China and Free Trade

Sorry, I guess I'm on a free-trade kick this evening:

The BBC mentions the following report on Chinese labor standards published today by the campaigning alliance Playfair. I must say that one should be a little skeptical of an alleged research organization that is actually funded by a confederation of trade unions under the "fair trade" banner.

I notice that these Western organizations only find time for "awareness" when the working conditions are in factories producing Olympics merchandise. I also find it interesting that there are no voices of Chinese workers calling addressing workplace law violation: only Western campaigners speaking on their behalf. Much like how the Chinese Communist Party speaks for the workers' interests...

I am sure work in a Chinese factory is intense, with long hours, forced overtime, and perhaps even labor with children as young as 12. But as James Fallows points out in his excellent piece on Chinese industry in Shenzhen, Chinese peasants willingly leave their families and drudging agricultural toil behind to work in such jobs. They save money for a few years and then often return home in the hope of starting businesses. This is a hard life, but its the life of millions of people striving for and building a richer future through industrial revolution, just has America and the West did a century and a half ago. Fallows also mentions that Western campaigners have a tendency to misinterpret Chinese labor conditions, like when campaigners see computer assemblywomen grounded with wires to prevent static electricity buildups and think that they are chained to their stations as slave labor. Nor do these same campaigners seem to have much to say about non-export industries, like when 33 workers were incinerated at a government steel plant because of faulty equipment.

Those concerned about working conditions in China would better spend their energies supporting the Chinese themselves in building a society and legal system that better protects property and civil rights. If Chinese workers were free to organize for themselves outside of the Communist Party structure, they certainly would not need meddling foreigners deciding which of their workplaces were bad for them.

"A Reply from Your Congressman"

I got this junk mail in my inbox this week:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding H.R. 891, the Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act. I always appreciate hearing from my constituents, and I share your concern on this important issue. I hope you will be pleased to know that I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 891.

As with any consumer product, the buyer has a right to know what they are purchasing. The inhumane practices exercised on animals in foreign countries for consumer products must be stopped and the United States government has the responsibility to do whatever possible to prevent the manufacture and sale of this animal fur. As you may know, I was a supporter and co-sponsor of the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000, prohibiting the imports or exports of products containing dog or cat fur into or out of the United States.

The Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act will expand upon the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000 and effectively ban the import, export, and manufacture of raccoon dog fur in the United States. H.R. 891 will also require the labeling of all fur products. This will protect the raccoon dog species, as well as protect consumers from purchasing unlabeled or misidentified animal fur products. It is for these reasons that I am a co-sponsor of this bill. Please be assured that I will continue to support this bill, as well as any future legislative initiatives to promote animal welfare and prevent inhumane treatment of all animals.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. Please feel free to contact my office if I may be of assistance to you in the future. Sincerely, Michael E. Capuano Member of Congress

Here is my emailed response:

Dear Rep. Capuano,

While I thank you for your correspondence, I feel I must clarify that I never contacted your office regarding H.R. 891. I am worried that someone is misrepresenting me to you in regards to official correspondence.

While I am an animal lover and ardent naturalist, I question the need for bill H.R. 891 (the Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act). The Raccoon dog is not an endangered species, nor is it even a true dog. While I would hope that its fur is harvested in as humane a manner as possible, I do not feel that it is the place of the House of Representatives based on these concerns to limit this fur trade with other nations in possible violation of the United States' commitments as a member of the World Trade Organization. I believe that you and other US representatives should seriously consider the arguments that the raccoon dog fur trade increases habitat conservation, limits illegal poaching, and supports native Siberian peoples such as the Evenk who engage in fur farming.

If the House of Representatives is concerned about endangered species conservation, I would advise them to research strengthening CITES and international agreements regulating the sale of endangered animal products. I would also urge the House to consider promoting market tools as a means of protecting endangered species, rather than banning the market outright.

Finally, I would heartily urge you as my Representative in Congress to pressure other members of the House into focusing on more worthwhile projects: instituting a federal cap-and-trade system of carbon emissions, thoroughly investigating the curtailment and abuse of civil and human rights in the "Global War on Terror", curbing the practice of earmarking and Congressional pork-barrel legislation, balancing the federal budget and reducing the deficit, establishing independent congressional districting commissions to end the gerrymandering of Congressional districts, extending the Presidential "fast-track" authority in negotiating free-trade agreements and urging the current administration to commit itself to a comprehensive world trade agreement as initiated in the Doha Round.

Thank you for welcoming the thoughts and concerns of one of your constituents.


(Signed, the Editors at The Economist...)

No Place Like America II

At least some people in this country will come to their senses. I found the most interesting remark on the Paris Hilton jail scandal on a BBC forum from a Nigerian man. He mentioned that in his part of the world, children of the rich and powerful scamming their way out of jail sentences is just part of the justice system. That's rough when our legal system gets realistically compared to that of a failed oil-state in sub-Saharan Africa.

At least someone finally sent her back to jail for her "learning experience". Luckily for all of us, Paris has replaced the Supreme Court and the Constitution and has self-arbritrated on the legitimacy of the sentence. Too bad she is kept in luxurious facilities separated from the general population. Also too bad she isn't at a hard labor camp in a country that wouldn't even care who she was.

No Place Like America

I'll try not to get too depressing, but you really have to admit that sometimes the news from this country is just baffling and shocking.

The overall trend in firearm fatalities has been declining in this country in recent history (see chart). Nonetheless, it appears that in recent months there is some spectacular countervailing anecdotal evidence. There was April's terrible shootings at Virginia Tech (did they ever fully straighten out the chain of events in that episode?). A month later there was a multiple-fatality sniper attack in Idaho. And now recently there has been another serial shooting in Wisconsin. One must admit, there seems to be something of an upsurge in this kind of violence these days. Boston last year saw quite a bit of gun and gang-related violence. But these incidents seem to involve many fatalities coming from one shooter, and seem to occur in suburban or rural areas.

Now, I am not going into the details of the gun debate, except to say that European friends that I have spoken with cannot comprehend how guns exist at all in common American society. I am not as opposed to guns as all that, although I think some restrictions cannot hurt, as long as sporting and hunting needs can be met. Likewise I think that some of the gun lobby's arguments for guns are a little flimsy at best. An armed populace will never really stand up to a tyrannical government, especially as that government has more of the guns. The average Iraqi household has several machine guns in the residence. This neither stopped Saddam Hussein from using his greater firepower to rule the country, nor did it stop civil chaos and crime from running rampant after his fall. Also, I have a feeling that many of those who have guns for "self-defense" are probably a greater danger than the criminals that it is meant to deter.

