During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, Martin Luther King, Jr. was willing to deliberately violate segregation laws and go to prison if need be, as an act of civil disobedience. Similarly, Rosa Parks refuse to change her sear on a bus to follow a law she thought was unfair. King and Parks and other civil rights leaders were later vindicated, as the old Jim Crow segregation laws gradually disappeared. Civil disobedience to support civil rights was later praised as a virtue.
Today, Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization are publishing classified documents on the Internet. By so doing, they may be either breaking the law or aiding and abetting other law-breakers. It appears that Assange is not doing this for personal gain, but rather to expose unethical behavior in government and industry. In a sense, by publishing classified information WikiLeaks is also opposing excessive classification of documents that it believes the public should be able to see.
Some prominent government and business leaders have praised Assange, others have denounced him as a “terrorist.” What he is doing is, in essence, deliberating publishing documents that he thinks should be available to the public, but which other powerful forces think should be withheld. Is this not a form of civil disobedience, much like Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement of the 1960’s? And should not those people that support Assange join to create an organization that will formally work to oppose excessive government secrecy, just as groups like the NAACP worked to overturn the Jim Crow laws many years ago?
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
What Matters in Iraq: Votes or Troops ?
According to a report from the Associated Press, the influence of the United States in Iraq is dwindling along with the decrease in United States troops. Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the United States, that is, the Bush Administration, set up an occupying organization, the Coalition Provisional Authority, to manage Iraq affairs. Iraqis were then urged to develop a new constitution and ultimately a new form of government. There is little doubt that any new constitution would have to meet with the approval of the occupiers, and that the new government, if not exactly a puppet government, would at least be responsive to the wishes of the United States. Now, the AP report is telling us, that the responsiveness of the Iraqi government is decreasing, along with the decrease of American troops in Iraq.
More specifically, the AP is telling us that Iraqi is now more interested in forming relationships with its neighboring countries, including Iran, than in relying on the U.S. for guidance. The A.P. also tells us that the anti-American cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, is poised to play a major role in the coalition government that is slowly, very slowly, being formed. You may recall that the Coalition Provisional Authority sought the arrest of al-Sadr due to alleged illegal activities by his followers. That arrest never happened, due largely to the fact that al-Sadr's followers included a militia organization, known as the Mahdi Army. In Iraq, as in many parts of the world, it seems that the political process is influenced heavily by the size of the military forces involved. The future government of Iraq may turn out to be based on who has the biggest military force, not who gets the most votes.
At this time, the Obama administration is sticking to its planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I do not expect that to change. I believe that the American public wants a withdrawal from our entanglement in Iraq affairs, as does President Obama himself, as do I. But, at the risk of being an unfair cynic, I question whether the Bush administration ever intended to withdraw from Iraq. That administration had no exit plan, but rather intended to stay until the "job was done" although what that job entailed was never spelled out. I suspect that the Bush knew that a withdrawal of U.S. troops would eventually lead to a new government in Iraq, undoubtedly one that was not particularly responsive to the wishes of the U.S. government or the U.S. corporations.
More specifically, the AP is telling us that Iraqi is now more interested in forming relationships with its neighboring countries, including Iran, than in relying on the U.S. for guidance. The A.P. also tells us that the anti-American cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, is poised to play a major role in the coalition government that is slowly, very slowly, being formed. You may recall that the Coalition Provisional Authority sought the arrest of al-Sadr due to alleged illegal activities by his followers. That arrest never happened, due largely to the fact that al-Sadr's followers included a militia organization, known as the Mahdi Army. In Iraq, as in many parts of the world, it seems that the political process is influenced heavily by the size of the military forces involved. The future government of Iraq may turn out to be based on who has the biggest military force, not who gets the most votes.
At this time, the Obama administration is sticking to its planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I do not expect that to change. I believe that the American public wants a withdrawal from our entanglement in Iraq affairs, as does President Obama himself, as do I. But, at the risk of being an unfair cynic, I question whether the Bush administration ever intended to withdraw from Iraq. That administration had no exit plan, but rather intended to stay until the "job was done" although what that job entailed was never spelled out. I suspect that the Bush knew that a withdrawal of U.S. troops would eventually lead to a new government in Iraq, undoubtedly one that was not particularly responsive to the wishes of the U.S. government or the U.S. corporations.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Class Warfare, When Did the War Start?
