Thursday, June 09, 2005
Late-night round-up
I've been working with our distributor in Chile for the last 15 hours -- no siesta down here -- so I'm late on the news and short on blogging. I did spot a few interesting bits in the news, and hereby pass along the articles that look like they will still be worth reading Thursday morning.
If there is any doubt in your mind that the United States does not already have a casus belli vis a vis Syria, you must read this article from Wednesday's Washington Post. Not only will it persuade you that Syria made a decision to wage covert war against the United States, but it also describes the enemy we fight and its tactics in detail.
As discussed in this blog's previous post, Bolivia is moving quickly toward civil war. The crisis deepened during the day Wednesday.
The alliance between the indigenous peoples and labor in Bolivia tracks a sharp leftward drift in South America's politics in the last five years.
In Bolivia, though, the powerful right may fight back, and that has its neighbors nervous. The only country with the clout and credibility with the left to do anything about it, though, is Brazil. Would President Lula offer to lead a multi-national peacekeeping force to restore order to Bolivia? Unlikely, unless he thinks adventurism abroad would distract attention from his own scandal at home.
My own Brazilian friends -- from the professional and business elites opposed to Lula -- believe that this scandal has taken some of the bloom off his rose, insofar as Lula's leftist party billed itself as the only force in Brazilian politics free from that country's otherwise endemic corruption. Maybe it ain't so, they say.
The pressure on Lula continued to build all day, even has he found the perfect forum to defend himself:
The very idea of President Lula defending himself against corruption charges at a United Nations Global Forum on Fighting Corruption is laugh-out-loud funny.
Or, perhaps Brazil should step in to burnish its bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. The Next Four (Germany, Japan, India and Brazil) are horsetrading like wild, and today offered to "forgo their veto rights for at least 15 years if they become permanent members of the United Nations Security Council."
I must say that I have thought from the start that the proposal to expand the permanent membership of the UNSC must be some dark conspiracy to neuter the United Nations as a force in the world. First, an expanded UNSC will agree on even less than the one we have. Second, the criteria for the permanent seat seems to have more to do with economic or ethnic clout than willingness or ability to provide security. Is Germany even going to have a military in 15 years, or are they just going to sit around vetoing everybody else's armed response? Will Japan amend its constitution and assume the burden of security in the Western Pacific? That actually might happen. Are the Brazilians on the short list for any reason other than that it is the heavyweight of Latin America? Does Brazil actually provide security? Apart from a few hundred soldiers under the U.N. flag from time to time, when does Brazil step to the plate to make the world a better place? The Bolivian crisis is Brazil's most recent best chance to lead. Will it?
India I'm all for, by the way, and I'd give it a veto tomorrow.
The expansion of the UNSC seems to certain to paralyze the Security Council in future crises and thereby destroy its credibility. When that happens, the world will beg the United States to act on its own (see, e.g., Kosovo). Looked at that way, the whole idea smells like another conspiracy of the unilateralists in the Bush Administration to undermine the United Nations. Which, of course, would be the right thing to do (as long as they don't get caught!).
The Guardian and TigerHawk rarely see eye-to-eye, but this is one gut-busting headline:
No. Really.
Apparently the key to "Gallic genius" is a profound unwillingness to adapt.
Palestinian Arabs killed a bunch of their own people while attempting to kill Jewish civilians. Israel retaliated.
Arabs kill two Palestinians and a Chinese guy while shooting at and missing Jews. Israel shoots back and kills nobody. So what does the headline read?
If I may be so bold, may I propose an honest headline for the same story:
The anti-Israel bias in the Independant's headline is both transparent and nauseating.
I'm going to bed now.
If there is any doubt in your mind that the United States does not already have a casus belli vis a vis Syria, you must read this article from Wednesday's Washington Post. Not only will it persuade you that Syria made a decision to wage covert war against the United States, but it also describes the enemy we fight and its tactics in detail.
As discussed in this blog's previous post, Bolivia is moving quickly toward civil war. The crisis deepened during the day Wednesday.
A worsening five-year political crisis in Bolivia reached a precarious impasse on Wednesday, with left- and right-wing adversaries so polarized that the departing president, Carlos Mesa, warned his country to step back from the brink of civil war.
With Mr. Mesa's government collapsing and surging indigenous protesters demanding early elections and more say in economic policy, Bolivia, a country of nine million people, stands at a perilous moment. Five years of instability have already forced two presidents to quit.
In Santa Cruz, the eastern lowland province where much of the country's energy sector is located, peasants pressing for expropriation of private oil companies occupied installations belonging to Repsol YPF of Spain and British Gas, forcing the companies to shut down production.
Here in the western Andes, Indians marched by the thousands and blocked key roads, keeping La Paz short of fuel and food and prompting two international airlines, American and LanChile, to cancel flights.
The alliance between the indigenous peoples and labor in Bolivia tracks a sharp leftward drift in South America's politics in the last five years.
Since 2000, when a popular uprising forced an American water utility out of Cochabamba, a restive Indian majority has flexed its political muscle, protesting against foreign multinationals and market reforms prescribed by the United States and the International Monetary Fund. Before Mr. Mesa, President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada was also forced out; he fled into exile in October 2003.
