POST-WAR RESPITE:

November 17, 2005

More Americans want US to mind its own business (AFP, 11/17/05)

Concern about the US campaign in Iraq has led a growing number of Americans to believe that the United States should not meddle overseas, according to an opinion poll.

“The percentage of Americans who agree that the ‘US should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own’ has risen from 30 percent in 2002 to 42 percent currently,” the poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center in Washington, showed.

“This is on par with the percentage expressing that view during the mid-1970s, following the Vietnam War, and in the 1990s after the Cold War ended,” it added.

The majority should be expected to narrow after we’ve won the most recent war and are in mop-up posture, as now.


THEY NEVER FAIL TO MISS AN OPPORTUNITY:

November 17, 2005

The Limits of Sovereignty; The Legitimacy of Collective Action (Carroll Andrew Morse, 11/17/05, Tech Central Station)

[G]iven reasonable certainty that the Bush administration is not making high-profile noises against Syria without preparing to follow through, what happens next? The answer will depend, in large part, on the usual critics of Bush administration foreign policy. Syria’s crude use of political violence provides an opportunity to unify a number of American foreign policy strains that have recently been estranged from one another. Syria’s assassination of a political leader is frowned upon not only by hawks of various stripes, but also by process-oriented liberal internationalists — who do not like one state interfering with another through the use of violence — and by realists who view the assassination of leaders as dangerously destabilizing. Add in the growing contingent who believes that the United States should more skillfully combine participation in international institutions with the pursuit of American interests, and there should be a wide constituency for meaningful action against Syria.

In the best case outcome, America bootstraps the world towards a meaningful act of collective security. The liberal internationalists take the lead on the political left. They help forge an agreement between America’s different foreign policy elites on a plan for dealing with Syria that has tangible goals, realistic deadlines, and an enforcement mechanism. Confronted with a united America, nations not always inclined to support US foreign policy decide that sacrificing one clumsy dictator is more prudent than spending — perhaps overspending — the political capital of the United Nations to protect assassins harbored by the Syrian government. Syria, lacking any meaningful international support, is forced to turn over its government officials and nationals involved in the al-Hariri assassination. The growing spectacle of weakness and incompetence undermines Syria’s government, setting Syria on a path to political modernization.

And in the worst case? The liberal internationalists succumb to their own worst tradition. Instead of leading, they follow the lead of the visceral anti-Bush partisans and join tortured arguments that at best ignore, and at worst justify, state-sponsored political assassination. Sensing a divided America, the UN is never compelled to move beyond approving resolutions that do nothing more than threaten other resolutions. The Bush administration — strongly committed to the idea that not acting once engaged shows dangerous weakness — assembles a coalition outside of the UN to act against Syria. A divided Congress either barely supports or barely rejects action outside of the UN and future political assassins are emboldened during a debate where many members of Congress declare that no one should act against political assassination without UN permission.

Not everyone believes that action outside of the UN following a UN non-response qualifies as a “worst case scenario”. A United Nations that refuses to act against cross-border assassination — an offensive act of war by any reasonable standard — serves no purpose and should be allowed to continue its slide into irrelevance. Will the liberal internationalists and the further leftward skeptics of George W. Bush’s foreign policy take this opportunity to demand that international institutions take a stand against anarchy? Or will they continue to undermine the legitimacy of those institutions by using them as justification for surrendering to anarchy?

Sadly, the reality is that there are only a handful of liberal interventionists around–Michael Walzer, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Ignatieff, Paul Berman, George Packer, Ed Koch, Joe Lieberman, and a very few others–and even several of them go wobbly any time the rest of the Left criticizes George Bush loudly enough. we do well to recall Mr. Walzer’s question after we toppled the Taliban, and his sad answer:

[C]an there be a decent left in a superpower? Or more accurately, in the only superpower? Maybe the guilt produced by living in such a country and enjoying its privileges makes it impossible to sustain a decent (intelligent, responsible, morally nuanced) politics. Maybe festering resentment, ingrown anger, and self-hate are the inevitable result of the long years spent in fruitless opposition to the global reach of American power.

Given that American power has been used over the last ninety years to defeat colonialism, Communism, Nazism, and now Islamicism, the opposition to that reach must be called indecent.


DOES HE EVEN KNOW WE SKIPPED THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS?:

November 16, 2005

<a href=http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-carter14nov14,0,3117329.story?track=mostemailedlink
This isn't the real America (Jimmy Carter, November 14, 2005, LA Times)

IN RECENT YEARS, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.

Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.