At the same time, Washington DC' s gun ban was obviously a joke. So is the mess of gun legislation in both the federal and state levels of government. Arkansas forbids guns in church. Alaska allows free purchase and carrying of weapons. Florida forbids carrying of guns except when concealed. Massachusetts requires background checks, official safety training, a purchase permit, and has four separate levels of ownership permits, as well as disallowing anyone from other states to transport guns through the state. On top of that, different states recognize different licenses. And then there are federal laws, of varying levels of usefulness (it is illegal for illegal immigrants to own firearms ... how helpful). Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would bother with this hassle to even legally carry a gun.

Some honest discussion of gun regulation would probably be useful, but then so would honest discussion about many issues in this country. Frankly, I think in terms of mass-shootings we need to look past gun issues and address the reasons why people are driven to these acts of destruction. It seems that mental health care in this country just isn't at the standard it should be, and is not reaching people who sorely need it the most. Likewise, sometimes one wonders if this the dark side to the suburban culture. Young and/or disturbed people who live closeted lives in artificial communities, and who live through consumerism and media products seem to be prone to some wild and dangerous behavior. And I'm not talking just about America. Take a look at Japan and its suicide obsession.

(Charts by Economist.com)

The Latest News From the Steppe

I must say - for a country that is so unknown to the West (or at least to Britain and America) that Sacha Cohen's Borat stunts can be passed for real, Kazakhstan has been figuring pretty highly in the news these days.

First, the First President of the Republic of Kazakhstan (as he is officially commemorated in state museums, despite him remaining the only president) has been elected as President for Life. I wasn't aware that heads of state were still offered this title, besides Castro. And look where that got him.

Still, life is complex. There are some decent reforms that were proposed in this package of legislation, like restricting the constitutional amendment process and streamlining elections. Unfortunately, theory is different from reality in the former Soviet Union. But then this is true for the other side of the ideological spectrum: Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are even more brutal regimes than Kazakhstan's, but I am not sure that any are exactly "totalitarian", however true dissidents' criticisms of them may be. As for Nazarbayev himself, I believe (and have heard to this effect) that his true role model is Lee Yuan Kew of Singapore.

Second, and in related news to the first item: the president's son-in-law has been arrested. This is related to murky clan struggles among the power elite. In true post-communist fashion, the President's son-in-law was Ambassador to Austria and the OSCE, owner of the country's largest newspaper and television station, and director of one of the country's biggest bank. He is accused of abducting and beating two other bank directors, one of whom remains missing. Talk about the convoluted world of the new post-Soviet elite! His quote on BBC (unfortunately for Anglophones in Russian) is priceless:

"As the Republic's ambassador to Austria, I represent the interests of my government, president and my country. I think that the first president of Kazakhstan has done very much for the country ... But as a private citizen, I have my own vision for the development of Kazakhstan."

(I believe that this is called a "conflict of interest")

Third, Russia is apparently getting keen on its Central Asian neighbors, and has been in a frenzy of investment in Kazakhstan, as well as other portions of Central Asia. Putin last month snatched a pipeline deal with Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan that upset Western plans, and apparently also is looking for uranium from Kazakhstan. The Great Game continues.

The former Soviet Union never ceases to surprise (as well as to frustrate). Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan have had revolutions in the past four years, as well as more democracy - or instability, depending on how you look at it. Georgia has been blockaded by Russia and ethnic Georgians expelled from Moscow, Ukraine's President and Prime Minister are refusing to recognize each other's existence and are arraying their loyalists, and Kyrgyzstan's Prime Minister was poisoned.

Meanwhile, Russia is getting more assertive with it's Cold War lite - witness Putin's mini-Reykjavik moment of cooperation today, now that Bush offers to treat him like Reagan did Gorbachev.

But still, times have changed - Russia's enemies are not the Americans (so much), or even West Europeans, but their own near abroad. Russians seem to have collectively always been xenophobic, but now it strikes closer to home. A recent survey found that the following percentages of respondents considered these countries among Russia's enemies:

60% - Estonia, 46% - Georgia, 36% - Latvia, 35% - USA, 32% - Lithuania, 23% - Ukraine.

Countries considered among Russia's friends?

38% said Belarus, and 39% said Kazakhstan.

Waterways of East Cambridge

I'm not going to lie: my obsession with geography means I also have a big interest in waterways of various kinds. Here are some pictures from two afternoon walks on Wednesday. Consider it your walking tour:The Zakim Bridge from outside my office. Looking through a chain-link fence and over the superb North Point Park, complete with playground, skating park, open green space, and beds of different species of flowers that have been combined so that their combined blooms have lasted over three months now. This being Boston, local bureaucracies are fighting over the park's liability and it remains closed to the public.

Broad Canal, looking towards Kendall Square

America will never fail to amaze at the number of times its people have completely reinvented their society and economy, despite their short history. True, Cambridge has always had Harvard. But 200 years ago it was also a bustling seaport, as canals such as Broad Canal stretched through the salt marshes up towards Central Square, and wharves lined the waterfront laden with agricultural goods. Broad Canal is still there, although nowadays it does not quite reach Kendall Square. The wharves have been replaced with M.I.T. properties and such biotech firms as Siemens and Genzyme.

Cambridge Athenaeum

The deity herself watches over Memorial Drive.

A relic of the industrial age.

View towards Boston down the Lechmere Canal.

This piece of canal waterfront is now home to condos, sightseeing boats, lunching workers and that center of modern American society - the mall (Cambridgeside Galleria, to be precise).

Millers River

Once this river flowed from Union Square in Somerville into Boston Harbor, and divided Charlestown from Cambridge. Now, it has been mostly filled in. What remains survives (with the last vestiges of Boston's precolonial saltmarshes) underneath the Zakim Bridge's US Interstate 93. I guess Boston is a bit like Tokyo. The numbers, by the way, mark the harbor depth at those spots when surveyed in 1801.

Little slivers of East Cambridge's past survive amongst great development: new biotech firms and their properties seem to be sprouting up all over the place. Harvard Square is so passe: what do those people ever do for anyone, except spend other people's money? This part of Cambridge seems to be the Biotech Silicon Valley of the East Coast. Some "money" shots:

Genzyme

North American HQ of my Dear Employer
(note the Condos sign - so much for affordable housing!)

And last but not least:

A monument - to potatoes?

Of Blogs, Souls and Politics...

I just finished reading a book called The Conservative Soul: How We Lost it, How to Get it Back, by Andrew Sullivan. The book left a significant enough reaction on me that I have a review for it.

I first became acquainted with the work of Andrew Sullivan through the Atlantic Monthly's website, which links to his blog, The Daily Dish. For those more removed from the Beltway, Sullivan was/is one of the premier political bloggers, and his blog was once among the most-influential in DC. He was an ardent supporter of Bush in the 2001-2003 years, allegedly becoming required reading for the White House staff. Beginning in 2004 he had a major falling-out with The Bush Administration (hereafter referred to as TBA) and has taken up blogger arms ever since then. I find his blog worth a quick view - he also tries to keep things interesting with YouTube clips of all sorts.

