Modern Mysteries

Two contemporary puzzles: Trade and Democracy

Barack Obama, the President-elect of the United States has been labelled by some as a protectionist. The Doha round of the World Trade Organisation has been a knockout defeat. The Nobel prize for economics was awarded to Paul Krugman for his efforts in understanding modern trade. Am I just making random comments?

The benefits of trade is not very difficult to understand. People in the West love coffee and coffee grows well in the tropical East. People in the West have (or had) a lot of money, and people in the East like investment funds. Mutual benefit from products or services most efficiently produced and most appreciatively consumed lead to a better outcome for all.

Paul Krugman’s not insignificant award sought to explain a deficiency in this basic system. The anomaly was that at times patterns of trade did not follow this logic. The explanatory framework devised by Krugman sought to take into account the benefits of specialisation and market leadership, rather than simple comparative advantage. Simply by making a start, a person or organisation can develop skills and economies of scale that allow them to be and remain competitive. Hence a smart coffee farmer from the West may be able to keep out Vietnamese competitors if this person started out and grew in size before the Asian became dominant.

Another aspect that complicates the trade situation is based on size and diversity. The more diverse a region the less is the need to rely on products or services from another region. Also, the larger the region (for example the European Union) the greater the possibility for diversity - generally speaking. The more a country or group of countries can meet its wants and needs from within, the less the advantage of trade imports. Most countries or regions throughout the world can meet not only the basic needs of life, but also most of the subtle and nuanced desires of even the most fickle consumers without sourcing externally.

Due to diversity, whether from nature or human endeavour, the law of diminishing returns comes into play with trade. International trade can be immensely stimulating when diversity is restricted – say at the end of World War II. However if a country has reasonable basic resources, and is reasonably engaged in use of resources and human capital, the advantages can soon become disadvantages.

The failure of the Doha round of the WTO is precisely because the leaders of countries have seen that what was a blessing has now become a curse. In a way this is self-fulfilling. The benefits of trade lead to an abundance that created sufficient diversity within countries. With this newfound diversity the country is therefore more adept at meeting its peoples needs, and hence is less reliant on trade.

The United States and other Western nations promulgated trade. They are however now the victims of trade – from China for example. To be of worth trade needs to be mutually beneficial. For a long time this has not been the case in the US’s relationship with China. The fact that the US has been one of the blockers for the Doha round shows some intelligence. The fact the Barack Obama is a protectionist shows a little more intelligence.

The word protectionist has some sort of false derogatory theme attached to it by the benefits of free trade. If the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages in certain trades, then to take a protectionist stand is literally to protect – sounds pretty sensible to me.

Broken and shattered Western countries, as well as international organisations, increasingly look to countries like China (with its trillions of dollars in foreign exchange reserves). Some countries need to realize that the advantages of trade are not intrinsic - just like the advantages of an unregulated financial system are not inherent.

Finally on trade, from Paul Krugman we have that just because one country efficiently produces a product or service, there is not necessarily any reason to label that product or service as a necessary import by any other country. Car manufacturing in countries like Australia and the US is in a moribund state. However better performing Japanese manufacturers do not have intrinsic competitive advantage. From this it can be seen that increasing protection and decreasing trade keeps alive the inherent creative urge that drives a country. At the right time, protectionism actually encourages optimism and keeps alive the possibility of prosperity. Prosperity is what free trade is supposed to be all about. It is also what protectionism is about.

Another key concept of the contemporary world is that of democracy. Like trade, democracy is not intrinsically good.

When the majority of a population has ill-will in mind they then vote into power a leader that will fulfil their negative intentions. An example of this mechanism is found in your average failed marriage. Happiness finds the happy and misery attracts the miserable. If I am just managing to keep a lid on a sea of negative emotions I might like to avoid them by getting married. Like attracts like. My partner will be of the same ilk, and we will spray each other joyously with our wounds.

Hitler was democratically elected by a Germany full of little Hitler’s. Ah yes we elect a leader to fulfil our dreams. Just look at the last democratic election in the Palestinian Territories. Hamas was branded by the West as a veil for violence. Hamas shortly afterwards showed their true colours in a wave of violence and brutality. Hence they now run the Gaza Strip.

Admittedly the situation is not so simple. An obvious issue that is raised is based on innocence. For example some people repeatedly marry and divorce only for money. Is not the victim innocent? Hamas ran a very sophisticated mainstream political campaign. Was not the electorate deceived by the violent gang that Hamas afterwards revealed itself to be?

A partial answer to deception is truth by transparency. If a person or organisation has unethical, illegal, or violent intentions, then a system that reveals that this is the case is paramount; hence the importance of a free press and open access to information about the workings of any governing body.