At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements — including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.

Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of “preemptive war,” an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.

Admittedly, he’s a nuclear physicist, not a historian, but it’s hard to believe he really knows this little about America’s past.


THE HIGH COST OF BALKING AT REGIME CHANGE (via Watching America)

November 16, 2005

‘Manufacturers of Misery’ Oppose Free Trade: By rejecting Washington’s plan for a Free Trade Area of the Americas, according to this editorial from Spain’s El Diario Exterior, ‘the manufacturers of misery, who are stuck in slogans of the 1970s, have dynamited’ what was a chance to ‘replace poverty and under-development with trade and a market economy.’ (November 15, 2005, El Diario Exterior – Original Article (Spanish) (via Watching America)

Those manufacturers of misery who bandy about slogans from the 1970s have dynamited what had been a chance to pass from poverty and underdevelopment, to trade and a market economy.

Chilean and American companies continue to tale advantage of the commercial opening up and new opportunities that the FTA [Free Trade Agreement] brings the two countries. As was published in Diario Exterio, during the first year that the treaty was in force, bilateral trade grew 33%, and it has already risen an additional 38.8% up to September 30, 2005.

Chile’s gamble on the FTA has resulted in exports valued at $4.8 billion, in increase of 30.5% compared to 2003. Imports rose 3.4 billion, an increase of 32% over the previous year. Likewise, the dynamic trend in exports has propelled the sale of industrial products, with exports reaching $2.6 billion.

In 1991, 32.5% of products exported to the United States by Chile were industrial. Today this percentage has reached 57.2%. Thanks to the Free Trade Agreement, Chile has remarkably diversified production. During 2004, 2,135 companies exported 2,088 products to the U.S., which has contributed positively and directly to job creation.

The United States helped overthrow Allende and as a result Chile is a vibrant democratic ally with a per capita GDP over $10k.

We left Castro in power and as a result Cuba is a cesspool with a per capita GDP of $3k.


IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO LIBERATE:

November 16, 2005

At the Heart of Europe?: Two hundred years after William Pitt took on Napoleon, Europe is in crisis again. Keith Robbins warns Tony Blair that there are no easy fixes to the issues of democracy that have thrown the ‘European project’ off course. (Keith Robbins, December 2005, History Today)

It is arguable that in its various phases from the construction of the Coal and Steel Community onwards, ‘Europe’ could only have begun to cohere because of the enthusiasm, commitment, even deviousness, of an ‘undemocratic’ elite. In the case of the founding six states that signed the Treaty of Rome, in 1957, however, the political context in which its members worked was one in which the nation-states as they had existed in pre-1939 Europe, had ‘failed’ (in a manner that did not apply to the United Kingdom).

The EEC was of course only a partial ‘Europe’. Its founding members were all ‘democracies’ but they had come to their democracies by different routes. Germany was divided in a Europe in which ‘people’s’ democracies faced those of the West. ‘European’ (i.e. a certain sort of Western Europe) consolidation made economic sense and in particular gave a firm foundation to the desirable reconciliation between France and Germany. There was, however, an ambivalent relationship between ‘democracy’ and ‘integration’. ‘Integration’, whatever it precisely entailed, could certainly draw upon a widespread if imprecise notion that a ‘new beginning’ was required. ‘Christian democracy’, at least as espoused by parties that took that label, suggested a transnational ideology. Likewise ‘democratic Socialists’ differentiated themselves from Communists. These similarities made at least a meeting of minds possible. Integrationist minds, however, seeking what they deemed to be a greater good, were somewhat wary of ‘democratic control’. It might be necessary to suppose that both Nazism in Germany or Fascism in Italy had been ‘imposed’ on the ‘people’ but that was not the whole picture. The ‘people’ might again emerge unregenerate and in a xenophobic frame of mind. Democratic governments should, at appropriate moments, seek the ratification of the people for what they had decided to do, but there was a suspicion of decision-making by perpetual referendum. Use of the referendum by authoritarian regimes had shown how easily wording could be manipulated. Its use in Switzerland simply confirmed the prejudice that Switzerland was the exception to everything. [...]

The successive enlargements of the Community on its way to the present European Union have had a kind of ‘democratic’ objective. Greece, Spain and Portugal, as early ‘new members’ in the 1980s, had all been nursed into democracy after their periods of authoritarian rule. One of the most compelling arguments for the EU’s recent and dramatic expansion to include the former Communist states of East-Central Europe was that common membership of the ‘democratic club’ would strengthen their own newly democratic cultures and structures. Such a mission was seen as laudable, no matter what stresses and strains might accompany it. It was the existing member governments, not the people, that agreed admissions and enlargements. The governments of applicant countries have been keen to get in and (Norway excepted) have obtained the necessary popular endorsement of membership on the terms that were offered them. What a referendum in existing member states might have said about enlargement is another matter.

