China’s official announcement today by its State Council had taken new measures to re-invigorate the country’s over all food an drug safety monitoring standards is probably one of the best news on globalization this time around. What started with the importation of tainted pet food into the US from China not long ago had gradually grown to assume enormous proportions when there emerged other cases of tainted toothpaste from China that was alleged to have killed at least 100 people in Panama.
The global frenzy for cheap manufactures literally made China the first stop for international monopoly concerns that find China’s huge appetite for economic growth so luring that no one seemed to have risen to the challenge of ensuring that safety wasn’t sacrificed for quick profits. It is all so good that the Chinese government seemed to have risen quickly to the challenge of restoring global confidence in its safety food and drug structures. That process which began with the death sentence handed last week to Mr. Zheng Xiaoyu, who used to be the head of China’s Food and Drug Administration for taking bribe and over-looking strict adherence to regulation standards, has been extended to the administration of tighter safety standards as well as enforcement procedures at all levels of China's food and drug safety establishment. The new standards include aspects that would prevent errors as well as those that will track and investigate errors if and when they are detected.
The issues involved here are not political at all. They knock at the heart of what drives the world economic system even as it shows signs of terminal crisis. There’s hardly any doubt at all that China is part of if not the heartbeat of the world economy. The other time what emerged as slight quakes in China's stock market sent global waves that almost crashed major stock markets in the major and even minor financial centers in the world. What is needed this time from everyone concerned is cooperation with and support for the Chinese as they proceed with the task of restoring global confidence in their country's food and drug safety regime. Anything else will translate to the most counter-productive outcome that will probably drive the world economy to the lowest low in what Immanuel Wallerstein calls its terminal crisis.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Turkey’s Incursion Into Iraq
Reports today that Turkish troops chased Kurdish fighters into northern Iraq are worrisome but not unexpected. Turkey has never hidden its readiness to foil any attempts by Kurds on its side of the border to take advantage of the nominal independence status that Iraqi Kurdistan is enjoying to re-invigorate their fight for independence from Turkey.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ warning to Turkey last week for it not to invade northern Iraq may not have been in vain after all. Today’s reports indicate that Gates’ warning may not mean much to Turkey by way of deterrence. It doesn’t and may not constitute one. The reason being that Iraqi Kurds who are determined to assert their independence from Iraq someday soon will likely continue to extend a hand of support to their kinsmen across the border in Turkey. Kurdish desire for independence from the rest of Iraq and support for their kinsmen in Turkey will present the US with serious challenges that it may not be able to handle easily. The reasons being that on the one hand, the US cannot easily talk the Kurds in Iraq off their desire to assert their independence, and on yet the other hand, unless the Bush White House acts true to its established swashbuckling persona, sending US forces into northern Iraq and possibly into Turkey to neutralize the latter’s significant military presence will further complicate things for the US in the region. But only time will tell what will unfold in Iraq sequel to US invasion.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ warning to Turkey last week for it not to invade northern Iraq may not have been in vain after all. Today’s reports indicate that Gates’ warning may not mean much to Turkey by way of deterrence. It doesn’t and may not constitute one. The reason being that Iraqi Kurds who are determined to assert their independence from Iraq someday soon will likely continue to extend a hand of support to their kinsmen across the border in Turkey. Kurdish desire for independence from the rest of Iraq and support for their kinsmen in Turkey will present the US with serious challenges that it may not be able to handle easily. The reasons being that on the one hand, the US cannot easily talk the Kurds in Iraq off their desire to assert their independence, and on yet the other hand, unless the Bush White House acts true to its established swashbuckling persona, sending US forces into northern Iraq and possibly into Turkey to neutralize the latter’s significant military presence will further complicate things for the US in the region. But only time will tell what will unfold in Iraq sequel to US invasion.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Not Without Europe
Even as the US wrangles with Russian President, Vladimir Putin over its projected missile defense system that will tie all of the NATO members, one unacknowledged piece of fact is at the heart of this latest element of US self-appointed role as an advocate and defender of democracy in the free world. That fact is that the Europe will always remain relevant to US foreign policy. For good or for bad, the US cannot afford to ignore Europe in its quest to sustain what Immanuel Wallerstein calls hegemony in the world.
