In a stunning turn of events, the British Parliament has defeated David Cameron's call for action on Syria. If the world goes to battle against the Assad regime, the UK will be watching from the sidelines. The BBC reports that Parliament was not in favor of military action, even if the UN confirmed the use of chemical weapons. The British Defense Secretary, Philip Hammond, believes that the bitter aftertaste of the Iraq War made MPs and the public skeptical of intervention.

There are two points to be made.

First, it is disheartening that the British Parliament is incapable of separating the past from the present. The Bush-Blair team is nothing at all like the Obama-Cameron team. Unlike the Iraq War, we actually have evidence that something horrible happened: Besides video footage depicting flailing victims, we have intercepted phone calls which indicate that somebody in the Assad regime is responsible for launching the chemical attack.

France, which opposed the Iraq War but acted unilaterally in Mali earlier this year, is preparing its military to attack the Assad regime in Syria.

What a role reversal. The British are the French, and the French are the British.

That leads to point #2. UK Prime Minister David Cameron was in charge of a fragile coalition with the center-left Liberal Democrats. With this failed vote on Syria, it's become crystal clear that he is unable to control his own Parliament. Unlike the American system, a Prime Minister must remain firmly in charge of the legislature. Otherwise, he is, by definition, completely ineffective as a leader.

Losing what may have been the most important vote of his premiership could be a fatal blow to Mr. Cameron's ability to continue governing. Thus, it is time for David Cameron to resign.

(AP photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

While they support punishing Assad for the use of chemical weapons, Syria Comment objects to a broader intervention. Their reasons are numerous and worth reading in full, but this bit on the consequences of toppling Assad is worth highlighting:

Millions of Syrians still depend on the government for their livelihoods, basic services, and infrastructure. The government continues to supply hundreds of thousands of Syrians with salaries & retirement benefits. Destroying these state services with no capacity to replace them would plunge ever larger numbers of Syrians into even darker circumstances and increase the outflow of refugees beyond its already high level. Syria can get worse.

It's frankly amazing that this is not well understood following the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq. And yet, those urging the United States to "do something" to bring about the collapse of the Assad regime choose to ignore it.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

The war in Syria has ebbed and flowed; at first the rebels made significant advances, and it appeared as if the Assad regime was doomed. But, then the government fought back, and it looked as if Assad was going to survive. So, what is the status now?

The Institute for the Study of War has put together a great explanation of the current status of the civil war, in addition to a map explaining who controls what in the all-important capital city of Damascus.

Elizabeth O'Bagy writes:

Despite significant gains in Homs province, Syrian government forces are struggling against opposition forces on other fronts. In Damascus, opposition forces have mounted a major offensive, entering many government-held areas and gaining new ground. Although the government has gone on the counter-offensive, opposition forces have been able to maintain their advance and prevented government forces from storming a number of critical areas in the city. These gains reveal the extent to which the opposition is able to adapt to changes in the operating environment, and prove that the Syrian government lacks the capacity to conclusively defeat the insurgency despite increased assistance from external allies.

The rest of the article can be found here.

Source: Institute for the Study of War

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

"With great power comes great responsibility."

These immortal words, imparted by Uncle Ben to his nephew, Peter Parker, form the moral impetus to the career of one of the world's great superheros -- Spiderman.

It's also a philosophy that many of Washington's foreign policy elite subscribe to, casting America as a global Spiderman, responsible for punishing bad guys and maintaining global law and order. And it's the reason why, despite clear opposition from the public, the Obama administration is poised to plunge the U.S. deeper into Syria following the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

Just listen to the language the Obama administration (and outside interventionists) are using to justify intervention. “Make no mistake," declared Secretary of State John Kerry, "President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people." And who will hold Assad accountable? The United States. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the "violation of international norms" is what is spurring the Obama administration to action. Who is responsible for upholding these norms? The United States.

Reports devastating: 100s dead in streets, including kids killed by chem weapons. UN must get there fast & if true, perps must face justice.

