A lot is going on that seems to undermine the West and its interests. The rise of China, the near-collapse of Capitalism, the loss of key allies in the Middle east, and now the near devastation of the last power standing between us and China. So I think It's time to reunite with old-Europe- France, the UK, and (even) Germany.
Two nuclear reactors are in near melt-down, whole towns were wiped off the map, and 10,000+ are dead. The unprecedented (8.9 on the Richter scale)earthquake that struck Japan, is being called the largest catastrophe that has struck Japan since WWII.
Beyond the devastation experienced by Japan, for which the West continues to respond generously, this catastrophe has extraordinary implications for America's strategic position in the Pacific. Yes, everyone has accepted that America’s place in that region is experiencing a steady decline. But the earthquake may accelerate that process. This is not to say that China will launch some premeditated action (China is very cautious and has a track record of non-interference) but rather it brings us that much closer to the point in which China will go on the offensive.
So, as in the past, we need to unite with our cross-Atlantic ideological brothers. The great alliances of the first half of the 20th century should be refurbished and a new and more powerful NATO formulated. While it will necessitate that Germany be included and that France and the UK increase their respective defense-budgets in a time of general austerity, it will not be used to make war, but to prevent it.
An emerging China and other states aligned with its goals- like Iran, Turkey, and Venezuela-should be made aware that the West is willing to support equitable distribution but will not capitulate. A united West can, and would, offer a mutual protective shield. Belligerent states -both passive and overt- respect the cumulative force of a a Dollar/Euro/Yen, and will hesitate going to war.
They -Iran, China, Venezuela, and North Korea etc.- have to be made aware that we will not budge one inequitable inch: Afghanistan and Iraq were, and are, only warning salvos for those that will resort to violence in their efforts to challenge America and the West.
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Israel Must Support Mubarak
Egypt and Israel are in serious trouble!
The recent bombing outside a Copt church, was not committed (Debka.com) by foreign Al-Qaida extremists, but by homegrown terrorists intent on toppling Egypt’s secular regime. This bombing follows a rigged election which ensured that Mubarak would win. Domestic sectarian terror is not the only issue challenging Egypt. In the South, Egypt’s control of the Nile (its life blood) is being challenged. Egypt is also weary of the implications of Southern Sudanese independence (Huffingtonpost.com).
Don’t get me wrong, I am no supporter of Egypt. It is led by a corrupt government that has mostly squandered its position of leadership in the Arab world. However, Mubarak’s Egypt is an ally of America and does have a “peace” accord with Israel. If Mubarak’s regime falls, it is likely Egypt will go the way of Pakistan.
The Copt bombing which occurred following the red mosque fiasco could galvanize Egyptian Islamists. Mubarak is being heavily criticized, both domestically and internationally, for election fraud and the Islamists are attempting to create a tipping-point event to ensure that Mubarak is overthrown. Like post-Musharraf Pakistan, Egypt’s subsequent central government will be weak, and the Islamists who always seem to be lurking in the back waiting to jump will overrun Egypt. Who has been supporting the Islamists? According to a plethora of sources, including Mubarak himself, Iran.
If Egypt falls under Islamist control, peace with Israel will be a bitter-sweet memory. Jordan -seeing that Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt have fallen under the influence of Iran- will also submit to the anti-Israel coalition.
This will create a vacuum for a global-power, like China, to establish a foothold in the region. Unlikely, you say. Remember it was the Soviet Union which supplied Syria and Egypt to counter American influence, in the guise of Israel, prior to Camp David. China, like the Soviets, will likely jump at the opportunity to secure its growing energy demand, and will accomplish this by challenging American influence by arming its Iranian allies. Israel, surrounded by enemies on every side as it was prior to the Yom Kippur war, will be weakened, along with the power that rules it, America.
From Israel’s perspective, it would be akin to national suicide to stand by and watch itself be surrounded completely by Iran. An Iran that recently hanged an Israeli spy and has been the primary enabler of both Hamas and Hezbollah. Without peace with Egypt and Jordan, Israel will be back to the position it was before war with the Arabs, and this time around the Arabs will backed by a nuclear Iran.
For America the question is: do we allow a region, which supplies a significant amount of oil to America, to be controlled by a country that calls for a new world order (i.e. for America to be replaced)? Or do we continue pursuing our current policy of challenging Iran, and prop up Mubarak of Egypt? Barring a revolution in energy technology, American policy makers, both left and right wing, need to put ideology aside and not miss what is going on.
For Israel the issue is clear. It must do what it can to support Mubarak against the Islamists, and their Iranian backers.
