Israel, The Bomb, And South Africa

According to the Guardian, the South African government has declassified documents which purport to prove that Israel offered to sell nuclear weapons to the Whites Only regime of South Africa in 1975. The deal was linked to the South African request that Israel sell Jericho missiles to Pretoria. As the Jericho was capable of delivering conventional, chemical, and nuclear payloads, the Israeli defense minister of the day, Shimon Peres offered the nuclear option.

The lightly redacted documents were released as the result of a request by an American researcher, Sasha Polakow-Suransky. The "incriminating" papers were supposed to be kept in the strictest of confidence by both governments, but the ANC offspring which currently runs the country had no problem taking an action which might discredit both its White dominated predecessor and Israel. This does raise the interesting question of the degree to which successor governments are bound by the commitments of those gone before, a question which has implications far beyond those of political and diplomatic embarrassment.

Not surprisingly the office of Shimon Peres, who is now President of Israel was quick to deny the allegations. What else is to be expected? The Israelis are most unlikely to admit, "Gosh, guys, you caught us. So much for nuclear ambiguity."

There is no shock contained in the offer to sell "all three sizes." Way back in the mid-Seventies, at least in certain circles located in a suburb of Washington, D.C., the buzz regarding nuclear cooperation between the pariah states of Israel and South Africa (on occasion Taiwan was mentioned as well) focused not only on mutual development schemes but the possibility of a direct sale. The buzz was pervasive enough that it was (and is) not credible that the US government at the highest levels was not aware of the the potentials involved.

In the immediate aftermath of the American debacle in Vietnam there was very real anxiety in the US government regarding Soviet "adventurism" in Africa among other areas. The realities of the day favored the Kissinger invention of regional hegemons acting as American proxies-for-stability in threatened areas. To this end the US offered increased assistance to, among others, the Shah of Iran, and countenanced the "two track" strategy and its aftermath in Chile.

Internal political pressures prevented any form of wide open support for the apartheid government of South Africa. Lower visibility efforts were permissible. The range of options would have included an absence of commentary regarding a joint nuclear development effort between Israel and South Africa or even a suitably sub rosa transfer of a limited number of nuclear weapons.

Not to sharpen the point too much, the US under different administrations of both parties had a real affection for the Israeli policy of nuclear ambiguity. It was seen with justice as having a desired inhibitory effect upon surrounding states. (This affection survived even the successful effort in nuclear blackmail practiced by the Israelis during the Yom Kippur War.)

It could be posited more (think Reagan) or less (think Carter) openly that a South African gambit in nuclear ambiguity would serve the same ends of stability enhancement in the south of Africa that it had in the Mideast. Not even the (in)famous "double flash" reports in 1990 served to push the US to a more open opposition of any nascent South African nuclear weapons program.

The overarching dictates of the Cold War assured that the US would limit its pressure on the much disliked apartheid regime. We needed not only stability in the region but also the direct assistance of the regime in our efforts to keep the sealanes of the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean unimpeded by any Soviet threat. Down until the collapse of the Soviet empires both outer and inner, the cooperation of South Africa was vital to the protection of our national and strategic interests.

The proximity in time between the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Whites Only government serves to underscore not only the importance of American "understanding" but also the vital nature of South Africa to the prosecution of the Cold War. The turning of a Nelsonian eye to the nuclear ambitions of South Africa by Uncle Sam, which would have included any direct Israel-to-South Africa sale of nukes, was both expectable and justifiable in the dynamics of the day.

The release of the documents by the Zuma government is of use and benefit only to those who currently wish Israel ill. Of course, that crowd is both numerous and diverse, ranging as it does from the politically articulate elites of Europe and the US to the many Islamic governments around the world.

The release does, however, harm the efforts by civilized states to deny nuclear weapons to the mullahs of Iran. The harm may prove in the next few weeks to be of a major sort. This reality and its potential implications are what give the release interest.

In the real world where Iran either will or will not acquire nuclear weapons and all that goes with that, the South African government by this action has joined with the uncivilized states. It has linked with those who are either too naive or too ideologically prejudiced to see just what can result from a failure to ban the bomb for Iran.

South Africa's government does not deserve congratulations for its commitment to honesty and transparency. Rather it deserves rigorous condemnation for hurting the cause of preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

It is regrettable in the extreme that the Guardian among others so despises Israel that is is eager to celebrate a victory for Iran.

A (Couple Of) Follow Ups To Yesterday's Posts

A line in an ancient Kingston Trio song goes, "they're rioting in Africa." Well, the Muslims are not yet rioting in South Africa but they are calling in death threats after an attempt by the Council of Muslim Theologians to have a South African court block publication of--what else?--a cartoon in the Mail and Guardian.

