Europeans are more likely to distrust banks than anyone else around the world, according to a new survey from Gallup:

Confidence in financial institutions was regionally weakest in the EU; among the 27 EU member states, a median 37% of residents said they have confidence in their country's banks, while 55% did not. However, the trust level in the U.S. was exactly as low as the EU median, in line with the record-low levels Gallup found three years after the recession officially ended in the U.S.

In sharp contrast to Europe and the U.S., many Asian countries have weathered the global financial crisis well and emerged with considerable economic momentum. This momentum helps explain why confidence in financial institutions was highest in Asia last year -- particularly among emerging markets in Southeast and South Asia, where median trust was 77% and 75%, respectively. In Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, and Malaysia, almost nine in 10 residents expressed confidence in the financial institutions in their countries.

Confidence in East Asia did not lag far behind its southern neighbors. Median trust in the region was 66%; in China, that figure was slightly higher at 72%.

None of this is terribly surprising, given the financial sector's role in plunging the U.S. and then Europe into a sustained crisis. But China may not be content with their financial institutions for very long. As the Economist has observed, China's banks are saddled with bad local government debt and "souring" property loans thanks to its recent "infrastructure binge."

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

The Washington Institute convened two military experts -- Gen. James Cartwright and Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin -- to author a case study on whether the U.S. or Israel should launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear program.

The authors conclude it would be better if the U.S. did it, but raise a number of cautionary considerations:

After discussing these issues, the president and prime minister’s advisers suggest that a U.S.-led strike is preferable from a military perspective, since it would produce affirmative answers to more of the above questions than would an Israeli attack. Yet determining which country should strike extends far beyond military capabilities. Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities is but a tactical step toward strategic goal of permanently halting the regime’s drive toward nuclear weapons. Mechanically damaging the program is not an end goal in itself, since no amount of bombs can destroy Iran’s nuclear know-how. Any strike must necessarily be followed by negotiations and a self-enforcing diplomatic deal that prevents Tehran from reconstituting the program or achieving breakout capability in the future.

Accordingly, the advisers point out that the operational benefits of a U.S.-led attack must be weighed against the post-strike political and military implications. In particular, a U.S. strike could limit Washington’s ability to negotiate with Iran’s leaders, who would not want to be seen as having been coerced by the “Great Satan.” Preserving the U.S. negotiating role is crucial. An Israeli attack may have a better chance of meeting that goal, but it would almost certainly not enjoy the same international support as a U.S. strike. regime of export controls and sanctions that President Obama has so carefully cobbled together. And without strict sanctions in place to prevent Iran from reimporting nuclear material, it may be a matter of years before the regime reconstitutes the program—this time entirely bunkered underground to protect against future strikes.

Iran is likely to react to getting bombed like most countries: unfavorably. If they have the means, it stands to reason that they would pursue a nuclear weapon in earnest following any attack to prevent a similar thing from happening again.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

German brewers are worried that fracking will ruin the water they use to brew their beers:

Regulations controlling the brewing of beer in Germany date back to the beer purity law, or Reinheitsgebot, of 1516 -- the world's first food purity law. According to the Brewers Federation, German beer still may only be made from malt, hops, yeast and water.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's governing coalition has drafted regulations for fracking, but the brewers say their proposed laws don't go far enough.

In the letter, which was sent to six federal ministers, the brewers said: "The legal changes planned by the federal government to date are not sufficient to guarantee the security of drinking water supplies and to take into account the requirements of the Reinheitsgebot." A spokesperson for the federation confirmed the contents of the letter to SPIEGEL ONLINE.

The letter goes on to argue that the brewing industry is dependent on high-quality drinking water, and that fracking could reduce or even completely eliminate the security of the water supply. The federation calls on the government to continue debate on the issue before reaching a final decision.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Last week, I presented a photo-essay of my travels in Budapest. After spending five days there, my family and I traveled north to the Polish resort town of Zakopane, which is popular with skiers and snowboarders. To get there, we had to drive through Slovakia, which I believe is one of the prettiest countries in Europe.

