Depardieux...or is that Asterix...Confusion

This is actually blog post Number 500 and the first for 2013.  So - I thought it should be decidedly unserious and focus on the enormously amusing antics of Cyrano and Asterix - also known as that slightly rotund alcoholic and sometime actor, Gerard Depardieux.

Gerard, upset by the new socialist president of France and, not to put too fine a point on it, his plan to tax those with incomes in excess of $1 million at a rate of 75% (which is a little outlandish) has obtained a Russian passport to exhibit how put-out he feels. 

However, he has now taken the plunge into Russian politics with a loud yelp in support of Vladimir Putin and his not so subtle move toward an oppresive state. 

In a supposedly secret telephone interview he also heavily criticised the anti-Putin stunt that the Pussy Riot all-female punk band performed last year in Russia's main cathedral. With talking points that could have been written by the Kremlin, Depardieu said that the band members would have received worse treatment had they gone to an Arab country and performed in a mosque.

"Imagine if these ladies walked into a mosque -- they would not come out alive..." 

Yes, well. Nothing like lowering the bar.  Sort of like saying that the Russian government is slightly less barbaric and crushes any decent with less vigour than chopping off heads in a public square in Saudi Arabia.

Two band members are currently serving two-year sentences in Russia's notorious manual labour camps.

He then said, "But when I say such things in France, I am considered an idiot."  No, Gerard, not just in France.

But, then he dives straight in the muddy water of Russian politics. 

Gratuitous remarks involved dishing out severe criticism of the opposition, who are not enamoured of Putin's 13-year rule were the norm. 

"The Russian opposition has no programme -- it has nothing," he told Rossiya state television's weekly program.

Then the remark designed to win over his new fellow citizens:

"Unfortunately, the masses are stupid. Only the individual is beautiful." 
Russia's first post-Soviet protests exploded last year in response to a fraud-riddled parliamentary election in which Putin's party barely got past the post.

But it get's dumber:

Depardieu said the opposition had "very smart people" such as former chess champion Garry Kasparov in its ranks. "But that is good for chess and not much else."

So - he leaves a free and open society in France because he doesn't like the idea of high taxes, to go to Russia - demonstrably un-free and un-open and with a flat 13% tax rate which played no part in his decision.

Gerard - fat, dumb and being an alcoholic are rarely a good life style choices.

Once More Into the Breach....

On July 1 the new European Stability Mechanism Fund comes into effect.  It is a more robust attempt to resolve the financial crises that has the Euro on the ropes.  But it is also a key date because in June, Greeks will go to the polls again and if they vote the same way, or even strengthen the anti-austerity parties to the extent they can form a government, then after July either the German led team of austerity believers will blink or Greece will set in motion the withdrawal from the Eurozone.   Because, austerity plans are now a social and economic disaster for Greece, Spain and Portugal.  Actually, austerity is not a plan at all – it is a knee-jerk reaction by the rich and powerful to retain that power at the expense of the periphery in Europe which requires a growth plan – not more austerity and unemployment that it brings.

Germany seems to think that threats are the order of the day.  They seem to forget that the Greek voter makes the choices – not Berlin.  Enough economists have said that the German led austerity program is bogus that perhaps Merkel and her ever diminishing circle of allies should sit down and come up with a compromise because by staying in the Euro, Greece will never recover economically because it will be forced to use a foreign currency within a group of wildly differing economies.  The system does not work.

Jean-Claude Juncker, who presides over the Euro-zone's finance ministers, criticized those who seem to think that threats against Greece were appropriate.  He said that Greek voters must be respected.  Mr. Juncker however, is leaving and thus can easily speak his own mind.  The problem is that the other ministers – Finland comes to mind – are fully supportive of the current policy and their tone to Greece is not diplomatic.  This is a gross mistake because people in general don’t respond well to threats and being treated like children. These same ministers praise Ireland and Portugal for keeping to the austerity route. The problem is that Ireland had no sovereign debt crises – it, like Spain is all private debt.  Frankly, anyone who thinks that Ireland is improving or stable is running a high fever. Spain’s banks are in trouble because of a housing bubble that burst in spectacular fashion and an unemployment rate over 25%.  Austerity is not the solution for Spain.