Anyways, with that background, I decided to read his book (free from the library, of course). And I must say that I have a very mixed reaction, perhaps inspired by my readings of reviews by his friend David Brooks and by the New York Review of Books.

Sullivan is a mixed bag, and while I will leave it to the above reviews to flesh out his story, here he is in a nutshell. He is a child of Irish immigrants to England, selected for a scholarship to Oxford, a doctoral student of philosophy, Tory activist, immigrant to America, youngest editor of The New Republic, openly gay and HIV positive, and a practicing Catholic, as well as being the blogger personality. This makes his life experiences and viewpoints eclectic, to say the least. This book was his attempt to make clear what a conservative is in his understanding, being himself a self-professed conservative.

His argument is as follows: a conservative is a person who sees the world through the lenses of skepticism and doubt, always questioning and listening to his conscience, and never believing in an ideology or any concept a priori. The conservative embodies the ideals of 16th century French philosopher Montaigne and 20th century British philosopher Oakeshott, and sees the world as a never-ending game of pool: one must consider play based on where the balls are placed, and one can never really control the consequences. The conservative above all values freedom and the strong but limited government that allows him the space to muse his lonely, sublime existence and to express himself as needs be.

The conservative is therefore threatened by the fundamentalist. Sullivan defines the fundamentalist as anyone who excepts some external set of values as a revealed truth, and who tries to bend himself and his world to fit into this truth. Such a person cannot tolerate other ways of thinking, and must either convert or destroy anyone who does not share his revelation. The fundamentalist is forever reaching back to that one moment of his conversion, and is governed by fear of sin, defeat, and by thoughts of the end-times.

All well and good, and at this point I'd like to say that I share many of Sullivan's more compelling philosophical thoughts, such as the inability of God to be defined by human presumption and the dichotomy between knowledge (and its limits) and (false) certainty - although Jacob Bronowski's discussion of the latter topic in his Ascent of Man is far better. Sullivan also provides some great philosophical arguments against those who would invoke "natural law" or the "culture of death" to colour debates about human biology, birth and death.

However, as Sullivan's colourful past can show, he has more than a few axes to grind, and when grinding them the quality of his writing slips. As the above reviewers observe, his book is high on philosophy and low on journalism. He doesn't really bother to get to know the fundamentalists in any meaningful manner. Christian fundamentalists are a series of Falwell quotes, references to American mega-churches and the "Left Behind" series, and rehashed research from fellow gay anti-fundamentalist provocateur Bruce Bawer. His knowledge of Islam and political Islamism is far worse, and one can see why his views on it were once so popular among neoconservative Republicans. In his mind, the Taliban, Iran and Saudi Arabia are all the same, where women are "domestic slaves" and gays have walls dropped on them - sadly true in instances, but ignoring the deeper complexities that make these or any non-Western society a real, rather than a rhetorical point. Likewise, he manages to conflate "fundamentalism" to mean anyone motivated to change the world by ideals, be it "Islamofascists" real fascists, communists, Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, Christianists, Socialists, liberals, internationalists, international realists, Whigs...the list goes on. As David Brooks notes, this would seem to include the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Civil Rights movement leaders in its logical conclusion, as well as anyone motivated by faith to perform works of good in the world. Brooks points out that poetry and philosophical skepticism are all well and good, but hardly make for a coherent and successful political movement.

But this is precisely the point. For all of Sullivan's personal philosophy, and in direct contradiction to the book's title, we never see what a conservative is, merely what this conservative does. We can very clearly substitute "conservative" for "Andrew Sullivan" and read his referral to himself in the manner of Caesar, and we would not be too far off the mark.

For clearly he sees himself in his actions as the embodiment of this "conservativeness" (never an -ism, please!). Him and his worthy pantheon: Jesus (naturally), Oakeshott (Sullivan's personal friend and the subject of his doctoral thesis), the equally obscure Montaigne (I have studied both philosophy and political science and blissfully never heard of these two before), and the larger-than-history Lincoln, Churchill, Reagan and Thatcher. History is not his strong point, and where Sullivan carefully reads the philosophy of his foes he botches the history of his heroes. Sorry, but the US military did not liberate eastern Europe from communism, not even with those Pershing missiles. But no mention of Gorbachev is even made in this book - Reagan just apparently won the Cold War in Reykjavik by himself. Churchill presciently warned about a mobilized postwar Britain being turned to - evil! - a social welfare state, one that only Thatcher could disspell: but Churchill himself was reelected as Prime Minister of this social democracy in the 1950s. Sullivan often twists history against itself: Jefferson is quoted both negatively and positively compared to Sullivan's viewpoints.

And perhaps here is the meat of the issue. This book is in large part an exercise in both the egoism of an elite thinker and convoluted mea cupla for why such a thinker played willing attack dog against war skeptics in the lead up to the 2003 Iraq invasion. Sullivan's most telling line on the subject:

"I can see the comedy and tragedy of an entire debate almost all of which was premised on what turned out to be a falsehood.... This falsehood was taken as fact by every major intelligence agency and by both supporters and opponents of a war to depose Saddam. We were all wrong."

Because, of course, we were all suckered, just like him. Unfortunately, I wasn't and I don't buy this attempt at an apology. He supported Bush when there was the need to question Bush, and it does no good now to say that, in fact, Bush isn't a real conservative but in fact the enemy of the conservatives. Sullivan is correct that TBA's executive power and willingness to torture are serious erosions of all our liberties. But most-favoured bloggers *ahem* calling in to question the patriotism and loyalty of those arguing against war in 2003 helped to get us there.

Furthermore, as the NYRB review notes, there is something of an Oxford-elitist tinge to his dislikes: he favors the familiar rituals in the village Catholic church for their own sake and unconnected to doctrine to the American megachurches and shopping malls. Fair enough, but the former seems to be something for Sullivan like what yoga has become - ancient rituals performed for a mind-clearing exercise by the urbane and educated rejecting any unpleasant or "unnecessary" cultural or doctrinal baggage. All you need to know is that this thinker is right and everyone else is wrong. Ironically, Sullivan himself often shows the zeal of the converted in his viewpoints.

Sullivan only cuts short his musings in the last ten pages, where he attempts to squeeze in that in addition to being a musing philosophy professor, the true conservative also supports free markets, the flat tax, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, preemptive war (but with a large international coalition), kite-flying, beer drinking, and of course blogging.