The recent bombing outside a Copt church, was not committed (Debka.com) by foreign Al-Qaida extremists, but by homegrown terrorists intent on toppling Egypt’s secular regime. This bombing follows a rigged election which ensured that Mubarak would win. Domestic sectarian terror is not the only issue challenging Egypt. In the South, Egypt’s control of the Nile (its life blood) is being challenged. Egypt is also weary of the implications of Southern Sudanese independence (Huffingtonpost.com).
Don’t get me wrong, I am no supporter of Egypt. It is led by a corrupt government that has mostly squandered its position of leadership in the Arab world. However, Mubarak’s Egypt is an ally of America and does have a “peace” accord with Israel. If Mubarak’s regime falls, it is likely Egypt will go the way of Pakistan.
The Copt bombing which occurred following the red mosque fiasco could galvanize Egyptian Islamists. Mubarak is being heavily criticized, both domestically and internationally, for election fraud and the Islamists are attempting to create a tipping-point event to ensure that Mubarak is overthrown. Like post-Musharraf Pakistan, Egypt’s subsequent central government will be weak, and the Islamists who always seem to be lurking in the back waiting to jump will overrun Egypt. Who has been supporting the Islamists? According to a plethora of sources, including Mubarak himself, Iran.
If Egypt falls under Islamist control, peace with Israel will be a bitter-sweet memory. Jordan -seeing that Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt have fallen under the influence of Iran- will also submit to the anti-Israel coalition.
This will create a vacuum for a global-power, like China, to establish a foothold in the region. Unlikely, you say. Remember it was the Soviet Union which supplied Syria and Egypt to counter American influence, in the guise of Israel, prior to Camp David. China, like the Soviets, will likely jump at the opportunity to secure its growing energy demand, and will accomplish this by challenging American influence by arming its Iranian allies. Israel, surrounded by enemies on every side as it was prior to the Yom Kippur war, will be weakened, along with the power that rules it, America.
From Israel’s perspective, it would be akin to national suicide to stand by and watch itself be surrounded completely by Iran. An Iran that recently hanged an Israeli spy and has been the primary enabler of both Hamas and Hezbollah. Without peace with Egypt and Jordan, Israel will be back to the position it was before war with the Arabs, and this time around the Arabs will backed by a nuclear Iran.
For America the question is: do we allow a region, which supplies a significant amount of oil to America, to be controlled by a country that calls for a new world order (i.e. for America to be replaced)? Or do we continue pursuing our current policy of challenging Iran, and prop up Mubarak of Egypt? Barring a revolution in energy technology, American policy makers, both left and right wing, need to put ideology aside and not miss what is going on.
For Israel the issue is clear. It must do what it can to support Mubarak against the Islamists, and their Iranian backers.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Has Russia Finally Chosen Israel and the West?
Russian president Dmitry Medvedev recent confirmation that he will be visiting Israel in January may have serious implications for Israel, the region, and international relations.
First and foremost, it signifies a choice has been made by Russia regarding who it wishes to ally itself with in the middle-east. The origins of this choice hails back to 2005 when, then, Russian president Vladimir Putin became the first Russian head of state to visit Israel. But Putin was also dealing heavily with Israel’s and the Wests opponents. Indeed, since that 2005 visit Russia has built a permanent navy base in Syria and has been the main supplier, after North Korea, of nuclear know-how to Iran.
Through 2007, the Putin led Russia seemed to be leaning towards choosing Iran/Syria. This choice was made easier by Bush’s aggressive push for missile defense in Russia’s historic sphere of Influence -Poland and Ukraine. Russia was also pushed towards Iran/Syria by the revelations that followed the 2007 Georgian-Russian war. Russia discovered that tiny Georgia was fielding superior Israeli weapons (small arms and UAV‘s), and that Israel had trained Georgian commandos. However the Obama’s reset initiative, which included revising missile defense in conjunction with the election of a more modern thinking Medvedev, spurred Russia to reevaluate its Middle Eastern strategy.
The fruits of the last two years have evidently ripened as evidenced by the Russian president’s announcement to visit Israel. According to Debka.com the agenda will include:
1. Acquiring a billion dollars in Israeli UAV technology in exchange for a long term commitment to not sell advanced technology, like the S-300 air-defense system to Iran and Syria.
2. To not instinctively support unconditional Palestinian demands, .
3. To involve itself, along with Greece, in the process of developing and distributing, the three major oil/gas fields recently discovered off the cost of Israel, which some estimate to have over 30 trillion cubic feet of retrievable oil/gas.