The cartoon features a bearded, turban-wearing man reclining on a couch supported by clouds. In the background a stereotyped psychiatrist sits, pen poised over his notepad. The patient, inferentially Mohammad, is saying, "Other prophets have followers with a sense of humor."

Doesn't seem like enough to get worked up over, does it? But, there are Muslims who can and have--even over a satire as mild and accurate as this one. At least so far Those Of Outraged Religious Sensitivities have limited their expressions to threatening phone calls, refusing, at least for the nonce, to enlist the aid of government or seek Justice Through Bombing.

For this South Africans can be thankful. They are already having enough problems with the Koran-thumping-suicide-bomber bunch given the credible threats directed by al-Qaeda and others at the upcoming World Cup match.

Elsewhere, the easily inflamed members of Islam continue to prove that the late humanitarian leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, was right when he averred that in Islam there is no place for humor. As the anger-driven, rage-filled faces of the Pakistani mobs in the streets of Islamabad, Lahore, and Karachi show clearly, these people cannot take a joke.

On second thought, perhaps this is too harsh a judgement. It is possible that Muslims of the Islamist, jihadist persuasion have a sense of humor. A warped one from the outside view, but one none the less. Consider the latest wrinkle in the mode of execution applied by Pakistani Taliban to those "suspected" of being American spies.

The other day instead of the old, tried and true means of shooting or decapitation, the Fearless Warriors of True Islam paraded a couple of unfortunate men in blindfolds and handcuffs before a bunch of locals in North Waziristan. At the parade's end, the Men Of Allah's Righteous Fury strapped explosives to the bodies of their victims-to-be and pushed the clicker. The resulting explosion represented a good joke on the Legion of Traitorous Apostates.

On the It-Really-Isn't-Funny front, Secretary of State Clinton is in China. Part of her job there is gaining at least some modicum of support from the Trolls of Beijing for doing something about the North Korean sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan. The Secretary is of the view that acts of "provocation" must result in "consequences" for whomsoever does the provoking.

Well, yeah, fer sure, Madam Secretary. We're in tandem on that, no doubt.

There is one itty-bitty problem in sending "a message" to the Great Provocateurs of Pyongyang. There isn't any really, really credible and convincing "message" or "consequence" which the US or that Great Guardian of International Peace and Goodwill, the UN, can send with any effect other than the spewing of words, the spilling of ink, and the waste of electrons.

War or any sort of armed retaliation is out of the question, off the table, beyond the pale, totally unthinkable for a variety of reasons, most of which are good. And, the Hermit Kingdom of the North generally and Dear Leader in particular are very well aware of this ground truth.

North Korea is already under more and more stringent economic and related UN imposed sanctions than any other country on Earth. In theory more can be piled on top of those already in force. In practice this would be just one more piece of UN junk mail.

Given its national interest, China will allow nothing more. When one considers that the most Beijing has been willing to grant over the sinking of the Cheonan is that it was "unfortunate," it is unrealistic that China might concur in the application of meaningful, painful pressure on its neighbor.

The UN Security Council is unlikely to do more than issue a statement of condemnation. Wow! That will really make Dear Leader and the NKPA high command sit up and take notice!

That leaves the US. The Obama administration might be willing to return North Korea to its place on the old terrorism list. The Hermit Kingdom pretended it was shocked and outraged by its inclusion on that list and demanded removal in 2008 as a price for (temporarily) shutting down its plutonium producing nuclear reactor.

Beyond putting North Korea back on the State Department list of really horrible and ever-so-nasty states there isn't much that we can do. Or, want to do. The other day the administration made its unwillingness to do more than issue declarations of disgust when Secretary of Defense Gates and JCS Chairman Mullen refused to characterize the Cheonan sinking as "an act of war."

If the firing of a torpedo at a warship by a submarine of a state still officially at war with the owner of the target vessel is not an "act of war" it is hard to know what might be. In our own history back during the undeclared naval war with Germany in 1940-41, a German U-boat fired at the USS Reuben James with the result that the American destroyer went down along with the majority of its crew. We thought it was an "act of war" but refrained from acting because the correlation of forces was not yet favorable for doing so.

And so it is today. No more than South Korea can we afford (quite literally) to go to war over the Cheonan incident, but it does us no honor not to call the matter what it was--an act of war, of unprovoked aggression by a hostile state for reasons of state. Those reasons having been alluded to yesterday there is no need to rehearse them now.

