I must not think bad thoughts
Blogging the rise of American Empire.

me

Saturday, November 01, 2003

Poll in the 51st state (Iraq): Bush's approval ratings down!

The Bush administration is continuing to turn Iraq into a battleground, attracting Jihadists into the country. I wish I could draw cartoons. I would have a field day.


Posted by: Nathanael / 2:05 PM : (0) comments

Friday, October 31, 2003

Liberia and US support for West Africa
Just as I was about to return from Cologne, the big recurring story concerned what the US would do about Liberia—would troops be sent to support the efforts of the West African states (collectively the Economic Community of West African States, hereafter ECOWAS.) Liberia and its president Charles Taylor had been a thorn in the side of the West Africans, both Anglophone and Francophone, for years. His support of rebels had threatened security in neighboring countries. The counter-insurgency activities of the individual states (mainly supporting Liberian rebel groups like LURD and MODEL—retaliation rather than remedy) threatened a general breakdown of security. As rebels advanced on the capital city of Monrovia, Nigerian president Obasanje (for whom I have conflicting feelings—a leader of the Kampala movement, he has a mixed record in domestic affairs) offered Taylor asylum and committed troops to peacekeeping roles under the guise of ECOWAS. The Nigerian troop commitment would be significant—more than such a small country could normally handle.

A US force would be necessary to support this effort: it would be in command of the eventual UN force that would absorb the ECOWAS effort and that would create a peacekeeping force of up to 15,000 troops. In its immediate role, the US forces would takeover from ECOWAS forces after they had secured the coastal cities and backed them up in more contentious disarmament roles in the interior counties. Here is where the US could best employ the threat of force: backing up the West African troops would allow them to confront rebel groups with greater confidence. (See International Crisis Group August 6, 2003) Nonetheless, the Bush administration planned for more limited roles for the US forces: maintaining an entry point for aid at Monrovia. They would play no greater role in the country, and they would play no role in disarmament—neither directly or as a backup. (See Washington Post, August 9)

What progress has there been? Other than an agreement between the rebel groups and the post-Taylor government (see the Accra Agreement) the security situation in Liberia has been awful. The US deployed 200 marines into Liberia on August 15, and they were withdrawn ten days later. A force of 3,500 marines remains offshore, giving the Liberians the opinion that the Bush administration has no commitment to either Liberia or West Africa. This is a major blow to US prestige. Any support troops in Liberia currently are only present to deal with the security of the US diplomatic mission: they are present to help with any future withdrawal of the mission, nothing more. Under these conditions, ECOWAS cannot move from the coastal cities. (See Washington Post, September 24, 2003)

The rebels have found that they can ignore the agreement without danger of reprisals. LURD shelled Monrovia in the area surrounding the US Embassy with shells that they gained from Guinea, which they received from the US. MODEL has also gained heavier artillery from guerillas returning from Ivory Coast. (International Herald Tribune, September 17)

Attacks have increased in the interior. The US ended helicopter patrols in late September. (Oxfam, October 3, 2003) The necessary 15,000 UN troops cannot reach Liberia until April 2004. Attacks on civilians and soft targets abound in the rural counties. (Oxfam, October 27, 2003) With the exception of Monrovia, the rest of Liberia has returned to same conditions that it faced before Charles Taylor stepped down. This is a major failure for Bush policy—he had failed West Africa with his week commitment. Were a few thousand troops in a support role too much to ask for? This is embarrassing. Bush needs to send those troops ashore so that ECOWAS can work on the situation. There needs to be a program of disarmament (remember how George sr. failed to disarm the Somalian militias until they were entrenched?).



Posted by: Nathanael / 3:53 PM : (0) comments

Wednesday, October 29, 2003

Remission accomplished!

People have gone to town on George jr’s press conference yesterday. Of course, the focus has been on the statement that neither he nor the White House staff put up the “Mission accomplished” sign on the bridge of the USS Lincoln. In truth, his communications director was responsible, something that Carpetbagger pointed out early today. It has also produced a number of zingers, reported by Kos.

My beef with the press conference: that George jr referred to Iraq as the new front in the war on Terror. Going back to a previous post, this means that the White House intends to fight some sort of conflict for some time. Of course, security problems will persist. But does George really intend to attract terrorist into Iraq? This will problematize all reconstruction efforts indefinitely.

Posted by: Nathanael / 7:39 PM : (0) comments

Monday, October 27, 2003

Get those White House terrorists!

An amusing analysis of the Plame Game is going around the blogosphere thanks to an articles concerning the application of the Patriot Act. According to the article (thank you to Talk Left), the persons who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame can be indicted as a terrorist under the provisions that defined terrorism as an act that threatens human life. As amusing as this article is, I think it is more important for what it says about the Patriot Act than the action of the Plame outers. The Patriot Act was very broadly written and allows abuse of power with latitude. Otherwise, this is just another way of understanding the illegality of compromising an agent's identity--we should be cautious with our optimism in how it could force action from the Justice Department.

Posted by: Nathanael / 8:40 PM : (0) comments
Iraq palindromes

I have been looking over a report from the US Institute of Peace report “Global terrorism after the Iraq War.” This appears to be a fairly balanced report, focused on how well the US is doing against al Qaeda and what it needs to do to make its “war” more effective.

There are several things that struck me. I am a big fan of a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report from May concerning the chances that Iraq can be rebuilt and democratized. The report uses case studies from throughout history of US successes and failure. To give a brief summary:

  • Reconstruction succeeds in creating a solidly democratic nation-state when the country to be rebuilt already possessed many liberals values. Germany and Japan were successes because they were governments that had taken a wrong turn on the path to liberalism and democracy.