In recent months, amid threats of tax increases, certain power centers have begun warning of the dangers of “class warfare.” My first reaction to that was annoyance. Where did these “classes” come from? The United States is a class-less society. The answer to that is that this is all about economics. Certainly, we have a middle class, and upper-income and lower-income people. So we do have economic classes, and we certainly don’t them involved in wars. Okay, I’ll accept the argument that we have economic classes and move on. But my first point is to warn everyone to be suspicious when people start talking about “classes” and “class warfare.”
If you look at the economics of the so-called “classes,” you’ll see that the wealthy "classes," whether feudal lords, nineteenth century slave-owners, or wealthy industrialists of the modern era, have always tried to maximize their income. Nothing wrong with that. And one way to maximize your income is to pay your workers as little as possible. I guess that’s all right also, as long as one's religion will allow one to do that. And, it follows, of course, that it’s okay for the workers to unionize to get a bigger share of the pie for themselves. But, is getting a union to bargain for you class warfare? If class warfare really exists, then union battles are certainly a part of it. But the industrialist also tried to get a bigger share of the pie by paying low wages. That’s class warfare also. If the concept of class warfare is valid, then it has always existed and probably always will exist.
Note that when things were going good for big business, no one talked of class warfare. However, when a new administration is elected that might tax the well-to-do at at a higher rate, then suddenly we have class warfare. No, either we’ve always had class warfare or we’ve never had it. I believe the use of the word “warfare” is an intentional attempt to manipulate the public. We should acknowledge that there is, and always will be, a struggle by every individual to get as big a piece of the pie for himself as possible.
But as part of that struggle for economic success, it is the responsibility of society as a whole to decide what is a fair distribution of the wealth and what isn’t. The United States will never be a nation that allows people to literally starve to death. The United States proved in the 1930’s that it is not a nation that allows large segments of the population to have no jobs and live in poverty. The United States of today has to decide what needs to be done to keep our once-huge middle class from slipping away.
If you look at the economics of the so-called “classes,” you’ll see that the wealthy "classes," whether feudal lords, nineteenth century slave-owners, or wealthy industrialists of the modern era, have always tried to maximize their income. Nothing wrong with that. And one way to maximize your income is to pay your workers as little as possible. I guess that’s all right also, as long as one's religion will allow one to do that. And, it follows, of course, that it’s okay for the workers to unionize to get a bigger share of the pie for themselves. But, is getting a union to bargain for you class warfare? If class warfare really exists, then union battles are certainly a part of it. But the industrialist also tried to get a bigger share of the pie by paying low wages. That’s class warfare also. If the concept of class warfare is valid, then it has always existed and probably always will exist.
Note that when things were going good for big business, no one talked of class warfare. However, when a new administration is elected that might tax the well-to-do at at a higher rate, then suddenly we have class warfare. No, either we’ve always had class warfare or we’ve never had it. I believe the use of the word “warfare” is an intentional attempt to manipulate the public. We should acknowledge that there is, and always will be, a struggle by every individual to get as big a piece of the pie for himself as possible.
But as part of that struggle for economic success, it is the responsibility of society as a whole to decide what is a fair distribution of the wealth and what isn’t. The United States will never be a nation that allows people to literally starve to death. The United States proved in the 1930’s that it is not a nation that allows large segments of the population to have no jobs and live in poverty. The United States of today has to decide what needs to be done to keep our once-huge middle class from slipping away.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
A Realistic “War on al-Qaida”
As the result of the death of a French citizen at the hands of al-Qaida, France has now announced that it is “at war with al-Qaida.” Oddly, despite being at “war,” France does not appear to have any plans to invade and occupy a Middle Eastern nation.
France is instead seeking to track down the 400 to 500 terrorists that are currently operating in the Sahel region of northern Africa. It appears that France will be working with the other nations in that region, such as Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Algeria, to find the al-Qaida terrorists. France plans to capture, try and punish those terrorists. It sort of makes sense, doesn’t it? If you’re at war with al-Qaida, go get the members of al-Qaida.
