# Posted 11:13 PM by David Adesnik  

MY, HOW (THE NEW YORK) TIMES CHANGE: On Sunday, Howell Raines told us that

"The inspectors alone will never disarm Iraq. But they can slow Mr. Hussein's weapons programs, leaving more time for diplomatic efforts to remove him from power and for Washington to mobilize the international support it now lacks."

Just two days later, Raines has informed us that Hans Blix's findings

"argue strongly for giving the inspectors more time to pursue their efforts and satisfy international opinion that every reasonable step has been taken to solve this problem peacefully."

If one were being generous, one might say that Mr. Raines wants the inspectors to find a smoking gun so that the rest of the Security Council will back an invasion. But it sure as hell sounds like he's saying that the inspectors can't disarm Iraq, so we should give them more time.

CLARIFICATION: Josh points out (via e-mail, no link) that while Howell Raines has the final say on editorial matters, it is Gail Collins and co. that actually write the NYT editorials. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:51 PM by David Adesnik  

MY OLD BOSS ON THE WARPATH: Before heading to Oxford, I worked at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, or CEIP for short.

My thesis advisor in college used to make fun of CEIP's name. "'International Peace', huh? They're a little behind schedule on that one, aren't they?" And, in fact, CEIP has quite a history, at least in the pre-WWII of taking some terribly naive stances on world politics.

Now, before I say what I'm going to say next, I'd like to point out that all of the Junior Fellows at Carnegie, including myself, were afraid of nothing more than the president of Carnegie, Jessica T. Mathews. Thus, when it came time to put on the annual Christmas comedy show, most of us were hesitant to say anything about Jessica. But in the end, she seemed to take it all pretty well.

Hopefully, Jessica will demostrate the same merciful attitude toward what I am about say, which is this: Her op-ed in today's Post sets a new standard for incoherence and naivete.

To my knowledge, Jessica is the first person to have argued that the US shouldn't enforce 1441 even though Iraq is obviously in material breach. Huh?

But at the same time, she says that inspections should go on for another year, even though there is no reason to believe Saddam will cooperate. Huh?

The reason for going to all this trouble is because the "aim of U.S. policy must be to put the onus on each of the permanent members of the Security Council, in particular, to place its complete commitment behind the intent of Resolution 1441 to disarm Iraq."

Uh-huh. So the purpose of US foreign policy should be to get the rest of the Security Council behind a resolution that has no chance of accomplishing anything.

Based on my experience at Carnegie, I'd have to say that what's really going on here is a spectacular demonstration of verbal acrobatics designed to provide some sort of justification for not doing anything to offend Europe. This is pathological multilateralism.

If even Jessica Mathews knows that Saddam is in material breach but Jacques Chirac won't acknowledge it, then what is multilateralism worth? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:24 PM by David Adesnik  

YOUR OWN MAN SAYS SO: According to the WaPo, Hans Blix's report to the UN provides all the evidence that the Security Coucil needs to declare that Saddam is in material breach.

The Post is right, of course. And now that you think about it, aren't you glad that Hans Blix has been so incompetent and uncooperative up until now? I mean, absolutely no one can say that Blix gave such a damning report because he is an American frontman. As such, Hans Blix has given the Bush administration exactly what the French and Germans fear most: credibility. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:06 PM by David Adesnik  

CALPUNDIT VEERS LEFT: Here's Kevin on America bullying Europe:

Lincoln Plawg asks: The question for the US is, of course, what position could the Europeans take up, short of supine submission to each and every US proposal, that the Administration would approve?

I've been wondering that myself. Are Europeans even allowed to disagree with U.S. policy anymore?

That's the whole post, word for word. Kevin, I've praised your work very highly before. You put up more thoughtful, in-depth posts than almost any other blogger. So why is it now acceptable to bash America without a solid argument to back the bashing up?
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:45 PM by David Adesnik  

FAREED ZAKARIA, OPTIMIST: Zakaria thinks a US invasion of Iraq will benefit the Middle East. A definite surprise coming from the man who gave us "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" and "Our Way: The Trouble With Being the World's Only Superpower." Then again, anyone who endorses OxBlog has to have a bit of the naive idealist in them.

Even so, I almost expect Newsweek to declare that this column is a fabrication, a subtle reminder of Time Magazine's unmasked incompetence. But why look a gift horse in the mouth? Here is Zakaria striking conclusion:

There are always risks involved when things change. But for the past 40 years the fear of these risks has paralyzed Western policy toward the Middle East. And what has come of this caution? Repression, radical Islam and terror. I’ll take my chances with change.

Damn right. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:12 PM by David Adesnik  

CHUCK HAGEL, MAN OF PRINCIPLE: I don't agree with a word Hagel says, but you have to give him credit for opposing his own party's President at a time when the nation is opposing the brink of war.

One might argue that Hagel's words are nothing more than a cynical effort to track polls which show a majority of independent voters opposing a war without UN approval.

But why oppose a President who demonstrated just two months ago that he is willing to fight hard for his party's Senate candidates and then lead them to victory? Principle. Or perhaps Hagel is an idiot. One of the people I trust most when it comes to foreign policy, someone who happens to share Hagel's affiliation with the GOP, has firmly insisted for years that Hagel is, in fact, an idiot. Only time will tell.

At the moment, John Kerry seems to be chasing the idiocy crown. In the same WaPo article which quotes Hagel, Kerry accuses the Bush administration of "alienating our longtime friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world" through its "blustering unilateralism." Isn't one supposed to alarm one's foes? More importantly, didn't Kerry learn what happens to democratic contenders who blame America for anti-Americanism? Campaigning for the primaries may cost Kerry come Novermber.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:43 PM by David Adesnik  

SAFIRE UNBOWED: Among the first to insist that Saddam has significant ties to Al Qaeda, Bill Safire says that time has proven him right and that Colin Powell knows it. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:35 PM by David Adesnik  

OXBLOG IS IRRELEVANT. There is no need to comment on Hans Blix's report to the Security Council. It speaks for itself. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:33 PM by David Adesnik  

BLAIR'S GAMBLE ON MORAL CLARITY: Today's NYT article on Tony Blair's defiance of British public opinion complements a similar article in the current issue of The Weekly Standard.

Both articles are excellent overall, especially in their portrayal of Blair's principled stand in the face of overwhelming opposition. And while both Warren Hoge and Irwin Stelzer are clearly sympathetic to the Prime Minister, they underestimate his political talents by an order of magnitude.

One comes away from both authors' work with a sense that Blair's commitment to principle may have robbed him of the leadership role he nurtured so carefully both in Britain and throughout Europe. Yet rather than sacrificing his achievements, Blair's is gambling that an Anglo-American triumph in Iraq will establish him as the greatest Prime Minister since Churchill.

Neither Hoge nor Stelzer explores what effect a successful invasion of Iraq -- followed by the revelation of overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein has been lying to the Security Council -- might have on Blair's reputation. When the weapons are found, German and French intransigence will have been exposed as a self-righteous and outright selfish endeavor that protected the government of a brutal tyrant.

When the weapons are found, German and French aspirations to international leadership will have been set back a generation. In contrast, Britain will have won the lasting gratitude of the lone superpower in addition to having established itself as the one nation other than the United States with the potential to lead the international community.

Perhaps most important of all, Blair will have left behind his life as a politician and become a statesman. In democratic nations, the highest praise is reserved for those leaders who, as a matter of principle, sacrifice their standing in the short term only to win great admiration later on when their principles are vindicated. This is that path that Churchill followed in resisting Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler and insisting that Britain must stand up for what it believes.

Perhaps none of this will come to pass. And even if it does, Blair may share Churcill's legacy of defeat at the polls in the aftermath of war. But Churchill changed what it means to be British. In Blair's commitment to principle one senses that he is more interested in forging a stron gBritish identity for the post-Cold War era rather than ensuring victory at the polls.

Wisest of all, Blair knows that no amount of rhetoric, of spin, will convince others that he is right. Only events can change the public mind. That is Blair's gamble. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:39 AM by David Adesnik  

$200 MILLION? Some people will pay anything to get their names into the NYT and the WSJ. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:43 PM by David Adesnik  

NO WINNERS: Yossi Klein Halevi on Tuesday's election in Israel:

Sharon cannot really win this election. Even if he forms the next government, he has already lost his most precious asset--his progress in reversing a lifelong reputation for recklessness and becoming a symbol of stability and consensus. Sharon's achievement had been to subordinate ideology to national unity. He sacrificed the agenda that defined his political career, opposing a Palestinian state, to rally Israelis around the agenda that defined his military career, fighting Palestinian terrorism. In so doing, he recreated the two preconditions for every past Israeli victory: national cohesion and the ability to take the war into enemy territory.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:21 PM by David Adesnik  

COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is a neurological condition, not a liberal conspiracy. In a classic case of ideology overwhelming science, almost every major coservative voice in the media -- The National Review, The Weekly Standard, Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Sowell, Policy Review, Phyllis Schlafly, Jonah Goldberg, Frank Fukuyama, and more -- have declared that ADD and its cure, Ritalin, are what has resulted from the liberal desire to medicate childhood and emasculate American boys.

What makes the TNR expose of this trend so intriguing is that it is written by a conservative and cites sources -- most of them medical experts -- who are also conservative. And then it ends by making a conservative case for the seriousness of ADD and the value of Ritalin. As the author explains, ADD medication

"reflects and reinforces conservative values. For one thing, [these medications] increase personal responsibility by removing an excuse that children (and their parents) can fall back on to explain misbehavior and poor performance...Moreover, unlike liberals, who tend to downplay differences between the sexes, conservatives are inclined to believe that there are substantial physiological differences-- differences such as boys' greater tendency to suffer ADHD."

There are a number of lessons to be taken from the Ritalin debate. First is the way in which the partisan media can become an echo chamber reinforcing prejudices on each side of the liberal-conservative divide. (Regular visitors will know that this is not a disingenuous attack on the conservative media, since I am a constant and vocal critic of liberal media bias.)

Second, pundits need to take special care in addressing the relationship between science and public policy, since it is all too easy to let simple applications of ideology substitute for the hard work of scientific research.

Third -- and most important from my personal perspective -- is recognition of the fact that no individual knows enough about enough issues to avoid becoming reliant on ideology as a guide. We all have our own prejudices, and errors are inevitable. As such, the best test of objectivity may be whether one is honest enough to admit one's mistakes and try to do better next time.

This point has personal significance for (aspiring?) centrists such as myself, since we have no ideology to guide us. Uncomfortable with the confident statements of pundits on both left and right, centrists are often most liable to become cynics. But that I am not. I believe that a better effort can be made, and that the media has a long way to go before it can claim that human imperfection is the only thing standing in the way of fairer reporting. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:24 PM by David Adesnik  

FASCISM VS. COMMUNISM: Most visitors to the blogosphere tend to scroll down from the top of pages they visit rather than scrolling upwards from the bottom. While practical, reading from the bottom up doesn't work when one encounters a series of posts that are incomprehensible when read from last to first. Since this weekend's running debate about the history and moral status of Fascism and Communism is just such a series, I have assembled a set of links below which will should make it easier to follow what Josh and I have been saying.

1. David comments on Glenn Reynolds' view of Communism.

2. Josh argues that Communism's dangers must be recognized.

3. David responds that Josh is oversimplifying.

4. Josh demands examples of Communist governments that were not totalitarian dictatorships.

5. David provides them.

6. Josh insists that Communism is a governing philosophy which must be judged according to how its adherents governed.

7. David takes issue with Josh's standards of judgment.

8. Coming soon? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:08 PM by David Adesnik  

FASCISM VS. COMMUNISM REDUX: Josh is standing by his assertion that Communism and Fascism are moral equivalents, a point I have already deconstructed once. As before, Josh's argument rests on the construction of artificial standards for judging the moral worth of an idea.

In his most recent missive, Josh avers that "Nazism, like Communism, is a governing philosophy, and must be judged according to the way it governs. And that is overwhelmingly brutal." While my knowledge of philosophy pales in comparison to that of Mr. Chafetz, I sene that the term "governing philosophy" is no different from the more general term "political philosophy". Therefore, there is no reason to judge a given political philosophy solely according to how it governs, rather than how it functions in opposition, in the social and economic realms, or in the academy.

This point is critical because Josh absolutely refuses to acknowledge the moral significance of many non-Stalinist Communists search for social justice. Forced to admit that this positive aspect of Communistm did exist, Josh now responds that "Nazis supported some worthy causes, as well (decreasing unemployment and raising the standard of living for the working class, for one). Are we wrong to judge them, too, 'according to their political record alone'?"

There is a very simple answer to this question. The Nazis who wantd to raise living standards for the working class were the same Nazis who murdered 6 million Jews. But the Communists who worked for decades to organize labor unions throughout the United States and Western Europe often (not always) had nothing to do with Lenin, Stalin or other brutal Communist dictators.

That said, perhaps I can offer Josh a thought which will make him comfortable with accepting the multifaceted nature of Communism. It goes like this: Throughout the Cold War, at a time when Communism threatened to overrun the nations of Western Europe as well countless others, prominent figures on the intellecutal and political left sought -- sometimes naively and sometimes disingenuously -- to mitigate perceptions of a Communist threat by comparing the Communist record favorably to that of the Fascists. In doing so, these figures referred to the same positive aspects of the Communist legacy that I have referred to in my posts.

Such arguments were deeply flawed in both moral and political terms because they sought to mitigate the brutality of existing Communist governments through reference to the positive actions of those Communists who sought legitimate forms in the West. I rejects such arguments unequivocally. Nonethless, it is a historical fact that Communism gave rise to both brutal and humane political movements, the latter of which ought to be recognized for their contribution to social justice.

NB: Josh also raised the point that Marxism inspired socialists and social democrats as well as Communists. Thus, I was wrong to say that "political movements based on Marx's ideas have referred to themselves as Commuist rather than Marxist." What I should have said was that "political movements based exclusively on Marx's ideas have referred to themselves as Commuist rather than Marxist." Socialism and social democracy have a complex intellectual heritage which draws on many sources other than Marx. In contrast, pure Marxist political movements, as far as I know, prefer to refer to themselves as Communist. And it is these Communists who sometimes fought for social justice. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:24 PM by David Adesnik  

RIGHT-WING PROPAGANDA: "Saddam Hussein is obviously a brutal dictator who deserves toppling. No one who knows his history can doubt that he is secretly trying to develop weapons of mass destruction...The inspectors alone will never disarm Iraq." Is this the Washington Times? The National Review? The Weekly Standard? Josh Chafetz? All wrong. It's the New York Times.

Anti-war commentators are becomig desperate. They can no longer pretend that inspections might work or that Saddam does not have proscribed weapons. They are searching for any justification whatsoever to hold off an invasion. Consider, for instance, what the Times has come up with to counter its admission that Saddam is in material breach of Resolution 1441:

Mr. Bush has never...been clear about exactly why we are preparing to fight. Sometimes his aim appears to be disarming the Iraqis or punishing Baghdad for defying the United Nations; sometimes the goal is nothing short of deposing Mr. Hussein. The first lesson of the Vietnam era was that Americans should not be sent to die for aims the country only vaguely understands and accepts.

The critical flaw in this argument is that the American public would not hesitate for a second to support the invasion of Iraq if it shared the Times' belief that "No one who knows his history can doubt that he is secretly trying to develop weapons of mass destruction." As polls have shown, what Americans want is more evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, not a justification for enforcing 1441.

Ironically, the Times has backed itself into the same corner as French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who said just a few days ago that "Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process." As Jonah Goldberg points out, "if France knows [this] for 'a fact,' then France also knows for a fact that Iraq has such weapons programs. After all, you can't block or freeze what doesn't exist..."

In the final analysis, no self-respecting multilateralist can argue both that Iraq is in material breach of 1441 and that the United States should hold back from enforcing the UN's stated will.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:03 PM by David Adesnik  

AN ANSWER FOR VENEZUELA from Harvard's top scholars of Latin American politics. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:57 AM by David Adesnik  

CHAFETZ AND DOWD CLOSE TO AGREEMENT: Confounding those who predicted that Maureen Dowd would not apologize for her use of a fabricated Time Magazine story to whack George, old MoDo has fessed up.

Then, in a rhetorical twist reminiscient of the mighty Chafetz, she asks "Why keep a tradition of honoring the Confederacy...

Of course, the rest of her question demonstrates why see and Josh C. will never she eye to eye: "...while you're going to court to stop a tradition of helping black students at the University of Michigan?" I would comment on the offensive nature of that remark, but I think it's abject stupidity is fairly self-evident. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:43 AM by David Adesnik  

POT, KETTLE, BLACK: From the NYT article on the secular-religious divide in Israeli politics:

"Israel is becoming more religious — both Jews and Arabs," said Rabbi Yaakov Solomon, 28..."But the secular side is becoming more and more extreme."

A member of Parliament from [the religious nationalist party] Herut, Michael Kleiner, has advocated bombing Palestinian cities and killing 1,000 Palestinians for every Jew killed in the conflict.

Now give me some of that old time religion! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:52 AM by David Adesnik  

JOSH ASKS, "Can you name a single Communist government that was not a totalitarian dictatorship?" First of all, yes. Second of all, that's the wrong question to ask.

While short lived, the Commuist governments of Guatemala in the 1950s and Czechoslovakia in the 1960s were not totalitarian dictatorships. For the definitive account of Jacobo Arbenz and Guatemalan Communism, see Piero Gleijeses' book, Shattered Hope.

While some revisionists have sought to argue that Arbenz was never a Communist, Gleijeses shows both that he was and that he went to certain lengths to hide that fact from both domestic and international audiences. However, Gleijeses also shows that Arbenz was an aggressive social reformer who did more for the Guatemalan poor in his few years in power than the rest of Guatemala's governments did ever.

In addition, Arbenz was a democrat, who won the presidency in free and fair elections. Moreover, he did not move to prevent further elections that might have brought the opposition to power. Of course, Eisenhower had no interest in promoting democracy, and thus ordered the CIA to overthrow Arbenz, thus ushering in three decades of brutal dictatorship which resulted in the the death of tens of thousands of innocent Guatemalans.

While I am not as familiar with the Dubcek/Swoboda government in Czechoslovakia, I will tell you what I learned from John Gaddis, a historian who has never been accused of exaggerating the merits of Communism. While Dubcek and Swoboda were not elected, they began to grant Czechoslovakians rights which were unheard of in the Communist bloc. Their reforms culminated in the legendary Prague Spring of 1968 and the brutal Soviet invasion which brought it to an end.

While Dubcek and Swoboda had no interest in resisting Soviet control of the Warsaw Pact, they did advocate "Communism with a human face". There was no chance, however, that the Soviets could remain passive in the face of living proof that their Communism lacked the humanity of its Czech variant.

