Allies of the USA, beware

We are all observing what’s happening in Pakistan. We also know that USA is very bewildered as to how India treats USA (refusing to buy their planes, refusing to get into security pacts, refusing the sign the NPT, voting against them in the UN) and refuses to become an ally. But India knows better, being an ally of the USA is very dangerous indeed. Because with the good things, come some very bad things. Democracies tend to manage USA a bit better because the USA, ostensibly and publicly, cannot really go against the will of the people (not that it doesn't try, look at the wiki leaks papers). But for dictators who think that USA is a good ally and are accustomed to operating on the Somoza model (President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) supposedly remarked in 1939 that "Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch). So Pakistan should be very very worried and I do not find it surprising it at all that its sticking two fingers up to USA.

As the quote by Lord Palmerston, an English Statesman who died in 1865 goes, Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests. Dont ascribe human emotions to nations and foreign policy. This is why I found the Labour idea of an ethical Foreign Policy stupid. Anyway…

Here’s another relevant quote if one of the moth eaten generals of the Pakistani kind decide to take power.

Alternatively, suppose Qaddafi winds up hanging from a lamppost in his favourite party dress. If you’re a Third World dictator, what lessons would you draw? Qaddafi was the thug who came in from the cold, the one who (in the wake of Saddam’s fall) renounced his nuclear program and was supposedly rehabilitated in the chancelleries of the West. He was a strong partner in the war on terrorism, according to U.S. diplomats. And what did Washington do? They overthrew him anyway. — Mark Steyn

Isn't this against the diplomatic rule book?

This chap seems to be heading towards becoming persona non grata. I quote:

The Iranian Supreme Leader’s representative in Britain has told Muslim servicemen and women to quit the Armed Forces, saying that their involvement in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is forbidden by Islam.

The cleric, personally appointed by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to be his special envoy to the UK, also urged Muslims to defeat the opposition to the Iranian regime and keep the 30-year-old Islamic Republic alive.

Heh, i like his innocence (or whatever word you want to use). But here’s where I found him rather silly. He ended his interview by saying:

He said the centre worked with police and other authorities to improve relations between the Muslim community and wider Britain.

“My personal belief is if Muslim migrants are better Muslims in this society, they can shape their individual lives in a better way and could be better members to this society,” he said.

Can you see how those two statements are contradictory? How on earth will Muslim soldiers and the society at large be well integrated if idiot mullah’s like this fellow go about sprouting pap like this? The FCO should call him in and tell him to keep his gob shut. Talk about making friends and influencing people.

More European hypocrisy & stupidity

I quote from here:

Whilst President Vaclav Klaus was visiting Dublin there was an official dinner where he sat with the Irish Taoiseach, Brian Cowen. No doubt they had much to discuss.

Elsewhere the two first ladies were having a discussion. Mary Molloy, a member of the Lenihan political dynasty, remarked that the Irish had "voted wrongly" when they rejected the Lisbon Treaty. Livia Klausová, a respected economist, responded, "Well, were they wrong when they elected your husband?"

Given that Cowen, like British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, was not elected as PM this was, dare I say it, a little tart.

The breathtaking hypocrisy of the European politicians is simply astounding. As it so happens, Gordon Brown lied about the Reform Treaty being put to the British referendum in violation to his manifesto promises, but that twit lies through his incompetent teeth anyway.

Technorati Tags: EU,politics,Ireland,constitution

When a handshake creates problems

I feel sad for Sheikh Tantawi and nothing but pity for the people who are calling for his head for the sheer effrontery that he had to shake the hand of Israeli President Shimon Peres. The man met Peres in an interfaith conference and belong to countries which are at peace. Anybody who thinks Tantawi did wrong in shaking hands with Peres is frankly stupid and more importantly, is dangerous to mankind because they are creating a problem with inter faith relations as well as political relations. So any time you read about this, immediately label them :)

Technorati Tags: Israel,Egypt,Politics

Vote for the Top 100 Public Intellectuals

Well, I suppose this is of interest, if nothing else but to check out who has arrived according to the Prospect Magazine, lol. I went through the bio's, quite an interesting if eclectic lot. Notice how the emerging markets have started being portrayed? Also it is interesting to see the regions and countries which have been ignored such as the African continent, Russia, Brazil...