The result, from Estonia to Portugal and from Ireland to Greece, has been the creation of a kind of ‘Europe’ that would not have been imaginable in 1955, let alone by William Pitt in 1805. It brings together some states that have had deep relationships over centuries and others whose interaction has been minimal. It is a democratic ‘Europe’ without precedent. And yet, a clear majority of Dutch and French voters have rejected the Constitution. Possibly for contradictory reasons, the Constitution was found unacceptable.

Sure, it was great fun for continental bureaucrats to impose an EU anti-democratically when they imagined it would consolidate power in their own hands. But now that the only feasible use for it is as a trade union, imposing economic liberalization on the older democracies and stripping power away from bureaucrats, they’ve fallen out of love with it.


NICE TRY THOUGH:

November 16, 2005

US retains hold of the internet: The US has won its fight to stay in charge of the internet, despite opposition from many nations. (BBC, 11/16/05)

In an eleventh-hour agreement ahead of a UN internet summit in Tunis, Tunisia, negotiators agreed to leave the US in charge of the net’s addressing system. [...]

Disagreements over control of the internet had threatened to overshadow the summit, with countries such as China and Iran pushing for a international body under UN auspices to oversee the net.

The US had stood firm against this, arguing that it would stifle technological advance and increase censorship of the internet by undemocratic regimes.

The Tunis deal leaves the day-to-day management of the net in the hands of the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), which answers to the US government.

Icann will keep its current responsibilities for overseeing domain names and addressing systems, such as country domain suffixes, and managing how net browsers and e-mail programs direct traffic.

The 170 nations taking part in the negotiations agreed on the creation of an Intergovernmental Forum to discuss all internet issues, such as spam, viruses and cyber crime.

“We did not change anything on the role of the US government with regard to the technical aspects that we were very concerned about,” said the top US negotiator David Gross after the agreement.

Mr Gross said the forum would not have oversight authority nor would it do “anything that will create any problems for the private sector”.

Helped that the totalitarian regimes had no bargaining power–whgat are they going to do, restrict our access to their censored sites?


"SPADE"

November 16, 2005

Bush urges China to allow more freedom, lauds Taiwan (Judy Keen, 11/15/05, USA TODAY)

President Bush began his four-day trip to Asia today by challenging China to give its people more political and religious freedom and hailing Taiwan’s commitment to democracy.

“As China reforms its economy, its leaders are finding that once the door to freedom is opened even a crack, it cannot be closed,” he said. “As the people of China grow in prosperity, their demands for political freedom will grow as well.” [...]

Taiwan has “delivered prosperity to its people and created a free and democratic Chinese society,” Bush said. Taiwan is self-governed, and the United States has said it will protect it if China uses force to bring it under the mainland government’s control.

Bush made his remarks in a speech in Kyoto, where he was meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi as part of his tour. Bush applauded Koizumi’s economic reforms and thanked him for his support in Iraq.

“We’ve got a strong friend in Japan when it comes to spreading democracy and freedom,” Bush said in a news conference today with Koizumi. [...]

Bush travels to Busan, South Korea, today for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. He’ll visit Beijing and Mongolia before returning to Washington on Monday.

India, Russia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, New Zealand and Australia should really be on the itinerary just to demonstrate to the Chicoms and the world that we’ve got them surrounded.

MORE:
President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Kyoto, Japan (George W. Bush, 11/16/05, Kyoto, Japan)

Konichiwa. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your kind introduction, and thank you for this invitation. Laura and I are pleased to be back in Japan, and we appreciate the warm welcome that we received here in Kyoto. We were so honored to stay at the Kyoto State Guest House. It’s a fantastic facility. I know the folks of this community have great pride in the guest house, and you should. Kyoto served as the capital of Japan for more than a thousand years — and it is still the cultural heart of this great nation. It’s a proud city where ancient teahouses and temples keep this country’s traditions alive — and scientists from its universities win Nobel Prizes. Kyoto is a symbol of Japan’s transformation into a nation that values its freedom and respects its traditions.