The Bush Administration, on the other hand, responded to al-Qaida's 9/11 attack by invading and occupying another sovereign country, Afghanistan, which was not controlled by al-Qaida. (The Bush administration then decided to invade and occupy Iraq, for good measure, but that’s another story.) Perhaps, as the Bushites have said, the controlling force in Afghanistan, the Taliban, refused to hand over al-Qaida. Even it that were true, and some question that it is, why not simply send a force to Afghanistan, capture the al-Quaida forces, which number less than 1000 individuals and leave? The Taliban would never have been able to stop the U.S. forces, which had far superior weaponry.
The Bush Administration did not make a strong effort to work with the Taliban as the French are now working with the governments of Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Algeria. They chose instead to invade Afghanistan and make the Taliban the enemy. And, even after al-Qaida fled Afghanistan, the Bush Administration did not end its occupation of Afghanistan, choosing, instead, to stay and organize a new Afghani government. If we were at war with al-Qaida, why did we not follow the al-Qaida forces to their new sanctuaries, and leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis?
There is no rational answer to any of these questions except to say that war with al-Qaida was not the true reason for our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Was the Bush Administration consistently irrational, or were there other, still hidden, reasons for these two invasions?
France is instead seeking to track down the 400 to 500 terrorists that are currently operating in the Sahel region of northern Africa. It appears that France will be working with the other nations in that region, such as Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Algeria, to find the al-Qaida terrorists. France plans to capture, try and punish those terrorists. It sort of makes sense, doesn’t it? If you’re at war with al-Qaida, go get the members of al-Qaida.
The Bush Administration, on the other hand, responded to al-Qaida's 9/11 attack by invading and occupying another sovereign country, Afghanistan, which was not controlled by al-Qaida. (The Bush administration then decided to invade and occupy Iraq, for good measure, but that’s another story.) Perhaps, as the Bushites have said, the controlling force in Afghanistan, the Taliban, refused to hand over al-Qaida. Even it that were true, and some question that it is, why not simply send a force to Afghanistan, capture the al-Quaida forces, which number less than 1000 individuals and leave? The Taliban would never have been able to stop the U.S. forces, which had far superior weaponry.
The Bush Administration did not make a strong effort to work with the Taliban as the French are now working with the governments of Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Algeria. They chose instead to invade Afghanistan and make the Taliban the enemy. And, even after al-Qaida fled Afghanistan, the Bush Administration did not end its occupation of Afghanistan, choosing, instead, to stay and organize a new Afghani government. If we were at war with al-Qaida, why did we not follow the al-Qaida forces to their new sanctuaries, and leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis?
There is no rational answer to any of these questions except to say that war with al-Qaida was not the true reason for our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Was the Bush Administration consistently irrational, or were there other, still hidden, reasons for these two invasions?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
At War with Whom? Al-Qaeda?
Some time ago, the right-wing extremists began to complain that President Obama was not protecting the nation’s security. Why, he wouldn’t even say we were at war! Eventually, Obama made an emphatic statement that we are at war, at war with Al-Qaeda. That seemed to end the discussion of whether or not President Obama believes we are at war. But no one seemed to talk very much about what war with Al-Qaeda means.
By saying the war is with Al-Qaeda, Obama was also saying we are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan. But that’s obvious, isn’t it? Both of those countries have democratically elected (more or less) governments that are allies of the United States. We would not be at war with governments that the United States was instrumental in creating. But if we’re not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, why do we have troops in there? Al-Qaeda, which is a terrorist organization of perhaps a few thousand, could be anywhere in the world, probably more in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. While it's not clear why we sent troops to Iraq in the first place, there's no war there now. In fact, we’re in the process of withdrawing those troops. And in Afghanistan the fighting is focused on something called the Taliban. So what happened to the war on Al-Qaeda?
What happened to the war on Al-Qaeda was a bit of slight of hand by the Bush Administration. The Taliban, which had taken control of Afghanistan in recent years, was seen to be “protecting” Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and therefore became a secondary enemy. At the time, the opposition to the Taliban, the so-called “Northern Alliance,” was already fighting what was in effect a civil war. So the United States developed a plan to join the Northern Alliance effort, force the Taliban out, install a new democratic government, and then destroy the Al-Qaeda movement. Except that somehow that last step seems to have been forgotten. Instead the U.S. shifted its attention to a new war in Iraq. Now Obama has reminded us: our war is really with Al-Qaeda.