Nine immoral solutions for Gaza - a guide

One of the truisms of management as well as diplomacy is that one should never be pushed into a corner because if you are ever pushed into a corner, then all options are unpalatable. As is with Israel. Which is why I still say that Israel should speak to Hamas. But read this depressing article and I have taken the liberty to quote it in full here. What other way but to talk and choose option 5? After all, at one time, the PLO also wanted to chuck the Jews in the Med but they changed the charter, didnt they?

 

Nine immoral solutions for Gaza - a guide
By Bradley Burston

For a moral compass, Gaza is the North Pole. The needle spins so continually, and at such speed, that no reading is possible.

For Israelis, the quandary of Gaza is a powerful Rorshach of the role and the burdens of Israel, of mood and injury, of personal tragedy and official befuddlement, of social conscience, ethical outlook, and sense of history.

The Gaza Strip, unwanted by the world, unwanted by Israel, unwanted by the Arabs and even by many Palestinians, forlorn, violent, seething, unlivable, has become the great moral test for the Jewish people.

All it took was rockets.

Seven years of rockets. Rockets launched toward civilian populations, schools, a college, rockets that slammed through private homes, children's bedrooms in the blue collar Israeli town of Sderot. More than a thousand rockets a year for seven years, directed at kibbutzim which for decades had supported an end to occupation and the rise of a Palestinian state. Eight thousand rockets, fired when Israel had 25 settlements and 20,000 troops in the Gaza Strip, and when Israel expelled the settlers and withdrew its troops, rockets fired from the ruins of the settlements and former emplacements of the IDF.

For Palestinians, Gaza was a prison before the disengagement, and a maximum security lockup thereafter. For Palestinians, the end of Israeli rule and the subsequent rise of Hamas were a human rights tragedy turned human rights catastrophe. For Palestinians, there is no more work in Israel, no more work in Gaza, no more hope anywhere.

When Israel ended its operation in the Strip on Monday, a Hamas radio announcer declared victory, saying that despite all of the destruction and death, Hamas gunners were still hitting Sderot and Ashkelon and even Netivot. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar addressed a rally to mark what he called Hamas' success in the Five Day War. Taking the trouble to thank the news media in general for its coverage of Palestinian casualties, Al Jazeera and Hamas' own Al Aqsa TV in particular, he told a cheering, chanting crowd, in effect: We showed them. The Israelis?ll think twice before invading ever again.

He's right. Israelis will think twice, and many times again. This is why: Hamas, with the direct or inadvertent cooperation of Hezbollah, Iran, the Islamic Jihad, Fatah fatcats, Fatah rebels, the Bush administration, and, of course, Israel itself, has created a situation in which every one of Israel's moral and strategic options is a bad one.

This is the test for Israel: There is no way to ace it, and there are countless ways to fail. Here are a few.

Choose your poison:

1. A massive IDF ground offensive.

Arguments in favor: There is no alternative but to use overwhelming if tactically directed force to root out terror groups which fire the rockets, and to break the back of the Hamas government and remove it from power.

Marshalled example: Operation Defensive Shield, 2002

Arguments against: The risk-benefit equation suggests that large numbers of Gaza non-combatants as well as Israeli forces would be killed and wounded, without truly material success in curbing Qassam and Katyusha attacks.

International outrage could cause Israel great political, economic, even strategic harm.

2. Reoccupy the Gaza Strip

Arguments in favor: Israel cannot abide a terrorist state less than an hour's drive from Tel Aviv. Hamas, if allowed to rule, will eventually take over the West Bank and, effectively, East Jerusalem as well. Even a large-scale IDF offensive, if only temporary, will leave the field open to rearmament and continued attacks.