The missile defense system will definitely re-validate US bona fide in Europe on NATO’s auspices. The great economic strides made by countries in the parts of Europe that former Defense Secretary, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld described as ‘old Europe’ when he became exasperated by their refusal to rubber stamp US invasion of Iraq during the post World War II years were partly responsible for deflating some of their allegiance to US world leadership. The collapse of Soviet Communism was the other variable that contributed to that deflation. In the absence of the threat that the Soviet Union posed, West Europeans don’t see the logic for them to play the second fiddle in their relationship with Washington. The call on the political leadership in most of Western Europe by Europe’s masses that the time for them to enable the enjoyment of the dividends of peace is intricately linked to the end of the Cold War. Even in the parts of what used to be in the Soviet Warsaw block, the missile defense system is being seen as a ploy by the US to cash in on the on-going War against Terror, WaT to rope the rest of Europe into a geo-strategic set-up that will re-invigorate Europe’s allegiance to the US. But it doe not seem that Europe's masses are very interested in being part of a muscular alliance with the US any more.
Although Iran is being positioned as Europe’s new common enemy in the current bid to win support for the missile, a re-invigorated US alliance with Europe will probably be more relevant for countering China’s growing reach in Africa and Asia from where it is poised to compete with the US for all manner of mineral and natural resources that it badly needs to sustain its stupendous economic growth. But US difficulties in convincing Europeans that China is a threat is deeply steeped in China’s refusal to let the US succeed in drawing it into Cold War-type enmity. China’s biggest concern at the moment centers on the realization of economic growth to sustain its huge population.
Even after the missile defense is put in place, the dividends that it will yield for the US might not be extensive and durable. It does not seem like the masses in Europe are enthusiastic about building alliance with the US on the basis of military defense. Europe’s masses seem to be more interested in rebuilding their alliance with the US only on a plank that emphasize world peace on an equal partnership.
The missile defense system will definitely re-validate US bona fide in Europe on NATO’s auspices. The great economic strides made by countries in the parts of Europe that former Defense Secretary, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld described as ‘old Europe’ when he became exasperated by their refusal to rubber stamp US invasion of Iraq during the post World War II years were partly responsible for deflating some of their allegiance to US world leadership. The collapse of Soviet Communism was the other variable that contributed to that deflation. In the absence of the threat that the Soviet Union posed, West Europeans don’t see the logic for them to play the second fiddle in their relationship with Washington. The call on the political leadership in most of Western Europe by Europe’s masses that the time for them to enable the enjoyment of the dividends of peace is intricately linked to the end of the Cold War. Even in the parts of what used to be in the Soviet Warsaw block, the missile defense system is being seen as a ploy by the US to cash in on the on-going War against Terror, WaT to rope the rest of Europe into a geo-strategic set-up that will re-invigorate Europe’s allegiance to the US. But it doe not seem that Europe's masses are very interested in being part of a muscular alliance with the US any more.
Although Iran is being positioned as Europe’s new common enemy in the current bid to win support for the missile, a re-invigorated US alliance with Europe will probably be more relevant for countering China’s growing reach in Africa and Asia from where it is poised to compete with the US for all manner of mineral and natural resources that it badly needs to sustain its stupendous economic growth. But US difficulties in convincing Europeans that China is a threat is deeply steeped in China’s refusal to let the US succeed in drawing it into Cold War-type enmity. China’s biggest concern at the moment centers on the realization of economic growth to sustain its huge population.
Even after the missile defense is put in place, the dividends that it will yield for the US might not be extensive and durable. It does not seem like the masses in Europe are enthusiastic about building alliance with the US on the basis of military defense. Europe’s masses seem to be more interested in rebuilding their alliance with the US only on a plank that emphasize world peace on an equal partnership.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Mr. Charles Taylor
Former Liberian President Charles Taylor who goes on trial in The Hague, Netherlands today for human rights abuses is a reminder of one of the problems with Africa. Mr. Taylor is accused of orchestrating a civil war particularly in nearby Sierra Leone by buying and receiving diamonds from warlords who he supplied weapons in exchange. The more serious aspect of that is that his warlord allies then went out of their ways to unleash unparalleled brutality on countless civilians who were deliberately mutilated in unspeakable ways.