If a couple are fighting before they get married and then they fight after they get married and then they get divorced, they may (like many) be surprised at the outcome. We so often hide from the obvious out of emotionally based blindness and compulsion. However at least the divorced couple can see that there was nothing sinister or criminal about the failed marriage. No deception took place. The truth was not hidden, rather people were hiding from the truth.

In order to avoid the harming of innocents, whether they be romantics looking for love or a country looking for a leader, it is important that fact be separated from fiction.

The healthy functioning of the concept of democracy is predicated by two factors. Firstly, the general population needs to be sane. Secondly, people with vast power are vulnerable to going insane. Hence the average sane person can see when a politician is a megalomaniac (for example Robert Mugabe of shattered Zimbabwe). Democracy would have been a great institution in the time of Stalin in the Soviet Union, or Mao in China, or the Khmere Rouge in Cambodia. It was not however helpful in the time of Hitler’s Germany. This theme points to the importance of multi-lateral relations between countries to keep in check any rogue country (or countries) – whether it (they) be democratic or not.

Overall Well-Being

Overall Well-Being (ODB versus GDP)

It seems that the world is falling in. Is it really? Grand and fear striking similes and metaphors abound: an economic national security emergency; a financial tsunami; the Great Depression 2.0.

Firstly lets take a look at personal psychology. The term recession seems to not have the same psychological association as depression does, however they are of the same nature. If you take a look at what is driving stock-markets and investors helter skelter, experts repeatedly say that the behaviour does not fit with fundamentals. Also, a little bit of good or bad news tends to go a long way. People are literally in a manic emotional state.

Take a look at the behaviour pattern of financial executives. Essentially they have for years been prepared to take on increased (even absurd) risk for the sake of additional profits. The downside possibility would know doubt have been in the back of their minds, but ignored. Some of these financial executives decided to hedge their bets by taking out insurance: credit default swaps. However the contagion consumed this cautiousness because the people giving out insurance ignored the possibility that they might have to pay out an insurance claim. It is like giving out fire insurance with the idea that money can be made because fires never happen. Insurance brokers however argue that they were covering financial products that will never get burnt, let alone destroyed, by fire. To this there is a very simple response. Why on earth would companies actually pay out millions and billions and trillions of dollars for insurance cover if there was no credible underlying risk? The very fact of the existence of a voluminous credit default swap market is proof that financial executives knew, but in general ignored, the underlying risk that mortgage-related debt products would go bad.

What is the psychological pattern operating in any gambler (or addict for that matter)? The gambler focuses their mind more and more on winning, and ignores the common-sense knowing that the odds are stacked against them. In the back of their minds they know they can’t win, but they have to ignore this. They ignore this because they need to focus on winning. They need to focus on winning because there is an underlying emotional issue that they cannot face. When the gambler inevitably loses, they get a little taste (or wave) of the overwhelming emotional sea that they dare not jump into. In time the addict or gambler can develop the skills, understanding, and most importantly awareness, to tackle what lies hidden in the basement of their mind.

When people in the developed countries the world over accumulate massive levels of debt they do so out of compulsion - this refers to consumer (credit card) debt and household debt, business debt, and government debt. If when I am sitting in my little granny-flat staring at a furniture-less wall, I go crazy. Hence what I do is pick up one of the credit-card brochures lying around, I go out, and I buy a plasma television. Now on those lonely nights I simply stare at the blaring screen in order to both occupy and numb my mind. A zen monk on retreat simply stares open-eyed at a wall. In time (and in fact in a very short time) the wall becomes the mirror to see what lies just beneath your usual waking mental state. A zen master may well watch television, but has seen all the shows on their inner-tv.

No doubt up to a certain level the basic stuff of modern life contributes to wellness of being. However the golf tripping, spa resort frolicking financial executives that are the pillars of financial deconstruction are addicted to indulgence. I recall one such executive saying that he recently had the worst week of his life. Now he was not talking about the state of his bank account. He was talking about his emotional state; he was talking about his very own personal depression.

Am I getting you lost here?

Economic growth is the very foundation of modern society, so it seems anyway. If the world goes into a global recession, or perhaps a global depression, why is this occurring? Here it might help by recalling that strategic tipsters backed the African continent (and not Asia) to become the great emerging economic giant of the 20th century. Rather than prospering, Africa however slipped into decades of violence, destruction, and genocide. Asian countries on the other hand became the developing potential superpowers.

Why were the tipsters wrong? Africa had the potential to prosper. It had the natural resources, the people, and the technology (especially if it harnessed the technology gains from other parts of the world) to create a prosperous society. At both an individual and collective level, the ability to create a vibrant and harmonious social web gave way to violence and destruction. At both the individual and collective level, a vast body of emotional discontent (rage) that was lurking in the unconscious, came to the surface. In a domino effect one persons rage can infect a village, a village can affect a region, a region a country, a country a continent.

