The Diplomat Buyers Club

The other day Jon Stewart did a very funny episode on several new ambassadors who had seem to have been appointed without reference to any qualifications relating to knowledge about the country where they would serve.    He pointed out that the new ambassadors to Iceland, Argentina and Norway had never been there.   He also explained that  the new ambassador to China (former Senator Max Baucus) stepped down from his senate seat early to try to assure that the dems hold on to the Senate in 2014. Baucus admitted in his confirmation hearing that he did not know much about China.  Like much of Stewart's episodes his wry telling of the story was great.

But let me make a slightly different point.   What are the real qualifications of an ambassador?  There is a delicate balance between having a strong understanding of the current administration's positions and knowing the country where the ambassador will serve.  It might well be easier to learn about the country than to understand an administration's propensities.   Remember that in each of the embassies there are always country or region experts on the staff.

A case in point is Dwight Morrow who was ambassador to Mexico from 1927-1930. Morrow was a JP Morgan banker before entering public life.  Morrow's major qualification, when President Coolidge appointed him, was that he had been a classmate in college and he was part of Coolidge's inner circle.    But he ranks as one of the best US ambassadors to Mexico by any standard.   He immersed himself in the country and is credited with giving sound financial advice to the Mexican government.   The beautiful mural in the Palace of Cortez in Cuernavaca by Diego Rivera was commissioned by Morrow, who had a weekend home there.    Morrow helped to mediate the conflict between the Church and the Mexican government through a series of informal discussions between him and the president.  

A second example was Shirley Temple Black - who had been a fringe politician before she was appointed an ambassador, but was credited in stories about her passing this week as being a first rate ambassador.

So while Stewart's point is funny, I am not sure it is right.

The Consumer Reports of Boycotts

One of the outcomes of the Superbowl was a controversy about an Israeli company called SodaStream.   SodaStream sells a device which injects CO2 into water and with syrups they sell so that you can produce home made soda.   I am not much of a soda drinker so I have never used the product - but it seems like a good idea.    

Oxfam produced a silly ad suggesting that this company, which offers employment to Palestinians, is exploiting the workers.  That is  nonsense.   In an area of the world where poverty is high - this little company is offering good jobs.   Despite the overblown rhetoric of Palestinian spokesmen - that is the reality.  The company's spokesperson quit her role with Oxfam.  In recent months the Palestinians have used terms like "apartheid" to describe Israeli policies in what they believe to be Palestinian territory.   That is so off the mark it is laughable - but some in the world have begun to believe the claim.

But the real story comes from a fringe group  I found  called Global Exchange - whose mantra is that they are   "an international human rights organization dedicated to promoting social, economic and environmental justice around the world"  (Please note I have not put in their URL as I usually would because I find their campaign despicable.)

On their website they sneer - The simplest alternative to buying a SodaStream machine is to drink plain water or other non-carbonated beverages - no one actually needs to drink bubbly water. And even if you like to do so on occasion, remember that you’ll have to consume quite a bit before you’ll realize any economic or environmental benefits from owning your own machine, compared to simply buying bottles at the grocery store. (Yes, plastic bottles are wasteful, but plenty of plastic, plus metal and other resources used for manufacturing and shipping, goes into each home machine, too.)  Can you imagine the internal fights with these nutballs.   "If we can't get people to not buy products from this company that is operating in what we believe to be Palestinian territory then should we actually ask them to use (shudder!!!!) plastic bottles?"   Which orthodoxy prevailed is a matter of some interest - evidently environmental and nanny state principles get thrown out when you have a chance to rail against a for profit company.

But then the site goes on to offer consumer recommendations on competitors to the SodaStream.    Their first alternative has the following advice "XXX (the first company recommended)  isn’t selling its own syrups or powder to flavor your soda, but its customer service department says a full line will be available soon. In the meantime, both Cuisinart customer service and at least some Bed Bath & Beyond retail staffers are recommending SodaStream’s flavorings, but you don’t have to you follow their advice - you can just add fruit juice, brew your own flavorings (start with these recipes), or try the flavor packs offered by two other recent entrants in the make-your-own-soda market."  (Note on the original site the words "these recipes" were hot linked to nothing - evidently the nanny state faction in this group prevailed and prevented GE from being a full fledged consumer advocate.)

It seems odd that a group which claims to support human rights and "economic" justice would spend so much time trying to assail a small company that is offering good jobs in a place where people really need them.  But then again when you live by orthodoxy, even the cross conflicted notions of this group, what you say and what you actually do may be quite different.