What the tragic history of Guatemala and Czechoslovakia illustrates is that there were few opportunities for a better Communism to flourish in a world divided by the Cold War. The brutality of Communism was a result of the conscious decisions of brutal individuals such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and their violent avant garde. While I value economic freedom enough to reject Communism out of hand, it is foolish to write off all Communists as no different from Stalin.

This brings me to Josh's second point, that he has no idea who I'm thinking of when I say that there were many idealistic Communists who fought for social justice. I mentioned the role of Communists in 19c. Europe, but Judith Weiss at Kesher Talk has reminded me of the critical role played by Communists in the American progressive movement of the interwar era. As Judith notes, according to

a new book about civil-rights activist Anne Braden, from the turn of the century up to WWII, if you thought segregation and Jim Crow were wrong, if you thought women should be able to get birth control and credit in their own names, if you didn't think Modern Art was the harbinger of social chaos, and if you wanted to find others like yourself and maybe even do something to further your ideals, you ended up hanging out with Communists. That's where the action was. Although its flawed ideas and the application of those ideas by fanatics led to economic ruin and enormous human-rights abuses which I have no desire to whitewash, Communism was at its core an ideology of human rights at a time when social inequalities were vast and many still believed in the divine ordination of social and gender heirarchy.

I can provide some independent confirmation of Judith's point, since in my course on American with the legendary David Montgomery, we learned about the critical role of Communists in organizing America's industrial unions.

All this should demonstrate why Josh's question about whether or not there have been good Communist governments is the wrong question to ask. Governments were not the only forum in which Communists were active, so to judge them according to their political record alone is counterproductive.

On a final note, I'd like to respond to Josh's belief that I am "conflating Communism with all Marxism". First off, Josh's distinction is valid, since there are many scholars who work within a Marxist analytical framework but are not Communists. Yet as far as I know, political movements based on Marx's ideas have referred to themselves as Commuist rather than Marxist. After all, he didn't call it "The Marxist Manifesto".

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:14 PM by David Adesnik  

HOLD ON, JOSH. It isn't easy to have two conversations at once. But thanks to the information revolution we can try.

In response to my argument that Stalin's brutality should not reflect on either Marx himself or other well-intentioned Communists, Josh asks, "Should we then refrain from thinking ill of all fascists because not all of them wound up to be genocidal maniacs?"

Sorry, Josh. The old "Communist-fascist switch" isn't going to work on me. Fascism tends to refer to Nazism, Mussolini's Italian fascism, and other European derivations thereof. None of them had any redeeming value. In contrast, there were many idealistic Communists, especially in the 19th century, who turned their ideological commitment toward the ends of social justice. Since I made that point before and you didn't respond to it, I'll assume that you agree.

As for your argument that a commitment to historical materialism entails a belief that Marxism in practice is the "true Marxism", I'm not sure where you're coming from. On the most basic level, historical materialism refers to the belief that one can only understand history in terms of the economic forces that shaped it. Some historical materialists interpet this mean that ideas are a "superstructure", i.e. nothing more than a reflection of the economic "base" that serves as their foundation.

While some historical materialists may have asserted that one can judge an idea according to the historical developments which bear its name, doing so contradicts historical materialism by assuming that the idea itself rather than associated social forces were responsible for those developments.

Even so, one has to reckon with the fact that Communism had "a tendency to churn out murderous despots", and thus, you add, "deserves our scorn." Frankly, it's hard to scorn a tendency. Do we scorn Christianity because it had a tendency to launch crusades and pogroms? Islam because of its terrorists? In the case of such complex phenomena, I prefer to hold invididuals accountable for their own actions and beliefs, thus preserving a sense of the ways in which controversial ideas can produce different outcomes in different situations.

Getting to your last point, I think it important to recognize that there are many on the Continent who "no longer wear the badge of Communism" but are still suspicious of those who refuse to recognize the distiction between Stalinism and Western European communism. And, while I am well aware of Herr Fischer's record, the fact remains that he is the German foreign minister and that he is far from the only European minister who has a similar background. While I understand your reluctance to accommodate those such as Joschka, I think that doing so is infinitely better than provoking conflicts which only benefit Saddam Hussein. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:30 PM by David Adesnik  

JOSH, I AGREE that you are on logical ground when you point out that one cannot oppose an invasion of Iraq after supporting an attack on Yugoslavia unless one identifies the current war as a matter of blood for oil. But I'm not sure that those who now protest against a war on Iraq ever supported what happened in Kosovo.

The anti-war movement of today is an outgrowth of the anti-IMF/World Bank activism that we now associate with the innocence of September 10th. If memory serves, the anti-IMF/World Bank movement more or less opposed the bombing of Yugoslavia as a matter of aggressio albeit for moral ends. While I won't defend that statement any further without the chance to do some research, I think it is generally correct.

Those who did support the war in Kosovo, such as Chirac and Schroeder, do not now rely on simplistic arguments about waging war for oil. Instead, they defend the semi-plausible argument inspections need more time to work.

As such, I think that "No Blood For Oil" reflects the transition of Marxist analytical thought from intellectual paradigm to common sense throughout much of Europe. This is not to say that "No Blood For Oil" is a flawed argument because of its intellectual pedigree. The real issue is a lack of evidence.

More importantly, I sense that many of those who accept the logic of blood for oil reject Marxism and Communism as firmly as ourselves. This is what I mean when I say that Marxist analysis has become common sense. In Europe, one will not find oneself alone on either the left, the right or the center if one identifies the search for wealth as the foundation of foreign policy, especially American foreign policy. In contrast, Americans think of foreign policy in terms of security and ideology.

It is this divide, no less than the one between multilateralists and unilateralists, that has prevented the Western democracies from coming together to bring justice to Saddam Hussein. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:09 PM by David Adesnik  

INSTAPUNDIT'S INSTACOMMUNISM: Glenn Reynolds says that

It's not McCarthyite to call people who are communists, communists. Communists, as devoted followers of murderous totalitarianism, deserve to be called to account every bit as much as their Nazi colleagues. And in the 21st century, they can hardly pretend to be ignorant of their ideology's true nature.

Not so fast. While there isn't much good to say about the Communist record in world politics, it is important both as a matter of principle as well as matter of pragmatics to recognize that the Communism of Mao and Stalin was not the Communism of either Karl Marx or his Western heirs.

As a matter of principle it is important to recognize that the intellectual contributions of Marx and the Western Communist tradition -- as well as their passionate commitment to social justice -- should not be blackened by an unjust association with those who turned Marxism to their own brutal ends. In contrast, there was only one Nazism, that of Adolf Hitler.

From a practical persepctive, simplistic denunciations of Communism ensure the widening of the gulf that separates America from Europe. While 1960s radicals such as Joschka Fischer have become more moderate in the process of becoming mainstream political and social figures, few of them have forgotten what it was like to believe in the human potential of Communism. Misguided as their faith was, they still stand ready to denounce as unthinking conservatives those who cannot separate Soviet Communism from its Western European counterpart.

While paying closer attention to European sensibilities may not have a tangible impact on the current coflict over how to disarm Saddam Hussein, a greater willingness to talk politics with the Europeans on their own terms may help them build an intellectual framework for the post-Cold War era that is not anchored in the conflicts of the Cold War. With such a framework in place, it may become possible to avoid such coflicts the next time the West has to confront a brutal dictator bent on developing weapons of mass destruction. After all, no one benefits from such coflicts except the dictators themselves.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:26 PM by David Adesnik  

COMMON SENSE FROM DOWN UNDER: Patrick Porter -- a good friend of mine, a rising force among historians of Europe, an Australian and an avowed multilateralist -- has this to say about the logic of "No Blood For Oil":

For some analysts it is obvious that a lone superpower will capitalise on opportunities to secure its economic interests. For protesters it is immoral to sacrifice blood for oil. For either, it is often a 'real' reason, even the lone reason, behind the camouflage of Bush's stated reasons [for wanting to invade Iraq].

[Yet] one does not have to be an expert on the global oil economy, American foreign policy or Middle Eastern politics to realise how simplistic this is.

Is it so obviously in America's oil interests to attack Saddam Hussein, which risks destabilising the region and alienating other Arab nations? The enormous costs of such a war, which might precipitate a US recession, must also have occured to the US administration. Can we really sensibly say that the US is prepared to gamble its domestic prosperity and foreign economic resources so recklessly for more oil? If anything, this so-called dollar-driven war might well involve considerable economic sacrifices. If this is an oil-driven war, it comes with profound risks...

Finally, even if hypothetically America could enrich itself and its oil reserves without risk or complication, that is not enough. Causality requires demonstrating a link between acts, interests, objectives, and events. The nexus between oil and foreign policy must be proven. It is not clear that nation-states, particularly powerful ones reacting to acts of war, always define their interests in purely economic terms. It might be true that despite everything, oil plays a significant role in US objectives. But like any other thesis, it needs evidence.

I make this argument as someone opposed to unilateral pre-emptive strikes. One can still challenge the legitimacy of America's position in relation to Iraq. But under serious analysis, the oil thesis emerges as little more than cheap rhetoric.

Naturally, OxBlog is sympathetic to Patrick's views. What's really interesting about them, though, is their focus on the logic of causality. While some of us often take it for granted that the left will always argue that greed is the engine of aggression, one has to ask why anti-war protesters are so wedded to this specific empirical position, as opposed to the more defensible ethical position that war is unthinkable unless one is attacked first.

Or perhaps one should ask, which comes first: the belief that war is wrong, or the belief that this is a war for oil and therefore it is wrong? Do those who assume the former simply accept the latter because it reinforces their position? I don't know.

Rather than arguing against the anti-war position, the more interesting question may be what leads people to it. While I'm not all that concerned about the self-defeating American anti-war movement, it might be interesting to know what really drives European anti-war sentiment. Resentment of American power? Self-interest? Sincere pacifism? Or the belief that this is a war for oil? If we knew, we might be able to avoid the constant conflicts that set back our efforts to disarm and overthrow Saddam Hussein. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:10 PM by David Adesnik  

NIHILISM OR NAIVETE? Patrick Ruffini has an interesting post up on the deficit of constructive thinking in the anti-war movement. As Patrick sees it, the inability of anti-war thinkers to offer any serious proposals for protecting the United States or confronting brutal dictators in the Middle East qualifies as a form of nihilism.

I tend to disagree. Whether explicitly of not, the leadership of the anti-war movement tends to believe that anti-American sentiment is a natural reaction to American aggression. Therefore, if America resists the impulse to invade Iraq, it will have taken the first step toward redressing Middle Eastern grievances. This view is logically consistent, albeit sadly naive.

What Patrick might argue is that opposing war from a leftist or liberal perspective is hypocritical. On the left, as Patrick observes,

There's no discussion of peaceful ways to achieve regime change — or even any recognition that this brutal, illiberal dictator needs to go. No speaking out in solidarity with repressed Iraqi minorities or women. No exploration of ways to trigger democratic change in the region. No plan for challenging regimes they believe to be even worse, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea.

But if one truly believes that American aggression is the foremost existing threat to human rights, than prioritizing the anti-war campaign is not hypocritical.

In the final analysis, the absence of constructive recommendations on the left may be the reason that it's influence is so limited. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:54 PM by Daniel  

WHO'S YOUR DADDY. According to Bill Keller, Dubya's political one is Ronald Reagan. I especially agree that both "have made a political virtue of being -- in Bush's word -- ''misunderestimated'' by the political elite." There is nothing better than low expectations--Bush welcomes them.


(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:48 PM by David Adesnik  

ANGRY CHICKEN FARMER, PART DEUX: Earlier this week, OxBlog took the NYT to task for its groundless allegations about Iraqi public opinion. Now as if to mock the Times, the WaPo has covered the same story but gotten it right.

Once again, the hero of the story is an angry chicken farmer, Mr. Anwar. Whereas the NYT made Anwar seem like a legitimate symbol of Iraqi grievances, the WaPo pointed out that

Anwar's anger would not have rated so much as a footnote in the annals of arms inspections in Iraq if the Information Ministry had not convened a news conference for him today and then organized a field trip to his farm, where he showed off a hole about 18 inches wide and four feet high in the storage building."

In other words, the most apalling instance of UN abuse Saddam could come up with was the vicious destruction of a brick wall on a chicken farm.

(NB: I have nothing against chicken farms or farmers. A while back, I defended them from the wrath of the vegetarians. Nonetheless, I find something humorous about a disgruntled chicken farmer becoming the NYT's symbol of Iraqi national pride.)

Anyway, the Post also outdid the Times by pointing to the real significance of Chickengate, which is that

Anwar's comments, delivered with government imprimatur, suggested Iraqi officials have once again shifted their stance toward the inspections, abandoning the conciliatory attitude they projected when the top two U.N. weapons inspectors visited Baghdad on Sunday and Monday.

Note to Howell Raines: The WaPo is now accepting applications for summer internships. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:25 PM by David Adesnik  

DELUSION OF THE DAY: According to E.J. Dionne, Rep. Charles Rangel's proposal to restart the draft "struck a nerve because virtually all Americans know there is a hole in our post-9/11 expressions of patriotism. 'What we're going through now,' Rangel said in an interview, 'is patriotism lite. Put a flag on your lapel. Put a flag on your car. Put a bigger one on your SUV.'

WHAT??? Rangel is basically saying that this is a war for oil, and that rich, white Americans will be happy to send poor black Americans off to fight for it.

If there were even a shred of evidence behind Rangel or Dionne's assertions, then the tens of thousands of protesters who demonstrated against the war should have consisted mainly of the families of soldiers, not the privileged children of the middle-class (led by unrepentant Stalinists).

And, if memory serves, the inequalities of the Vietnam-era draft were the reason middle-class students (think Clinton) got deferrals or joined the National Guard (a la Quayle and Bush). At the same time, the Department of Defense was thinking of every way it could to find more soldiers without offending the middle-class, even if that meant lowering the passing grade on intelligence tests so that men once considered mentally incompetent could be sent off to fight the Vietcong.

So here's to the men and women of the United States' all-volunteer armed forces. Men and women who of their own volition have said they are willing to lay down their lives for a country they believe in. I am honored to have them carry our flag. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:53 PM by David Adesnik  

GRADE INFLATION: Saddam will get a 'B' for his compliance with inspections according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Perhaps 'Incomplete' would be more accurate.

Then again, according to Paul Wolfowitz, "we know from multiple sources that Saddam has ordered that any scientists who cooperate during interviews will be killed, as well as their families." I guess what's going on at the UN is the same thing that goes on at universities when a student is on the brink of failure. Rather than file all the paperwork necessary to confirm a failing grade, the professors simply pass the student on to the next level and the next professor. The game continues until the dean or provost has to make a final decision and enforce the rules so that the university's reputation remains intact.

In a unipolar world, there is only one dean and he has had enough of uncooperative professors. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:12 AM by Daniel  

TONIGHT, PETER BEINART WILL BE PLAYING TOM FRIEDMAN. Beinart on affirmative action. He opens up his article much like a Friedman column.

I do feel that it is inconsistent and unfair to be against affirmative action based on race and ethnicity while allowing for other preferences such as geography and family history. You can't be against some preferences some of the time or for them when they suit you.

"But, if affirmative action is justified when it helps the political fortunes of the GOP, why isn't it justified when it helps create a racially diverse college campus?"

Is it fair to be against one type of non-merit preference but not others? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:42 AM by David Adesnik  

SNOOKERED! HOODWINKED! BAMBOOZLED! Turns out the whole Confederate wreath story was a fabrication. Time has issued a retraction and taken the story off its site, but without any explanation for how the story got there in the first place. See Josh Marshall for details.

Now, I hope the whole story doesn't end here, because it has become a case study in media irresponisibility and bias. What I really can't figure out is how Time got quotes from the United Daughters of the Confederacy saying that Bush Sr. had stopped sending wreaths in 1990. According to the Time retraction, what Bush Sr. actually did is change the date of the wreath's sending from Jefferson Davis' birthday to Memorial Day. Good for him.

In addition to Time, the biggest losers from this whole debacle are the Daughters of the Confederacy and other organizations associated with the same cause, whose offensive views were picked up by the mainstream. Oh yeah. And all the bloggers who now have egg on their face because they made so much of the initial story.

Mr. President, I owe you an apology. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:18 AM by Daniel  

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Hillary Clinton, the Junior Senator from New Jersey or New York, I think, makes good points about the potential pitfalls (including constitutional problems) of Bush's percentage plan. She is right that there is "no one-size-fits-all approach to one of our country's most complicated problems."

Where she loses me is her support for the University of Michigan's policy, which I think is pretty absurd--awarding a student 20 points out of 150 for being member of a historically underrepresented minority.

I have a problem with Michigan's specific policy--20 points for ethnicity, 3 for a perfect essay, and 12 for a perfect score on the SAT--not the broader idea of taking race into account among several factors (schools already take factors like gender, geography, athletics, and if parents attended). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:08 AM by Daniel  

CONDI MAKES HER CASE. As far as she is concerned, Iraq's actions constitute a material breach. Let's see what happens with our erstwhile allies when we "rub their nose in reality."

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:08 PM by David Adesnik  

BLIX STILL A UNILATERALIST: Fred Barnes has the story. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:10 PM by David Adesnik  

GET READY FOR HYPOCRISY: The President has already begun to sell his 2004 budget even though Congress hasn't passed 11 of the 13 budget bills for 2003. Why does that matter? Think of it this way: at the same time that the President is trying to present his 2004 spending plans as generous, the GOP leadership in Congress will be doing away with the social programs that Bush promised for 2003. But what's really ironic is that Congress is only cutting these programs because the President's Office of Managment and the Budget (OMB) told it to save $10 billion...at the same time the President is calling for almost $700 billion in tax cuts. This is going to get ugly.

UPDATE: A little more hypocrisy. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:27 PM by David Adesnik  

BUSH THE TRAITOR: Says who? Josh Chafetz. That's who. As Maureen Dowd informs us, Bush has

quietly reinstituted the practice — which lapsed under his father in 1990 — of sending a floral wreath on Memorial Day from the White House to the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, where those nostalgic for the Old South celebrate Jefferson Davis.

Yet as Josh has observed, the secession of the Confederacy was "the single greatest act of treason in American history." Moreover, "what, precisely, do [Jefferson] Davis and the Confederacy stand for that is so good that it outweighs both their position on slavery and their act of treason?" I dunno. I guess Josh will have to ask the President.

UPDATE: Mike Daley writes in to say that I'm being very unfair to Josh. He points to this post by the Minute Man which exposes some problems with the original Time Magazine story that Dowd drew on for her column.