The impunity and sadism that characterized Mr. Taylor’s reign in Liberia is peculiar to Africa. The continent is home to the likes of Mr. Taylor who feel at ease to trample on people that they claim to govern. That is why it has become almost a cliché in the international media that Mr. Taylor’s trail will be a long-awaited lesson for his likes on the continent. But the reality is that the cliché is more of an exaggeration than anything at all. If not for the mutilation that Mr. Taylor’s allies in Sierra Leone unleashed on innocent civilians, chances are that he could have gotten away with the impunity and sadism that characterized his rule of Liberia. Western leaders could have found justifications on the grounds of law and order to leave him alone. The state of affairs produced by such tolerance of governance which is sustained by impunity, sadism, and lack of responsiveness is one of the continent’s greatest undoing. The destitution and decay that societies in country and after country in Africa are consigned to by their so-called leaders is no less unconscionable than the acts that Mr. Taylor will begin to answer for in The Hague today.
Dragging just one out-of-control former leader to The Hague for a show trail will definitely not rid the continent of the others. Mr. Taylor’s trial is just an exception, which will not establish a pattern. One who bets that Mr. Taylor's trial will not be followed by even one more will not be wrong at all. The only measure more likely to put a stop to governance by impunity on the continent is one that empowers Africans to compel their political leaders to become responsive. That measure is still lacking for Africa. In most if not all cases, the heartless individuals that unleash reigns of impunity on their fellow Africans find supporters in the West. A politician or warlord who does not need to worry about international acceptance even when he achieves political power through illegitimate means will not bother to govern responsively. Africa’s post-colonial supra-national states are just conducive for abusive rule. The clamor for the restructure of those post-colonial supra-national states in parts of the continent will mark the beginning of that measure which will help establish responsive governance in Africa. The interesting thing about that is that without Western interference, Africans can and will accomplish the task of establishing the basis for responsive governance for themselves.
The impunity and sadism that characterized Mr. Taylor’s reign in Liberia is peculiar to Africa. The continent is home to the likes of Mr. Taylor who feel at ease to trample on people that they claim to govern. That is why it has become almost a cliché in the international media that Mr. Taylor’s trail will be a long-awaited lesson for his likes on the continent. But the reality is that the cliché is more of an exaggeration than anything at all. If not for the mutilation that Mr. Taylor’s allies in Sierra Leone unleashed on innocent civilians, chances are that he could have gotten away with the impunity and sadism that characterized his rule of Liberia. Western leaders could have found justifications on the grounds of law and order to leave him alone. The state of affairs produced by such tolerance of governance which is sustained by impunity, sadism, and lack of responsiveness is one of the continent’s greatest undoing. The destitution and decay that societies in country and after country in Africa are consigned to by their so-called leaders is no less unconscionable than the acts that Mr. Taylor will begin to answer for in The Hague today.