I have experienced this transformation of your country in a highly personal way. During World War II, my father and a Japanese official named Junya Koizumi were on opposite sides of a terrible war. Today, their sons serve as elected leaders of their respected nations. Prime Minister Koizumi is one of my best friends in the international community. We have met many times during my presidency. I know the Prime Minister well. I trust his judgment. I admire his leadership. And America is proud to have him as an ally in the cause of peace and freedom.

The relationship between our countries is much bigger than the friendship between a President and a prime minister. It is an equal partnership based on common values, common interests, and a common commitment to freedom. Freedom has made our two democracies close allies. Freedom is the basis of our growing ties to other nations in the region. And in the 21st century, freedom is the destiny of every man, woman, and child from New Zealand to the Korean Peninsula.

Freedom is the bedrock of our friendship with Japan. At the beginning of World War II, this side of the Pacific had only two democracies: Australia and New Zealand. And at the end of World War II, some did not believe that democracy would work in your country. Fortunately, American leaders like President Harry Truman did not listen to the skeptics — and the Japanese people proved the skeptics wrong by embracing elections and democracy.

As you embraced democracy, you adapted it to your own needs and your own circumstances. So Japanese democracy is different from American democracy. You have a prime minister — not a president. Your constitution allows for a monarchy that is a source of national pride. Japan is a good example of how a free society can reflect a country’s unique culture and history — while guaranteeing the universal freedoms that are the foundation of all genuine democracies.

By founding the new Japan on these universal principles of freedom, you have changed the face of Asia. With every step toward freedom, your economy flourished and became a model for others. With every step toward freedom, you showed that democracy helps governments become more accountable to their citizens. And with every step toward freedom, you became a force for peace and stability in this region, a valued member of the world community, and a trusted ally of the United States.

A free Japan has transformed the lives of its citizens. The spread of freedom in Asia started in Japan more than a half century ago — and today the Japanese people are among the freest in the world. You have a proud democracy. You enjoy a standard of living that is one of the highest in the world. By embracing political and economic liberty, you have improved the lives of all your citizens — and you have shown others that freedom is the surest path to prosperity and stability.

A free Japan has helped transform the lives of others in the region. The investment you have provided your neighbors helped jump-start many of Asia’s economies. The aid that you send helps build critical infrastructure — and delivers relief to victims of earthquakes, and typhoons, and tsunamis. And the alliance that you have made with the United States is the pillar of stability and security for a region — and a source of confidence in Asia’s future.

A free Japan is helping to transform the world. Japan and the United States send more aid overseas than any other two countries in the world. Today in Afghanistan, Japanese aid is building a highway that President Karzai says is essential for the economic recovery of this newly democratic nation. In Iraq, Japan has pledged nearly $5 billion for reconstruction — and you have sent your self defense forces to serve the cause of freedom in Iraq’s al-Muthanna province. At the start of this young century, Japan is using its freedom to advance the cause of peace and prosperity around the world — and the world is a better place because of Japanese leadership.

Japan has also shown that once people get a taste for freedom, they want more — because the desire for freedom is written in the hearts of every man and woman on this earth. With each new generation that grows up in freedom, the expectations of citizens rise — and the demand for accountability grows. Here in Japan, Prime Minister Koizumi has shown leadership by pushing crucial reforms to open your economy and make Japan’s institutions more responsive to the needs of its people. The Prime Minister knows that nations grow in wealth and stature when they trust in the wisdom and talents of their people — and that lesson is now spreading across this great region.

Freedom is the bedrock of America’s friendship with Japan — and it is the bedrock of our engagement with Asia. As a Pacific nation, America is drawn by trade and values and history to be a part of the future of this region. The extraordinary economic growth in the Pacific Rim has opened new possibilities for progress; it has raised new challenges that affect us all. These challenges include working for free and fair trade, protecting our people from new threats like pandemic flu, and ensuring that emerging economies have the supplies of energy they need to continue to grow. We have also learned that as freedom spreads throughout Asia and the world, it has deadly enemies — terrorists who despise freedom’s progress and who want to stop it by killing innocent men, women, and children — and intimidating their governments. I have come to Asia to discuss these common challenges — at the bilateral level during visits with leaders like Prime Minister Koizumi, and at the regional level through the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit. These issues are all vital — and by addressing them now, we will build a freer and better future for all our citizens.

Our best opportunity to spread the freedom that comes from economic prosperity is through free and fair trade. The Doha Round of negotiations in the World Trade Organization gives us a chance to open up markets for goods, and services, and farm products all across the globe. Under Doha, every nation will gain — and the developing world stands to gain the most. The World Bank projects that the elimination of trade barriers could lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. And the greatest obstacle to a successful Doha Round is the reluctance in many parts of the developed world to dismantle the tariffs, and barriers, and trade-distorting subsidies that isolate the world’s poor from the great opportunities of this century.