Slovakian countryside. A substantial portion of Slovakia consists of mountains, foothills and dense deciduous forests, very reminiscent of Appalachia.

Cattle crossing. Animals that are as large as (or larger than) your car get the right-of-way.

Ruzomberok, Slovakia. The juxtaposition of old churches with Soviet-style buildings is very common throughout all of Eastern Europe.

Orava Castle. Built into the side of a large cliff, Orava Castle is one of the most impressive sights in Slovakia. According to the global repository of knowledge (i.e., Wikipedia), the castle served as one of the filming locations for the 1922 vampire horror silent film Nosferatu.

Orava Castle.

Zakopane. In some ways, Zakopane resembles the Pacific Northwest. It has a cool, rainy climate, but it is freezing cold in the winter. Shown here is a popular ski slope.

Krupowki Street. Krupowki Street is one of the main attractions of Zakopane, featuring shops and restaurants.

Krupowki Street.

Mountain people. No visit to southern Poland is complete without listening to traditional music played by the "mountain people" ("gorale").

Coffee shop on Krupowki Street. The average coffee shop in Eastern Europe is simply classier than its average American counterpart, and it is (sadly) nicer than the average coffee shop in my city of Seattle. (Sorry, Seattle, but I don't dig the "grunge" style.) Also, it is common to find coffee-alcohol beverages on most menus, my favorite being coffee with Advocaat. However, due to America's rather puritan laws on alcohol, such drinks are almost never found in the U.S., and certainly not in a coffee shop.

Nosalowy Dwor. This resort hotel served as our home away from home. The infinity-style pool was quite amazing, as was the enormous breakfast.

After two nights, we departed for my wife's hometown of Elblag, near the Baltic coast about one hour southeast of Gdansk.

This latest trip was my tenth to Eastern Europe. I highly recommend a visit, as it is beautiful and your dollar goes a lot further here than in Western Europe. But, note that most people don't speak English, although that is changing among the younger generations. So, it's useful to have family or friends help show you around.

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Gen. Jack Keane and Danielle Plekta argue (paywalled) that the Obama administration should go to war against the Assad regime:

To successfully target Assad's air power, one option is to outfit moderate rebel units vetted by the CIA with man-portable antiaircraft missiles, otherwise known as Manpads. Providing more moderate rebels with Manpads is a reasonable choice, though unlikely to be decisive because time is on Assad's side. There is also a risk that the weapons could be diverted to al Qaeda-related groups. Despite that risk, however, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former CIA Director David Petraeus recommended this strategy last summer.

A cleaner and more decisive option is to strike Syrian aircraft and the regime's key airfields through which Iranian and Russian weapons are flowing to government forces. If American forces use standoff cruise missiles and B-2 stealth bombers for these strikes, they will be out of the enemy's reach....

If the U.S. pursues this strategy, moderates among the rebels will be strengthened, Syrian civilian casualties are likely to be reduced (though not eliminated) and finally, after two long years, Assad will be on notice. This option leaves room for escalation to the no-fly zone, and for a further escalation to attacks on Assad's ground forces if he uses chemical weapons again or tries to transfer them to America's enemies.

It would be nice to know how an intervention will help consolidate a post-war Syria that somehow accommodates itself to American interests and purges itself of al-Qaeda elements. These are critical details that are almost completely absent from most opinion pieces urging American intervention.

Just as with Iraq, it seems far more important to most Washington hawks that the United States precipitate the collapse of a hated regime irrespective of what follows -- even if what follows (as, again, in Iraq) are al-Qaeda sanctuaries and heightened sectarian civil war.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Last year, I rendered a not-so-flattering portrayal of my first ever visit to Budapest. However, I am pleased to report that my third visit to the city, which just happened this past week, went quite splendidly. Yet, that doesn't mean Budapest is off the hook; Hungarians still need to address their disturbingly racist hostility toward Jews, Africans and Roma (Gypsies), not to mention their government's erosion of free speech and the rule of law.