That said, I stand by my post. Those who glorify the Confederacy directly associate the Arlington memorial with the legitimate (as they see it) cause of Southern independence. As such, the President was wrong to recognize it with his public support.

Anyway, here are some quotes from a speech given at the Arlington memorial on Jefferson Davis' birthday in 1999. If Bush had heard the speech he might have thought twice about sending flowers.

"This monument captures ideals and accomplishments that still existed at the end of the War for Southern Independence. Thank God it does not depict the beginning of the Reconstruction Era, the most disgusting, disgraceful and destructive period in United States history from which the South has never fully recovered...

"[19th century] Europe was the scene of radical new ideas about religion, politics and social order. During those years a steady stream of New England intellectuals went to Europe and drank deeply from the wells of the radical social philosophers. These New England intellectuals were really elitists who returned to America convinced that Southern Biblical Christianity ought to be suppressed because it was a stumbling block to the progress of mankind...many of [them], incidentally were Abolitionists..."

"There was indeed a profound difference in theology between the North and the South in ante-bellum America. The Northern intellectual leadership preached a heretical and socialist Gospel. The South held on to a robust, traditional, Trinitarian Christianity..."

"If we Southerners continue to allow people to refer to this war as the Civil War we will be participating in the subversion of the noble reasons for which our ancestors took up arms to defend their lives, homes and culture from Northern aggression. If we continue to use the term Civil War we are encouraging the general public to believe that the war was fought only because of the South's obsession with maintaining slavery which is a bald-faced lie. I believe that the term Civil War was a Yankee euphemism for Northern aggression leading to the destruction of the South and her culture..."

The one good thing I can say about the speech is that it's very pro-Jewish. Really.

2ND UPDATE: No, I don't actually think Bush is a traitor. Nor does Josh. As Mr. Chafetz points out via e-mail, one cannot be a traitor without actively supporting a treacherous cause. I was just being snarky. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:04 PM by David Adesnik  

NYT CLAIMS OMNISCIENCE: Given how hard it is to figure out what the American public is thinking, one has to marvel at the ability of the NY Times to figure out what the Iraqi public wants.

According to an NYT headline, "Iraqis Ambivalent on Inspections". Thanks to an extended interview with a disgruntled chicken farmer, one learns that he resents the UN inspectors for tearing down a brick wall on his farm.

One also hears from an imam at a new mosque in Baghdad about which the inspectors wanted information. As he cleverly asks, "Are they looking for weapons of mass destruction or are they investigating the faith in our hearts? This is provocative to the Muslims of Iraq."

Perhaps what is more provocative to the Muslims of Iraq is when the government murders their chosen imams and replaces them with Saddam's henchmen. So forgive me if I don't grant all that much credibility to the opinion of this specific imam.

Speaking in broad terms, the Times concludes that Iraqis' "anger seems fueled in part by wounded pride, of what they see as arrogant foreigners banging down the closed doors of a sovereign nation." And there you have it, folks. The world's greatest newspaper telling us that the people of Iraq think the UN is more arrogant than Saddam.

UPDATE: Apparently, there is a glimmer of recognition on the NYT editorial board that government intimidation prevents Iraqis from being honest. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:25 PM by David Adesnik  

ALLIES OF THE AXIS: Trent Telenko has quite an interesting post up on the Pakistan-North Korea connection and what it says about the failure of Clinton's non-proliferation efforts.

Also, don't miss Trent's post on the unreported but pervasive corruption that may bring down North Korea. No question about it -- Winds of Change is back with a vengeance. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:54 PM by David Adesnik  

A (VERY SNARKY) RESPONSE FOR JOSH: While "snarky" is, in fact, a real word -- defined according to Webster's as a derivation of "to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate" -- that does not mean it should be used. The word itself is, well, snarky.

But let me get to the point. Josh's analogy between Michigan's affirmative action program and the Democratic primaries is flawed. Whereas an unlimited number of Michigan applicants can receive a full score of 150, the total primary vote cannot exceed 100%. Therefore, to give Sharpton a 13.3% bonus is absurd.

As for Josh's more general point -- that if affirmative action applies to education, it should apply to politics as well -- the fact is that it does. Remember the whole racial redistricting controversy in the 90's? While I don't have a strong position on the issue, I think that defenders of the Michigan system can be loyal to their principles by supporting the creation of such districts while rejecting a primary bonus for President Sharpton. (Has a nice ring to it, huh?)

Last but not least, I'd like to say that if one accepts Josh's premise that the institution of the presidency has a history of racism, blacks certainly aren't the only groups left out. The answer: Condi/Chafetz '08. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:19 PM by Daniel  

NOT EXACTLY. In her article discussing some interesting parallels between John Kerry's campaign and that of Michael Dukakis, Joan Vennochi refers to John Sasso as "Dukakis' strategist." However, Dukakis fired John Sasso during the Democratic primaries in early 1988 because of the unscrupulous manner by which Sasso leaked the fact that Joe Biden cheated in law school. Sasso likely would have advocated, and the campaign might have implemented, a tougher strategy against Father Bush's race baiting attacks. So to call Sasso "Dukakis' strategist" is a bit misleading. Read all about this in "What it Takes" by Richard Ben Cramer ,which is an excellent account of the 1988 campaign (and note the similarities with 2004, at least on the Democratic side).

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:31 PM by David Adesnik  

ACID FLASHBACK: According to German Foreign Minister (and former 60's radical) Joschka Fischer, "Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground...we think things are moving in the right direction, based on the efforts of the inspection team, and [they] should have all the time which is needed."

In contrast, 75% of Americans say that Saddam has not cooperated. Only 11% think diplomacy has a "good chance" of resolving the US-Iraq conflict. (Scroll down to Questions 9 & 10 of the survey for the relevant data.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:16 PM by David Adesnik  

THE LATEST POLLS: Seven out of ten Americans approve of the President's handling of the war on terror. Seven out of ten would also give UN inspectors several more months to search for weapons in Iraq. Seven in ten also said that the US should go public with its own evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

So what does this all mean? As Tocqueville once said, public opinion contradicts itself. OK, so what does that mean? According to scholars, the public often has conflicting prefences and thus does not decide what it wants until elected officials persuade it that one course of action is better than another. Thus, if the President can take advantage of his State of the Union address to make a strong argument for invading Iraq -- and the Democrats continue to provide no clear alternative -- the public will follow the President.

For the moment, the invasion of Iraq has become a partisan issue. 58% of Democrats are against it, 55% of Independents for it, and 78% of Republicans for it. As I see it, the issue here is trust. Republicans are sure that Bush has evidence that Iraq has banned weapons, independents are somewhat sure and Democrats doubt it. If, in the State of the Union, Bush says that he knows Iraq has banned weapons -- even if he doesn't produce a smoking gun -- expect a considerable increase in independent and Democratic support for an invasion.

While the European public won't trust Bush until he has hard evidence, Americans will recognize that Bush will be putting his credibility on the line by saying flat out in the most important speech of the year that he knows Iraq has what it says it doesn't have. Bush knows the importance of living up to unequivocal commitments. His father said "Read my lips: no new taxes" -- and was punished heavily for breaking his promise.

Bush's overall approval ratings stands at 59%. However, he has fallen below the 50% mark for his management of the economy and 61% think his tax cut benefits the rich (in contrast to 23% who see it as even-handed). But when it comes to Iraq, those numbers don't matter. Only hardcore opponents of the war think it is a diversion from economic problems at home. As the WaPo points out, only 45% of the public supported the Gulf War before it began. It might have added that even that number was very high by historical standards. If Bush goes, America will be behind him. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:41 PM by David Adesnik  

LAUGHING LEFTWARDS: "If You're Happy and You Know It, Bomb Iraq" (Sung to the tune of "If You're Happy and You Know It, Clap Your Hands):

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi,
And your alibi is shoddy,
And your tastes remain quite gaudy,
Bomb Iraq...

If the globe is quickly warming, bomb Iraq.
If the poor will soon be storming, bomb Iraq.
We assert that might makes right,
Burning oil is a delight,
For the empire we will fight,
Bomb Iraq...

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq!

While it would be hard to fit more slander and prejudice into one song, it still made me laugh a lot. Perhaps if the anti-war movement were led by humorists instead of Stalinists, it might not constantly embarrass itself.

PS For more information about the song's author -- e.g. the fact that he named his son 'Ocean' -- click here.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:22 PM by David Adesnik  

STUPID, STUPID, STUPID: Maybe I'm just in a bad mood and need to vent. But this is really stupid. Read this and this and you'll know why. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:15 PM by David Adesnik  

RUSSIA WORKING WITH CIA: In North Korea of all places. The strange thing about the story is that it all comes from a single, anonymous "intelligence official". My guess is that the North Koreans already figured out what's been going on, then told the Chinese and everyone else, so now there's no harm in letting the leaking the story to the NYT. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:01 PM by David Adesnik  

WARLORD BECOMES PEACELORD: Hard to know if it will last, but an Afghan warlord who had been giving Karzai a lot of trouble seems to be coming around. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:56 PM by David Adesnik  

SUDDENLY, LATIN AMERICA MATTERS: Thanks to the ongoing crisis in oil-rich Venezuela, Latin America is finally getting some attention from the North American media. What's especially nice about this round of coverage is that some of it transcends the enduring stereotypes that often prevent Washington journalists from providing any sort of informed analysis.

The place to begin is with Peter Beinart's attack on the Bush administration's neglect of Latin politics. As Beinart points out, Bush has done nothing to fulfill his campaign promise that "I will look south, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment to my presidency." Fair enough, but then again virtually every President since Eisenhower has attacked his predecessor's neglect of our neighbors to the South, only to ignore them himself once in office. JFK was the exception to this rule, and for that reason he is still worshipped throughout Latin America. For details, see the work of historian Stephen Rabe.

Still, one could have expected more of Bush despite the fact that September 11th forced him to focus on more pressing matters. The administration's response to Venezuela's April coup attempt was an embarrassment. Paul O'Neill's pointless provocations of Argentine and Brazilian politicians provoked constant tension in the United States' relationship with those nations. New American steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies have undermined Latin support for free trade. Bush has completely ignored Mexican Pres. Vicente Fox despite their once-close relationship.

Still, Beinart goes to far when he asserts that "While the Bush administration looks the other way, anti-Americanism is making a comeback. Left-wingers have won elections in Brazil and Ecuador, and governments across the continent are retreating from free-market economics."

Just like Josh Marshall, Beinart assumes that left-wing cadidates are anti-American and anti-free market yet presents no evidence to back up that claim. In fact, Brazil's Lula and Ecuador's Lucio Gutierrez have run on moderate platforms despite their identification as leftists.

On the bright side, Beinart avoids the bleeding-heart alarmism of the NYT's latest round-up of Latin politics. In it, one learns that Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela and Cuba are going to form an "axis of populism".

While associating Lula with Hugo Chavez is bad enough, implying that he in any way resembles an iron-fisted dictator like Castro is offensive. While Lula shares the (Latin) American left's nostalgia for Castro's popular revolution, he is a democrat through and through. (In contrast, it's hard to know what to make of Gutierrez, since he has a record similar to Chavez's but has embraced democratic politics in a way Chavez never did.)

Ironically, the Times article ends by quoting Latin America expert Michael Shifter, who observes that "The worst scenario [for Latin America] would be if the United States begins to lump all of these leaders together, in other words sees Lula and Gutierrez the same way they see Chávez, and talks of an axis of evil," Mr. Shifter said. "Then the risk is it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy." From context, it is apparent that the Times is quoting Shifter sympathetically. Why, then, does it engage in exactly the sort of alarmism that Shifter warns of?

Before answering that question, one has to recognize that the Beinart-Marshall-NYT fear of a Latin backlash against the US is not a recent development, but a constant trope of US coverage of the Western Hemisphere for at least twenty five years. In response to the marked Republican prefernence for supporting right-wing Latin dictators, liberals in both Congress and the media insisted on emphasizing the danger of a Latin backlash.

In context, such concerns made sense. Supporting Somoza, Pinochet, et al. solidified the US reputation for disregarding its ideals south of the border. The liberals' concerns, however, have degenerated into a primitive form of alarmism that has begun to overlap with anti-Communist paranoia of surviving cold warriors such as Henry Hyde, chair of the House I.R. committee, who declared that Lula will join Castro to form a Latin "axis of evil".

If the left wants to correct its perceptions, it will have take its own advice and pay more attention to Latin America. As I learned in Argentina this past summer, living in Latin America for even few months enables one to see through the US media's stereotypes of the region. Of course, as long as the Times and Post are only willing to send a single correspondent to cover the entire region, there is little hope for improvement.

Frankly, neither paper would lose out if it decided to fire its Latin American correspondent and just reprint articles from The Economistand the Financial Times instead. (Though, in the Post's defense, it ran a very sensible editorial on the Argentine economic crisis just yesterday and publishes continually good work by Marcela Sanchez.)

Perhaps what disturbs me more than anything else about misguided US coverage of Latin America is the possibility that coverage of every other region may be just as misguided, but that I wouldn't even know it because I never had the chance to spend time in and study those regions the way I did Latin America. I guess that why, on the eighth day, God created The Economist.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:54 AM by Daniel  

THE DEATH PENALTY. I highly recommend Scott Turow's essay about it from The New Yorker a few weeks ago.

Like Turow I have wavered on the issue, but he makes a very convincing argument that the system (in Illinois, for that matter) is fundamentally flawed. I do not have a problem with the abstract idea of the death penalty (people like Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh help me feel that way), but think that in its current form the system does not work properly.

Governor Ryan's sweeping gesture--an arbitrary move itself, as victim's rights groups and death penalty proponents point out--will most likely have the unintended consequence of setting the death penalty abolition movement back. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:55 PM by David Adesnik  

INDISPUTABLE SIGN OF SUCCESS: Now PBS is showcasing bloggers as well. What next, NPR?

But seriously...my parents watched the show and told me it was a must see. Then again, if I studied fish instead of blogging, they would be telling me about the wonderful icthyology specials on public television. Wait a second...I was trying to be serious. Let me just say this: Read Pejman's detailed review of the show. Looks like it really was good work. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:06 PM by David Adesnik  

PREACHING TO THE CHOIR: It's easy to mock the anti-war protesters. But the real quesiton is, what does it accomplish? If anything, exposing the foolishness of extreme views only tempts one to ignore legitimate criticisms of American policy.

Then again, it's just so much fun to mock. Take this quote for example: "'Saddam Hussein is not a good person, but he has not attacked us directly...' said Magda Saldana, 60, an elementary school teacher. 'The Iraqi people do not have to suffer because they have a madman for a leader.'" Power Line observes: "Well, actually they do." (See this post if you have any doubts.)

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:37 PM by David Adesnik  

SADDAM BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Is there anything evil he doesn't do? Damian Penny posts a fascinating story on Saddam's destruction of the Iraqi marshes in order to facilitate the murder of their rebellious inhabitants. Two in a row for Damian! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:27 PM by David Adesnik  

NASCENT SAUDI DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT: The Christian Science Monitor reports. For an in-depth look at the prospects of democracy in Saudi Arabia, click here. (Thanks to Damian Penny for the link.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:40 PM by David Adesnik  

ANYONE ELSE FROM GREENWICH VILLAGE? If you grew up there, as I did, you are almost definitely familiar with the culinary delights of Balducci's. Sadly, however, this greatest of all markets has now closed. RIP. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:28 PM by David Adesnik  

DRUNK WITH POWER: "Venezuela's national guard today seized warehouses full of beer..." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:10 PM by David Adesnik  

KRISTOF SOBERS UP: Quite a reasonable column today. Which leads me to the following slanderous hypothesis: Kristof's work is so inconsistent because he's drunk half the time. (Note to NYT legal consultants: This is supposed to be humorous. I think.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:20 PM by David Adesnik  

WE HAVE A WINNER: OxBlog sends a shout out to contest winner SH and runner-up BB. Here are their respective answers:

Q: How many OxBloggers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: More than two. Because David keeps turning it to the left, and Josh keeps turning it to the right.

---

Q: How many OxBloggers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: One, but the real question is whether said bulb relinquished its bulb-breaking program "before" a change was needed or "in exchange" for the threatened darkness that would ensue if a broken light bulb occurred. The difference is more than a matter of semantics, as "an exchange" in and of itself signifies appeasement, although no pundit has the courage to state this fact (with exception to the estimable CalPundit). Oxblog made clear yesterday, last week,and in a fifth grade essay that appeasement will only encourage the light bulb to break its agreement of steady, soft luminescence more readily in the future. Therefore the bulb must accept that there will be no further broken filaments in the future "before" negotiations on a change can take place.

---

NB: The second answer is a parody of this post on North Korea from a short while back. As far as the first answer goes, I am not a self-identified liberal. Still, as a centrist, I am to the left of Josh. And the whole idea of turning the lightbulb "right" and "left" is extremely clever.


(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:08 PM by David Adesnik  

SADDAM IN NORTH KOREA? According to Donald Rumsfeld, "I ... personally would recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership in that country and their families could be provided haven in some other country, and I think that that would be a fair trade to avoid a war."

Powell has said the same, so this seems to be a firm administratio position. And it's a good one. While letting Saddam escape punishment for his crimes against humanity would be deplorable, it is a compromise that will save the lives of American soldiers, Israeli civilians, Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians...as long as the United States does not compromise its commitment to a democratic Iraq.

If Saddam walks out, someone will take his place. No matter who it is, they must have no choice but to give way to an American occupation government. This will be necessary in order to ensure both the appropriate disposal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as the full elimination of the Baathist regime.

I am concerned that Cheney and Rumsfeld will work out a deal with the incoming leadership whereby full access to all WMD materiel and documents are given up front in exchange for the right to stay in power during the transition to democracy. That, however, would be nothing short of a betrayal of the Iraqi people. Leaving unelected successors in place would be no different than installing an Iraqi Musharraf, a pro-Western dictator whose selfishness, ignorance and incompetence undermine democracy while promoting fundamentalism.

That said, one has to wonder where Saddam will go if he heads into exile. North Korea? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:48 AM by Daniel  

ARE YOU THINKING WHAT I'M THINKING? Josh doesn't want him to be Oxford's Chancellor, and Israelis are looking for "a leader with a serious domestic national agenda, someone who has ideas on how Israelis can live together and heal all of the internal divisions — someone who would be culturally inclusive, religiously respectful, educationally compassionate and diplomatically hardheaded. They are looking for an Israeli Third Way." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:18 PM by David Adesnik  

RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM: Josh read this column, liked it, and then asked "Am I missing something?"

