Arab League suspends Syria membership. I have two comments - both sarcastic:
1. Arab Leaders cannot tolerate among them a weak dictator, unable to suppress a rebellion. This may be not as ironic as it seems - of all the Arab Spring revolutions, the rebellion in Syria is the greatest show of strength by the opponents of a dictatorial regime. Unlike in Libya, where the revolution was aided by the NATO, the rebellion in Syria has been going on for many months unaided (at least not openly), and the end of the Bashar Assad's rule seems quite probable. This sends a signal to all the Arab people - even the harshest dictators might not be able to keep their power.
Thus, Arab leaders a likely to benefit more from quickly ending the Assad's rule and quieting tensions, than from him giving an example of being able to stay in power.
2. Arab League seems to be almost as good a defender of human rights as the United States and the European governments, all of which limited their involvement to calls to end violence, and only recently resorted to recalling their ambassadors from Damascus. These are however, the very steps that the Arab League now undertakes.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
US diplomatic failure vis-a-vis Iran
Mitt Romney provides a very lucid description of the Obama administration's diplomacy failures vis-a-vis Iran. Indeed, despite Obama's undoubtedly best intentions, it is his diplomatic failures that may eventually force Israel or the United States to resort to a war.
A quote:
"As a candidate for the presidency in 2007, Barack Obama put forward "engagement" with Tehran as a way to solve the nuclear problem, declaring he would meet with Iran's leaders "without preconditions." Whether this approach was rooted in naïveté or in realistic expectations can be debated; I believe it was the former. But whatever calculation lay behind the proposed diplomatic opening, it was predictably rebuffed by the Iranian regime.
After that repudiation, a serious U.S. strategy to block Iran's nuclear ambitions became an urgent necessity. But that is precisely what the administration never provided. Instead, we've been offered a case study in botched diplomacy and its potentially horrific costs.
In his "reset" of relations with Russia, President Obama caved in to Moscow's demands by reneging on a missile-defense agreement with Eastern European allies and agreeing to a New Start Treaty to reduce strategic nuclear weapons while getting virtually nothing in return. If there ever was a possibility of gaining the Kremlin's support for tougher action against Tehran, that unilateral giveaway was the moment. President Obama foreclosed it.
Another key juncture came with the emergence of Iran's Green Revolution after the stolen election of 2009. Here—more than a year before the eruption of the Arab Spring—was a spontaneous popular revolt against a regime that has been destabilizing the region, supporting terrorism around the world, killing American soldiers in Iraq, and attacking the U.S. for three decades. Yet President Obama, evidently fearful of jeopardizing any further hope of engagement, proclaimed his intention not to "meddle" as the ayatollahs unleashed a wave of terror against their own society. A proper American policy might or might not have altered the outcome; we will never know. But thanks to this shameful abdication of moral authority, any hope of toppling a vicious regime was lost, perhaps for generations.
In 2010, the administration did finally impose another round of sanctions, which President Obama hailed as a strike "at the heart" of Iran's ability to fund its nuclear programs. But here again we can see a gulf between words and deeds. As the IAEA report makes plain, the heart that we supposedly struck is still pumping just fine. Sanctions clearly failed in their purpose. Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power.
Recent events have brought White House fecklessness to another low. When Iran was discovered plotting to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador by setting off a bomb in downtown Washington, the administration responded with nothing more than tough talk and an indictment against two low-level Iranian operatives, as if this were merely a common criminal offense rather than an act of international aggression. Demonstrating further irresolution, the administration then floated the idea of sanctioning Iran's central bank, only to quietly withdraw that proposal."
A quote:
"As a candidate for the presidency in 2007, Barack Obama put forward "engagement" with Tehran as a way to solve the nuclear problem, declaring he would meet with Iran's leaders "without preconditions." Whether this approach was rooted in naïveté or in realistic expectations can be debated; I believe it was the former. But whatever calculation lay behind the proposed diplomatic opening, it was predictably rebuffed by the Iranian regime.
After that repudiation, a serious U.S. strategy to block Iran's nuclear ambitions became an urgent necessity. But that is precisely what the administration never provided. Instead, we've been offered a case study in botched diplomacy and its potentially horrific costs.
In his "reset" of relations with Russia, President Obama caved in to Moscow's demands by reneging on a missile-defense agreement with Eastern European allies and agreeing to a New Start Treaty to reduce strategic nuclear weapons while getting virtually nothing in return. If there ever was a possibility of gaining the Kremlin's support for tougher action against Tehran, that unilateral giveaway was the moment. President Obama foreclosed it.
Another key juncture came with the emergence of Iran's Green Revolution after the stolen election of 2009. Here—more than a year before the eruption of the Arab Spring—was a spontaneous popular revolt against a regime that has been destabilizing the region, supporting terrorism around the world, killing American soldiers in Iraq, and attacking the U.S. for three decades. Yet President Obama, evidently fearful of jeopardizing any further hope of engagement, proclaimed his intention not to "meddle" as the ayatollahs unleashed a wave of terror against their own society. A proper American policy might or might not have altered the outcome; we will never know. But thanks to this shameful abdication of moral authority, any hope of toppling a vicious regime was lost, perhaps for generations.