Although Obama has appeared to escalate the fighting in Afghanistan, with a build-up of troop strength, it's also clear that he is trying to de-escalate the Taliban involvement in that fighting. Obama has invited members of the Taliban to renounce their support of Al-Qaeda and become involved with the democratic political process in Iraq. The President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is moving even faster to improve relations with the Taliban, perhaps faster than the U.S. military command would like. At one point, likely in a fit of pique over U.S. policy, Karzai made a peculiar threat to join forces with the Taliban himself. While that is not likely to happen, it is likely that some or all of the Taliban leadership will be absorbed into the Afghan political process.
How this will all play out in the next year or so is, to say the least, very uncertain. But all indications are that, despite the increase in troop strength, Obama wants a political solution to the conflict in Afghanistan. Moreover, as President Karzai does not want civilian casualties, and as the Taliban is essentially a guerrilla force capable of blending in with their civilian countrymen, a military “victory” seems almost impossible. In some shape or form, a political solution to the current fighting in Afghanistan will occur in the next year or two.
Only then can we focus on the real war, with Al-Qaeda.
By saying the war is with Al-Qaeda, Obama was also saying we are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan. But that’s obvious, isn’t it? Both of those countries have democratically elected (more or less) governments that are allies of the United States. We would not be at war with governments that the United States was instrumental in creating. But if we’re not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, why do we have troops in there? Al-Qaeda, which is a terrorist organization of perhaps a few thousand, could be anywhere in the world, probably more in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. While it's not clear why we sent troops to Iraq in the first place, there's no war there now. In fact, we’re in the process of withdrawing those troops. And in Afghanistan the fighting is focused on something called the Taliban. So what happened to the war on Al-Qaeda?
What happened to the war on Al-Qaeda was a bit of slight of hand by the Bush Administration. The Taliban, which had taken control of Afghanistan in recent years, was seen to be “protecting” Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and therefore became a secondary enemy. At the time, the opposition to the Taliban, the so-called “Northern Alliance,” was already fighting what was in effect a civil war. So the United States developed a plan to join the Northern Alliance effort, force the Taliban out, install a new democratic government, and then destroy the Al-Qaeda movement. Except that somehow that last step seems to have been forgotten. Instead the U.S. shifted its attention to a new war in Iraq. Now Obama has reminded us: our war is really with Al-Qaeda.
Although Obama has appeared to escalate the fighting in Afghanistan, with a build-up of troop strength, it's also clear that he is trying to de-escalate the Taliban involvement in that fighting. Obama has invited members of the Taliban to renounce their support of Al-Qaeda and become involved with the democratic political process in Iraq. The President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is moving even faster to improve relations with the Taliban, perhaps faster than the U.S. military command would like. At one point, likely in a fit of pique over U.S. policy, Karzai made a peculiar threat to join forces with the Taliban himself. While that is not likely to happen, it is likely that some or all of the Taliban leadership will be absorbed into the Afghan political process.
How this will all play out in the next year or so is, to say the least, very uncertain. But all indications are that, despite the increase in troop strength, Obama wants a political solution to the conflict in Afghanistan. Moreover, as President Karzai does not want civilian casualties, and as the Taliban is essentially a guerrilla force capable of blending in with their civilian countrymen, a military “victory” seems almost impossible. In some shape or form, a political solution to the current fighting in Afghanistan will occur in the next year or two.
Only then can we focus on the real war, with Al-Qaeda.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
the Designated Consumer
When the recent real estate bubble burst and the U.S. and the rest of the world fell into the "Great Recession," many people believed the U.S. would again be the "engine" to lead the world out of the recession. China's economy, for example, would be nothing without us, because the U.S. serves as the world's consumer. Without the U.S. to buy Chinese goods, the Chinese economy would go nowhere.
Well, it always seemed to me that just about anyone could be a consumer, but no, many pundits, including some economists, seemed to think that the large U.S. consuming public was the only body that could fill that role. Can't China simply consume its own goods? No, that's an over-simplistic view of the world. China is a producing nation; it can't suddenly become a consuming nation overnight.