— Samantha Power (@AmbassadorPower) August 21, 2013

The idea that it is somehow a uniquely American responsibility to uphold the norm against using WMD in war (a civil war, no less) is more than a bit odd. America has not only facilitated the use of chemical weapons attacks against civilians, it was the only country to use nuclear weapons in war. Hypocrisy aside, there are more practical problems with this approach.

In these situations the U.S. isn't like Spiderman -- a nimble hero with precision web-slinging -- but more like the Incredible Hulk, largely ignorant to what's going on on the ground and just as likely to do immense damage as save the day.

There are almost no military analysts who think the kinds of limited "punishment" strikes against Assad will have any significant impact. In fact, one of the very architects of a "surgical" strike plan on Syria has doubts the plan would work. The only way the U.S. could truly punish the regime would be to facilitate its collapse -- but that would merely usher in a period of complete chaos and the likelihood that Syria's chemical weapons would get into the wrong hands. The quest for locating "good guys" to arm and win the day was fanciful in the beginning of the war and has only become more untenable as jihadists have entrenched themselves in the rebel ranks.

None of these practical concerns, however, appear strong enough to overwhelm the administration's momentum to action. For Washington, it's just too tempting to play the hero.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

JPMorgan is currently under investigation by the U.S. government for hiring the children of powerful Chinese officials in an effort to win business there. According to Andrew Ross Sorkin, if JPMorgan's Chinese hiring practices are found to have run afoul of the Foreign Corrupt Practices act, it will send "shudders" through Wall Street:

Virtually every firm has sought to hire the best-connected executives in China and, more often than not, they are the “princelings,” the offspring of the ruling elite.

But hey, that's China, where corruption is how business gets done, right? Not quite. Here's Sorkin again:

But hiring the sons and daughters of powerful executives and politicians is hardly just the province of banks doing business in China: it has been a time-tested practice here in the United States.

Sorkin goes on to extol the virtues of letting America's own "princelings" staff the ranks of powerful institutions because they're just so super-smart and well-connected. What the U.S. would prosecute as corruption in another country, Sorkin suggests, is actually good business in America.

What's ironic is that we've also learned this week that China is concerned with the possibility that Western ideas will penetrate their society and undermine faith in one party rule. From the looks of Sorkin's apologia, China's already got the hang of American meritocracy.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Following the discussion about events in Egypt, you would think that the U.S. gives Egypt $150 billion a year and not $1.5 billion. The prevailing presumption among Washington pundits is that $1.5 billion entitles America to a say in how Egypt is governed and that with-holding aid is a powerful tool to impact events there.

The opposite is true.

The reality is that whatever "influence" U.S. aid does purchase, it's not all that significant in the short term. Events, as they usually do, have out-stripped Washington's ability to "manage" them from afar.

Egypt's military rulers are going to act in what they perceive to be their best interest. This was made abundantly clear by a report over the weekend by the Washington Post which detailed how all of Egypt's major donors failed to convince the military not to brutally crush Brotherhood demonstrators. If the combined weight of all of Egypt's benefactors could not prevail upon the military, then the pleadings of U.S. senators is hardly going to move the needle.

Besides, the Gulf powers have already indicated that they will support Egypt's military no matter what, making U.S. aid more symbolic than substantive.

So that means that Egypt is headed back into a military dictatorship. While this runs afoul of Washington's professed "values" it is certainly preferable to a civil war or insurgency. A stable Egypt ruled by a military dictatorship is likely to breed anti-American terrorism, but an Egypt that crumbles into an all-out civil war definitely will (see Syria).

Over the long term, though, the U.S. must reassess its relationship with the military dictatorship reclaiming power in Egypt. While the legal case for withholding aid appears air tight, the moral and national security cases are more complex. Back-stopping a military dictatorship that violently crushes Islamist opponents is precisely the set of circumstances that directs violent terrorism against the United States. The only "vital" interest the U.S. has in Egypt is passage through Suez and there's no reason to believe that such an interest is in imminent danger if America withholds aid (though priority access may be withdrawn). On the other hand, the Brotherhood's short-lived rule did not win it many fans among Egyptians and their response to being evicted from power (i.e. burning down churches) provides an ominous window into their mindset. Throwing U.S. support behind them, even in the name of democratic legitimacy, is equally distasteful.