The theme of a spreading emotional darkness is juxtaposed historically by the moral fabric of society. The minds of people have the intellectual understand of what is essentially right and wrong ingrained in them. What can make a moral code deeper is the understanding, rather than just the repetition, of what is right and wrong. What can foster this understanding is the nurturing of human consciousness. A meditator instrinsically develops the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, between good and bad.

An individual that cultivates their own consciousness does two things. Firstly, as mentioned, an understanding develops about morals, about ethics, about values. Secondly the more a person becomes conscious (aware) the more they create a separation from what they are observing. And when a person can detach themselves from the emotion that is going on inside them, they are less involved or caught up in this emotion. They can see that for example the anger, although remarkably unpleasant, is a passing emotional state. Society can provide the tools to help people express this emotion in a safe and perhaps even creative (rather than destructive) way. Traditional meditation already provides the tools to observe the emotions if they are not excessively strong for any particular person at that time.

America is considered a modern superpower. It is also projected to slide into recession, and is fighting to stave off a repeat of the Great Depression. However if I were to travel to America, I would still see all the basic stuff that creates a galloping economic growth rate. All the basic stuff is still there! There are all the raw materials are still there. All the people are still there. All the technology that explains how to put the raw material together to create a great society is still there.

While all the people are there, what is their individual and collective mental capacity? Some of the intellectual geniuses of Wall Street no doubt had high IQ’s. However some of their decisions showed profound lack of intelligence and foresight. Also, now that they can not preoccupy their mind with financial work, some of them will be hitting the drink to stave of their personal depression. If I were to test the IQ of an unemployment Wall Street financial wizard the morning after a binge, I think the results would be pitiful. In order to ignore his or her own personal issues, this person has gone down the road of financial destruction that reverberates around the country and the world - at financial, economic, and social levels.

If any group of people go down the path of collective greed, then when they finally see the possibility that this may end, fear strikes. Ultimately the fear is that they have to face what they have been avoiding: themselves. Deep down, every single person has a sense of what is in their unconscious. When a magnetic and collective wave of fear occurs, the end result is a collective depression: for example the Great Depression.

Whether or not the current global recession turns out to be global Great Depression 2.0 is primarily based what is in the collective unconscious: the sum total of all the stuff we carry around inside us that we are not able, or are not willing, to see.

On a brighter note, it does not have to turn out this way. As mentioned there are tools that can be employed. Also, society is currently geared in a way that puts the preeminent focus on gross domestic product (GDP) and economic growth. A counterpart needs to be developed that acknowledges the deeper aspects of what it is to be human. Sure life would be (and is) tough without the basics of life that many people take for granted: hygienic food, sanitized water, adequate shelter, sewerage removal systems, and education and health care facilities. However beyond this an increase in material well-being does not necessarily equate with an increase in overall well-being - and often leads to an inverse relationship: obesity for example.

The indicator of GDP should have a counterpart called OWB (Overall Well-Being). OWB essentially explores the subtleties of what it is to be human: what it is to be civilized, and what it is to be spiritual or religious. When for example an economic recession or depression is looming, GDP may well spike. However OWB will take a serious nosedive. After a little while people dust themselves off after the crash, forget about their share losses, and thank themselves that they are still alive. OWB starts to improve. People start developing the urge to reconnect with friends who are also hiding in their own personal depression. The urge to create a little bit out of the mess around them rekindles the spirit, and GDP starts its long steady move towards the next precipice. However this time, if society places more focus on factors other than just material or economic well-being, the fall won’t be so bad. Also, there are skills that people can develop that emphasise and contribute to overall well-being. People can learn how to express and even watch the emotional stuff that stunts their creativity, their intelligence, and their spirit.

The focus on economic growth and consumerism becomes a self-fulfilling tragedy. Emphasise the material, and people focus more on the material to avoid the immaterial emptiness. Filling peoples hearts and nourishing their souls cannot be without the values and freedoms that are the cornerstone of any modern and democratic society. However this is just the foundation. A great tower is not built simply by putting foundations on top of the foundation. Such a construction simply collapses under its own weight. The modern social structure will become a highrise as the emphasis moves towards empathy and compassion towards fellow humans and the world at large. Examples of this are the focus on workplace and occupational health and safety; acknowledging and addressing mental health needs; and confronting the degradation of the planet from pollution. The upper floors of the grand towers of post-modern society are not burdened with concrete and steel. They are filled with flowers and mirrors and singing and dancing.