The take away is simple. There is nothing that either the US or the UN can do other than issue purely symbolic "messages" with no practical effect upon their recipient. This is the only "consequence" which Pyongyang will suffer for its action. They know it. We know it. There is no need to pretend otherwise.

The only player in the game which matters is China. We can be sure that China will do nothing which has the slightest possibility of resulting in turbulence on its doorstep. This means that the "calm" which Beijing has urged will ensue of necessity--the necessity provided by the absence of viable alternatives.

This, in turn, implies that the South Koreans and the rest of us can look forward to more "provocations" from the North Korean regime. The best we can hope for is that those of the future will be no worse in death and destruction than that of the Cheonan.

On Safari With Secretary Clinton

After urging African youth to use their skills with the new potentials of the Internet to expose corruption and other endemic sins of politics in the Dark Continent and spewing vague promises of support to the Transitional Federal Government in the geographic entity known as Somalia, the fast-stepping SecState donned her pith helmet and jetted into South Africa. In Pretoria, Ms Clinton dove into the deep end of Southern Africa's liberation mythology and its political implications.

Other than perusing the archives of Nelson Mandela, and "seeking better relations" with Pretoria, the former senator from New York sought to get the effective cooperation of South Africa in bringing stability, economic recovery, and governmental transparency to Zimbabwe. In the process of schmoozing the country's new foreign minister, Maite Nakoana Mashabane, Ms Clinton made all the requisite noises about South Africa being, along with China, India, and Brazil, one of the world's "major and emerging global powers."

She will make the same soft, soothing, and stroking noises when she meets with the new president Jacob Zuma tomorrow. It does all sound good and it is correct--in principle.

But, not so in practice. While a far cry from the nearly failed state of Zimbabwe, South Africa is facing a host of major problems. Most of them made by the majority rule based government. It may not be politically correct to write that, but the statement does have the simple virtue of being accurate.

Emblematic of the problems besetting South Africa is the pending strike against the national electric company, Eskom. The country's largest union is in the final stages of negotiations. If these fail, the strike will further paralyse South Africa's mining industry. Production of both platinum and gold have already been adversely effected by rolling brownouts caused by the failure of the government to budget for long necessary infrastructure improvements and repairs.

The big money makers for South Africa are minerals, gold, platinum, and chrome. Diamonds may be the most famous export, but the dollars--or rands--are in the minerals. The US takes a lot of these, accounting for nearly twelve percent of the South African exports.

Any further curtailment of mineral production such as would necessarily result from a strike against Eskom shakes the country's economy--hard. The gap between the union's demands (fourteen percent pay hike) and the company's offer (eight percent) as well as the current inflation rate of 6.9 percent makes the probability of a strike very high.

Another union has already hit the national telecommunications company. The communications workers hit the bricks in four of South Africa's nine provinces. In addition, the union representing the platinum miners rejected an 8.5 percent wage increase, holding firm at 15 percent, so the threat of layered strikes is high. While the rail workers called off their 28 July strike, the state rail company, Metrorail, is not likely to meet the 12.5 percent increase the union wants. Strike three!

Not surprisingly both the rand and the South African stock market tottered more than a little.

With beaucoup strikers added to the large pool of previously unemployed people, the economy is likely to shake, rattle, and roll even more than it has in recent months. This can easily lead to political problems for President Zuma, who was elected on promises to end inflation and unemployment alike. He has not been able to pay off on the promises with the result that street demonstrations blasted across the country last month. More are in the offing.

While it is customary to put the onus for South Africa's current problems on the residue of the ancien regime, it has been more than a decade since majority rule became the rule. Since then the indigenous governments have shown a remarkable willingness to benefit their supporters rather than make proper investments in the common political and economic weal. While no where near so extreme as in, say, Zimbabwe, there has been a propensity to shower goodies on the Alte Kampfer of the liberation movement to the detriment of the country as a whole.

For years the nature of the global economy allowed this short-sighted, ethnocentric approach to government. But, the events of the past couple of years brought the flow of cash and goodies to an end. The dues collector is at the door.

Since South Africa's mineral riches and impressive (white developed) industrial infrastructure and agricultural equivalent has made the country the largest economy in Sub-Saharan Africa, any sort of major spasm there will echo throughout Africa. The spasm will happen unless the government can focus on efficiency even at the expense of liberation mythology.

The very heavy hand of this myth rests on President Zuma as it did on his less-than-impressive predecessor Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki was so anti-white, anti-West that he was in a state of constant denial about the realities around him including the high HIV infection rate in South Africa. This attitude coupled in a synergistic way with the Bush/Cheney regime's unique ability to either ignore or insult countries which were not in total tandem with its policies to sour bilateral relations.