In 2010, the administration did finally impose another round of sanctions, which President Obama hailed as a strike "at the heart" of Iran's ability to fund its nuclear programs. But here again we can see a gulf between words and deeds. As the IAEA report makes plain, the heart that we supposedly struck is still pumping just fine. Sanctions clearly failed in their purpose. Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power.
Recent events have brought White House fecklessness to another low. When Iran was discovered plotting to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador by setting off a bomb in downtown Washington, the administration responded with nothing more than tough talk and an indictment against two low-level Iranian operatives, as if this were merely a common criminal offense rather than an act of international aggression. Demonstrating further irresolution, the administration then floated the idea of sanctioning Iran's central bank, only to quietly withdraw that proposal."
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Short history of Macroeconomics
A short history of macroeconomics by Gregory Mankiw, describing Keynesian, New Classics and New Keynesians. The author does not describe specific economic principles and models, and omits to mention the Austrians. Yet, I think the article is useful for understanding the modern governments's economic policies.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
When protests become mob rule
The politics of hating the "rich" or hating the "system" was ultimately exemplified by two movements - Marxism and Anarchism. The former resulted in the emergence of repressive communist regimes, whereas the latter is associated with the purposeless terrorism that wrecked the Europe in the second half of the XIXth century and the beginning of the XXth.
Whether the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) movement will repeat any of these excesses is yet to be seen, but its anarchist and occasionally Marxist tendencies are obvious.
Here is a liberal take on the issue (naturally downplaying the potential for violence):
"Now, this is definitely not the kind of anarchism that inspired terrorists a century ago to murder presidents and princes, and which was depicted in editorial cartoons as the faith of red-eyed men with heavy beards and bombs hidden inside their shabby coats. Instead, the anarchism that motivates some Occupiers today is ultra-egalitarian, radically environmentalist, effortlessly multicultural, and scrupulously non-violent. They are the cyber-clever progeny of Henry David Thoreau and Emma Goldman, streaming video and organizing flash mobs instead of writing essays about the wilderness or traveling around the country touting feminism and free love. The “horizontal” nature of a movement brought to life and sustained by social media fits snugly inside their anarchist vision of a future in which autonomous, self-governing communities would link up with one another, quite voluntarily of course."
And this is a conservative point of view:
"At what point does a protest movement become an excuse for camping? At what point is utopianism discredited by the seedy, dangerous, derelict fun fair it creates? At what point do the excesses of a movement become so prevalent that they can reasonably be called its essence? At what point do Democratic politicians need to repudiate a form of idealism that makes use of Molotov cocktails?
But there is some ideological coherence within OWS. Its collectivist people’s councils seem to have two main inspirations: socialism (often Marxist socialism) and anarchism. The two are sometimes in tension. They share, however, a belief that the capitalist system is a form of “institutionalized violence,” and that normal, democratic political methods, dominated by monied interests, are inadequate. Direct action is necessary to provoke the crisis that ignites the struggle that achieves the revolution."
Whether the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) movement will repeat any of these excesses is yet to be seen, but its anarchist and occasionally Marxist tendencies are obvious.
Here is a liberal take on the issue (naturally downplaying the potential for violence):
"Now, this is definitely not the kind of anarchism that inspired terrorists a century ago to murder presidents and princes, and which was depicted in editorial cartoons as the faith of red-eyed men with heavy beards and bombs hidden inside their shabby coats. Instead, the anarchism that motivates some Occupiers today is ultra-egalitarian, radically environmentalist, effortlessly multicultural, and scrupulously non-violent. They are the cyber-clever progeny of Henry David Thoreau and Emma Goldman, streaming video and organizing flash mobs instead of writing essays about the wilderness or traveling around the country touting feminism and free love. The “horizontal” nature of a movement brought to life and sustained by social media fits snugly inside their anarchist vision of a future in which autonomous, self-governing communities would link up with one another, quite voluntarily of course."
And this is a conservative point of view:
"At what point does a protest movement become an excuse for camping? At what point is utopianism discredited by the seedy, dangerous, derelict fun fair it creates? At what point do the excesses of a movement become so prevalent that they can reasonably be called its essence? At what point do Democratic politicians need to repudiate a form of idealism that makes use of Molotov cocktails?
But there is some ideological coherence within OWS. Its collectivist people’s councils seem to have two main inspirations: socialism (often Marxist socialism) and anarchism. The two are sometimes in tension. They share, however, a belief that the capitalist system is a form of “institutionalized violence,” and that normal, democratic political methods, dominated by monied interests, are inadequate. Direct action is necessary to provoke the crisis that ignites the struggle that achieves the revolution."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)