From Israel’s perspective this is great news and a long awaited development because:
1. It seriously undermines Israel’s enemies in the region which history has shown is a prerequisite for peace. For example, it was only after Soviet backed Eygpt and Syria were defeated in the Yom Kippur war that Egyptian president Sadat was amenable to replacing Soviet arms with American dollars and peace with Israel. There is reason to believe that an Iran without the backing of Russia (and hopefully soon China) is an Iran that will open its eyes to peace through peace.
2. Russia’s acceptance of Israel reflects a Russia that is willing to deal rationally with reality; Israel is currently the most stable power in the Middle East- not Iran, Turkey, or the Arabs. (I know some of my Turkish friend may disagree, but Israel has a track-record that does not include a coup every 20 years and does include unwavering support for its friends, despite changes in political power, Turkey does not). This is always good for an Israel that is so often the target of irrational behavior.
3. The very fact that Russia, a long term opponent of Israel is reaching out to Israel is a sign of the times. Namely, rational and forward thinking countries want to be Israel’s friend, not because of some Zionist conspiracy but because Israel has so much to offer. China, a relatively pragmatic nation, has long attempted to establish a special relationship with Israel. But Israel, in its commitment to its closest ally America has “politely” rebuffed these efforts. For example in 2002 Israel violated a 2 billion dollar contract to upgrade Chinese military platforms over objections by America. Russia, like China, wants access to Israel.
Yet Russia’s realignment implies more than just an attempt to access Israel’s intellectual treasures.
Some have interpreted it as a strategic attempt at capitalizing on America’s failures in the region.
Indeed, if wikileaks has exposed anything it is that Obama is misguided, however well-intentioned, in his efforts to force an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. Pressure on Israel inevitably strengthens Israel’s enemies by keeping Israel on the defensive, unable to leverage its formidable offensive apparatus. But these enemies, led by Iran, are perceived by everyone in the region excluding Turkey and Syria, as the most immediate threat to regional stability. Thus Russia, sees an Obama led administration as shooting itself in the foot, and wants to access the growing feeling in the Israeli and Arab political establishment that America is not as trustworthy an ally as it should be. Conversely, Russia is seen as capable of seriously undermining Iran by putting pressure on China, and halting its nuclear support to Iran.
The far-left and, some in, the far-right in the West may refuse to acknowledge this but Israel’s hegemonic military power is the stabilizing force in the middle-east and Israel’s allies benefit immensely from its position, not the cause of conflict. Russia has come to terms with this just as an Obama led America is moving away from this truth.
I don’t necessarily accept that Russia is attempting to replace America; it is also possible that Russia is coming to terms with its international responsibility, namely, to play a positive role in world affairs. From this perspective, Russia is a rational state that seeks to contribute positively in a way that maximizes its own benefit, and is developing stronger ties with other nations that wish the same –like Israel. This has the tacit effect of moving Russia away from failed ideologies that emanate from the rape-filled prisons of Iran and other such negative state-actors that seem to gravitate towards anti-Israel rhetoric/alliances.
Likewise, Russia may align itself with Israel and by proxy America in order to reinvigorate a Democratic world-order that is increasingly coming under the shadow of an emerging undemocratic China. In short, Russia -which has historically vacillated between the West and East-, is making a choice to align itself with the West as it is embodied by Israel.
Who knows, maybe the next batch of wikileaks will shed light on Medvedev’s Russia.
First and foremost, it signifies a choice has been made by Russia regarding who it wishes to ally itself with in the middle-east. The origins of this choice hails back to 2005 when, then, Russian president Vladimir Putin became the first Russian head of state to visit Israel. But Putin was also dealing heavily with Israel’s and the Wests opponents. Indeed, since that 2005 visit Russia has built a permanent navy base in Syria and has been the main supplier, after North Korea, of nuclear know-how to Iran.
Through 2007, the Putin led Russia seemed to be leaning towards choosing Iran/Syria. This choice was made easier by Bush’s aggressive push for missile defense in Russia’s historic sphere of Influence -Poland and Ukraine. Russia was also pushed towards Iran/Syria by the revelations that followed the 2007 Georgian-Russian war. Russia discovered that tiny Georgia was fielding superior Israeli weapons (small arms and UAV‘s), and that Israel had trained Georgian commandos. However the Obama’s reset initiative, which included revising missile defense in conjunction with the election of a more modern thinking Medvedev, spurred Russia to reevaluate its Middle Eastern strategy.
The fruits of the last two years have evidently ripened as evidenced by the Russian president’s announcement to visit Israel. According to Debka.com the agenda will include:
1. Acquiring a billion dollars in Israeli UAV technology in exchange for a long term commitment to not sell advanced technology, like the S-300 air-defense system to Iran and Syria.