Pilot Flies Blind

So the global financial crisis is global. That appears to be one unchanging conclusion in recent weeks. We have key organisations and figures hammering out a global solution over the last few days in Washington. The International Monetary Fund has met, and has denounced the G-7 proposal to the crisis as weak and ineffectual: essentially a statement of ideals rather than clear, pragmatic actions. The reason for the ineffectual outcome can be seen simply by looking at Europe’s collective response. In a nutshell countries have such diverse opinions and interests that genuine agreement can only be at the vague, fundamental level. Admittedly consistency at the most fundamental level - that of ideology - has been thrown out the window.

At least this is a better situation than in Zimbabwe. There, the two main political organisations finally agreed to specifics to move forward. The downfall came when President Mugabe blatantly ignored the agreement and went his own tyrannical way. If I wasn’t such a sceptic I would say that Robert Mugabe has taken some political lessons from the recently appointed Pakistan president - Asif Ali Zardari. Make a few deals and than double-cross your way to power!

With either mixed responses or vague principals at the collective level, something of importance is to look at key individual players in this game. So if there is a chief pilot, who would it be? Unfortunately the answer is the US Secretary Treasury Hank Paulson. I say this because the crisis comes from the US super-power. Also, the US president is too unpopular and distrusted to take the wheel.

So how is the chief pilot going? Firstly, for a week or so he faced everyone from the congress to the media waving a finger-pointing clenched fist and shouting We need this financial rescue package Now! So with built expectations on this immediacy, when he finally gets his way he says that it will take some weeks (and months) to work out the maths formula to spend the money to save the country and the world Now! I would say that the pilot crashed on that one.

Hank managed to survive this crash. What did he do next? Well he decided that in any case the great plan that he devised wasn’t such a good idea after all. Hmmm…after a great deal of ‘trust me I know what I am doing’ and $700 billion US dollars later, he decides to do what he said all along was a bad idea: take an equity stake in banks and other financial institutions by injecting capital. Well I don’t have a golden parachute, but from what I have seen, any parachute will be just fine.

America: The Road Ahead

All eyes looking at the road ahead are popping out with dollar signs emblazoned. The big question is will the bail-out package, now passed and signed into law, actually pass the test. However there has been a tunnel vision in the last couple of weeks: the apocalypse is here and it is big and we gotta fix it now!

Look at what has just happened to the financial crisis across the Atlantic. Instead of a government brokered (and government insured) deal with Citigroup, Wachovia has received a considerably better offer from Wells Fargo.

What are other people saying about the big picture? Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York Times advocates the formation of a Works Progress Administration, although he is not so optimistic about this becoming a reality. Also on the issue of where to from here, Congressional House Representive George Miller explained that there’s a pent-up demand…for infrastructure.

Several recent infrastructure failings in the United States have tragically caused loss of life. In August 2007 the interstate bridge over the Mississippi river collapsed in Minneapolis. A couple of weeks earlier a century old steam-pipe exploded in New York city.

Developed countries throughout the world are reaching the stage where their developments are nearing their used-by dates. Further, a lot of large-scale construction has been done without an emphasis on maintenance and replacement (including de-commissioning). Inaccessible piping is a good example. The cost and work involved in maintenance, de-commissioning, or replacement is substantial and therefore not very interesting – to anyone, whether it be engineers or government officials.

Importance needs to be given to incorporating design for maintenance. Also, in the inevitable event of infrastructure (old buildings for example) being declared unfit for repair, design for demolition becomes another critical factor - ease of removing old, dilapidated buildings for example.

The financial rescue package will slow, but not stop, the steady descent of the American economy. Other factors will determine just how much cushion there is when the economy hits rock bottom.

Prophet Ross

Yesterday was going to be a relaxing day. Knowing that the financial quake from the failed US Wall St bailout was of tsunami forming proportions, you might be inclined to ask why. The answer is that I am blessed enough not to have any finances to lose. So what went wrong with my day? The answer is Prophet Ross.

Prophet Ross is (or should I say was) known in the general Australian community as Professor Ross Garnaut. Doctor Garnaut is an Economics professor acting as special advisor to the Australian government in climate-change. Though when he hands down his reports, all activity usually grinds to a halt, his latest report was delayed for a couple of hours as the tsunami coming across the Atlantic took centre stage. Nonetheless, the latest report was delivered.

Eagerly I awaited listening to an expert in economics explain the nuances of the road ahead on this hot issue. It would make a nice change from the boring rhetoric that has been making the rounds…or so I thought.

After a little introduction the Professor of Economics explained that if I didn’t take him seriously I would be ‘haunted till the end of time’. I was taken aback. Being haunted all the eternal years ahead did not seem so appealing. However he had my attention now. Fortunately he quickly went on, in his capacity as the most senior expert on the issue of climate-change (with respect to economics) in Australia, to say that there was a ‘saving grace’. Well hallelujah!!

