Outside Observers See the United States in Ways We Ourselves Cannot

Exploring Iran’s Domestic Dynamics towards the US

A Parable of the JCPOA

Barack Obama and other leaders of a declining West knew they couldn't do diddly squat about Iran's nuclear weapons program but were lured by Iranian money. So they made virtue out of necessity with the JCPOA and got retroactive approval from the UN Security Council.
Bully Donald Trump blows up the accord because he said he would do so, using the fuse Obama provided him by tricking Congress and RINOs.
Trump and a declining West still can't figure out what to do next. For now, Trump is happy, the Europeans are mad and the ayatollahs are chuckling. Sounds about right, does it?

Paris Pullout: Shouldn't Trump's Critics Be Celebrating?

Instead of whining and moaning, shouldn't critics on the American left be celebrating President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord?
After all, the United States has abdicated its international leadership role, (which was unjustly and immorally established anyway).
Trump has now let the European Union, China and India step into the breach and fulfill their natural roles.
Those on the victors' side lamenting for decades that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy of our time should be rejoicing today.

Settled Science, Unsettled Scientists

SETTLED SCIENCE, UNSETTLED SCIENTISTS: My oh my, how did we get here?

Flashback: Cold War II?

Another western experiment in transplanting democracy on eastern soil has come undone. A little over a year after the triumphant Orange Revolution in Ukraine, which seemed to have put the former Soviet republic on a firmly pro-western course, Moscow has emerged the clear winner.
President Victor Yushchenko has been humbled at the polls. His party came out a poor third behind the groupings headed by Yulia Tymoshenko, his former ally, and Viktor Yanukovich, his opponent in the disputed 2004 presidential elections.
Now, it would be premature to write off Ukrainians’ aspirations for western-style democracy. Ukraine’s elections were the first in the former Soviet Union to be certifiably free and fair, barring, of course, the three Baltic republics. Ukrainian voters have proved they can change their government through an election, in sharp contrast to the presidential election in Belarus next door. More importantly, Yushchenko, Tymoshenko and the other leaders of the Orange Revolution still have a majority in the new parliament.
The logical course for President Yushchenko would be to appoint Tymoshenko as premier. The problem, though, is that Yushchenko last summer had sacked the charismatic populist. Mutual antipathy for Yanukovich and his Regions party, which emerged as the largest bloc in the party, can only go so far in reviving those heady days.
All the same, cold political realism might spur Yushchenko and Tymoshenko to bury the hatchet and roar ahead. This could have been a safe course had the former allies only harbored personal differences.
While Tymoshenko shares Yushchenko’s zeal for integration with the European Union, she is less enthusiastic on joining NATO. Moreover, the gaps in economic policies between the two are stark. Yushchenko remains committed to liberal economic reform, while Tymoshenko is more enamored of sprinkles of welfare spending. Tymoshenko antipathy to big business also sets her apart.
Tymoshenko could worsen Ukraine's relations with Moscow, especially considering her campaign pledge to revoke the controversial gas contract signed this year. Making the Orange coalition work could prove decidedly more complicated than resurrecting it.
Russian President Vladimir Putin will no doubt be interesting in all the wiggle room he can find in the corridors of power in Kiev to stall the country’s pro-western slide.
As for the rest of the world, Ukraine’s election probably doesn’t signify the onset of a new Cold War between the East and West. Considering the rate at which the mercury is falling in relations between Moscow and Washington, it wouldn’t hurt to start bundling up.

Originally posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Moment Of Choosing Or Creative Ambiguity?

From the way global discussions are progressing these days, you would think China is all set to take over from the United States as the leader of the world.
Sustained talk of American decline, quiet acquiescence of the same within sections of the US political and academic establishment, and the perceptible weariness gripping the American populace have all contributed to this sentiment.
Notions of US retrenchment from the world would have proceeded apace even without Donald Trump's election as the 45th president of the United States.
Concurrently, China's One Belt and One Road initiative and its propelling of an Asian Bank amid wider expectations of Chinese assumption of greater international responsibilities have dominated the international discourse.
But such talk is also characterized by extremes. While the 'China threat' has been hyped for quite some time, Beijing itself is playing down any ability or desire to replace the United States as a global leader any time soon. And therein lies the uncertainty.
Does it all really depend on China's moment of choosing? Or the does this creative ambiguity serve the purpose of everyone?