The America's Cup Win

At one point in my life I was an avid sailor.  (Certainly not at the level of the America's Cup racers.)   We sailed something called J-Boats which were about 24 feet (about a third the length of the cup boats).   J-Boats were middling in what is called the PHRF standard (which is somewhat analogous to a handicap in golf).  I have no idea what the equivalent rating for this new and radical design but to give you an idea these boats can actually go a lot faster than the wind under the right conditions.

A few weeks ago, in a post about Larry Ellison, I expressed concern about the new design.   I even suggested that it would not have bothered me to see the American team lose.   In the end, after starting out 4 races behind (because of a penalty) and then having a couple of miserable performances - they ran eight races almost perfectly and won the series 9-8.   It was a truly impressive win - after a tactical adjustment in one of the early races- where they declined to do a second race of the day (for which they were widely criticized).

The technology (which you can see something of in the video below) is amazing,  The sails are actually airfoils not traditional sails.   And the design of the boat is to get as much of the multi-hull out of the water so the boat can ride on a foil.   But I wish that they might go back to a more traditional design or have a non-tech version of the America's cup.   Somehow a boat shooting along the water at close to 50 MPH does not seem right.   And yet the Oracle team published the rules on how to design the boat, and after the initial hiccup was able to come back and win the series.  

The cost of each of these new designs excludes all but the most wealthy.  Another criticism of the current rules is that only one of the team members was actually an American citizen.   And yet both of these objections should be overcome.  When Commodore Vanderbilt was racing the cup - it was limited to very wealthy people.  So not much has changed.  What the Cup has done over time is to improve sailing for lots of less capable sailors.   While the air foil is not likely to replace standard sails on smaller boats, it is likely that a lot of the innovations will find their way into more consumer oriented boats.   As to the gripe about the lack of Americans on the team - what was there was American technology.  So it is a great metaphor for larger economic issues.

I ended up watching a couple of days racing on the ESPN channels but did not go down to a race.  Friends that did go down to the Bay to view the races live said, compared to earlier Cups - these were over so fast it was hardly worth the drive.  What I was left with at the end of this series is what big changes are likely in the next series four years hence?

A so what chart from the WP.

The WP published the following graph this morning which compares the power consumption in six African countries with the consumption of an energy efficient refrigerator in the US.

The point the Post was trying to make was look how greedy (or fill in other negatives) Americans are.   But my response is so what.   Americans do a lot of things that the rest of the world does not, including working aggressively on making the things they use even more efficient.   The Post's logic is that Americans are piggy.  But why not try to bring standards of consumption in those six nations up to something closer to what the US can afford?  

Consider another chart.   This time compare what a fridge cost to operate and how much it consumed in electricity over time.

Over the last 40 years the average refrigerator in the US has reduced the number of kilowatts consumed by three quarters.  All the while the cost of consuming those KWs has also been reduced.  We've got products that do a better job for cheaper.   Taken from another view, we have actually reduced the disparity between consumption in those six countries because in the 1970s undoubtedly there was most likely less electricity consumed in the African countries and more in the US refrigerators.    Numbers and charts always benefit from looking at a wider range of numbers.

Neville Obama

It was very hard to think about the President's speech last night because a good deal of it was substantive and made a very good case for the reason that the US might act in response to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons. Let me state at the outset that I am not convinced that we should be involved militarily in Syria.  But events may have overtaken coming to a sound conclusion in this area in the world.

Here are some quick thoughts on the President's speech -

#1 - The Appropriate Role of Congress - The President commented that "I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force." Obama seemed to imply that the actions in Iraq were not conducted with "the support of Congress" - but Public Law 107-243, which was passed and adopted before any actions were taken in Iraq contradicts that assertion. Just how did more power accrue to the President during the last decade?  Well, the best example came in our intervention in Libya where the President (Obama) did not seek any congressional support.  What is odd about the President's statement is his complete avoidance of working with Congress.   About the only congressional ally he has had in this from the GOP has been Senator McCain.

From my perspective his move of a resolution to Congress was in the belief that the GOP might defeat a resolution and thus he could partially shift the blame.   The best presidents understand that working with both sides of congress can be frustrating but rewarding.   This president does not get that.    He seems to take issues with congress as an up or down vote with no understanding of the long term nature of politics.   President Reagan understood that working with congress produces long term benefits.  This president does not get that.

A recent post on the Rothenberg report concluded with "In short, if the president had engaged members of Congress from the beginning of his tenure, even behind closed doors, some of his most challenging political moments could have been an easier lift. Democrats might even still be in the majority in the House if the health care and cap-and-trade bills had been handled differently. And that certainly would have an effect on the legacy that Obama leaves behind."


#2 - Moving Public Opinion - Generating public support for any policy needs to include a wide range of figures from both sides of the aisle on an issue as important as this.   There is no evidence that the President has sought advice or counsel from anyone outside his narrow band of staff and advisors.   I wonder what opinions about this might be had he consulted with people like former Secretaries Rice or Schultz.

#3 - The Role of the UN - Whether the President got backed into his new role or not (and I believe he was backed into this position by his gaffes and Kerry's) he now has to trust that Russia will not work to weaken the resolution against Syria (not likely) and will do everything in its power to encourage expeditious work by the inspectors (the Iraq experience does not offer much promise).  Look at the cat and mouse games that were played in Iraq.   I expect that between Putin and Assad the old ropa-dopa defense will come back to the fore.

#4 - Can we trust Putin? - The Keystone Cops in the White House have seemed to lurch from one gaffe to another.   The President drew a line in the sand and then denied it.  Kerry had a series of stumbles.  All the time Putin acted as he did in the Snowden affair - attempting to reassert Russia's role in world affairs.   The President characterized the developments in the following manner - "over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use."   The Russians actively tried to delay any vote in the Security Council which would  assert the need to follow the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty's requirements.

#5 - Possibly the least gracious administration in history - The old adage - Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan -  seems to apply here.  Part of the justification for moving the vote to congress was to possibly shift blame.   As it became clear that the vote was not going to affirm the President's position, he asked that the resolution be withdrawn.   But then today the White House Press Secretary made the absurd comment in a briefing that Putin now holds some of the responsibility for the success of this issue.  The White house seems hell bent in this and in almost every other activity it engages in to look for scapegoats in advance thinking oddly enough that their failures will not be judged if there is another person/entity to blame.

#6 - Possible Outcomes - It is hard to understand how this can come out positively.  Assad has been a rogue regime for a long time, he has no significantly greater pressure to change his ways and he has the threat of violence against him significantly reduced.   In the near future we will be presented with another rogue regime (Iran) possessing nuclear weapons capability.   Is it likely that the Iranian mullahs will respect any American threat when that situation becomes clear.   Does North Korea have any encouragement to act more nicely?

This is admittedly a complex situation and American interests may not be served by doing some sort of military action in Syria.   If things work out it will be by dumb luck and providence.  Regardless, the President's lack of understanding of the bigger pictures of the American political scene and the international stage have cost the country a lot.

The Onion produced a story this morning that sums up the current state of public opinion - It proclaimed that a majority of Americans support sending Congress to Syria.  Come to think of it - that is not a bad idea.

Godot's in Syria

I've hesitated in writing a post on Syria, not because I do not have some thoughts about the issues but more because I am thoroughly disgusted with the political elites behavior - that is without regard to political party although I think the Administration's behavior has been well below par.

Let's get something straight.  International relations does not always involve people of goodwill but one principle seems to be eternal.   When you say something, especially something that is relatively clear, you better be prepared to follow through - or you will become chump of the globe pretty quickly.

One other opening comment - It looks like one side or both used chemical weapons in Syria.  And in an ideal world we would figure out how to spank those that did use the weapons - but a response would be more effective if we acted when we established the fact.  Waiting here is not really good- especially when we have made a threat.  We are not necessarily obligated to respond to every tin horn dictator's outrageous actions; but there are times when we should respond.

So here are my thoughts -

#1 - It really is 3AM -  During the 2008 campaign Hillary Clinton campaigned against the President by wondering if he was the guy to answer a crisis phone call at 3 AM.   This administration has demonstrated throughout this crisis manifest incompetence.  He seems to think he can control the story as well as he controlled the news around his campaign.  The President cannot take back his original (seemingly unscheduled) "redline" comment. He made a threat.   His record here has been one of almost constant political rather than strategic actions.   In 2006, while he was ramping up his campaign he said to the Boston Globe - "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."  Having written a Master's Thesis on the War Powers Resolution, I have some sympathy to that position.   But his "first you say you can then you say you can't" public indecision on the power of the president, hardly gives the American people a sense that he is in any way thoughtful about the situation.

Kerry has done nothing to improve the situation. When Secretary Kerry was in the Senate he did some arm chair diplomacy with Assad and told us how the younger Assad was really different from his horrible despotic dad. Kerry has been a ruthless self promoter since his days of heading the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He has been an almost consistent pacifist on international engagements - so it is odd to seem him as a Jingoist Secretary of State. From my perspective his current rhetoric is a bit odd. Kerry commented in one place about the quality of the intelligence - "With high confidence, our intelligence community tells us that after the strike the regime issued orders to stop and then fretted openly — we know — about the possibility of U.N. inspectors discovering evidence. So then they began to systematically try to destroy it." From my perspective that sounds a lot like what the Bush Administration (pick one) used to intervene in earlier conflicts - although in both of those Kerry was a bit more skeptical.

The oddest thing about the President's behavior comes down to an eventual result which I suspect will happen.   One or both houses will reject the resolution authorizing use of force.  Then what is the President to do?  He may think he can justify not doing anything (which will not be convincing to anyone but the chattering classes in DC).   Or he may strike without the authorization, which will make him look foolish domestically.   In any event his delays in doing anything means that Assad has had plenty of chances to move his stuff to places where it will be harder to strike.   These guys look like they have never had a serious discussion about strategy on this very important issue.

In this instance, while I am not sure he has made the right decision, one leader that I have appreciated is the much maligned Speaker John Boehner.   He has decided that he will support the President on his resolution I think following the notion that "politics ends at the border."  I wish some others might consider that - although there may be a very good reason to reject the President's confused strategy.

#2 - The Marv Esch Standard - One of the members of congress that I worked for used to tell prospective candidates his three rules for politics, which applies equally to international relations.   #1 - Be for everything that is good.  #2 - Be against everything that is bad.   #3 (and he would add - most important) Be able to tell the difference between the two.   In this case there are a series of bad choices - there were even before Assad or who ever did the dirty deed.   From the best news coverage of the current situation there may not be any good choices.   The "moderates" in the rebels may not be anything of the sort.  The history of the region has been complex for many decades because the generation of elites after WWI thought they could as Adam Smith suggested in the Wealth of Nations - arrange people like pieces on a chess board.   But as Smith cautioned - those chess pieces do not always react in expected ways.   The lines which created many of these countries ignored historic ethnic and religious distinctions which in turn generated new types of hatreds.

#3 - John McCain is becoming Nero - He seems to love the cameras but yesterday they betrayed him - he was caught on one of the news services playing video poker on his phone during one of the hearings; his response, when outed,  was to complain that he was losing the game.  If the Senator still had any sense he would resign in disgrace immediately.

#4 - A Basic Principle - you do not treat your enemies better than you allies - The Administration's dithering has put Israel into a very complex position.  I think it has also brought into question other areas where we have problems like Korea - I wonder how our allies there will feel when North Korea takes license from the President's idiotic responses and begins to rattle their sabers at the south.  The implications for this situation go well beyond the Middle East.

#5 - Instant Replays in the Middle East -   Much of the discussion in Washington reminds me a lot of the discussion in our previous short term engagements in the Middle East.  The players are different, but the words are the same.   Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) voted to authorize force in Iraq, but he is now leaning toward opposing action in Syria. In his statement explaining his views, he specifically cited the broken promises of Iraq.

"I trusted their assessment, our president, and the secretary of state as he made the case before the UN," he said. "I supported the president’s request and voted yes.  The search for weapons of mass destruction came up empty, and cost our nation lives and money. We are being asked again by the chief executive to authorize the use of force against Syria. ... I am not convinced that a limited strike against Syria at this time is warranted."  I think there are a lot of members on both sides who feel once burned twice learned.

We are presented with a series of bad choices and all the while many of our leaders on both sides are treating this as a time to make political points.

A name that should get more coverage than Edward Snowden

Evidently, Edward Snowden will be granted asylum in either Venezuela or some other similar regime. What as onces a reasonably compelling story of a "whistle blower" seems to have evolved into a story about a not so selfless individual who cares more for personal safety than in confronting and enabling real change. Compare Snowden's current situation with that of Alexei Navalny, the Russian dissident who on Friday heard his prosecutors ask for a six year prison sentence. I first became aware of Navalny in March in a WSJ interview He is not the leader of a party but has stood up and fought for extending the benefits of democracy to the Russian system. Putin is a new "czar" in the way that he uses both authority and secrecy. Navalny is quoted as saying "Not one of us has the right to be neutral. Not one of us has the right to shirk from doing what's necessary to make our world better. Each time someone thinks, 'Why don't I step aside and simply everything will happen without me and I'll wait?'

Snowden has spent the last couple of weeks sitting in the holding area in Moscow having some of America's least favorite foreign leaders use him for publicity or to embarrass the US.   Lord knows that some of the issues raised by Snowden should get better coverage.   But the way to improve the situation, in both instances is to not step aside - and yet that is exactly what Snowden seems to be doing.   If he ultimately goes to that delightful garden spot of Venezuela - I say good riddance.  But were he committed to having a substantive discussion about the role of surveillance in a free society he might not be searching for a loft in Caracas.   Somehow his projected new address (the capitol sounds a lot like the English word for BS - Crock) seems to reflect on his commitment to the principles he talked about when the Guardian first made his story public.   The last time the LA Times had a story about Navalny was in April when his trial opened.   But they certainly have devoted a lot of column inches to Mr. Snowden.

Cuba and Apartheid

Berta Soler Fernandez is an interesting figure.  She is the current leader of a group in Cuba called Ladies in White (Damas en Blanca) which was formed to protest the repression of the Cuban regime.   The members are wives and girl friends of jailed dissidents.   The movement began as a Sunday march from St. Rita's church to places in Havana.   It is a non violent movement although supporters of Castro at times have attacked the marches.

Soler was granted an exit visa from Cuba and was allowed to receive Europe's highest award for human rights.   She then went to Florida to build support for her movement.   She was quoted in the Huff Post as saying "We want a Cuba in which liberty exists. Where there is democracy. And where there is respect for human rights. And also, we are fighting pacifically for a Cuba without the Castros."

What the Huff Post and much of the other coverage of Soler's visit did not cover was her very specific opposition to lifting the US economic blockade of Cuba.   Soler was very specific and is quoted as saying "I respect the opinions of everyone in the world, but mine [and] that of the Ladies in White is don't lift the embargo."

My default opinion on the embargo is just the opposite, which is consistent with my thoughts when the South African regime was maintaining Apartheid.  I thought then that the regime would falter if companies like HP (which had several shareholder resolutions to get out of South Africa) were allowed to work in the country and create their own employment policies.   In Cuba, without the blockade, I have always thought that if all sorts of American products began to come into the country that the regime's repression would be overturned because technology has a particularly disruptive effect on tyrants.

Castro has been a disaster for Cuba - when he took power the per capita income of Cubans was about the same as Puerto Rico or Mexico both countries have far surpassed Cuba, now the Mexican PCI is 50% higher than Cuba.   So despite the propaganda from the left, it is not the paradise that they say it is.  

In the end the best way to get rid of the Castros is made a bit unclear by Sra. Soler's comments.

An Institutional Metaphor

My undergraduate major (and indeed the first program I pursued in graduate school) was International Relations.   As an undergraduate I participated in Model UN; representing the newly freed Botswana in one year and being the only representative of the Republic of South Africa in another.

In one set of projects in my first year in graduate school in the late 1960s I spent a fair amount of time at the UN.   This afternoon I was going to a dinner and drove by Turtle Bay (which is the site of the UN)   (PICTURE ON THE LEFT)

The UN looks absolutely seedy, which is as I imagine the institution to be.   The dome looks like it is in serious need of repairing a lot of deferred maintenance.  The front walls, which were once impressive, now look water damaged.

I suspect that supporters of the UN would say that the institution looks neglected because it has been by the great powers.   I think the disrepair evidenced in the building is an indication of a greater institutional rot based on the ascendency of the General Assembly - having bigoted nations preside on the Human Rights Committee is but one example of this rot.   At the same time the rapid growth in trade agreements between and among nations has encouraged more direct relationships that these great forums once tried to promote.

The UN let a contract to renovate the structures in 2007 for $1 billion.   In less than a year that cost had ballooned by 20%.  A year later the cost rose by another third and some estimates peg the full restoration at $3 billion.   The whole thing might be a great metaphor for the failure of big ideas.

With friends like these....

A Rare Instance when the
"Rev" has mouth shut

The "Rev" Jesse Jackson offered a prayer at the funeral of Hugo Chavez yesterday and then on CNN commented (I guess in response to the notion that Chavez was a tyrant and helped to ruin his country's economy, prop up Cuba and generally be a bad neighbor) “Well you know, democracies mature … our first 15 presidents owned people, they owned slaves,”

Mr. Jackson should learn some American history. (Of course, that is not a serious suggestion.) John Adams and John Quincy Adams did not own slaves.  Many of the other first fifteen either emancipated their slaves at death or proposed ways to eliminate slavery over time.   JQA actually, late in life, successfully argued a case before the Supreme Court coming from a rebellion on a ship called Amistad (which was in the slave trade in the 1830s).  The Spanish Crown and others were arguing that the people on board were slaves.   JQA won the case in the Supreme Court freeing all the people that had been on board.

Jackson also seems to ignore the 1808 clause in the Constitution which banned the importation of slaves after 1808.   Most scholars argue that based on the divisions at the time in the country that the clause was a grand bargain which led to a diminishment of the institution of slavery.  In 2008, at the 200th anniversary of the clause, there were a number of scholarly papers which credited the compromise with a) allowing the union to form and b) beginning to end slavery in the country.   It certainly could have happened faster, but that a ban on importation of slaves was considered, adopted and maintained is a testament to our constitutional system.

Another intellectual and spiritual leader, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, commented that Chavez will "return on resurrection day" with Jesus Christ and will "establish peace, justice, and kindness" on earth.   Wow, almost as good as the Rev's comments.

It is Deja Vu but this time the Press is not calling him on it

At the first conclusion of the Iraq War, the then President piloted a jet on to an aircraft carrier and proclaimed that we had vanquished the terrorists.   Today the current president is making a similar claim - He said Al Quaida is on the "run."  

Indeed, during this administration Osama Bin Laden was finally located and exterminated.   But as we saw on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, Al Quaida and all its various factions still has the ability to attack a US embassy (technically a consulate) and the current president and his administration have shown a marked propensity to be unable to respond in a timely or helpful manner.   But on both cases, the claim by the President and the failure to act - the legacy media seems strangely silent.

Just like his helicopter ride over New Jersey, the President's media events seem to outrank his ability to govern.  I am not surprised by this disparity but I am disappointed that the media seems to lack any sense of objectivity.

The violence in Libya and Egypt

On the anniversary of 9/11 two embassies in the Middle East (Libya and Egypt) were attacked by mobs angered by a movie created in the US called the Innocence of Muslims (you can find trailers on You Tube - I have not provided a link because it as offensive as PissChrist was when Andres Serrano created what was described as art in the late 1980s.)   When Serrano produced his monstrosity there were calls for reducing federal funding (this was funded from a federal grant) but there were no acts of violence against either Serrano or the government.  One of the risks of a free society is that these kinds of nonsense are allowed to exist.   Smart people ignore them.

There are two issues here.   First, should we accept the irrational behavior of devout fanatics like the ones in Cairo and Benghazi?  In many Muslim countries Christians are routinely persecuted.   The response of Christians to that treatment is to pray for both the Christians in those lands and indeed for the people who are persecuting them.  In this instance the new President of Libya issued an immediate and strong condemnation of the mobs.  Ultimately, leaders in muslim nations need to begin to isolate the fanatics.   Part of the changes brought about by the Arab spring is the installation of new leaders, some of whom are likely to be much better than the autocrats that were thrown out.  So this is a delicate situation for the leaders of these nations.   But we, as Americans, needed to issue an immediate condemnation of the senseless killing of our embassy personnel.   At some point other measures may be necessary.

Ultimately, loons like the people who created this movie have the ability in a free society to be fools.  (If you look at the trailers of the movie - it is horrible in production values - however than is not the point).   All that being understood that should not give opponents the ability to rampage.   It is not clear whether the video clips were indeed a cause or simply a justification for the violence.

The second issue is how should the US react to the killing of four embassy personnel?  After the ambassador was killed in Bengazi the Embassy in Cairo issued the following statement:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

 From my perspective that was a mistake.  Governor Romney issued a statement which said in part -

I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. That instead, when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America’s values is never the right course."

From my perspective that statement was appropriate.  Some of the so called fact checkers including Politi-Fact argued that Romney was not accurate in his criticism.  (A so-called Pants on Fire fact check)   But I am not sure how one can interpret the statement from the Embassy as anything less than an apology.

The President after some time, issued a statement condemning the role of the mobs and through his press spokesman tried to distance himself from the embassy statement.  The press spokesman said the statement was not a policy of the US Government - if not then what is the word of the embassy issued as a formal statement?  In any event the President looked a lot less than presidential when he soon found his way to Las Vegas for some campaigning.   This is an important issue that the President should have addressed strongly and quickly.

Ultimately, leaders of these countries need to identify the moderates who will be willing to reign in the nutters.  At the same time we need to respond indignantly to these acts of violence.   As Lawrence Wright's excellent book argued, when we do not respond strongly, it encourages the next act of violence.

A Wise Man and a Fool in Public

This morning when I read about the death of Vaclev Havel I returned to a copy of his 1990 speech to Congress.  At the time I thought Havel had done a marvelous job of summarizing a very vibrant period in history.  The speech combined some inspiring rhetoric with a couple of superb references to US history (always a good way to put some ideas in context when speaking to an American audience like the Congress) with some very specific ideas about history was evolving.  As I re-read his words I found them to be both gracious and thoughtful.


But as inevitably happens I also found other references to the speech. One was from Noam Chomsky.  In my mind Chomsky is a small minded public scold (I would hesitate to call him an intellectual) whose early writing is revered by linguists but whose contributions to intelligent public dialogue have been non-existent for the last several decades.  Chomsky, in a letter to Alexander Cockburn, called the speech an "embarrassingly silly and morally repugnant Sunday School sermon"  The easiest way to understand the value of Havel's speech more than 20 years after it was delivered is to re-read it (or for the first time if you missed it then) - I have posted a hot link in the reference above.


NPR commented that he struggled with "reconciling his moral principles with the pragmatic requirements of governing."   Not a bad place to be for a leader.  The LA Times in their article quoted his motto "May truth and love triumph over lies and hatred."  I tired long ago of Chomsky's rants, reading his sophomoric comments on Havel this morning only reinforced that fatigue.

The President and the Prime Minister

The public interchange between the President and the Prime Minister of Israel last week was revealing.   I have included above the entire Obama speech because it should serve as a starting point on where we are on this important set of issues.  My initial impression of the President's speech was that it was poorly timed (being the day before Mr. Netanyahu was going to the US for a visit) and extremely ungracious.   At the same time I felt that it lacked an appreciation for the reality that Israel lives with each day, namely that a good part of the Arab world would like to see Israel disappear.


On the other hand I thought the Prime Minister's speech to Congress had many qualities that Obama's speech lacked - namely while the PM was firm against some of the wrong headed notions of the President's speech - he was gracious to a fault.

The Economist , on the whole, praised the approach in the President's speech by concluding that what he was actually saying is deal with security and territory first and then deal with Jerusalem and refugees at a later point.  I think that is a little off.  I think everyone has recognized that when a viable solution is developed for this set of issues there will very likely be changes in boundaries.  It seems unlikely that those changes will involve having Israel go back to the 1967 borders.   Some like former Congressman Robert Wexler have argued that the President's proposal was "misunderstood."   Others like Rush Limbaugh have suggested that not only was the President not misunderstood but his proposal would be closely akin to having the US agree to recede to its pre-1848 borders. The Hill parsed both the State Department speech (where he said “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are 
established for both states.” ) and the AIPAC Speech a few days later where he said "“By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides.”   That is a pretty big switch in a couple of days so I believe the Administration realized their error in verbiage (and also in policy) and was trying to recover.

Extricating US policy from the quagmire will take some finesse.  Many in the US and around the world fail to recognize that even with its flaws Israel is the only legitimate democracy in the Middle East.  And that even after seven decades there are still forces in the Arab world who refuse to recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist in the region.   It is unfortunate that, whether he intended it or not, that Obama's State Department speech seemed to forget both of those facts.

The Evident Extreme Surplus in Pundits

In economics supply and demand are supposed to come into equilibrium.   In TV news we seem to have an extreme oversupply of "experts."   That has been in rich demonstration as the OBL story has played out.

For example - we've heard from the surplus of counter-terrorism experts who say definitively that they know "how the events in Pakistan went down" because they are a) a former SEAL or Airborne who participated in lots of these kinds of activities or b) once saw a real SEAL or Airborne on the street.   Then there is the expert on Islam who can say definitively what the single appropriate method of burial for devout Muslims is.   Then there are the foreign relations experts who argue that Pakistan either knew or it didn't (not often do they say both in the same interview) about the raid and that because of the a) close proximity of the Pakistani "West Point" or b) the configuration of the compound or c) the shoe size of OBL and that someone is withholding a vital piece of information.   Then there are the macabre photo experts who want a death photo or a video of the raid and can tell you why US foreign policy will either be helped or hurt because of the release or non release of the photo/video.  Then there is the "former State Department high level official" who can explain why a) the White House is inconsistent in its story or b) the release of information is part of a grand strategy or screw up (again not often in the same commentary).

For me the issues here are simple.   #1 - An evil person was found and killed. #2 - No American was killed or injured in the raid.  #3 - Evil in the world has not been vanquished.

Reacting to the News On Bin Laden

The Washington Post did a story this morning on the level of agreement in Congress on the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  The illustration at the right is from that story and give you an idea about the compound where Bin Laden spent his last days.  But there are two side stories that bother me about this news.


The Hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi and other politicians - In September 2006 she commented at a press conference - "[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done ... is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer."    But yesterday she yammered "The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. ... I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. ... [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic...."   In this case it is the democrats who just a few years ago were criticizing the "Cheney Assassination Squads" and our "horrible" record in Guantanamo - yesterday it became clear that the initial intel on this came from a source at Guantanamo.   The sad thing is that Pelosi is not unique and as importantly, on other issues the GOP is just as bad.   The issues of how to deal with terrorists are serious, I just with politicians would recognize that.