This book left me pondering the meaning and limitations of my existence, almost fainting trying to comprehend my own mortality. And it also served to show me why I should avoid political blogging where possible.

It Lives!

I realize that it has been quite some time since I posted, and at least one of the more devoted fans asked for some updates. It's been a busy couple of months or so, but I will try to keep things interesting.

I am seriously considering a shift or remake or whatever the blogger terminology is for revamping a blog. I know that the small readership that I have appreciates the rants that I have posted concerning politics, religion and history. But then again, let's lighten things up. And also I'd like to actually put myself into this blog a little more.

Check back from time to time for some changes.

Banning Offensive Language

I was reading on BBC not too long ago that New York has decided to continue it's legislative activism. Apparently attempts to mold New York into a well-behaved American Singapore does not stop with the outlawing of smoking or of consuming trans-fats, but will now include a legal ban on the use of a certain perjorative term for African Americans.

While I agree that the use of such terms in youth culture is ironic, to say the least, as well as unfortunate from an historical perspective, I see what little good unenforceable city council resolutions do. I would be better if the New York City Council worried about fixing potholes and promoting racial harmony in schools than passing headline-grabbing motions such as this.

But my real indignation lies with an editorial that the BBC website published on the subject, written by BBC correspondent Kari Browne. I urge you to read this editorial, or at least the "Different Perceptions" conclusion at the bottom. I agree with her general thesis, but the fact that she tries to butcher etymology of the word "cracker" in order to claim that the persistence of this word - and the fact that many Southern whites willfully identify with this term - literally originates with the cracks of whips on the backs of slaves is quite frankly grotesque. It is exactly this twisting of history that gives otherwise worthy politically liberal viewpoints a bad name.

I wrote the following as a response to the BBC:

"Regarding Kari Browne's "Should Racist Word be Rehabilitated?", while I do agree with her main argument that words such as the "n-word" have a hurtful past that younger generations do not understand, I am not convinced by her etymology for the word "cracker". I am not one to question her great-grandmother, but as I understand it the term comes from an Elizabethan word "to crack", meaning to boast or brag - much as we "crack" jokes today. The term was applied in the 1700s to the Scots-Irish settlers of the upland South, who lived beyond the law and were considered "rascals" and "boasters" by the colonial governments and gentry. The term has also been explained as deriving from these settlers' habits of cracking corn and pecans, as well as whips when herding cattle. While these Southern whites did own some slaves, they were not the plantation slaveowning class of the South, and I think it is a bit of a stretch to connect the name "cracker" with lowland Southern slaveowners, or insinuate that the term implies dominance over another race."

I am sure that this response will never be read, let alone published or responded to. I am sure that in such circles I would be denounced for taking such a stand (how can I question her relative, the eyewitness to oppression, because this type of pseudohistory relies heavily on the personal and the anecdotal). But I feel that for all the blood and tears spilt over race relations in American history, the goal of coming to true harmony and equality between all the peoples and individuals of this country will not be helped but will be hindered by the invention of false oppressions, which will only serve to obfuscate and discredit the true injustices. Think "herstory" and "womyn" and you see where I am going with this.

I urge everyone to write a little note to the BBC to set them straight on their word history.

Fun with Numbers

Well, it has been something of a slow news cycle. Apparently no one is interested in making much international or political news in the dead of winter (or Australian summer). Strikes in Lebanon and Guinea, State of the Union address by President Bush, it's all pretty much more of the same.

But the CIA has just put out their 2007 World Factbook. Understandably, their information is somewhat flawed and often at odds with other information and intelligence agencies (no I will not get into any political discussions here). With the Factbook this is largely due to them relying on local censuses and official statistics to fill out their information on every independent state and dependency. But their information is still a very useful rough guide, and seems to immediately and directly flow into Wikipedia. And of course once wikified, information is gospel truth.

So here is one of my latest graphics, showing the population and religion of every African country. This was just something I was thinking about, and slapped together. For the record, the population total for that continent is somewhere around 909,000,000 to put things in pespective.

Obviously it is a little difficult to read this graphic...it looks much better as a spreadsheet than as a cut-and-pasted picture, for that I apologize. The countries are in alpabetical order. This is a work in progress - welcome to the internet, ladies and gentlemen.

Anyway, one reason why I say that this is a work in progress is because this graph has been a little lesson for myself in using OpenOffice, a suite of open-source programs offered by Sun Microsystems. OpenOffice operates more or less like Microsoft Office, but the coding is open source and it is offered to all for free. I recommend everyone give it a try.

Political and Civil Freedoms Across the World

With the January news cycle being relatively slow, it is time for the talking heads and thinking bodies to create some buzz.

Perhaps one of the more interesting and relevant reports to come out this week has been the 2007 update of "Freedom in the World", released annually by the think-tank Freedomhouse. They have been gathering information on political and civil freedoms across the world since 1972. The following is a self-made map cataloguing the status of freedom this year (Green covers the "Free" states, Yellow "Partly Free" and Red "Not Free").

A major theme this year is how the number of countries in each status has remained approximately the same in the past 15 years or so (although the number of free countries is much higher than, say, in 1981, largely owing to political developments in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Southern Africa and East Asia).

You can check out the report for an explanation of their methodology and scores. Their compiled comparative data can be seen here. I confess that playing with this information was a passtime of mine in whiling away the long hours in Peace Corps.

It is interesting to compare the scores with the Economist Intelligence Unit's new Democracy Index Survey. Their ratings of countries is a bit more graded, and as a result a great deal fewer countries get to stand next to Sweden and FInland near the top. Here is a self-made map of their results (Dark green for Full Democracy, Light Green for Flawed Democracy, Yellow for Hybrid Regime and Red for Authoritarian Regime).


Some similarities, some differences. Nevertheless, one can see that, as mentioned above, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Southern (and parts of Western) Africa, and parts of East Asia are seeing some political gains. Much of the rest of the world is not, or is in some sort of quasi-authoritarian limbo (but much less of it ruled by military regimes or one party states than before 1991). And, despite all the best efforts of its populace and leaders to the contrary, North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australasia still rank at the top of the list. As they say, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Maybe that is the scariest lesson!

Rule of Law in Iraq

I was hoping to avoid comment on the issue of Saddam's execution, as it occured over the holidays when I was absent from this blog, but the bizarre executions of Barzan Ibrahim and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, two of Saddam's aides and relatives, brings me to comment.

The Iraqi government apparently released footage today showing the execution by hanging, resulting in the decapitation of Barzan. I cannot say I am an expert on human anatomy, nor on execution, but I find this a rather unusual and ghastly event.