Ultimately, the U.S. should have cut off aid to Egypt after the Soviet Union collapsed, taking with it the over-riding strategic rationale for the aid in the first place. Obama is, in effect, caught in a foreign policy trap produced by Washington's refusal to abandon Cold War-era strategic prerogatives.

But whether the Obama administration withholds aid or doesn't (or finds some intellectually incoherent straddle), events in Egypt are going to run their course.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

The Trayvon Martin saga rekindled America's obsession and never-ending dialogue about race relations. As expected, much ink was spilled and much hot air was exhaled on the topic. One would think, based on the sort of ridiculous hyperbole that regularly pollutes our airwaves -- such as the "nation of cowards" comment by Attorney General Eric Holder back in 2009 -- that Americans are among the most racist people in the world.

Certainly, Americans are not (and never will be) perfect, so eliminating all racism from a society is an impossible task. But anybody who thinks that the U.S. is a particularly racist country simply has little knowledge of what happens outside our borders.

Consider a Pew study which determined what percentage of Americans are comfortable with interracial marriage. (For sake of brevity, the results are provided only for whites and are broken down by age group.)

Age 18-29: 88%
Age 30-49: 75%
Age 50-64: 52%
Age 65+: 36%

As might be expected, the millennial generation is very liberal in this regard, while the oldest generation is not. Both our parents and grandparents grew up in a decidedly more racist society, and that fact is reflected in this poll.

Now, compare that study to one conducted in Hungary, which asked if parents would allow their children to be friends with a person of another race. Hungarians said that they would NOT allow their children to be friends with Jews (46%), Africans (58%) and Roma (68%).

In the U.S., our children are being taught that interracial marriage is completely acceptable; in Hungary, children are being taught that simply being friends with a person of another race is unacceptable.

Of course, there's no reason to single out Hungary. Racism is a problem throughout much of Europe. Italy's first black government minister was compared to an orangutan by a senator and had bananas thrown at her by a citizen. Dutch politician Geert Wilders exploits racial tensions to advance an anti-immigrant (particularly anti-Muslim) agenda. And a terrible tragedy unfolded recently in Poland, when Mexican sailors were attacked by Polish soccer hooligans.

And these aren't just isolated events. Indeed, as Benjamin Ward wrote in a 2012 article for openDemocracy:

The neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party entered the Greek Parliament in June, securing 7 percent of the popular vote. In France, the National Front won almost 18 percent of the vote in the April 2012 first-round presidential elections. In the Netherlands, the Freedom Party caused the government to collapse in April 2012, withdrawing its support from the ruling coalition (though it lost ground at the polls in September). Until recently, extremist parties were also part of government coalitions in Italy and Switzerland, and earlier in Austria. Similar parties have made significant gains in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, and had electoral success in the 2009 European Parliament elections in Hungary, the UK, and elsewhere.

If, according to Mr. Holder, the U.S. is a "nation of cowards" in regard to race relations, what would this make Europe?

Perhaps those who continue to obsess over American race relations should try reading global news every once in a while.

(AP image)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

With no major U.S. elections this year, the world is turning its attention to the second most important election in the world, which will occur on September 22: The election of Germany's parliament (i.e., the Bundestag). Germany has been the dominant player in the Eurozone crisis; essentially, nothing gets done without Angela Merkel's expressed consent. It is probably for that reason that Forbes has her ranked as the #2 most powerful person in the world.

Similar to other parliamentary systems, the people do not choose the head of government (in this case, "Chancellor") directly. So the outcome of the parliamentary election will directly determine Ms. Merkel's fate.

Having been elected in 2005 and again in 2009, Ms. Merkel is running for a 3rd term. And currently, she is sitting pretty: Her center-right party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is polling at 41 percent, according to the latest poll (8/11/2013) reported by Der Spiegel. The CDU's major rival, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), is trailing badly, polling a mere 25 percent.

But that's where the good news ends for Ms. Merkel.

Currently, she presides over a coalition government consisting of her own CDU, plus the CDU's center-right sister party called the Christian Social Union (CSU), which is based in Bavaria, and the center-right Free Democratic Party (FDP). But the FDP is in serious danger of not meeting the 5 percent threshold required for entry into the Bundestag. Furthermore, in both of her previous victories, support for Merkel's CDU party shrank in the days prior to the election.