My administration has offered a bold proposal for Doha that would substantially reduce agricultural tariffs and trade-distorting subsidies in a first stage, and over a period of fifteen years, eliminate them altogether. Pacific Rim leaders who are concerned about the harmful effects of high tariffs and farm subsidies need to come together to move the Doha Round forward on agriculture — as well as on services and manufactured goods. And this year’s Summit in Korea gives APEC a chance to take a leadership role before next month’s WTO meeting in Hong Kong.

APEC is the premier forum in the Asia-Pacific region for addressing economic growth, cooperation, trade, and investment. Its 21 member economies account for nearly half of all world trade. By using its influence to push for an ambitious result in the Doha Round, APEC can help create a world trading system that is freer and fairer — and helps spread prosperity and opportunity throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

As we come together to advance prosperity, we must also come together to ensure the health and safety of our citizens. As economies open up, they create new opportunities — but this openness also exposes us to new risks. In an age of international travel and commerce, new diseases can spread quickly. We saw the need for international cooperation and transparency three years ago, when a previously unknown virus called SARS appeared in rural China. When an infected doctor carried the virus out of China, it spread to Vietnam and to Singapore and to Canada within a month. Before long, the SARS virus had spread to nearly every continent — and killed hundreds of people. By one estimate, the SARS outbreak cost the Asian-Pacific region about $40 billion. The lesson of this experience is clear: We all have a common interest in working together to stop outbreaks of deadly new viruses — so we can save the lives of people on both sides of the Pacific.

We now face a new and potentially more deadly threat from avian flu, which has infected bird populations across Asia and elsewhere. I am glad to see that governments around the region are already taking steps to prevent avian flu from becoming a pandemic. The World Health Organization is coordinating the global response to this threat — and the way forward is through greater openness, greater transparency, and greater cooperation. At the forthcoming summit, I look forward to discussing ways to help this region prepare for, and respond to, the threat of a pandemic. Every nation in the world has an interest in helping to detect and contain any outbreak before it can spread. At home, my country is taking important steps so that we are prepared in the event of an outbreak. And as the nations of Asia work to prevent a pandemic and protect their people from the scourge of avian flu, America will stand by their side.

As we address these challenges to public health, we must also confront the challenge of energy security in a tight global market where demand is growing. Asian nations understand that the best way to create opportunity and alleviate poverty is through economic growth. As their economies grow, they are using more energy. Over the last three years, the United States has launched a series of initiatives that will help these countries meet their energy needs — while easing demand on global markets, reducing pollution, and addressing the long-term challenge of climate change. These initiatives range from cleaner use of coal, to ethanol and biodiesel, to emission-free hydrogen vehicles, to solar and wind power, to clean-burning methane from mines, landfills, and farms.

This summer, we took an important step toward these goals by forming the Asian-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development. Together with Australia, and China, and India, Japan, and South Korea, we will focus on practical ways to make the best practices and latest energy technologies available to all. And as nations across this region adapt these practices and technologies, they will make their factories and power plants cleaner and more efficient. I plan to use my visit to the region to build on the progress we are making. By working together, we will promote economic growth and reduce emissions — and help build a better and cleaner world.

As we work together to meet these common challenges, we must continue to strengthen the ties of trust between our nations. And the best way to strengthen the ties of trust between nations is by advancing freedom within nations. Free nations are peaceful nations, free nations do not threaten their neighbors, and free nations offer their citizens a hopeful vision for the future. By advancing the cause of liberty throughout this region, we will contribute to the prosperity of all — and deliver the peace and stability that can only come with freedom.

And so the advance of freedom in Asia has been one of the greatest stories in human history — and in the young century now before us we will add to that story. Millions in this region now live in thriving democracies, others have just started down the road of liberty, and the few nations whose leaders have refused to take even the first steps to freedom are finding themselves out of step with their neighbors and isolated from the world. Even in these lonely places, the desire for freedom lives — and one day freedom will reach their shores as well.

Some Asian nations have already built free and open societies. And one of the most dramatic examples is the Republic of Korea — our host for the APEC Summit. Like many in this part of the world, the South Koreans were for years led by governments that closed their door to political reform but gradually opened up to the global economy. By embracing freedom in the economic realm, South Korea transformed itself into an industrial power at home — and a trading power abroad.

