russia at a group of Obama followers across the road. Perhaps some people should just go to Alaska before it's too late.

How embarrassing

2008-10-10T22:01:00.004+01:00

Firstly, it was extremely duplicitous of CTV to claim "on reflection...we owe it to you to broadcast everything that happened," having "indicated" that they would not afford the clip public passage. They should have either refused to re-start the interview, or else been upfront about their intentions to broadcast the interview in its entirety. Both options would have made their sneaky pretence of public service a lot more digestible.

However, long after CTV's lack of integrity is forgotten everyone will still remember this painful episode in Stephane Dion's career. The Liberals have every right to feel aggrieved about the way CTV handled the affair. But really CTV are just a news organisation. Stephane Dion aspires to lead one of the world's major countries- and a G8 economy- after Tuesday. His inability to answer a question that was phrased simply ("If you were Prime Minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr Harper has not done?") should not be patched over with weak explanations of the different role that tenses play in English and French.

Canada is a bi-lingual country and it is only right that a Francophone should seek high-office. However, given that over 20 million of Canada's 33 million people cannot speak French at all, it seems reasonable to expect an aspiring prime minister to possess a suitable level of proficiency in English. Moreover, given that most global business is conducted in English, it would seem odd for a primarily English speaking country to elect a leader who could so easily fall foul of syntax. The thought of Dion at a G8 summit or an emergency financial summit, which lurks on the horizon for Canada's next leader, is enough to make one cringe.

It is disturbingly ironic that Dion would claim that Stephen Harper has not done enough to ease Canadians' anxiety over the economic crisis, only to be incapable of explaining what he would do differently, let alone understand the premise behind a question that he teed-up for himself.

Canada can surely do a whole better than this. Given that it is one of the few countries (in fact, I know of no other) that experienced real job growth last month, electing Dion on Tuesday seems like an insane prospect.

Harper's French may well leave a lot to be desired, but at least that is a better reflection of the Canadian population. True bilingualism does not mean electing a Francophone leader for the sake of it. Least of all one who speaks English poorly, but with a mitigating Franco twang.

The real reason the Rhino uses a black background

2008-10-08T23:34:00.003+01:00

...has absolutely nothing to do with this.

But knowing what I do now...the Rhino now uses a black background in the interests of medicating the West's narcotic enfatuation with Middle Eastern oil.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Universal Soldier

2008-09-22T15:56:00.003+01:00

Tom Clonan of The Irish Times has studied a document published by the US military that outlines its plans for the next 30-40 years. The Pentagon envisages a protracted struggle with radical Islam, accompanied by an ever increasing burden placed on resources, the liklihood of stiff competition with China and Russia, with the distinct possibility of resource wars. Additionally, the military concedes that it is dangerously overstretched.

This is hardly novel thinking on behalf of Washington. These trends in world politics appear to be rather obvious. How they plan to deal with them, however, is quite striking and innovative. As Clonan writes:

"The document reveals that new US tactical doctrine provides a template by which air, naval and field commanders will no longer just secure traditional strategic targets such as airspace, seaports and bridgeheads, but will, of necessity, also deploy and fight amongst and against the target population itself to win wars.

The document refers to this euphemistically as "commanders employing offensive, defensive and stability or civil support operations simultaneously".

The remainder of the document is devoted to describing in detail how a downsized all volunteer US military - numbering approximately one million soldiers, aircrew and sailors - could maintain an ever-present, international, offensive posture in many countries across many time-zones.

It describes how information communication technologies and digital technologies will create a new "networked" human soldier - the 'Future Force Warrior' - who will deploy among the target population and will operate simultaneously several remote, unmanned ground and air weapons systems."

What happened to John McCain?

2008-09-21T00:55:00.004+01:00

These days it seems everyone is asking the same question: what on earth happened to John McCain? Where is the forsaken warrior, the strangest of all political beasts, who vowed to fight an honourable campaign, to never succumb to the temptation to smear, to project an honest platform, and let the American people adjudicate.
That John McCain, if he ever existed, has long since vanished in the Beltway dust, and if McCain is fighting a war inside himself, there is no evidence to suggest it. Any pretence of honour in this campaign disappeared amidst the screams of “celebrity” last July.

Needless to say, the Barack Obama of the campaign trail is the evil twin of the Barack Obama of the 2004 convention speech. Despite the panicking of the Democratic establishment who fear Obama is not responding to attacks with enough haste – because they still believe that’s why John Kerry lost in 04 – Obama has proven himself to be well capable of launching offensives of his own, and by the latest count Obama had actually pedalled more negative ads than McCain. In fairness, McCain was first down the low road. Obama took quite some time to follow him, but follow him he did, and he seems perfectly comfortable there.

However, Obama’s negativity is still largely reactive, his offensives generally counter-attacks. Contrary to the whines of the GOP establishment, when Obama goes negative he rarely appears as cynical and vindictive as McCain. For starters, Obama does not lie nearly as much. Obama’s campaign, now even bereft of much of the idealistic bi-partisanship he is famous for, is far more honest than McCain’s. Obama’s candidacy is still premised on a vision and a hope. The McCain candidacy has changed its raison d’être so many times, it is physically impossible to assess where he actually stands at any given time.

For example, once upon a time McCain opposed offshore drilling. He came around to supporting it, as is perfectly reasonable, when conditions on the ground changed. However, thereafter “drill, baby, drill” became one of the fundamental tenets of his campaign. Such a reversal stretches the imagination and insults the voters’ intelligence.

Just this week, McCain said he opposed any more federal bailouts of America’s troubled financial institutions. The next day, when AIG received federal assistance, he supported it lest he appear out of touch with the needs of the American people. Then McCain, apparently assuming voters have the memories of goldfish, said that Obama had not taken a stand on the financial crisis. That allegation is absolutely false as Obama has been discussing it continuously all week. Just yesterday, McCain said in a thoroughly unintelligible speech that the Fed should cease being the source of bailouts. Following the various political stances of John McCain is liable to leave one with motion sickness.

All the while this political merry-go-round is flanked by incessant attacks on Obama.

There are countless other examples of the chameleon-like political persona of John McCain. John Kerry, who knows a thing or two about being a “flip-flopper”, pointedly made note of them all in his convention speech. The most disappointing of all is immigration. McCain, who has always been the champion of the immigrant at great political risk, abandoned his position during the primaries in favour of irrational and iterative GOP orthodoxy. McCain, who was once the standard-bearer of reason on this subject, now supports “strong borders” as if the Arizona desert, Black Hawk helicopters, US Customs and Border Protection patrols, and, perhaps scariest of all, patrolling “minutemen”, do not serve as enough discouragement to stop the hopeful from striving for freedom and prosperity. It will never work, so logically the US should opt for a practical solution that does not sell-out the American people or American values and America’s promise. There is clearly little hope for such a resolution when once rational voices now parrot the logic of insane and impractical immigration control. Clearly a significant portion of Americans never consumed the lesson that America assimilated the Irish, Poles, Chinese, Japanese, Italians, and Jews, and so too it will assimilate Mexicans- of which millions are already flag-waving Americans.

McCain’s duplicity on immigration is so lurid he even accused Obama of scuttling an agreement in a Spanish-language ad. This could not be further than the case. The elephant McCain represents trampled all over immigration reform.

Unfortunately, Obama’s response to this was a spectacular own-goal. Rather than take the opportunity to illustrate McCain’s insincerity to Hispanic-Americans, he poured fuel on racial fires, and attempted to draw an untenable link between McCain and Rush Limbaugh on immigration. Despite McCain’s disappointing change of heart on immigration, no such link exists. However, in what is perhaps one of the more bizarre moments of this campaign, Rush Limbaugh himself emerged from his radio studio to accuse Obama of “stoking racial antagonism” in the Wall Street Journal. Yes, Obama did take Limbaugh’s quotes out of context, and Obama should not have run the ad. But the fact that Limbaugh can write such an article and make such claims with a straight face proves that the shamelessness of the hypocrite is boundless. Limbaugh has famously pedalled fear on the subject, which makes his apparent outrage all the more striking. How can a figure that spends so much time spewing abuse and vitriol be so childishly sensitive? Surely, such a character, who spends his entire time at the coalface, expects to get muddied.

But that’s the modern incarnation of the GOP. They claim Obama is igniting class warfare but really they are yet again igniting cultural warfare. Representatives of the Republican Party stood on stage in St Paul and hurled insults at the Democrats, few of which were actually witty, most of which were downright mean-spirited and cynical. They explicitly sought to play on the fears of Middle America. The theme that most clearly came out of the GOP Convention was “small town mayor” versus “community organizer”; or rather “American” versus “cosmopolitan.”
The Republican Party is a veteran of such tactics. Nevertheless, the incumbent crop is not seeking to build consensuses like Nixon and Reagan did. Rather, they are trying to divide and conquer. They are on a quest for 50.1% and they are totally apathetic about the condition of the country afterwards. As is plainly evident, governance is not the GOP’s strong suit anymore. They are purely focused on elections, and though electorally adept, they are pushing the electorate closer and closer to the wire each time.

Meanwhile, McCain and Palin have transformed politics from a spin machine to an outright lie machine.

Almost every facet of their collective platform is founded upon a falsehood. McCain ceded the experience argument when he picked Palin, and by making the pick he effectively ceded the judgement argument too. However, Barack Obama clearly had some worthwhile advice: running for office on the mantra of change has huge potential for success. Thus, the new merchants of change were born: John McCain and Sarah Palin. They are going to reform Washington it is claimed. How exactly they will manage the task is unclear and, like everything else, subject to change.

Ignoring the incredulity generated by McCain/Palin’s assertion that they are the change ticket; the stream of lies and nonsense being advanced actually beggars belief.