You betcha. While the column deserves a thorough fisking, I don't have time since I am at this conference. So let me say this: The foundation of the column's argument is that the situation North Korea is in today closely resembles that of the Soviet Union in 1975. Not even close. At that time, the Soviet Union was a confident superpower which had just recently achieved nuclear parity with the west and seen its archrival humiliated in Vietnam. When it accepted the Helsinki Accord's provisions on human rights, it thought it had nothing to fear.

In contrast, North Korea is the last outpost of Stalinism and is desperate to avoid recognizing that it committed even the slightest violations of human rights. While I think we need a bold accord with the North to end the current stand-off, I think nothing will put that accord out of reach faster than demanding acknowledgement of the legitimacy of human rights. I say this: Let's get North Korea disarmed and focus on Iraq. When we're ready, we'll bring Kim's brutal regime crashing down like all the other dictatorships before it. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:02 PM by David Adesnik  

ON VACATION: Right now I am in Cambridge at the 2nd National UK Student Pugwash Conference. The purpose of Pugwash is "to bring together, from around the world, influential scholars and public figures concerned with reducing the danger of armed conflict and seeking cooperative solutions for global problems." Who could disagree with that?

Pugwash takes its name from the Nova Scotia town where the organization held its first conference in 1957. Back then, Pugwash was best known for the 'Einstein-Russell Manifesto' which called on the world's scientists to consider the ethical implications of their work. (Yes, Albert Einstein. Yes, Bertrand Russell.) Now, Pugwash is known for winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995.

I'm here because I'm presenting a paper on Ultra Wideband technology along with my housemate, the eminent Wasim Q. Malik. I must say, I'm having a good time. Everyone is very friendly and always wants to talk about politics. And there's plenty of time devoted to visiting pubs. But when I get back, I am going to put a very, very, very long post about anti-Americanism. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:12 PM by David Adesnik  

(PLUGGED) IN JOKES: Ted Barlow has decided that the time has come for the blogosphere to laugh at itself, in the form of lightbulb humor. Keep scrolling down, there's lots of 'em.

Which leads me to ask, "How many OxBloggers does it take to change a lightbulb?" (Answer coming soon. Submissions accepted.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:50 PM by David Adesnik  

SAUD IN HALF: Patrick Ruffini explains why the US can't afford to grant any legitimacy to the generals or Baath party officials who might overthrow Saddam in a potential coup. Democracy is the only answer. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:43 PM by David Adesnik  

ISRAEL IS THE PROBLEM...or at least Arab perceptions of an American double standard that rewards Israeli injustices while condemning the identical actions of Arab governments. That is what Jacques Chirac says. That is what Thomas Friedman says.

I don't believe it for a minute. While the idea is worth considering, I think that this article from Foreign Affairs demonstrates why resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will do nothing to address anti-American hatred whose source lies elsewhere. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:27 PM by David Adesnik  

BLIX THE UNILATERALIST: If everyone criticizes the United States for ignoring the Security Council, how come Hans Blix can?

(Though if these warheads turn out to be real evidence of Iraqi WMD capabilities, I might forgive Blix for his arrogance.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:13 PM by David Adesnik  

HATE IS FUNNY: Andrew Sullivan gets some truly bizarre mail, which I probably shouldn't be laughing at, but still am. All for the crime of criticizing Sheryl Crow. Come on, Andrew. All she wants to do is have some fun. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:03 PM by David Adesnik  

BLOGGING KILLS BRAIN CELLS: After reading the NYT's profile of Glenn Reynolds, CalPundit expresses his concern that Glenn may be becoming too dependent on ideas sent in by readers.

While I agree with Kevin's general point that bloggers' objectivity may be put to the test by excessive praise from their ideological allies and readers, I think he's being unfair to Glenn as well as missing an important point. While Kevin never says outright that the quality of Glenn's posting has fallen, I think he implies it. But I disagree. You can decide for yourself.

More importantly, what really keeps a lot of bloggers interested is the chance to debate other intelligent and well-informed people who have perspectives quite different from their own. Going one step further, I think a lot of bloggers know that their mail is one-sided and thus judge their ability as bloggers based on the feedback they get from their debate partners. And best of all, of course, is when you get to be part of a group blog where your ideas are put to the test even if you never leave your homepage. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:40 PM by Daniel  

THE RAPPERS ARE COMING! THE RAPPERS ARE COMING! Michelle Malkin makes it seem like introducing hip-hop into the classroom spells the death knell of education. Reading an LA Times article and using the web to find a few (optional, not required) college courses dealing with hip-hop must mean it is taking over. Why not consider the fact teachers are using rap music in addition to, not instead of, the classics? Hip-hop is an important part of American culture and society. I'm out. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:38 PM by David Adesnik  

SO THAT"S WHO IT WAS! The NYT profiles Sir Instapundit. It informs us that "Mr. Reynolds was the child who read the encyclopedia cover to cover in the second grade." No wonder the pages are full of barbecue sauce. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:19 PM by David Adesnik  

TRY THAT ON YOUR TEACHER: The Blix Boys have decided to start searching the homes of Iraq's weapons scientists. As a result, "the son of one of the scientists was not allowed to leave the home to take a school exam." And you thought "the dog ate it" was a good excuse.

On a more substantive note, the decision to search private homes may indicate that the inspectors were acting on the basis of information provided by US or allied intelligence services. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:48 PM by David Adesnik  

NPR=NATIONAL PALESTINIAN RADIO: ''NPR distorts the news, covers up attacks on Jews!'' Thanks to Instapundit for the link. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:36 PM by David Adesnik  

VOLOKH, VICTIM OF PREJUDICE: Seems the BOS-NY-WASH media won't give Californians the time of day. Answer: Volokh the Motion Picture!

UPDATE: Kevin feels victimized as well. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:31 PM by David Adesnik  

TAKING SADDAM AT HIS WORD: Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), who visited Baghdad in September along with two other House Members, said we should trust Iraq. Then Iraqi television went ahead and quoted McDermott as saying that "We are three veterans of the Vietnam War who came over here because we don't want war. We assert from here that we do not want the United States to wage war on any peace loving countries." And to think we're unhappy with the New York Times...
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:10 PM by David Adesnik  

A TASTE OF HEAVEN: Here's to all you Chimay fans out there. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:05 PM by David Adesnik  

CHUTZPAH CONTEST: Josh gave first prize to Jimmy Carter's op-ed in today's WaPo. But just like the Nobel Peace Prize, Carter doesn't deserve this award, either. On the very same page of the WaPo, there is a column by Palestinian minister Yasser Abed Rabbo. If you don't have time to read it, just run a word check and see what you come up with for "suicide", "bomb" and "terror."

Random thought: Is the Post trying to embarrass both Carter and Rabbo by putting their columns on the same page? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:47 PM by David Adesnik  

MOTHER OF ALL IRONIES: Check out this photo of a visiting anti-war protester in Baghdad. While Iraqi soldiers watch, he is holding up a sign that says "No to Racist War." That's really not smart. If any of those soliders read English, they might assume that the guy is protesting Saddam's brutal attacks on the Shiites and the Kurds. And then they might shoot the poor fellow, before recognizing that he's actually on their side. Oh, humanity. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:35 PM by David Adesnik  

DELUSION OF THE DAY, via Nick Kristof:

If only President Clinton had instituted the 1994 agreement with gusto, flooding North Korea with diplomats, investors, traders and pot-bellied bankers who ostentatiously overeat — without exploding — then monuments to the Great Leader might already have been replaced by American-run Internet cafes.

Hmm. That strategy didn't exactly work in China, now did it? Just ask the Taiwanese -- they probably understand the South Korean's situation better than anyone.

By thew way, how is it that a columnist who won a Pulitzer for his reporting on China didn't recognize the obvious parallel? Sheesh.

UPDATE: Daniel Drezner is onto this one as well, and provides lots of solid evidence that Kristof has no idea what he's talking about. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:24 PM by David Adesnik  

THE AXIS OF JOSH: Marshall and Chafetz, that is. Whereas Marshall has been criticizing the administration from the left, Chafetz has been doing so from the right (I presume).

Even so, their respective perspectives have led them to identical interpretations of the American effort to start talks with North Korea: that it is an embarrassing climb down from our initial hard line.

While I wouldn't rule that out, I think it still far too early to judge. As I explained one week ago, the administration will not compromise its initial position unless it offers concessions before North Korea abandons its nuclear program:

The difference between "before" and "in exchange" is more than a matter of diplomatic semantics. If the North agrees to stop its program before being rewarded, it thereby acknowledges that the US is right on the matter of principle and forgoes the right to resume its program in the future. If such an agreement results from an exchange, then the North can always insist that the US has failed to live up to its side of the bargain, thus releasing the North from its obligations. In light of the North's constant habit of exploiting its nuclear program to demand foreign aid, the "before" vs. "in exchange" distinction becomes quite important.

At the moment, the administration has been very precise in its insistence that concessions will follow a North Korean renunciation and not come at the same time. According to James Kelly:

Once we get beyond nuclear weapons, there may be opportunities with the U.S., with private investors, with other countries to help North Korea in the energy area.

While we're talking about Korea, it's worth thinking about this quotation from Roh Moo Hyun for just a minute: "The South Korea-U.S. alliance was precious, is now still precious and will continue to be important in the future." Whereas Josh Marshall described Roh's election as one of many "hostile reactions to America's newly strident and confrontational stance in the world", OxBlog had no doubts that Roh would start backtracking on his campaign rhetoric the same way Gerhard Schroeder did. So, let me get this out of my system: I TOLD YOU SO!!!

UPDATE: CalPundit asks: Is anyone really fooled by this business of insisting that there's a difference between North Korea agreeing to give up its nukes before we agree to an aid package vs. giving up its nukes in exchange for an aid package? When the piece of paper eventually gets signed, after all, the agreements are all going to happen at one time. First of all, I wouldn't count on a simul-signing. Would the administration really give that kind of gift to its critics? Speaking more substantively, the difference between "before" and "in exchange" will affect the contents of the agreement -- see above. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:37 AM by Daniel  

SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE....ISRAELI PRIME MINISTERS. Yes, Mr. Safire , we know that you are good friends with Ariel Sharon. And we do recognize that you even have his home phone number.

What struck me most from Sharon I mean Safire's column was the Prime Minister's moderate tone: "I won't put myself in the hands of any radical parties, neither of the left nor of the right. I can't have those who want to give up everything or those who want to keep everything. I need the center because we have to take painful steps." It might have been mere electoral positioning....but he has certainly governed more moderately than most expected. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:09 PM by David Adesnik  

HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL: David Brooks' op-ed on Americans' paradoxical support for tax cuts has been generating lots of comments just about everywhere. Matt Yglesias, citing TNR blog &c., says Brooks is a charlatan. In contrast, CalPundit thinks Brooks has cut straight to the heart of the matter.

In short, Brooks argues that Americans' unflagging belief that they are (or soon will be) rich leads them to support tax cut plans that favor the rich. The best response to this is &c.'s point that if Americans really favored tax cuts for the rich, Bush wouldn't have to spend so much time pretending that his tax cuts benefit all Americans equally.

While that response has merit, I think it's too simple. My guess is that most Americans are willing to swallow the administration's rhetoric without thinking twice because they are optimistic about their personal welfare. &c. is right that no one would support a tax cut the President described as a reward for the rich. But since Americans are pretty happy with their standard of living, they also won't invest the time it takes to figure out whether the Democrats or the Republicans have better statistics. I guess that's democracy.

UPDATE: Matt says thinks this is a pretty good explanation. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:42 PM by David Adesnik  

HAMAS NOT BACKING SHARON: It seems that almost every Palestinian terror organization is taking credit for last week's bombings in Tel Aviv. However, "authoritative Israeli observers now believe that it was Tanzim, another of Fatah's militias that actually shed the blood." It's Arafat, not Hamas, who's backing Sharon. This time, however, Arafat's help may not be enough.

Looking on the bright side, at least there's something which Fatah and Hamas can agree on. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:12 PM by David Adesnik  

SENTINEL OF DEMOCRACY: You can always count on Jackson Diehl to tell the stories about democracy promotion that others ignore. This time, his subject is Cuba. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:02 PM by David Adesnik  

STILL INTERESTED IN NORTH KOREA: Josh Marshall has plenty more commentary up today, with some interesting background about US negotiator James Kelly.

I'm not going to respond in detail, since I really want to get back to writing about the Middle East. My intention is to jump back in again when we know whether the President is going to try for a truly innovative and comprerehensive deal with the North Koreans, or just climb down from its hardline rhetoric and cut a deal with the North. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:44 PM by David Adesnik  

I'M CONFUSED: The WaPo has a moderately interesting story on the steady stream of foreign anti-war protestersarriving in Baghdad. According to one of them, "We're here out of no love for the current regime, but we're also opposed to the arrogant American position that we know what's best for the Iraqi people."

Where to begin? First of all, America's proposal to democratize Iraq means that the Iraqi people will be able to decide for themselves what's best for them. While there is no question that some of them will die as a result of the American attack, the fact that thousands of Iraqis have taken up arms against Saddam shows that they are quite familar with the Western concept of sacrificing one's life in the name of freedom.

Second, aren't the protesters insisting just as arrogantly as the US government that they know what's best for the Iraqi people? They're certainly not doing anything to help the world figure out what the average Iraqi really thinks.

Third, why are the protests so focused on the US? Doesn't the fact that the entire Security Council told Iraq that it has to disarm suggest that it, too, has pretentions of knowing what's best for the Iraqi people?

Fourth, if the opinion of the 300,000 Iraqi immigrants in the US counts for anything, then the US should tell the UN to go to hell and liberate Iraq right now.

There isn't much point in arguing, though. I'm just venting. The only real test of the protesters commitment to their ideals is an impossible one: whether they could observe first-hand what happens in Saddam's torture chambers and come out still insisting that the US and the UN don't know what's best for the Iraqi people. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:32 PM by David Adesnik  

"WORLD ON FIRE" is the title of a new book by Yale Law Professor Amy Chua. According to this review in Salon, the book's main point is that promoting democracy too aggressively can provoke a dangerous backlash. Or as the book's subtitle puts it: "How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Violence and Global Instability."

I must admit I am skeptical, but I will approach the book with an open mind. Who knows. Perhaps I will come away as a convert, determined to ensure a gradual transition from dictatorship to liberation. Prof. Chua's recent op-ed in the NYT wasn't all that bad and provides a good summary of her basic argument.

Chua argued that the current crisis in Venezuela reflects tensions between the white business elite and the darker Pres. Chavez. She also condemns the Bush administration for supporting a business-led anti-Chavez coup last November. On the second point, I stand behind Chua 100%. The United States should never seek to oust an elected leader who respects the basic principles of democracy and human rights. Chavez wasn't great on those points, but he is hardly the worst elected leader out there.

Chua's decision to hold racial tension responsible for the Venezuelan crisis seems somewhat strange, though. Has she considered the fact that Chavez's scattershot socialist ideology and heavy-handed governing style are responsible for the chaos in Venezuela? The problem there isn't that the markets are too free or the politics too democratic, but rather that Venezuela's markets and politics are not free enough. But I may be wrong. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:58 PM by David Adesnik  

IRAQ'S TALIBAN: The NYT has in-depth coverage of Ansar al Islam, the fundamentalist guerrilla organization that has imposed its brutal variant of Islamic law on the villages of Northern Iraq which it controls.

Ansar al Islam has connection to Al Qaeda and recieves arms from the government of Iran. But if America stands behind its commitment to promoting democracy in the Middle East, Ansar al Islam will not be Iraq's future. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:41 PM by David Adesnik  

I HAVE A DREAM that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:36 PM by David Adesnik  

AAAUUUGGGGHHHH!!! Even Charlie Brown's baseball team comes through in the clutch more often than the Jets. Final score: 30-10. The Jets gave up 17 points off of turnovers. Face facts: There are just some teams that aren't tough enough to survive in the playoffs.

But let's think about the big picture. The team that really matters is Team USA. We're the team that wins where it really counts: in the battle of ideas. And we're the only superpower, a sort of global amalgamation of Montana's 49ers, Jordan's Bulls, and Joe Torre's Yanks.

Knowing that it was not a good idea, I shared this thought with a friend who was watching the game with me. He's American alright, but he makes Susan Sontag look like Jesse Helms. And ironically enough, he's a New England Patriots fan. Though, of course, he doesn't find that ironic. Well, I guess sorta felt like picking a fight since I was pissed off about my team losing. That's disturbing, because means it means I really am picking up British habits. Or perhaps I'm just the only football hooligan who follows the NFL. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:07 PM by David Adesnik  

MARTYRS OF THE FAITH: In just an hour and a half, I will march off to my college's rec room to watch the Jets battle Oakland for a shot at the AFC title. But what does that mean? What does it really mean? I think Mike Vaccaro puts it pretty well in today's NYP (That's the New York Post, dammit! Just because OxBlog doesn't link to it every doesn't mean it any less important than any other newspaper.) As Vaccaro says,

You are a Jets fan, raised on heartbreak, reared on futility, nourished by 34 years of abject failure. You are trained to expect the worst, to understand that prosperity is only a mirage, to be wary of the next calamity lurking around every corner...

You are the king of pain. You watched the end of that Giants game last week, saw the world turn upside down, and smiled knowingly. Hell, you know a vintage Jets moment when it happens, even when it happens to someone else...You have waited an entire lifetime for this, or at least since that windswept day at Shea Stadium in December 1968 when Joe Willie Namath led the Jets on that late drive to win the AFL title...

[Raiders fans] have no idea the sense of relief, and release, that accompanied every second of that 41-0 victory over the Colts last week. They have no idea about the awful, nagging sense that something was bound to go wrong. And they certainly cannot appreciate the odd way things have broken for the Jets across the last three weeks. Only you can understand that...

You don’t want to call this a dream scenario because all dreams end eventually. And you want this to last for a good, long while. You should. You’re a Jets fan. God knows, you’ve earned it.

My prediction? Raiders 28, Jets 20. Call me a traitor, but I'd rather suffer the slings and arrows of your criticism than jinx our best shot at the Super Bowl in 34 years. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:47 PM by David Adesnik  

HAWKS ATTACK BUSH: I'm still behind the President on this one, but if you think we have to be tougher with the North Koreans, then check out these articles by Kristol & Kagan, John McCain and a pair of right-wing think-tankers. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:32 PM by David Adesnik  

THE DANGERS OF PATRIOTISM: Believe or not, the Weekly Standard has declared that excessive patriotism is a threat to America's cultural integrity. The evidence: the Motion Picture Academy's refusal to give Oscars to brilliant foreign films such as The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers.