Coming back to Greece though, is the question of who will replace Juncker?  At the head of the pack is none other than Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister and someone heavily invested into austerity and maintaining German export superiority.  Freshly elected Hollande is unlikely to be enthusiastic about having a German in that spot as he campaigned promoting a growth, not contraction policy.  Putting Schäuble into the driver’s seat is likely to send Greece really over the edge.

In June, Europe will know which way Greece is going.  Withdrawal from the Euro will help Greece, hurt banks and embarrass the EU (read, Germany).  But frankly, it will give Greece the chance to become competitive again.  Hopefully, there is a semblance of a plan in place to deal with the exit.

France and Freedom of Speach

I’ve been gone for almost a month since my day job is in an end-year crunch to complete a raft of legislation here in Tajikistan.   As the holiday period approaches though, the rush by the government has abated.

The French lower house of parliament recently voted to make it a crime to deny that the Armenians suffered genocide during 1915 at the hands of the Ottomans.  The French should – but won’t – discuss the 1.7 million Algerians that were killed during their colonial war.  That’s ok as we all know that governments are hypocritical when it comes to their own history but are easily lured by the political advantage of condemning other nations or peoples. 

However, France and some other continental countries go further that simply expressing an opinion. They legislate against any other opinion that challenges their view.  Note to France (and Germany) – this is curbing the freedom of speech which you hold is one of the foundations of liberal democracy.  It is unique to France and such actions would never occur in the US or the UK.

There is no question that Turkey needs to move forward on its own to recognize the tragedy of 1915 – perpetrated by a different government in both form and substance.   It was clearly an attempt at ethnic cleansing – not genocide (as the word did not exist until recently).  The actions of the Ottomans need to be addressed between Armenia and Turkey and I humbly suggest that the comfortable Armenians in the United States and France keep their collective noses out of the issue.  I spent enough time in Armenia to know that many there would be able to resolve their differences in the region if they were permitted by the diaspora to do so.

And perhaps France and Germany should keep in mind that their great EU experiment is heading for catastrophe while Turkey is a rising power that should be courted, not rejected not least because its economy puts every EU member, except for Poland, to shame.

Domestic Politics Does Affect Foreign Policy

Over at Dan Drezner’s site there was an interesting discussion concerning what, if any, impact domestic politics, in the context of a US government shutdown over the budget, has on foreign policy. It is not as narrow as the post suggests. The budget issue in the US is only one political piece of the puzzle – a big one, but in general it forms only one component over the struggle for political dominance in the US. The question posed is thus what effect do domestic political decisions have on foreign policy in any country. In the context of the budget issues in the US, the professor takes the position that it has no effect.


I can’t agree. In the US, this battle is only one skirmish in the larger war being waged by Republicans on behalf of their contributors and right wing core supporters. It has implications for the wider war and domestic politics almost always impacts foreign policy because it affects the players even if the policy does not extend beyond the borders.

Take a look at France. France has often intervened in its former African colonies – in Chad against Qadaffi’s invasion, in Gabon (twice) and the Central African Republic (an incredible 5 times, the last in 2006). They have been in Cote d”Ivoire since 2003 – so the current cooperation with the UN peacekeeping forces to remove Gbagbo from power after his defeat in the election is simply a continuation of their involvement. However, the aggressive stance recently taken by Nicolas Sarkozy in Africa in Libya and Cote d’Ivoire may also be seen as a result of his low standing in the polls. It can’t hurt since the rise of the French right poses a serious threat to his incumbency. Sarkozy, despite being correct about Libya, is clearly attempting to boost France’s (aka, his image) to increase his standings for the elections next year.

Chancellor Merkel’s policies toward Russia are clearly influenced by domestic affairs. Like keeping the lights on and supporting domestic manufacturing. The German economy is heavily dependent on Russia and Russian energy. A faltering economy costs her politically.