Recently, I saw in the news that China is now giving its workers large wage increases. With those increases, the Chinese can start buying some of the consumer goods that they could never afford before. Some of those consumer goods will likely be the products that the recession-bound Americans aren't buying. Meanwhile, the Chinese ecnomy is still growing and still producing goods, and, with their wage increases, the Chinese citizens will be consuming a lot of them. And this may be just the start of the wage increases: Chinese wages are still much lower that those in the western world.
Have we lost our job as the world's designated consumer? What will our new job be?
Well, it always seemed to me that just about anyone could be a consumer, but no, many pundits, including some economists, seemed to think that the large U.S. consuming public was the only body that could fill that role. Can't China simply consume its own goods? No, that's an over-simplistic view of the world. China is a producing nation; it can't suddenly become a consuming nation overnight.
Recently, I saw in the news that China is now giving its workers large wage increases. With those increases, the Chinese can start buying some of the consumer goods that they could never afford before. Some of those consumer goods will likely be the products that the recession-bound Americans aren't buying. Meanwhile, the Chinese ecnomy is still growing and still producing goods, and, with their wage increases, the Chinese citizens will be consuming a lot of them. And this may be just the start of the wage increases: Chinese wages are still much lower that those in the western world.
Have we lost our job as the world's designated consumer? What will our new job be?
Growth and Deficits
As the European financial crisis continues, Chancellor Angela Merkel is leading Germany towards spending cuts that will help to reduce the current budget deficit. Other European nations, including Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy have also begun implementing budget cuts. This is in contrast to the American preference for more stimulus spending to restart the economy and cut the budget deficit through economic growth.
The Bloomberg news service quotes Germany's Finance Minister Wolfgang Shaueble as saying that perhaps the U.S. could use "accelerating growth" to reduce its deficits, but Europe can't count on growth alone to solve its fiscal problems. But Schaeuble was also reported to say that "reducing deficits and strengthening growth" are not mutually exclusive.
Although President Obama has said the United States cannot continue these large deficits for long, there is no indication that an effort to balance the budget has begun. Presumably, the deficit will be addressed after the stimulus has done its job and the economy has recovered. But what if the economy doesn't recover? To say it must recover will not make it happen. Europe, and Germany in particular, seem to have taken the position that creating more debt is not the way to pay off your old debt, later.
In the past the United States has resolved deficits and recessions through "growth," where growth essentially meant producing, selling and taxing more goods and services. This growth came externally by finding foreign markets and internally through a growing population and, more recently, through more borrowing. But now the supply of untapped foreign markets has ended. Rather, those foreign nations are now producing goods to sell to us. Internally, our population growth is slowing and the populace doesn't want any more debt. Isn't it now time to follow the German example and stop trying to borrow prosperity?
The Bloomberg news service quotes Germany's Finance Minister Wolfgang Shaueble as saying that perhaps the U.S. could use "accelerating growth" to reduce its deficits, but Europe can't count on growth alone to solve its fiscal problems. But Schaeuble was also reported to say that "reducing deficits and strengthening growth" are not mutually exclusive.
Although President Obama has said the United States cannot continue these large deficits for long, there is no indication that an effort to balance the budget has begun. Presumably, the deficit will be addressed after the stimulus has done its job and the economy has recovered. But what if the economy doesn't recover? To say it must recover will not make it happen. Europe, and Germany in particular, seem to have taken the position that creating more debt is not the way to pay off your old debt, later.
In the past the United States has resolved deficits and recessions through "growth," where growth essentially meant producing, selling and taxing more goods and services. This growth came externally by finding foreign markets and internally through a growing population and, more recently, through more borrowing. But now the supply of untapped foreign markets has ended. Rather, those foreign nations are now producing goods to sell to us. Internally, our population growth is slowing and the populace doesn't want any more debt. Isn't it now time to follow the German example and stop trying to borrow prosperity?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Federal Reserve: What’s the Big Secret?
Currently, there is a move in Congress for more government oversight of the Federal Reserve System, or at least a one time audit? Chairman Ben Bernake predictably resists this. Mr. Bernake says the Federal Reserve needs to remain independent, free of congressional pressure. As an example, the chairman states that the Fed sometimes must raise interest rates to combat inflation, a decision often unpopular with politicians who want to keep rates to stimulate the economy and, presumably, get them more votes at election time.