It is, in a larger sense, a sort of microcosm surrounding the whole trial and execution of Saddam and the top leaders in his regime. Granted, they were bloodthirsty and brutal rulers whose rise to power resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands and the torture or rape of a goodly number more. But both Saddam and his aides were tried and executed for the killing of some 148 Shias
in 1982. The Iraqi courts have even gone to far as to drop all charges against Saddam posthumously for his role in the 1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, which resulted in ethnic cleansing, gassing of civilian populations and arguable genocide. Furthermore, the details of Saddam's execution (that the Iraqi government sought to suppress) show that it resembled something more of a lynching, with Saddam being the one showing fortitude while he is taunted and the names of Shia firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr and his father are chanted by the entirely Shia audience. These latest executions seem to also have at best a tinge of incompetence, at worst a feeling of Shia revenge in a style of Mesopotamian justice that seems little far removed from Hammurabi and the Assyrian Empire.

Saddam and his top circle are clearly guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It must also be said that at the very least some semblance of an impartial court was attempted in their trial. However, quite frankly at the end of the day these figures have not been held accountable for their most heinous misdeeds, and their killings promise something more of martyrdom and sectarian violence. One wonders if a greater punishment would have been to leave Saddam, abandoned by his wife and with his sons dead, sitting in a cell, far from the centres of power and the palaces he once enjoyed. The trial and execution also seem like a duck of responsibility on the part of the Americans, who (regardless of political affiliation) say that this justice "is the business of the Iraqis", and yet also say in almost the same breath that the Iraqis are doing a good job of murdering each other in civil war.

All in all, these executions show to me that perhaps Saddam was not so unusual after all. It seems to be Mesopotamian tradition to dispatch of one's enemies in as gruesome a method as possible. So much for the hope of a new dawn in Iraqi political tradition.

France a la Anglais? Non!

I found this article on the BBC amusing. Apparently historical documents have come to light showing that in 1956 then-French Prime Minister Guy Mollet proposed to his British counterparts some form of "union" with Great Britain. His second proposal was that if a union was unacceptable, then France would join the British Commonwealth (which meant accepting Queen Elizabeth II as the titular head of that body).

The idea apparently went nowhere, but French pundits and historians are apparently tripping over themselves to denounce Mollet and state that were he alive today and he proposed such a plan, he would be tried for treason. It is too bad that the French political elite have such a hatred towards Great Britain and any thought of unity with them - they seem to have accepted Mollet's third-best plan of a European community centred on partnership with Germany rather well. This is despite the shared history and - yes - culture and language between France and Britain. I suppose the Hundred Years War still leaves a bad taste in the collective mouth of the French establishment.

In my opinion a French - British union would be in many ways a natural and strong partnership...but there would be huge political obstacles to overcome. The French approach to the state has gone in a much different direction from the English since, well, since the Hundred Years War.

Tackling the Middle East

I would like to point out that I am going to write on this issue once, and once only.

I noticed in my time at university that a cause celebre among politically-active young people (especially in the years 2000-2004) was their stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jewish students and Arab/Muslim students would frequently engage in debates, demonstrations, protests, and performance art (which I promise I will allude to in a later entry) on this issue, as if handing out flyers at Georgetown or Harvard Yard was the final remaining key in solving some 70 years of ethnic, religious and communal conflict. I cannot tell you how many times I was subjected to polemics and speeches on censuses from the 1930s, individuals from this or that side that met untimely (yet symbolic) ends, this and that injustice committed, etc. American students would often side with a group based on their political affiliations, roughly speaking conservatives being pro-Israel, liberals being pro-Palestinian (and with the politically active yet irrelevant often taking the most detailed positions). Nevermind that most American Jews are Democrats, and most Palestinian Arabs live in a socially conservative culture that would make your average college student cringe: these are just some of a litany ironies that surround this sad struggle.

In any case, I mention all this as the Economist has published what I think is a fine and succinct editorial and article on the subject of Israel's international image, especially among the Jewish diaspora. The article correctly points out that too often groups that are organized to support and promote Israel in other countries (such as in the US) often wind up masking the great social and political debates actually occurring in Israel in favor of touting the rhetoric of Israel's political right, and lazily accusing any dissenters from this ideology of being anti-Semitic. As the editorial notes, "Helping Israel should no longer mean defending it uncritically. Israel is strong enough to cope with harsh words from its friends." Especially in America, the relationship with Israel is distorted by the existence of AIPAC, a large lobbying group, and Christian evangelicals, who (in another ironic yet to me repugnant relationship) support Israeli hawks and settler groups in the believe that their reconquest of Zion will bring about the Second Coming, and of course actually causing all the Jews to either convert to Christianity or perish in flames. Talk about Israeli Jews bedding with the Devil! And I wonder why these strident Christians are not a little more concerned over the fate of Palestinian Christians...but once again the ironies abound. The end result on the American end is that we support Israeli politicians in some of their occasionally less-than-sensible ventures, and lose all credibility as an impartial arbiter.

At the same time, America has acquired a most unusual ally (and a non-official ally at that - there are no treaty obligations defining either party's rights or responsibilities). Despite its size, it seems that Israel calls the shots in this relationship in a way Americans would allow no other country of 5 million to do. Israel acts, and America responds. American criticism is very light towards Israeli disacknowledgement of its nuclear program, or military incursions to densely-populated Palestinian areas resulting in heavy civilian casualties, or the issue of the wall being built through the West Bank, and this is while the American government heavily subsidizes the Israeli military. Even more bizarre, America finds itself subject to occasional espionage by its smaller ally: witness the 2006 guilty plea of Col. Lawrence Franklin and the 1987 plea of Jonathan Pollard to passing classified information to Israeli officials. Such scandals should be the stuff of conflict between America and Russia or China, not the means to build a strategic friendship between a large power and a small recipient of aid. No staunch ally of anyone's should engage in such behavior.

However, I do agree with the pro-Israel side that often too much is played up over Israel's shortcomings while the Arab side's shortcomings are played down. Groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are pledged to destroy a Jewish state and use methods that attack civilians (which constitute acts of terrorism, but once again a discussion of that politically-charged term is best left for another time) , and I will not bother to get into Iranian President Ahmadinejad's antics. Nor shall I go into the details about how anti-Zionism is used by Middle Eastern governments as a political safety valve for their crushing of internal political debate.

Furthermore, I would like at this juncture to point out that I feel that Israel is a necessary good for the world. I think history has proven that the Jewish people need a separate state of their own in which to live freely, and that this state might as well be in their ancestral and holy lands (rather than Uganda, Madagascar or Paraguay, as some Zionists a century ago tried). One could argue "why are the Jews so special?", to which the proper response is that they have directly and indirectly shaped the morals and moral history of the world's Abrahamic religions, to which in various guises a majority of the world's population adheres. As Thomas Friedman pointed out in From Beirut to Jerusalem, one reason why Israel envinces so much international criticism is precisely because the Jews helped to invent the concept of universal justice. And as for why should they get their own country, well, it is an idea that they made a fact and have kept so for almost a century. If all the Gypsies moved to Voivodina and declared it an independent country for their people's defense, the world could not argue with that. But the fact is that the "wandering" Jews actually succeeded where other international minorities have not. They should not be penalized as a result.