Cute. Very cute. While we're at it, why not argue the underrepresenation of elves and orcs among studio executives demonstrates a racial bias? Face it. The Two Towers won't win because it was two-thirds boring. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:07 PM by David Adesnik  

FRONT PAGE "NEWS": The WaPo headline shouts: "U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past; Opponents of War Wonder When, How Policy Was Set"

The article then begins with this surprising revelation:

On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.

Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq...

The article then says that Bush hid his intentions from the public for more than three months, until the Axis of Evil speech demonstrated that Iraq was on the President's mind. But even then, we didn't know what the President had in mind for Iraq.

Then, a ways into the article, we get this quote from John Ikenberry, a Georgetown prof fond of lambasting American imperialism:

The external presentation and the justification for [Bush's Iraq policy] really seems to be lacking...[but] the external presentation appears to mirror the internal decision-making quite a bit.

In other words, there is absolutely no "puzzling past" behind the administration's policy on Iraq. Only if you start from the premise that Bush has a secret plan does it seem like the administration's stance is puzzling.

In fact, the administration's Iraq policy is a straightforward reflection of political struggles within the administration that have made the front page of every national newspaper for almost twelve months now. All Glenn Kessler had to do to discover this fact was read "Bush at War", the inside account of administration politics produced by Kessler's WaPo colleague Bob Woodward. Then again, perhaps he didn't have time.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:41 PM by David Adesnik  

BLOG CABIN REPUBLICANS: Pardon the adjective, but in a somewhat hysterical editorial, the NY Times denounces the Bush administation's pro-life agenda as nothing more than a hypocritical attack on Roe v. Wade.

Alarmism aside, the Times makes some good points. If saving unborn lives were truly the administration's priority, it would increase the availability of sex education and contraceptives. After all, you can't get an abortion if you don't get pregnant. (And while I admire the ambition of those who preach abstinence, I think it's about time for conservatives to admit that no one is ever going to stop America's youth from getting its groove on.)

But here's an even more radical solution to the GOP's struggle to reconcile its secular pro-life stance with religious conservatives' aversion to latex: support gay rights. After all, how many lesbians have abortions? How many gay men ever got their partners pregnant?

Then again, that idea probably won't get all that much support from the Christian Coaltion either. But it is time for the religious right to start thinking strategically. If conservatives are serious when they say abortion is murder, than they should subordinate the rest of their social agenda to the struggle against abortion.

Besides, the campaigns against homosexuality and premarital sex are never going to succeed. While I am strongly pro-choice, even I recognize that banning abortion is one of the few Christian Right causes that has a chance to become law.

If the fundamentalists will not subordinate these other causes to the struggle against abortion, it will only confirm what moderate and non-Christians have long suspected: that what the Christian right elevates above all else is not the sanctity of human life, but rather the struggle to establish the law of the Bible as the law of the land.

PS I came up with the phrase "Blog Cabin Republicans" all by myself, then ran it through Google to see who else had come up with it before I did. As far as I can tell, the only mention of it was back in September 1999 over at a site called The BradLands. In addition, the Georgia branch of the Log Cabin Republicans has a section on its website called "Blog Cabin", but never puts the whole phrase together. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:49 PM by David Adesnik  

BLOG TOO MUCH? Glenn Reynolds writes:

I was dozing just now while my daughter was playing with her dolls. I dreamed I was in a Denny's-like restaurant where the menu items had a blogger theme. The Egg McMuffin equivalent was something called "The English Idiotarian," and featured a menu blurb stating that "Robert Fisk himself would be proud to order this hearty. . ." I wish I'd slept long enough to read the whole menu!

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:25 PM by David Adesnik  

FEELING LIKE MY OLD SELF AGAIN: Having spent the last couple of weeks defending the Bush administration's North Korea policy from liberal depredations, I'd begun to wonder whether I had become physically unable to criticize the President. What happened to the David of yore, whose unflagging criticism of the administration's incompetent diplomacy led Mr. Chafetz to throw down the gauntlet and demand that I provide evidence to back up my charges?

Well, that David is back. Take a look at this story about the NSC's hesitation to share intelligence with the UN inspectors in Iraq. I think sharing intelligence is good, even if the Blix Boys haven't shown themselves to be latter-day Sherlock Holmeses.

But the real question is this: Why didn't the Bush administration work out an intelligence sharing plan as soon as the UN passed Resolution 1441? As I said the last time this question came up, the answer is that the administration just can't think one step ahead when it comes to working with the UN. With Powell spending all his time convincing the President to work with the UN and Rumsfeld & Cheney spending all of their time trying to stop Powell, there is no one left to think about how to make US-UN cooperation effective.

Now, was it reasonable to ask that the administration recognize in advance that a lack of intelligence sharing might become an obstacle to effective inspections? Well, OxBlog pointed out the problem almost two months ago. And while one can't expect Condi to read OxBlog, my concerns were based on a report in the NY Times.

Next question: Does intelligence sharing matter? Absolutely. The French and British are now calling for further inspections, since Blix hasn't found a smoking gun. In other words, they don't want Bush making a final decision about whether or not invade at the end of this month.

But what will the inspectors find if given more time? In addition to the hawks who have always dismissed inspections as pointless, there are moderates who have long insisted that finding a smoking gun simply isn't possible.

Bush himself insisted way back in October, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." On the other hand, he hasn't shown that he is willing to act unilaterally regardless of how much he talks about it.

Now, to be fair, things haven't spun out of control just yet. Jan. 27 is still a couple of weeks away. And the US buildup is set to reach 150,000 troops in the coming weeks. But the clock is ticking and the game is afoot.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:24 PM by David Adesnik  

MORE FOR MORE: At the end of long column that seems to be going nowhere, the Times' Bill Keller suddenly makes very solid point about North Korea. It begins with this question:

Does anybody have a plan that makes sense?

Actually, yes. Back in 1999 the National Defense University assembled a team of Asia experts to draft a strategy for dealing with North Korea. It came to be known as "more for more": we would expect more from the North Koreans, including rigorous inspections, a full accounting of their nuclear history, and an end to missile exports. We would offer more in return — financial aid (including speeding construction of the two promised light-water reactors, which are stalled), guarantees that North Korea will not be attacked if it keeps its promises, and eventually normal diplomatic relations. The plan contained a dash of testosterone — intercepting missile exports, even a cautious mention of "pre-emption" if all else fails — but mostly it depended on lots and lots of, pardon the expression, negotiations and quid pro quo. The proposal was comprehensive, hard-nosed, multilateral and level-headed.

Maybe President Bush should hire the guy in charge of that report.

He already has. It's Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Maybe what Mr. Bush should do now is listen to him.

Now, I still think that North Korea should have to renounce its nuclear program before we start offering them anything in return. But once we do get down to business, I think we have trade more for more. If we don't, we'll just have to face this problem again and again.

(Of course, negotiations may be futile if what Kim wants most really is a nuclear bomb.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:57 PM by Daniel  

AMERICA'S IMAGE. Our friend Matt Spence writes about perceptions of America abroad. He argues that we are "losing the war in public diplomacy." I do agree with him--but how do we win it? Changing "how we talk about our policies" is woefully insufficient. Our best friends really becoming out best enemies due to our rhetoric? Increasing foreign educational, democratic, technical, and humanitarian aid is a start toward improving our image abroad. We want other countries to want what we want.

A member of Congress said that America needed to take time to explain, not discuss, its position to the world and was criticized for doing so. What would "discussions" produce? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:31 PM by David Adesnik  

PEJMAN GETS MEDIEVAL ON THEIR A&*%$: Pej defends Tolkien on the charge of being an escapist Luddite.

Pej says that, in fact, the defenders of Helm's Deep made reasonable use of technology in holding off the orc hordes. Yet you don't have to be Advanced Dungeons & Dragons expert (which I once was, circa 1991) to know just how awful the defenders' tactics were. If you read the first reader response to Pej's post, you get a pretty good idea of just how many simple medieval technologies might have helped Aragorn etc. hold off the hordes.

But the real Luddites are the ones who built Helm's Deep (or Peter Jackson's version of it). Who the hell puts just one door on the main gate of a massive fortress? But if you read this, you'll see that old Pete isn't all that interested in being faithful to the reality of Middle Earth.

CLARIFICATON: Reader AH e-mails to remind me that there were, in fact, two doors at the main gate to Helm's Deep. The second door is the small (weak, unreinforced) one that Aragorn and Gimli slip out of. So, to be clear, what I meant to say is that I expected the architects of any decent fortress to have two doors one behind the other at the main gate, so that if the first were broken down, the second could be defended.

Moreover, the positioning of the doors makes a big difference. If any of you have visited the Old City of Jerusalem, you will notice that the gates to the City have outer doors that are perpindicular to their inner doors. If that's hard to imagine, just think of a small, covered L-shaped passageway connecting the two. Now why go to all that trouble? Because if someone (orcs, Babylonians, whoever) tries to use a battering ram, they can't fit it inside the passageway that leads to the inner doors. Oh boy. If the widows of Rohan read this, Aragorn is going to get slapped silly. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:14 PM by David Adesnik  

IS SLEEP DEPRIVATION TORTURE? Ask your average investment banker. They should know. But seriously, take a look at this CalPundit post on reports that US is using interrogation methods that come close to being torture. Kevin is right that this should be a bigger issue. This is a war for hearts and minds, and hypocrisy will cost us dearly. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:36 PM by David Adesnik  

TURNING THE TABLES ON TPM: In his first ever post at Winds of Change, Trent Telenko says that Josh Marshall has opened a pandora's box by focusing on what Clinton's national security team knew about North Korea's weapons program.

While Marshall says that outgoing Clinton officials briefed their incoming Bush counterparts on the North Korean uranium program, Telenko links to this article which says that the Clinton team knew while negotiating the 1994 pact that North Korea may have had already developed nuclear warheads. It's hard to know what will come of that charge though, since the evidence seems to consist entirely of statements by North Korean defectors. Then again, it was defectors who led UN inspectors straight to Saddam's hidden cache. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:12 PM by David Adesnik  

FOREIGN AIDS: Nick Kristof reports that "the U.S. is now donating only 300 million condoms annually, down from about 800 million at the end of the first President Bush's term." Presumably, then, domestic demand for condoms shot up by 500 million units per year during the Clinton era. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:05 PM by David Adesnik  

MEMO FROM CLINTON TO SHARON: Lying only works before you've been caught. It looks like only Hamas can save Arik now... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:51 PM by David Adesnik  

HOMELAND "INS"ECURITY: If there's one agency that should overhauled before joining the Department of Homeland Security, the INS is it. Its officals must be the only law enforcement agents who can't even get racial-profiling right. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:34 PM by David Adesnik  

ON JOSH'S BEHALF: David Ignatius says that the US has Al Qaeda on the run despite top officials focus on Iraq. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:58 PM by David Adesnik  

A POST NOT ABOUT NORTH KOREA. The rebellion has begun. My brain has demanded the right to think about something other than the mind-boggling intricacies of US-North Korean relations.

As everyone knows, when thoughtless relaxation is called for, there is only one answer: Professional wrestling. Some of you may know that what was once called the WWF had to change its name to the WWE because some panda-hugging granola-munchers decided that they the name WWF could not be shared.

Back when I lived in DC, I'd watch Raw and Smackdown every week. Nothing made me happier than a Triple HHH title defense or hearing Mick Foley say "Have a nice day!"

Without a television of my own at Oxford, keeping up with the fast-paced world of pro wrestling hasn't been easy. At first, I turned to the ever dependable Rajah to keep me updated. But if you can't watch the show, it just isn't the same.

Last week, however, I managed to catch around half-an-hour of Raw on Sky cable. It was then that I met Chris Nowinski, one of the most hilarious characters the WWF has ever come up with. Chris' gimmick is that he is "very proud of his degree from Harvard". He wrestles in crimson trunks with a big white 'H' on his ass.

Where did any come up with an idea like that? Actually, I would think it's self-evident. Everyone hates Harvard. Nowinski is sure to become a legendary villian, right up there with the Iron Sheik and The Million Dollar Man.

What's really great about all this is that Nowinski actually went to Harvard. If you click here, you can even see him give a tour of the Harvard campus. (Click here and then click on the box that says Videos") In the ring, Nowinski does things hit the other wrestlers with books.

So, for all those people who told me that my interest in pro wrestling was stupid and childish, I say this: Who cares?

UPDATE: Josh Heit, aka Mr. Reality TV, reminds me that the WWE did not create Chris Nowinski's character, but rather that Nowinski used the gimmick while still a contestant on MTV's Tough Enough. In real-life, though, Chris claims to be a down to earth midwesterner who learned how to be a snob by watching other students at Harvard. Big surprise there. (Ooooh! Yale cheap shot!)

UPDATE: Reader SG writes: "I'm just as glad Mr. Nowinski doesn't wear blue with a Y on his rear, aren't you?" Yeah, I guess not. But if Nowinski had gone to Yale, he might give me free tickets!!!

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:43 PM by David Adesnik  

WARMING UP TO KIM JONG IL: CalPundit asks: "Do we have a leg to stand on when we claim that they 'violated our trust'"?

Now, it wouldn't be very interesting if someone who supports the administration's North Korea policy, i.e. me, answered Kevin's question in the affirmative. But what if he got a 'yes' from The Agonist, who has endorsed almost everything Josh Marshall has said about Korea?

If you don't believe me, take a look at The Agonist's close reading of the 1994 Agreed Framework. (NB: The link to the post itself is not working, so I've linked to the page on at www.agonist.org. Just search the text for "Agreed Framework") So in case you doubted it, yes, North Korea violated our trust. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:01 PM by David Adesnik  

SOMEONE ELSE VS. JOSH MARSHALL: TPM's conservative-bashing continues with this post about proposals to withdraw US troops from North Korea. Marshall says the idea is too clever by half, that we shouldn't be threatening to abandon our allies.

He also points out that abandoning South Korea would only expose it to nuclear blackmail from the North. An excellent point. Which is why OxBlog made it two weeks ago.

Daniel Drezner responds that the idea of a withdrawal isn't as absurd as it sounds, since we ought to at least ask ourselves whether the demands of South Korea's citizens are legitimate. Another good point. As OxBlog has said, "It is these same citizens who have made South Korea the strong democracy that it now is, and their opinion must be respected."

So is OxBlog trying to straddle the fence? No, not really. I agree with Daniel that wanting the US out isn't what South Koreans really want. As I said before, "We should be smart enough to recognize that South Korea's dependence on the United States makes it highly sensitive to all perceived sleights. Given time, it will recognize the danger of compromising with the North."

Now let me add this: South Koreans are willing to protest to vehemently precisely because they know that the US will not withdraw. As is the case in Europe, US security guarantees make those we protect confident enough to criticize us. While conservative often feel that such behavior reflects ingratitude (and it often does), it is precisely this ability to let off steam that makes our alliances work.

NATO has lasted for five decades because all of it members could speak their minds even if they couldn't always have their way. Speaking more broadly, what makes democratic states such good allies for each other is that the norm of respecting free speech leads them to tolerate criticism from their alliance partners. It may not always be easy, but its a helluva lot better than winding up the way the Soviets and the Chinese did.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:31 AM by David Adesnik  

DOONESBURY HAS HART: Garry Trudeau weighs in on the ex-Senator's prospects. Seems like he has Antwaun and Will all figured out... (Thanks to KJ for spotting this.)

PS How about this for a match-up in '08: Gary Hart and Bret "The Hit Man" Hart vs. Condi Rice and Donna Rice? Voter turnout would go through the roof! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:48 PM by David Adesnik  

CALLED OUT BY CALPUNDIT: Kevin asks how I could criticize all those who demanded negotiations with North Korea, then turn around and endorse Bush's decision to talk.

There's a fairly straightforward answer to that. Cited verbatim on Kevin's site is my statement that Bush's decision "shows flexibility by accepting North Korea's demands for face to face talks but preserves the US demand that North Korea has to disarm before its substantive demands are met." The key word there is before.

In contrast, Kevin and other critics have demanded negotiations without preconditions in which the US offers North Korea concessions in exchange for stopping its nuclear program. (It is my privilege, of course, to point out for the umpteenth time that only Kevin has actually admitted that negotiating without preconditions entails concessions.)

The difference between "before" and "in exchange" is more than a matter of diplomatic semantics. If the North agrees to stop its program before being rewarded, it thereby acknowledges that the US is right on the matter of principle and forgoes the right to resume its program in the future. If such an agreement results from an exchange, then the North can always insist that the US has failed to live up to its side of the bargain, thus releasing the North from its obligations. In light of the North's constant habit of exploiting its nuclear program to demand foreign aid, the "before" vs. "in exchange" distinction becomes quite important.

Now, Josh Marshall has argued that the administration is in the middle of an embarrassing climb-down which will end in its accepting North Korea's preconditions. If that turns out to be the case, then I'll eat my words. If not, I'll expect some reciprocal penance from my honorable foes. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:19 PM by David Adesnik  

MARSHALL ROLLS THE DICE: Up until now, I have been an unforgiving critic of Josh Marshall's one-man war on the Bush administration's North Korea policy. But today, Marshall comes up with some evidence that may turn the tide in his favor.

Citing the Nelson Report, Marshall says that outgoing Clinton administration officials briefed incoming Bush appointees about the existence of North Korea's illegal uranium-enrichment. This fact is expected to make the transition from rumor truth when the Clinton officials in question testify before Congress on the current crisis.

Citing the Nelson Report again, Marshall says that the administration had no idea that it might provoke a crisis when it confronted the North Koreans about the uranium program. For the moment, this point remains undocumented as well.

Put these two facts together, and you come to Marshall's conclusion that the administration's current effort to open talks with the North is not a well-planned strategy to secure a better deal than Clinton did in 1994, but an emergency face-saving maneuver designd to end a confrontation it never wanted to provoke in the first place.

In the coming days, we'll see who's right. In the meantime, take a look at Fareed Zakaria's column on North Korea. Marshall praises it highly becuase Zakaria also intimates that the administration is trying to save face after realizing that it has no strategy for dealing with North Korea. But Zakaria also says that if the US negotiates well, it could "significantly improve on the Clinton deal" of 1994. And that may happen because Bush chose to stand up to the North rather than rushing into negotiations. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:28 PM by David Adesnik  

LIEBERMAN GORES BUSH: I expected better from Senator Joe. In a WaPo op-ed, he blames the North Korean crisis on Bush's decision to confront the North after discovering its secret weapons program. Instead, he says, we should've negotiated right away.

Like every other critic of the administration (except the honorable CalPundit), Lieberman refuses to say we actually should've rewarded the North's violation of our trust.