2. To not instinctively support unconditional Palestinian demands, .
3. To involve itself, along with Greece, in the process of developing and distributing, the three major oil/gas fields recently discovered off the cost of Israel, which some estimate to have over 30 trillion cubic feet of retrievable oil/gas.
From Israel’s perspective this is great news and a long awaited development because:
1. It seriously undermines Israel’s enemies in the region which history has shown is a prerequisite for peace. For example, it was only after Soviet backed Eygpt and Syria were defeated in the Yom Kippur war that Egyptian president Sadat was amenable to replacing Soviet arms with American dollars and peace with Israel. There is reason to believe that an Iran without the backing of Russia (and hopefully soon China) is an Iran that will open its eyes to peace through peace.
2. Russia’s acceptance of Israel reflects a Russia that is willing to deal rationally with reality; Israel is currently the most stable power in the Middle East- not Iran, Turkey, or the Arabs. (I know some of my Turkish friend may disagree, but Israel has a track-record that does not include a coup every 20 years and does include unwavering support for its friends, despite changes in political power, Turkey does not). This is always good for an Israel that is so often the target of irrational behavior.
3. The very fact that Russia, a long term opponent of Israel is reaching out to Israel is a sign of the times. Namely, rational and forward thinking countries want to be Israel’s friend, not because of some Zionist conspiracy but because Israel has so much to offer. China, a relatively pragmatic nation, has long attempted to establish a special relationship with Israel. But Israel, in its commitment to its closest ally America has “politely” rebuffed these efforts. For example in 2002 Israel violated a 2 billion dollar contract to upgrade Chinese military platforms over objections by America. Russia, like China, wants access to Israel.
Yet Russia’s realignment implies more than just an attempt to access Israel’s intellectual treasures.
Some have interpreted it as a strategic attempt at capitalizing on America’s failures in the region.
Indeed, if wikileaks has exposed anything it is that Obama is misguided, however well-intentioned, in his efforts to force an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. Pressure on Israel inevitably strengthens Israel’s enemies by keeping Israel on the defensive, unable to leverage its formidable offensive apparatus. But these enemies, led by Iran, are perceived by everyone in the region excluding Turkey and Syria, as the most immediate threat to regional stability. Thus Russia, sees an Obama led administration as shooting itself in the foot, and wants to access the growing feeling in the Israeli and Arab political establishment that America is not as trustworthy an ally as it should be. Conversely, Russia is seen as capable of seriously undermining Iran by putting pressure on China, and halting its nuclear support to Iran.
The far-left and, some in, the far-right in the West may refuse to acknowledge this but Israel’s hegemonic military power is the stabilizing force in the middle-east and Israel’s allies benefit immensely from its position, not the cause of conflict. Russia has come to terms with this just as an Obama led America is moving away from this truth.
I don’t necessarily accept that Russia is attempting to replace America; it is also possible that Russia is coming to terms with its international responsibility, namely, to play a positive role in world affairs. From this perspective, Russia is a rational state that seeks to contribute positively in a way that maximizes its own benefit, and is developing stronger ties with other nations that wish the same –like Israel. This has the tacit effect of moving Russia away from failed ideologies that emanate from the rape-filled prisons of Iran and other such negative state-actors that seem to gravitate towards anti-Israel rhetoric/alliances.
Likewise, Russia may align itself with Israel and by proxy America in order to reinvigorate a Democratic world-order that is increasingly coming under the shadow of an emerging undemocratic China. In short, Russia -which has historically vacillated between the West and East-, is making a choice to align itself with the West as it is embodied by Israel.
Who knows, maybe the next batch of wikileaks will shed light on Medvedev’s Russia.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Gingrich, Clinton, China, and the Tea Party: Two Thoughts on the New Political Landscape
The Gingrich-Clinton Paradox:
Do you remember the good old days...I don't but they tell me they were really good. Every family could have an avocado on their table and every child a cell-phone under their desk. Credit cards were more numerous then dollar bills and China's 40 plus 4 million people cities were not swiftly replacing the memory of a towerless ground zero.
Yet what I wish to remember most is the time when the staunchly conservative speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, and a Democratic stalwart, Bill Clinton worked together, and succeeded.
Yes Clinton was fulfilling the fantasy of many an aspiring politician. Yes the Republican controlled house, it turns out, had much of its own corrupt political figures. But the country was succeeding and our political class was not getting in the way.
Why?
I am sure some political theorist will pontificate about how I reversed the cause and the effect -it was a booming economy despite the government not because of the government.
However one can just as easily make the argument that the political class had an incentive to work together, and that their work facilitated the nations growth.