Prophet Ross is born, or should I say born again. Admittedly ‘the end of time’ sounds reasonably intelligent and professional, but ‘haunted’? Though I don’t mind a laugh at blatant stupidity, it is important to note that the word ‘haunted’ has distinctly religious undertones. And then to come up with a ‘saving grace’. Wow this guy Prophet Ross really is a climate-change crusader.

On the international scene however Prophet Ross cannot compete with Al Gore. Al has been rallying the troops for some time now, and since he did not seek the US presidency I have been wondering what will become of him. However a few days ago, Al Gore raised the climate-change crusade ante by making a call to arms. He said that it was now time for civil disobedience.

The question is, how can tomorrow be a better day? Hopefully Rudd the Dudd will achieve advaita (non-dual) bipartisanship with Saviour Malcolm. In this case Prophet Ross and Saviour Malcolm can join forces with Al War Gore. That would make for an interesting tomorrow.

So there you have it. My planned day watching other people lose their hard earned money was thwarted by karma, or should I say the devil? Tomorrow never comes but let me see what sort of today tomorrow is.

Australia's Saviour Malcolm

Someone should kindly inform Saviour Malcolm that he was elected to his latest post by the national Liberal caucus, not the Australian people. The rhetoric of the last week, that has (hopefully) peaked this morning, has him strongly urging the prime-minister to work in a bipartisan way. It seems that the problems in Australia have become so severe that Saviour Malcolm has made himself available to work with the government to solve the crisis. Thanks Saviour Malcolm!

Did you know, he says, that the Republicans and Democrats in the United States have pulled together to save their country…hmmm…really? Firstly the Bill that poses to be America’s saviour failed to pass the congressional House of Representatives. Yep, those guys in the US are really pulling together…especially the House Republicans and Republican president Bush. Secondly, all the bill would do is make the downward financial and economic trend longer and flatter, rather than shorter and steeper.

Both major parties in the US are working together on this one for two reasons. Firstly, with the vast majority of the population against the bill, neither party wants to be labelled as the party that supported it. Secondly, so it seems, the majority of the elected legislature is against it; so the bill needs bipartisan support in order for its passing.

Saviour Malcolm is standing so high up on his pedestal that he cannot see the significant difference between the US and Australian financial system. Please for the sake of the nation come together as one and save the populous from the devastation that is consuming us all (says our newly born Saviour Malcolm). The US financial crisis is serious, and all the talk about saving Main Street misses the point that the troubles on Main Street were the starting point for revealing the high-rolling stupidity of Wall Street. However this is no excuse for Saviour Malcolm to give up his post as opposition leader and form a coalition of the unified transcendent.

Admittedly the overall economies have notable similarities – burgeoning levels of household debt and a deep trade connection with China for example – that indicate both economies will track similarly over the next few years. However as far as a great rescue from Saviour Malcolm, no thanks. In this interconnected world, perhaps Saviour Malcolm can pull a few strings for them folks over in the States?

Please do not misunderstand me here and think that I am railing against the Liberal party, and am hence demonstrating partisanship. To illustrate that I, like Saviour Malcolm, am being bipartisan, I have a prime-ministers forecast. History will show that the PM will not become known as Kevin 07; nor will he become known as 747 Kevin; our bungling, cliché prone, foggy sighted, ‘in-action man’ PM will become known as Rudd the Dudd!

McCain Aint Stupid

Before beginning to explain the title I should clarify that and say that either he or whoever is whispering in his ear aint stupid.

The long wind of the presidential race had a predictable path. George Bush was (and is) so out of favour with the general population that whichever Democrat wins the primary is a sure bet for the big job.

Along the way something of importance did tempt fate to change its course: the surge worked. Now some critics, including Obama, say that there were other important factors that contributed the improved conditions in Iraq - in particular the Awakening Council of Sunni muslim groups that turned against the violent insurgent movement. However even on this point it should be noted that the increased pressure being applied by the American military is arguably a significant reason for the forming of the Awakening Council.

A little side note here about Barack Obama’s world tour. After emerging from meetings with the leadership in Iraq, the president to-be made a great raucous about him and the big chiefs in Iraq converging on a pull-out timetable. However he probably didn’t make such a drama about the fact that he never discussed the issue with the big cheeses. Also, at any point during the (so far) years long Iraq war his position has been to pull-out ‘soon’. Hence when with the drastically improved situation leading the Iraq government to feel strong enough to consider this as an option, big boy Barack says him and the big cheeses are on the same wavelength. However while they may be on the same wavelength, they are on different planets. Barack Obama’s policy was to winning or losing pull-out. This is a far cry from pulling out after winning.

So back to the main theme. Though George Bush had a significant win in Iraq – that probably surprised him as much as all the critics – he has had a significant loss on the home front. The economy is being battered by more than the occasional hurricane. All the talk is about propping up the high-rollers on Wall Street so as not to have the problem spread to Main Street. However to the many people doing it rough, including all those that couldn’t make their mortgage repayments and hence started the Wall Street crisis, things on Main Street are already pretty much trashed.