While it is widely assumed that Mrs. Merkel will ultimately prevail, that prediction is far from certain. The latest poll shows:

41% CDU-CSU (center-right)
25% SPD (center-left)
13% Greens (center-left)
8% Left (left-wing)
5% FDP (center-right)

If the FDP fails to reach the 5 percent threshold, then Ms. Merkel could be in serious trouble. Although the SPD has sworn off ever forming a coalition government with the Left Party (which has ties to communism), they do work together at the state level. So, it is not inconceivable that a center-left coalition, including the left-wing Left Party, could form a government, ousting Ms. Merkel.

In Ms. Merkel's first term, she presided over a "grand coalition" between her center-right CDU party and the center-left SPD party. However, SPD has sworn off doing that again, as well.

If Ms. Merkel is unable to form a coalition government after the election, then her fate may very well come down to SPD, who has refused to work with either Ms. Merkel or the Left Party. Keeping both of those promises seems highly unlikely.

If given the opportunity to govern again with the incredibly popular Ms. Merkel, that may be an opportunity too good for the SPD to pass up.

(AP image)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Former Israeli intelligence chief Amos Yadlin said that he thinks Washington is slowly coming around to the idea of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

“In 2012 the [Americans'] red light was as red as it can get, the brightest red,” Yadlin was quoted by the Times of Israel as telling Israel's Army Radio. “But the music I’m hearing lately from Washington says, ‘If this is truly an overriding Israeli security interest, and you think you want to strike,’ then the light hasn’t changed to green, I think, but it’s definitely yellow.”

It's hard to see what exactly has changed, from a U.S. perspective, with regard to the dangers of an Israeli strike on Iran. Moreover, with Iran's new president indicating a willingness to talk (if not to capitulate) I'd have guessed that Washington would be even more unwilling to green light an Israeli attack. Is the U.S. suddenly better equipped to deal with the fallout of such a strike, or is Washington simply resigning itself to the inevitable?

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Italy has made international news a lot lately -- and not for good reasons. Former Prime Minister Silvio "Bunga Bunga" Berlusconi was sentenced to jail for tax evasion (though it's unlikely he will serve any time because of his age). And somebody threw bananas at the country's first black government minister, just two weeks after an Italian senator said the minister reminded him of an orangutan.

Now, Italy is in the news again. This time, it's because the Parliament voted to essentially shut down a substantial proportion of animal research in the country. According to Nature News:

The amendments would, for example, forbid the use of nonhuman primates, dogs and cats in research, except in mandatory drug testing or when directly related to translational medicine. They would also forbid procedures that impose mild pain — such as injections — without anaesthesia.

The legislation further prohibits the use of animals in some research areas — such as xenotransplantation, in which cells and tissues are transplanted between species, and addiction. "It’s terrible," says Gaetano Di Chiara, a pharmacologist at the University of Cagliari, Sardinia. "Drug addiction is a major health issue, and it requires research with animals."

However, the law must maneuver a couple more obstacles before it is implemented, so there is a chance that it will never be enforced.

Still, this represents yet more evidence of a growing anti-scientific sentiment in Italy. Sixty-nine percent of Italians are afraid of electromagnetic radiation from cell phone towers, and some residents of Sicily believe that a U.S. satellite dish installation is causing cancer. In 2011, a ridiculous 94 percent of Italians rejected nuclear power in a referendum. And in 2012, Italy convicted six scientists of manslaughter for failing to predict an earthquake.

It's utterly amazing that Italy ranks #7 in the world in terms of scientific impact. One wonders how much longer that distinction will last.

(AP photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

In 1983, the British government wrote up a speech for the Queen of England to deliver in the event a war broke out with the Soviet Union. It was just released by the UK government and, as you'd expect, exhorts the British people to keep a stiff upper lip amid the mushroom clouds:

"Now, this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds.

"I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's [George VI's] inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939 [at the start of the World War II].

"Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.

"But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all, the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength."

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share