Palin, according to McCain, is America’s foremost expert on energy. If that’s the case, God help the US. For an authority on energy, she sounds strikingly shallow as “drill, baby, drill” will hardly rescue America from a carbon famine and herald an age of energy independence. Palin has displayed scant knowledge of the other sources of energy, which the US will need to be independent, while her statements on oil and gas have hardly been professorial.

The governor has a habit of saying “I told Congress “thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere”. This is sheer fantasy. During her gubernatorial campaign Palin was decidedly in favour of the bridge, even telling residents that she didn’t think they were “nowhere”. It seems unclear exactly why she turned against the bridge, and it is unlikely she’ll present the truthful answer, but it was either because Alaskan opinion at large felt the money could be better spent, or because Congress itself said “thank, but no thanks.”

McCain likes to present has running mate as some sort of inveterate soldier of fortune in the battle against earmarks. But really McCain is trying to construct the political version of The Lord of the Rings. As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a Washington lobbyist – one of the same ilk she is supposedly going to destroy – to help procure earmarks. Under her reign Wasilla received so much in federal goodies, its resident were among the highest per-capita recipients of federal earmarks in the United States.

Palin might also be heard telling cheering crowds that she sold the Alaska Governor’s luxury jet on E-Bay. Yet, she did no such thing.

As governor she claimed to undertake a world tour of sorts, visiting Kuwait, Iraq, Germany, and Ireland. Except the extent of her trip to Iraq was a mere a stop at the border, while her visit to Ireland actually consisted of a pit-stop in Shannon Airport where she never even disembarked. It was the first time she had ever received a passport.

It is on foreign policy where Sarah Palin’s failings are most glaring and the attempts to taper over them most extravagant. As Andrew Sullivan has repeatedly pointed out, there is no evidence of Palin ever taking a stand on any issue pertaining to international relations, yet it is claimed she will bring a tough brand of straight-talking diplomacy to the global stage. What are the foundations of the Palin Doctrine of US diplomacy? What intellectual assumptions does she make? What principles guide her view of the world? Where have they previously been exhibited? There has been no meaningful attempt on behalf of the McCain camp to address these questions precisely because there is no answer. Rather, it has been claimed that Palin is an authority on Russia by virtue of Alaska being the closest US state to the largest country in the world. Many once plausible commentators lost any pretence of credibility when they supported this claim. Of all the lies and distortions that have been advanced since Palin’s nomination, this is the most outrageous and also most disrespectful to the people of the US and the world. The tempatation to utterly mock this claim is all too easy to succumb to. But in actuality, it is no laughing matter. It is highly possible that Sarah Palin might soon be involved in summitry with Russia and China, or in talks with Iran. The next president will almost certainly have to deal with a crisis in Pakistan. The next president will also have to confront a world that drifts closer and closer towards power-political, rather than ideological, configurations. It is has been said over the last two years that the American people are reluctant to elect a foreign policy novice. Yet there is now a very palpable chance that they’ll elect a vice president and would be president, who is not a novice but exists outside the realm of reality altogether. She inhabits a world where proximity confers knowledge on foreign affairs. She lives on a parallel plane where coming from a state with oil and gas renders you an expert on energy. And she demonstrates a belief that lying makes something true.

This is the woman that John McCain picked to be his deputy. This is the web of lies that now binds the McCain campaign together. Every time they get called into account for their dishonesty they simply cry sexism or snobbery, and the lies just get repeated. When members of the media dare to question Palin’s experience, the spectre of sexism is always used to patch over the governor’s lack of basic fitness for the White House. Simultaneously large crowds are continuously treated to the thoroughly discredited line, “I told Congress thanks, but no thanks.” Not only are Palin’s claims overwhelmingly disproven, but John McCain too is now completely discredited. Of all the reversals McCain has pulled off due to political expediency this is the most damaging. McCain wishes “to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self-interest.” Lately he has been setting a poor example. In his most important “presidential decision” so far, he opted for someone with a fundamental lack of experience, no demonstrated intellectual curiosity, and no qualms about being dishonest. Indeed, what on earth happened McCain?

On the campaign trail McCain likes to say of his running mate: “I can’t wait to introduce her to Washington.” But has she ever been introduced to John McCain?

Pigs, lipstick, toasters, and elitists

2008-09-18T21:26:00.012+01:00

In a world marred by incessant conflict, poverty, disease, and now financial meltdown we have all been praying for some comic relief. Yesterday, the gods of humour, with their infinite wisdom and boundless mercy, propitiated.

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, wife of British banking mogul Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild, prominent support of Hillary Clinton and member of the DNC, endorsed John McCain. Following McCain’s slogan almost to the letter she said it was time “to put country ahead of party”. Though worth an absolute fortune, de Rothschild insisted that she’s simply a middle class girl from New Jersey. Yeah, and Barack Obama’s an elitist.

Well, apparently he is. That was essentially the logic of de Rothschild’s endorsement. Straining the limits of credulity, de Rothschild said, “I don’t like him, I feel like he’s an elitist.” It was clearly beyond a middle class New Jersey girl, who, as chance would have it, happens to be worth well over $100M, to support an arrogant elitist, who, as chance would have it, was raised by a single mother, of modest means, and by grandparents, of even humbler origins, and who put himself through college before turning down top dollar jobs to work in South Chicago.

As one blogger put it, “Irony truly is dead.” But we’re all missing the point. De Rothschild put it best when she said “to be privileged is not elitist.”

“An elitist is someone whose state of mind is that they’re better than the rest of us,” she said.

Thankfully, there are such people around to square these pressing matters for us.

So Barack Obama, the elitist, has lost the stamp of approval of the House of the Rothschilds. It remains to be seen how the de facto endorsement of Britain’s premier financial family will help John McCain in the wake of “meltdown Monday”. It’s unlikely to seriously affect Obama’s sleep, even though de Rothschild has vowed to campaign for McCain between now and November 4.

The McCain camp has yet to confirm where the campaigning will take place. But de Rothschild, who divides her time between New York City and a British country estate, may have a couple of suggestions. Perhaps it was learning that McCain had seven homes that swung it for the forsaken Clintonite. Now that she is the source of ridicule from just about everybody with one home or less, she conjured the image of great anti-elitists before her. “Ronald Reagan might have said it right,” she contended, “the Democratic Party left me, I didn’t leave the Democratic Party.”

Whether this is racism, classism, or sheer patriotism, it simply beggars belief. However, there is nothing quite as odd, and strangely satisfying, as watching one of the planet’s privileged few paint his/herself with the brush of the commoner, or better yet the victim.

With that in mind, one eagerly awaits these campaigning events.

“In your places or mine John?”

The gift that keeps on giving

2008-09-18T21:26:00.011+01:00

Speaking to CNN, America’s new Robin Hood, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, denied that she was bitter over Hillary Clinton’s loss to Barack Obama.

Indeed, with the word bitter dangling in front of her nose, she just could not resist taking a swipe at Obama for his, endlessly repeated, “Bitter Americans” remark. However, the world of effective political quips seemed to evade de Rothschild yet again. Hot on the heels of her failure to understand the definition of irony, de Rothschild struggled to consider that the people she sought to defend might not appreciate being called...“rednecks”.

"Barack Obama went and called the people who have guns and cling to their religion bitter. The people out who are the rednecks or whatever are bitter," she said.
Obama never actually called anyone a “redneck”, so it’ll be difficult for her to claim she was paraphrasing him. Is it a case that the middle class girl from New Jersey is so in tune with the sentiments of Middle America that she feels their anguish over being called “rednecks”? Or rather is the multi-millionaire, who divides her ornate internationalist life between the UK and New York, so out of touch she can’t help but insult those she’s trying to defend?

Who knows? In any case, maybe they’re all now “bitter” about being called “rednecks”.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump, not wanting to be outdone by the competitive Rothschilds raced to endorse John McCain last night. The premise behind the endorsement was Trump’s “knowledge” of McCain to be “a great guy, a tremendous guy”.

He also railed against Obama’s decision not to select Hillary Clinton as his running mate, and used a neat little anecdote of the incredulity of his foreign friend to diminish the fact that Obama even won the Democratic Primaries. Furthermore, not wanting to back the losing horse Trump said, “It looks to me like McCain is probably winning.”

Of course, Donald Trump did not try to use his endorsement to stoke the fires of class warfare. In fact, his real motivations were fairly implicit. “This is not the right time for tax increases,” Trump argued. “And Obama is going to raise your taxes drastically.”

That’s right Mr Trump, he is going to raise your taxes drastically.

Thus, McCain has gathered for himself quite the high-profile and wealthy coterie. Now, to cement the appearance of being gloriously aloof, McCain only needs the endorsement of President Bush. Oh wait, he has it.

Hannity takes Palin for a brisk walk through her talking points

2008-09-18T19:31:00.008+01:00

Sarah Palin last night stumbled her way through the softest, most favourable, if not downright choreographed, interview with Sean Hannity.

Hannity has been hailed by many on the right this year for his tiresome phrase "2008 is the year the media officially died in America" (or some derivative of that sentence). Indeed, it has. Not once did Hannity ever try to challenge Governor Palin. Not once did he try and lure her out of her comfort zone (where she remains strikingly uncomfortable). There was absolutely no critical analysis of any of McCain's positions, and it seemed like every question began with a little teaser of why Obama is unfit bordering on treacherous, allowing Palin the perfect opportunity to launch into one of her rehearsed, dishonest talking points.

There you have it. The American media in it's death-throes in 2008. Sean Hannity was the fatal symptom.

Weapons and Taxes

2008-09-18T13:28:00.005+01:00

Barack Obama writes, in a USA Today op-ed, “The only way to end the petty partisanship that has consumed Washington for so long and make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans is by bringing Republicans and Democrats together to get things done. That's what I've done throughout over a decade in public office.”

He cites tax-cuts and charter schools in Illinois, as wells as ethics reform and weapons non-proliferation agreements as examples of his bi-partisan record.