But there seems to be a “disconnect” (to use a popular word of today) here. The Congress already knows what the Fed is doing about interest rates. The Congress can demand lower rates any time it wants to. The Fed can ignore the Congress as it always has. No matter what the Congress wants or what secret information the Fed gives the Congress, the Fed can continue to do what it wants. With one exception. If the Fed is doing some illegal or improper, then changes will occur.
But that’s crazy talk. The Federal Reserve is composed of very distinguished, accomplished individuals. They would never do anything wrong or improper, would they? Well the fact is that the Federal Reserve’s ability to give emergency loans to banks or to buy up various assets gives it the power to do favors for friends or business associates. The public is suspicious of a power like that. Likely some members of Congress are also suspicious. To use the cliché, is the Fed favoring Wall Street over Main Street? Just put everything out in the open and everyone will be happier. Why can’t that be done?
Well, one argument used by advocates of secrecy is that the Fed sometimes gives loans to banks that are having difficulty getting financing elsewhere. Public knowledge of this could, in theory, lead to a run on the bank, thereby defeating the Fed’s purpose. But should the Fed be supporting banks that can’t survive on their own? Perhaps this is not what the Congress wants. I know it’s not what some members of the public want. No, we want disclosure. If exceptions need to be made to prevent a national disaster, which I doubt, then those exceptions can be made. But the Federal Reserve System is not the CIA or the Manhattan Project. The public and Congress should know what it’s doing.
But there seems to be a “disconnect” (to use a popular word of today) here. The Congress already knows what the Fed is doing about interest rates. The Congress can demand lower rates any time it wants to. The Fed can ignore the Congress as it always has. No matter what the Congress wants or what secret information the Fed gives the Congress, the Fed can continue to do what it wants. With one exception. If the Fed is doing some illegal or improper, then changes will occur.
But that’s crazy talk. The Federal Reserve is composed of very distinguished, accomplished individuals. They would never do anything wrong or improper, would they? Well the fact is that the Federal Reserve’s ability to give emergency loans to banks or to buy up various assets gives it the power to do favors for friends or business associates. The public is suspicious of a power like that. Likely some members of Congress are also suspicious. To use the cliché, is the Fed favoring Wall Street over Main Street? Just put everything out in the open and everyone will be happier. Why can’t that be done?
Well, one argument used by advocates of secrecy is that the Fed sometimes gives loans to banks that are having difficulty getting financing elsewhere. Public knowledge of this could, in theory, lead to a run on the bank, thereby defeating the Fed’s purpose. But should the Fed be supporting banks that can’t survive on their own? Perhaps this is not what the Congress wants. I know it’s not what some members of the public want. No, we want disclosure. If exceptions need to be made to prevent a national disaster, which I doubt, then those exceptions can be made. But the Federal Reserve System is not the CIA or the Manhattan Project. The public and Congress should know what it’s doing.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Why Do We Still Have a North Korea?
In recent days, the United States and China have been having discussions regarding North Korea. Has North Korea breached the Korean War armistice? Are sanctions in order? I suggest that with the cold war long over, there is no reason for two Koreas to continue to exist. If sanctions are proposed, then they should include the ultimate sanction: a request that a plan be put in place to hold free elections for a government of a unified Korea.
I know, I know. This is a laughingly naïve proposal. Of course dictator Kim Jong II will not voluntarily step down and hold elections. That’s not the point. The point is that is what he should do, and this request will only be the first step to getting him to do what should be done. And it’s a long overdue step.
Times have changed. We no longer have a philosophical battle between the Communism of the Soviet Union and Red China and the capitalism of the western nations. Kim Jong II is clearly a dictator who got his position by being the son of an earlier dictator. All Koreans know this; the whole world knows this. And this is not a benevolent dictator who has made life better for his people. The North Korean economy is a basket case. Jong has absolutely no credible response to a request that he step down and unify with the South.
The separation of Korea into two pieces was an accident of World War II, much like the division of Germany was an offshoot of the war. The intent to reunify the country goes as far back as the post-war 1940s. The Korean War, caused by the cold war antagonisms, ended the drive to reunification in the 1950s. But those days are long over. It appears to me that China has devoted itself to economic competition not military competition. China would welcome a stable, united Korea and the elimination of an unpredictable dictator. Some years ago the political pundits said that the Germanys would never unite, history had moved on. But the German people of course wanted their whole country back and without a doubt, so do the Koreans.