Arguments against: Israel militarily occupied the Gaza Strip for nearly forty years, but was unable to prevent the manufacture and firing of Qassams. Qassam firing continued under Israeli occupation for more than three years until the disengagement in 2005. Finally, Israel lacks the will and the forces to occupy Gaza indefinitely.

3. Shell sources of rocket fire

Arguments in favor: Use of long-range artillery will save the lives of soldiers who would be out at risk in a ground offensive. If Israel puts Gazans on notice that artillery will immediately and consistently shell any area from which rockets are fired, they will either prevent Hamas gunners from using their homes and yards, or will flee before the firing begins.

Arguments against: Artillery has proven markedly inaccurate as retaliatory fire against small crews of armed men, often with disastrous consequences. Cases of innocent civilians killed in error, tragic in themselves, have in many cases also made it impossible for the IDF to continue to pursue its military targets.

4. Assassinate Hamas leaders

Arguments in favor: Assassinations of commanders and political leaders can paralyze the organization, sending leading figures underground, cutting lines of communication, interrupting chains of command, while at the same time causing less danger to Palestinian civilians and to IDF soldiers. When Israel assassinated Hamas founders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abed Aziz Rantisi in 2004, threats os monumental retaliation never materialized, and the organization subsequently offered a limited truce.

Arguments against: Civilians are often killed by mistake in assassination attempts. Assassination is also a dangerous policy, as it invites counter-attempts, such as the murder of then-cabinet minister Rehavam Ze'evi in Jerusalem in 2001. Finally, it fails to address core concerns, and may cause deadly reprisals, as in the suicide bombings that killed 60 people in Israel after the 1996 assassination of Hamas bomb mastermind Yihye Ayyash.

5. Negotiate with Hamas

Arguments for: Hamas is not only the democratically elected ruler of Gaza, it also still enjoys broad, if somewhat dimished, popular support in the Strip. Because it trades on an ideology of martyrdom and steadfastness in the face of attack, it will be defeated neither by economic sanctions nor military confrontation. There is no alternative to talks toward a cease-fire, which Hamas has been proposing for years, holding out the offer of the return of captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in an exchange for jailed Hamas men.

Arguments against: Negotiations would constitute a major victory for Hamas, and tacit Israeli recognition of the organization, further undermining the standing of Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and perhaps paving way for future Hamas control of the West Bank.

The Hamas charter continues to call explicitly for the violent destruction of the state of Israel, and any expansion of Hamas hegemony to the West Bank could put large swathes of central Israel, the bulk of Israel's population, in range of Katyusha-Grad rockets.

6. Tighten the economic siege over Gaza

Arguments for: How can a nation at war justify supplying its enemy with fuel, electricity, water, and even supplies which may be used for producing rockets and other armaments?

Arguments against: The people of Gaza as a whole should not be punished for the actions of a small number of armed men. Collective punishment, moreover, increases hatred toward Israel and will, in the end, persuade more youths to become terrorists.

7. Lift the economic siege over Gaza

Arguments in favor: Such a step could, if carried out in cooperation with Abbas and the PA, strengthen Abbas' hand. (Also see arguments against, numbers 6 and, if carried out in cooperation with Hamas, 5 above)

Arguments against: Such a step could bolster Hamas, whioch could list it as a strategic victory and an indication that its policies were correct all along.

8. Increase IDF operations in the West Bank

Arguments in favor: Israel must do everything it can to confront and contain Hamas in the West Bank, to keep it from taking over.

Arguments against: Such operations sap the limited sovereignty of Abbas and the PA, which has taken action of its own against Hamas in the West Bank. Such operations also cast Abbas in the role of collaborator with Israel, cutting his support among Palestinians.

9. Do nothing

Arguments for: This stance, which, while it may have adherents in practice, has no proponents.