All that the Democrats had to do was ride the wave of public sentiment against the Republican establishment. Part of that wave was for Barack Obama to appoint Hilary Clinton as his running mate. Not doing this move allowed McCain to pull a swifty. By appointing any women that is at least able to give a better public speech then him he rides the wave of disenchantment that Obama created. This was Obama’s first wrong move, and this was McCain’s first big move.

When George Bush announces a rescue package to rescue the world-wide Wall Street high-rollers from their collective drunken stupor, Obama throws his support behind the move. Admittedly in some way the Congress will likely pass some form of the bill, with Republicans and Democrats both voting either way. However McCain has taken the opposing position. So we have the Republican incumbent and Democrat nominee versus the Republican nominee. Even if Congress passes the bill, it will be in largely unpopular. Barack and George become friends and McCain wins out.

It is argued that McCain will likely switch his position at some stage. Even if he does, he still has created a division that he stands to gain much on.

So against all odds I would argue that someone in the McCain camp is pretty smart on strategy – that is not necessarily referring to McCain – and someone in the Obama camp should take some surfing lessons.

Pakistan and US

Friends or Foes?

How to make sense of the issue of the growing Afghanistan insurgency base in north-west Pakistan? Following the rhetoric leads to utter confusion.

The first thing that has crystallized is that Pakistan has seen that a growing insurgency base aims itself at Pakistan, not just Afghanistan. There are two consequences of this realization. Firstly the Pakistan government cannot remain complacent and let the problem blow away – or blow into Afghanistan. The second consequence is that if the United States were to escalate its operations into the Pakistan frontier regions than this would have less resistance on the Pakistan side: because Pakistan has sorted out that they have a problem on their own turf and is tacitly thankful for the help.

The Pakistan government tells their people that they think the US is not really very nice, and surreptitiously tells the US, thanks for the help.

The US has been inclined to increase its cross-border operations in large part also because the Pakistan people are becoming more ambivalent due to the pervasive incursion of militancy and terrorism into their society.

Notes to NATO

In recent days Georgia has forwarded recorded mobile telephone taps of border guards at the Russia to South Ossetia checkpoint. In the last week this information has been passed to government officials, including those of the United States. Intelligence officials in the United States, and no doubt other countries and organisations, are conducting an analysis into the essential question of “who fired the first shot?” in the Georgia versus Russia war.

The Georgian president is now passing around the telephone taps that supposedly show that the Georgian assault on the South Ossetian capital was a response to a Russian invasion. It is quite remarkable that Saakashvili (the Georgian president) did not make mention of this earlier. It is even more amazing that this crucial information - that was within hours of being received (by the intelligence community) passed on to senior members of the Georgian government, and upon which a decision was to go to war in response to an invasion – happened to be lost for several weeks in a pile of old intelligence reports.

The final icing on the cake of this amazing saga is that Georgia’s official position until recently was that the idiotic attempt to take back South Ossetia by force was a pre-emptive strike in response to the inevitable Russian invasion. Quite profoundly, the inevitable had actually already happened. It is just the Saakashvili and is intelligent friends lost the record of invasion, and then forgot that the invasion actually happened.

Ground Zero Pollution

September 11: Anniversary of what else?

In his speech for the Republican national convention, George W Bush reminded the United States of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. While giving full acknowledgement to the horrific attack on the World Trade Centre, there is a subsequent set of circumstances that perhaps forgot to mention: the controversy over the pollution from the disaster.

Immediately following the disaster, draft EPA press releases - which were cautionary and inconclusive in nature - required approval by the National Security Council (NSC) - via the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ). The approved EPA press releases were reassuring in nature: the air was (in general) safe to breathe; it was safe (in general) for people to return to work. However, the fact of the matter is that the cloud of pollution radiating from the collapsed World Trade Centre towers was extremely hazardous.

This is how the story unfolds as I see it from following the media commentary. Approximately one month after the disaster a New York daily newspaper caught a whiff of something through the issuance of requests via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Congressman Jerry Nadler launched his own investigations, and in 2002 released a report: the “white paper”.

Also in 2002, the EPA ombudsman was writing a report that he says would have had similar conclusions to a report written approximately one year later by the Inspector General of the EPA - the ombudsman’s office was closed by the EPA administrator. The Inspector Generals report is said to have emerged due to the “white paper”. The EPA Inspector General’s report indicates that the EPA, and the then EPA administrator (Whitman), gave reassuring sentiments on an ongoing basis regarding the state of water and air pollution in relation to Ground Zero. However, contrary to evidence – including evidence from proposed press releases prior to being vetted by the National Security Council – the collapsing of the World Trade Towers released an extremely hazardous cloud of toxins.