The latter two are dubious examples of bi-partisanship. Weapons proliferation is hardly controversial and the ethics reform bill actually led to a split between Obama and McCain, before passing the Senate 96-2.

Obama certainly has a better bi-partisan appeal than a bi-partisan record. This image has been his most successful political approach since his convention speech in 2004, and it is doubtless the best avenue for him to pursue now.

Meanwhile, John McCain released another ad repackaging his incessantly repeated claims that Obama will raise taxes and dramatically increase spending in Washington.

Aside from the mendacity of such claims it is difficult to fathom how any government could possibly build on the level of spending seen by the Bush Administration. The most profligate European leftist party has a better sense of fiscal responsibility than the GOP at the moment.

One certainty is the fact-checkers will have their heads spinning today.

And the winner is...Arizona

2008-09-13T17:01:00.006+01:00

The American Legislative Exchange Council have designed a competitiveness index for American states based on similar global indices.

The winners are Arizona, Florida, and Texas while Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio are losing it. Accordingly, this should serve as a model for what the US would look like under either Obama or McCain. So the reasoning goes (naturally for this logic to be successful you have to completely ignore the fact that Bush has been President for almost eight years and the consequent outsourcing and credit crunch as well as ignore the diversity of the American states in everything from population to geography to industrial potential) an America under McCain will look like one giant Arizona, however, under Obama the US will resemble...Illinois.

Phil Gramm whines to Wall Street Journal readers: “We now face a national choice to determine if everything that has failed the families of Michigan, Ohio and Illinois will be imposed on a grander scale across the nation. In an appropriate twist of fate, Michigan and Ohio, the two states that have suffered the most from the policies that Mr. Obama proposes, have it within their power not only to reverse their own misfortunes but to spare the nation from a similar fate.”

Back in a week

2008-09-07T00:17:00.001+01:00

The Rhino is currently having its horns sharpened and will return after September 12.

GRQ

Ivan, the Infamous Red Army, Returns After a Little R & R

2008-08-11T23:51:00.008+01:00

Wars are in a disgracefully trivial sense like movies. A lot of bad ones like to re-present themselves in sequels. The sequels are almost always worse than the originals. The same can be said for musicians, who defy every industry expert, every person with a logical brain for that matter, and make a no holds barred comeback. Dmitry Medvedev and his puppet master, Vladimir Putin, probably weren’t listening to the Backstreet Boys last Friday, but the same principal applied. Russia is back, like all countries with malevolent designs, she has unfinished business: a quest for security. As it was for Stalin, and as it was for Ivan the Terrible, so it is for Putin and Medvedev, security for Russia means insecurity for everyone else.

Russia’s invasion of Georgia over the past few days is deeply symbolic of Russia’s re-emergence on the world stage. It was hardly a spur of the moment attack, but rather the culmination of a long period of hatred and provocation. Russia has been in retreat since 1989. The first thing to disappear was its claim on global power and the consonant fantasy that Soviet Communism was ‘the wave of the future.’ Few people still believed this by 1989; indeed many Communists had long since been looking to China, both as a paradigm of economic advancement and as a prototype for smashing dissent. However, the year the wall came tumbling down was the final nail in the coffin for Soviet expansionism, and each of its little puppet regimes fell victim to popular calls for change, and the indomitable human yearning for freedom. Two years later, the Soviet Union itself was a poorly written chapter in human history. Those were the good old days.

Not so anymore. Russia has been aggrieved for a long time now, probably since before 1989, but the Kremlin has had to grin and bear it. This is an uncomfortable disposition for the leaders of Red Square. Firstly, grinning only comes naturally in the Kremlin when someone else is suffering. Secondly, bearing it is hard a state of being for leaders who feel their neighbours are divinely designed to be its vassal states. So having taken a crash course in capitalism and democracy under Boris Yeltsin that was doomed to failure, the Kremlin endured as is its former fiefdoms, one by one, chose democracy, NATO, and for the most of them, the EU.
Russia was not in a position to retaliate. It was naturally bruised having undergone a humiliating collapse- imagine having the wave the history behind you one day, and being history the next. Moreover, its economy in 1992 was roughly on a par with the Netherlands. The great bear of the east was doomed to lie there, wounded in a snare, bleeding on the periphery.

Putin, on the other hand, performed a volte-face. By re-centralising control of Russia’s mammoth energy industry he wrested power out of the hands of the oligarchs, bestowing favour on those who were disposed to him, while arresting or exiling those who criticised him. He virtually abolished local democracy making governorships political appointees. It was standard fare. Curtailing freedom of press and expression came naturally. However, more ominously, Putin gave succour to an array of jingoistic militias who roam the streets of Moscow routinely harassing opponents and foreigners. This provides a snapshot of how the Kremlin uses nationalism as a tool in its game. Anti-Western rhetoric and taking stances such as that taken on Kosovo all serve the same purpose, fanning nationalist sentiment and tightening society.

The Kremlin has been ready to act for a while now but, once again as it was in the 1940s, that office is, as George Kennan famously observed in 1946, utterly responsive to the logic of force. The final straw probably came when Ukraine underwent the Orange Revolution and adopted a pro-Western posture. Its leaders uttered dreams of NATO and EU membership. Russia responded by fomenting unrest in Eastern Ukraine and in Crimea (where support for the government in Kiev is cool) and then by famously cutting off gas supplies to freezing Ukrainians in the dead of winter, after they failed to pay an exorbitant price hike. The main conclusion Russia drew from its schoolyard bullying was not that it was physically able to steal the new kid’s lunch, but rather that the prefects were too busy trying to tame the attractive girls who were smoking. Next Russia flexed its muscles a tad more, this time focusing on an actual EU member. It unleashed a cyber-war on Estonia, yet the rest of the EU seemed to care little, least of all countries like Germany who were keeping warm off Russian gas. Thus the bully learned a new lesson; robbing one of the prefects is fine, so long as a couple of the other prefects receive a share of the loot.

And so the bear turned south, only to find a former Soviet Republic crooning to a distinctly different tune. Waves of protest in 2003 lead to the resignation of Eduard Shevardnadze, Mikhail Gorbachev’s foreign minister who had run Georgia in subservience to Moscow, and saw American educated Mikheil Saakashvili thrust into power with a democratic mandate. Saakashvili was determined to heed the calls of his countrymen and so Georgia radically realigned itself in favour of the West. Troops were put on the ground in Iraq (up to last week Georgia had the third highest contingent of troops there), while NATO membership was openly discussed, and lest anyone doubt Georgia’s pro-Western commitment the Tbilisi airport road was renamed in honour of, the one and only, George W. Bush.

It is said that Putin’s dislike for Saakashvili goes far beyond the borders of policy, and is in fact a deep personal enmity. That only adds fuel to a fire already ablaze. Over the last few days Russia has signalled that it is ready to re-erect its historic sphere of influence. The Kremlin is tired of pro-Western upstarts on its borders. However, the recent crisis has more alarming features than previous ones. The most obvious is the use of brute force. Nevertheless, also deeply disturbing are the parallels with Nazi Germany. The pretext for Russia’s invasion of Georgia was the abuse of Russian people in rebel territories within the Caucasian state. One suspects few people were moved by the expressions of Pan-Slavic sympathy. Not only is it possible that Russia only conferred citizenship on these people so that it could lure Georgia into a trap, the sheer mendacity of the claims were themselves disproven when the Russian army moved beyond the borders of South Ossetia, into Georgia proper, taking cities on the way, bombing Tbilisi airport, and opening up a second front. The Georgian army is retreating, Saakashvili is calling for a ceasefire, yet Ivan keeps on marching, and just today Stalin’s hometown of Gori has been reunited with the Russian Federation.

The onus is now on the West to act. However, in order to so, we would first have to wake up. Whenever the collective might of the Western democracies sees an enemy vanquished it has a habit of taking a nap. The democracies defeated Fascism only to face Communism. Communism virtually disappeared only for Radical Islam to arrive. Now Russia is back, and though the signs have long been displayed, so to have they been ignored. The fundamental flaw of Western outlook has been complacency each time a great and challenging ideology is discredited, but the truth is while fascism and communism were defeated, authoritarianism never was. Russia is back, strong and authoritarian, and this time with the oldest of all ideologies: pure power politics.

Tragically, despite all the bloodshed of the twentieth century, the world is once again starting to resemble a giant game of Risk. The US and Europe have to face this reality, just as they met previous threats. Russia’s re-emergence means it is no longer simply content with supporting tyrants and mini-despots, training the armies of rogue states like Myanmar, or disrupting humanitarian efforts on the Security Council. The bear is once again ready for war. However, as always Russia will respond to force. The only question is will the West stand up for the embattled states, who have embraced its promise, yet inhabit Russia’s projected sphere of tyranny? The EU is too divided it would seem, Britain and Russia are already fighting a little renewed Cold War, Barack Obama is probably wondering why the Kremlin never got the credit crunch memo, John McCain is certain to try and use this to his political advantage and Bush is a lame duck with no mandate. Perhaps the ultimate irony of the Bush years will be Soviet-style tanks rolling down the only street ever likely to be named after the president. One hopes not. But one can be sure that if Russia succeeds in Georgia, it will turn elsewhere in Eastern Europe, each time getting a little closer to the EU. Moldova and Ukraine are certainly on the Kremlin’s list.

So Russia has returned. She has used the Olympics as some sort of cover to launch a policy of re-emergence, re-assertion, re-annexation, and in all likelihood, regime change. Funnily enough, not far away from Georgia, in the Russia city of Sochi, they are busily readying themselves for the 2014 Winter Olympics. Will Western leaders boycott those games? Probably not. One at least hopes that by then the West will have defended small countries who have dared to defy the writ of an oppressive neighbour. Will they? Ivan doesn’t think so.