But at the same time, the Palestinian Arabs deserve some sympathy, as they have been likewise turned into a stateless people, and in their homelands are deprived of life, liberty and property, and are subject to a great deal of social disorder and violence (some of their own making, some the making of the opposing side). They likewise have expressed a desire for an independent state, and should be allowed to achieve so, free from oppression and violence. The world should not wait for them to magically become an enlightened, peaceful democracy before granting them a state, as their current chaos, self-tyranny and ghetto-like rule is intricately connected with the conflict at hand.

I agree with the Economist and moderates on both sides, in that a lasting peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians is actually quite straightforward: a shared capital of Jerusalem, a Palestinian state roughly following the pre-1967 "Green Line" (but one that leaves the biggest Jewish settlements in Israel in return for land elsewhere), no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees to Israel, no claims on Judaea or Samaria by Israel on Palestine. To this a mix of reparations payments could be added, potentially a demilitarization and an economic union (another good idea proposed by Thomas Friedman in the above-mentioned book, written at a time when he was still a serious writer). The only problem with this peace plan is actually going through the torturous political landscape needed to make it a reality. It seems at times that the political (and military) fight is at its bitterest when it is Israelis vs. Israelis or Palestinians vs. Palestinians.

This seems to actually be a common factor in war: a warring people are more concerned with fighting their enemies at home than in effecting a decisive victory against the stated enemy. Witness the whole "surge" debate among Americans. In any case, there will be a lot of rough dealing with extremists in Israel and among Palestinians in order to achieve peace, and apparently such courage is at the moment lacking.

And finally, I must admit that until Israeli and Palestinian leaders can summon that political courage, I have found myself largely washing my hands of this conflict. I am not a Palestinian Arab, nor a Jew, and the endless arguments and bitter conflict seem typical of an internal family feud (which this arguably is, between the children of Isaac and his half-brother Ishmael). Both nationalities are very cosmopolitan, very well-educated and have a collective historical memory of legalism and trade, as well as a hard habit of forgetting injustices. This does make for one difficult and protracted conflict. Another familiy's problems are sometimes best left to the relatives to sort out, without taking sides in the affair. Furthermore, although Jerusalem is for many the spiritual center of the world, one must put this conflict in perspective: a grand total of 6,385 people have been killed to date in 20 years of Israeli-Palestinian conflict (including 1322 in the first Intifada). Although this leaves out the six other Arab-Israeli wars, this is still small potatoes when considering some 300,000 killed in Darfur since 2003, or the 4,000,000 killed recently in Congo in the most destructive war since World War II. These conflicts get no space in the international mind, while UN resolutions, hilltop settlements, rights of return, uses of the River Jordan's water etc. abound ad nauseam.

In any case, I hope for peace, hope for a more open and constructive dialogue between America and its Israeli allies, and steadfastly avoid college demonstrations and students with flyers.

Women Problems for China

I must confess that I enjoy the Pocket World in Figures that the Economist gave me as part of my subscription offer: I love information comparing the nations of the world on a wide variety of subjects. One which the book lists is the male - female ratio in countries across the world.

I note this because a recent BBC article suggests that China will face a shortage of tens of millions of women within a generation. All this while the over-60 population will rapidly increase to around a third of the population, and while the overall population increases another 200,000,000 to around 1,500,000,000 in the next quarter century. To put things in perspective, the Chinese population is expected to increase by a number almost equalling the sum of all Americans. And to put things in greater perspective, this is a phenomenal increase considering that the Chinese population when Mao assumed power was a mere 400,000,000 (closer to our projected population by this midcentury). Ironically, the one child population and a preference for boys is to blame for the overrepresentation of males and seniors in Chinese society, and yet seems to have only gone so far towards slowing population growth there. It is truly beyond my comprehension how so many people can live sustainably in that country.

But I digress from the main point of this post: male female ratios. Here are some countries' breakdowns (number of men for every 100 women), courtesy the boffins at the Economist:

UAE - 214 (!!!)
Saudi Arabia -117
China, Pakistan - 106 (already pretty high)
India - 105
Bangladesh, Taiwan - 104
Cote d'Ivoire, Iran, Malaysia - 103
Algeria, Nigeria, Turkey - 102
Egypt, Peru, Phillipines, Singapore, South Korea, Venezuela - 101
World (average) - 101
Indonesia, Kenya - 100
Canada, Chile, Israel - 98
Brazil, USA - 97
Japan, EU (average), Mexico, South Africa, Thailand - 96
Switzerland - 94
Kazakhstan (CIA Factbook) - 93
Hong Kong - 89
Lithuania, Russia - 87
Estonia, Ukraine - 85
Latvia - 84

So what can we learn from this breakdown? We of course should always be wary of statistics, but nevertheless a few things become clear to me. First, a large majority of the world's countries have ratios somewhere between 100 (or a man for every woman) and 95 or so (a few women extra). Anything beyond this range seems like a recipe for trouble and turmoil. There are some exceptions: South Korea has more men than women (but has one of the highest population percentages on the internet ... perhaps a necessity for the extra men?). However, by and large, you can see that countries with an excess of men either have problems or are out looking for them. Likewise for countries that have a dearth of men - these are mostly former Soviet republics, the lack of men there having to do with their smoking, drinking and killing one another (the average Russian man lives to 60, the average Russian woman to 75). And also, now you can see why women from the former Soviet republics are so interested in meeting some nice, sober Western guys. If you have the means, I highly recommend it.

As for the extra Chinese, Indian and Saudi men, well, I leave that to the reader...any suggestions?

Somali Strikes

I suppose my mention of Black Hawk Down was a little ironic, because probably the most interesting news these days (in an otherwise boring news patch of the month for those of us not interested in Rosie O'Donnell) has been this week's American airstrikes on targets in southern Somalia. The targets were three suspects thought to be the masterminds behind the 1998 East African Embassy bombings. Reports have been all over the place in the past week: originally it was claimed that al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri was among the targets (quite a feat considering that Predator drones were attempting to target him in a village in northern Pakistan this time last year). Now reports are saying that none of the suspects were actually hit.

The airstikes have brought the usual international criticism. Let us look past any resurrected, tired rhetoric to analyse what is occuring. One the one hand, these strikes can be seen as a potential success: as in Afghanistan, they are providing strong air support to local ground forces pursuing targets of the American national interest. In this sense, it is a good example of well-applied force for national gain (on America's part). It also provides useful support to the Somali Transitional Government that the American government wishes to succeed.