How To Make 'Amnesty' Not Amnesty

Despite what the mainstream media has been drilling into us, the American people won't accept any immigration overhaul -- bipartisan or otherwise. Amnesty was a bad idea when the Reagan Administration pushed it. It is bad today.
Then, American were willing to give it a try. One action today and the problem might be solved forever. Things did not turn out that way.
Supporters of amnesty have strong arguments. We're not about deport millions upon millions of people, dividing families and inflicting physical and emotion pain. There are jobs Americans won't do. We can argue what those jobs are and why Americans won't do them. (Business owners seeking cheap labor in cahoots with consumers seeking cheap goods?) America's aging population, liberals' anti-family and anti-children policies, among other things, would leave the country incapable of sustaining its great power status well into the future.
But America is where it is today because it is a nation of laws. People who entered the United States in violation and continue to live here in that capacity are law breakers. No emotional argument can be allowed to weaken the country's resolve to uphold the sanctity of its borders. Offenders must pay the penalty.
So here's the deal. Let's institute a $5,000 fine for illegals. No ifs, or buts there. Self-deportation costs money. Applicants might find it more appealing to pay the fine. If a fine is good for those violating the country's healthcare laws, it should be good enough for those who break its immigration laws.

No Good News In Syria

President Bashar Al Assad’s regime in Syria seems to be gradually losing his bloody fight for survival. Key allies like Russia are becoming more diffident public in their support of Bashar. China, the other major source of Bashar’s support, is generally known for unsentimental pragmatism in international affairs.

The world should pause a bit before joining in the jubilation over the inevitable and see the future for what it is. While the nation seems to be heading toward fragmentation into satrapies, a murky Islamist group Al Nusra has captured the oil-rich town of Al Shahada, near the city of Hasaka. About 30 Al Nusra fighters, 100 Syrian soldiers and dozens of civilians were killed as a result of infighting that finally culminated in Al Shahada’s capture by Islamists, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Optimists cite the Syrian National Council, containing pro-western moderates, as the country’s saviors. Yet the rebel units are also packed with an assortment of Islamists. This means that even if Assad’s regime were to collapse immediately, Syria would continue in a spiral of instability as these rival groups scramble for space. Regional alliances could then change, providing further uncertainty.

To be sure, the international community will be around as the ultimate arbiter. But, true to its nature, the world picks and chooses where it wants to act. In Syria, in any case, the leading members of the international community have chosen to remain passive, largely on account of their ambivalence. The onus is thus on the regional governments. For quite some time, they have chosen sides in the conflict in keeping with their own interests. They may now have to unite to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control.