The Democrats recent control of both the house and the executive exemplifies this paradox:
As the Executive and the legislative branch were politically homogenous, the republican minority did all it could to obstruct and undermine the majority. They then blamed the majority for their failures despite claiming that "the majority had a real chance, they controlled it all, and blew it". True a minority that is focused on obstruction can be a serious impediment to the majorities success, but the public doesn’t see it that way, and that’s what counts.
On the other hand if there is a legislative-executive split, every party has a real and, even more importantly, obvious stake in success. Obvious, because the public is aware of their control/responsibility. It is one thing for politicians (in this case the republicans) to argue that they were "kept out of the process" as the minority, it is another thing, entirely, to fail when in control.
Now that the the GOP controls the house, can Obama get things done?
I think yes.
Why?
Because now both parties are in power and have a stake in the success of the political class they control. Think Clinton and Newt Gingrich's' "contract with America". In this case it is Obama and the "Take back America"/Tea party.
In short the recent political developments are conducive to plentiful avocados and credit, (I hope this time it will be debit cards) cards. Yes it may be as simple as restoring the the check on the balance. Or, if you will, the reemergence of the Newt Gingrich-Clinton paradox.
Tea-party Ideology May be Good for China Too:
Obama's visit to Americas four major Democratic allies in the region -Indonesia, India, Japan, and South Korea- all of which serve, in part, to hedge in China's spreading power, converts wide-spread public condemnation of China in congress into action.
This makes sense.
Besides China's abysmal human rights record, its menacing attitude to many of Americas Asian allies, and its implicit support for nuclear proliferation/bad actors, in Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, China is also an aggressive if not unscrupulous global competitor. Of course America is not free of its own foibles and out-right blunders, but I believe in America not China.
Still, despite the rhetoric surrounding currency manipulation and the PLC's increasingly anti-American indoctrination -both issues that the tea-party targeted in their campaign- the tea-parties ascendancy can be interpreted as beneficial to China.
Yes I know that Republicans are perceived as strong on defense-spending and war (please see post on http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/republicans-and-democrates-herd.html) issues that are inherently threatening to China.
But republicans are also against protectionism, cap-on-trade, and pro free-markets.
Even more China gains from an austerity prone House, after all cuts in spending will strengthen the dollar; a dollar that China is invested in to the tune of 1 trillion dollars.
Do you remember the good old days...I don't but they tell me they were really good. Every family could have an avocado on their table and every child a cell-phone under their desk. Credit cards were more numerous then dollar bills and China's 40 plus 4 million people cities were not swiftly replacing the memory of a towerless ground zero.
Yet what I wish to remember most is the time when the staunchly conservative speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, and a Democratic stalwart, Bill Clinton worked together, and succeeded.
Yes Clinton was fulfilling the fantasy of many an aspiring politician. Yes the Republican controlled house, it turns out, had much of its own corrupt political figures. But the country was succeeding and our political class was not getting in the way.
Why?
I am sure some political theorist will pontificate about how I reversed the cause and the effect -it was a booming economy despite the government not because of the government.
However one can just as easily make the argument that the political class had an incentive to work together, and that their work facilitated the nations growth.
The Democrats recent control of both the house and the executive exemplifies this paradox:
As the Executive and the legislative branch were politically homogenous, the republican minority did all it could to obstruct and undermine the majority. They then blamed the majority for their failures despite claiming that "the majority had a real chance, they controlled it all, and blew it". True a minority that is focused on obstruction can be a serious impediment to the majorities success, but the public doesn’t see it that way, and that’s what counts.
On the other hand if there is a legislative-executive split, every party has a real and, even more importantly, obvious stake in success. Obvious, because the public is aware of their control/responsibility. It is one thing for politicians (in this case the republicans) to argue that they were "kept out of the process" as the minority, it is another thing, entirely, to fail when in control.
Now that the the GOP controls the house, can Obama get things done?
I think yes.
Why?
Because now both parties are in power and have a stake in the success of the political class they control. Think Clinton and Newt Gingrich's' "contract with America". In this case it is Obama and the "Take back America"/Tea party.
In short the recent political developments are conducive to plentiful avocados and credit, (I hope this time it will be debit cards) cards. Yes it may be as simple as restoring the the check on the balance. Or, if you will, the reemergence of the Newt Gingrich-Clinton paradox.
Tea-party Ideology May be Good for China Too:
Obama's visit to Americas four major Democratic allies in the region -Indonesia, India, Japan, and South Korea- all of which serve, in part, to hedge in China's spreading power, converts wide-spread public condemnation of China in congress into action.
This makes sense.