But, that's enough political commentary for now. Friendly or not, Budapest is a beautiful city with plenty to do. Here are some of the highlights from my recent trip.

Chain Bridge as seen from Buda. Budapest was originally three different cities, Buda and Obuda on the west side of the Danube River and Pest on the east side. The spans of the Chain Bridge were destroyed during World War II.

Chain Bridge as seen from Pest at night. This is definitely one of the most impressive views in all of Europe.

Hungarian Parliament. Situated on the east bank of the Danube River in Pest, it is currently where Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his ruling Fidesz Party conduct business. He's been a rather naughty boy, of late.

Szechenyi Baths. A few years ago, I visited the famous Gellert Baths, so I tried the Szechenyi Baths this time. These baths have smelly natural spring waters or large swimming pools to soak in. If you've never been to Budapest, I definitely recommend Gellert over Szechenyi.

Chess at Szechenyi Baths. People bring chess sets and play each other while relaxing in the pool. I played a game with a man (not pictured) who described himself as an "amateur." He then went on to give me a brief lesson on the history of American chess and proceeded to destroy me in about 20 moves. Amateur? I think not. But, perhaps I would have fared better if chess were taught in U.S. schools.

House of Terror. This building was used first by Hungarian Nazis (Arrow Cross Party), and then the Communists, to imprison, torture and execute dissidents.

St. Stephen's Basilica.

St. Stephen's Basilica.

Central Coffeehouse. This coffee shop was established in 1887. To put that into perspective, the City of Seattle -- famous for its coffee -- wasn't incorporated until 1869. So, Central Coffeehouse in Budapest is roughly as old as Seattle. Another coffee shop, Gerbeaud, was established in 1858.

Margaret Island. To get away from the hustle and bustle of the city, take a trip to quiet Margaret Island in the middle of the Danube River. You'll still be right in the middle of a major metropolitan area, but it certainly doesn't feel like it.

After departing Budapest, we headed north through Slovakia to the Polish resort city of Zakopane. Slovakia is one of the most beautiful countries I have seen, and my next photo-essay will start there.

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

I don't really know who "Boya Dee" is but he's some sort of minor celebrity. He was also an eye-witness to the brutal murder of a British soldier that saw two men armed with knives and meat cleavers attempt to behead their victim. This prompted Boya Dee to observe via Twitter:

Mate ive seen alot of shit im my time but that has to rank sumwhere in the top 3. I couldnt believe my eyes. That was some movie shit

— Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013

Top three? What on Earth has he seen?

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

In a piece published in September, 2009 I highlighted one of the dangers of Washington's obsession with "containing" Iran:

The principle danger in any containment scheme is that the U.S. will set in motion forces it does not understand and cannot control. The most relevant example, of course, is American support for the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s. What began as an effort to covertly bloody the Soviet Union, gradually, and unintentionally, spawned a transnational terrorist movement that eventually struck the U.S. homeland on September 11, 2001. Many of the same Afghan militants who proved useful to the U.S. in the 1980s have now turned their guns on America...

Indeed, the rise of al Qaeda points to the singular danger of any Iranian containment regime: it could stir up a Sunni jihadist whirlwind. The Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, would not only need arms to keep Iran in check militarily, but would step up an ideological campaign to undermine the legitimacy of its Shiite theocracy in the eyes of the Muslim world. This ideological conflict would put the U.S. in the absurd position of supporting the same theological forces which have propelled al Qaeda terrorism.

This is precisely what has happened in Syria, especially as Iran and Hezbollah have thrown in their lot with Assad. Here, for instance, is the advice of Max Boot:

In this regard it would help enormously if Hezbollah were not successful in its efforts to keep the Assad regime in power. A failed intervention in Syria would do tremendous damage to its standing in Lebanon, while a successful intervention would allow it to maintain its grip on power by safeguarding the arms pipeline flowing from Tehran via Damascus.