Dragging just one out-of-control former leader to The Hague for a show trail will definitely not rid the continent of the others. Mr. Taylor’s trial is just an exception, which will not establish a pattern. One who bets that Mr. Taylor's trial will not be followed by even one more will not be wrong at all. The only measure more likely to put a stop to governance by impunity on the continent is one that empowers Africans to compel their political leaders to become responsive. That measure is still lacking for Africa. In most if not all cases, the heartless individuals that unleash reigns of impunity on their fellow Africans find supporters in the West. A politician or warlord who does not need to worry about international acceptance even when he achieves political power through illegitimate means will not bother to govern responsively. Africa’s post-colonial supra-national states are just conducive for abusive rule. The clamor for the restructure of those post-colonial supra-national states in parts of the continent will mark the beginning of that measure which will help establish responsive governance in Africa. The interesting thing about that is that without Western interference, Africans can and will accomplish the task of establishing the basis for responsive governance for themselves.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
"Let Them Come. We Are Ready"
If there were any doubts at all about the motive of Fata al-Islam, the previously unknown Islamist jihadist group that has been embroiled in a siege inside a Palestinian refugee camp near the port city of Tripoli in Lebanon, with the Lebanese army since a fortnight ago, the declaration yesterday to the Associated Press today by Abu Hureira, who is also one of al-Islam’s leaders clears them all. Faced with imminent death in the hands of the Lebanese army, which has completely surrounded the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp where the group has holed itself in ever since the siege began, Mr. Hureira, a Lebanese whose real name is Shehab al-Qaddour, taunted the Lebanese army to “come. We are ready”. The group is clearly apocalyptic and its members are determined to martyr themselves to probably win following of some sort in the future, if not in the present in Lebanon and the larger Middle East.
This sort of die-hard determination for martyrdom is a dimension in the War Against Terror, WaT that must compel serious thought in the minds of policy makers who are involved in prosecuting the war. The world is not served well at all if pluralities of future Islamists are created whenever one or a group of them submits themselves to a gun battle to be killed by military forces anywhere in the world. This reality is the sort that makes the WaT an endless war. Wars are definitely not good, because they lead to the destruction of lives and property. The architects and prosecutors of the WaT can only be ignorant of this evident fact if they lack proper education. Else, they are guilty of deliberately exposing the world to an endless war when they could have achieved the same goal of dealing with the scourge of Islamist terror by other more pains-taking methods.
In the case of the on-going siege in the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp, the best approach could have been to encircle Fatah al-Islam and wait them out for as long as it takes for them to surrender. That tactic could have taken some time and nerve for sure, but in a situation where the civilians in the camp are reluctant to accommodate al-Islam members, it would have been a matter of time before they surrender. Violence begets violence. In a region and neighborhood where violence has hardly solved any of the long-drawn conflicts that have broken out there in the past, the resort to violence each time when new ones break out is rather counter productive.
Given the hapless performance of the Lebanese army in the current engagement with Fata al-Islam, the Lebanese authorities who talk tough ought to know that they lack what it requires to actually claim the upper under in this kind of conflict. They might be heartened by the quick gift of weapons that they received from abroad these past two weeks since the fight with al-Islam broke out. However, it is one thing to receive quick military aid, it is still another for that military aid to be used in ways that achieve decisive outcomes. Such decisive outcomes would include in their case, getting rid of trouble-making militants once and for all, and securing lasting peace. If military aid is good only for achieving blood revenge alone, then it becomes counter-productive.
This sort of die-hard determination for martyrdom is a dimension in the War Against Terror, WaT that must compel serious thought in the minds of policy makers who are involved in prosecuting the war. The world is not served well at all if pluralities of future Islamists are created whenever one or a group of them submits themselves to a gun battle to be killed by military forces anywhere in the world. This reality is the sort that makes the WaT an endless war. Wars are definitely not good, because they lead to the destruction of lives and property. The architects and prosecutors of the WaT can only be ignorant of this evident fact if they lack proper education. Else, they are guilty of deliberately exposing the world to an endless war when they could have achieved the same goal of dealing with the scourge of Islamist terror by other more pains-taking methods.
In the case of the on-going siege in the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp, the best approach could have been to encircle Fatah al-Islam and wait them out for as long as it takes for them to surrender. That tactic could have taken some time and nerve for sure, but in a situation where the civilians in the camp are reluctant to accommodate al-Islam members, it would have been a matter of time before they surrender. Violence begets violence. In a region and neighborhood where violence has hardly solved any of the long-drawn conflicts that have broken out there in the past, the resort to violence each time when new ones break out is rather counter productive.