Does anyone need a reminder about China’s internal monetary policies and their international impact?

In the US, domestic politics has a clear impact on foreign policy – and sometimes results in positions that are against US interests. One need look no further than Israel where any sign of slipping support draws the instant wrath of the evangelicals. The power of evangelicals over Republicans is clearly effective and has helped isolate the US while, in the case of the Middle East, actually act against its interests Fortunately they do not have overwhelming power, but should they ever succeed in taking over the domestic political reins completely, then US foreign policy will become a threat to peace.

One need only look at the positions that someone like Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), arguably the dumbest person in the Senate courtesy of the people of Oklahoma. He was on the floor of the Senate backing Laurent Gbagbo, who refused to step down after losing an internationally certified election in November in Cote d’Ivoire. Inhofe condemned the intervention of French and UN forces to install the internationally recognized elected president Alassane Ouattara. Want to know why? Domestic politics.

Can you say “C Street” the halfway house for fallen politico Christians, especially evangelical types who have been caught attending brothels, gaming houses etc? Right wing Christians support Gbagbo because he is Christian. Ouattara is Moslem. For evangelicals Muslim = bad, Christian = Good. That is, except if the Muslim is a dictator who supports and/or supplies oil to the US. The “C Street” gang and their nationwide followers support Gbagbo who has been on the US Christian right gravy train for a long time. Both he and his wife are evangelical Christians. They have attended the annual National Prayer Breakfast run by the Christian group called the Family. Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting supports him. Domestic politics can drive foreign policy.

Dig deeper and you find that the Christian right supported Charles Taylor and Michelle Bachmann was against the ouster of Mubarak. Christian evangelicals applauded the death penalty for gays in Uganda. The Christian right has never met a brutal Christian they didn’t like.

So I disagree. Domestic politics can have, and has had, a serious and sometimes adverse effect on foreign policy in the US at least. The budget debates in the US are only a small part of the struggle for control which, depending on the winner, will ultimately impact foreign policy. So, for all you progressives out there in the US who sat on your collective assess and pouted like 6 year olds in the last election, this is what will come to pass if you do it again. Inhofe, Michelle “I promise only one term, maybe” Bachmann, Huckabee and all their compatriots will be in control of domestic and foreign policy. Domestically, science will disappear and affect US international competiveness as children are taught the planet is around 5,000 years old and dinosaurs lived with humans; social programs for the poor and elderly will vanish; foreign policy will revert to military intervention first, middle and last and the income gap will only become worse.

European Coalition Cracking?

Europe is showing the cracks over the UNSC no-fly zone implementation as the US withdraws from its “leadership” position. Despite the hysterical, and in the case of Dennis Kucinich in the US, downright stupid, comments from US critics of the UNSC mission, the US has performed its stated policy perfectly and will vanish from the news as it has fired its last cruise missile. Now comes the interesting part in Europe.

France wants to continue to lead the charge in Libya and really is aiming to remove Qaddafi, one way or another. It does not want NATO involved as the operational structure of NATO would restrict French military activities – which are bent on regime change. Although a NATO lead would provide significant organizational assets, it would be a political mistake as that would make this purely a Western intervention despite the Security Council resolution. Italy wants NATO because it knows this will slow the regime change meme and result in a stalemate so it could continue to deal with Qaddafi. No one has asked how Qatari or other Arab forces would operate under NATO, whether wise or not, or if they would even agree to that arrangement.

So the maneuvering begins. Germany, as ever, is showing its inability to take part in anything with a combat role – making it more useless to NATO than ever except for base facilities. The German government will be suitably shocked at Qaddafi’s staged atrocities (something al Jazeera has already revealed as fake but credulity - deliberate or not - in some quarters rules). Like Italy, but for different reasons, it would support the lead role for NATO - if for nothing else than putting the brakes on France. As yet, it is unclear what positions Norway, Canada and the Arab League have on who should control the campaign, although in the case of the latter, getting rid of Qaddafi is high on the “to do” list.