That makes it all the more imperative that the U.S. do more to ensure that Hezbollah loses in Syria–not only by providing arms to vetted rebel factions but also by employing our airpower to ground Assad’s air force and thus removing a crucial regime advantage. Time is slipping away as Assad recovers on the battlefield.

The upshot of this advice is to make Syria safe for al-Qaeda by purging it of Hezbollah. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Oh boy:

Silvio Berlusconi’s private disco featured women dressed not just as sexy nuns and nurses but also as President Barack Obama and a prominent Milan prosecutor the former Italian premier has accused of persecuting him.

Those are some of the details that have emerged Friday during the first public sworn testimony by the Moroccan woman at the center of the sex scandal involving Berlusconi.

I've never had the opportunity to host (or attend) a bunga-bunga party, but President Obama's likeness is about the last thing I'd want to see.

And food for thought: would Berlusconi's ladies have had to dress up as John McCain, if he won the election?

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

An MP for the ultra-right Golden Dawn party, Panayiotis Iliopoulos, was ejected from a session in Parliament on Friday after the deputy used derogatory language to revile fellow MPs, according to Ekathimerini. He reportedly shouted "Heil Hitler" while defaming fellow parliament members as "wretched sell-outs" and "goats."

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Venezuela really needs some:

To avoid getting caught with their pants down, Venezuelan officials say they will confront a toilet paper shortage by importing 50 million rolls to meet demand.

Toilet paper is just one of the basic goods and foodstuffs that have been disappearing from store shelves over the past few months, as the government and private companies blame each other for the scarcity.

Venezuelan Minister of Commerce Alejandro Fleming announced the toilet paper measure on Tuesday, the state-run AVN news agency reported.

Repeating the government's stance, he blamed the media for provoking fear in consumers, who in turn begin hoarding items.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

As the Syrian civil war grinds on, proponents of getting the United States involved have resorted to moral condemnations to goad President Obama into action. "Syria may prove to be Obama's Rwanda," writes Peter Feaver. His Shadow Government colleague Kori Schake accuses President Obama of "moral negligence" for not allowing Syria's lung-eating rebels access to more advanced means of killing Assad's troops (which they promise, cross their hearts, not to turn on their American sponsors, unlike some other people Washington has armed in the past).

As moral cudgels go, the Rwanda charge is useful -- no less a figure than President Clinton has acknowledged, and apologized for, American inaction.

But it raises a couple of big questions: what could the U.S. have reasonably done in Rwanda, and are even those measures enough to help anyone in Syria?

It's easy, with hindsight and a wave of the hand, to insist that there were easy solutions within reach in Rwanda (ignoring the more debatable claim that it was up to the U.S. to "do something" in the first place). But the reality was far more complex. There was a reason that President Clinton didn't act.

Samathana Power, long a critic of America's failure to "do something" in Rwanda, wrote what is likely the definitive look at the policy options available to the administration at the time. Reading it, it's not clear why any of the measures proposed to the Clinton administration would have been decisive and, as Power recounts, there was deep skepticism at the Pentagon about a U.S. commitment there. The suggestions short of direct military intervention -- such as jamming "hate broadcasts" issuing from the country's radio stations and imposing embargoes on arms that weren't instrumental in the killings -- may not have done anything.

"Pentagon planners understood that stopping the genocide required a military solution," Power wrote. "Neither they nor the White House wanted any part in a military solution. Yet instead of undertaking other forms of intervention that might have at least saved some lives, they justified inaction by arguing that a military solution was required."

But this is deceptive. Another way to frame the Clinton administration's logic is that the Pentagon did not want to be drawn into Rwanda's conflict, so it refused to take steps along the road to being drawn into that conflict. All or nothing is not a false choice, because ultimately a "something" choice immediately ensnares the U.S., and the logic of doing more only grows more powerful. In for a dime, in for a dollar.