Given the hapless performance of the Lebanese army in the current engagement with Fata al-Islam, the Lebanese authorities who talk tough ought to know that they lack what it requires to actually claim the upper under in this kind of conflict. They might be heartened by the quick gift of weapons that they received from abroad these past two weeks since the fight with al-Islam broke out. However, it is one thing to receive quick military aid, it is still another for that military aid to be used in ways that achieve decisive outcomes. Such decisive outcomes would include in their case, getting rid of trouble-making militants once and for all, and securing lasting peace. If military aid is good only for achieving blood revenge alone, then it becomes counter-productive.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Iraq As South Korea
When it comes to Iraq it does not seem like the Bush White House will ever get tired of coming up with all sorts of ideas. But the sad thing about that is that none of those ideas has been effective in any sense of the word when it comes to achieving what can be called transparent success. A military undertaking that was started to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, WMD has steadily morphed into an occupation without end in an environment, which remains exceptionally hostile to the US.
The report today in The New York Times that the Bush White House has started to openly fly the kite for an indefinite US military presence in Iraq cannot surprise anyone at all. After all while Mr. Donald Rumsfeld was Defense Secretary there were several reports that the US was briskly building several permanent military bases in Iraq. The more interesting aspect of this kite is that US occupation of Iraq is being discussed in the context of US military presence in South Korea after the Korean war, and of course in Japan and Germany after World War II. Those who are doing this comparison cannot be ignorant of the stark differences between the situation of things in South Korea, Japan, and Germany and Iraq and the Middle East. For one, at no time was the credibility of the US and its values as a super power at odds with the Koreans, Japanese, and Germans as is the case today in Iraq and the Middle East. The closest comparison to the evident realities that obtain in Iraq as regards the desire by the Bush White House to maintain an indefinite military presence in Iraq is Lebanon at the time when former President Ronald Reagan sent the Marines there in the 1980s. There’s no need recounting how that mission tuned into a failed misadventure. But it’s worthy to mention albeit very briefly why it did: the US lacked the bona fide necessary for accomplishing such a mission in that region. Today, the credibility of the US in the region has deteriorated even more than what was the case in the 1980s.
Like the invasion of Iraq proper, indefinite US military presence in Iraq will be an endeavor that will not succeed beyond its implementation. So far, the only successful US endeavor in Iraq is the invasion itself, for the reason that it enabled de facto US military presence there. But a comprehensive balance sheet on Iraq will starkly show that everything else has been a woeful failure. It is one thing if the desire is to maintain an indefinite US military presence and call it a success in and by itself. It will be yet another thing to presume that such an undertaking will mirror US military presence in South Korea, Japan, and Germany. The cost of an indefinite US presence in Iraq will surpass the ordinary. It may not worth much at all. US policy makers must spend more time thinking about what they can do to repair the serious damage that the invasion of Iraq has done to its over all credibility in the Middle East, and less on fantastic desires that will further damage its already damaged credibility in the region. At this time the incendiary kite of an indefinite military presence in Iraq is one such damaging idea.
The report today in The New York Times that the Bush White House has started to openly fly the kite for an indefinite US military presence in Iraq cannot surprise anyone at all. After all while Mr. Donald Rumsfeld was Defense Secretary there were several reports that the US was briskly building several permanent military bases in Iraq. The more interesting aspect of this kite is that US occupation of Iraq is being discussed in the context of US military presence in South Korea after the Korean war, and of course in Japan and Germany after World War II. Those who are doing this comparison cannot be ignorant of the stark differences between the situation of things in South Korea, Japan, and Germany and Iraq and the Middle East. For one, at no time was the credibility of the US and its values as a super power at odds with the Koreans, Japanese, and Germans as is the case today in Iraq and the Middle East. The closest comparison to the evident realities that obtain in Iraq as regards the desire by the Bush White House to maintain an indefinite military presence in Iraq is Lebanon at the time when former President Ronald Reagan sent the Marines there in the 1980s. There’s no need recounting how that mission tuned into a failed misadventure. But it’s worthy to mention albeit very briefly why it did: the US lacked the bona fide necessary for accomplishing such a mission in that region. Today, the credibility of the US in the region has deteriorated even more than what was the case in the 1980s.