As South Korea began opening itself up to world markets, it found that economic freedom fed the just demands of its citizens for greater political freedom. The economic wealth that South Korea created at home helped nurture a thriving middle class that eventually demanded free elections and a democratic government that would be accountable to the people. We admire the struggle the South Korean people made to achieve their democratic freedom — and the modern nation they have built with that freedom. South Korea is now one of the world’s most successful economies and one of Asia’s most successful democracies. It is also showing leadership in the world, by helping others who are claiming their own freedom. At this hour Korean forces make up the third largest contingent in the multi-national force in Iraq — and by helping the Iraqis build a free society in the heart of the Middle East, South Korea is contributing to a more peaceful and hopeful world.

Taiwan is another society that has moved from repression to democracy as it liberalized its economy. Like South Korea, the people of Taiwan for years lived under a restrictive political state that gradually opened up its economy. And like South Korea, the opening to world markets transformed the island into one of the world’s most important trading partners. And like South Korea, economic liberalization in Taiwan helped fuel its desire for individual political freedom — because men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will eventually insist on controlling their own lives and their own future.

Like South Korea, modern Taiwan is free and democratic and prosperous. By embracing freedom at all levels, Taiwan has delivered prosperity to its people and created a free and democratic Chinese society. Our one China policy remains unchanged. It is based on three communiqu s, the Taiwan Relations Act, and our belief that there should be no unilateral attempts to change the status by either side — the status quo by either side. The United States will continue to stress the need for dialogue between China and Taiwan that leads to a peaceful resolution of their differences.

Other Asian societies have taken some steps toward freedom — but they have not yet completed the journey. When my father served as the head of our nation’s diplomatic mission in Beijing thirty years ago, an isolated China was recovering from the turmoil unleashed by the cultural revolution. In the late 1970s, China’s leaders took a hard look at their country, and they resolved to change. They opened the door to economic development — and today the Chinese people are better fed, better housed, and enjoy better opportunities than they ever have had in their history.

As China reforms its economy, its leaders are finding that once the door to freedom is opened even a crack, it can not be closed. As the people of China grow in prosperity, their demands for political freedom will grow as well. President Hu has explained to me his vision of “peaceful development,” and he wants his people to be more prosperous. I have pointed out that the people of China want more freedom to express themselves, to worship without state control, to print Bibles and other sacred texts without fear of punishment. The efforts of Chinese people to — China’s people to improve their society should be welcomed as part of China’s development. By meeting the legitimate demands of its citizens for freedom and openness, China’s leaders can help their country grow into a modern, prosperous, and confident nation.

Access to American markets has played an important role in China’s economic development — and China needs to provide a level playing field for American businesses seeking access to China’s market. The United States supported China’s entry into the World Trade Organization because a China that abides by the same global rules as everyone else will contribute to a free and fair world trading system. When I met President Hu in New York recently, he said that China would bring more balance in our trade and protect intellectual property. I welcomed those commitments, just as I welcomed China’s announcement in July that it would implement a flexible, market-based exchange system for its currency. These statements are a good beginning — but China needs to take action to ensure these goals are fully implemented. The textile agreement our two nations reached last week shows that with hard work and determination, we can come together to resolve difficult trading issues. The agreement adds certainty and predictability for businesses in both America and China. I look forward to frank discussions with President Hu at APEC and in Beijing about our need to find solutions to our trade differences with China.

China can play a positive role in the world. We welcome the important role China has assumed as host of the six-party talks aimed at bringing peace to the Korean Peninsula. We look forward to resolving our trade differences in a spirit of mutual respect and adherence to global rules and standards. And we encourage China to continue down the road of reform and openness — because the freer China is at home, the greater the welcome it will receive abroad.

Unlike China, some Asian nations still have not taken even the first steps toward freedom. These regimes understand that economic liberty and political liberty go hand in hand, and they refuse to open up at all. The ruling parties in these countries have managed to hold onto power. The price of their refusal to open up is isolation, backwardness, and brutality. By closing the door to freedom, they create misery at home and sow instability abroad. These nations represent Asia’s past, not its future.

We see that lack of freedom in Burma — a nation that should be one of the most prosperous and successful in Asia but is instead one of the region’s poorest. Fifteen years ago, the Burmese people cast their ballots — and they chose democracy. The government responded by jailing the leader of the pro-democracy majority. The result is that a country rich in human talent and natural resources is a place where millions struggle simply to stay alive. The abuses by the Burmese military are widespread, and include rape, and torture, and execution, and forced relocation. Forced labor, trafficking in persons, and use of child soldiers, and religious discrimination are all too common. The people of Burma live in the darkness of tyranny — but the light of freedom shines in their hearts. They want their liberty — and one day, they will have it.