Now, unlike Rwanda, "other forms of intervention" in Syria consist of riskier policies than jamming radio stations. Things like arming rebel groups and establishing no-fly zones -- i.e. policies that even more explicitly tie the U.S. to the fighting in Syria. But like Rwanda, these interim steps are almost certainly not going to "help" Syria in the humanitarian sense of the word. They will help depose Assad, but absent a means to stabilize a post-Assad Syria, there's liable to be a failed state and all the attendant bloodshed and lawlessness that implies.

It's no surprise that the Obama administration is reluctant to "do something" more than it has already done. It has nothing to do with moral abdication and everything to do with common sense.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

China isn't the first country you typically think of when discussing Arctic matters, but they've just been admitted to the Arctic Council on an observer basis and will now have a seat at the table when Canada, the U.S., Russia and the Nordic countries set about wrangling over Arctic policy.

According to Gwynn Guilford, China wants in on Arctic issues less because of the region's reputed storehouse of hydrocarbons (an estimated 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil reserves and 30 percent of undiscovered gas deposits) but because of its fisheries:

The ”new fishing grounds” will become “the world’s largest storehouse of biological protein,” wrote Tang Guoqiang, China’s former ambassador to Norway, in a recent paper.

As we recently discussed, fishing is a big business for China, so much so that it’s raiding the territorial waters of other countries. Arctic nations are currently mulling an accord to prevent fishing in the open water above the Bering Strait until scientists can assess fish stocks. The objective would be to manage commercial fishing, not to protect the fish habitat, noted the New York Times.

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Europe's growing north-south divide.

While the U.S. focuses on the fallout from Benghazi and the world focuses on Syria, the Eurozone is once again silently sliding toward chaos: Slovenia may become the sixth nation -- after Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Cyprus -- to possibly require a bailout. (See map above. All six countries are highlighted in blue.)

Currently, the country plans to implement reforms, such as a tax increase and bank privatization, and Prime Minister Alenka Bratusek boldly claimed, "This program will enable Slovenia to remain a completely sovereign state."

But, we've heard that before. The Eurozone kabuki dance usually plays out like this: A struggling country insists it doesn't need financial assistance; it implements "reforms" which don't actually help; and, inevitably, it comes begging for money. Will Slovenia receive Bailout No. 6?

It looks that way. Recently, Moody's cut Slovenia's bonds to "junk" status, and the EU's top economics official, Olli Rehn, said that it's unknown if Slovenia's reforms will be sufficient. That's not exactly a vote of confidence.

The EU is supposed to discuss Slovenia's situation further on May 29. Be prepared for bad news.

(Image: amMap.com)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

If you spent the weekend reading about Iran, you may have encountered two articles. The first, by Reuel Marc Gerecht asserts unequivocally that Iran does not have a right to enrich uranium even though it is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

On the other hand, Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett argue (equally unequivocally) that they do have such a right and failure to recognize it is one of the key stumbling blocks reaching a negotiated settlement.

So who's right? Well, according to a close-read of the relevant treaty and expert commentary around it, Nathan Donohue concludes ... that there's no firm understanding of what "rights" the NPT actually affords:

The NPT does not clearly set out the rights of a state. Instead the language is vague and open to interpretation, possibly as a direct result of the dominant negotiating parties of the NPT. Whether this is the case or not, this inherent ambiguity has made it even more difficult to establish a common understanding between negotiating parties. In the absence of some resolve, the inherent ambiguity within the NPT will likely be a stumbling block for further negotiations between Iran and the P5 + 1 countries of the United States, China, Russia, Germany, France and Britain.

So there you have it.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

A new survey from the UN has found that over 50 percent of Chinese men have abused their partners in the past.

The results are equally shocking looking at the Asia-Pacific region, where six countries (China, Cambodia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh) were surveyed. One-in-four respondents admitted to having raped a woman, and one in 25 said they had taken part in a gang rape.

James Griffiths has more:

Speaking at a UN symposium on Gender-based Violence and Research in Beijing, James Lang, program coordinator of Partners for Prevention, called the preliminary findings "shocking".