Speaking for myself, however, I question the value of this intervention. One, the current administration is appearing to fall for its same traps all over again as in Afghanistan. When Bush made it clear so many years ago that hunting individual terrorist masterminds (like Bin Laden, or OBL once you get your security clearance) is a waste of military resources, why then go at it all over again, with potentially the same limited results? With all this talk of a decisive troop surge in Iraq, do we need naval and air forces committed to Somalia (they could surely provide our troops on the ground with some strong support in the upcoming weeks in Baghdad).

Foremost, as I have questioned time and again concerning the Iraq strategy, what exactly is the intended end result? The Islamic Courts Union has been routed from Mogadishu, and in its place the local warlords have returned to their bad old ways, complete with a resurgence of the qat narcotic (Afghanistan, anyone?). An allegedly democratic and secular, UN-recognized government now sits in Mogadishu, but these descriptive terms are essentially just promises invoked in hope of expected international aid. The writ of this government doesn't extend far beyond the capital (Puntland is a self-governing region, and Somaliland is a fully functioning - if unrecognized - independent country). Unlike Afghanistan, the new government exists almost solely through the military efforts of Ethiopia, a veteran of bloody conflict against Somalis. This is more akin to the US supporting Russian troops in taking Kabul from the Taliban. One look at some of the images of Ethiopia's armed forces should show that this regional power isn't at a Russian level of professionalism (the troops more closely resemble day-laborers armed with 50 caliber machine guns). Furthermore, there appears evidence that Somalia is being used as a proxy conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, while Ethiopia's own local civil wars are mixing into Somalia as Somalis in Ogaden attack the Ethiopian military, and the Ethiopian military rounds up Oromos (a long-fighting and oppressed plurality ethnic group in Ethiopia) in Mogadishu. Anyone the least bit familiar with armed conflict in Africa knows that this chaotic maelstrom is par for the course.

Despite an American desire, (from the American right as well as left) to see all Islamists as one global enemy, I am not sure what is to be gained by encouraging the current situation in Somalia. The US is ill-equipped to undertake another nation-building task, and as far as I can tell not likely to convince any capable power to undertake such a feat. I can quickly foresee the Somalis tiring of Ethiopian rule and giving greater and greater aid to an ICU insurgency against the foreign invader, especially more so to one now openly backed by the US (we have not been so popular in Mogadishu since 1993). More to the point, this is exactly what ICU leaders have planned from even before their "defeat" (and what many Somalis worldwide expect). Ethiopia itself is a less-than ideal partner in this endeavor, as beyond the traditional hostility to it in Somalia it is an autocratic country accused of fixing elections, massacring demonstrators and sending political opponents to labor camps (but for whatever reason is a darling of international donors, as well as the headquarters of the African Union, and therefore apparently beyond reproach). The region, furthermore, is terribly environmentally degraded and overpopulated, which makes it an even worse ticking bomb to tinker with. This seems like another mess that the US has gotten involved in with little clear idea of what is at stake, or what a desired yet realistic outcome would be. I thought we learned enough of that in 1993.

In any case, the picture above is of a Lockheed AC-130, used to target enemy ground forces with massive amounts of fire power, and supposedly used in the strikes in Somalia. There are 21 in active service, mostly used by the US Air Force Special Operations Command. It was first brought into service over Nha Trang, Viet Nam in 1967. They can provide one hell of a suppressive firepower, but admittedly their usage would seem limited when trying to specifically find and target three suspects in mangrove swamps. Ironically, one of two AC-130s lost in service exploded over Somalia in 1994 (the other was shot down in 1991 in Iraq...).


fg

And Now For Something Completely Different...

Following in Tim's footsteps, some pictures from New Year's in Washington, DC. These are all from the National Zoo:

Giant Panda in a Tree

Golden Tamarin Monkeys


Is that an Ewok? Just a Sloth eating lunch...


One of the Zoo's Sumatran Tigers out for a walk...


...and a Mexican wolf out for a swim.

A view up to the roof through the indoor rainforest in the Amazonia exhibit. It was a pleasant 35 degrees C in here, with plenty of humidity. Much like how I remember Southeast Asia when I was there.

A Book Review for Half a Book

I recently have been reading my way through a book called The Long Walk, by Slavomir Rawicz. It is a gripping story of seven Polish and Eastern European Prisoners of War who escape from a Siberian gulag in 1941 and walk through Mongolia, China and Tibet to reach British India.

Why do I say this is a review of half a book? Because halfway through the book I read about Slavomir Rawicz on Wikipedia and BBC News, and was more than a little stunned by the news: the story is not true! He was actually released from a camp in 1942 and sent to Iran, eventually making his way with other Polish emigres to England, but even there not performing the military role he claimed to have done.

I must say that I am more than a little disappointed by this news. The story is a fantastic story...although with the benefit of hindsight perhaps too fantastic (can seven overworked and undernourished men really escape from a Gulag and walk through metre-deep snow for six weeks going 30 miles a day on starvation rations?). The story also includes sightings of Yeti in the Himalayas, but alas apparently even that was added by the British ghost-writer who sought to validate their existence (I believe that they could exist, but like Mulder or Houdini on their personal quests the blatantly falsified information angers me all the more for the bad reputation it gives to such a search).

I am also more than a little disappointed because I would very much like to read an account that describes Stalinist Russia and its gulags as Elie Wiesel's "Night" describes Auschwitz. It is ironic that the Holocaust is such a well-documented and (despite the rantings of some such people as I described in my EuroParliament post) reasonably well-understood and well-studied event, while the Stalinist atrocities going on literally right next door are so poorly understood. Even the numbers are debated. There seems to be pitifully few accessible works in English for us Westerners to read on Gulags, and even less that is not written by those with political axes to grind (Soviet emigres and all varieties of Eastern Europeans at differing stages of war with the Soviet Union). I guess my search continues.

And I shall hopefully finish this work of fiction I set out reading as a piece of history. Churchill was right: Russia continues to be a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

At the Movies Again...

...Or more correctly, watching DVDs from the library. This time it was "The Prince and Me", starring Julia Stiles, a film about a young woman who is preparing for medical school but instead falls in love with a prince from a fictive royal family of Denmark. In the tradition of Hollywood movies copying plots I believe that this film was already made as "The Princess Diaries" (yes, I watched that one with my little sister because I'm a good older brother). Well, this one was terrible. The plot was all over the place, not terribly romantic (or comedic), sort of set at the University of Wisconsin, sort of set in Copenhagen (which from a little checking on the internet appears to be a beautiful Prague in springtime). The acting was subpar. And, humourously, the entire constitution and society of Denmark has been reinterpreted for the silver screen. First (obviously), Danes speak English as their first language, even the royal family at home. Second, enough with all this nonsense about Queen Margaret - Denmark is ruled by a King whose wife seems to resemble Zsa Zsa Gabor. Also, the Crown Prince is a Prince William type playboy with a 12 year old sister... so much for the two real princes in their 30s (who married an Australian and Hong Kong woman, respectively, not Americans...). I (and probably the people of Denmark) was also unaware that the monarchs of Denmark personally convened and chaired Cabinet meetings. What a load of crap.

Long and short, if anyone has Black Hawk Down, let me please borrow it and watch it. It may be a depressing film, but at least its somewhat based on reality. That plus there comes a time when I can't take any more romantic comedies...it's time for something to cleanse the filmgoer's palate of all that artificial movie saccharine.

Surge

That blog entry before this was the first in almost a month, so I feel it was a little messy and rambling, but I needed to get something out there (Talk amongst ya'selves..). I promise to keep the next batch short and to the point, with some taut prose.

So I just watched the Bush speech, like I'm sure many political junkies and foreign affairs fans have done. I found it interesting. To the point, and actually rather well-spoken (a point journalist James Fallows has raised is that Bush seems to mis-speak more often when talking to his "Base" than when seriously dealing with a bipartisan audience). He was correct that whatever happens, there will be more violence in Iraq, and so people need to be prepared to deal with that. He also mentioned that America cannot afford to appear to lose in this conflict there: I would agree with him on that point too. As Paul Kennedy pointed out in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, that is the bitter irony of power: once a committment has been made, there is no way to withdraw from that committment without losing relative power. However, often these committments are expensive in terms of blood and treasure, and can likewise diminish power (talk about a prisoner's dilemma). As I have said before, this is why the debate on invading Iraq in the first place should have been taken more seriously - now it is far too late for the politicians to be squabbling on when and how to minimize an American presence there.

But on to this "surge", the new buzzword for 2007. Ultimately, it is a slight of hand and seems to be done for political reasons. The extra troops are troops already stationed in the Middle East - timetables have just been fiddled with. The whole debate over troop levels seems to be too much of an inside-the-Beltway game at the moment. Strategists need to seriously discuss the best means to secure a victory, or at least a stable situation, rather than the political horsetrading occuring at the moment.

Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty

The new year has brought the European Union two new members, Bulgaria and Romania. These two countries are the latest intakes in the EU's expansion this decade, and their presence could point to future difficulties in the European project.

For all the techno-jargon about "absorbtion capacity" and whatnot, the fact of the matter is that the two newest members are much poorer, have poorer infrastructure and a more corrupt society than the EU's more venerable members. Romania and Bulgaria are in quite a different world than, say, Ireland, Sweden or the UK, let alone Germany, or even Poland or Slovakia. The promise of EU membership has forced these countries to undergo reforms, but it is far from a finished project.

I mention Bulgaria and Romania because their addition has caused a small stir in the European Parliament (and it obviously takes something unusual to bring notice to the EUP). European Members of Parliament now include representatives from Romania's Greater Romania Party and Bulgaria's National Attack Party. In the world of EU politics, these two parties are considered rather unsavoury, what with their anti-minority, nationalist overtones. Their membership has allowed the formation of a new Pan-European political group: Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty, which will include Le Pen's French National Party, the Freedom Party of Austria (formerly led by Joerg Haider, until he tried to reinvent his political career), the Flemish Nationalist (and anti-immigrant) Vlaams Belang, and various far-right politicians from Italy, including Alessandra Mussolini, the granddaughter of Il Duce and niece of Sophia Loren (for details on her career as a topless model please consult, as always, wikipedia). No word yet on any support coming from the Danish People's Party or any of the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn's followers. These parties share a common distrust of the EU, especially regarding attempts to write an EU constitution, support stricter anti-crime measures in their home countries, oppose any EU membership for Turkey, and generally oppose immigration into the EU. Opponents can point to antisemitic histories of some politicians in this group, as well as a few national irredentists (just let the name "Greater Romania" sink in for a minute ... sadly I'm not sure how great it would be).

Quite a few have had some electoral successes in years of late, and a number have participated in or supported national Cabinets in their home countries. To traditional supporters of liberal democracy, such politicians are fascists, pure and simple. I remember a Professor of mine, a former high level State Department employee, remarking to my class that of course the EU must shun Austria and force it to change its government if its government included Joerg Haider! Such people must not be tolerated!

And there in lies the secret of such parties. European politics especially are dominated by something of a political elite...something that might seem quite familiar to the US State Department. All members of this "elite", despite their rhetoric or hairsplittting campaign promises, largely offer the same thing: parliamentary democracy with the same social democratic economics and values. So well and good if people want it, but if they are looking for something different then there is precious little on offer in the mainstream. As a result, these parties appeal to certain needs and fears felt by European voters. Attempts to exclude them only seem to prove that the system is rigged (and it is true that supporters of liberal democracy, whether Republican neoconservatives or UN-minded liberal internationalists, seem to expect a pretty narrow range of acceptable results from democracy despite the world's great variety of cultures, historical experiences and problems - one can see this in calls for Palestinian democracy followed by an international boycott once Palestinians elected a hardline Hamas government). The growing popularity in Europe has led mainstream politicians, such as Sarkozy in France, to address some of their voters' concerns about immigration and crime.

Socialists and communists seem to fit in to democracies and even have a hard left organization in the European parliament - the Party of the European Left, which includes as observers the unreconstructed members of some former Eastern European Communist regimes. It seems that "establishment" opinion seems more tolerable of them than of suspected fascists. In a true democracy, it is better to give everyone a voice ... usually the better to debate them and let them show their own failings (the European far right is an especially fractious lot).

So I say good luck to the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty Party. I disagree with what you say, but defend your right to say it. Just please do not try to deprive people of fundamental civil and political rights, or try to overthrow your governments and carry out genocide (admittedly, I am not too worried about the latter - professional politicians seem much more harmless than professional militaries, intelligence services and secret police forces that dabble in politics). Ultimately, all politics really is is a means to for the rest of us to humour the politically insane.

As a final warning, I would point to our far right European politican associates that the attempt to organize a Fascist International in the 1930s was a dismal failure (so much so I cannot even find reference to it on Wikipedia). Strident nationalists ultimately do not seem to get along with other strident nationalists ... especially when they are trying to deport each other's populations and control each other's territories. The only common enemies they gather are people favoring democracy... and eventually everyone gets a little tired and wants to throw the old bums out. So the Far Right bums beware of their antics, because they too will meet the same fate.