The United States is also concerned with the fate of freedom in Northeast Asia, where great powers have collided in the past. The Korean Peninsula is still caught in the past. An armistice — a truce — freezes the battle lines from a war that has never really come to an end. The pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens to destabilize the region. Satellite maps of North Korea show prison camps the size of whole cities, and a country that at night is clothed almost in complete darkness.

In this new century, China, Japan, and Russia have joined with the United States and South Korea to find a way to help bring peace and freedom to this troubled peninsula. The six-party talks have produced commitments to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons. These commitments must be implemented. That means a comprehensive diplomatic effort from all countries involved — backed by firm resolve. We will not forget the people of North Korea. The 21st century will be freedom’s century for all Koreans — and one day every citizen of that peninsula will live in dignity and freedom and prosperity at home, and in peace with their neighbors abroad.

In our lifetimes, we have already been given a glimpse of this bright future. The advance of freedom and prosperity across the Asian continent has set a hopeful example for all in the world. And though the democracies that have taken root in Asia are new, the dreams they express are ancient. Thousands of years before Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln, a Chinese poet wrote that, “the people should be cherished the people are the root of a country the root firm, the country is tranquil.” Today the people of Asia have made their desire for freedom clear — and that their countries will only be tranquil when they are led by governments of, by, and for the people.

In the 21st century, freedom is an Asian value — because it is a universal value. It is freedom that enables the citizens of Asia to live lives of dignity. It is freedom that has unleashed the creative talents of the Asian people. It is freedom that gives the citizens of this continent confidence in the future of peace for their children and grandchildren. And in the work that lies ahead, the people of this region can know: You have a partner in the American government — and a friend in the American people.

On behalf of my country, thank you all very much. (Applause.)


THE INCIDENTAL HEGEMON:

November 16, 2005

Sex, shopping and the death of a regime (Mark LeVine, 11/17/05, Asia Times)

In a recent edition of the semi-official Syria-Today, the following ad was placed right next to the text of an address by Assad:

Emaar Properties, a Dubai-based joint stock development company, unveiled plans for two major Damascus real estate development projects on October 17. The two developments, “Eighth Gate” and “Damascus Hills”, will be the city’s first fully planned communities and are together valued at US$3.9 billion. They will be constructed in the countryside near Damascus and will comprise residential, commercial and real estate compounds … The projects are a joint venture between Emaar and the Syrian-based Invest Group Overseas, an offshore investment and property development company owned by a group of Syrian expatriate investors. Emaar chairman Mohamed Ali al-Abbar said that Syria was an emerging market for Emaar. “Syria has great potential for future development and is a remarkable location for Emaar to develop high quality real estate projects,” Mr al-Abbar said.

And so begins the inexorable march towards another neo-liberal paradise in the Middle East. [...]

Indeed, against Emaar’s drive to “build a global property-related brand”, the Ba’ath Party’s “Unity, Freedom, Socialism” doesn’t stand much of a chance. The best Assad can offer his people, as he explained in a March 5 speech, is “the protection of national and pan-Arab interests through adherence to our identity, independence, loyalty to our principles and beliefs … [while] dealing realistically with emergent challenges and developments”.

But while Assad offers to “protect our political and social stability”, Emaar offers luxury, service and profits. We don’t need to guess who will win here, especially when the price for Assad’s stability is an authoritarian regime, an economy that is in a shambles – near negative growth, key industries losing more than a quarter of their income in the past year alone – and increasing political and economic ostracization.

Thus does the fact of the End of History itself cause regime change.


JACQUES AND HUGO DESERVE EACH OTHER:

November 15, 2005

Blair urges EU and US to break world trade logjam (Lisbeth Kirk, 15.11.2005, EU Observer)

To revitalise stalled world trade talks, the EU and the US must make further concessions, Tony Blair has urged ahead of an important world trade summit in Hong Kong next month.

Speaking at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at the Guildhall in London on Monday evening (14 November) the UK Prime Minister and current head of the EU Council told the US and the EU to move ahead.

Mr Blair picked up on an offer from US President George Bush, who recently in a speech to the UN called for the removal of all agricultural and industrial subsidies, and said the US would do it if other countries did too. [...]

Brussels on the other hand insists it has gone as far as it can, given the resistance of some EU members such as France against offering further concessions.

It’s absurd to let vile nations like France and Venezuela hold up a deal, just cut them out of the process.