There is a more serious flaw in Lieberman's argument, however. As Michael Kelly explains, negotiating right away is exactly what the North wanted. They have a long record of exploiting their nuclear weapons program to get foreign aid. Negotiating right away would've shown them that the US will let them get away with it.

As I understand it, the administration wants to emerge from this crisis with a guarantee that the North will not pull any more fast ones. If Bush's comes away with less, I'll be disappointed. But at least he tried.

Final question: Why would Lieberman want to challenge Bush on national security issues after supporting him so firmly on Iraq? Perhaps to show his fellow partisans that he is not an elephant in donkey's clothing. But who really thought that?

It seems Lieberman, like his former running mate, just doesn't understand that credibility on national security issues is not something that a Democratic candidate can take for granted. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:08 PM by David Adesnik  

VIVE LA GUERRE! French Pres. Jacques Chirac has begun telling his troops that they may have to fight. The WaPo says it's because Chirac was dismayed by Iraq's evasive report to the UN last month.

Of course, France will only fight if the UN authorizes military action. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of hearing that one. If France backs a war, Russia and China will follow. France knows that it is the swing vote on the council.

Then again, Chirac has a domestic audience to play to, so we can't expect too much from him before Iraq does something provocative. Let's see what he says on Thursday, when the UN inspectors are expected to criticize Iraq for withholding critical information. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:58 PM by David Adesnik  

MORE IRAQI EXILE SQUABBLING: No surprise here. It just goes to show that Condi was right to side with the State Department and deny the exiles any official role in US occupation plans. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:54 PM by David Adesnik  

RECYCLING THE NEWS. Three op-eds on North Korea today. All the same as last week's. Nick Kristof says we have to negotiate. Yet just like every other administration critic except for CalPundit, he can't bring himself to say that we should actually make concessions.

David Ignatius reminds us that Bush's diplomatic approach to North Korea isn't consistent with his doctrine of pre-emption. Haven't heard that one before. Ignatius also pulls out the shopworn fallacy that Bush's inconsistent pre-9/11 North Korea policy is responsible for the current crisis.

And finally, former DoD cheif Bill Cohen says that the US, "acting indirectly and discreetly, will inevitably need to address some of Pyongyang's concerns." Or as Cohen puts it, we'll have to offer "concessions by another name."

Props to him for using the C-word, but it still seems that he won't commit himself to actually naming any. Instead, Cohen just presents a list of demands, such as "international monitoring and verification far in excess of what has been in place to date", which are rather ambitious for someone who favors concessions.

This is going to sound nuts, but I can't wait til Iraq is in the headlines again.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:18 PM by David Adesnik  

PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: In a surprise move, the US, Japan and South Korea have declared that it is "willing to talk to North Korea about how it will meet its obligations to the international community," i.e. get rid of its nuclear weapons program.

That's good diplomacy. It shows flexibility by accepting North Korea's demands for face to face talks but preserves the US demand that North Korea has to disarm before its substantive demands are met. Hopefully, the North will go along with this plan.

Note that OxBlog was wrong when it predicted yesterday that the US was going to depend on back-room diplomacy to break the deadlock with North Korea. But you know what? I'm glad I'm wrong. This is a better idea.

It does raise the question, however, of why the Bush administration decided to be so accommodating? My guess is it wants North Korea out of the way so it can get down to business in Iraq. The clock is ticking... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:59 PM by David Adesnik  

JEWS AND LIGHTBULBS: Kesher Talk has the low down on this controversial subject. For example, how many Orthodox Rabbis does it take to change a lightbulb? Click here for the answer.

The folks at Kesher Talk also cover more serious subjects, such as Israeli politics and Jewish culture. And for all you goyim out there, the real reason to visit Kesher Talk is all their links to Tolkein parodies. Does it get any better than this?
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:58 PM by David Adesnik  

EXERCISE YOUR 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS! I was thinking of taking up hunting. Not because I support the NRA (which I don't), but because I think it is important to recognize that animals do not simply become food.

Now why am I having such strange thoughts? Well, you see, the NYT ran a story yesterday on a PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) plan to boycott KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken, like you didn't know). PETA's demands actually seemed reasonable and humane, which I didn't expect.

But let me expose my own bias: I already boycott KFC. Not willingly. But after I got food poisoning at the local KFC a couple of years back, I feel it would just be stupid to go in there and ask for it again. Anyway, what struck me about the NYT story was this quote:

"If people knew what happened to those chickens, raising them in their own filth and then dumping them on an assembly line to have their throats cut when they're still alive, they wouldn't go to Kentucky Fried Chicken." -- Bruce Friedrich, PETA spokesman

I don't believe that for a second. The average person knows what happens to a chicken on an industrial farm, even if the details are not something you want to think about just before sitting down with your MegaBucket. Besides, I doubt that the Purdue birds you get in the supermarket are raised in such wonderful conditions.

Still, there probably are some people who really would not be willing to eat meat and poultry if they had to take it's life beforehand. That's why I want to hunt. To know if I can stand by my principles when push comes to shove. Besides, I want an excuse to wear a hat with earflaps.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:38 PM by David Adesnik  

A CREATIVE IDEA from OxBlog reader Wretchard: The US could respond [to North Korean demands] by remaining silent on "nonagression" but by redeploying the US troops in South Korea away from the border. This would effectively appear to be a peaceful move [even though] removing [the] 2nd Infantry from the border would actually be an offensive deployment [because it would increase the mobility and striking power of US troops].

Redepolyment would also resolve an issue Wretchard pointed to earlier, which is that every time someone proposes moving US troops away from the border for tactical reasons, objections to the political significance of such a move get raised. But for now, politics may favor this strategically important decision. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:26 PM by David Adesnik  

BUSH GETS SERIOUS ABOUT DEMOCRACY: In Iraq. The NYT has a long article today on plans for the postwar occupation.

The plan projects a military presence in Iraq for a minimum of eighteen months. That extended period will enable US forces to hunt down both rogue weapons as well rogue members of Saddam's government. More importantly, it means there will be real force behind Iraq's first civilian government, and it won't be challenged by warlords the way the Karzai government is in Afghanistan. The plan explicity calls for a unified Iraq.

In refusing to pledge support for a provisional government made up of Iraq exiles, the plan comes down on the side of State Department and against the Pentagon. Good choice. As OxBlog has long insisted, the exiles are selfish, incompetent, and unable to demonstrate that they command the loyalty of anyone in Iraq. For an in-depth profile of the leading exiles, see this cover story from TNR.

Still, doing the right thing in Iraq is not the same as supporting democracy throughout the Arab World. Tom Carothers has that story and others in what I consider to be the best article out there on the Bush administration's democracy promotion efforts. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:58 PM by David Adesnik  

SPIES LIKE US: Saddam now says the UN inspectors are spies. If so, they must be some of the most incompetent spies ever. They haven't found anything, and they let their cover get blown!

The Blix Boys have been trying to show off their cojones, however, by shutting thousands of Iraqis into a research complex while investigating it. Good for them.

While the inspectors have done quite a reasonable job, all things considered, I don't believe for a second that they're going to produce any evidencethat Saddam has outlawed weapons. The President is just going to have ask himself whether he is so damn sure that Saddam has those weapons that the time has come to invade, allies or not.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:45 PM by David Adesnik  

IS ATRIOS KIM JONG IL? The WaPo has published a profile of Kim Jong Il, full of the usual amusing anecdotes. It seems Mr. Kim browses the web for around two hours per day, thus leading to the obvious question: Is Atrios really Kim Jong Il?

Regardless of the answer to that question, one would hope that Mr. Kim's browsing might take up enough of his free time so that he doesn't have to order the kidnapping of any more South Korean entertainers. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:41 PM by David Adesnik  

BE VEWY, VEWY QUIET!!! The IAEA has decided not to forward its condemnation of North Korea to the Security Council, but nonetheless described the situation as "urgent". IAEA Mohammed ElBaradei stated that "I hope (North Korea) will seize this opportunity. Complaince and not defiance is the way towards a solution."

In light of ElBaradei's statement and the Bush administration's considerable praise of the IAEA declaration, it seems clear that the IAEA's decision reflected a consensual effort to let quiet diplomacy have its fifteen minutes, thus giving the North Koreans a chance to back down without losing face.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:30 PM by David Adesnik  

IN MEMORIAM -- THE VISSER VIEW (2002 -2002): Born in a land below sea-level, Dutchman Michael Visser quickly rose to prominence in the blogosphere by giving us the news that that mainstream media wouldn't. With much work ahead of him in the next six months as he prepares for (surprise, surprise) more graduate school, Michael has decided to cast off his virtual coil, condemning the Visser View to the netherworld of the Netherlands. Farewell. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:00 PM by David Adesnik  

THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLE ON US DEMOCRACY PROMOTION: Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment is the leading authority on democracy promotion. His book, Aiding Democracy Abroad, is a must read for every Washington resident with an interest in promoting democracy abroad. Less well known -- but no less impressive is his first book -- which covers US democracy promotion in Latin America under Reagan.

Now, in the current issue of Foreign Affars, Carothers has given us the definitive account of the Bush administration's efforts to promote democracy abroad. A model of even-handedness, Carothers provides a comprehensive guide to what the administration has done about promoting democracy, as well as the best existing account of the conflicting ideas and interests that are responsible for America's inconsistency when it comes to promoting democracy abroad.

While Carothers is even-handed, I am not. Much of my admiration for Tom comes from the fact that I know him personally because I worked just down the hall from him during my year at Carnegie. In addition to being an innovative thinker of the highest caliber, Tom is living proof that you don't have to compromise your principles to get ahead in Washington. Every Junior Fellow at Carnegie looked up to him. Still, I believe that there is no one out there writing about democracy promotion who does it even nearly as well as Tom.

I consider it to be both a striking coincidence and an omen that Tom's office is where I was on the morning of September 11th. I was visiting Washington to do research for my master's thesis. I woke up and heard on the radio that two jets had crashed into the World Trade Center. I assumed they were small, that a few dozen people had died, that I could go on with my day. I showered and got dressed. I went to see Tom. I had an appointment for 10am. The Pentagon was hit. We tried to talk for a couple of minutes, but everything was becoming chaos.

Everyone rushed to watch the television in the staff kitchen. I didn't believe the towers would fall until I saw them collapse. I swore to myself that this would not stand. That I would devote my life to helping, in whatever way I could, make sure that this could never happen again. This is what promoting democracy -- in the Middle East and everywhere -- means to me. I am proud that I was in Tom's office that morning. That I was in Washington that summer researching democracy promotion.

It might disturb Tom to read all this. He is too wise to believe that crusades make matters better rather than worse. But I am young and I still have a lot to learn and I have to fight. God save us all. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:19 PM by David Adesnik  

WILD CARD GAME: No, not in the NFL. In East Asia. The Council on Foreign Relations addresses the common question of whether China will help the resolve the North Korean crisis. Answer: Maybe. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:13 PM by David Adesnik  

PREACHING TO THE CONVERTED: Is it OK, if sometimes, instead of reading to learn, you read out of spite? I sort of felt that way while reading this Weekly Standard piece about the Palestinians. It didn't say much new, but it said it well. Here is a sampling of some of the goodies:

Even if Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, this would not affect in the slightest the tensions [within the Arab world]...It is helpful to remember that all of the dead in the Arab-Israeli wars of the past half century amount to only a tiny fraction of the million killed during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, the 100,000 killed in Algeria's civil war since 1992, or the 100,000 killed in Lebanon's civil war from 1975 to 1990.

Or:

For the Europeans, championing the Palestinian cause allows them to assuage lingering colonial guilt by championing the aspirations of a Third World people who claim to be oppressed by Western imperialists--in this case, Israelis. It also allows Europeans to trumpet their moral superiority over pro-Israel Americans. And, last but not least, it allows them to curry favor with both oil-rich Arab states and their own growing Muslim minorities.

Or:

All the Arab states combined donate less than $7 million to UNRWA [the UN body responsible for the refugee camps], just 2.4 percent of its $290 million budget. (Kuwait, Egypt, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates collectively contribute a grand total of zero.) By contrast, the Great Satan forks over $110 million, or 38 percent of UNRWA's budget. The Arabs prefer to spend their money to support Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam Hussein alone has paid an estimated $20 million over the past two years to "martyrs'" families.

And finally:

Arafat's wife Suha has generously said that there would be "no greater honor" than to sacrifice her son as a martyr. But she doesn't have a son. She has a daughter and they live in Paris.

These things are sort of like potato chips. You can't have just one. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:58 PM by David Adesnik  

MULTIPOLARITY IS BETTER. At least in the NFL. Now say it with me: J-E-T-S...JETS, JETS, JETS! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:58 PM by David Adesnik  

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: SAUDI ARABIA. I admit it. I've been somewhat derelict in providing the posts on Islam and democracy which I promised both long ago and just last week. I blame Kim Jong Il.

Previous posts in this series have focused on Algeria and Egypt. Now its the Saudis' turn. As before, my report will consist of a summary of and commentary on an essay in the Journal of Democracy.

In short, there is no good news about democracy in Saudi Arabia. But what's good about the bad news is the kind of bad news that it is. Dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is a product of greed and the struggle for power. It is not the final bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism.

So how bad is bad? For starters, there has never been an election in Saudi Arabia. There are no political parties. The press and judiciary are entirely subordinate to the regime. NGOs are all but forbidden. Arrests are arbitary. And women are treated like property.

While this sort of description suggests that the Saudi monarchy is an almost totalitarian dictatorship, it isn't. The royal family itself is an oligarchy, with thousands of princes participating in the struggle for power. Commoners play a leading role in the powerful oil, finance and commerce sectors, roles which the royals dare not challenge lest they provoke a rebellion. The commoners also dominate the bureaucracy.

Finally, conservative Wahabist clerics dominate the religious establishment. This domination is not a product of the recent fundamentalist surge in Middle East, but rather a traditional arrangement dating to the 18th century, when the royal house of Saud bought the loyalty of the Wahabist (or Al Sheikh) clan by granting it control of religious affairs.

The current balance between these three factions may not withstand the demographic revolution that has begun to engulf Sauid Arabia, however. Thirty years ago, there were fewer than 5 million Saudis. Now there are more than 15 million, plus 6 million foreign workers who are not citizens. Half the population is under 16.

Between 250,000 and 500,000 new workers enter the job market each year. Having failed to diversify its oil-based economy, Saudi Arabia struggles to provide jobs for this new generation. Even worse, employers prefer to hire Indian and Pakistani immigrants, who are just as well-educated as their Saudi counterparts but who can be paid much less.

In theory, the government should take advantage of its oil revenues to finance industrial diversification. But from a political perspective, that just isn't possible. The government's massive arms expenditures -- which could finance considerable diversification -- are in fact a subsidy to an industry dominated by the royal family. With no other source of income, the princes won't give up their share.

At the same time, the commoner-dominated bureaucracy refuses to facilitate diversification by means of deregulation, since the commoners fear that an economic opening would enable the princes to buy out commoner-owned industries, thus destroying the commoner elite's power base.

Finally, borrowing is not an option since the government has run budget deficits for more than two decades. As it well knows, the lethal combination of debt and deficit could destroy the kingdom's blue chip image and place it on the road to Latin Americanization.

An important question for advocates of democracy promotion is whether a growing Saudi underclass might embrace Islamic fundmentalism as the only available means of striking back at the regime. According to Jean-Francois Seznec, the Columbia University professor who authored the Journal of Democracy's article on Saudi Arabia,

The Wahabis themselves are very much divided: There are the traditionalist proponents of a "purer" Islam who support the regime [and] advocate reform by peaceful means...Then there are the "jihadis", who are generally younger, advocate change through violence -- they include the followers of Osama bin Laden -- and are widely disparaged as unstable hotheads. Their ideas frighten most Saudis, particularly the middle class. Despite Western impressions that a broad and deep stream of radical, anti-democratic Islamism runs just beneath the surface of Saudi society, the jihadis support is slim.

I hope Seznec is right, though I am skeptical. Then again, my knowledge of Saudi Arabia derives entirely from the Western press. As I know from personal experience in Argentina, the Western media often provide a profoundly disorted -- and generally alarmist -- account of local politics.

Still, Seznec seems to err on the side of optimist too often for my taste (and I am an optimist). For example, he presents the creation of the Shura, or appointed advisory council to the king, as a major step toward political decompression. Its deliberations receive wide coverage in the Saudi media. But I am not impressed. Seznec presents no evidence that the Shura has actual influence. Nor is there any reason to believe that it could withstand an effort by the king to destroy it.

As I have said before, the best hope for democratization in Saudi Arabia is pressure from the United States. We have to make it clear that the long-term health of the US-Saudi alliance depends on the future of democracy in Saudi Arabia. Right now, that does not sound credible. But if Saudi Arabia found itself bordered by a democratic Iran and a democratic Iraq, it might no longer take American support for granted.

A critical turning point in Saudi politics will come with the appointment of a new king after the death of the ailing Fahd. While rumor has it that Crown Prince Abdullah favors holding municipal elections, he cannot pass reform without the support of the selfsame princes whose authority elections might challenge. Since the monarchy is not hereditary, Abdullah will have to negotiate with his fellow princes before assuming the kingship. During those negotiations, the United States has to make clear to the the conservative factions of the royal family that their long-term interests will be best served if they grant the Saudi people the freedom that they deserve.





(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:48 PM by David Adesnik  

HAMAS BACKS SHARON: Sucide bombers kill 19 in Tel Aviv. It's as if Hamas (or Fatah?) wanted Sharon to emerge from this month's elections with an even stronger mandate. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:31 PM by David Adesnik  

AND A PSYCHIC AS WELL: It turns that Sean-Paul, the Renaissance Man and jack-of-all-trades known as The Agonist, is also a psychic. He told me he has a new post up on North Korea and that I would like even though I wouldn't disagree with it. Well, he's right.

Based on his professional experience in South Korea, Sean-Paul observes that consensus is critical to decision-making in both public and private settings such. If the US fails to appreciate this, it will antagonize the South Koreans, whose support is critical to a resolution of the current crisis on the peninsula.

As Sean-Paul correctly observes, very few American officials or commentators have taken South Korean interests seriously when responding to the current crisis. He also kindly notes that I have come closest doing so in my posts on the topic, including this one and this one.

While I lack the expertise Sean-Paul has on Korean culture, I sense that the Korean/East Asian pursuit of consensus applies only to non-political conflicts. In fact, the Koreans are perhaps more nationalistic than any other East Asian people. The campaign rhetoric of President-elect Roh Moo Hyun hardly advocated seeking consensus with the United States.