"Violence is a complex phenomenon. Much of the research has been focused on women, but when we try to come up with solutions to reduce violence, we have to include men. That's the whole motivation behind the study," he said.

Researches in China interviewed more than 2,000 men. Over half of respondents confessed to physically or sexually abusing their wives or girlfriends. More shockingly, 25 percent of respondents said they had raped a woman, and one in 25 admitted to taking part in a gang rape.

In this context, monkey-mauling bear bicycle races seem downright enlightened.

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

In the Shanghai Wild Animal park, they race black bears and monkeys on bicycles (for some reason). It doesn't end well for the monkey.

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Famed physicist Stephen Hawking announced that he would join an academic boycott of Israel. Israelis greeted the news with outrage but Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center went one further, insisting that if Hawking really wanted to send a message to Israel, he should avoid using their technology:

"Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his own intellectual accomplishment. His whole computer based communication system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team. I suggest that if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet," she said.

"He calls [the boycott] an independent decision based on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts here. I propose he first seek the advice of Intel engineers working here. He seems to have no understanding of this world."

But he does know a lot about black holes.

UPDATE: Hawking's spokesperson said that his decision not to attend a conference in Israel had nothing to do with political views -- they were strictly health related. So that's the end of that micro-controversy. [Hat tip: Dave]

UPDATE II: Now there's an indication that Hawkings did indeed want to boycott Israel on political grounds. This story has fallen into its own black hole of confusion.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Former basketball star* Dennis Rodman has waded into international politics yet again, this time pleading with the North Korean regime to "do him a solid" and release American Kenneth Bae, who was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for allegedly plotting to undermine the Pyongyang regime.

Rodman visited North Korea in February where he supposedly made a "friend for life" in Kim Jong-un.

We'll see if that friendship will pay off.

(AP Photo)

(* Full disclosure: I am a New York Knicks fan. I disliked Rodman intensely when he played for the Chicago Bulls and I don't particularly like him as an international diplomat, either.)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Bret Stephens lists a variety of aggressive steps that Obama should take in Syria and then offers one unintentionally hilarious one:

(5) Be prepared to seize and remove Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, even if it means putting boots (temporarily) on the ground.

Mr. Obama has categorically ruled out sending troops to Syria, and he plainly regrets drawing a red line that he didn't mean to honor when it came to the use of chemical weapons. But even scarier than the threat of Assad killing more Syrians with those weapons is the possibility they would fall into terrorist hands—Sunni or Shiite—as Syria dissolves further into anarchy. That may have happened already. It will certainly happen if nothing is actively done to stop it.

Here's what the Pentagon had to say about a possible "boots on the ground" mission to neutralize Syria's chemical weapons arsenal:

The Pentagon has told the Obama administration that any military effort to seize Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons would require upward of 75,000 troops, amid increasing concern that the militant group Hezbollah has set up small training camps close to some of the chemical weapons depots, according to senior American officials.

There's nothing "temporary" about invading another country.

Syria is on fire and the brightest minds of the neoconservative movement think it's the height of strategy to put Americans in the middle of the inferno -- and then dump gasoline on it.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Speaks for itself, doesn't it? (Via Reddit.)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Motivational speakers are fond of telling a slightly corny, yet morally correct, story about a girl flinging starfish back into the ocean after a storm washed thousands of them onto a beach. The point of the story is that one person, while probably incapable of changing the world, can make a substantial difference in the lives of those whom they touch.

Unfortunately for motivational speakers, starfish may not be the most lovable example. To fishermen and marine biologists, starfish are an incredible nuisance. They eat oysters and clams, and they even destroy coral reef ecosystems, including the beloved Great Barrier Reef. To get rid of them, fishermen would chop them up and throw them back into the water.

The trouble with this strategy is that starfish can regenerate. A bisected starfish isn't a dead starfish: It's now two starfish. (And a starfish cut into five pieces turns into five starfish!)

In the world today, civilized societies are the fishermen, and terrorists are the starfish. If we leave the terrorists alone, they will destroy our global ecosystem; if we attack them, they multiply. This is the great paradox of foreign policy.