'Closer to Baghdad than Beijing'

2008-08-05T00:34:00.003+01:00

The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, as it is formally known, has many defining characteristics not least the fact that the majority of its people are not Han Chinese, but rather of Turkic Uyghur race and of the Muslim faith. As a consequence, a protracted history of conflict between the Uyghur and the Han people has characterised their relations. However, the Chinese have long since gained the upper hand and Xinjiang remains a region of China. More recently, there had been a rise of furtive tension in Xinjiang as the clamouring for independence from Beijing became greater. Not only has Xinjiang’s existence as part of the People’s Republic of China been maintained through force and oppression, simply put, the majority of the people there do not identify with China and rather see themselves as a Central Asian grouping, both in terms of their culture and traditions, and their faith. Sky News claimed recently that the city of Kashgar, Xinjiang, on the PRC’s western border is closer to Baghdad than Beijing. Whatever the geographical truth behind this assertion, there is certainly a greater cultural connection with the road leading west to the Middle East through Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, then there is with the road leading east to Beijing. Indeed, China’s difficulties with the Muslim people of Central Asia has hardly been a secret before now and is certainly one of the underlying factors that pushed China and Russia closer together over the last decade.

Xinjiang certainly looked more like Baghdad than Beijing today as unspeakable tragedy befell the city. Two Uighur separatists assailed a convoy of unarmed policemen who were jogging near their base. The details are somewhat sketchy though it would appear the attackers drove their truck into the group, stabbing and hacking away at some before launching grenades into the nearby base. So far, the massacre has caused 16 deaths and many more injuries. That the authorities will execute the two men, who were subsequently apprehended, is a near certainty; what it means in the longer term is less clear.

Naturally, with them beginning on Friday, the major elephant in the room is the Olympics. The symbolism of an attack so close to this event was hardly lost on the terrorists in Xinjiang. Nor will it be lost on the Communist Party. Having recently stepped up its anti-terror activities, and deploying the most outrageously over-the-top counter terrorist defence, which includes 100,000 men and surface to air missiles, to Beijing, the Chinese government has been accused recently of inflating the terror threat it claims exists. Their activities also included the execution of a line of dissidents lately, which has lead groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to cry foul. Nicholas Bequelin, a researcher at the latter organisation, said that ‘China is not acting as a responsible Olympics host when it blurs so much of the actual terrorism risk.’

First off, the mere suggestion that China was ever likely to be a ‘responsible Olympic host’ is laughably baseless. Beijing has an air quality so poor it is a genuine danger to the competing athletes. The Chinese government has literally built walls around impoverished and degraded areas in Beijing lest China’s reputation be besmirched by Olympic tourists happening on them. The CCP has rolled back on almost every commitment it made to the International Olympic Committee most notably that foreign journalists would not suffer from internet censorship. In order to ensure that foreign troublemakers could not gain access to the country for the Olympics the borders were tightened to the extent that China is allegedly a harder country to do business in now, than it was before. The reality is not only that awarding Beijing the Olympics was a mistake, not least because of its appalling human rights record, but because every claim as to the benefits of ‘constructive engagement’ and ‘silent diplomacy’ have been utterly discredited, if not absolutely gutted.

However, in spite of this were the Chinese right about the terror threat, and were all those who dismissed it as some phantom designed to allow the CCP exert greater control wrong? On first glance yes, nevertheless, most terrorism experts have never denied that attacks in Xinjiang are a reality not a possibility, but that an attack on Beijing is probably beyond the capacity of the Uyghur separatists. Needless to say, one hopes that to be the case. But on the flip side, the Chinese government now has greater reason to seek to tie separatist movements on its Western border in with international jihadism. To do so would be largely inaccurate and undoubtedly political, though they have already set such a precedent, and have largely been doing just this all along. Though the reach of groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir into Xinjiang has increased, and though some Muslim separatists have received training in Pakistan the links are rather tenuous. Firstly, the cause of those in Xinjiang has not been popularised to the same extent as say Chechnya, Mindanao, and especially not Palestine. Moreover, Islam in Central Asia has undergone an awakening, though it is not the political force it is in the Middle East or South Asia. Ultimately, the issue in Xinjiang is one of self-determination rather than international jihadism. The Chinese government has every right to defend its people, and should do its utmost to ensure no serious links develop between Muslim separatists and the malign world of transnational terrorism. The fear is, however, that painting a picture of such links will only serve as a justification for the CCP to exercise an even heavier hand in Xinjiang. This will only exacerbate the problem.

Even if a terrorist attack took place outside of Xinjiang, and even if it bore the Jihadist hallmarks, any subsequent likening of it to 9/11 or 7/7 would be anachronistic. Essentially, China’s issue with the Uyghur people is about autonomy and oppression, it is not rooted in Al Qaeda philosophy, and it is centuries old. As the Chinese government seeks to defend the tourists who are now thronging into the country and its security personnel from further attacks, it would do well to ponder the causes of the conflict. By using international terrorism as a pretext for a greater crack down in Xinjiang, they would, as already argued, only increase the centrifugal elements within China. As 2008 has shown, those elements are considerable. From political dissidents calling for democracy to Tibet to Xinjiang, countless people are lining up against the Chinese state. The CCP’s response has been a violent one: military deployments and political executions.

Some have been surprised that they have acted in such a manner, especially in a year where the world’s eye is fixed upon them. However, those people have misread the nature of the CCP’s hold on power. The Chinese government is a well oiled behemoth, fundamentally aware of its priorities. It desperately wanted to impress the world with this Olympics, but as its authority was challenged, that priority fell into second place as the reassertion of state authority surpassed it. In the end the classic CCP strategy fell into place as it always does: even with the eyes of the world watching and its people stirring, the CCP knows where its bread and butter is; it will maintain a tight-lipped populace at the expense of international ignominy, the way it always has before.

Consequently, the Olympics have gone from an episode which would herald the arrival of China onto the world stage, a landmark spectacle like no other, to an exercise in damage control. In many senses it’s been a bad year for the Chinese government politically, as conflict in Tibet has given way to strife in Xinjiang, which has had this fallout on the Olympics. Such is life for a state that bullies the crestfallen people who suffer under its remit, and denies them any freedom of expression whatsoever. And such is life for a state with a brutal history of repression and no democratic legitimacy.

The CCP’s response has been disappointingly familiar. In time, China will have to address the wishes of Tibetans, the Uyghur people, all those who want greater expression- those who are uncomfortable in today’s China. Maybe then will it host a worldwide sporting event free from embarrassment, calls for boycotts, and Orwellian censorship (though not, unfortunately, free from terrorism). Meanwhile, casting such dreams aside, China continues to act as an international defender of terrorist states like Myanmar, Sudan and Zimbabwe, under the pretext of national sovereignty; a concept so utterly foreign to millions of its citizens who are denied any shred of autonomy. It continues to bankroll terrorism in Sudan, yet uses terrorism as a pretext to further crack down on legitimate aspirations of national self-determination within its own inflated borders.

The New Face of the Republican Party: Barack Obama

2008-07-31T19:15:00.002+01:00

As this exciting election campaign continues to enthral, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. It’s not just the American youth, liberals, and adoring European masses who are obsessed with Barack Obama and stricken with a severe case of Obamania; Republicans are too. It’s old news that Obama has drawn in large swathes of Republicans who are disillusioned with their political establishment. The group ‘Republicans for Obama’ has long been established. However, the virus of Obama celebrity has moved from early onset to second phase symptoms. The first signs may have been that Obama blurred the lines of ‘red’ and ‘blue’ states putting Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Montana, among others, into play, and snatching states like Iowa. The progression was clear as high profile Republicans such as Richard Nixon’s daughter and a former Ronald Reagan speechwriter opted to support Obama. Now it’s getting harder to monitor as those who intend to vote against Obama simply cannot take their eyes off of him, do not seem comfortable when his name is not on their lips, and go red faced whenever he flatters to appear- be it blushing or with anger. Leading the infected Republicans as they fixate over the Democratic candidate’s every word, breath, and movement, is their own presidential hopeful, John McCain.

The most casual glance at some of the punditry that is sympathetic to the McCain campaign will reveal at least two characteristics. Firstly, it is far more focused on Obama than McCain. Secondly, that focus is irritatingly repetitive. It would appear that some pro-McCain commentators are programmed like robots and receive a CD once a month which they download. Once the information has been successfully stored the pundit must then repeat every kilobyte of data assimilated, and do so every time a camera is within a 100 metre radius. Unfortunately, the net result of this is that viewers are not being given reasons why they should vote for McCain, rather their ears bleed as they listen to selected media personalities tell their audience why they should dislike Obama, usually through attacks, very often of a personal nature, through any given tiresome iterance. One should not expect to hear valid reasons why not to support Obama, rather the mere fact that he was a ‘community organiser’ will be disparaged (Sean Hannity), or his popularity in Europe will be demeaned (every Republican commentator), or his catalogue of ‘flip-flops’ will be re-iterated incessantly(every Republican commentator)- as if being open to changing facts or listening and then evaluating is such a bad thing, and is if McCain hasn’t changed his mind considerably in the past six months. Denunciations of Obama are very often crassly hypocritical. It would not be unusual to hear him pilloried for changing his mind, and castigated for not being open to the facts on the ground in Iraq in the same sentence. In one insightful edition of Hannity and Colmes, Sean Hannity repeated this script and then agreed as Dick Morris accused Obama of talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Republican websites are bearing the brunt of Obamania most visibly. A brief visit to http://www.gop.com/ and one will realise that it looks more a like a photo spread on Barack Obama then the senior Republican website ostensibly supporting John McCain. The talented GOP strategists took their Obama image database one step further and created http://www.meetbarackobama.com/ . Herein is the real Obama, or so it is claimed, but really it’s just plenty more photos of the Illinois senator for the self-flagellating fan, who loves him so much he hates him, to get his fix of visual penance. Genius never rests, and so Barackbook was created. Crass plagiarism of Facebook aside, there is nothing inventive here, nor is it going to capture the youth that Republicans have lost. It’s simply more of the same allegations, and of course, plenty of pictures.

And so, with everyone stricken down by Obamania, was John McCain really immune? It would seem that his bodily defences surrendered in July resulting in a spate of negative Obama-focused campaign ads. Four stand out in particular. Two were tailored for Obama’s overseas tour and contain a series of fairly scurrilous allegations on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Obama’s commitment to injured service personnel that have been routinely discredited. Naturally, Obama’s image accounts for over 50% of the footage in these ads. Then there is another in which Obama is ludicrously blamed for high gas prices in the US. Apparently, the junior senator, who, as it is charged, has no experience and has never made a real decision, actually is responsible for the entire condition of American energy and the burden on the consumer. Of course, the best until last. The McCain campaign unleashed this gem yesterday. Entitled ‘celeb’, Obama is displayed in a collection of footage that highlights his popularity, and is then compared to crestfallen celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. The subliminal message was clearly designed for a chimpanzee: ‘Obama is popular, tens of thousands turn out to hear him speak, that makes him a celebrity, oh wait Britney and Paris are also celebrities, would you like one of them to be president?’ ‘Hell, no!’ One’s inner voice replies. The subliminal narrator continues, ‘well, Obama is just like them, because they’re all celebrities, that means voting for Obama would be like voting for a spoilt, drugged-up socialite.’ Shortly after the images of Hilton and Spears appear ‘is he ready to lead?’ emblazons the screen. Just in case the message evades anybody.

Leaving aside one’s outrage that Republicans have stabbed in the back, Britney Spears, the only celebrity to support Bush in 2004, this trend reveals a lot about the state of the ‘Grand Old Party’. They apparently concede that the best way to get a voters attention is to flash images of Obama on the screen. The fact that they are using the strategy of ‘Obama versus Obama’ shows that they are bankrupt of means to bring their ideas to the public, if they even have those ideas. They have unashamedly resorted to the politics of fear. The fact that the Republican Party, which has sat outside the White House for only twelve of the last forty years, is in this condition is quite pathetic. Moreover, John McCain, the self-styled political maverick, who always denounced negative campaigning and fear politics, is now using it as his only trump card. It would seem the buzzwords of ‘experience’ and ‘country first’ did not do enough in the polls and so that message has to be accompanied by Obama in all manner of poses. It may yet work for them, though it would appear unlikely. McCain is not too far behind Obama on national polls of ‘registered voters’, though he is further behind on polls of ‘likely voters’. However, it is in the electoral college that the real bloodbath may await. So long the saving grace for Republicans, it allowed Reagan and Nixon to win 49 states in Caesar-like conquests, and it practically gave Bush the election in 2000. Now state by state polls suggest Obama will clear the hurdle of 300 electoral college votes. Republicans are up against a political force as vibrant and virile as JFK or Reagan, if not better. It is they who are suffering from the politics of fear.

In another McCain ad, the US mainstream media is shown in a succession of clips doting over and practically professing their love to Barack Obama. It must have caused some embarrassment as Chris Matthews calls him ‘a gift from the world to us’, Lee Cowen says that ‘it’s not cool if you haven’t seen Barack Obama in person’, and Jack Cafferty compares him to the Rolling Stones. Worse yet, one pundit claims he felt a thrill running up his leg when hearing him speak. Well, the media may have thrills running up their legs, but Republicans have something running down theirs. It’s urine.

Obamania on Tour

2008-07-23T04:51:00.003+01:00

The political phenomenon that is Barack Obama, last weekend, took to the skies as he undertook his first foreign trip as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Beginning in Kabul, Obama travelled on to Iraq and Jordan, and will continue to Israel, before heading to the European capitals of Berlin, Paris, and London. Middle Easterners and Europeans will get belated stimulation from what Mark Steyn terms ‘political Viagra.’ The tour itself has received intense American media coverage, which has also proved controversial as the three network news anchors elected to accompany the Democratic Candidate, leading Fox News to cry foul on John McCain’s behalf. In any case, however the venture is viewed in the US, Obama is certain to receive a reception that the current president could scarcely dream of, at least in Europe.

At face value, Obama’s reasons for undertaking the venture would seem obvious enough, however, underneath the surface many onlookers have speculated as to his real motivations. Conservatives have decried what they argue was Obama’s decision to give a policy brief before departing, thus lending weight to the belief that this trip is little more than a photo opportunity. Very few would claim that this trip will not, in part, be a giant photo shoot, and the power of images is hardly lost on the Obama campaign, however, such an argument is more an attempt to slight Obama than anything else, and blacken what could otherwise prove a very positive venture for the presidential hopeful, at home as Americans see Obama as a statesman, and abroad, as he acknowledges America’s allies.

The world is already awash with Obamania. From Europeans wearing Obama t-shirts to Malaysians sporting ‘Obama for President’ bumper stickers, the Illinois Senator boasts rare global popularity. If Europeans or Asians could elect the US President, Obama would win in a landslide, and every poll on the subject ratifies this view. They are not without their racism, of course, and when Europeans used to ask the seemingly definitive question of whether or not Americans would vote for a black man, with the obvious answer being ‘no, of course not’, Americans were doing precisely the opposite and voting for a black man. Moreover, there is no society in Europe or Asia with the level of multi-ethnic empowerment that the US has, as the recent election campaign has affirmed, so it is neither superior character on behalf of Germans or Britons, or because their interests would be served by an Obama presidency, that causes people to turnout and support him in such force . On the contrary, should Obama see this through, and remain faithful to many of his campaign pledges, there could well be a significant retreat of American business, which would be troublesome for the EU, a serious hurdle for Southeast and East Asia, and a crippling blow to Canada. The massive support for the Democratic candidate outside of the US is more the culmination of serious dissatisfaction with the incumbent, a genuine sense of having been wooed by Obama’s staggering charm, and a serious attraction to the originality his speech, story, and character brings. Whether Europeans or Asians would actually elect Obama to high office in their own countries, as some American commentators sought to ask, reversing the famous question, is irrelevant- and in many cases the answer would be an emphatic no. Obama is not running for the phantom EU Presidency or the mythical ASEAN Secretariat, he is, of course, seeking to be elected President of the United States, and should he court success, it would herald a wave of goodwill across the world.

One will get a snapshot of that when Obama touches down in Berlin, Paris, and London. There will be adoring masses teeming with adulation, a fact that will be caught on tape and relayed to the US. Naturally, Obama’s campaign will use this to exemplify the differences between him and Bush, and therefore extrapolate that to McCain, while the Republican argument holds that this will be a negative in Middle America. Karl Rove said that such footage would not fly in Pittsburgh, and many others have inserted a whole host of cities, from Toledo to Oklahoma, and Raleigh to Boise. These observers have failed to elucidate how exactly popularity in Europe would automatically translate into negative publicity in America outside Manhattan and San Francisco. Underlying, it would seem, there is a belief in some systemic zero-sum between Europe and Middle America. They could potentially argue about differing beliefs and so forth but few have attempted to take it to this level. Former Clinton consultant and resident sensationalist, Dick Morris, did, however, offer up one of the most ridiculous assessments on the subject when he argued that the Europeans are socialists and Obama is a socialist, and therefore Europeans salivate at the prospect of Obama implementing the Eurocratic-socialist agenda in America. This displays brutal ignorance. Firstly, Obama is no socialist. Secondly, the governments of both France and Germany are centre-right. Gordon Brown is indeed Labour but his and Tony Blair’s governments have been the least labour of all of Britain’s supposed left-wing regimes. Moreover, Brown stands to suffer an absolute electoral massacre at the hands of David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, no less. Additionally, the largest bloc in the European parliament is centre-right, as is that parliament’s president. Social democracy has indeed damaged Europe, and Europeans do not appear to be on the right path to fixing it, but there is no appetite for renewed socialism in Europe. And genuine euro-socialists will not support any American president; the US is force for ill in their eyes, and that is almost a shibboleth for the Euro-left.

In reality there is no neat equation summing up the effects of popularity in Europe on the American public. Yet previous American presidents who have enjoyed esteem in the old world include JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. All three maintained popularity at home in spite of the dreaded support from the latté drinkers across the Atlantic, and none of them carried around the thoughts of Chairman Mao for that matter. It is incredibly unlikely that Middle America will turn against Obama because he is popular in Berlin and London as Karl Rove wishes. However, Obama is not immune to making the odd elitist gaffe. Recently, Obama expressed embarrassment at how mono-linguistic Americans go to Europe armed only with ‘merci beaucoup’. This is ludicrous on many levels, not least because many of the Americans who actually go to Europe are suffering from Euro-philia, and are somewhat proficient in French, German or Spanish. Moreover, Obama can take it from a European who frequently visits the US, though they can speak many languages, the rudest people in America are European tourists.
Barack Obama should avoid statements like this in the future or Karl Rove’s prophecy may yet see the light of day. Popularity in Europe by itself is, if anything, a massive plus. Popularity in Europe, however, coupled with disparaging remarks towards Americans might send a different message. Democrats should be thankful at least that their candidate chose to make this comment in the US and not in Paris, whereby fallout would have been much greater.

The United States, it is often charged, is a young country, but it is a mature one, with a mature electorate, a fact that is often lost on critics and supporters alike. This year, Americans will have to reconcile with a new dimension. For decades, a certain degree of anti-Americanism in Europe was assumed, but so was a level of support from governments in Western Europe. Now, after the Bush tenure, American prestige is in a considerable trough across the Atlantic, and Obama could help lift it. In a normal year, John McCain would actually prove quite popular in Europe, but after the last eight years, it’s now Obamania, plain and simple. Americans will have to come to terms with what that means, and while they should elect their president for their reasons, and their reasons alone, it should also be considered that to make progress globally it would surely be beneficial to have a man in the Oval Office with some degree of global esteem.

An Obama victory will not defeat terrorism, nor make the world any safer for the US, counter the rise of China and India, or heal the transatlantic divide. But it would improve that split. Most importantly, Obama has pinned much of his future strategy to the successful conclusion of the war in ‘precarious’ Afghanistan. Well, it goes without saying that this is in America’s interests, and it has also widely been acknowledged that many of the US’s NATO allies- save Britain and Canada- need to considerably build on their paltry contributions in the fledgling Central Asian state. What an Obama presidency could do is serve as a better sounding board to convince these allies to up their game. It is by no means certain that they would, nor is it definitive that Obama’s popularity would see itself through a period of telling European leaders, and their populations, what to do. However, he would have a far better chance of it that John McCain. It may be somewhat superficial in the short-term, but an Obama administration, by virtue of being lead by Barack Obama would greatly enhance American soft power. That reality should not be lost on the American public in November.

Collective security or Gaelic autarky?

2008-07-01T23:12:00.002+01:00

The rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by the Irish electorate has made headline news all over the world. A casual glance at these articles and the comments placed underneath them is illuminating. British papers and their readers could scarcely conceal their joy; the Irish registered a blow at Brussels for them. Canadians, incredulous that such a minuscule number of people could possibly slow down a process that has yet to be rejected by any other of the EU's 491 million citizens. In the US, onlookers tended to see the no vote as something admirable, a reason to reclaim one's pride in his/her Irish heritage; independent Ireland once again toppled the big man so the common man can remain free.

It is hardly a shock that Americans should feel like this, not only are some 50 million of them of Irish stock, they are, like Irish people, imbued with the blood of rebels and patriots. They are, like us, a profoundly independent people. Herein the similarities end. Americans, have the world's most powerful government aggressively asserting their interests, we do not. Americans have a military that is unparalled in its might, we do not. The US has an economy which, even in turbulent times, is the most successful the world has ever known. No matter how one exaggerates the Celtic Tiger, we do not have this luxury.

I have always been proud of Ireland's independent spirit; yesterday I was not. Irish participation in the EU and the UN etc, has long been seen as a medium for us to consolidate our independence; to do something apart from Britain. On Thursday we jettisoned that trend, and Ireland has not been this close to Britain for quite some time. This is not a bad thing in itself, however, it is when it counters our national interest. Independence is a source of ambivalence in Irish people. Our national psyche is one of free will, yet domestically we are easily subdued. The Catholic church dominated Ireland for decades, while parliamentary elections are rarely much more than a formality for re-electing Fianna Fail. Last week, we childishly listened to the myths, lies, and scare-mongering of republicans, socialists, and hard-right Christians, unlikely bedfellows who share a pre-modern vision for Ireland. Irish people seemed impervious to the reality that when every EU treaty comes around these same characters have pedalled the same tiresome nonsense. Worse yet, they managed to convince enough people that a 'better deal' was somehow in the offing. Sadly, it is not. Other EU countries are hardly going to set an incentive for defection, or allow Ireland to act with impunity. Nor is re-negotiation in our best interest, for every gain there will certainly be losses.

However you look at it, Irish people said to no plans for tax harmonisation that do not exist, or rejected further institutionalising a 'democratic deficit' that is illusory. Maybe we stood up to the bigger players just for the sake of it. In any case, we were wrong. The vote was misplaced, and the debate focused on the wrong issues. Indeed, only the Wall Street Journal seemed to be on the mark, arguing that 'Ireland derailed EU plans aimed at making the bloc a more global player' (13/06/08). This is a succinct analysis. Even a passing glance at global politics will yield to the reality that power is shifting towards behemoth powers once again: Russia has re-emerged, China and India have long since arrived, Brazil, and possibly South Africa, are on their way. There is even some potential in South America and Southeast Asia- maybe even in the Middle East too. The Lisbon Treaty was designed to allow the EU survive on this reconfigured global stage. Many Europeans have realised that if we stand united, we are more than the sum of our parts, but divided we are a rag-tag collection of states, all of which will be eclipsed. Unfortunately, Irish people ignored this fundamental reality in international relations, and chose to dash any hopes of this country having a meaningful voice in world affairs. We are right to say no to 'militarism' in the EU, should it ever appear, but we need an apparatus to respond to militarism in Moscow and Beijing, in Khartoum and Naypyidaw.

It is childish to assume that a 'no' vote will have no negative consequences for this country and will be returned with a 'better deal'. This is not a zero-sum game. If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified in the remainder of the EU, and I expect it will be, save in perhaps Britain, dignity demands the Irish people decide on whether our future lies with the bloc or on our own. By then, Europe will have spoken, it will be ready to respond to the challenges of globalisation, climate change, terrorism, macro-economic imbalances, and power distortions. If we do not wish to do this, then we should try once again to be a small nation in a world a big powers. I do not think we could survive, but that is the choice an independent nation should make. Independence comes with maturity and means taking responsibility for one's actions. Independence, moreover, should not be used to cloak the reality that it is unbecoming of a friendly and honest people to hold our allies, who have given us so much over the last 35 years, back from meeting, head on, the challenges of this new century.

Yours etc,

Gary Quinn

The Tyranny of the Weak

2008-07-01T23:11:00.002+01:00

In his victory address, Declan Ganley boldly asserted that the no vote registered by the Irish electorate on the Lisbon Treaty was sending a message to Brussels, not just from Ireland, but from 'tens of millions of EU citizens'. This notion, that Ireland somehow has a mandate to speak for other European countries, is unique and unwarranted. Mr Ganley claims that 'Euro elites' do not reperesent the people of Europe, but wherein does he derive the power to speak on their behalf? It is the province of citizens of a particular state and their governments to decide on how they wish to register their voice in European elections. It is arrogant of the Irish people to assume we can impose a solution on them, and claim to do so on their behalf. In fact, almost every non-Irish European I know is now quite worried about the future of the EU.

The no campaign's skewed and worrisome vision of democracy is not only typified by this, but by the fact that they feel a country of 4 million people holding back twenty-six countries of 491 million people is somehow democratic. This is not democracy, it is the 'tryanny of the weak', whereby small states can force their will on others because those bigger states adhere to punctilious ideas of consensus.

Mr Ganley further claimed that the Taoiseach now had 'a mandate to go back to Brussels and renegotiate a better deal for Ireland.' This is the most curious of all those pearls bandied about by the no groups. Notwithstanding the fact that Lisbon was a good deal for Ireland and Europe, that even further institutionalised the system whereby small states like Ireland and Malta (402,000 people) had pound for pound better representation than Germany (82 million) or Poland (38 million), it is difficult to deduce what that mandate is considering those who voted no were not asked to append a sentence outlining their reasoning. I can assure Mr Ganley, as a student of diplomacy and negotiation, that the real world does not conduct itself in this way. Re-negotiation will involve Ireland having to produce a national position, which will be the product of tireless negotiation between all the departments of government. This will then have to receive democratic legitimisation. Every other European country, with their own preferences, will go through this process, before the 27 nations meet with 27 different ideas. Added to that will be the EU itself, a functioning organism with its own ideas. Reconciliation of these divergent positions will be inherently tedious, if not impossible, and if Ireland thinks it can get a 'better deal' why shouldn't every other state? Moreover, Irish repudiation of the treaty has exposed the danger of giving states power beyond what they deserve, and I wouldn't be surprised if the larger actors resist this trend in the future: why should Germany's fate hang in the balance because of Ireland? One should not be taken aback if the movement towards a 'core Europe' slowly materialises- at Ireland's expense. Of course, we would decry their selfishness, yet our own selfishness is somehow commendable.

When the US constitution was created it required ratification by only nine of the thirteen states, and the Lisbon Treaty for all the tiresome talk of a 'superstate' is hardly anything as momentous as that great document. If the EU really was democratic, it would operate under the force of popular will, not minority dictate. By that logic EU reform should proceed apace. If Ireland is unhappy with CAP or structural development funds, with the Euro or the right to work anywhere in Europe, with cross-border crime fighting initiatives, or with the certainty that our European neighbours will come to our defence if need be, and if Ireland does not wish to have a meaningful voice in world affairs, then why not sever the rest of our ties with Europe? Otherwise, let's take the responsibility befitting a mature state with the second highest per capita GDP in the EU and start contributing to Europe. That means stop detracting from it.

Yours etc,

Gary Quinn,

Nelson Mandela's Legacy

2008-07-01T23:08:00.002+01:00

Two decades ago, I was born in Johannesburg in a time that proved itself to be exciting as people in fetters freed themselves across the planet.

South Africa was particularly special. The crimes against the South African people in the preceding years were notorious, yet the world watched as the country transformed peacefully, and inclusively. Reconciliation supplanted retaliation, and a new country came to being under the best possible auspices.

It is many years since I left South Africa, however, I maintain close links and a sense of affinity with the land of my birth. I eagerly watch developments with pride; there is no place for which I could possibly have better wishes and higher hopes.

It is with regret that I have come to acknowledge that those hopes have proved ephemeral. In the 1990s South Africa had moral authority and under Nelson Mandela it was converted to good use. Mandela was a statesmen envied by citizens all over the world- a man who had overcome unspeakable hardships and used that experience to promote the interests of humanity.

Unfortunately, those days have long since passed. South Africa’s policy to the world has morphed into a realist’s version of ‘Africa First’. Any despot or tyrant is deserving of South African support in the face of Western opposition. The plight of African people seems irrelevant to the ANC now that they have a firm hold on power. Nowhere is this truer than in Zimbabwe, where the South African government’s shameless role as Robert Mugabe’s public relations officer has irrevocably damaged efforts to ease the suffering of the misfortunate people in that country.