Rush Limbaugh On Al Jazeera, Al Gore, MSM and LIPs

Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the titular head of the GOP, says he watches Al Jazeera. Secretary of State Hillary and President Barack Obama have both said they watch Al Jazeera and they praised it. They have said that it is great. Hillary said Al Jazeera is the model of news reporting, and that is exactly what Al Jazeera wants people to think. To understand Al Jazeera, you have to understand the difference between ‘Islamist’ and ‘Islamist’ terrorist. An Islamist is not ‘a Muslim.’ You must understand this. Terms are specific and they have meaning.
Words mean things. An Islamist is any Muslim person or institution that wants to impose Sharia law. An Islamist terrorist wants to do it via terrorism. An Islamist terrorist will accomplish the objective, or seek to, by pursuing radical objectives through terrorism. Now, Al Jazeera is not Islamist terrorist, but they are openly Islamist. They are not who they are not. They are not an island in the world of Islam that is not Islamist.
They are who they are.
Now, you may not be comfortable hearing it, you might not want to hear it, but it is what it is. The most popular show on Al Jazeera is called Sharia and Life. It is hosted by a sheik, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi. And he happens to be the top jurist in the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now running Egypt. The network, just like the Muslim Brotherhood, pretends to be opposed to terrorism. But they support Hamas; they support Hezbollah. They do it by rationalizing that these are just resistance and political organizations, not terrorist groups.
Now, I do not want anybody to think that I have just said that every Muslim is an Islamist. They are not. It is why I am making the point here. The difference here is between ‘Islamist’ and ‘Islamist terrorist.’ Islamists and Islamist terrorists have the same objective. They just go about it different ways. Al Jazeera would not get on one cable network if they were openly advocating terrorism to achieve their objectives. So they are doing it under the guise of news.
You cannot blame them!
If you’re part of the Muslim Brotherhood or if you are an oil sheik in the Middle East and you’re looking at ways to spread the word about what you believe in your heart of hearts, and you study the rest of the world and look at people who've succeeded, you would eventually find the American mainstream media. And in your study of how to effectively, peacefully -- inform, indoctrinate, propagandize, whatever -- get people to accept your worldview, you have to admit that studying the way the American mainstream media has done it is pretty effective.
The lowest-information people (LIP) in the United States determine who wins elections. That is made to order. "The lowest-information people" is not to say the stupidest. The lowest-information people are the least engaged, those who do not pay much attention. But when they do, you got them. There happen to be more of those than there are of us, folks. You and I being wonks. We live and breathe this stuff. The low-information crowd does not. The low-information crowd, in fact, needs electric cars to make noise so they do not get run over by them.
So if you are Al Jazeera, you study various places around the world that have been effective in spreading their word, and you would come across the mainstream media in the United States, and you would have to admire them. Look at what they are doing here. They got a guy elected president that nobody knew anything about. They got a guy reelected president by literally destroying the character, image, and reputation of his opponent: Mitt Romney.
The mainstream media, if you were an outsider studying this country, would have to be something you really admire. You would look at how they did it, and they have done it by ostensibly being in the news business. But they are not any longer. The mainstream media is not in the news business; they are part of the Democrat Party. But they are so good at it that as far as the low-information voter is concerned, they are still in the news business. They are objective. They are fair.
The low-information voter really believes Mitt Romney is a felon, really believes Mitt Romney was fine with a guy’s wife dying of cancer, that Mitt Romney really doesn’t like dogs. You might disagree with me here as, “Come on, Rush, they don't really believe that.” I am telling you that they did. I’m telling you that when the head of the Chicago teachers gets up and starts talking about the rich and how they took everything from everybody and how they're never going to give it up legislatively, we’re going to have take it back from them, they believe it. This is what we are going to have to admit.
So Al Jazeera is what it is. That is who Al Gore accepted money from, and that is who Al Gore is now going to be lobbying for. And I think among all the things I've mentioned, the fact that Al Jazeera exists because of oil, which Al Gore has gotten wealthy despising and making other people despise, I just find it fascinating that nobody is calling Gore a hypocrite, that nobody is questioning whether Gore now has any credibility at all. If oil is rotten to the core, why in the world would you help them?  Why would you enrich them? Why would you facilitate whatever it is they are trying to accomplish? Big Oil is bad whether they are making gasoline or whether they are doing news, I would think.

Courtesy: The Rush Limbaugh Show. January 8, 2013

Barack Obama’s Richard Nixon Moment

It wasn’t supposed to be this way, was it? US President Barack Hussein Obama has suffered a deep decline in popularity abroad, according to an independent survey. Growing numbers of people in key countries, many of which are allies of Washington, have become uncomfortable with the dissonance between the soaring words with which ascended office and his deeds over the last three-and-a-half years.
Out of the 27 countries where reputable Pew Research conducted its recent poll, the largest drop in Obama’s standing was seen in China — from 57 to 27 per cent. The continuation of the US war on terrorism – ostensibly under the new nomenclature “Overseas Contingency Operations” – and the intensification of drone attacks on specific targets were vehemently opposed by respondents.
The German magazine Der Spiegel recently enumerated how Obama has disappointed the world. Admittedly, Europe still supports Obama economic prescription of stimulus, lending and growth, which is becoming hugely unpopular with a growing section of American voters. But the remaining good will in Europe is more than offset by the increasing opposition in large parts of Asia, Africa and South America to what they see as the continuing bullying of the US.
Deep down, Obama himself must recognize the discrepancy between the soaring vision he spelled out in his Cairo speech and his record in office. He has not honored his promises on a two-state solution in the Mideast. Guantanamo Bay continues to operate. Although he seemed to characterize Afghanistan as the ‘good war’ in contrast to the Iraq fiasco under his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama knows that Afghanistan is turning into a far costly and uncertain enterprise.
As his re-election campaign picks up steam, Obama is intensifying his attacks on George W. Bush for creating an economic mess the depths of which even today is not entirely known. Still, that approach smacks of whining and complaining. Worse, the man who assumed office amid hopes of uniting America has left it most deeply divided in a generation. The president’s campaign is unrestrained in letting out how it hopes to score an electoral victory by pitting one group of Americans against another.
Massive debts incurred to maintain an unsustainable yet expanding welfare state has intensified the division between ‘makers’ and ‘takers’. Popular disenchantment voiced through the Tea Party movement has energized the Republican Party, leading to its dominance in the House of Representatives. In response, Obama has resorted to taking controversial decision through executive fiat, the latest being on young illegal immigrants.
Obama sought to liken himself variously as a Lincoln, a Roosevelt and even a Reagan. But through his approach and tactics, the predecessor he closely evokes is Richard M. Nixon. At least Nixon is still remembered for the opening to China.

As Rose Revolution Wilts, Russia Redraws Georgian Map

Moscow redraws the map of Georgia, recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as the dust settles and it becomes clearer where power lies on Europe's borderlands, Ben Judah writes for ISN Security Watch.
Hours before the Russians pulled their forces out of the strategic Georgian town of Gori, self-declared commandant General Vlachyslav Borisov stopped his vehicle and gruffly threw open the door to speak to journalists. Sweating and smelling faintly of cognac, he barked: "I'm out of here. I'm withdrawing my combat forces form the area. But peacekeepers are staying." Then he slammed the door.
Russian officials accidentally dropped another hint to their intentions. ISN Security Watch managed to see a roughly drawn ink diagram left behind after a meeting of Russian and Georgian officials on 21 August. This is the new map of Georgia.
The map showed two circles emanating from the center of both the Ossetian and Abkhaz enclaves that reached out to touch the Georgian cities of Gori and Senaki. These are the buffer zones where Borisov plans to leave his troops. However, the future of these territories is still uncertain.
Just outside the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, the peacekeeping barracks that once hosted a 500-strong Russian contingent is a burned-out wreck. The Kremlin's spokesman and one of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's chief aides, Alexander Machevsky, accompanies a tightly controlled press tour through the enclave to inspect the damage.
Standing in front of the rubble, pointing through the smashed walls of the base to the dozens of scorched bare metal bed frames, Machevsky makes his point clear. "There can be no return to the status quo ante."
He trudges over a floor littered with bullet casings from AK-74s, pieces of burned clothing and the shredded personal belongings of the soldiers, stressing the brutality of the Georgian attack. Unnoticed by their superiors, a few troops are sitting around drinking heavily in the evening gloom. None look happy.
In Tskhinvali, the de facto South Ossetian president bellows to the crowds from a podium on Stalin Street: "The Caucasus is a Russian region. It has always been that way. We are not going to let adventurers like [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili or [US Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice change that. We are going to be an independent state within Russia. It's logical."
The poorly dressed and glum looking huddle drifts away, perhaps contemplating the implications of that speech. The Kremlin's flag flies from government buildings and paramilitaries wear little ribbons of Russian and Ossetian colors.
Russia is clearly in control - but for the moment this is nothing like a permanent settlement.
On 26 August, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced he had recognized Georgia's breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations. It is highly unlikely they will return to Georgian control.
In Tbilisi, Keti Tsikhelashvili of the think tank European Stability Initiative (ESI) advances a more nuanced view of how the situation might play itself out.
"There are several possible outcomes considering these territories. The first is that the Europeans have been dropping hints about the possible internationalization of the conflict. This would involve the stationing of observers and maybe peacekeepers in Ossetia and Abkhazia and their futures being brought under intense discussion," she tells ISN Security Watch.
However, the ESI believes such an outcome to be unlikely.
"The EU and the US remain committed to Georgian sovereignty and territorial integrity. The most likely outcome I can imagine will be the North Cyprus situation. The world will recognize Georgia's territorial integrity, while Russia and maybe a few of its satellite states will acknowledge South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent," Tsikhelashvili says.
She continues: "The South Ossetians already can see what an example of Russian rule in the Caucasus is like if they look to North Ossetia. How many schools there teach in Ossetian? The answer is none. In a few years the concern of cultural autonomy will mount and they will begin to realize the trap they are in."