Ms Clinton is aware of the Bush/Cheney delinquency but seems totally oblivious to the power of the liberation mythology. Zuma no more than Mbeki will be able to step out of the shadow of the myth to pressure liberation "hero" Mugabe next door in Zimbabwe. This, in turn, means that Zimbabwe will remain a running sore. The refugees will continue to flock to South Africa and other neighboring states. Additional costs will be imposed on South Africa at a time when the country cannot afford them.

Additional costs will couple with continued alienation among Zuma's base with destabilizing effects. A tipping point may be reached with results which will be devastating to the country. Any increase in white flight from South Africa will do the country no good. And, white flight can be stimulated quickly by any move by the government to expropriate or otherwise take wealth, land, or businesses from white owners.

The unfortunate history of post-colonial Africa has shown time and time again that when economic conditions are such as to breed unrest among the lower socio-economic segments, governments respond by seizing property from the white minority regardless of the longer term consequences. Governments, particularly new ones, live in the shortest of short terms.

This potential is the unmentioned T. rex at the meetings between Secretary Clinton and the South African ForMin and President. It is not the sort of thing that anyone likes to mention--particularly if one is a progressive, a believer in multi-cultural diversity as the touchstone of an "enlightened" society and polity.

The potential of social dislocation bringing ill-advised government seizures and white flight is real enough, close enough, that failing to get a grip on this brutal ground truth will spell ruin to the well intentioned effort to build a new relation with South Africa. It also will spell the difference between South Africa as a "global and emerging" nation and South Africa as the next African basket case.

(Stay) Out Of Africa

The human race started in Africa. A few tens of thousands of years ago, the smart ones left.

Now, before you call the Geek a racist and similar unkind things, consider the growth of the human population when it left behind the continent of its origin. Then, think about the slow growth of the population descended from those who chose to stay behind.

When you have compared the numbers, consider the differences--and the reasons. The world outside of Africa presented a myriad of challenges, of opportunities, of new and different niches in which H. sap could make a living. Pace that misguided, agenda driven perversions of scholarship called the "Afro-centrists," the human race stretched its collective wings and flew once some folks went for the far horizons.

The ones who stayed in the birthing room expanded slowly, painfully. Geology and geography conspired against the fulmination of population, social complexity, technological innovation, economic advance, and political evolution which characterised those descended from the adventurous sorts who shook the dust of Africa off their (initially) bare feet.

Geology conferred upon Africa a plethora of natural resources, primarily those of a mineral sort, which were of no use to the locals until those who left had invented means of extraction, exploitation, and fabrication into useful implements. Balancing the abundance of sub-soil resources, geology provided little arable land, little opportunity to farm in quantities which would support urban centers, an expanding population, and provide the excess that leads to the division of labor and all that arises from that.

Geography, or more precisely, climate, made the agricultural base even weaker. And, it added factors of endemic disease such as malaria which are absent in much of the rest of the world. The deck was environmentally stacked against the Africans from the get-go. The basics which allowed, no, demanded change--advances in technology, organisational complexity, and, never forget, more population--were simply not present in Africa.

Consider that evolution did not even produce a suitable draft animal anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. No horses. No replacements for the ox, the ass, the camel, the llama. Not until the many times grandchildren of those who left came back, first from the Mideast and then from Europe, were these lacks remedied even in part.

Not until the much maligned Europeans returned searching for resources, global advantage, or simply glory and slaves, were any of the fruits of the human diaspora made available to the stay-behinds. Not all these fruits were sweet, pleasant to be sure. The colonisers and their successors brought many fruits which were bitter and some which were poisoned, but, on balance, the sweet and good over matched the bitter and poisoned.

The foundation of that contention can be seen in the explosive growth of the African population in the Twentieth Century as the agricultural, public health, and infrastructure innovations carried in the packs of the colonisers took hold. Birth rates soared. Infant mortality dropped. Longevity increased.

The availability of food was greatly increased. And, the average cost dropped. Education in the new means of production, of social and political organisation became available with the result that today's Africa has many who are completely at home with the latest gizmos and ideas.

Yes, the Africans paid for the benefits. They were enslaved not only by their own but by Arabs and, later, Europeans and Americans. The resources both of and below the ground were exploited with little reward to those who did the dirty work but much to those locals and foreigners who directed and were enriched by the exploitation.