A unified Korea will also serve the interests of the United States. South Korea has a population twice the size of North Korea and an economy many times stronger. South Korea would dominate the unified country and transform the North Korean economy into a successful capitalist economy similar to that of the South. The need for tens of thousands of American troops in Korea would disappear, saving the United States huge amounts of unnecessary military expense.
In recent years, South Korea has been make mild attempts at rapprochement with North Korea and China. These efforts should be encouraged by the United States and intensified. The ultimate goal will be the reunification of a homogeneous group of people who should never have been separated in the first place. There is no reason why the United States, China, and the other members of the United Nations Security Counsel should not now take the lead in formulating a plan for the eventual reunification of Korea.
I know, I know. This is a laughingly naïve proposal. Of course dictator Kim Jong II will not voluntarily step down and hold elections. That’s not the point. The point is that is what he should do, and this request will only be the first step to getting him to do what should be done. And it’s a long overdue step.
Times have changed. We no longer have a philosophical battle between the Communism of the Soviet Union and Red China and the capitalism of the western nations. Kim Jong II is clearly a dictator who got his position by being the son of an earlier dictator. All Koreans know this; the whole world knows this. And this is not a benevolent dictator who has made life better for his people. The North Korean economy is a basket case. Jong has absolutely no credible response to a request that he step down and unify with the South.
The separation of Korea into two pieces was an accident of World War II, much like the division of Germany was an offshoot of the war. The intent to reunify the country goes as far back as the post-war 1940s. The Korean War, caused by the cold war antagonisms, ended the drive to reunification in the 1950s. But those days are long over. It appears to me that China has devoted itself to economic competition not military competition. China would welcome a stable, united Korea and the elimination of an unpredictable dictator. Some years ago the political pundits said that the Germanys would never unite, history had moved on. But the German people of course wanted their whole country back and without a doubt, so do the Koreans.
A unified Korea will also serve the interests of the United States. South Korea has a population twice the size of North Korea and an economy many times stronger. South Korea would dominate the unified country and transform the North Korean economy into a successful capitalist economy similar to that of the South. The need for tens of thousands of American troops in Korea would disappear, saving the United States huge amounts of unnecessary military expense.
In recent years, South Korea has been make mild attempts at rapprochement with North Korea and China. These efforts should be encouraged by the United States and intensified. The ultimate goal will be the reunification of a homogeneous group of people who should never have been separated in the first place. There is no reason why the United States, China, and the other members of the United Nations Security Counsel should not now take the lead in formulating a plan for the eventual reunification of Korea.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Gov. Christie and the Tea-Parties
With New Jersey being one of the many states in the Union having severe financial difficulty, Governor Christie recently submitted an austere budget with major cuts to many state programs. Christie followed this up with a veto of new legislation raising the state income tax from 8.97% to 10.75% on persons earning over a million dollars per year. The governor took the position that New Jersey’s economic problems must be solved by spending cuts rather than tax increases, which would only drive more people out of the state. The Christie veto was followed by a huge public rally in Trenton, the state capitol, where 35,000 people gathered to object to the governor’s spending cuts and tax veto. Christie, to his credit, is reported to have said that protesters have a right to speak their minds.
Gov. Christie is correct in saying that opponents of the tax cuts have a right to rally to oppose those cuts. However, for the past several months, the nation has seen the “tea-parties” hold numerous rallies supporting tax cuts and lower spending. The tea party rallies have had some success in pushing the electorate, as well as our elected officials, to the right. With the proposed budget cuts in New Jersey, California and other states, are we now going to see a series of anti-tax cut, pro-government spending rallies? If so, will these rallies have the effect of pushing our state legislatures into the direction of raising taxes to continue government programs?
The tea-partiers have for the most part presented a rather simplistic solution to our nation’s economic problems: lower spending and lower taxes. Will protests such as the Trenton rally cause the tea-partiers to consider the consequences of lower taxes? Although that’s unlikely, it is likely that the tax cut advocates in our legislatures will now become more sensitive to the possible impact on their chances for reelection in the future. If more anti-spending cut rallies occur, will we, in effect, have something akin to the old-fashioned “town hall” style of government where the public presents its views directly to their elected officials? Dueling protest meetings may seem like a strange, chaotic approach to governing, but if results in the legislature determining the proper balance between spending cuts and taxes increases, it may be a good thing.