Looking back in time, it is also hard to defend the idea that Koreans value consensus in the political sphere. Brutal dictators such as Park Chung Hee and Chun Do Hwan did not seem all that interested in consensus. Kim Il Sung didn't launch the Korean War for the purpose of achieving consensus. And in past weeks, the North Koreans have violated a treaty, expelled UN inspectors and declared that they want to negotiate with the US one-on-one rather than in a multilateral context. So much for consensus.

Beyond suggesting that Sean-Paul's specific point about East Asian culture is less than tenable, I think that it is important to make the general point that cultural arguments about political behavior often fail because culture can explain continuity, but not change.

This still leaves one mystery unresolved: If I reject cultural approaches to politics, why have I shown just as much interest in South Korean interests as Sean-Paul has? Becuase of my commitment to democracy and equality. The voice of a democratic people must be respected if its wishes are consistent with democratic principles. If South Koreans have a different view of how to resolve the current crisis, we must approach them with respect and try to persuade them of the importance of our views when necessary.

Moreover, on a tactical level, it will impossible to resolve the current crisis successfully without South Korean help. Thanks to the administration's measured response, the South Koreans are showing considerable respect for American interests, despite the pervasive anti-Americanism of the recent presidential campaign.

The WaPo reports that a South Korean proposal recommends that "the United States would guarantee North Korea's security and resume shipments of fuel oil in exchange for promises by North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programs."

The North has responded, via its official news agency, that "There is no reason why the U.S. should not accept the proposal, the best way for a peaceful solution." So much for those who said that Bush's talk of pre-emption had provoked the North Koreans to esclate the current crisis.

While I still believe that the US ought to secure UN backing for its position and demand an end to the North's illegal weapons program as a pre-condition for negotiations, I think that the new South Korean proposal shows just how much effective diplomacy can achieve even in a brief amount of time.

UPDATE: Seems both the Russians and South Koreans have moved closer to the US position. After talks between senior South Korean and Russian officials, South Korea's vice foreign minister said that ``North Korea should renounce its nuclear program and return to the situation as it was before the beginning of October...That move could pave the way for the resumption of dialogue with the United States.'' (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:27 AM by David Adesnik  

WISH THEY ALL COULD BE CALIFORNIA: Kevin Drum, aka CalPundit, has the guts to say what no other critic of the administration has: that negotiating means rewarding the North Koreans for their deception.

Still, I think Kevin is rushing to the conclusion that the time for negotiations and concessions has come. He says sanctions and isolation won't work because we might have to wait decades before anything happens. All the while, the North Koreans will keep on building more bombs.

Perhaps, but as the State Department has explained, the US isn't against negotiations per se. Rather, the precondition of those negotiations will be North Korea's renunciation of its illegal arms program.

Is that sort of precondition realistic? At the moment, no. But if South Korea, China and and the UN Security Council all endorse it, the North will find itself in a tough position.

Today, the head of the South Korean Foreign Ministry's North American Department said that "If North Korea announces its willingness to scrap [its uranium-enrichment program], that can set the stage for dialogue with the United States."

As for the UN, the IAEA's "directors [will] meet on Monday in Vienna to weigh a resolution that could lead to the imposition of sanctions against North Korea by the United Nations Security Council."

As Kevin says, what matters is not whether you negotiate, but whether you negotiate well. And this first part of negotiating well is negotiating under the right conditions.

All in all, I don't think Kevin and I are that far apart on the North Korea issue anymore. As he says, "North Korea precipitated the crisis, not us, and the administration's reaction so far has been quite measured. I hope it stays that way."
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:28 PM by David Adesnik  

I PROFESS IGNORANCE: According to the NYT's editors, "The American people are confused by the contradictions between their government's approach to North Korea and Iraq, and frustrated by the sudden lack of clarity in their government's foreign policy."

Living in the UK, it's hard to know what the American people are thinking. But since I haven't seen any polls on the subject, I sort of suspect that the Times'elitism has gotten the better of it. Anyone who reads a newspaper realizes that we can't attack North Korea because, if we do, the North Koreans will strike back by slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent South Koreans and/or Japanese. That is called deterrence. (Confused? Ask Tom Friedman.)

Fortunately, we still have the chance to stop Iraq before it becomes another North Korea. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:17 PM by David Adesnik  

CONSCIENCE ACTING UP AGAIN? In an effort to build bridges to the cynics, Tom Friedman tries to explain why some part of this war is about oil. Unfortunately, he can't seem to figure out which part.

Friedman starts off with this non-starter:

Why are they going after Saddam Hussein with the 82nd Airborne and North Korea with diplomatic kid gloves — when North Korea already has nuclear weapons, the missiles to deliver them, a record of selling dangerous weapons to anyone with cash, 100,000 U.S. troops in its missile range and a leader who is even more cruel to his own people than Saddam?

Perhaps the NY Times' resident expert on international relations has heard of deterrence?

Yes, might America has been deterred. The real question is, do we want Iraq to be able to deter us as well once it has nuclear weapons?

Friedman's next stab goes like this:

The primary reason the Bush team is more focused on Saddam is because if he were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, it might give him the leverage he has long sought — not to attack us, but to extend his influence over the world's largest source of oil, the Persian Gulf."

Now, if Tom were talking about Bush I and not Bush II, Tom would have a point. Oil played a critical role in the First Gulf War. This time, the critical issue is that Saddam has mocked the authority of both the US and the UN for over a decade. We realized on Sept. 11 that this had to end.

Next, Friedman offers some advice: "The Bush team would have a stronger case for fighting a war partly for oil if it made clear by its behavior that it was acting for the benefit of the planet, not simply to fuel American excesses." I see. If Bush were a good environmentalist, then the European left wouldn't suspect him of fighting an imperialist war for oil.

But the real point about oil is that if what Bush wanted was to ensure lower prices, he would've cut a deal with Saddam rather than antagonizing him. A war in Iraq will keep its oil off the market for a long time to come. The "No Blood for Oil" crowd just never seems to realize that war is bad for business. Then again, they probably never ran one.

Toward the end of his piece, Tom does offer some reasonable advice, however: "Should we end up occupying Iraq, and the first thing we do is hand out drilling concessions to U.S. oil companies alone, that perception would only be intensified." Yes. But if Tom knew about the oil business, he would also recognize that oil firms will probably form consortia in order to reduce their risk, rather than investing directly. So Bush probably won't even have a chance to cut all his bid'ness partners in on the deal.

The one really strong point that Friedman does make in his article is that if a brutal dictator did threaten the world's oil supply, resisting him would be justified. And that's exactly why dozens of nations signed on the first time we had to invade Iraq. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:06 AM by David Adesnik  

CONSERVATIVE EXCESS: Eugene Volokh, who happens to be at a conference right now with Glenn Reynolds, put up this post before heading out for the weekend.

PS TMI Glenn, TMI. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:02 PM by David Adesnik  

WHY IRAQ BUT NOT NORTH KOREA? The Wall Street Journal explains. Thanks to Pejman for the link. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:53 PM by David Adesnik  

STILL ANTI-AMERICAN? Daniel Drezner takes an innovative and balanced look at the charge that the Bush administration is aggressive, unilateralist and tone deaf. Also see his related posts here and here.

And while you're at, read Andrew Sullivan's post on Paul Krugman latest anti-American pronouncement. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:39 PM by David Adesnik  

WHEN DOVES ATTACK, PART III: OxBlog is in hot water. In my posts on North Korea yesterday and the day before, I referred to a number of fellow bloggers, including Josh Marshall, CalPunditand The Agonist as doves. I was mistaken and I take it back.

As Josh and Sean-Paul have pointed out, they are liberal internationalists who are not afraid of using force to accomplish principled objectives. Josh has often defended his views in print and Sean-Paul has done so online. I think Kevin might well fall into the same category, though he has not seen the need to say so explicitly.

That said, let's get back to North Korea. Today, the President's critics unveiled their newest argument: that Bush's pre-crisis rhetoric of pre-emption has provoked the North Koreans into dangerously raising the stakes of the current crisis. In addition, the administration's timid response to North Korea's defiance has convinced Kim Jong Il that he should go ahead and develop nuclear weapons since the United States will not launch preeemptive strikes against him.

With slight variations, this argument represents the views of Paul Krugman, Josh Marshall and the Democratic Leadership Council. As I see it, the argument has two main flaws.

First, the North Koreans have said over and over that what they want is not to develop nuclear weapons, but to negotiate a non-aggression pact with the United States. Krugman totally misses this. In contrast, Marshall and the DLC recognize that Kim wants concessions. Still, neither one explains what exactly the North Koreans would have done differently if Bush hadn't provoked them with his doctrine of preemption. Unless one really believes that an unprovoked North would've agreed to disarm instead of demanding a non-aggression pact, it's hard to argue that Bush pre-emption rhetoric had any impact whatsoever.

The second major problem with the critics' new argument is that it does nothing to explain the fact that North Korea began its secret uranium-enrichment program long before Bush became president. Neither Krugman, Marshall (in today's posts), nor the DLC can bring themselves to even mention that fact. And why should they? If the North Koreans set off the current crisis by continuing to do exactly what they had been doing throughout Clinton's second term, there isn't much to hold Bush responsible for.

In addition to these flaws, the adminstration's critics are still a number of disingenuous things which I've pointed out before.

First, not one of them has suggested an alternative to the administration's current strategy. Krugman and Marshall say sanctions and isolation are unworkable. Yet just yesterday the South Koreans "stepped up diplomatic overtures to Russia and China to seek help in pressuring North Korea to compromise."

Incomprehensibly, the DLC has called upon Bush to abandon his unilateralism and work with other nations to end the crisis. The best explanation I can come up with for this one is that the DLC refuses to read either the NYT or the WaPo.

Marshall has also begun to accuse the administration of having no plan at all, which doesn't exactly fit with his previous accusation that their plan isn't working.

Second of all, not one of the administration's critics has suggested any alternative to publicly confronting the North once the US has compelling evidence of that it had a secret weapons program. As I asked yesterday,

What was the President supposed to do after the CIA provided him with compelling evidenfce that the North was pursuing an illegal uranium-enrichment program designed to produce nuclear weapons?

Inaction might have delayed a US-North Korean conflict, but that might have given the North time to mount its uranium warheads on a missile pointed at Japan. In addition, confronting the North now -- in the aftermath of a unanimous Security Council decision to condemn Iraq's nuclear program -- ensures that the UN will have to apply the same strict standard to North Korea as it has to Iraq.

The point still stands.

Now, if after all this criticism of what I disagree with, you want some sense of what I do support, take a look at Charles Krauthammer's column on the crisis. While he is convinced that sanctions, he emphasizes the important point that the US has an important card which it hasn't yet played: Japan. With the exception of an independent Taiwan, China fears nothing more than a nuclear Japan.

While one can't expect Krauthammer to footnote his columns, it's worth noting that his view coincides with that of Tom Christensen, perhaps the leading expert on Chinese military and security policy. After conducting extensive interviews with Chinese officials, Christensen concluded that the US has significantly underestimated both their fear of Japan and their appreciation of US efforts to preventing Japan from becoming too powerful.

As Christensen points out, it is not widely known that Japanese defense expenditures are far higher than the PRC's, even though they consume a much, much lower percentage of GDP. Thus, the Japanese also have an almost unlimited potential to increase their military spending in the event of a crisis. Colin Powell's protestsaside, we are now in the midst of a crisis.

Finally, I'm going to plug Josh Marshall's post on whether or not the North has nuclear weapons and why Powell keeps insisting that it does. While the administration's strategy for dealing with North Korea is the best one available, it seems totally unable to talk straight about the crisis with the American people. Now that is serious grounds for criticism.



(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:21 PM by David Adesnik  

THAT IS, LIKE, SO SUPERFICIAL, DUDE: Patrick Ruffini takes a look at why anti-Americanism in Europe is only skin deep. Here's the clincher:

But what happens if and when our methods prove successful and a relatively stable pro-Western regime takes hold in Baghdad? Will the Europeans object even then? It's more likely that Europeans too will breathe a collective sigh of relief, and the current spasm of anti-Americanism that concerns so many opinion-makers will cease to be relevant.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:00 PM by David Adesnik  

WHEN DOVES ATTACK, PART II: "The Agonist" is the nom de blog of a fellow student of International Relations who has traveled the world in search of truth, enlightenment, and investment capital. Sean-Paul has even taught English in South Korea, which perhaps explains why his posts are so much more intelligent than those of the elder Democratic statesmen who polemicize in the NY Times.

The Agonist's most recent piece-de-resistance is an in-depth look at the Agreed Framework that resolved the 1994 crisis on the Korean peninsula. For those who not familiar with the details of the current crisis, the best place to start might well be Sean-Paul's Korean Primer.

Now, despite my gratuitously French-laden praise of Sean-Paul, I assure you that we stand far apart on some critical issues relating to North Korea. Most important of all is his insistence, drawing on Josh Marshall, that the President has embarassed himself by letting Kim Jong Il call his bluff on the nuclear issue.

Bush's critics are right that his administration has not had any sort of consistent policy regarding North Korea and that the administration's insistence that it won't launch a preemptive attack on North Korea shows just how superficial its commitment to its National Security Strategy really is. But neither of those facts mean that Kim has been (or will be) successful in resisting international pressure.

Another significant difference between myself and the critics is that they stand united behind their insistence that Bush ought to negotiate with the North. Yet while calling for negotiation, not one of them can actually bring himself to say that the US should reward the North Koreans with additional economic aid in exchange for their violation of the 1994 treaty. In fact, both Leon Fuerth and Josh Marshall say that rewarding the Norh for its deception is something that we definitely can't do.

In order to support their call for negotiations, the administration's critics avoid any serious consideration of whether its current strategy -- working with regional powers to isolate the North -- might work. Kevin Drum says that "we should either launch a military attack or else go to the table and negotiate" since all previous sanctions have been a failure. Might that be because we've been shipping fuel to North Korea since 1994?

According to Josh Marshall, "The administration says it has a plan: isolate the North Koreans economically and diplomatically. But how serious a plan is that?" Well, the UN, the Japanese and the Russians all think its the best idea anyone has had so far. Marshall dismisses out of hand that the Chinese will go along with it, but such judgment is premature.

The final trick in the critics' playbook is their insistence that it is the United States rather than the North Koreans who are responsible for the current crisis. In admirable effort to demonstrate the relevance of Star Wars to international relations, Kevin D. compares Bush's provocation of the North to the Emperor's provocation of Luke, which results in the Emperor being thrown down a bottomless energy shaft. (If you need this explained to you, call Pejman.)

Josh Marshall just asks "why in the hell did [the US] provoke this situation in the first place?"

Question for Josh and Kevin: What was the President supposed to do after the CIA provided him with compelling evidenfce that the North was pursuing an illegal uranium-enrichment program designed to produce nuclear weapons?

Inaction might have delayed a US-North Korean conflict, but that might have given the North time to mount its uranium warheads on a missile pointed at Japan. In addition, confronting the North now -- in the aftermath of a unanimous Security Council decision to condemn Iraq's nuclear program -- ensures that the UN will have to apply the same strict standard to North Korea as it has to Iraq.

I may not know how to resolve the current crisis, but I do know that no critic of the administration's approach has come at all close to suggesting a viable alternative.

UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: In response to my mail, I just want to say that I actively support the administration's approach, rather than simply accepting it because the critics haven't come up with anything better. I don't offer an alternative to the administration's strategy because I believe that it is doing what's best right now. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:39 PM by David Adesnik  

HIT ME BABY ONE MORE TIME: The NY Times presents an in-depth report on Israeli soldiers' beating of innocent Palestinians. Other than a quote from an Israeli human rights organization, the only evidence provided comes from Palestinian witnesses. Come on, can't we get some real reporting just once? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:12 PM by David Adesnik  

WHEN DOVES ATTACK: Hawks are predators. Doves are not. When doves attack, their lack of natural talent quickly becomes apparent. Take for example, the all-out attack on W.'s Korea policy launched by Warren Christopher, Leon Fuerth and Josh Marshall.

Christopher is the most civil of the three. He argues that "North Korea's startling revival of its nuclear program...presents compelling reasons for President Bush to step back from his fixation on attacking Iraq and to reassess his administration's priorities."

In a column entitled "Outfoxed by North Korea", Fuerth asserts that "when using words as weapons, a leader must be prepared to back up his rhetoric with force. The president's nomination of North Korea as a member of the 'Axis of Evil' in his last State of the Union message now looks like a bluff that is being called."

Marshall hits hardest, describing the crisis as "an administration screw-up of mammoth proportions."

In addition to their harsh criticism of the President, what unites all three authors is their total unwillingness -- or perhaps inability -- to suggest an alternative to the administration's current policy. Each one acknowledges that the situation on the Korean peninsula is complex and volatile and that there are no simple answers to the questions that Bush is facing. But if there aren't any answers, why spend so much time criticizing the President?

Christopher thinks that if the Bush administration leaves Iraq alone for a while, it could spend more time figuring out how to resolve the Korean crisis. On the one hand, ignoring Iraq would waste all the politicam capital that the United States has invested in focusing Security Council attention on the issue. On the other, how exactly would spending more time thinking about Korea make things any easier? Christopher says that diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis will be complex and time consuming. And yet the administration has already made significant progress toward winning both UN and regional support for isolating North Korea.

Fuerth justifies his criticism by saying that "it would be wise for the administration to reverse course and engage with North Korea." Yet he also writes that "if the president negotiates, he will send a message that the key to respectful attention from his administration is blackmail." So what Fuerth is basically saying is that he wants Bush to give in to North Korean demands regardless of how embarrassing such a decision is. Now does that make any sense at all? Actually, yes -- if your ulterior motive is to show that Clinton's embarrassing 1994 concessions to the North Koreans were inevitable.

Marshall takes a third approach, alleging that Bush's failure has to be publicized because it has been "inexcusably ignored in the American press." Except in the NYT, on whose pages both Nick Kristof and Bill Safire have savaged the administration. Even the editors chipped in with some mild criticism. (NB: OxBlog took a few shots at Bush as well.) And all that was before the Times published Christopher and Fuerth's columns.

Admittedly, Marshall promises "more details soon", instead of just closing with his observation that "Tough talk sounds great until your opponent calls your bluff and everybody sees there's nothing behind the trash talk. Then you look foolish." Still, I find it extremely ironic that Marshall is now denouncing the administration for its weakness when just yesterday he was denouncing it for its dangerous unilateralism.

For constructive commentary on the Korean situation, its best to turn to the Washington Post, where Robert Gallucci -- the man who negotiated the 1994 accord on Clinton's behalf -- argues (along with Sandy Berger), that engagement won't work and that North Korea "must be willing to step forward to resolve its past nuclear history and open its future behavior to comprehensive and verifiable international scrutiny." The Post's editors agree. It's good to see that some observers can put partisanship behind and tackle the current crisis head-on.