There are people and organisations who argue that the rest of the world, particularly that part of the world occupied by Western Europe and the US still owe Africa much. There is particular hyperventilation regarding the way in which the "rich" countries of the "north" are stockpiling vaccines and therapeutic drugs against the new flu, A-H1N1. Ban Ki-moon, the World Health Organisation, and a host of non-governmental organisations are demanding that the same countries which are seeking to protect their citizens against a disease which may--or may not--be a global killer send billions of dollars to Africa to fight malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV infection.

These diseases are killers. There is no doubt about that. Malaria, even when it does not kill--and most forms are not all that lethal--has the capacity to enervate the body, the mind, the will. The Geek is personally acquainted with that aspect of malaria. TB has been called the "white plague" for centuries. Historically it has been the leading cause of death by infection in every continent on the globe. And, AIDS has hit Africa like a bio-weapon, wiping out the younger, more productive adults, leaving families and villages empty save for children and grandparents.

It is easy, very easy to invoke that most important of human characteristics--altruism--in the service of fighting deadly diseases in Africa. And elsewhere. Altruism is a good. But, it is not an absolute good.

Consider that Africa now has a population which far outstrips the agricultural carrying capacity of the land. Countries which were formerly either self-sufficient in food or even net exporters are now dependent upon imports, often provided gratis by donor governments including the US.

Additionally, the population of much, if not most, of Africa now vastly exceeds what might be termed the economic carrying capacity of each state and the region as a whole. Poorly considered development schemes coupled with inherent and endemic corruption and governmental inefficiency to assure that opportunities for proper, sustainable development went by without effect on the population beyond the most transient. Some countries have no real economic reason to exist.

Had these places been bypassed by the wave of colonisation, they would have slouched on as they had for tens of centuries with a base of nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralism and hand tool agriculture. The population limitation techniques practiced by women for hundreds of generations would have kept the population within the limits of sustainability.

The brutal fact which must be gripped is that a country without an economic reason to exist particularly if it contains a population which cannot be supported effectively by the agricultural carrying capacity of its land has no claim on others to keep it on life support in perpetuity. The actual nature of humanitarian aid in any of its many forms is one of never-ending life support unless the recipient has the means and will to adjust its population level to that which can be maintained in decency by the local economy and agriculture.

Secretary of State Clinton is off to Africa. Her tour has been widely touted by the White House, even to the extent of a text message from President Obama. Her eleven day jaunt is the longest she has taken since becoming SecState.

Highlighting her trip will be meetings with the leaders of three African "powers": South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria. All three of these are regionally important. South Africa is the largest economy in the Sub-Sahara. Nigeria is the most populous in Africa. And, Kenya is Kenya.

All three are politically, socially, and economically in the deep kim chee.

Since the Anglo-Dutch minority surrendered total power to the indigenous majority, a combination of very bad economic decision making and political unrest has wreaked a species of havoc which has reached the level that electrical power supplies have become unreliable.

Nigeria has a deep split between Christians and Muslims, which recently left more than seven hundred dead. It also has a festering insurgency in the Niger Delta, which has crippled its number one foreign exchange earner: oil.

In Kenya, the fissures opened in last year's election and the consequent violence have been addressed cosmetically but remain wide and unhealed. Additionally, Kenya is under pressure from the refugee hordes crossing from Somalia. And, the Islamist jihadist threat is both real and growing. At the same time the global economic crisis has hit Kenya's foreign exchange position.

SecState Clinton will also meet with leaders from the (sorry, but it is the official name) Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, and Liberia. The flacks at the White House describe each of these as being recovering from war.

That description is more or less true regarding Angola and Liberia. It is false regarding the Congo. The fighting hasn't even paused in that resource rich, pathetically misgoverned country. Nor is likely to end simply to comfort the Nice Minded Ms Clinton.

The US has no direct national or strategic interests in play in any of the featured countries. That is other than access to natural resources, some of which have a great economic and military importance. The reason for Ms Clinton's extensive trip might be found in the Chinese diplomatic penetration of Africa in recent years.

That rational explanation has been explicitly rejected by Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa as "a Cold War paradigm." There is no rivalry, ASS Carson maintains between the US and its "colleagues from Asia."

Holy lost in space!! What has the ASS-A been smoking? What is the name of his dealer?

Of course, it really doesn't matter if China gets an even firmer grip on Africa. It will cost them money and energy without any great reward. The Chinese have tried the African gambit before. Once was roughly five hundred years ago. The next emperor called it off. More recently the Lads in Beijing tried with a massive set of aid projects which brought new railroads to Tanzania but nothing in return.

The emphasis placed upon women's rights and the travails of rape victims seems to indicate that there is little in the real, substantial goal department involved in the upcoming trip. Yes, the rights of just over half the population of Africa is important. And, rape is a real problem--particularly on the fringes of the endless wars within the less well governed, less socially and politically cohesive states (which is most of them.)