How should Americans react to the news? - My sister in law posted a Facebook post from Ed Bacon who is the Rector of All Saints Pasadena which said "The book of Proverbs teaches, 'Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when your enemy stumbles.' (Proverbs 24:17) We must see the dangers and distractions of triumphalism in celebrations of another’s death. ..."   Contrary to his post, I think Rev. Bacon is at least partially wrong.   Bin Laden was an evil man responsible for the deaths of more than 3000 people.   There are plenty of Biblical references to confronting evil in the world.   While some in the Christian community believe it was wrong to even do the assault, I believe they are on shaky ground.  And yet Glen Beck's response (where he had a marching band, confetti and cookies) was inappropriate.   The WSJ (Subscription Required) has a series of editorial comments this morning which get the story about right.  Bin Laden had become less of a leader in recent days as unrest spread in the Middle East against the autocrats.   And yet, we had a duty to hunt him and his murderous crowd down.  Our response to our environment in the rest of the world will need to be complex.   I am bothered that a lot of the immediate jubilation and flagellation offered immediately is probably unproductive for the long term issues we face.

Osama and Obama

I have three comments on the final event of bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice.


#1 - The President is not Jimmy Carter - During the 2008 election a lot of the President's detractors argued that Obama and Carter had similar qualities.   While neither had legitimate foreign policy experience.  I believe that can probably be laid to rest.  There is still a legitimate concern that as the recent article in the New Yorker (the Consequentialist by Ryan Lizza) argued the President tends to lead from behind and his foreign policy is often confused.   But as Commander In Chief, the President should get the credit for capturing Bin Laden on his watch.


#2 -  While the President deserves credit the military deserves thanks - Almost immediately after the President's announcement a number of my democratic friends put posts up which said we should thank the President - almost as if he had flown to Pakistan to lead the raid.   The people we should thank here are the military.  I am sure that had Bin Laden been dispatched during the Bush years, those same people would have ignored the role of the president and perhaps even the military.


#3 - It is unclear what this event means to reducing the influence of terrorists in the world.  Some of the knowledge necessary to lead the raid may well have come from Guantanamo detainees.  Even with that the role of Obama in the terrorists may have already passed. (That does not mean he should not have been pursued.)    President Bush, in a gracious statement after he was informed of the raid commented “The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.”   But the mutation that caused Bin Laden to become such an important figure in the world of terrorism remains.  The harder job is what to do next.

Something that does work

I write a lot about things that do not work with government, so it is refreshing to find something that works quite well.  The last time I came back from Mexico I noticed a new kind of fast entry opportunity for travelers who are willing to give up some biometric data and go through a security check.  The program is called Global Entry and costs $100 for five years.

About ten years ago the Customs Service had a program like this which I did and it was horrible.  About half the time I would come back into the country, I found that the computers were down or they would not read my fingerprints or some other problem.   But I thought, what the hell, why not give it another chance?

The new program is a bit more complicated to get into.  You need to go through a personal interview (which I think is more extensive than the one required in the prior program).   But this morning coming back from Veracruz it took me all of 90 seconds to get through the entire customs process.   The computer reads your passport and your fingerprints, asks your declarations and then sends you on your way.  After you get your baggage you go through a special line with your printed slip.  90 seconds flat.  SLICK!!!

Sense and Nonsense

CNET did a story about a Millward Brown survey on the most trusted brand in a number of countries. Topping the list in many countries were Colgate, Pampers, Toyota and in the US, Amazon. But the list by itself is just silly.

I am a big fan of Amazon. I think they do great things for selling both products and content. I do not like their MP3 product. I also have never trusted them for products like cookies and beer (an essential element for Santa's Christmas Eve plate at our house when the kids were young). Ultimately, trust in brands is product specific. Perhaps the most interesting result from this research is that among all of the countries - only one Brazil - had a product which was not easily recognized as an international brand.

California and the Euro

The WSJ had an interesting comment this morning comparing the bond spread on California bonds versus bonds from Greece. They concluded that the widening spread on bonds from Greece suggests that California is in better shape. The market measures these things in an instrument called a "credit default swap" where the market insures against a default by selling a risk instrument. California has four of those contracts out on its bonds today, Greece has 3136.

Currently the bond markets are charging a premium for California to issue debt - about 2% above the yield on Treasury bills (considered the safest bond investment). Greek bonds now are about 4.4% above the comparable German bond (which in the case of the Euro is the safe bond).

That should not give Californians much solace. As America piles on deficits (not to the heights of Greece but close) - Greece is now at 12.7% of GDP. (The US at this point is above 10%.) What is interesting to me about this exercise is the relative value of the Euro. Greece is a small part of the Euro zone monetary regime. But it is not the only example of fiscal irresponsibility. For example the Spanish deficit, under the mismanagement of the Zapatero regime is at about 11.4%. Portugal is close to 9%. Italy's debt also puts it in the stratosphere. The group in trouble is sometimes referred to as the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain). The Euro Zone was supposed to keep all its members below 3% deficits. Given the condition of many of its members one would think that the value of the Euro would be dropping like a stone. What seems to be saving it is the performance of the rest of us including the US.