Crushed rose
This is not how Georgians hoped the "Rose Revolution" would turn out.
In 2003, a wave of nationalism and a desire for western living standards and true democracy swept Saakashvili to power. Young and intensely charismatic, he led his country on an adventure that has turned sour.
"The president turned this country from a sort of post-Soviet ruin into a modern country," a senior western Europe diplomat tells ISN Security Watch, gesturing at perhaps the rather unrepresentative setting of the ornate restaurant in the Tbilisi Marriott hotel to prove his point.
"However, Saakashvili's definitely in until September. Then I can't say. There will be serious questions asked about what has happened and those questions will have consequences."
The Russian invasion has put a stop to those "rose" aspirations for now, and Georgia is reckoning with defeat. Tbilisi may not look miserable on the surface, but you only have to venture into one of the public buildings being used to house over 60,000 displaced people, or drive for under an hour to some of the burned-out villages to find misery waiting for you.
Reconstruction will take years. Georgia's transport infrastructure has been badly damaged, communities in the conflict zone have been hit hard, national parks have reportedly been set alight, commercial shipping has taken a massive blow, the economy has been shaken, but above all, Georgia's diplomatic and military position has been smashed. The armed forces that Saakashvili painstakingly built up though clever arms deals with Israel, the US and former communist states simply no longer exists.
Diplomatically, Georgia is in a disastrous position. Seen as unreliable and even a liability by many EU member-states and now most likely shorn of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for good, Georgia is reaping the consequences of its failed attempt to join the West.
Nona Varanadze, a retired professor and opposition supporter, blames Saakashvili for what has happened.
"Under Shevernadze, we practiced a political balancing act between Russia and the West. Just look at where we are on a map. When the balance got upset, we angered a neighbor and it destroyed so much of the good development that was going on. We could have avoided this and just got rich."
The ESI's Tsikhelashvili stresses that "though my political and cultural values are completely western. I am starting to think that Georgia put all of its eggs in one basket."
In many ways the EU and the US should hold themselves responsible for Georgia's current predicament. Having ostensibly supported a country's bid to remove itself from what Russia considers its exclusive sphere of influence, they failed to give Georgia the necessary security guarantees to make such a transition possible. With Russian forces stationed inside their territory, where EU flags still fly hopelessly from most major buildings, the promise of the West is starting to sound like a deadly siren to many Georgians.

The new order
The recent conflict has achieved a primary Russian objective, in proving that American power cannot be solidified along borderlands. This leaves only two powers that can actually integrate or control these territories - the EU or Russia.
The post-Soviet space can either seek to emulate the Baltic republics and find security inside the Union or embrace and hope to benefit from Russian dominance, as have Armenia and Belarus. Both are asymmetrical in how they wield influence.
Russia's strength lies in the areas of hard power such as its military capacities, energy power, cyberwarriors, pro-Russian parties and ethnic minorities or former KGB networks. However, it lacks the powers of persuasion.
Bulgarian expert Ivan Krastev argues in a recent article that "Russia is a born-again 19th-century power that acts in the post-20th-century world where arguments of force and capacity cannot any longer be the only way to define the status or conduct of great powers. The absence of 'soft power' is particularly dangerous for a would-be revisionist state. For if a state wants today to remake the world order, it must be able both to rely on the existing and emerging constellation of powers and be able to capture the international public's imagination."
The EU has the opposite strengths. Its power is soft and lies in the promise of membership, cultural appeal, diplomatic influence and financial clout. However, just as the Kremlin's failure to convince the world its actions are legitimate should force a re-think in its inner circles about a return to great-power status, the EU needs to learn that it does not exist in a vacuum.
Russia's strategy may be 19th century - but Europe is stuck in the future.
The great source of instability for the borderlands is that neither the EU nor Russia have reached their final destinations. Both are lost in transition.
The EU is caught between a disunited vague confederacy and a near-federation capable of speaking with a single voice in foreign policy and acting purposefully in a single direction. Its foreign policy mechanisms may slip into irrelevance and its own stability is far from assured. The news from Brussels is still frustration and malaise following on the heels of the French and Dutch "No" votes in 2005. The Irish "No" vote earlier this year does not bode well.
Russia itself is in a similar unsettled position. Its own territory is too large to be run in a conventional democratic manner and the state is still too weak to dominate its neighbors successfully. In the long run, further disintegration cannot be ruled out and the Kremlin is well aware of this.
Hovering between a post-modern empire and joining the club of post-imperial European great powers alongside the UK, France and Germany, Russia will continue its struggle to find institutional stability at home and a place in the state system - to the great detriment of both its citizens and surrounding countries.
Trapped between two uncertain creatures the post-Soviet states need to learn from the Georgian experience and tread carefully to avoid its fate.