Gov. Christie is correct in saying that opponents of the tax cuts have a right to rally to oppose those cuts. However, for the past several months, the nation has seen the “tea-parties” hold numerous rallies supporting tax cuts and lower spending. The tea party rallies have had some success in pushing the electorate, as well as our elected officials, to the right. With the proposed budget cuts in New Jersey, California and other states, are we now going to see a series of anti-tax cut, pro-government spending rallies? If so, will these rallies have the effect of pushing our state legislatures into the direction of raising taxes to continue government programs?
The tea-partiers have for the most part presented a rather simplistic solution to our nation’s economic problems: lower spending and lower taxes. Will protests such as the Trenton rally cause the tea-partiers to consider the consequences of lower taxes? Although that’s unlikely, it is likely that the tax cut advocates in our legislatures will now become more sensitive to the possible impact on their chances for reelection in the future. If more anti-spending cut rallies occur, will we, in effect, have something akin to the old-fashioned “town hall” style of government where the public presents its views directly to their elected officials? Dueling protest meetings may seem like a strange, chaotic approach to governing, but if results in the legislature determining the proper balance between spending cuts and taxes increases, it may be a good thing.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The New International Order
In his recent speech to the graduating cadets at West Point, President Obama stated that the U.S. engagement in Iraq was a "success." In a sense, the U.S. involvement became a success as soon as it accomplished its goal of overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime. The question of why we are only now, seven years later, in the process of withdrawing our troops is a question best directed at the administration that planned and initiated our movement into Iraq.
Of far greater importance are President Obama's comments regarding Afghanistan. Chief among these was his stated intention to seek a new international order that can resolve the challenges of our times. This is, in effect, the Obama administration's statement that it intends to end the unilaterism of the Bush administration and give up the United States self-appointed role as the world's policeman. But Obama's emphasis on international cooperation suggests that the international community will soon be invited to assist with resolving the chaos in Afghanistan.
While the U.S. military, with its superior technology and resources, will always be successful in battle with the Taliban, there is no way a military force can install a stable government in Afghanistan. The so-called "government in a box" has not shown itself to be workable. If a stable government is to be created in Afhanistan, and it's not certain that it can be, only the Afghan people can create that government. Even now, the Karzai government is talking about an accomodation with the Taliban, and perhaps a shared government. The United States can provide Karzai with military protection from a Taliban take-over for only the next year or two. After that the Obama administration intends to withdraw and leave Afghanistan to whichever governing body that the people of Afghanistan will support. If the country is not united under one govenment at that time, the international community, perhaps initially in the form of a U.N. peacekeeping force, will take over the role of building a nation, or nations, in Afghanistan. What form the new "international order" will take will evolve over the next two years of Obama's presidency.
Of far greater importance are President Obama's comments regarding Afghanistan. Chief among these was his stated intention to seek a new international order that can resolve the challenges of our times. This is, in effect, the Obama administration's statement that it intends to end the unilaterism of the Bush administration and give up the United States self-appointed role as the world's policeman. But Obama's emphasis on international cooperation suggests that the international community will soon be invited to assist with resolving the chaos in Afghanistan.
While the U.S. military, with its superior technology and resources, will always be successful in battle with the Taliban, there is no way a military force can install a stable government in Afghanistan. The so-called "government in a box" has not shown itself to be workable. If a stable government is to be created in Afhanistan, and it's not certain that it can be, only the Afghan people can create that government. Even now, the Karzai government is talking about an accomodation with the Taliban, and perhaps a shared government. The United States can provide Karzai with military protection from a Taliban take-over for only the next year or two. After that the Obama administration intends to withdraw and leave Afghanistan to whichever governing body that the people of Afghanistan will support. If the country is not united under one govenment at that time, the international community, perhaps initially in the form of a U.N. peacekeeping force, will take over the role of building a nation, or nations, in Afghanistan. What form the new "international order" will take will evolve over the next two years of Obama's presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)