Arguments against. Israel does not have the option of doing nothing. To do nothing is, in effect, a violation of the human rights of the people of Sderot and the western Megev, who are the targets of Hamas war crimes.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Diplomacy

Thomas Friedman's take on Iran's take on USA

I like Thomas Friedman, he does the vision thing. And his latest column is just brilliant. The short term thinking on part of the politicians is just breathtaking. Read and weep!

December 5, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

Intercepting Iran’s Take on America
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

There are two intelligence analyses that are relevant to the balance of
power between the U.S. and Iran — one is the latest U.S. assessment of Iran,
which certainly gave a much more complex view of what is happening there.
The other is the Iranian National Intelligence Estimate of America, which —
my guess — would read something like this:

To: President Ahmadinejad

From: The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence

Subject: America

As you’ll recall, in the wake of 9/11, we were extremely concerned that the
U.S. would develop a covert program to end its addiction to oil, which would
be the greatest threat to Iranian national security. In fact, after Bush’s
2006 State of the Union, in which he decried America’s oil addiction, we had
“high confidence” that a comprehensive U.S. clean energy policy would
emerge. We were wrong.

Our fears that the U.S. was engaged in a covert “Manhattan Project” to
achieve energy independence have been “assuaged.” America’s Manhattan
Project turns out to be largely confined to the production of corn ethanol
in Iowa, which, our analysts have confirmed from cellphone intercepts
between lobbyists and Congressmen, is nothing more than a
multibillion-dollar payoff to big Iowa farmers and agro-businesses.

True, thanks to Nancy Pelosi, the U.S. Congress decided to increase the
miles per gallon required of U.S. car fleets by the year 2020 — which took
us by surprise — but we nevertheless “strongly believe” this will not lead
to any definitive breaking of America’s oil addiction, since none of the
leading presidential candidates has offered an energy policy that would
include a tax on oil or carbon that could trigger a truly transformational
shift in America away from fossil fuels.

Therefore, it is “very likely” that Iran’s current level of high oil
revenues will last for decades and insulate our regime from any decisive
pressures from abroad or from our own people.

We have to note that obtaining open-source intelligence in America has
become more difficult, because traditional news shows have become more
comedic and more comedic news shows more authoritative.

For instance, CNN’s nightly business report is hosted by a man named
“Dobbs.” Real journalists come on his show and present transparently
propagandistic stories about immigration and trade and then he fulminates
about them, much the way our ayatollahs used to do about “Satanic Americans”
on late-night Iranian TV. So viewers have no real idea what’s happening in
the U.S. economy.

Meanwhile, at 11 p.m., something called “The Daily Show,” which appears on
Comedy Central, has fake journalists presenting what turns out to be the
real news.

Yes, our last I.N.I.E. in 1990 concluded that after the collapse of
communism, America was on track to become the world’s sole superpower and
most compelling role model for Muslim youth — including our own. We were
wrong. We now have “high confidence” that America is on a path of
self-destruction, for three reasons:

First, 9/11 has made America afraid and therefore stupid. The “war on
terrorism” is now so deeply imbedded in America’s psyche that we think it is
“highly likely” that America will continue to export more fear than hope and
will continue to defend things like torture and Guantánamo Bay prison and to
favor politicians like Mr. Giuliani, who alienates the rest of the world.

Second, at a time when America’s bridges, roads, airports and Internet
bandwidth have fallen behind other industrial powers, including China, we
believe that the U.S. opposition to higher taxes — and the fact that the
primary campaigns have focused largely on gay marriage, flag-burning and
whether the Christian Bible is the literal truth — means it is “highly
unlikely” that America will arrest its decline.

Third, all the U.S. presidential candidates are distancing themselves from
the core values that made America such a great power and so different from
us — in particular America’s long commitment to free trade, open immigration
and a reverence for scientific enquiry wherever it leads. Our intel analysts
are baffled that the leading Democrat, Mrs. Clinton, no longer believes in
globalization and the leading Republican, Mr. Huckabee, never believed in
evolution.