South Africa also had the opportunity to convert its moral authority in results when it took a seat on the UN Security Council. Instead it preferred to play the role of a proxy for Russia and China- countries whose policies directly aggravate conflict in Africa- defending some perverse conception of ‘national sovereignty.’ South Africa could have played a role in forcing the Burmese Junta to admit more aid and relief workers, but what do the ANC care about Burma now that they have their own country to run. ANC leaders courted intervention for decades but have since retreated behind a wall of developing world despotism. This is crass hypocrisy.

What a shame that the Mandela legacy has been poisoned by this. And what a terrible pity that now when South Africa makes headline news it is not about South African leaders showing forsaken peoples how to overcome the legacies of brutality and repression. Rather it is when Mbeki lends Mugabe a hand, showing him solidarity in his drive to rule indefinitely.

Yours,

Gary Quinn

The Legacy of History

2008-05-18T22:58:00.004+01:00

Powerful men, or so the story goes, become obsessed with their legacy as their days draw to a close. ‘What was my impact? How will I be remembered? In which manner will I be judged by history?’ These are the sort of questions they have been known to consider. Rumour has it that George W. Bush, not the most philosophical leader by any account, has even been stricken with this ailment. It is purported that he has read biographies of immense presidents who have preceded him like Abraham Lincoln. Unfortunately for Bush, Lincoln’s legacy failed to yield an answer. However, it was not a hopeless case, for Bush found the clue he’d been searching for in a more recent episode of human history.

‘Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and the radicals,’ the president remarked at celebrations commemorating Israel’s sixtieth birthday. ‘We’ve heard this foolish delusion before’, he added, before continuing with a neat little anecdote. ‘As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.”’ Fully aware of all the buttons he was pushing as he spoke to Israelis about the Second World War, Bush had a final point to add. He told his audience they had to call a spade a spade and that this was ‘the false comfort of appeasement’, and as we are all too aware it ‘has been repeatedly discredited by history.’ Bush then, is no Neville Chamberlain, naturally, he is Winston Churchill.

Bush is not wrong about appeasement, it never works. If a state, or group, is fatalistically determined to pursue its ends, then it will do so, with or without outside assistance. And appeasement is assistance, whether to Hitler in Czechoslovakia or granting a dictator a propaganda coup, it will be used in the pursuit of their goals. However, engaging in historical parallels is dangerous. They are often inaccurate, and it is usually done for shock value. Whether comparing Israel to apartheid-era South Africa or likening those who wish to negotiate with terrorists to Nazi appeasers, these parallels are unhelpful. Historical examples should be used for illumination and understanding rather than mobilisation of a support base.

Had Bush kept his comments aimed specifically at terrorism they would have been weightier- though not perhaps to the birthday audience he was addressing. It is difficult to compare Al Qaeda or Hamas to the Nazis. They do have a dangerously deterministic ideology, and they are an extreme threat. However, they do not have a massively industrialised state, a doting population who are fully mobilised, or unprecedented military power. Bush was right about one common point they share, there is no ‘ingenious argument [that] will persuade them they have been wrong all along.’ Indeed, the Hamas answer to Israel’s birthday celebrations was typically intransigent. Bin Laden put aside his dialysis machine for the moment and weighed in on the argument too. ‘We will continue, God permitting,’ he said in one of his routine press briefings, ‘the fight against the Israelis and their allies.’ Lest anyone was worried, he reassured us that not ‘a single inch of Palestine’ would be given up ‘so long as there is one true Muslim on Earth.’ In reality, Palestine is not an Al Qaeda issue and they exploit it only for its value in the Muslim world. Nevertheless, bin Laden has decided on his course. There is no external argument that could change that.

It is unclear whether Bush’s remarks were directed at Barack Obama, though the senator certainly seemed to think so. The White House denied the allegations, and Press Secretary Dana Perino quipped that people running for office often believe the world spins around them. Naturally, the president’s comments could have been aimed at a whole host of people who believe that negotiation is viable, however, it has sparked off a little spat in this year’s election, which interestingly has led Obama and John McCain to prognosticate on what their legacy will be.

Obama has been under fire ever since he indicated he would meet with the leaders of Venezuela and Iran, among others, in his first year in office. The quotes were undoubtedly taken out of context, nevertheless it still prompted his foreign policy advisors to rush to the press and clarify that he meant ‘diplomacy not summitry.’ As it is now Israel’s birthday he has had to consistently reaffirm his commitment to the embattled state and use an assortment of macho language when describing Hamas. In an effort to define his foreign policy ideas he even placed himself on the spectrum of idealist and realist presidents. Unfortunately, his notions are skewed.
‘Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy’, Obama said. One cringes at the mere thought of Nixon being included alongside Kennedy and Reagan, as the arch-realist has no place being sandwiched in between two idealists. Moreover, one is unsure about the diplomacy Obama is referring to. Kennedy endured a failed conference on Berlin with Khrushchev before finding himself in the far more comfortable position of advancing American values and goals in robust and rousing oratory. Indeed, Obama must have missed that famous line of Kennedy’s, which was delivered to thunderous applause, ‘there are some who say... we can work with the Communists- let them come to Berlin.’ Outside that Kennedy’s presidency was draped in hard power, especially in Cuba and Vietnam, while his ‘poster boy’ style also increased US prestige and influence.

Richard Nixon quite famously used statecraft to advance his triangular diplomacy, yet he did not meet with Zhou Enlai or Mao Zedong in his first year in office. Rather, he used backwater channels until there was sufficient progress before then sending the Prince of Darkness, Henry Kissinger, to Beijing. Only then, with some degree of rapprochement assured, did Nixon travel to China. There are two important points Obama should bear in mind before he models his prospective foreign policy on the past. Firstly, the thaw in Sino-American relations only took place because Mao felt the strategic imperatives suited it. Considering the Soviet Union menaced on China’s doorstep, Mao thought it prudent to align his state with the US. Secondly, Obama is not, nor should he be, a Richard Nixon. Nixon and Kissinger’s conception of international relations was an anachronistic view of the world directly transmitted from the nineteenth century balance-of-power which Kissinger had taught at Harvard. As National Security Advisor, then Secretary of State, Kissinger played Bismarck and tried to juggle to USSR and the PRC. This was realpolitik with no room for ideals. American values were an inconvenience for Kissinger, especially when American legislators tacked them onto bills that dealt with foreign affairs. Nixon notoriously stated that the US should accept the state of foreign governments if their system worked for them. Naturally, there was no litmus test for what effectively worked, and this policy led the US to prop up tyrants like Pinochet in Chile. All the while the White House waxed lyrical about peace in Southeast Asia while increasing the tonnage they dropped on Vietnam and Cambodia.

Obama’s statement appears more confused again when one treats the reference to Ronald Reagan. Sure the president used diplomacy, and did so quite effectively; however, this was only after he felt he had secured American strength to a degree where they could dominate negotiations. The extraordinary events of the late 1980s which led to America’s eventual triumph in the Cold War were a product of Reagan’s unprecedented military build-up. The Soviet Union did not have the economic base with which to compete and Reagan was able to pounce on Gorbachev when the timing was right. He reversed his stance slightly and toned down his rhetoric slightly allowing for a rapprochement. The president said in a renowned address, that an ordinary American couple and a Russian couple would, should they have the opportunity to meet, speak about their lives, what they did for a living, and their children, rather than the differences between their governments. However, this came well after he had called the USSR an ‘Evil Empire’ and ordered more B-1 bombers. Even with peace on the horizon Regan was impatient and implored Gorbachev to ‘tear down that wall.’ Again, at the root of Reagan’s foreign policy was American values. If Obama is to look at an historical paradigm, this may well be the best of them. He certainly has the talent and the communicative skills to deliver a message as powerfully and as effectively as Reagan. However, if he’s wondering what Reagan would do now with Hamas and Hezbollah gaining ground in the Fertile Crescent, he should remember that President Reagan already sent the marines into Beirut once.

Disappointingly, after this speech, realism cropped up in Obama’s discourse again. He praised the coalition building of Bush senior, and on this he certainly has academic consensus behind him. The support of intellectuals notwithstanding, the senator should not assume realism to be a good thing. He has already highlighted the horrors occurring in Darfur, it would be a travesty to thus adopt a foreign policy that would ignore them. George H.W. Bush was undoubtedly successful in crafting a coalition of myriad countries to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. He also flirted with Deng Xiaoping directly after Tiananmen Square and turned a blind eye to the dissolution of Yugoslavia which had calamitous consequences. It would be a pity, with all the hopes and potential of Barack Obama’s candidacy, that he might adopt an international perspective guided by a cold calculation of national interest. Any notion of renewing American soft power would fade should that be the case. Obama has indicated his foreign policy will be different and he has underscored Sudan. One hopes he will continue down this path and forge an original outlook, sourced on values and power, and guided by coalitions if possible. But Obama has to remember that ‘carrots and sticks’ cannot be ignored and difficult tasks will often mean working alone. Moreover, if he is determined to conjure up presidents past, he should begin with successful ones at least. Unfortunately for him, there is competition on this front. John McCain already has Ronald Reagan in mind, and he subtly resurrected him when speaking of ‘peace through strength.’ Irrespective of who takes away of the spoils in November it would appear that Ronald Reagan’s legacy will be invoked in the White House next year. His ghost will sit in the White House Situation Room just like Banquo’s at Macbeth’s dinner table in Dunsinane. This time, let’s hope Macbeth isn’t in there with him.

After Iraq

2008-05-15T22:09:00.002+01:00

One of the hallmarks of success in Academia, Commentary, or even in Government, it would seem, is the ability to lend a short definition to an era. The sheer difficulty of defining a present age notwithstanding, it would be insolvent for one to wait as others would win the race, so observers compete with each other in an effort to place the lasting definition on an epoch. Henry Luce proclaimed the dawn of an ‘American Century’ even before US involvement in the Second World War had gotten underway.