The EPA Inspector Generals report – released in August 2003 – set off a huge public outcry. This lead to the filing of a number of class action lawsuits against the EPA and one or more people in the EPA – including the administrator (Whitman). Regarding one of the class actions, in February 2006 District Federal Court Judge Batts released a damning pre-trial opinion report, thus allowing the trial to continue. Except in situations that ‘shock the conscience’, individual public officials are granted personal immunity. The judge refused to grant the then administrator (Whitman) personal immunity. Also, Whitman was frequently criticised at a US House of Representatives ‘Ground Zero illnesses’ committee hearing in September 2006.

Congressman Nadler repeatedly raised concerns of White House involvement, and urged both Congress and the Department of Justice to investigate the matter. The matter is that the cautionary and inconclusive draft EPA press releases were replaced or amended by allegedly ‘conscience shocking’ NSC approved (via the CEQ) press releases.

The chairperson of the NSC is the President of the United States। At the time, and currently, that person is George W Bush. So it begs the question, as the litigation continues in relation to the allegedly ‘conscience shocking’ actions of the EPA and administrator Whitman, what then of the White House and President Bush; and by the way, who else sits on the National Security Council?

It now being September 2008, progress towards truth and justice on this issue has slowly made ground in the judiciary. One wonders what difference a Democrat in the White House might make?

A Russian Bias?

In relation to Kosovo, it took the West almost a decade of diplomacy and negotiation to bring about the change from autonomy too widespread acknowledgement of independence. The intervention by NATO in 1999 to prevent further ethnic cleansing in Kosovo by Serbian forces, the likes of which occurred in Bosnia, has been historically vindicated. However the Russian claim of genocide and several thousand South Ossetians deaths failed under post-violence scrutiny. The death toll is put between one to several hundred. Though this be tragic in itself it is important to put this in the context of a build-up in tensions and ongoing military conflict between South Ossetian militia and the Georgian military. The culmination of this fighting led to Georgia’s failed attempt to take the South Ossetian capital by force.

It took Russia not more than a few weeks to declare South Ossetia’s independence. The grounds were given that the invasion by Georgia annulled its legal claim over the region. The Russian President Medvedev argued that this precedence did not occur in relation to Serbia and Kosovo. However it is clearly evident that ethnic cleansing and genocide can be attributed to Kosovo and the Balkans in general. The same cannot be said to be so in the South Ossetian situation.

The argument seems to have some authority that if an ethnically homogonous region within a sovereign state is targeted in a way that constitutes genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity, than that state forgoes its sovereign claim over that region. It is an argument that follows from the United Nations platform of “responsibility to protect”. The argument here is that humanity as a whole as the right, and perhaps the obligation, to intervene in the case of atrocities. The invasion of Tibet happened and went unanswered by major powers. The genocide in Rwanda happened, but was more closely watched. The atrocities committed by the Serbs in Bosnia finally motivated some major powers to intervene in the case of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it might be argued that the mutual crimes committed by the warring South Ossetians and Georgians is sufficient grounds to make the case for eventual independence – as is the case made by some major powers in relation to Kosovo. However Georgia did use major military force to try and bring South Ossetia back into its fold. This further gives grounds to South Ossetian independence, and does justify a military response – in this case from Russia. However especially considering the falsified claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing, Russia’s eventual response has the very clear character of being excessive. The destabilising effect on Georgia was to leave a power vacuum that enabled South Ossetian militia to commit atrocities.

It is within the collective of humanity to transcend all borders; however it is within the abuse of individual power to consume all borders. In order to transcend boundaries humanity must first learn to respect them.

A Western Bias?

That Georgia launched a major military offensive against its own autonomous region is the key issue that did not receive significant attention in Western political and media circles in the initial days of confrontation with Russia. One might assume that Georgia, being a key Western ally, would not be criticized too openly by its friends.

On the eve of the Georgian assault, the United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood beside the Georgian president Mikhael Saakashvili, and emphasised that diplomacy and not military means was the key to this problems resolution. That night Georgia attacked its own autonomous region of South Ossetia. It is clear from the United States diplomatic response in the coming days – inspite of the Georgian president’s efforts to encourage NATO and the United States to intervene militarily – that Dr Rice was true to her word on the eve of the assault.

In making the attempt to retake control of the autonomous region of South Ossetia, did Mikhael Saakashvili think he would succeed. One key question obviously would be first of all would Russia respond militarily. It would be difficult to find any sane person who is informed of the historical situation to conclude that Russia would not respond in force militarily. Hence, the next question is would the Georgian military defeat the Russian military. On this question I think even most insane and uninformed people would consider this to be an absurd question to even ask. So, quite obviously Russia would intervene and defeat the Georgian military. Hence the question is why would Saakashvili even bother?