U.S. politicians seem determined to appeal either to the most nativist
extremes in their respective parties — or to tell voters that something
Americans call “the tooth fairy” will make their energy, budget, educational
and Social Security deficits painlessly disappear.

Therefore, we conclude with “high confidence” that there is little
likelihood that post-9/11 America will, as they say, “get its groove back”
anytime soon.

Who needs nukes when you have this kind of America?

God is Great. Long Live the Iranian Revolution.


All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

State visits are a waste of time or are they?

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is currently engaged in a state visit to the United Kingdom. Generally, the idea is that state visits are a waste of time and money, and besides some big stonking dinners and big security bills, nothing much happens despite very formal trade and treaty signings.

But here comes a research paper which checks this premise out and finds.....

State Visits and International Trade, Volker Nitsch, The World Economy. Politicians travel extensively abroad, for various reasons. One purpose of external visits is to improve bilateral economic relations. In this paper, I examine the effect of state visits on international trade. Based on a large data set that covers the travel activities of the heads of state of France, Germany and the United States for the period from 1948 to 2003, I find that state and official visits are indeed positively correlated with exports. I first apply a gravity model of trade to control for other trade determinants and find that a visit is typically associated with higher exports by about 8 to 10 per cent; the results are sensitive to the type of visit (as they should). I then use a differences-in-differences specification to deal with the issue of reverse causality. The results show a strong, but short-lived effect of visits on bilateral exports growth, which is driven by repeated visits to a country. Additional support is provided by an exploratory instrumental variables analysis.

I promise, I will never moan about state visits again! :)

Technorati Tags: politics , diplomacy

Abbas wants India in proposed ME peace conference! HELL NO!

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that he wanted Indian to join the proposed International Peace Conference on the Middle East.

No bloody way, stay out of it, India. You really do not need that aggravation and it is not your fight. If you get involved, sure as hell fights will break out.

Do you remember the last time you got involved in the middle east? Remember the riots and killings? Do not touch it, do not talk about it, get the diplomatic flu and go for a walk!

Technorati Tags: India , Palestine , Israel , Diplomacy

Loved this to bits, wonderful repartee'

Read this full article if you can, its just brilliant. I am so jealous, I can never be quick like this!

Look who's sneering

One of the most childish and irritating of retorts has become a setpiece of diplomatic repartee
Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Tuesday October 16, 2007
The Guardian

Of all human instincts, not even the urge to say "I told you so" is stronger than the response called tu quoque: "Look who's talking." To judge from children, it is innate ("Cathy says you took her chocolate," "Yes but she stole my doll"), and we don't grow out of it, to judge by politicians in one country or another who are positively addicted to the tu quoque

There has just been a real collector's item. France has led calls for pressure to be put on the Burmese junta at the security council and through the EU, where foreign ministers discussed the issue yesterday. As part of the push it has tried to enlist a recalcitrant Russia which, conscious perhaps of Chechnya, has no great wish to be seen criticising anyone else's internal affairs. Hence a Russian minister's response that the next time there were riots in France he would refer the matter to the UN.

This reply was at once childish, irrelevant, and probably very gratifying. Even those who bridled at Nicolas Sarkozy's conduct during the banlieue riots two years ago - when he said that the rioters were racaille, or rabble, who should be blasted away with high-pressure hoses - can scarcely suppose that comparing this with what's happening on the streets of Rangoon is like with like, but the "look who's talking" is rarely susceptible to reason.

Then again, the tu quoque biter is sometimes bit, and the French have their own talent in this regard, as Sarkozy's predecessor, Jacques Chirac, showed. When the Americans were yet again instructing the EU to admit Turkey, Chirac said this was no more Bush's business than it would be his to tell Bush how to deal with Mexico. In a way it wasn't a bad point, but it didn't really address the pros and cons of Turkish admission.