Wooing Pakistan’s Moderate Center

To a certain degree, Pakistan’s return to democratic rule was expected to slow its already tepid cooperation with the United States on the global war on terror. The two major democratically elected parties have to take into consideration the popular pulse in ways Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s regime did not.
Moreover, the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League both were chagrined by Washington’s long unstinted support for Musharraf. A belated American conversion to democratic rule was bound to leave residual discontent.
The Pakistani military, too, has become disenchanted, and not only because of Washington’s public moves to distance itself from the Musharraf regime. The region along the Afghan border where the Taleban and Al Qaeda enjoy safe haven has never been under Islamabad’s control. Over the last two years, hundreds of Pakistani soldiers have died trying to tame the tribes, something Washington has not acknowledged sufficiently.
Deploying US troops inside Pakistan to try to flush out Taleban and Al Qaeda forces would spark deadlier anti-American protests across the country. Washington is thus left with implorations to Pakistan’s good judgment.
And Congress seems to have risen to the task. Senators Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) plan to introduce legislation this month that would provide up to $15 billion in aid to Pakistan over the next 10 years for economic development, health and education. The underlying objective of winning over Pakistan’s moderate center is laudable. A democratic government in Islamabad is best placed to wean tribal leaders away from the Taleban and Al Qaeda. Sustained political and economic support from Washington would be central to that strategy. Lingering doubts about Washington’s commitment to Pakistan’s stability and progress would only encourage the PPP and PML to woo Islamic radicals to fortify their respective flanks, a course they adopted during much of the 1990s to the region’s and the world’s disadvantage.

EU-China Ties: Tibet, Taiwan And Trade

Beneath the tumult of the unrest in Tibet and the resultant rancor over the Beijing Olympics, a once-vaunted partnership has been cooling. Since 2003, the European Union and China have developed deep institutional links. Having put much political, diplomatic and financial capital into this relationship, Brussels has referred to China as a “strategic partner.”
At the practical level, there are over two dozen sectoral dialogues going on between the two sides. These encompass such diverse areas as energy, environmental protection, civil aviation, competition policy, intellectual property rights, consumer product safety, and maritime transport. To be sure, there has not been the same level of progress everywhere. Yet the breadth of engagement underscores the commitment of the parties to a long-term partnership.
The atmosphere, however, has shifted significantly since 2006. These Chinese government and people have become somewhat disenchanted by the EU’s attitude, especially in the context of the organization’s October 2006 China trade and policy papers.
In those papers, Brussels presented Beijing with a long list of requested changes in areas ranging from human rights and freedom of speech to intellectual property rights and economic and financial deregulation. Predictably, these demands deeply offended Chinese officials and scholars.
Undaunted, Brussels believes the EU-China Partnership and Cooperation Agreement will take relations to the next level. Others, however, see the new deal as little more than a codification of existing institutional ties. China, moreover, seems in no urgency to sign the agreement.
Disruptions in the Olympic torch in parts of Europe have raised Chinese distrust. Furthermore, the EU Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution condemning China’s crackdown in Tibet, even raising the possibility of an EU boycott of the Olympics.
The EU Parliament, which has a strong “Taiwan lobby,” has confronted Beijing several times over human rights. China complains the pan-European legislature has rarely passed any constructive resolutions.
The 25th EU-China human rights dialogue, which took place in Slovenia on May 15, sparked much dissatisfaction in Beijing. Yet the EU does not have the instruments to influence the human rights situation in China.
On Taiwan, a thorn in China’s ties with the western world, the EC does not have a position. All it has said is that it is in favor of a peaceful solution. From the EU’s standpoint, the lack of an outspoken position may be behind Beijing refusal to consider Europe as a serious global security player.
Europe became China’s biggest trading partner in 2004. Yet the reality remains that EU still exports more to Switzerland. The EC points to market access obstacles. The EU’s trade deficit with China is growing by €15 million per hour having reached € 160 billion in 2007, with total bilateral trade amounting to more than € 300 billion. There are 120 European anti-dumping cases against China at the World Trade Organization. Settling some of them remains an option for the EU.
An EU delegation traveled to Beijing on April 25 to launch the “EU-China High Level Economic and Trade Dialogue Mechanism.” The initiative was hobbled by complaints by European businesses operating in China. If the EU is running out of patience, then European protectionism and additional tariffs on goods made in China is rising up the agenda of Beijing.
Surely, Beijing does not want any more human rights resolutions from the EU. Moreover, it seeks advice on global and regional foreign and security policy behavior and conduct. Additionally, it expects substantive technology transfers and technical and financial assistance to promote a more sustainable, geographically more balanced and environmentally less damaging Chinese economic growth.
Those are hardly difficult demands, and Brussels will be investing €224 million by 2013 in economic, financial and technical assistance. Beijing wants more, such as the lifting of the EU weapons embargo imposed after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989 and the granting of market economy status.
Amid these divergences, the language governing the relationship has changed. “Common values,” the dominant theme of the partnership, has been replaced by “converging interests.”