In fact, it would appear that uncertainty in international affairs, rather than having the obvious effect of forcing the chattering classes to sit back and assess events, prompts an even greater rush to the thesaurus. Thus, the fall of the Berlin Wall gave rise to a whole host of lexical descriptions ranging from the jingoistic ‘new American Century’ to the deterministic ‘Asian Century’; from the triumphalistic ‘unipolar moment’ to the fatalistic ‘after hegemony’; or from the Hegelian ‘end of history’ to the axiomatic ‘post-Cold War’ era.

Observers rush around in the battle of nomenclature like nineteenth century zoologists in the Amazon Rainforest. They are ably accompanied by all the inventive wit of government, which has found its zenith in the protracted American war on nouns, relentlessly waged against poverty, drugs, and terror.

Nevertheless, there may well be some weight in Joseph Nye’s argument that one cannot study something which is nameless. Indeed definitions lend focus and clarity. They can aid the pursuit of knowledge. They can also offer unintentional instructions for the reader. How can one truly understand how the 21st Century is to be the Asian Century if the blueprint for the study of the 20th is the American Century? It prompts our analysis to be a simple ‘declining power is supplanted by a rising power’ model. The danger in using a rashly forged term is precisely not what in includes, but what it precludes us from scrutinising (naturally this is subjective as character and geography can form subconscious dynamics). The sixteenth century may well be regarded as the age of the reformation in Europe but, as Paul Kennedy contended, when Luther was nailing his theses to the church door in Wittenburg, Hernan Cortes was in Cuba sharpening his sword for sightseeing in Tenochtitlan. This was a ‘new world’ for the conquistadores, who were incidentally the only things new about it for the Aztecs.

So where are we now? The current terms do not seem to dress the mood well. Indeed, most of us will agree that the world as of May, 2008, is in miserable shape. Unfortunately, without an appropriate definition it might be more difficult to assess how to move forward.
Less than a decade ago the World Bank estimated that half of the Earth’s population lived on less than $2 a day, with a third of them suffering from consumption levels below $1 per day. It is difficult to assess what the current state of things is. Previous trends certainly suggest that an improvement is likely, though it is hardly inevitable. Nor would the current economic climate leave one breathless in anticipation of popular smoothie bars in Kinshasa.

Where there has been a marked improvement is East and South Asia (ah, the Asian Century). Unfortunately, this has not translated into better representation. China’s in a precarious position. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) arrogantly defends its version of national identity- notwithstanding the emergency meetings held with the French government recently when Franco-Chinese economic relations encountered some turbulence culminating in the blockading of a couple of Carrefour supermarkets. This process, alongside decades of state indoctrination, and the deprivation of any form of social outlet for frustration has left large swathes of the Chinese youth angry and sporting a more militant vision of nationality than that held in the Forbidden City. If the Central Government drops a ball in its juggling act then the irate youth may turn to Tiananmen Square again. This time, not necessarily accompanied by the Goddess of Democracy.

The PRC is not the only supposed emerging power where alarmist rhetoric is being reciprocated by the populace. In Russia, xenophobia seems to have become a national pastime (pig iron production has lost its popularity since the iron curtain no longer needs to be maintained), admittedly in a far more virulent form than in Beijing. Moscow, having another crack at the Cold War, has also developed the prototype callous foreign policy. Bullying fledgling states like Georgia is all a bit of fun for the Kremlin, but if they want a really bellyaching laugh they’ll wait until December, disproportionately inflate the price of gas (which they monopolise) and when an impoverished state like Ukraine, whose leaders are incredulous that Zimbabwean inflation rates have hit the Russian gas market, cannot afford to pay, Russia turns off the gas supply. ‘Happy New Year Kiev, vodka warms the bones.’ Of course, nothing warms the bones more in the Kremlin than training the Burmese Army. Perhaps there are even a few Red Army veterans left over from forties to show Than Shwe’s troops how to administer an effective raping. This is the nadir of Russian foreign policy.

Nor are the Chinese to be outdone by their Slavic neighbours. The self-appointed defenders of ‘national sovereignty’ have placed their support behind every despotic regime that has so much as winked at Beijing in the last few decades and this policy shows no signs of losing steam. Nothing should impinge upon a country’s domestic affairs, Beijing believes, except of course, Chinese commerce. Ostensibly, selling machetes to the Interhamwe in Rwanda cannot be regarded as foreign interference, it’s merely trade. Indeed, recently during the (still continuing) electoral crisis in unfortunate Zimbabwe observers were wondering what exactly was missing? There was the mandatory dictator (Robert Mugabe), his doting cadres (ZANU-PF), a persecuted people, a former economy, and of course the much maligned opposition (Movement for Democratic Chance) with its battered leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, who had clearly won the election. There was a chorus of condemnation from the colonialists, but there was a missing piece. At least until China stepped up to the plate to defend ZANU-PF’s inalienable right to govern indefinitely. The CCP’s totalitarian soft-power was accompanied by some hard-power for good measure. In the nick of time, a Chinese vessel, the An Yue Jiang, arrived in Durban with seventy-seven tonnes of mortar, RPGs, and 3 million rounds of ammunition, evidently bound for Zimbabwe. Christmas would have come early in Harare had it not been for the refusal of dock-workers in South Africa, Zimbabwe’s arch apologist, to handle the material. The Chinese then employed the ultimate argument of red-handed guilt, directly plagiarised from France during the Rwandan genocide. ‘What?’ this contention runs, ‘the shipment was negotiated before the election.’

Third world tyrants have good reason to look excitably forward to the so-called ‘inevitable shift of power to the East.’ One basket-case that will not benefit directly from this shift, but will certainly enjoy the relaxation of international pressure is Burma, or the Union of Myanmar. The sheer reluctance of Burma’s neighbours to place any amount of pressure on its ruling junta, the State Peace and Development Committee (SPDC), over the notorious abuses occurring inside, is famed. Even if one treats institutionalised rape and murder as a domestic matter, ASEAN countries fail to see how drugs, refugees, and human trafficking are international problems. Nevertheless, non-interference is fundamental in Asia. The horrors in Myanmar continue to worsen, most recently when Cyclone Nargis struck leaving death, homelessness, and severe flooding in its wake.

Lest they lose their mantle as the sole proprietors of misfortune for the Burmese people, Cyclone SPDC then cruised into town (or, out of town) and precipitated one of the largest humanitarian crises in recent times- possibly even larger than the Indian Ocean tsunami. Refusing to admit that they were incapable of coping with the catastrophe was only one tactic in a strategy that saw mountains of international aid declined and as of this week only 10% of relief worker visas processed. One crisis veteran even saw a visa placed in his passport at the embassy in Bangkok before an official then peeled it out in front of him. When France recently proposed invoking the UN principle of ‘Responsibility to Protect’, Russia, the PRC, and South Africa signalled their intention to forestall such a process. These Security Council members would certainly not partake in the setting of a precedent for UN intervention. Moreover, South Africa’s hypocrisy is the most pungent. Having courted intervention for decades, and having decried the West for its indifference, the ANC, since gaining power, have pursued a neat ‘Africa First’ policy, which naturally does not mean African people first, rather African governments first. In timely fashion, this policy is now being extended to Asia, lest other embattled peoples receive the benefits of liberation the South Africans did.

A string of explosions in Rajasthan on Tuesday also reminds us of the omnipresent threat of Islamic fundamentalism. This is not a clash of civilisations or a war between states, but rather an uprising by a loosely defined and, not always, interconnected movement. Traditional Western self-loathing and the excesses of the Bush administration’s rhetoric has given rise to a popular belief that this movement is over-exaggerated or in more extreme cases that it is a phantom of the Western psyche. Nevertheless, this is not the case. It is real and violent. Boasting a millenarian ideology and deterministic belief-set, the broad Islamist current does not always have common geo-political goals or motivating factors, nor does it have popular support, but it does have a vision for society, and an aggressive strategy of elitist terrorism to realise this ambition. It is not a threat against the West, rather it is a global threat, and the remote detonation of a bomb strapped to an eight year old girl in Iraq on Wednesday summarises the fanaticism and inhumanity of radical Islamists who are sympathetically referred to as ‘insurgents’ in the media.

It would be a gross understatement to argue that Iraq is significant in contemporary affairs, but it is also having implications that have not necessarily been debated at large. The current failures of intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq have soured the taste of pro-activity for many people in the world. As a result of incompetence and poor public relations those unpopular conflicts have seen their support levels drop to practically zero. Yet, not only are they frontlines in the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism- Islamists certainly think so- there are wider connotations. We are, in a sense, in the post-Iraq phase, where the attitude is characterised by isolationism, thinly veiled by calls for multilateralism. Problematically, the multilateral institutions are habitually deadlocked and functioning ineffectively. Multilateralism has failed to halt the Iranian nuclear programme or get the requisite aid to Burma. The entire multinational framework operates like a contract, functioning only when a state buys into its ideals. Not only can an intransigent state put the brakes on the entire process and thrust it into stalemate, but a state that refuses to accede to the practice at all can live comfortably in tyrannical autarky. There is no penalty for non-compliance, yet it can bring the multilateral structure to its knees. With civil wars in Sudan and Chad set to turn into a regional war, with the situation in Burma making a parody of the international system, and with the ghosts of Rwanda and Bosnia in our minds, one knows that the price of non-interference is millions of human lives.

There are serious questions to be answered about the twenty-first century. Regions drift in and out of conflict. Food and water shortages have apocalyptic portents for hundreds of millions of people. There are monstrous global and regional development gaps, peppered with incessant strife, and ruinous humanitarian crises. The tremendous achievements in health and technology stand ripe to be exploited by weaponry and terrorism, while the globalised media network is at times little more than a plaything for murderous and unsavoury organisations like Al Qaeda. Our mechanisms for dealing with all of this are fruitless and anachronistic. The twentieth century began and ended in calamity in Sarajevo. It is up to the world’s richest resource, its people, to ensure that our new century, be it American or Asian, ends better than it began on that sunny morning in New York City.