  • Reconstruction succeeds the longer that the US stays involved and the more resources that it puts into it.

  • Reconstruction succeeds when the US appears to be interfering less in the operation of the country to be rebuilt

  • Reconstruction is not likely to succeed. Within a decade of the removal of US forces and the end of reconstruction aid the most countries have devolved: their democratic institutions are compromised, they veer toward dictatorships and oligarchies, and they become major regional security threats.


In short, we cannot expect reconstruction of Iraq to succeed, but the US must stay in Iraq because it might become more of a security threat than before . It is a big shitburger that we must now all eat. I must as well, even though I never wanted the Iraq war. ($87 billion will not be the last appropriation that will go to Iraq.)

What concerns me from this new report is that the Islamists who are streaming into Iraq to fight against US soldiers are undermining–indeed, delaying–reconstruction:

The potential cost to the reconstruction effort is considerable: until the US forces can concentrate more on supporting the rebuilding and less on force protection, we will be challenged to deliver the kind of future that Iraqis expect, and that, in turn, will affect US standing throughout the region.


In the past weeks I laughed at the administrations reports that claims that the situation in Iraq has improved over conditions six months ago. I laughed because the Iraqis were fighting a war against a world power six months ago, so I was hardly convinced by the improvement. What this quote points out is that there may be diminishing returns from these improvement efforts: Iraqis will not judge the US based on material improvements, but their expectations . Ouch!

The remainder of the report goes over recommendations for fighting al Qaeda beyond military action and intelligence. These are: democratization of regimes in Muslim countries, improvement of regional educational systems, economic liberalization. In short, nation-building. Can Americans commit to this? Put in these terms, all republicans and half of all democrats will balk.

Posted by: Nathanael / 8:12 PM : (0) comments
Back on the trial

Sunday’s handing out of pamphlets was perhaps less informative and surprising than Friday’s picketing. We stood outside a local supermarket with a table and a mass of papers to hand out. I would claim that it was a moderate success–we did not engage people directly because we did not wish to anger the managers of the supermarket. Nevertheless, many people asked for information about the candidate, and we did run out of flyers. On the other hand, people were cranky–even supporters. It was not a fun day interacting with the local voters. The most extended interaction occurred as a “mini-debate” concerning US trade policy and the inclusion of standards of workers’ rights and environmental protections in trade treaties.

This little exchange, which lasted ten minutes, got the bug in me to learn more about trade issues. It is not that I don’t already know a lot, but I find that some of the information can be contradictory.

What are the arguments?

  • American companies use free trade provisions to send American manufacturing jobs oversees where workers get squat for a wage. These workers have no workers’ protection and therefore lack benefits that American workers have. Furthermore, these countries do not deploy any environmental protections–they are contributing to the pollution of the planet with industrial technology that is antiquated, especially by American standards. The American companies profit thereby from the cheap, exposed laborers and absence of ecological regulations.

  • Western countries (the US and the Europeans) strangle third world countries with bilateral trade agreements that lock the latter out of the Western countries’ markets for industrial goods. The Third World countries (hereafter TWC) are forced to sell only non-industrial goods (raw minerals and agricultural products) to the western countries. These non-industrial goods have a lower value than they could have had they been refined or processed. As a result, the potential value of these products is drained away from the TWC. There is no incentive to industrialize in the TWC because they have no markets to sell such products. However, the western countries can dump their industrial products (for which they have used the TWC’s goods) in the TWC, and with the added value. This represents an overall loss of pruduction for the TWC.

  • The American and European governments subsidize their own farmers. This causes the cost of their products to decline on the world market because of the artificial supports that the farmers receive. The TWC cannot sell the same products at the fair market price because of the artificial ceiling placed on the price. They cannot get full price, and their products lose value (see Oxfam for an example concerning cotton subsidies in the US.)


This is, of course, a loose summary of the different arguments that are thrown out there. I hope to gain a more sophisticated understanding in the following weeks. Why does this bother me? It appears that, in spite of the first argument, the US gains from free trade policies. The money that comes in improves the financial capabilities of the US and its citizens. The country on the other side of the agreement declines into economic dependency. The first argument appears to be less morally significant than the other two.
Yes, Yes, Yes, there is the issue of the loss of manufacturing jobs. I wish that the US could keep manufacturing jobs at home. But it is not a simple matter of the cost of labor abroad and the different standards of protections. The examples that people draw upon are usually Thailand and Vietnam (or whichever southeast Asian country that Nike is making its shoes in this week.) But they seldom deal with China and India. These countries are the up-and-comers of the century. Their advantages cannot be characterized in the same ways. Labor is cheap, but the people are more likely to afford health services out of pocket that American workers can only get through group insurance plans (the costs of medical services have increased with respect to wages, making it difficult for workers to pay for medical care from their own savings; furthermore, these services will tend to be less personalized than they were in the past.) If medicines and technology are lacking, it is more because of the prohibitive costs–they would be rare regardless. If their factories pollute, it is because the countries must still evolve through the early stages of capitalism–otherwise they would have to buy eco-friendly technology at prohibitive costs . Furthermore, China and India are bigger domestic markets than the US–this is an advantage that they will keep no matter what trade measures are placed upon them.

Anyway, these are opening reflections. I hope to learn more about this in order to come to a more complete picture. Without losing sympathy for the plights of American workers, I have problems with the nationalism that is at the core of the concern over trade agreements.

Posted by: Nathanael / 8:11 PM : (0) comments