Tories’ Hope – And Fear

Does Boris Johnson’s election as London’s mayor mean that Britain may be ready to bring back the Conservative Party from over a decade in opposition?
Undaunted by the mockery of politicians and pundits alike, the Tory MP and former journalist ran an impressive campaign. The Conservative Party, which won the largest share of the vote and the most councilors, topped off its winning streak by gaining control of the capital.
The mayoral contest may have had little resonance outside London. Yet political parties and the media bestowed on it a national significance. Conservative leader David Cameron, for his part, took some risk in backing a maverick candidate. He must be relishing this moment of triumph.
The Labour party’s worst local election results in at least 40 years was not simply a mid-term protest, as some ministers in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s cabinet have suggested. Nor can it be attributed to economic uncertainty alone.
Labour’s loss stemmed from a variety of reasons, not least its decision to axe the 10p income tax rate, which hit its core supporters. At a wider level, the results reflect a fundamental shift in public opinion. Voters who abandoned the Tories and flocked to Labour in 1997 today see a government wearied by incumbency. A Conservative comeback is now firmly within the realm of possibility.
Yet the Tories’ fortune would depend on much more. Mayor Johnson could help by delivering on his campaign promises, especially those on transport and crime. No less important will be the question of personality. The Boris Johnson Britain knew was not in evidence in the polls. The gaffes and gaudiness many expected were conspicuous by their absence. Yet these traits could return once Johnson settles into his job.
Johnson has now become the international face of London. As such, he will invite intense media and political scrutiny. Much will depend on how he handles the examination. The Conservatives certainly wouldn’t want to be tied to the mayor – irrespective of success or failure – in the run-up to the next general election, expected in two years’ time.

Clinton Must Shed Her Sense Of Entitlement

The string of bad news for Barack Obama hasn’t brightened the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency. The junior senator from Illinois continues to lead his legislative colleague in the delegate count as well as in the popular vote.
The best hope for the former first lady is the working-class white voter. Obama’s speech on race relations has failed to mollify their concerns triggered by the hate mongering of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama’s readiness to throw his white grandmother under the bus in an effort to defend his spiritual adviser went a bit too far.
Sure, Granny must have had her moments of exasperation in private. But she went along with her daughter’s marriage to a black student from Kenya, didn’t she. Moreover, she dutifully raised her half-black grandson without much complaint. How can her “racism” be equated with the venom spewed by the Rev. Wright?
Clinton can’t afford to play the race card. Her husband left a disastrous impression by linking Obama’s victory in South Carolina to his color. Clinton’s assertion that states she has won have more electoral votes in the November poll than the states won by Obama is not unreasonable. But in the general bitterness of the campaign, it has prompted howls of derision. Obama, after all, could insist that he has greater backing from independent voters.
Ultimately, Clinton must fight the regular way. With Florida and Michigan increasingly unlikely to have their delegates seated at the convention, she must score big wins in Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22, and beyond.
Specifically, Clinton must reach out to working class white voters with a message of patriotism rooted in her experience in the Senate Armed Services Committee. That may not help her win the delegate count in Denver. But she could at least hope to persuade “superdelegates” that she is better placed to defeat the presumptive Republican candidate, John McCain.
Admittedly, the Clinton campaign suffered a major blow when Bill Richardson, the Hispanic governor of New Mexico who served in Bill Clinton’s cabinet, endorsed Obama. But the damage may not be as severe as originally thought. The support of a great many superdelegates is still up for grabs. If Clinton is to keep them from emulating Richardson’s conversion, she must stop viewing the presidency with a sense of entitlement.