Besides China's abysmal human rights record, its menacing attitude to many of Americas Asian allies, and its implicit support for nuclear proliferation/bad actors, in Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, China is also an aggressive if not unscrupulous global competitor. Of course America is not free of its own foibles and out-right blunders, but I believe in America not China.
Still, despite the rhetoric surrounding currency manipulation and the PLC's increasingly anti-American indoctrination -both issues that the tea-party targeted in their campaign- the tea-parties ascendancy can be interpreted as beneficial to China.
Yes I know that Republicans are perceived as strong on defense-spending and war (please see post on http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/republicans-and-democrates-herd.html) issues that are inherently threatening to China.
But republicans are also against protectionism, cap-on-trade, and pro free-markets.
Even more China gains from an austerity prone House, after all cuts in spending will strengthen the dollar; a dollar that China is invested in to the tune of 1 trillion dollars.
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Tea Party, Austerity, and the End of Western Hegemony
A series of mishaps has struck a resurgent, albeit tea-infused, Republican Party. Rich Lott (R-Ohio) was exposed by the press for dressing as a Nazi... for a war reenactment... that didn't include any genocidal references, bad taste, bad politics, but not necessarily anti-Semetic. Before that Delaware Republican Senate candidate, Christine O'Donnell was exposed as a "witch" who on a decades old video clip says "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven.”
Interestingly the clip hit the Internet just days after she stunned longtime congressman Mike Castle in the GOP primary in her third bid for Senate.
It would seem the Democrats were party to a bona fide, that's right, witch hunt!
Most recently a politically significant, however underreported nationally, story came out of Arizona, "The office of Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has been locked down due to the presence of a suspicious package covered with swastikas. KVOA reports that an "envelope containing white powder" was mailed to Grijalva's Tucson office. Bomb technicians are reportedly on hand" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/raul-grijalva-suspicious-package_n_772166.html).
This episode will likely galvanize the Hispanic voting public both in Arizona and nationally because it serves as a non-verbal reminder to a major minority population that "hey vote for us or get THAT".
Could all of these recent disclosures be more than politics as usual? Could it be part of a larger effort to destroy the Tea party?
We may never know. However there is another unique development surrounding the Tea parties success and subsequent national media developments- the GOP (Grand Old Party i.e. the Republican establishment) is working against the Tea party.
To illustrate how keen the Republican establishment is on trying to crush the tea party, notice that the party is under attack from the likes of former Republican speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich and Michael Steel, Chairman of the National Republican Committee. Indeed the Republican establishment has funneled millions of dollars to boost main stream candidates in Republican primaries (http://thinkprogress.org/teaparty-primaries/). True conservative stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh and Mike Huckabee are defending the Tea Party but all in all the Democratic and Republican establishment are on an all-out offensive against the incipient "tea-baggers".
So why is there is so much bipartisanship effort directed as halting the Tea parties advance?
We should begin by asking: if the tea party takes over the Republican party and thus congress, does that mean we can expect real austerity measures, like those inching their way through parliaments in Western Europe?
Athens burned, Sarkozy is facing a fierce street-fight over his efforts to raise France's retirement age from 60 to 62, and the UK has passed a measure to reduce overall government expenditures by 18 %, a measure that includes the layoff of over 500,000 public sector employees -one third of its public workforce.
Will we go that route with the Tea party in power?
If so do we realize that austerity measures for America would be Ron Paul-like. They would probably include disbanding our ubiquitous military bases and pulling our forces out of places like, South Korea, Germany, Japan, Taiwan (Yes it costs a million dollars a day to fund an aircraft carrier we have 10)?
But it also means that the sprawling military-industrial complex, that Eisenhower forewarned will dissolve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower), and the subsidized-induced R&D innovations, like the internet, will no longer emerge with expected frequency. We will lose our technological edge -if we haven't already.
Yet our austerity measures will have far-reaching implications. Unlike Europe's localized measures the dissolution of global American power leaves the West with no shield from a variety of economic and political threats. Not that China wants to destroy us, but if we pull out of Asia, we, and the West, will loss our preferential access/relationships to the fastest growing region in the world. It could even result in the de-democratization of much of the developing world.
That’s right, at end of WWII America supplanted the British military as the protector of the global Western enterprise. Britain was happy to transfer the its strategic military position to a kindred-western spirit, after all it allowed them to maintain their economic power. Who will take our place, who will be the West’s America? India -the most populous democracy in the world- is not yet mature enough to take on that daunting challenge. Europe has its own debt crises, and has already exchanged its armies for universal health care and the likes. America like Europe has a massive debt crisis, but we borrowed more to supplement our military than we did to create a welfare-state.
European austerity affects Europeans; austerity for America could change the entire geopolitical landscape.