Like the invasion of Iraq proper, indefinite US military presence in Iraq will be an endeavor that will not succeed beyond its implementation. So far, the only successful US endeavor in Iraq is the invasion itself, for the reason that it enabled de facto US military presence there. But a comprehensive balance sheet on Iraq will starkly show that everything else has been a woeful failure. It is one thing if the desire is to maintain an indefinite US military presence and call it a success in and by itself. It will be yet another thing to presume that such an undertaking will mirror US military presence in South Korea, Japan, and Germany. The cost of an indefinite US presence in Iraq will surpass the ordinary. It may not worth much at all. US policy makers must spend more time thinking about what they can do to repair the serious damage that the invasion of Iraq has done to its over all credibility in the Middle East, and less on fantastic desires that will further damage its already damaged credibility in the region. At this time the incendiary kite of an indefinite military presence in Iraq is one such damaging idea.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Not So, Mr. Chavez
One would rightly wonder what Venezuela’s President, Mr. Hugo Chavez expected by way of reactions from opponents, of his government and even fair-minded individuals at home, and of course governments abroad, over his government’s recent refusal to renew the broadcast license of Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV. That action forced RCTV off the air Sunday for what is meant to be for good, since a new government-owned public television began immediately to broadcast on RCTV’s channels. That act by Mr. Chavez and his government is typical of an over-kill and over-reach. Mr. Chavez should not be surprised at all that it is attracting the sort of immediate protest demonstrations in Venezuela by opponents of his government and condemnations abroad from groups and even governments. He doesn't need such at this point in time!
His declaration that the negative reaction over that act of over-reach and over-kill stems from "international rightist, extreme-rightist and fascist movements [who] are attacking Venezuela from everywhere - from Europe, the United States, Brasilia" is disingenuous and sad to say the least. One can concede that RCTV was an arch-supporter of the coup that claimed to have ousted him from power just briefly the other time. One can also agree that RCTV has been an ardent opponent of his government and its policies. But his expressed expectation that Venezuela should be devoid of voices of opposition would not augur well at all for his government and Venezuela. Irrespective of how he feels about his opponents, they are necessary evils that he must rely on for reality checks on his policies and governance. Considering his vast popularity amongst poor Venezuelans who out-number the owners and the audience of RCTV by far, Mr. Chavez has very little to worry about RCTV’s programming.
Forcing RCTV off the air this way has opened him and his government up for justified criticisms from not only known opponents of his government at home and abroad, it will also generate bad blood between sympathetic observers of his policies in the sub-region and elsewhere. It is not too late for him to correct the error he made by forcing RCTV off the air. He would earn some goodwill for himself and his government by allowing RCTV to return to the airwaves. In fact, by so-doing he might even give some people cause to start to view him as responsive. The time for him to correct that error of over-reach and over-kill is now.
His declaration that the negative reaction over that act of over-reach and over-kill stems from "international rightist, extreme-rightist and fascist movements [who] are attacking Venezuela from everywhere - from Europe, the United States, Brasilia" is disingenuous and sad to say the least. One can concede that RCTV was an arch-supporter of the coup that claimed to have ousted him from power just briefly the other time. One can also agree that RCTV has been an ardent opponent of his government and its policies. But his expressed expectation that Venezuela should be devoid of voices of opposition would not augur well at all for his government and Venezuela. Irrespective of how he feels about his opponents, they are necessary evils that he must rely on for reality checks on his policies and governance. Considering his vast popularity amongst poor Venezuelans who out-number the owners and the audience of RCTV by far, Mr. Chavez has very little to worry about RCTV’s programming.
Forcing RCTV off the air this way has opened him and his government up for justified criticisms from not only known opponents of his government at home and abroad, it will also generate bad blood between sympathetic observers of his policies in the sub-region and elsewhere. It is not too late for him to correct the error he made by forcing RCTV off the air. He would earn some goodwill for himself and his government by allowing RCTV to return to the airwaves. In fact, by so-doing he might even give some people cause to start to view him as responsive. The time for him to correct that error of over-reach and over-kill is now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)