In the last analysis women's rights, rape, human rights, and the rest of the humanitarian concerns are simply the farthest edges of Africa's problems. The centrality is simply that there are too many people today for the economic and agricultural carrying capacity of the region and its many, many diverse states. The next ring out from the center of the problem is that the majority of the governments and their supporting elites are both inefficient and corrupt without any pervasive cultural or intellectual imperative to serve and benefit the commonweal.

Unless and until the SecState and the President can get a grip on these ground truths, there is no reason to go to Africa. We--and they--will be better off without the combination of photo-op and unrealistic expectations.

And, that's a fact, Jack.

Time For South Africa To Play Up!

Zimbabwe's Kleptocrat-in-Chief, Robert Mugabe, is at it again! He is now on record saying that "Zimbabwe is mine."

Hey! At least the dude is honest. Not since Louis the Whatever who famously declared of France, "I am the state," has a boss of all the bosses been so up front and blunt.

Of course, who in their right mind would want Zimbabwe? Not only is the economy beyond mere disaster, the place has become Cholera Central. Malnutrition is standard (unless a person is in the army or one of the Kleptocrat's Thug Squads.)

Mugabe appended a challenge to his Declaration of Sole Ownership. He averred that no African country had courage enough to topple him.

His estimate of the situation seems bang on. With the exception of Botswana, which is a military Pygmy, none of the South African Development Conference states has made peep one about the necessity of ridding the world of Mugabe.

In part, Mugabe is depending upon his long tarnished reputation as the premier "Freedom Fighter" in southern Africa. He is willing to bet that no other African leader will risk the consequences of seeking his overthrow by force of arms.

There is another, more realistic, explanation for the unwillingness of South Africa and other countries to enter the cockpit of Zimbabwe. The place is such a mess that an involvement (read occupation) would be a very lengthy and expensive effort. The probability of failure would be high. So would the possibility of blowback.

The reluctance of South Africa (and the African Union) to rise to the challenge of imposing stability on Zimbabwe may be overtaken by events. Cholera is not noted for respecting international borders. The stream of refugees from pestilence, poverty, and murder is going to grow in the days and weeks to come.

The combination of a folk migration and disease against the backdrop of a global economic crisis will give neighboring countries few choices. Self-interest will compel intervention regardless of longer term risks.

It is not improbable that Mugabe and the SADC countries are playing a game of chicken. Each is betting that external actors either will or will not take on the burden of intervention under the color of "humanitarian crisis." The humanitarian crisis is real.

That reality does not imply that external entities such as the UN, the EU, or the US are or will be willing to send (in the words of Warren Zevon) "lawyers, guns, and money." The proof of reluctance is found in the Congo, Darfur, and Somalia.

The UN "peacekeeping" effort in Congo is less than noteworthy in its effectiveness. The EU has jawed about sending troops but has taken no action. Nor is it likely to. The US is overstretched militarily, and the public appears to be disinclined to take on more "nation building" missionary efforts. Current global economic realities also serve as a strong disincentive for adventures in healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and planting democracy in foreign, hostile soil.

What this all means is simple. South Africa has to take the lead. It has to, in cricket terms, "play up."

The alternative is for that country to accept the refugees, the spread of disease, and other unfortunate consequences of the further collapse of Zimbabwe. The leaders of that country (and the rest of Zimbabwe's neighbors) have to get a grip on a basic fact.

Zimbabwe is not the "White Man's Burden." This time around, the load has to be carried by the Africans themselves, even if they carry it alone, uncompensated, and unappreciated.

It's time for South Africa and other countries to call Mugabe's bluff. They, and only they, can save the people of Zimbabwe.

Shows of Force Are Theater of the Absurd

Amid talk of Somalian piracy the nuclear powered aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt hove into Table Bay at Cape Town South Africa. Ninety-seven thousand or so tons of warship whose planes could distribute more death and destruction than all the air forces of all the combatants of World War II without emptying its "special weapons" stores.

And about as relevant to the problem of piracy off Somalia as a harpsichord to a fish.

While the port call of the Teddy R. might have had some vague use in our relations with South Africa, it has no utility in the waters off Somalia.

There is already a plethora of US force in the aforementioned troubled waters. Six, count them, SIX US Navy warships of assorted sizes, descriptions and capacities are within ten miles of the Ukrainian ro-ro and its cargo of tanks. Undoubtedly this small armada has lots of lethal force at its disposal.

Along with warships of other nationalities the US contingent constitutes a classic show of force. Like most shows of force in recent years it is equivalent to a snarling but toothless dog.

Shows of force are meant to demonstrate both the capacity and the resolve to use force if the opponent does not change its obnoxious behavior. The six American warships "monitoring" the seized cargo carrier are supposed to overawe the pirates into backing down from their criminal ways.

So far the pirates have metaphorically flipped the bird at the US vowing not to give up a single cent of their ransom demand. For extras they once again threatened to kill the hostages if anyone would seek to emulate the French and stage a nocturnal raid on the ro-ro.

There's a simple reason why the pirates ain't scared of the big, bad American ships, each and every one bristling with weapons and men able to use them.

The reason?

The ships fly the stars and stripes. The pirates are betting as are their fellows on shore that the US will not use the force at its disposal. They are betting the US lacks the political will to fire the first shot.

In short, the US lacks street cred with the pirates.

That is pretty darn pathetic.

Now, get a grip on this.

Shows of force work only when two preconditions are met. First it is necessary to have a clear cut political goal of limited nature in firm view. This condition can easily be met off the Somalian coast.

The second condition is harder to meet, at least for the US. The target of coercion, the focus of intimidation must believe that the shower of force has both the capacity and political will to employ force effectively.

The capacity of the US is obvious. The will to use force isn't. Here lies the rub.

Only one thing can erase the certainty in the minds of assorted pirates and their landbased ilk.

Use some force.

Not indiscriminate force. Use up-close and personal force. Bring the USS Howard to a couple hundred meters distance. Using the loud hailer tell the pirates that the captive ship will be sunk by gunfire. Give them a short set time to evacuate the ro-ro. Tell them the hostages must come first.

Count down the seconds remaining on the deadline. Put three or four rounds of solid shot or other non-explosive round into the engine room at the waterline when the deadline expires.

Tell the pirates that those were only preliminary. Order them off the ship, hostages first and separate. Go ahead and guarantee the thugs safe passage ashore.

If they do not cooperate, hit the ro-ro with a few more rounds again at the waterline.

Remind the still uncooperative pirates that unless the hostages are released immediately and safely there is no reason to restrain the naval gunnery.

If the blackhats remain obstinate, sink the ship. Of course, try to save the hostages from the water.

Video the entire operation and make the unedited footage available to the world's media. The message will be received loud and clear by all those who harbor notions of a pirate's life.

The High Minded both here and abroad will howl and shriek. That's unimportant in the larger picture.

The larger picture is one of protecting peaceful maritime commerce. Showing the will to use force assures far better than mere patrols let alone any number of UN resolutions to protect the interests of the world in open, safe maritime operations.

To end piracy requires elevating risks and reducing benefits. Sinking a captured ship perhaps with the loss of crew members' lives does just that. Nothing less will accomplish the task.

The navy of some nation, the US, Russia, France, has to play the role of "bad" or at least tough cop. The Geek would prefer it be the US Navy.

He would prefer that the US not forget that it is a maritime power. He would prefer that we recall our own history. Once upon a long ago and perhaps forgotten time the toast of the day was, "Millions for defense. Not a cent for tribute!" The pirates then were on the Barbary coast of North Africa.

Back then when Administrations did not worry about how their actions would be portrayed in the WaPo or NYT. When we started shooting and stopped paying, the pirates sought less dishonest employment.

This reminds the Geek of a line from a song popular at the opening of World War II when we were losing in every theater of the war. "We did it before. We can do it again."

The Democracy Fetish Takes One More Hit

This time in Zimbabwe. The Geek always expected one of two outcomes for the practice of democracy in the former British colony of South Rhodesia. One would be the death of any challenger to the one man rule of the post-colonial regime, Robert Mugabe. The other would be the prudent withdrawal of the challenger before the bullet hit the back of his neck.

Events went the second way as Morgan Tsvangirai showed discretion is better than heroism.

More importantly, the course of the past two months in Zimbabwe demonstrated once again that democracy is more, much more than the mere casting of ballots. To be real, a democratic country must be under a regime that is willing to accept the peaceful transition of power from the incumbent to the opposition.

As in other nations, African included, the obscene behavior of Robert Mugabe shows that the country he has driven to bankruptcy, starvation, mass emigration and episodic violence is not one which meets the single, basic criterion for democracy. Mugabe states that "God" placed him in power and only the deity can remove him.

Kind of a strange perversion of the ancient Latin cliche, "Vox populi. Vox dei."

The collapse of even the thin charade of democracy in Zimbabwe under the boots of Mugabe's Patriotic League of Thugs and Terrorists raises another question. One that is of supreme import for the countries bordering Zimbabwe. All of which at least pretend to be democratic republics.

What are they going to do about the dictator in their midst?

Admittedly, Mugabe has long enjoyed a high level of prestige among the sub-Saharan African population for his leadership of the long insurgency against the White minority regime of Rhodesia following Ian Smith's 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence. The resulting war was very long, very nasty and ultimately won by the insurgents through the progressive reduction of the White population and government's political will and material capacity to continue the war.

Importantly, the Black majority forces did not win because of any particular political or military brilliance on the part of Mugabe. He was a factor in the Black success, but only one among many. Other factors including the economic sanctions imposed by the Commonwealth, European and North American nations were more important. Also more important than Mugabe was the constant and ready support offered by surrounding states.

Mugabe was a hero by convention only. His personal contribution to the toppling of the White minority government was (and is) greatly magnified.

Mugabe's actions of recent years have been minimalised by the very same people and governments which have boosted his reputation as the Hero of the Liberation. Starting with the politically popular but economically and nationally self-destructive act of "redistributing" land owned and operated to the national advantage by White farmers, and continuing through the years of systematic repression of any emergent opposition or even criticism, Mugabe seemed to have been bent upon two interlocking goals: maintaining his personal power and status, destroying Zimbabwe.

He has succeeded in both as of today. He is in power. He is the paramount chief. And, Zimbabwe is a complete wreck. A collapsing state filled with corpses, starvation and hopelessness.

Some hero.

When are the other folks in the neighborhood going to notice? When will the governments of South Africa, Mozambique, Zambia, Botswana individually or collectively say, "Enough is enough!"

Zambia had "free and fair" elections two years ago. Or so says the CIA which the Geek has found generally reliable on such matters. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/za.html

South Africa, which has borne much of the violence and economic meltdown refugee flood, is widely hailed as a pillar of democracy. It's chief of state, Thabo Mbeki, has been heavily and ineffectually involved in trying to broker an end to the chaos in Zimbabwe. Is it not time for South Africa to take the gloves off and let the aged autocrat next door know that the time for graceful retirement is now?

Mozambique underwent what CIA terms "a delicate transition" in December 2004 which allowed the country to continue sound economic policies and keep on rebuilding a nation shattered by decades of insurgency. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mz.html President Guebuza should think long and hard about the impact of a continuation of the refugee flow from Zimbabwe as well as his country's diplomatic leverage.

As much as South Africa and much more than Zambia, Mozambique has the leverage necessary to put a convincing argument before Mugabe that he should step down. Move out of the way before the turbulence in Zimbabwe endangers the neighbors even more than it has already.

It would be naive in the extreme to expect the African Union to exercise a constructive role in the Zimbabwe chaos considering that organisation's record to date with failing states across the continent. The African Union, not unlike its nomenclatural predecessor the Organisation of African States, is long on slogans, demands against the West and glitzy top-dollar diplomatic extravaganzas.

The AU, like the OAS, is very short on positive results for all its rhetoric, demands and heads-of-state meeting in upscale conflabs.

What about the United Nations? Secretary of State Rice has stated the US intends to put the implosion of Zimbabwe on the UN Security Council Agenda next week. Her demarche has already been overtaken by events. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7601194

United States, which is this month's president of the Security Council, has accused Mugabe of turning Zimbabwe into a failed state that threatens its residents and the stability of southern Africa.
When asked whether she thought the United Nations was prepared to go beyond passing a resolution on Zimbabwe, Rice said, "We believe that unless the Security Council acts, it stands to lose credibility."

Mugabe has already spent weeks (well, years actually) blaming all of his country's problems on the "colonial" powers in which he (no surprise here) includes the United States along with the United Kingdom. It's no stretch to add France to the list of offenders.

It must be remembered that both Russia and China tend to oppose the Security Council mixing itself up in what might be seen as the domestic political problems of any member state. The reasons are obvious. Russia and China face violent internal political unrest.

South Africa also opposes the Security Council move. Rightly. The neighbors, members of the SADC, have been complicit in the collapse of Zimbabwe. The same neighbors have the duty--and the self-interest involvement--to end the chaos and restore at least a semblance of democratic order.

Starvation is a part of life for millions of people in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has made that fact come into existence. Starving people are desperate people.

You don't need a PhD to figure that one out.

The borders of the neighborhood are porous. At best. In order to protect themselves, their less than robust governments, economies, societies, neighboring countries--South Africa and Mozambique in particular--have to intervene with diplomacy, aid and, if all else fails, force.

Mugabe has said that only God will remove him from power. He might consider that God can have many faces and take many forms.