Tea party austerity may very well mean the end of a Western-Democratic streak dating back a little over 500 years to the reunification of the Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella.
This may explain the almost conspiratorial nature of recent revelations concerning Tea party candidates. It may also be one of the few developments significant enough to stimulate bipartisanship.
In any case this generation of Americans may be witnessing another watershed development in our world’s cyclical evolution.
Interestingly the clip hit the Internet just days after she stunned longtime congressman Mike Castle in the GOP primary in her third bid for Senate.
It would seem the Democrats were party to a bona fide, that's right, witch hunt!
Most recently a politically significant, however underreported nationally, story came out of Arizona, "The office of Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has been locked down due to the presence of a suspicious package covered with swastikas. KVOA reports that an "envelope containing white powder" was mailed to Grijalva's Tucson office. Bomb technicians are reportedly on hand" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/raul-grijalva-suspicious-package_n_772166.html).
This episode will likely galvanize the Hispanic voting public both in Arizona and nationally because it serves as a non-verbal reminder to a major minority population that "hey vote for us or get THAT".
Could all of these recent disclosures be more than politics as usual? Could it be part of a larger effort to destroy the Tea party?
We may never know. However there is another unique development surrounding the Tea parties success and subsequent national media developments- the GOP (Grand Old Party i.e. the Republican establishment) is working against the Tea party.
To illustrate how keen the Republican establishment is on trying to crush the tea party, notice that the party is under attack from the likes of former Republican speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich and Michael Steel, Chairman of the National Republican Committee. Indeed the Republican establishment has funneled millions of dollars to boost main stream candidates in Republican primaries (http://thinkprogress.org/teaparty-primaries/). True conservative stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh and Mike Huckabee are defending the Tea Party but all in all the Democratic and Republican establishment are on an all-out offensive against the incipient "tea-baggers".
So why is there is so much bipartisanship effort directed as halting the Tea parties advance?
We should begin by asking: if the tea party takes over the Republican party and thus congress, does that mean we can expect real austerity measures, like those inching their way through parliaments in Western Europe?
Athens burned, Sarkozy is facing a fierce street-fight over his efforts to raise France's retirement age from 60 to 62, and the UK has passed a measure to reduce overall government expenditures by 18 %, a measure that includes the layoff of over 500,000 public sector employees -one third of its public workforce.
Will we go that route with the Tea party in power?
If so do we realize that austerity measures for America would be Ron Paul-like. They would probably include disbanding our ubiquitous military bases and pulling our forces out of places like, South Korea, Germany, Japan, Taiwan (Yes it costs a million dollars a day to fund an aircraft carrier we have 10)?
But it also means that the sprawling military-industrial complex, that Eisenhower forewarned will dissolve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower), and the subsidized-induced R&D innovations, like the internet, will no longer emerge with expected frequency. We will lose our technological edge -if we haven't already.
Yet our austerity measures will have far-reaching implications. Unlike Europe's localized measures the dissolution of global American power leaves the West with no shield from a variety of economic and political threats. Not that China wants to destroy us, but if we pull out of Asia, we, and the West, will loss our preferential access/relationships to the fastest growing region in the world. It could even result in the de-democratization of much of the developing world.
That’s right, at end of WWII America supplanted the British military as the protector of the global Western enterprise. Britain was happy to transfer the its strategic military position to a kindred-western spirit, after all it allowed them to maintain their economic power. Who will take our place, who will be the West’s America? India -the most populous democracy in the world- is not yet mature enough to take on that daunting challenge. Europe has its own debt crises, and has already exchanged its armies for universal health care and the likes. America like Europe has a massive debt crisis, but we borrowed more to supplement our military than we did to create a welfare-state.
European austerity affects Europeans; austerity for America could change the entire geopolitical landscape.
Tea party austerity may very well mean the end of a Western-Democratic streak dating back a little over 500 years to the reunification of the Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella.
This may explain the almost conspiratorial nature of recent revelations concerning Tea party candidates. It may also be one of the few developments significant enough to stimulate bipartisanship.
In any case this generation of Americans may be witnessing another watershed development in our world’s cyclical evolution.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
What do the Latest UNSC Sanctions on Iran Mean?
After months of negotiations between the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) -America, Britain, France, Russia, and China- a watered down (for lack of a better term) resolution, sanctioning Iran, was passed.
The bottom line is that the UNSC failed to pass sanctions with teeth. By teeth I mean making it illegal to export refined gas/oil products to a country that, surprisingly considering all its oil reserves, imports 50% of their refined oil/gas.
So we must ask what does this fourth round of sanctions actually mean?