All this has a very long history. Gladstone was the most high-minded, and sometimes self-righteous, of Victorian statesmen, and liked to lecture foreign rulers such as Prince Schwarzenberg about Austrian misrule of subject peoples. Schwarzenberg was quick-witted enough to make the obvious retort: Ireland. The British were always vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy when they proclaimed the merits of parliamentary democracy while expanding their empire, until the Americans conveniently took over the role.

During the war, when Roosevelt chided Churchill about the Raj, Churchill had his own tu quoque to hand: the fate of Native Americans. And when an American made a sneering remark about British colonial conquest in the early 19th century, a British diplomat retorted: "That would be about the time of the Mexican war, wouldn't it?"

By the time the US was entering its own hegemonic age, the evils of communism and colonialism were denounced by idealistic meddlers of the type Graham Greene depicted in The Quiet American, but they were always liable to be reminded of Jim Crow and the lynch mob.

A further refinement comes when tu quoque turns into ignoratio elenchi, the term in logic for refuting a proposition that has not been advanced, and if that sounds recondite, you can be sure you've heard it in practice. ("You were drunk again last night." "And your mother's an ugly cow." The latter statement may be accurate, but it does not address the former proposition.) When reporting from Johannesburg 25 years ago, I well remember how, if you mentioned conditions in the townships to well-meaning white South Africans, they would say "But have you seen the slums of Nairobi and Addis Ababa?", to which the answer was: "Yes, actually, but we weren't talking about Addis or Nairobi, we were talking about Soweto."

In Soviet Russia this was so much a part of official rhetoric that it was turned into one of the classic jokes associated with the (in every sense) legendary Radio Armenia station. A caller-in asks the programme's political expert "What is the average wage of an industrial worker in the US?" After a very long pause the answer comes: "They kill negroes."

But nowhere is the tu quoque so popular as in the endless, exhausting debates about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When I reluctantly took part as a witness in The Moral Maze (a programme that has always irritated me, from its name on), Michael Gove, the bumptious columnist turned Tory MP, thought he was ambushing me by asking: "Tell me, why is Israel so much more criticised for what it does in Gaza than China for what it does in Tibet?"

Stifling the reply "What an effing silly question you tiresome little tick", I muttered something about how the answer would take too long, but anyway two wrongs don't make a right. And yet, although we're meant to be taught that early on, the inner child will always want to retort: "Look who's talking!" wheaty@compuserve.com

Technorati Tags: Politics , Humour , Diplomacy

The Burma Boycott story – why boycotts are stupid and wont work!

A great column by Gideon Rachman in the FT on why Boycotts are stupid when we talk about Burma.

I quote:

It is very hard to make the argument for engagement with Burma now, with blood being shed on the streets. The Americans and Europeans clearly feel the need for some sort of symbolic act of repudiation of the Burmese government. That is understandable as an emotional reaction. But do not confuse sanctions with a real strategy to bring change and democracy to Burma.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

People who want a permanent security council seat are out of their tiny minds

So tell me something truthfully. Just what benefit does permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council bring to you and me? Or to your country? The way I see it, it has something to do with prestige. But you can take that prestige, add £2.30 to it and buy a cup of coffee. That's about it.

If you are a permanent member, you have to worry about external pressure. You step into diplomatic messes like the UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband did when he supported South Africa. You are expected to be the policeman of the world. You spend more money on strange things. Your government gets distracted with silly things around the world. You dont get to concentrate on your own work, citizens and life. So what's the big deal? Why? There doesnt seem to be any benefits and you end up with only costs. Sod it, if Germany wants to become a permanent member of the UNSC, they can have the British Seat.

I am sure I am going to hear howls of protest, but until and unless I get a very clear, precise and detailed definition of how the UK is benefiting from a UNSC Permanent Seat, my opinion that the permanent seat is only for some foreign office mandarins stands. It is of absolutely no benefit to the country at all!.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!