Saakashvili attempted to justify his actions by saying that Russia was going to try and take over Georgia anyway, so it was better to lose fighting rather than just lose. This is a very courageous motive. However to carry out a pre-emptive attack on South Ossetia because Russia was any how going to invade Georgia proper is not backed up by any clear evidence.

The Russian response was likened to the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union. However this comparison was incorrect because Czechoslovakia did not launch an initial military assault.

It is clear from the first days of conflict what Saakashvili’s real position was. It was to achieve his goal of retaking control of the break-away regions by encouraging NATO and the United States to confront Russia militarily. However no analyst or political player outside of Georgia considered this even a remote possibility. The Georgian president’s judgement in launching the assault is seriously called into question.

The Georgian’s approach was to play the victim and show Russia as displaying excess use of force. The United States, the European Union, and NATO backed this position diplomatically. Admittedly it filtered out slowly through Western media outlets that an important point was that Georgia started it. However the key point of concern in all of this is that the position of Russia being excessively aggressive was adopted before Russia moved outside of the conflict zone in South Ossetia. This point was almost missed and was eventually pointed out by Mikhael Gorbachev in an International Herald Tribune opinion piece (20 August 2008).

It became clear when the conflict spread to Abkhazia, and Russian troops moved significantly outside the conflict zone, that accusations of aggression may have merit. However Russia was already being accused of aggression prior to this. The grounds for aggression were not evidenced in Russia’s initial response. So the question is why the premature accusations of aggression? Perhaps the West predicted that Russia would take the opportunity to expand its interests and so the West was adopting an early position to reflect this. Even if this is the case this was not stated, and I do not see any reason not to disclose this. In other words a reasonable Western position at the outset would be that Russia stopped Georgia from violently retaking a breakaway region, and please don’t punish Georgia too much for their stupidity. Hence it looks like the West was biased in its initial calling of the situation. If this is the case it would help the West in dealing with Russia, to look at this bias.

Broadening the picture, in the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s independence by the Russian parliament and government, it is worth considering the parallels with Kosovo’s recent independence from Serbia. Russia considers it to be a similar situation. However President Medvedev makes the point that the only key difference, and hence why Russia did not support Kosovo’s independence bid, is that Serbia did not try and crush Kosovo with military force. It would be interesting to know what the West’s position is on this comparison.

Also, in making a premature call on Russian aggression, it would be interesting to compare Russia’s initial response with Israel’s 2006 war against Lebanon. Lebanon abducted two soldiers, and Israel demolished one country. The United States used their veto on an otherwise uniform view at the United Nations Security Council that Israel’s response was disproportionate and excessive.

This article is not aimed at taking sides. It is aimed at the truth. The author is of the opinion that there are some biases taken by key Western players on some major international issues, and that by acknowledging and exploring these, a better understand can lead to a better and more harmonious global outcome.

Beware of the Wave

When suicide bombers were rampant in Iraq people initially were giving thanks that Afghanistan was not similarly afflicted. Then questions started getting raised about why this was the case. In the time that intellectuals on one side of the divide noted and queried the situation, suicide bombers gathered conviction and explosives.

Pakistan became the next significant victim to become deeply ensnarled in a gripping wave of bombings. Opposition to the government realignment with the United States was the impetus. The Red Mosque siege was the tipping point. A newly elected government pledging sovereignty and vowing internal diplomacy provided an interesting experiment. With the US influence waning and intra-national elements negotiating, would the US be proven to be interfering and divisive?

Over the last year the north-west of Pakistan has produced increasing waves of violence. The violence spread west into neighbouring Afghanistan, and east into areas like suburban Peshawar. This gradual encroachment deeper into Pakistan has prompted the newly elected and independent Pakistan government to in recent weeks adopt the former military use-of-force strategy. The Pakistan government’s first major military push against the Taliban demonstrated a considerable underestimation of the Taliban’s growing military might. As well as being overpowered military, the government also not surprisingly was at the receiving end of the threat of a wave of suicide bombings.

As suicide bombings, and bombings in general, have spread from Iraq to Afghanistan, north-west Pakistan, and Pakistan in general, it is notable to consider Pakistan’s easterly neighbour. India has in recent years seen a wave of bombings targeting numerous major cities.

It is fortunate that the violence in Iraq, which it should be noted is most significantly civil in nature, has been considerably reduced. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan. Also, the vastly improved situation in Iraq is considered by many as extremely fragile. The recent Pakistan experiment in diplomacy appears to be short-lived. However the confrontational alternative has known consequences: the spread of violence throughout the country.

If the Pakistan government again makes any serious military effort against the Taliban, the country may be engulfed in violence. The government’s recent moves to confront both the Taliban and the president make for challenging times.