A Sordid Battle Of Wills In Turkey

Imagine any European country where the judiciary suddenly calls for the disbandment of the ruling party, as well as a ban on the prime minister and the president – only months after the elected government, under political siege from factional interests, takes its case to the people and wins a landslide. Welcome to Turkey.
Turkey is in the throes of difficult membership negotiations with the European Union, much to the chagrin of the current governments in France and Germany. But its accession prospects are also clouded by the battle of wills between the neo-Islamist – and pro European – government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and a secularist establishment that regards itself as European but seems determined to unseat the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) by fair means or foul.
However much they are covered with a figleaf of constitutional legitimacy, these efforts amount to a naked coup d’etat by forces unable to win power at the polls. If they come even close to success, Turkey really can forget about Europe.
It had looked as though this struggle was resolved. Turkey was last summer engulfed in a constitutional crisis after the army issued an elliptical ultimatum – on its website – saying Abdullah Gul, foreign minister, could not be trusted as president, and therefore guardian of the secular heritage of the republic created by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, because his wife wears the Muslim headscarf. Mr Erdogan called elections and hugely increased the AKP’s share of the vote to 47 per cent. Turks stood four-square with democracy as the generals tripped over their clumsy digital démarche – and Mr Gul is now their president.
Now the chief prosecutor has called on the constitutional court to upturn the political order, alleging the AKP is pursuing an anti-secular agenda. His case is without merit.
There is a strong whiff of class resentment about the establishment case that the AKP – the voice of the socially conservative, religiously observant, but dynamic and entrepreneurial middle classes of central Anatolia – is pursuing theocracy by stealth. The real case against the government is its lassitude in pursuing reform and EU accession – especially after Mr Gul’s elevation.
That is a shame. Triumphantly re-elected, and with new hope for a deal to resolve the Cyprus dispute, Mr Erdogan has a strong platform. But he is using it to swagger around the country giving populist speeches and to change the law to allow girls to wear headscarves at universities. There is an issue of equity here – if the Kemalist dress-code is denying women further education. But it is not more important than, for instance, repealing Article 301 of the penal code, under which writers are being prosecuted for the crime of insulting “Turkishness”.
Mr Erdogan should stop stalling and resume the constitutional revolution over which he has presided. – Financial Times

Changing China In Its People’s Name

CHINA’S National People’s Congress now under way is not a forum where anything reflecting the government’s drawbacks are debated, but it should increasingly serve as a time for soul searching for the government as times change and it becomes difficult to hold on to the strict one party control over everything inside the borders.
Beijing is no doubt not too far from becoming the centre of the world’s attention as China’s ascent to superpower status draws nearer every time it posts theory defying high growth, but certain mechanisms of the country’s ruling ethics are in crying need of transformation if the rise is to be facilitated, not retarded.
It goes without saying that China has done best among emerging economies on the economic front. Its gains on the income distribution front have been faster and bigger than almost all contemporaries, most of whom are still stuck with the discredited trickle down theory. Rising inflation, now a global phenomenon, is something that amicable policies can arrest before it get truly out of control. Where China really needs to pull its socks up is implementation social and political philosophy from a by-gone era, something that must change for progress to be evenly spread, especially since people are the prime engines of progress in the new world.
They way Chinese authorities attempt to control dissent or even mild difference of opinion is not fitting for a rising power like Beijing. With Olympics coming its way, it will have to live up to some of its human rights specific pledges, making for a fine time to loosen the strong choke hold on the public’s social and political opinion. No doubt authorities need to exercise caution that too sudden a change does not encourage unruly elements up to no good, but that controlled opinion is not going to last much longer is granted. The People’s Congress should live up to its name and accommodate more of people’s opinions.

Costly Franco-German Chilliness

The European Union has not been shivering from the chilliness that has set into relations between two of its most powerful members. Yet the rifts between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have assumed greater seriousness in view of the ratification of the revised European constitution.
Over the weeks, Sarkozy has chastised the European Central Bank for not focusing on stimulating economic growth. His interventions prompted the German chancellor to publicly defend the bank’s independence.
Germany, for its part, was infuriated last year when Sarkozy postponed France’s commitment to balance its budget by 2010, and instead announced tax cuts worth 15 billion euros a year.
Sarkozy’s proposal for a union of Mediterranean countries, too, took Germany by surprise. Indeed Berlin was wary of a framework that would have operated outside the Barcelona process – the EU’s program for closer relations with non-member Mediterranean countries. In this particular case, Sarkozy subsequently agreed to revitalize the Barcelona process.
The EU, to be sure, is much more than a French-German enterprise. Yet it is hard to contemplate progress in the institution without Paris and Berlin being focused on the same page.
Admittedly, Sarkozy’s comfortable parliamentary majority offers him greater leeway in articulating his policy preferences. Merkel, on the other hand, leads a testy coalition that stymies ambitious initiatives. Yet much seems to be riding on Sarkozy’s personality. Sometimes he just seems unwilling to acknowledge the operating principles that have served the EU well. An important one, of course, is a strong French-German relationship.