This paradox has received a lot of attention recently in regard to our drone campaign. Writing in The Atlantic, Hassan Abbas concludes that we simply don't know if drones are creating more terrorists than they kill.

Which is why the recent testimony of Yemeni writer Farea Al-Muslimi before the Senate is so troubling. He claims that drone strikes are terrifying his fellow countrymen and turning public opinion against the United States. Jihadists prey upon the poor, the angry and the fearful -- using their poisonous ideology to convert them into extremists.

This is largely what happened in Chechnya, the ancestral homeland of the Boston bombers. The Economist explains:

The nationalist cause that inspired Chechen fighters 20 years ago is now an Islamic one. Yet this mutation has as much do with Russia’s ruthless actions in the region as with the global spread of Islamist fundamentalism.

The article concludes that "suppression alone is unlikely to bring greater security to Russia."

Any marine biologist would have known that.

(Image: Starfish via TheMargue/Wikimedia Commons)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Suicide was the leading cause of death for South Koreans aged 15-24, according to a new report. That's 13 suicides for every 100,000 people in this age group -- up from 7.7 in 2001.

According to the Korea Herald, the country's suicide rate has been on the rise since the 1990s.

Not only are Korean youth killing themselves in greater numbers, there are also fewer of them. Young people (ages 9-24) accounted for 20 percent of the country's population in 2013, the lowest it's been since data was collected starting in 1970 (when the country's youth population represented 35 percent of overall numbers).

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

There have been several recent opinion polls in the U.S. showing a strong preference for staying out of Syria's civil war. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 61 percent of respondents opposed U.S. involvement in Syria. Another, from the New York Times and CBS, found that 62 percent of Americans polled said Washington had no responsibility to "do something" about the fighting in Syria.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is signalling that it is ready to arm Syrian rebel groups, drawing the U.S. inexorably deeper in a struggle the American people say they want no part of.

All of this raises an important question: if the American people don't want any part of Syria's civil war, who does? Who's clamoring for action in Syria? As far as I can tell it consists of journalists and think tank analysts, members of Congress, some of the president's advisers and foreign governments. The American public, writ-large, as best we can tell, is not.

And that's all you need to know about whose opinion is actually decisive when it comes to shaping U.S. policies.

Let's also stipulate that the American people could be wrong about Syria. They certainly are not well informed: a full 36 percent of people polled had "neither heard nor read" anything about Syria's civil war, according to the Reuters survey. But right or wrong, their opinion doesn't count for much.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

A French diplomat has let slip what has been obvious to many Americans for quite some time: the Western nation building project in Afghanistan is in dire shape:

The positive spin from the Americans has been running especially hard the last few weeks, as Congressional committees in Washington focus on spending bills and the Obama administration, trying to secure money for a few more years here, talks up the country’s progress. The same is going on at the European Union, where the tone has been sterner than in the past, but still glosses predictions of Afghanistan’s future with upbeat words like “promise” and “potential.”

Despite that, one of those rare truth-telling moments came at a farewell cocktail party last week hosted by the departing French ambassador to Kabul: Bernard Bajolet, who is leaving to head France’s Direction Génerale de la Sécurité Extérieure, its foreign intelligence service....

That the Afghan project is on thin ice and that, collectively, the West was responsible for a chunk of what went wrong, though much of the rest the Afghans were responsible for. That the West had done a good job of fighting terrorism, but that most of that was done on Pakistani soil, not on the Afghan side of the border. And that without fundamental changes in how Afghanistan did business, the Afghan government, and by extension the West’s investment in it, would come to little.

His tone was neither shrill nor reproachful. It was matter-of-fact.

Look, this is why the bags-of-cash-to-Karzai story was neither surprising nor all that lamentable: what else could we do? Sure, it would have been nice if everyone in the U.S. government was on the same page about how to "influence" Afghanistan's government, but when is the U.S. government (let alone a consortium of international players, all with their own interests) ever on the same page?

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share