NON-DEMOCRACIES NEED NOT APPLY:

November 15, 2005

Can the U.S. find a substitute for the U.N.? (Betsy Pisik, 11/15/05, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

America’s representative at the United Nations said yesterday that the organization must become better at solving problems and more responsive to U.S. concerns or Washington will seek other venues for international action. [...]

He added: “In the United States, there is a broadly shared view that the U.N. is one of many potential instruments to advance U.S. issues, and we have to decide whether a particular issue is best done through the U.N. or best done through some other mechanism. …

“The U.N. is one of many competitors in a marketplace of global problem solving,” Mr. Bolton said. That realization “should be an incentive for the organization to reform.”

One alternative, he said, is for regional organizations to play a larger role. He praised the Organization of American States for its work in Haiti and said he would like the African Union to take on greater responsibilities in Africa.

In one of the essays included in our forthcoming book, Jonathan Rauch discusses how some of the spadework has already been done on forming a democratic caucus within the UN, Voting Bloc: In Geneva, the U.N.’s successor may be testing its wings (Jonathan Rauch, 3/22/04, Reason). Max Kampelman has likewise written about the idea, A Caucus of Democracies: How to reform the U.N. (MAX M. KAMPELMAN, January 6, 2004, Opinion Journal)

The U.N. today remains far short of realizing its potential or its stated aspirations. Its direction and control have been hijacked by authoritarian regimes, the relics of yesterday. We must work diligently toward realizing its original goals: freedom, democracy and human rights for all the peoples of the world. Until then, with our national values and security at stake, we must not permit our interests to be diverted and undermined by the unprincipled.

At a minimum, it is essential that the U.S. take the lead in establishing and strengthening a Caucus of Democratic States committed to advancing the U.N.’s assigned role for world peace, human dignity and democracy. The recently established Community of Democracies (CD) has called for this move, a recommendation jointly supported in a recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House.

In June 2000, the U.S., under the leadership of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and in cooperation with Poland, Chile, Mali and other democratic states, convened the first meeting of the CD to “collaborate on democratic-related issues in existing international and regional institutions . . . aimed at the promotion of democratic government.” More than 100 countries participated. It was necessary for the CD to withhold full membership from some countries that sought to be included but did not adequately meet democratic standards. A second such meeting took place in Seoul in November 2002, where participants reaffirmed the need to create a U.N. Caucus of Democratic States. Secretary of State Colin Powell called it “a new tool in the U.S. policy tool bag.” A third meeting of the CD is scheduled for Chile in 2005. The CD could be effective in refocusing the efforts of the U.N. to more closely follow its founding principles. At the same time, the CD is uniquely capable of filling the gaps left by the U.N.’s inadequacies, both internally and externally. But the CD’s existence seems to be a great secret in the press. How often have you read about it?

The Community of Democracies is not alone in recognizing the need for more ardent advocacy of democratic principles in the U.N. The European Parliament early last year called for the creation of a working democratic caucus at the Human Rights Commission. Recently, Sen. Joseph Biden introduced a resolution in the Senate in support of the establishment of a U.N Democratic Caucus as “an idea whose time has come.” It would be enormously valuable for the president of the United States to address the American people and enunciate a strong overall policy on the U.N., its opportunities and its limitations. He should make clear that broad promises about human rights must be replaced by specific implementation of human rights standards.

In order to advance the principles of the U.N. Charter, a strong Democratic Caucus must emphasize human dignity as an essential ingredient for peace and stability. It must challenge and limit the influence of the regional blocs that, for example, decide on the rotating membership of the Security Council and the various U.N. missions and commissions. Decisions and resolutions of the heavily politicized General Assembly–including the selection of states for commissions and other U.N. activities–should be formally approved by the Security Council before being considered decisions of the U.N. This would provide a safeguard for the U.N. Charter’s foundational principles and objectives. More difficult is the need to reorganize the composition of the Security Council itself to reflect today’s realities and not those of 50 years ago.

A strong case may be made for the need for an international body to which all of the world’s states, democratic and authoritarian, belong. Discussion and constructive exchange may flow from it. But let us not bestow on it the appearance of being a forum of principle or wisdom qualified to judge the dimension of our national welfare and value. The changes necessary in the U.N. will be difficult to achieve, and some may not be achieved at all. But the impetus for such change must be a commitment to human rights and democracy. We should put Kofi Annan’s statement to the test: “When the U.N. can truly call itself a Community of Democracies, the Charter’s noble ideas of protecting human rights . . . will have been brought much closer.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.