Although I think that delivering the command and control to NATO is a bad idea on any number of levels, the decision of who will run the continuing campaign will be decided in a week or so – hopefully giving the French additional time to complete their agenda. If they are unable to take out the regime, and with the Libyan armor and artillery pretty much decimated, the regime will likely revert to an insurgency campaign involving urban terror campaigns and exhibits, when possible, of Western atrocities suitably staged with moveable military bodies dressed as civilians. This would mean a long haul campaign for which many (but not all) Europeans have never had any stomach and which will require a different approach.

Fortunately, very, very soon, the US will be out of the picture. Then little, if anything will be covered in the US because limited activities of logistical support to its allies is not exciting or controversial – unless critics on the left and right feel that support to US allies is not in its foreign policy interests. President Obama’s policy will have worked and other events will receive more play. Faux News can then go back to covering those nasty union people and any other pet anti-democratic project Murdoch and the Koch brothers have on their minds while CNN (in the US, not Europe or Asia) will simply get bored and go back to its normal useless news coverage of the latest flower shows. I suggest that people start viewing al Jazeera for continuing coverage if they so desire.

The War for Libya

While watching the reports coming out of Libya last night and this morning I still have this question – “what next?” As the expanded no-fly zone advances to include a no-drive, no mortar, no heavy artillery zone (entirely legal under the wording of the Security Council resolution) what is the coalition going to do if the Colonel decides to back-off and cease military operations? Although highly improbably given his recent bellicose and defiant statements, it is not impossible.


At a press conference last night, Hillary Clinton said that the purpose of the UN resolution was to protect civilians, not regime change. Really? Although it was the politically correct answer, this is not the goal. It is certainly not the goal of the Arab coalition partners and the frequent statements from virtually every European leader as well as President Obama, is that the regime must stand down and leave. This leaves the thorny issue of who is going to effectuate the regime change. Fortunately, the US has taken the position that it will not be the pointiest stick in the bundle for once and will leave the air assault to the French and British. But, unless the regime is decapitated by an air-to-ground missile or an assassination or rebel bullet, who is going to pull Qadaffi and his sons off the thrown?

If a European ground force enters the fray it will surely win but would not look good on TV. Egypt, of course, has an effective, professional army that could, with probably one or two tank brigades, slice through to Tripoli. Given the past enmity between the two countries, that might not be the best of plans. Hillary Clinton also hinted at defections within the Qadaffi camp – a not so subtle reminder that his vaunted, all- female bodyguards may not be particularly effective when the chips are down.

But, aside from the stray missile or bullet (or not so stray), what will happen if he says he wants to talk? The first splits will come with a call by Russia, China and their all too frequent ally, Germany, to stop the air assault and sit and talk. Again, then what? With whom does one talk? The leader that everyone said had to go? His (now) equally barbaric son, Saif? The most absurd statement comes from Sarkozy who said today that once the fighting stops, France was ready to talk. France has already recognized the rebels in Benghazi as the legitimate government of Libya – why would they talk with Qadaffi? The UK does not need to talk to anyone and one wonders what deals they made when their S.A.S. were in Benghazi a few weeks ago.

From the European standpoint – and this is their war until the Arabs come in with something – the best outcome would be continued defiance. France is busily turning the regime’s tanks into scrap and their retreat from the outskirts of Benghazi to Sirte takes them across the desert with nowhere to hide. Expect to see officers and men abandon vehicles, join the rebellion or melt away rather than be target practice for a French Rafale or Mirage. The rebels could be armed and trained a little, and sent off to the west to take Tripoli. France and England could continue to pulverize the tanks and artillery from the air with a few cruise missiles thrown in. But, at this point, aside from the immediate tactical goals, I don’t see a strategy.

One hopes, of course, that the Libyan military will simply say “enough” and quit, thus ending the 42 year old regime and handing the government over to the rebel leaders in Benghazi.

One last question: Is there a bigger buffoon leading a country these days than Hugo Chavez who just came out against the UN authorized attack?

France, Libya and a Call to Arms

This is becoming tiresome, but when France quickly recognized the Libyan rebels as the legitimate government in the country, my first point was “what next?” Now it is clear that the “next” was the military involvement of the US in the form of providing the logistics, communications and, last but not least, military aircraft to not only impose a no-fly zone over Libya, but to bomb airfields and who knows what else. As much as I hate to agree with Saif Qadaffi – has Sarkozy gone crazy?


The Washington Post reported today that “France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppe, said Wednesday that there was still time for military intervention to turn the tide against embattled leader Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. All the United States and other major powers had to do, he suggested, was follow France’s lead to pass a quick Security Council resolution and then send warplanes to neutralize Qaddafi’s air force.”

Well, that’s nice. This is a civil war. Intervening on one side against the other is not likely to produce good results for the intervener. Although not on the same scale, the Vietnam War was a massive interference by a foreign power in what was essentially a civil war. How did that turn out? Libya is certainly not the same scale, but the idea is the same. The no-fly zones in Iraq and Kosovo did not work, but were intended to protect non-combatants (otherwise known as civilians) from being pounded from the air by their respective governments. What France and the UK are suggesting, however, now goes well beyond a no-fly zone and is expressly stated – to “turn the tide against…Muammar Qadhafi…”

The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, took it a step further. He said that “Only the threat of use of force can stop Qadhafi. The Libyan dictator has upset the battlefield balance by bombing his opponents’ positions with the several dozen airplanes and helicopters at his disposal. We can neutralize his air capacities by targeted strikes. That is what France and Britain have been proposing for two weeks.”

Upset the battlefield balance? Is that serious? First of all, that is what one battlefield commander is supposed to do to the other. It’s called winning. Second, what Juppe is suggesting is an act of war.

Look, the rebels seem like the good guys – and compared to the current regime probably are marginally better. But does anyone really know? Doesn’t the experience in Afghanistan and Iraq with supporting “the good guys” trigger some hesitation? The final point is that sometimes rebellions fail and sometimes those who are the good guys at that moment in time, lose. No one intervened in Sudan. I don’t see anyone rushing to intervene in Cotê d’Ivoire or the Congo or Burma (France made noises there as well) all of which are arguably more important than the results in Libya where the West was happy with the regime until a few weeks ago.

Russia's Roosting Chickens

Image via Wikipedia

Much to my surprise, Brussels (but more likely Berlin) has been working tirelessly and quietly to remove the burden of Russian control over Europe’s (but actually Germany’s) severe dependence on gas from Siberia.

The European Union and Azerbaijan signed a deal Thursday in which Baku commits to supply Europe with "substantial volumes of gas," an agreement the EU said was an important step to reduce the bloc's dependence on deliveries from Russia.

Russia has used its energy resources as a weapon – not necessarily directly against Europe, but targeting Ukraine and Belarus. The strategy is aimed, and has largely succeeded, in assisting Moscow’s initial key foreign policy goals of regaining control of Ukraine and maintaining a thumb on Minsk. In doing so, however, Moscow alarmed Europe which needed to reduce gas imports from Russia before Russia began to use that same leverage to pressure the EU into ever more pro-Russian positions. The Kremlin’s energy gambit would allow it to loosen the support given by the EU to the Baltics, Poland and reduce other EU initiatives in the Caucuses and Central Asia. France, but not Germany, is immune to Russian pressure because of its huge nuclear energy facilities (a technology in which it is now the world leader).

The Russian move to bring Ukraine and the Caucuses back under its control was a key foreign policy goal of the Kremlin. The Russian Federation is a shell without Ukraine and the Caucuses is a buffer zone, like Belarus. The methods, however, were Putin’s. Without compunction, Putin’s Russia blatantly interfered in Ukrainian elections, invaded Georgia, signed virtually permanent military agreements with Armenia (outflanking Georgia and the West) and used disputes over gas pricing and transit fees with Ukraine to cut off gas supplies which happened to flow west. Europe, much to my surprise I admit, got the point and has started taking some action.

The faux democracy, single media environment of Russia built by Putin is now seeing some of its egg layers home to roost and one of them is named Nabucco.

Multiculturalism Fail

Image via Wikipedia

German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared on Oct. 16 at a meeting of her party, the Christian Democratic Union, that multiculturalism, “has failed totally.” This is merely stating the obvious as the failure to integrate non-Germans into society was quite clear a very long time ago. The same can be said of France and all the other members of the old EU to one degree or another.


Horst Seehofer, minister-president of Bavaria and the chairman of a sister party to the Christian Democrats, said at the same meeting that the two parties were “committed to a dominant German culture and opposed to a multicultural one.” The reference to a dominant German culture is striking, for obvious reasons. However, the phenomenon is not confined to Germany as right wing populists gain in the polls, much as in the US. In this context, it is clear that immigration issues are affecting all of Europe and the response is not pleasant.

Of course, much of the reaction to immigration is driven by the deteriorating economies of Europe (although Germany is doing rather well despite a shortage of highly trained specialists). But, the perceived problem in Germany is of its own making.

Germany’s labor shortage began, again for obvious reasons, following World War II. So it began to import some skilled, but largely unskilled, labor from other European countries. These workers were referred to as “guest workers” and they came from Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey. They were considered temporary, as the name implies, not immigrants. Most returned as expected and in any event Germany had no plan for assimilation. Furthermore, Germans could now rely on the unskilled migrant workers to perform, well, unskilled and rudimentary jobs, thereby allowing Germans to move into far less menial positions.

Germany had a very liberal policy for the guest workers – including social benefits and the ability to bring in family members to join the already large number of migrants. Guess which migrants took advantage of this the most. Turks. And not Turks from the cosmopolitan west of Turkey or Istanbul, but from the very poor east. The Turkish community became permanent, raising families and, as the economy slumped, taking advantage of a very liberal German social safety net as they became un-employed.

Germany never wanted to assimilate any of the guest workers, but their own policies created a situation where they needed to do something. So they came up with the smoke and mirrors multi-culturalism solution. It seemed a great idea at the time, but contained a time bomb because the deal was that the guest workers (and at this point this really only included the Turkish population) could retain their cultural and social beliefs but had to pledge loyalty to Germany. This ended up creating a sub-class – a sort of separate but equal system – which did not share (and were not required to share) German values.

As I said earlier, this is not solely a German prediliction. Europeans in general have no idea how to assimilate different cultures. Germany, like France, hid its head in the sand and, until now, never defined what it meant to be German. There was never a core culture that the immigrants were required to accept in return for citizenship - a contract of shared values. Multi-culturalism is not dead because it never was alive in the first place. The German (and French) view was a pretence and merely created ghettos. Is it surprising that after being made second class persons that Turks in particular considered Turkey their home to which they owed loyalty?

For the Germans to claim failure now is a little like the shock – shock – that Greece lied about its finances in order to enter the Euro zone or that the unregulated, shadow banks in the US precipitated the latest economic crash.

But the current German view points to a broader issue. The fact that Germany is using the language of nationalism is, to put it mildly, a little alarming. Germany is looking beyond the old constraints that tied it to the Western defense and economic establishments, including the EU. Back to the future.

Germany already has the closest economic ties to Russia of any Western European state. Russia ties Germany to itself with energy and Germany provides investment to Russia. There is already the shadow of a political alliance. The Baltic States and Poland should view this developing relationship with alarm. So should the US.

The outcome the last time Germany talked up national interest was not at all agreeable.

Overcoverage of Issues and Events

I have to admit that I’ve been lax in posting. There are two reasons for this outside of the need to actually complete some work. The first is the extreme obviousness of many topics and issues about which I could write if they were not so obvious, and the second is the useless warnings that bubble up about the necessity to deal with these issues to avoid the giant rocks from space that are sure to obliterate the planet if we don’t solve the problem NOW - but, well - let’s just list a few…


Israeli intransigent refusals to deal with any issue to move the region closer to peace,

Iranian intransigent rejection to agree on any solution dealing with anything,

Somali pirates seizing yet another ship (and being paid-off),

German pronouncements on their superior work ethic versus everyone with a shade darker skin colour

Greek worker riots as a result of reduced payments for doing nothing anyway,

Spanish riots as a result of Greek riots and 40% unemployment among youth,

French riots as a result of being French,

G20 meetings,

G8 meetings,

G pick-a-number meetings,

The imminent implosion of the Euro and the end of civilization,

North Korean insanity

In that light, a hat tip to Drezner for posting this:

An ineffectual international organization yesterday issued a stark warning about a situation it has absolutely no power to change, the latest in a series of self-serving interventions by toothless intergovernmental bodies.

“We are seriously concerned about this most serious outbreak of seriousness,” said the head of the institution, either a former minister from a developing country or a mid-level European or American bureaucrat. “This is a wake-up call to the world. They must take on board the vital message that my organization exists.”

The director of the body, based in one of New York, Washington or an agreeable Western European city, was speaking at its annual conference, at which ministers from around the world gather to wring their hands impotently about the most fashionable issue of the day. The organization has sought to justify its almost completely fruitless existence by joining its many fellow talking-shops in highlighting whatever crisis has recently gained most coverage in the global media.

“Governments around the world must come together to combat whatever this year’s worrying situation has turned out to be,” the director said. “It is not yet time to panic, but if it goes on much further without my institution gaining some credit for sounding off on the issue, we will be justified in labeling it a crisis.”

The organization, whose existence the White House barely acknowledges and to which hardly any member government intends to give more money or extra powers, has long been fighting a war of attrition against its own irrelevance. By making a big deal out of the fact that the world’s most salient topical issue will be placed on its agenda and then issuing a largely derivative annual report on the subject, it hopes to convey the entirely erroneous impression that it has any influence whatsoever on the situation.

The intervention follows a resounding call to action in the communiqué of the Group of [number goes here] countries at their recent summit in a remote place no-one had previously heard of. The G[number goes here] meeting was preceded by the familiar interminable and inconclusive discussions about whether the G[number goes here] was sufficiently representative of the international community, or whether it should be expanded into a G[number plus 1, 2 or higher goes here] including China, India or any other scary emerging market country that attendees cared to name.

The story was given further padding by a study from an ambulance-chasing Washington think-tank, which warned that it would continue to convene media conference calls until its quixotic and politically suicidal plan to ameliorate whatever crisis was gathering had been given respectful though substantially undeserved attention.

I'll be back soon  with a post on one or more of the topics listed above. Or maybe something not sufficiently covered by the MSM.

World Cup - France Cheats to Get In

There is not much that can be done about it (and the suggestion for a replay is a non-starter since the teams won't release their players to do so) but the French win over Ireland is forever tainted by this clear, deliberate hand-ball. If France wins the Cup - unlikely but possible - a notation should be added on how they arrived. Too bad.

French Debt

This can't be sustainable:

In the second quarter of 2009, France’s public debt grew to 73.9 percent of the gross domestic product... (Agence France-Presse)

Why Biden was Right about Russia

Image via Wikipedia

It's Eid week-end in Tanzania and I'm essentially very lazy. So, instead of writing something on my own regarding Russia's psyche, go here.

I think the analysis is essentially correct, but doesn't go far enough. The Russian people have always been afraid - of chaos, invasion, perceived insults - while simultaneously feeling un-respected. This is a bad combination for any country, but more so for one that became accustomed to throwing its weight around. It breeds less than free societies - and we can see that reversion to a czarist style government beginning with Putin. The Russians like it and we should not pretend otherwise.

Having said that, Russia has very good reason to be afraid. A paranoid world-view does not make it untrue. Russia has been invaded by the Mongols (successfully), France, Germany (twice), Sweden - the list goes on. The ordinary people want to feel safe - whether the reality is different or not.

So, although it is useful to deal cautiously with Russia, it is important to see their view of the world - particularly in their immediate vicinity.