First, the very fact that Russia and China -who both have strong economic ties with Iran- signed on to this resolution reveals three points. 1. The Western powers, led by America, had to make serious concessions. Concessions, that no doubt affect missile defense in Eastern Europe, and Americas actions vis-a-vis Taiwan/North Korea in the East. 2. For once Ahmadinejad was telling the partial (I will explain partial in a moment) truth when he said the sanctions are "valueless" and should be thrown "in the waste bin like a used handkerchief". Otherwise China/Russia would not have signed on. 3. The Obama administration needed this diplomatic "victory", a need that Russia and China surely exploited, further explaining the worthless provisions.
Second, the Russia's decision to sign on to the resolution was most probably agreed upon between Putin and Ahmadinejad, when they recently met in Turkey. Thus when the Russia's Foreign Ministry announced that the measures in the resolution "exclude the possibility of employing force", he meant that this resolution was only worthless to those opposed to Iran's nuclear ambitions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_nuclear_iran). In essence, this resolution is an umbrella protecting Iran from an attack by Israel. After all "Iran was sanctioned, what more can you, Israelis, possibly want"!?
Third, America, under the Obama administration, will not only not use military force to stop Iran, but it will also do all it can -as Nixon/Kissinger did leading up to the Yom Kippur war of 1973- to prevent Israel from doing what it feels it must. Including agreeing to meaningless sanctions to show that America is doing all it can, and that Israel should further delay any strike. This is not a critique of America, but rather a frank conclusion that the Obama administration agreed to this resolution in a misguided attempt to assuage China, Russia and Israel.
Put otherwise it is true that America does not have the ability now to open up a third front in Iran, at the same time America can work with its real allies, the Western powers, and sanction the export of gas to Iran. After all America and the EU, are the number one and number two consumer blocks, they have pull.
From this perspective, this resolution is part of a trend not an exception. Obama's is attempting to befriend Russia and China, and continues to place Americas real allies/friends second. Poland and the aborted missile defense- Russia. South Korea/Japan, and no action on North Korea - China. Now sacrificing Israels interests.
Why? For the sake of the pipe dream that America can be both a leader and a friend of Russia and China.
What do the latest UNSC sanctions mean? They mean a lot.
The bottom line is that the UNSC failed to pass sanctions with teeth. By teeth I mean making it illegal to export refined gas/oil products to a country that, surprisingly considering all its oil reserves, imports 50% of their refined oil/gas.
So we must ask what does this fourth round of sanctions actually mean?
First, the very fact that Russia and China -who both have strong economic ties with Iran- signed on to this resolution reveals three points. 1. The Western powers, led by America, had to make serious concessions. Concessions, that no doubt affect missile defense in Eastern Europe, and Americas actions vis-a-vis Taiwan/North Korea in the East. 2. For once Ahmadinejad was telling the partial (I will explain partial in a moment) truth when he said the sanctions are "valueless" and should be thrown "in the waste bin like a used handkerchief". Otherwise China/Russia would not have signed on. 3. The Obama administration needed this diplomatic "victory", a need that Russia and China surely exploited, further explaining the worthless provisions.
Second, the Russia's decision to sign on to the resolution was most probably agreed upon between Putin and Ahmadinejad, when they recently met in Turkey. Thus when the Russia's Foreign Ministry announced that the measures in the resolution "exclude the possibility of employing force", he meant that this resolution was only worthless to those opposed to Iran's nuclear ambitions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_nuclear_iran). In essence, this resolution is an umbrella protecting Iran from an attack by Israel. After all "Iran was sanctioned, what more can you, Israelis, possibly want"!?
Third, America, under the Obama administration, will not only not use military force to stop Iran, but it will also do all it can -as Nixon/Kissinger did leading up to the Yom Kippur war of 1973- to prevent Israel from doing what it feels it must. Including agreeing to meaningless sanctions to show that America is doing all it can, and that Israel should further delay any strike. This is not a critique of America, but rather a frank conclusion that the Obama administration agreed to this resolution in a misguided attempt to assuage China, Russia and Israel.
Put otherwise it is true that America does not have the ability now to open up a third front in Iran, at the same time America can work with its real allies, the Western powers, and sanction the export of gas to Iran. After all America and the EU, are the number one and number two consumer blocks, they have pull.
From this perspective, this resolution is part of a trend not an exception. Obama's is attempting to befriend Russia and China, and continues to place Americas real allies/friends second. Poland and the aborted missile defense- Russia. South Korea/Japan, and no action on North Korea - China. Now sacrificing Israels interests.
Why? For the sake of the pipe dream that America can be both a leader and a friend of Russia and China.
What do the latest UNSC sanctions mean? They mean a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