Many Bolivians, especially the indigenous people, say market reforms put into practice by politicians like Mr. Sánchez de Lozada have left their country poorer than ever.
That impatience has been evident across Latin America, where eight presidents have been ousted or forced to resign in popular uprisings since 2000. Left-leaning candidates have been swept into power in two-thirds of South America's countries.
"The bottom line is that Latin America is in open rebellion of the economic policies of the Washington consensus," said Jim Shultz, executive director of Democracy Center, a policy analysis group in Cochabamba. "Sometimes it happens in the ballot box. Sometimes it happens on the street, like in Bolivia. It is, in essence, the same rebellion."
In Bolivia, though, the powerful right may fight back, and that has its neighbors nervous. The only country with the clout and credibility with the left to do anything about it, though, is Brazil. Would President Lula offer to lead a multi-national peacekeeping force to restore order to Bolivia? Unlikely, unless he thinks adventurism abroad would distract attention from his own scandal at home.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva so far has not spoken out on allegations that his Workers Party paid monthly bribes to congressional allies to maintain a delicate political coalition, but Lula da Silva was scheduled to open a U.N. conference on corruption in the Brazilian capital Tuesday evening.
''It is still too early to anticipate the magnitude of this political scandal, but we think it probable that it will constitute the main focus of media headlines in coming days and perhaps weeks,'' UBS analysts said in a note to clients.
My own Brazilian friends -- from the professional and business elites opposed to Lula -- believe that this scandal has taken some of the bloom off his rose, insofar as Lula's leftist party billed itself as the only force in Brazilian politics free from that country's otherwise endemic corruption. Maybe it ain't so, they say.
The pressure on Lula continued to build all day, even has he found the perfect forum to defend himself:
[Lula] vowed to thoroughly investigate the charges. Addressing delegates at the opening ceremony of a U.N. Global Forum on Fighting Corruption in the capital Brasilia, he promised to "cut into our own flesh if necessary," apparently referring to Workers Party members.
The very idea of President Lula defending himself against corruption charges at a United Nations Global Forum on Fighting Corruption is laugh-out-loud funny.
Or, perhaps Brazil should step in to burnish its bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. The Next Four (Germany, Japan, India and Brazil) are horsetrading like wild, and today offered to "forgo their veto rights for at least 15 years if they become permanent members of the United Nations Security Council."
I must say that I have thought from the start that the proposal to expand the permanent membership of the UNSC must be some dark conspiracy to neuter the United Nations as a force in the world. First, an expanded UNSC will agree on even less than the one we have. Second, the criteria for the permanent seat seems to have more to do with economic or ethnic clout than willingness or ability to provide security. Is Germany even going to have a military in 15 years, or are they just going to sit around vetoing everybody else's armed response? Will Japan amend its constitution and assume the burden of security in the Western Pacific? That actually might happen. Are the Brazilians on the short list for any reason other than that it is the heavyweight of Latin America? Does Brazil actually provide security? Apart from a few hundred soldiers under the U.N. flag from time to time, when does Brazil step to the plate to make the world a better place? The Bolivian crisis is Brazil's most recent best chance to lead. Will it?
India I'm all for, by the way, and I'd give it a veto tomorrow.
The expansion of the UNSC seems to certain to paralyze the Security Council in future crises and thereby destroy its credibility. When that happens, the world will beg the United States to act on its own (see, e.g., Kosovo). Looked at that way, the whole idea smells like another conspiracy of the unilateralists in the Bush Administration to undermine the United Nations. Which, of course, would be the right thing to do (as long as they don't get caught!).
The Guardian and TigerHawk rarely see eye-to-eye, but this is one gut-busting headline:
'Gallic genius will save France says Villepin'
No. Really.
France's new prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, refused yesterday to push the country down the road towards free-market reform, saying "Gallic genius" would help put back on its feet a "suffering, impatient and angry" nation that has failed to adapt fully to a changing world.
Apparently the key to "Gallic genius" is a profound unwillingness to adapt.
Palestinian Arabs killed a bunch of their own people while attempting to kill Jewish civilians. Israel retaliated.
The five-month ceasefire in the Israel-Palestinian conflict was under continuing strain after Israel launched a missile at Hamas militants in response to a Gaza rocket attack which killed three people on Tuesday.
Witnesses said the militants escaped unharmed from the strike which was launched 24 hours after three greenhouse workers - two Palestinians and a Chinese man - were killed in a Qassam rocket attack on the Jewish Gaza settlement of Ganei Tal. Seven Palestinians were also injured.
Arabs kill two Palestinians and a Chinese guy while shooting at and missing Jews. Israel shoots back and kills nobody. So what does the headline read?
'Ceasefire under threat as Israel retaliates for attack'
If I may be so bold, may I propose an honest headline for the same story:
'Palestinian Arabs break ceasefire'
The anti-Israel bias in the Independant's headline is both transparent and nauseating.
I'm going to bed now.
0 Comments:
