Georgia and Russia and Investigative Reports

Let's see...what is worse, stupidity or breaking international law? Would the second have occurred without the first or were they mutually exclusive and events would have progressed more or less toward the same conclusion.

In any event, I'm making a judgement call. The breach of international law identified in by those investigating the Russian-Georgian 5 day war is worse because it was a set-up (entrapment, if you wish) by the well armed prosecutor, Russia, taking advantage of the incredibly self-pitying and stupid Saakashvili in Georgia; the Russian's knew he would rise to the bait.

The investigative report was even handed; but, the breach of international law by Russia in, first, distributing citizenship papers and passports widely (as has been done in Crimea) and then seizing territory of the adjoining state during a civil war to "protect" it's "citizens" is only marginally better than Nazi Germany's actions in Czechoslovakia and Austria.

That being said, the inconceivable stupidity of Saakashvili in rising to the bait set out by Russia should disqualify him from running the country.

Development Project Design

I need to go into this in more detail later as I need to run off to a meeting. But, I have found, more frequently than not, that project terms of reference seem to be designed based on premises that omit key issues.

An example is a project designed to streamline the activities of a government agency performing an important public service on the sole basis that all the problems rest with the target agency, when they do not.

Like computers, many government agencies can only work with what they are given. Garbage in...garbage out. Don't blame the computer. Designing interventions that only address a small part of the problem is worse than doing nothing at all. More later.

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)

Question of the Day - USAID

Why hasn't the President Obama nominated someone to run USAID yet? Yes, there is a lot on the plate just now, including trying to ignore treasonous, poisonous and insane remarks from lunatic Republican Congresscritters, developing strategies for Iran and Afghanistan and passing a health care bill that does not reward the insurance companies by allowing them to continue to rape consumers in a non-market economy structure.

But, there is something to be said for getting the easy stuff out of the way in a hurry. And selecting someone to run with USAID - actually quite important - is the easy stuff.

Remnants of Neo-cons put on notice

Image via Wikipedia

Just in case the pathetic dregs of the neo-cons have missed the point because they can't hear over their incessant drumbeating for war with Iran there is this.

Characterizing an attack on Iran as "insanity" is probably too soft a term. Understand one thing - the US needs Turkey for a variety of reasons. Everyone got the point during the Bush Iraq War of Choice when Turkey turned down a troop transit request. Turkey is a key - if not the key - player in the Middle East. It is best to pay attention.

The Alternate Economic Summit

The two-day meeting on Venezuela's Margarita Island this past weekend which mirrored the G-20 summit, addressed a wide range of concerns, from hunger in Africa to the economic crisis and demands for reming the United Nations. That's all well and good. However, having Hugo Chavez and Muammar el-Qaddafi take the leading roles is not.

One of them sees everything exclusively through the lens of anti-Americanism and self-promotion, while the other has frequently professed a desire to form a United States of Africa led by him - which is not about to happen for a variety of geo-political reasons. These are not the leaders of the South. Chavez has a proclivity for childish behavior coupled with clear tyrannical tendencies while Qadaffi is, well, himself.

Chavez has been struggling to grasp a leadership role outside of his small circle of supporters in South and Central America. However, his policy of nationalizing every major industry in sight is not widespread in the region, much less the world. Although he may be largely correct by blasting "...the empires of the North ...the empires of Europe, ...the U.S. empire..." for past economic and military colonialism, he is not the leader of any South/South reform movement.

The meeting also offered Qadaffi the chance to grandstand and rant - some of which was truly bizarre. Again. He exhibited his penchant for theater claiming (correctly) that "colonialism has stolen our riches." Unfortunately, colonialism of the type he refers ended some time ago and, in any event, I don't see him waxing sadly about Libyan oil and gas sales helped mostly through investment by those same former colonialists. He also wanted to reopen investigations regarding assassinations within the UN structure - JFK was mentioned.

His denunciation of the "politics of the club" used by some nations against others was not clearly translated though. Did he mean "club" as in weapon or "club" as in something he will never be allowed to join. If the first, then I suppose that the war in Iraq and the Russo/Georgian war fit the definition. So what?

Quadaffi then, clearly miffed, personalized the issue claiming to be humiliated by the fact that his delegation had to travel 20 hours to reach New York. Well, living in a tent is his privilege. Dropping it in places where he is not wanted, is not. I'm sure the Russians were amused when he pitched it in Red Square - but not for long. After complaining about the 20 hour commute, he called for more air routes between Southern Hemisphere nations - a policy which the beleaguered airline industry would likely not jump at immediately.

Both leaders demanded reform to the UN. OK, fair enough. But, Quadaffi went so far as to claim that the Security Council format is unsustainable because of the right of veto. Well, unfortunately the countries on the Security Council, which includes rotating membership from the General Assembly like Libya, prefer it that way. In any event, the entire concept of the Security Council was based on the major powers taking the permanent seats and not Zimbabwe or Burma. If anything, I can certainly agree the SC should be expanded to include as permanent members India, Brazil and Japan, for example. Beyond that, giving the Mugabe's of the world a chance to set international policy for the planet is laughable.

Others at this meeting, such as Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, were less flamboyant and far more pragmatic. She simply expressed hope that Africa will expand its potential to produce and export food and - more to the point - said her government was willing to provide technology and expertise to help.

Chavez, for his part, also promised investment in Africa. But, much like his promise to supply Iran with gasoline, this is more poor rhetoric than reality since his budget is in shambles due to his economic policies and low oil prices.

Given the recurrent attempts to hijack the under-privileged, under-served and under-represented southern part of the planet, perhaps it is time for the Non-Aligned Movement to reinvigorate itself. Formed during the Cold War, it seems to have lost its way after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, all of Africa, except Morocco, are members and so is Venezuela. The problem for Chavez and Quadaffi, but no one else, is that they do not lead the organization and will not likely have a say in its leadership for some time. But, it includes economic powerhouses - India and South East Asia - which could constructively lead an alternative non-political, economic program to the IMF (albeit on a smaller scale) if they really wanted to do so. But then it is politics, not economic development that motivates Chavez, so the Non-Aligned Movement would need to somehow work with or around his type.

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.