UPDATE: Reader B observes that my zoological metaphor is slightly off-base. Non-predators such as doves are sometimes more brutal in their attacks because predators have instincts which prevent them from going to extremes. I guess you could apply that metaphorically as well. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:22 PM by David Adesnik  

THE SAGA CONTINUES: Pejman responds to new theories about why certain dead Jedi disappear while others have to be cremated. He also unveils his site's new unofficial slogan: "PejmanPundit--Providing Cheap Brainless Humor For Rhodes Scholars Everywhere."

The compliment is much appreciated, but methinks it won't be generating much traffic. Those looking for intellectual sustenance should turn to Pejman's response to Josh Marshall's anti-W. rant, which complements my own. Pej offers several good reasons -- which I missed -- as to why the victories for Schroeder and Roh say nothing about anti-Americanism as a force in world politics.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:51 PM by David Adesnik  

THE (JOSH) MARSHALL PLAN: In a careful and measured way, Josh Marshall comes to a provocative conclusion: That George W. Bush's aggressive unilateralism is provoking a major anti-American backlash in democratic nations around the world.

"Schroeder in Germany, Lula in Brazil, now Roh's victory in S. Korea…[this is the] latest 'wake-up call' to [the] U.S., but [it's] not clear what's being heard." Marshall notes that each of these election outcomes had "deep local determinants" and was fundamentally "multi-causal." Fair enough. But, Marshall concludes,

...add these and other election results up and you start to see that hostile reactions to America's newly strident and confrontational stance in the world are becoming an important force in world politics and an important force in the domestic politics of many of our allies.

Not so fast. First of all, Lula's victory in Brazil is an indication of the strength of American values, not a backlash against them. Lula was once a true working-class radical who campaigned in denim and spoke of socialism. As a result, he lost three consecutive presidential elections. This year, Lula decided to wear a suit, accept a binding commitment to IMF economic policies, and pledge to fight inflation and budget deficits.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the WaPo ran the following headline : "Brazil's Leader Seeks to Ease U.S. Concerns About Policies". After appointing a moderate cabinet and shutting out pro-Cuban radicals, Lula met with W. to assure him that Brazil is going to be a good citizen.

Now I admit that what happened in Germany and South Korea was disturbing. But in contrast to Lula, who won in a massive landslide, both Schroeder and Roh won by razor-thin margins. Fearing for their political lives, they took the low road and sought to increase leftist turnout by bashing the US. But does that mean that anti-Americanism is becoming "an important force in world politics"?

Not by a long shot. What Marshall doesn't ask is whether anti-American rhetoric results in anti-American actions, or whether it is just a diversion from fundamentally pro-American foreign policies. Take Schroeder's latest speech for example. While he talks about searching for alternatives to war, he also refuses to rule out German support for a UN-authorized invasion of Iran. And Schroeder adds that: "We Germans know from our own experience that dictators sometimes can only be stopped with force."

Now what about Roh? Marshall writes that

Roh is the first Korean head of state since the partition to be elected on a platform which called into question key aspects of the US-ROK security alliance

And yet Roh is already showing signs of moderation.

Leaving all this aside, it's still worth considering what Marshall asserts is the answer to America's problem. Carefully dissociating himself from the Blame-America-First chorus, Marshall says that there is a "thoughtful middle ground" for the US to stand on. If you click on the words "thoughtful middle ground", you will be taken to Fareed Zakaria's essay in the New Yorker on the subject of multilateralism.

This essay was, of course, the recent subject of a four-part OxBlog fisk-a-thon. Now, I don't hold Josh responsible for not reading my posts. He has better things to do with his time, like taking down Senate majority leaders.

But if Josh were to read my posts, I think he might agree that the best way to address concerns about American greed and belligerence is to pursue an ethical foreign policy rather than searching for a consensus that will only come at the price of accommodating the greed and belligerence of Russia, China and (sometimes) France.

Now Josh is of course right that the Bush administration has needlessly antagonized a lot of people as a result of its ham-fisted diplomacy. Hell, I've spent almost all of my time on OxBlog criticizing every detail of the Bush administration's foreign policy. But all in all, I've come to recognize that things are going more than just alright.

In the end, I don't think Josh and I are all that far apart on the issues. As he points out, he thinks we should use force against Iraq. If I've been a little harsh, it's because I'm worried that a lot of very intelligent and well-intentioned individuals have begun to see multilateralism as an end in itself rather than a means of promoting democracy and human rights across the globe.

UPDATE: More on German backtracking. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:17 PM by David Adesnik  

ARM YOURSELF WITH FACTS: If you are against invading Iraq, you should memorize today's WaPo article on US-Iraq relations in the 1980s. If you are for invading Iraq, you should memorize it as well. We did very bad things in the 1980s and, for that matter, throughout the Cold War.

There isn't all that much new in the article, though it does report on the contents of recently declassified documents from the Reagan administration. While there is no mention of who filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the documents' release, I'd have to imagine it was the National Security Archive, which is the national leader in FOIA requests related to foreign policy. I spent six weeks there doing research on Reagan's El Salvador policy for my master's thesis.

FYI, the Bush administration has been doing all that it can to delay the release of documents whose publication would have no adverse effect on national security, but might prove to be quite embarrassing to both members of the current administration as well as the President's father.

Anyway, the real issue here is how supporters of American foreign policy can address the perennial argument that America's record of immoral actions in the Cold War invalidates any aggressive initiatives the United States plans today. The argument becomes especially complicated when one considers that current members of the cabinet were responsible for those actions. The WaPo, for instance, reports on Rumsfeld's intimate relations with Saddam at a time when the State Department knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis.

I think the proper response is to admit what the US did wrong and shift the discussion to the merits of its current policy. As Ken Pollack tells the WaPo, what we did in the 1980s "was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now." The worst thing to do is come up with defensive justifications of immoral acts. For example, David Newsom, a former ambassador to Baghdad, told the WaPo that

"Fundamentally, [our] policy was justified...we were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

Talk about low standards. All Iraq had to do to become less repressive was massacre thousands of innocent men and women instead of tens of thousands.

The reason such arguments backfire is that they imply a continuity between the moral standards of the past and of the present. But the fact is, the US has learned from its mistakes. For all Bush Sr. and Clinton did wrong when it came to foreign affairs, they did uphold a moral standard higher than any of their predecessors since Harry Truman. (Yes, including Jimmy Carter.)

That is no small accomplishment considering that Bush and Clinton were the first presidents of the first lone superpower since Roman times. Lord Acton observed that "Power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That may have been true once. But the United States took advantage of its unprecedented power to raise its moral standards and those of other nations as well. That is what makes America exceptional. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:29 PM by David Adesnik  

EVIL SOUTH KOREAN CAPITALISTS: The NYT headline reads "U.S. Plan for Trade Penalties for North Korea Worries South Korean Investors". You read it and you think "Oh no! I thought Anti-Americanism was bad enough, but now South Koreans have a real, material interest in preventing the US and UN from imposing sanctions on Kim Jong Il."

But then you read the article and you realize that the headline should've been: "Economic Ties Between North and South Korea Minimal, Irrelevant." What is the annual value of inter-Korean trade? $600 million. Now, it might've been helpful if the Times put that figure in context by giving figures for South Korean trade with other nations. But they don't, so I will. The statistics are available here, from South Korea's National Statistics Office.

Exports to the US: $26.8 billion; To Japan: $12.4 billlion. Germany, the UK, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong all clock in at over $3 billion as well.

Oh, and one more fact buried near the end of the NYT article: North Korea's dysfunctional political system has screwed up almost every foreign investment project in North Korea.

Bottom line: Economic interests are not going to get in the way of imposing sanctions on North Korea. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:50 PM by David Adesnik  

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: LEBANON. A top-notch post from Matt Scofield, who is interested in a lot of the same issues that I am. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:13 AM by David Adesnik  

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: EGYPT. While guest blogging over at The Volokh Conspiracy a few weeks ago, I promised to provide in-depth, country-by-country accounts of the prospects for demcratization in the Middle East. I started out with Algeria, but didn't follow up on it. Until now. This week I'm going to be writing about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Morocco (in that order).

But first, a brief recap. As I said before I want to present a comprehensive, empirical case for the viability of democratization in the Middle East. The previous round of this debate focused on the cultural incompatibility of democracy and Islam. This time I want to focus on the situation on the ground in the Middle East. As I see it, a strong case for democratization must respond to what I called the "Iranian paradigm", or the belief that reform promotes both terrorism and fundamentalism.

So what about Egypt? It made headlines last month when the government broadcast a vicious anti-Semitic television program based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Going back somewhat further, Egypt is best known for the brutal attacks by Muslim fundamentalists that resulted in the murder dozens of Pyramid-bound tourists. Thus, at first glance, the Mubarak dictatorship seems to be the only thing standing in the way of an Islamic revolution. Even so, leading analysts such as Fareed Zakaria have asserted that

If we could choose one place to press hardest to reform, it should be Egypt. Jordan has a more progressive ruler; Saudi Arabia is more critical because of its oil. But Egypt is the intellectual soul of the Arab world. If it were to progress economically and politically, it would demonstrate more powerfully than any essay or speech that Islam is compatible with modernity, and that Arabs can thrive in today's world. (Newsweek, 24 Dec 01 [permalink expired])

Perhaps. But Colin Powell isn't listening. Just after September 11th, he described Mubarak's brutality as a model for the war on terror. Or, as Powell put it,

Egypt, as all of us know, is really ahead of us on this issue. They have had to deal with acts of terrorism in recent years in the course of their history. And we have much to learn from them and there is much we can do together.

Recognizing the significance of what Powell said, Mubarak later responded that "There is no doubt that the events of September 11 created a new concept of democracy."

But suppose for a moment that Powell & co. wanted to get serious about Egyptian democracy. Would they just be opening the floodgates of fundamentalism? I think not. In an article in the most recent issue of the Journal of Democracy, Princeton doctoral candidate Jason Brownlee reviews the prospects for democracy in Egypt. Put mildly, Brownlee is not optimistic. But the problem isn't fundamentalism. It's Mubarak.

While consolidating his power in the years after Sadat's assassination, Mubarak spoke of administering "democracy in doses". Thousands of NGOs sprang into existence, as well as professional organizations for lawyers, doctors, etc. The opposition even began to gain ground in the Assembly. Once Mubarak consolidated his position, however, he shut down all avenues of dissent. Newspapers were closed, human rights activists jailed and political opponents given military trials.

To be sure, Egypt has faced a threat of Islamist violence. The annual death toll from its guerrilla conflict reached 1,000 in 1993. But by 1998, the government had crushed the armed opposition. While the memory of slaughtered tourists lives on, it does not reflect the realities of Egypt today. Now Mubarak is focused on crushing non-violent Islamic dissent as well. And he has no intention of letting other dissenters organize either. The regime has rejected the application of every political party that sought to organize over the past decade, including an explicitly pro-democratic party made up of both Muslims and Christians. Clearly, Mubarak's main interest is in preserving his own absolute power, not defending Egypt from fundamentalist Islam.

In a surprising announcement in November 1999, Mubarak informed the public that the next year's elections to the Assembly would be "subject at all stages to supervision by the judiciary." The legislation implementing this announcement made clear, however, that the President's announcement was nothing more than a publicity stunt. Nonetheless, the Egyptian judiciary seized on the President's announcement as justification for its decision to launch an ambitious election monitoring program, which included placing monitors at each of the country's 15,000+ polling stations.

While the monitor did ensure that no fraud occurred at the polling stations, the government's control of the ballot counting process enabled it to produce results that it found amenable. Still, the results were surprising. Less than 40% of the government's official candidates won their races. Another 40% went to candidates from the ruling party who failed to gain official backing and ran as independents. The secular opposition disgraced itself by winning only 3.5% of the races. The Muslim Brotherhood, which operated without official party status also won 3.5% even though it put up candidates in only 10% of the races. The remainder of seats went to independents.

The significance of the 2000 is hard to place. Angered at the results, Mubarak immediately moved to crush the judiciary's autonomy so that it would never pull a similar stunt again. While it is hard to know how much the regime managed to influence the final results, it seems clear that the Islamist opposition would not dominate at the polls if given the chance. On the other hand, there is no true democratic force that has the potential to prevail either.

Brownlee concludes that American influence is the best hope for Egyptian democracy. In addition to $2 billion in annual aid, the US has played a critical role in securing multilateral loans for Egypt as well as granting it an extra $2 billion to compensate for tourism revenue lost after September 11th. As Powell's words indicate, however, the US is not interested in taking advantage of the influence it has to promote democratization, even though there is no danger of an Islamic revolution.

So far, the most that the Bush administration has done is announce that it will limit aid to $2 billion per year if Egypt's human rights record does not improve. As I see it, that doesn't exactly seem like much of a threat. The administration must recognize that there can be no final victory in the war on terror until the governments of the Middle East rests on the consent of the governed, rather than the same brute force which gives terrorists their influence.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:30 PM by David Adesnik  

DRIPPING SARCASM: This is just too funny. And when you get to the last line, you'll see that it makes a profound point as well. (Thanks to Instapundit for this link as well as one to the same author's delightful review of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:16 PM by David Adesnik  

GEE WHIZ HIGH TECH: Imagine being able to see through walls or beneath the ground. Imagine tracking devices the size of a quarter which can be located anywhere on earth. Imagine a two-way radio communicator that cannot be intercepted or jammed and runs on so little power that it could be mounted on wristwatch. Dick Tracy, eat your heart out.

All these things will be made possible thanks to a single technology known as UWB, or UltraWideBand. I only came across it because I live with an electrical engineer who is going to be presenting on UWB at a conference in a few weeks. Since the focus of his presentation is military applications, he wanted a politics person to give him a hand. So here I am.

The battlefield potential of UWB is stunning. Right now, urban settings enables less sophisticated forces to match their superiors by taking advantage of the complex and confusing battlefield environment. Within a decade, individual soldiers will all have portable radar devices that let them locate opposing forces in urban environments without ever having to confront them face to face. The US Army is poised to test prototypes of the individual radar should it have to conduct operations in Baghdad this winter. Other applications include searching below the ground for hidden tunnels and bunker complexes (as well as land mines). Tracking devices based on UWB would faciliate communication and tactical planning on the battlefield.

For a whole set of downloadable articles explaining how UWB works, click here. The basic idea is that instead of using continuous radio waves to communicate, UWB relies on short pulses of radio energy. Released at intervals so precise that they can be measured in trillionths of a second, one can only detect such pulses if one knows in advance the schedule of their release. Whereas as high-frequency radar waves bounce off walls or other solid objects, UWB pulses can be emitted on much longer wavelengths which go right through solid objects.

The peacetime applications of UWB are no less important. Its main commercial application will be the creation of wireless local area networks (LANs) which can handle 10 megs or more per second. UWB may also enable significant improvements of cellphone networks, which are now limited by the scarcity of available bandwidth. Moreover, UWB should finally let cellphones work indoors. From a humanitarian perspective, UWB would be critical in locating victims of earthquakes or other disasters, who may have been buried under mountains of rubble. Alternately, parents could easily locate children who have become lost in public places or even kidnapped. The possibilities are endless. But first we need peace. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:55 PM by David Adesnik  

CHECHEN TERRORISTS: While the Russian military is hardly a credible source, the NYT and WaPo seem convinced that the suicide bombing which left 46 dead in Checnya are the result of close collaboration between Chechen insurgents and Arab terrorists.

Josh and I have debated this issue before, and even though there is no clear evidence yet, I think the Chechens tactics speak for themselves. Even if Russian brutality is the moral equivalent of Chechen bombings, the United States cannot defend anyone who embraces terrorism. Sadly, we will have to wash our hands and let fate decide who lives and who dies. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:44 PM by David Adesnik  

DEMOCRACY IN KENYA (YES, KENYA). For the first time since gaining independence from the British Empire in 1963, Kenya has held free and fair elections. The opposition won a landslide, crushing the hand picked candidate of Pres. Daniel Arap Moi, who has ruled Kenya for the past 24 years.

It's hard to know exactly why the President chose to let the people have their way, but it is a significant step forward. According to an article in the April 2002 issue of the Journal of Democracy, the only reliable indicator that a country is on the road to reform is that the opposition has triumphed in democratic elections. In those states where former dictators won elections, no real reform has taken place. Let that be a lesson for those who will decide the fate of the Middle East. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:29 PM by David Adesnik  

WHAT, ME WORRY? Remarkably, the Bush administration is insisting that the situation on the Korean peninsula has not yet become a "crisis". If you ask me, that kind of spin is downright Clintonian. The North has a million men under arms, close to four thousand tanks and 600 to 750 missilesthat can hit both Japan and South Korea with conventional, chemical or biological warheads. When an enemy with that kind of firepower tries to blackmail you, it's a crisis.

So what do we do? The NYT reports that the US has a plan designed to raise pressure on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program. What is the plan? Who knows. The Agonist observes that any serious plan ought to recognize that "China fought us in the fifties to keep Korea divided...a divided Korea is one of China's vital national security interests."

But do the Chinese believe that possessing nuclear weapons will strengthen Kim's regime, or just raise the risk that the United States will launch a preemptive war to unify the peninsula? According to a former State Dept. official, "While China is opposed to North Korea having nuclear weapons, they are also opposed to chaos in North Korea. They are reluctant to apply any kind of sanctions unless they have to." Which means it won't be easy to get China on board if we actually have to try and punish North Korea for its illegal weapons program.

And what about the South? Will it go along? OxBlog reader JK points to an LA Times article which says that most South Koreans hold American belligerence responsible for both the current crisis as well as the Northern retaliation it may provoke. While I can't vouch for the accuracy of that report, it is interesting to note the inconsistency in this alleged majority view. If Kim Jong Il bears no grudge against the South, why are South Koreans so afraid that his artillery will slaughter them by the tens of thousands if the United States bombs the reacor at Yongbyon?

The only good news on the North Korean front is that the NYT has finally run an intelligent column on the subject. According to Georgetown prof Victor Cha (who had a column on the same subject in last week's WaPo),

The engagement policy the United States followed in 1994 would be ineffective and unfeasible today. Indeed, if the North does not come clean, the true "moderate" position for both Washington and Seoul is isolation and containment.

Cha is no hawk, so this is a serious statement coming from him. Nonetheless, Cha is an optimist, arguing that North Korea will cooperate because "it now has much more to lose than it did in 1994." I wouldn't go that far. Kim could care less about new ties to the EU. If he comes around, it will be because he knows that cannot last any longer without Western aid. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion