Happy Birthday, UN--Now It's Time To Retire You

The United Nations was "born" sixty-five years ago in an impressive ceremony held in San Francisco.  Like other things created in San Francisco, the Vigilantes, Beat poetry, Hippie, the UN seemed like a good idea at the time but far outlived its usefulness--or humor potential.

Sixty-five is a good age for retirement--outside of France, Greece, and other contemporary enclaves of workers who do not like to work.  It is certainly a good age for the UN to shuffle off, collect its FICA, put on lime green pants and a clashing shirt so better to develop proficiency at golf.  Maybe do a little bit of travelling before finally settling down in Del Webb's Sun City to watch the sunset on the "golden years."

When the UN was born, it was, as is the case with all babies, small.  Its small size helped to assure that the majority of the nations proclaiming their united nature shared a wide variety of political, social, and economic norms and values.  With the exception of the Soviet Union, the Arab states, and some Latin American countries, the membership of the UN was democratic in its politics, liberal in social values, and essentially free enterprise in economic theory.  With the same exceptions, the UN members shared a commitment to the freedom and dignity of the individual, tolerated a wide spectrum of dissent in speech and press, and loathed force as an instrument of internal or international politics.

The UN was created with a view to precluding the sort of stasis which had rendered the overly idealistic League of Nations from either protecting international peace or punishing those states which broke the peace. But, the UN was afflicted by its own idealism.  This time around, the idealism was predicated upon a total misreading of the "alliance" which had defeated the Germany of Hitler and the imperialists of Japan.

To the misfortune of generations yet unborn, the celebrants in San Francisco deluded themselves into believing that the wartime "partners" of the US--the UK, China, the Soviet Union, and France--would continue forward in amity and cooperation for the common good.  This exercise in willful self-delusion should have been impossible even in 1945, even before the ink was dry on the surrender instruments ending the greatest conflict in human history.

The USSR had already demonstrated an unlimited appetite for land in eastern Europe, the result of having been invaded and the concomitant desire to have a protective glacis when the next invasion came.  The paranoia of Stalin had been evident on numerous occasions during the war--and showed no signs of abating.

China was in the midst of an offensive insurgency in which the Communists were exhibiting will and ability far greater than that of the central government.  The probability of China staying under the same Nationalist regime was slim to none.  Beyond that, the Chinese had played no useful role in defeating the Japanese regardless of what President Roosevelt or the later "China Lobby" might have wished.  It was not a Great Power and did not deserve membership in the Security Council, the body created in order to preclude the stasis which had marked the League of Nations.

France was not a Great Power either except in the minds of Frenchmen.  It was a defeated colonial power which hoped to restore its lost grandeur by repossessing its old colonies in Southeast Asia and elsewhere.  Beyond that, France had played only a marginal role in ending the Nazis, regardless of myths to the contrary.

The UK was a Great Power.  However, it is was a fatally exhausted one.  Its days of Empire and glory were as gone as those of the French.  Still, the UK had carried great freight in the early days of despair and defeat so as to lay the way for eventual victory.

The US was indisputably the Great Power of the day.  Unlike the Soviet Union which had been bled white by the war, the US was intact in all respects.  And, the US had the Bomb.  While few in the know expected the comfortable monopoly would last long, at the moment, sixty-five years ago, it was an overwhelming reality.

The US, however, had a fatal weakness.  Ironically the weakness also reflected a great strength of the country as well.  We were a nation of idealists at the time of the sign-and-grin ceremony in San Francisco's opera house.  We did believe in the goodness of humankind.  We did believe that the combination of our Bomb and the new UN would assure a golden age of peace.

Besides, we wanted to get back to "normalcy."  The Great Depression and the war had combined to rob Americans of fifteen years of our great dream of prosperity and the goodies which come with that desired state.  Idealistic materialists, we were happy to demobilize and give peace a chance under the baby blue flag of the near fiction called the United Nations.

Those were halcyon days, sixty-five years ago.  Unfortunately, the grim, grey, and barren wastes of reality quickly intruded.  The UN almost failed its first major test of its self-defined main mission--preserving the international peace and punishing those who broke it by aggression.  Had it not been for the absence of the Soviet Union which was boycotting the Security Council over that body's refusal to seat the new Chinese Communists in lieu of the Nationalists who by 1950 ruled only the island of Taiwan, there would have been no UN call to end the North Korean invasion of the South.  The US would have been denied the international support so necessary to fight an unpopular war in a very distant land.

Moscow never made the same mistake again.  As a result, the Soviet delegate was always in his chair eager to veto any attempt to involve the UN in punishing international aggressors.  The UN was conspicuous by its absence in the many, many wars which merrily went on during the long decades of the Cold War.

The only other time the Security Council actually tried to execute its major mission--preservation of international peace and punishing international aggressor--was in the wake of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.  The Chinese abstained.  Their reason for not vetoing the resolution was simple, crass self-interest.  The Trolls of Beijing calculated that future prosperity under their program of "market reforms" depended upon penetrating the American market.  A veto would make sure such would be impossible.

The success of the Chinese economically now assures that they will not make the same calculation again.  They now feel secure to veto any Security Council measure which might impinge on their economic and diplomatic interests anywhere in the world.

In short, the UN Security Council will revert to the same stasis which marked it during the Cold War albeit as the consequences of a different dynamic.  Potential aggressors--provided they are useful to the Trolls or, in other cases, the Kremlin--can be sure the UN Security Council will be the most toothless of tigers.

As if to make up for the failure in the area of preserving the international peace, the UN has engaged in an orgy of mission creep.  The UN has come to the more than simply dubious conclusion that it can involve itself in the internal affairs of a state if those affairs serve to threaten the international peace by way of, for example, generating refugees or, another example, tromping on the "human rights" of its citizens.  Of course both of these are highly subjective and thus suitable to manipulation according to the diplomatic considerations of one or more of the Big Five on the Security Council.

Much of the UN mission creep has been powered by the General Assembly.  In the "one country, one vote" milieu of the General Assembly, the potency of regional interest groups--or, religious interest groups as is the case with the Arab League dominated Organization of the Islamic Council--can and have controlled the direction and actions of the huge, unwieldy body.

At this point, it is necessary to stop and reflect on a foundation truth regarding the General Assembly.  The majority of the members are small, often artificial states, with a dubious economic base and only the most vague of commitments to either democracy or the notion of a rule of law.  In this, the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly as well as the subsidiary organizations of the UN, such as the Human Rights Council, do not share the norms, values, or goals of the countries present in San Francisco sixty-five years ago.

It also means the majority of the UN membership does not share the norms, values, or ideals of the vast majority of We the People.  Even though We the People pony up twenty-five percent of the UN's annual budget and more than that when the notoriously unsuccessful "peacekeeping" missions or subsidiary organizations are considered, the truth remains--we are subsiding a profoundly un-American bunch.

Sporadic efforts to "reform" the corrupt and inefficient UN bureaucracy have failed miserably.  They will continue to fail as the culture has become both too deeply embedded and wide spread to admit of any meaningful reform.  Even the (temporary) withholding of American dues proved ineffective in countering even the worse and most evident of UN financial abuses.  Of course, it didn't help when a change in administrations brought with it a change in policy.

The same dynamic can be seen in microcosmic form with the US rejoining the Human Rights Council.  This well-intended to "bore from within" has failed.  The HRC is just as biased, just as anti-Israel, just as anti-US now as it was when we were on the outside.

The time has come to do a reappraisal of our relation with the UN.  It is a hopeless captive of states which do not share the ideals, the norms, the values, the goals of sixty-five years ago.  The bureaucracy of the Secretariat as well as most (but not all) of the subsidiaries have failed in its obligation to keep the international peace or punish international aggressors while creating ever more expansive missions and seeking ever greater power over the economic, political, and social spheres of member states.

It is hard to admit failure.  It is hardest to admit that institutions created by the best of values, the most noble of motives, and highest of ideals have failed--failed continuously and totally.  It is particularly hard to admit that an institution that has existed longer than most Americans have lived is a miserable failure.

But, our interests as well as the interests of people living in all the civilized and many not-so-civilized states demand we acknowledge the failure of the UN.  So also do the interests of our descendants.  The lives of children not yet born will be affected by our failure to deal with the failure of the UN.

Now is the time to take a long look at what is necessary for an effective international institution.  History shows that the most important single factor is the sharing of norms, values, and imperatives.  At the least, any international institution worthy of support is one where the members are truly democratic, truly committed to the freedom, dignity, and rights of the individual, truly subscribers to free enterprise in one of its many variants.  An institution deserving of the support of We the People is one committed to freedom of expression, freedom of religious practice, and separation between the state and the communities of faith.

States which are suitable for such an international body exist all around the world.  They do not include Muslim majority states with very few exceptions.  Nor do they include authoritarian states with a thin veneer of democratic processes.  Nor do they include states where the rule of law consists of the current desires or political/economic needs of the elite.

Sure this means any new "League of the Decent" will be small, perhaps no larger than the hopeful group assembled in San Francisco sixty-five years ago.  That is no bar.  Sometimes the hackneyed line. "smaller is better" is the greatest of truths.

Be Careful What You Wish For--Particularly From The UN

The Palestinian Authority has been making noises about going to the UN General Assembly and demanding that body create an independent Palestine with the borders extant before the Six Day War of 1967.  This move may seem appropriate given that it is widely believed the UN General Assembly created an independent Israel with Resolution 181on 29 November 1947,  What the UN did once, it is argued, the UN can do again.

There is only one problem with this contention.  It is wrong.  The General Assembly did not create Israel with Resolution 181.

The resolution accepted the recommendations of the UN Special Committee On Palestine (UNSCOP) including a partition of the old British Mandate of Palestine into two states: one Arab, the other Jewish.  Overlooking the actual population differential in the Mandate which favored the Arabs by better than two to one or the land ownership pattern which showed Arabs owned over three quarters of the land with Jews holding less than ten percent, the UNSCOP report assigned fifty-five percent of the total area to the proposed Jewish state.  The Resolution kicked the details of creating the two states to the Security Council.

The UNSCOP report and the General Assembly action did violate the long standing and often invoked principle of self-determination which had been a hallmark of US policy put forth by Woodrow Wilson as part of the armistice and peace treaty ending World War I.  This troubled a number of observers both overseas and in the US but was overshadowed by the horrors of Nazi policy which had become a staple of the news during the preceding year.

The debate over the UNSCOP report and Resolution 181 did not focus on self-determination so much as it did the legality under the UN Charter of the Security Council or General Assembly creating countries by fiat.  The Soviet Union protested that action such as that proposed for Palestine violated the Charter.  This posture was adopted by Syria as well.  Other countries saw matters the same way.  Many of the ten abstentions and thirteen negative votes were predicated upon the concern that the resolution as well as any consequent Security Council actions would violate the charter, would confer upon the UN the undesirable status of "world government."

The US position as stated rather forcibly by Ambassador Warren Austin was that the Charter did not empower the Security Council to use force to implement a political settlement--even one instituted by the Security Council.  In point of fact the American position was an accurate reading of the Charter.  The coincidence that the US interpretation paralleled the view of the Arab Higher Council (as the several Arab states called their coordinating body) was unintended.  The US had no political ax to grind in the Palestinian question.  That would come later.

The Security Council was apprised repeatedly that any attempt to impose a partition on Palestine would result in a "breech of the peace."  There is a large dose of irony in this: The Security Council had as its primary task the prevention of breeches of the international peace, but in any attempt to partition Palestine, it would be causing the breech.  Delegations from Latin America, Europe, and the Arab Higher Council all warned that violence would be inevitable.

Given the warnings it would have been prudential to say the least if the Security Council moved first to create an international peace keeping force before even considering a change in the status of Palestine.  An alternative which was urged by several states was a referral of the matter to the International Court.  Neither of these courses of action were followed.  Instead the Security Council kicked the can down the road on 5 March 1948.

By this time Resolution 181 had been rendered nugatory by the realities on the ground.  War had broken out. The UN shifted its emphasis from create-a-state to find-a-truce.  The US supported armistice efforts provided they were "without prejudice" to the claims of either Jews or Arabs.  This was the most realistic position even though it almost guaranteed the war would continue until at least one if not both sides reached exhaustion.  Then, and only then, could the process of creating states be undertaken.

And, that is how it played out.  The ill-advised, emotionally driven acts of UNSCOP, and the General Assembly joined with the week-kneed position of the Security Council and the sheer ineptitude of the Arabs to hand over the Palestine Question to the gods of war.  When the shooting finally stopped at the end of the second round of fighting, the new state of Israel had even more land than provided by the generous UNSCOP plan, and the Arabs had nothing.

Ever since then the Arab states as well as the Palestinians have tried to reverse the verdict rendered on the battlefield.  Finally, after years of self-defeating war, terrorism, and diplomacy now worthy of the name, the PA has hit on a new paradigm.  The new approach relies upon delegitimizing Israel in the eyes, not of the world, not even of the majority of the world's people, but of the elites of Western Europe and the US.  In this context, the PA hoped that the new American president would carry the heavy freight of pressuring Israel into accepting a settlement far less than the best.

The American gambit has not paid off yet.  As a result the PA has brought the new arrow from the quiver.  The new arrow has a multi-bladed point, but each blade depends upon an international organization for its lethal sharpness.

One blade consists of the International Criminal Court where the PA is seeking de jure recognition as a state, ostensibly so that it might prefer war crimes charges against Israeli officials and military personnel but substantially so that it might claim to be a sovereign state already in existence.  This would power up its demands for UN recognition of statehood.

Another, even sharper blade, is the UN General Assembly itself.  The PA may well seek an new version of Resolution 181 which creates Palestine qua Palestine.  The UN Charter has not changed since 1947 but the passage of Resolution 181 provides that commodity most highly treasured by lawyers--precedent.  The PA can (and no doubt will) argue that the act in 1947 both justifies and demands correction with the issuance of an updated version.  The PA will have the support of the Arab/Muslim majority states, most of the so-called non-aligned movement and some others.  In aggregate more than enough to secure passage.

The PA will do whatever it can to assure any create-a-Palestine motion stays away from the Security Council.  Not only will the US (probably but not certainly given the Obama predilections) oppose any such measure but so also will Russia and (perhaps) China.  Neither of these states could feel comfortable with the idea that the UN can go around creating states in the interest of preserving international peace given the unrest and separatist movements which exist within their borders.

In the real world, any UN action will not be accepted by Israel.  As was the case back in 1947 when the Arabs were the party of "no," a deal needs two parties at a minimum.  In 1947 or 2011 there cannot be an agreement unless both Jew and Arab say, "yes."  One can safely bet one's booty on the proposition that Israel will not accept a UN diktat.

A PA gambit involving the UN General Assembly is not difficult for Israel to counter.  All that is needed is the political will to move the IDF into the "settlements" and coterminous areas and, with hands on hips say to the PA and its Arab/Muslim supporters  in an imitation of George W. Bush, "Bring it on!"

Far harder to counter effectively is the international demonization of Israel, the campaign of deligitimazation which has worked so splendidly in recent years.  Israeli defiance of the "will of the international community" will boost the efforts of the demonizers by orders of magnitude.  It would enhance the appeal of the peddlers of violent political Islam greatly.  More bombs will detonate.  More people in and outside Israel will die as a consequence.

It doesn't take a Nostradamus to predict that any increase in the lethal operations of groups practicing violent political Islam will bring a push back from the civilized states.  The political and opinion leaders of these states will have no genuine choice when the bombs go off killing their own citizens.  Not even the boasting Iranians can or will deter the inevitable response of the West to an increase in terrorist operations.  That, Jack, is a fact.

The UN muffed the play back in 1947.  It exceeded its brief.  Its reach far exceeded its grasp either as provided in the Charter or as existed in the political will of its membership.  Nothing has changed subsequently.  The UN has an excessive view of its mission and its capacity to undertake its sole genuine mission--preserving international peace.

The irony of 1947 would be repeated--on steroids--should the UN seek to impose a solution upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  As was the case in 1947, the body created to preserve and protect peace would, once again, be the cause of war.  This time around the war would bode well to be far more extensive and far more bloody than those of sixty-two years ago.

The takeaway for the PA and its supporters is simple: Be careful what you wish for--you just might get it.

Diplomacy By Tribunal

The fallout from the latest WikiLeaks monster dump includes a shot of growth hormone for one of the most disturbing recent trends in the conduct of foreign relations.  That new, dark development is an increasing reliance upon investigations conducted by tribunals operating under some sort of mandate from the UN or a subsidiary organization of the Really Big Folly By The Hudson.

The use of these tribunals, exemplified by the UN created travesty which goes by the name of the Goldstone Panel, is being expanded.  An excellent example of this mission creep is found in the call for a special "study" of the ethics, legality, and general humanitarian propriety of the employment of unmanned lethal systems typified by the US operated Predator and Reaper UAVs.  The long term goal of the "study" called for by the UNs new Special Rapporteur on Extrajudical Executions is the outlawing of these systems by international convention.  In this, the new guy, Christof Heyns, hopes to further the campaign of demonization started by his predecessor, Phillip Alston.

Mr Alston saw the use of Predators and Reapers as being especially vile as they operated at a remove from the immediate combat zone and, worse, did not put the operators at any physical risk.  The fact that the opposition command structure sought immunity from the consequences of its own actions by locating itself within the civilian population in a third country in no way bothered either Mr Alston or Mr Heyns.  Neither worthy were concerned about the cavalier attitude held by the senior leadership of al-Qaeda, Taliban, or other similar groups toward the local non-combatants among whom they sheltered.

Heyns no more than Alston worried in the slightest that the unmanned systems were actually more accurate in their targeting than would be the case with manned platforms.  Apparently, each man was most disturbed by the technological asymmetry favoring advanced countries such as the US and, horrors!, Israel.

The very success of the unmanned platform operations against leaders of groups practicing violent political Islam has built a momentum against the continued use of these systems.  One can be sure that the call for a "study" will be strongly supported by states which facilitate and support the operations of groups pursuing violent political Islam.  It is equally probable that states lacking equivalent technology but harboring deep hostility against the US and other Western countries will do the same.  It is almost as likely that Great Powers such as Russia and China will support the "study" since their efforts in the unmanned systems would be exempt from any proposed restrictions.

In short, the "study" demand is an excellent example of the conduct of diplomacy, the search to advance one's own interests at the expense of the interests of others using a modification of the "tribunal" method.  Since the notion of "arms limitation" has an appeal to people on the Left of the political spectrum and, since the object of the "limitation" is the US or other equally easy to demonize states, the approval for the "study" will be loud within the Left leaning elites of the US and Western Europe.

The same elites will loudly back the demands for investigations of the abuses committed by sectors of the Iraqi security forces set forth in some of the documents in the WikiLeaks dump.  Of necessity, the investigations will focus on the US for alleged sins of omission as well as Iraq for sins of commission.  In the eyes of some, including UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the actions or inactions of both the US and the UK in Iraq merit probing.

The UN and its subsidiary Human Rights Council have already called for investigation.  There is a good chance that Iran will seek to tag its search for a UN investigation of purported US government involvement in the events of 9/11 onto any review of American culpability for alleged war crimes or human rights abuses committed by Iraqi security forces.  Admittedly, there is no logical let alone direct link between the two universes, but that sort of mundane consideration is of little merit in the UN.

The WikiLeaks "revelations" are likely to reinvigorate the search for "justice" by Turkey and its associates regarding the Israeli assault on the Mazi Marmora.  The whatever-we-can-do-for-the-Palestinians crew will barnacle their cause to any inquiry into alleged Iraqi abuses.  The new narrative will emphasize the unity between the US and its actions in Iraq and Israel and its actions vis a vis the West Bank and Gaza.

When night falls, the conclusion will be that the US turns a blind eye to the inhumane and inhuman acts of both its Iraqi and Israeli clients.  The US will be branded as the facilitator of crimes against humanity in both Iraq and the Mideast.  It will take only a very small slide down this very slippery slope to conclude the US not only facilitates and protects but also directly engages in the most vile abuses of human rights.

The goal of the narrative as well as the "studies" and "investigations" and "tribunals" on both the input and output end will be the global reduction of US influence by a consistent message of American indifference to human rights or the ethical conduct of military operations.  Truth is not a consideration.  Neither is that mythical beast, "justice."  All that is important is the diminishing of American influence, American ability or will to play a major role in international politics.

Because "tribunals," "studies," and "investigations" seem to reek of an even handed pursuit of truth, they will gain both support and acceptance within the US and the West generally.  The conclusions, no matter how unjustified or unjustifiable, will be warmly embraced by significant segments of the American and Western European population--the blame-America-first bunch.

It is this built in potential for support and acceptance which gives the new approach in diplomacy its appeal,  It is what makes it so dangerous to the interests of the US and other civilized countries.  The use of mechanisms which represent themselves to be detached, impartial, disinterested, which present themselves as judicial, uses the Western love of justice as a sovereign weapon against the West.

The enemies of civilization be they practitioners of violent political Islam, members of the profoundly alienated, self-hating Left of the West, or simply governments skilled in the pursuit of national interests have developed a new and powerful form of diplomacy.  It is a form which uses the strengths of civilized states against them.  It is a form of diplomacy for which we are poorly prepared to engage.  It is a form of diplomacy which may well lubricate the skids to Western impotence.

WikiLeaks and the MSM have given the users of this new form of diplomacy a new venue in which to operate.  WikiLeaks and the MSM have provided the enemies of civilization with a new set of tools to use against us.

The founder of WikiLeaks said "it is all about the truth."  He is wrong.  It is all about defeating the West and all it stands for.

Julian Assange has done a good job of work for whoever is paying his bills.  The paymasters have chosen well.  They got more than their money's worth.

Idealism And Realpolitiks--The MDG At Year 10

Some 140 governmental leaders accompanied by legions of staff, camp followers, and assorted hangers on will be frolicking and conferring in the Big Apple this week. The reason for the crowded festivities in the days before the opening of this year's UN General Assembly is consideration of the first decade of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and introduction of "midcourse corrections" for the upcoming and final five years of the program.

Most of the goals will not be met. That is the major takeaway from the mass of real and virtual ink spilled in the past few days in the run-up to the confab. The picture is dismal enough even when the coarse grain data are used. It gets worse, much worse, when a fine grain appreciation of individual countries is employed.

The overarching sense of failure comes through even in appreciations drafted by people who were involved in the original MDG documents and the specific goals which followed a few years later. The tone of defeat is evident when the opening, very hosanna paragraphs are followed by lengthy recitals alleging why more has not been accomplished and, in all probability, never will be.

Most of the Flying Fingers Of Blame have pointed at the US and, to a lesser extent, other "rich" nations. Even though Uncle Sam is acknowledged as the largest donor, critics are quick to note that even the not-yet-achieved level of international giving promised by President Obama would amount to only twenty cents of every one hundred dollars of overall economic activity, which is well short of the MDG target of seventy cents per one hundred bucks.

Other Western countries do donate at a rate higher than twenty cents per hundred bucks. Of course the total dollar amount is given is far less.

On the "rich" side of the hill complaints have multiplied regarding the various and sundry ways in which donated dollars are either diverted from their intended destinations or simply wasted by recipients: national, international and non-governmental. The usual shorthand way in which the displeasure is displayed is in the always twinned words, "transparency" and "accountability."

Also mentioned albeit in a more sotto voce way are the contributors to failure which cannot be assigned to lack of resources. The primary suspect in this department is the inability or unwillingness of one recipient government after another to engage in necessary social and political reforms which would lead to the internal stability and cohesiveness without which no genuine, sustained economic development is possible. Absent stability and its handmaiden, predictability, it doesn't matter how much money is expended, no development, no improvement in the status of women, no reduction in mortality, no assurance that starvation will not stalk those on the lower levels of economic success is conceivable.

Indeed, this phenomenon, the unwillingness of governments to continence necessary changes, is facilitated by the cash cow of the MDG. Arguably, without substantial changes on the part of numerous, authoritarian inclined governments, the money from MDG generosity is not simply wasted, it assures the continuation of an evil status quo.

Another reason which has been adduced to the less than thrilling performance of the MDG is the failure of many states, particularly in Africa, to embrace effective programs of population limitation. As one of the cited articles insists, the Catholic Church, described as "influential" in Sub-Saharan Africa, is in large measure responsible for this undesirable state of affairs. Left unmentioned is the even more important role played by Islamic clerics in the same region who mouth the line holding the West's emphasis on birth control is a "genocidal" measure aimed at Muslims.

This omission is most unfortunate. Muslim birthrates not only in Sub-Saharan Africa but elsewhere are the highest in the world. And, the truth, down where poverty is the absolute norm, is that there are too many people in the world today. In particular, there are too many people in areas which have the least agricultural carrying capacity.

When the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land, at best, the country must spend an inordinate percentage of its resources on imported food. This, in turn, means the country does not have the resources necessary to create an economic structure which will assure employment. Even states with ample resources, such as Iran and Venezuela, demonstrate that with too many people, particularly young people, there will be too few jobs.

This dynamic implies that one of the most important questions which will not be addressed at the UN this week is the imperative of population limitation. Because of the power of religious beliefs as well as the invulnerability of these beliefs to challenge or even questioning, it is certain that the issue of too many people will be swept under the highly polished conference tables. In lieu of facing the elephant in the room, there will be demands for more money to be given by the "rich" in order to feed the poor. Emotionally charged images of the starving will be brandished about as will dire predictions of horrid things to come if the hungry are not fed by the overweight of the West--primarily the Americans.

The continuation of foreign assistance to overpopulated countries will not be considered. There will be no discussion of the utter irresponsibility of maintaining and enhancing the problem by pumping ever greater sums into the empty bellies of people so unfortunate as to have been born in countries without sufficient agricultural carrying capacity to meet their needs.

The unquestioned given is simply that every life everywhere is too important, too precious to be allowed to waste away in hunger or disease. There is an unstated but compelling apprehension that anyone and everyone must be held harmless from the consequences of having been born as a result of irresponsible government policies based on premises which have no realistic basis.

The representatives of these many irresponsible governments and their supporters among religions and non-governmental organizations will demand never ending transfers of wealth from the citizens of much more responsible and provident nations. These demands will escalate until there is no more wealth to be transferred--unless a major restructuring of the attitudes underlying foreign assistance including the MDG is made.

The reality of life requires that all parties, donors and recipients alike, recognize that the accomplishment of the MDG rests not on money per se but on the number of people who are at the table eager to eat the pie of international assistance. This means, ironically, that the success of some MDG components such as the reduction of malnutrition or infectious disease works against the success of the overall program.

There is another, more compelling, and far more realpolitik rooted reason to get down to the first principle of population limitation. At some point in the not too distant future, the citizens of the Western donor countries, democracies one and all, will cry, "Enough!"

The combination of the Great Recession, demographic changes, longer life expectancy, and a long experience with a certain, admittedly high, standard of living will result in the various electorates suffering terminal donor fatigue. There is no way on this Earth that the citizens of the US and other advanced countries, facing very real problems in their daily lives, will go along with the endless wealth transfers implicit in the MDG and the inevitable follow-ons.

Both as individuals and as members of a society, a polity, Americans and their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere will question how much they should reduce their standard of living in order that the seemingly endless needs of people in other areas of the world should benefit. It must be recalled that foreign aid has never had a broad base of support within We the People and the narrow base will shrink all the more if the demands escalate without any apparent end.

Americans are generous. That inclination has been demonstrated time after time for generations. The American people will support the MDG and akin aid programs but not without end. And, not without the recipients demonstrating a high level of responsibility in how the money is spent. However, demands based upon threats, extortion as it were, for aid without limit will cause a push back which no elected government can ignore without great peril.

It is hard to say how close We the People are to the "Enough!" point today but it is more than passingly strange that President Obama has been notably reticent on the MDG and requesting great infusions of foreign aid cash. The probability of a Republican resurgence does nothing to ease the minds of those who might be hoping in New York to browbeat or guilt trip the US into committing yet more money to the MDG.

The only way out, the only way in which the MDG or similar programs can lay claim to the money of We the People is if the US government can convince us that the expenditures are critical to core national and strategic interests and not merely a nice, moral thing to do regardless of economic constraints. This pitch will be effective only if it can be supported by an honest demonstration that recipient governments are not only accountable and transparent but also responsible in their use of the aid.

That, in its turn, requires the recipients to finally face up to the reality that too many people will mean failure. Failure which cannot be redeemed no matter how much money is expended.

ADMIN NOTE: The Geek invites, welcomes and will post all on topic comments. But a spam attack has necessitated defensive precautions for the inconvenience and frustration of which the Geek apologizes.

Will Taliban Defeat Itself?

The UN has issued its most recent assessment of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The numbers aren't particularly pretty. The count of the maimed and killed is up the first six months of this year compared with the same period a year back.

The good news, insofar as one can write of "good news" when considering the wounding and killing of non-combatants is that Taliban, the Haqqani network, and other groups of similar ilk are responsible for six civilian casualties for every one inflicted by the ISAF or Afghan National Forces. This ratio is, in part, a credit to the doctrine of "courageous restraint" instituted by General Stan McChrystal and wisely, very wisely continued by General Petraeus.

But even more the differential between Taliban inflicted deaths and mutilations and those resulting from friendly forces is the consequence of a deliberate policy instituted by Taliban. The new policy, approved by spiritual head and one time Chief of State, Mullah Omar, targets civilians through the increased use of non-discriminating weapons such as IEDs as well as demanding trigger pullers hit women as well as men who are "collaborators" with the "apostate" government or its "infidel crusader" supporters.

In short, Taliban is waging war on its own people. This is the single most counterproductive move which can be made by either the insurgent or his opponent. After all, the terrain over which the war is being fought, the terrain which will assure either victory or defeat, is the territory defined by the minds of the people. Killing one's own people is scarcely the best way to achieve success.

General McChrystal realized this years ago. He took the knowledge with him to Afghanistan and immediately, decisively acted to limit the number of deaths and wounds inflicted on civilians by friendly forces. The results were immediate and evident in the shift of trust to ISAF and Afghan forces as indicated by the flow of actionable intelligence by "concerned citizens" and the joining by civilians toting their "personal assault weapons" in fights against Taliban.

Day by day as the initiative has shifted to the ISAF and ANF, so also has Taliban killed more and more non-combatants. Everyday the reports evidence an ever growing propensity of Taliban and its associates to engage in indiscriminate, lethal violence against civilians or to use civilians as human shields.

The confirmation of the trend by the UN is comforting. It underscores the operational necessity of maintaining under whatsoever nomenclature the doctrine of "courageous restraint" regardless of the moaning of those who think we are giving the advantage to Taliban or placing our troops at undue risk. The UN report also demonstrates that Taliban's leadership either does not understand the nature of insurgency and how to win it or is thrashing about in desperation, hoping that terror will bring support and, thus, victory.

The histories of insurgencies demonstrate collectively that not only is it impossible to kill one's way to victory but also that it is possible, even highly likely, that one can kill one's way to defeat. While people when interviewed will cast blame on the government which is apparently failing to protect the non-combatants from harm, the reality is that people who may find themselves in the crosshairs blame (and detest) those who pull the triggers. If it is the insurgents who are doing the killing, it will be the insurgents who get the blame along with loathing and hatred.

The observer can only give Taliban a thumbs-up for utter idiocy. It is to be hoped the Mighty Warriors For Sharia and Allah keep up their work. It will only serve to assure their defeat.

Pull Out Now! The UN Says The War Is Lost

The UN has taken a look at the security situation in Afghanistan. The worthies and experts at that strategic think tank didn't like what they saw.

But, being willing to look defeat square in the face without blanching, the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon who is, as everybody knows, the finest military theorist since Karl von Clausewitz as well as an operational level commander on a par with George Patton, has informed the Security Council that Afghanistan is going to hell in a high speed, low drag wheelbarrow. Using the ever reliable indicators of roadside bombs, assassinations of low to mid-level government personnel in the provinces, and "complex" attacks, the SecGen all but declared the Taliban to have won.

The SecGen is not alone in his dismal appraisal of American and allied fortunes in Afghanistan. Over the past few weeks, those two pillars of independent, disinterested, and agenda-free impartial assessment of American success or failure in both war and diplomacy, the WaPo and the NYT, have made reached the same conclusion, at least by implication. The only feature lacking in either outlet is an editorial demanding a prompt American surrender to the Mighty and Pure Defenders of the One Truth Faith.

Admittedly, there are a number of good reasons to feel both gloom and doom hovering over the valleys of Afghanistan. The Afghan National Forces are far more a myth than a substantial reality capable of effective action in the field. The Karzai regime is corrupt, inefficient, self-serving, and far more interested in continuing its hold on power than seeing hostilities termination leading to long term conflict resolution. Mr Karzai himself is an excellent Afghan politician but a very infuriating partner with whom to engage.

At the same time Taliban deserves credit. It is comprised of tough, resilient fighters led by reasonably competent commanders. It has a set of clear goals. A very definite agenda well founded on religion. Beyond that Taliban has the support and assistance of the Pakistani Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence and, thus, constitutes a branch of the armed forces of Pakistan. As if that were not sufficient, Taliban receives support from Iran. Training camps are located convenient to the Afghan border in the wastes of rural Iran while the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps provides instructors. In a gesture of religious fraternity, the Iranians also provide explosively formed penetrators and other useful gadgets.

Even with the augmentation of American combat forces, the manpower available to the US and ISAF for combat missions is minimal (to put it charitably.) The correct decision by General McChrystal to limit the use of indirect and air delivered fire places more of a burden on the ground pounders, thus making the war even more manpower intensive. In order to assure that few (preferably no) Afghan non-combatants are killed by the "infidels," it is necessary to conduct each and every operation no matter how large or small on a retail basis, up close and personal.

Longer term this self-imposed constraint on the lethality of the battlefield is not only good, it is absolutely necessary. McChrystal understands perfectly that if civilians are to be killed, it is essential that they be killed by the insurgents. Insofar as Taliban et al kill civilians, non-combatants, women, children, and old men, whether by a roadside bomb, a suicide IED, or a "complex" attack, the resulting body count strengthens the counterinsurgent while weakening the insurgent.

That consideration constitutes a critical nuance unnoticed by either Generalissimo Ban Ki-Moon or the Deep Strategic Thinkers at the WaPo and NYT. The primary victims of the increased usage of roadside bombs and similar IEDs have been Afghan civilians. The same is true of attacks carried out by "martyrdom seekers" whether using suicide vests or vehicle borne IEDs. Even many of the larger attacks, characterized in the UN report as "complex" have resulted in more civilian than foreign combatant deaths.

The roadside bombs, the assassinations of minor government, police, and military personnel, even the majority of the "complex" attacks such as the strikes on foreign occupied guesthouses have not only resulted in an increased loathing for Taliban on the part of Afghans but show a high measure of desperation driving Taliban.

In previous insurgencies, assassination of local personnel have been a prominent feature either of the beginning of the insurgency or as a strong indicator of its being defeated. The same applies to indiscriminate attacks resulting in a high level of casualties among the uncommitted majority of the civilian population.

Previously in Iraq, in Pakistan, and in Afghanistan, when the insurgents have started killing civilians in large numbers, there has been an immediate push-back on the part of the threatened civilians. This is being seen again in Afghanistan in the past few months--the same period employed by Feldherr Ban Ki-Moon as a base for his prognostication of impending defeat.

Increasingly, local villagers equipped with (to use the term employed by US military sources) "personal assault weapons" have joined Afghan, US, and ISAF units to engage and destroy Taliban cells. The same upward trend is seen in the flow of unsolicited and actionable intelligence from locals who have had it up to their beards with Taliban.

Afghans, not unlike most people everywhere, are not strong on the idea of getting killed. They don't even appreciate the fine theological distinction between being killed by an "infidel" or an "apostate" rather than a good Muslim, a jihadi. Not surprisingly, the Afghans are ready, willing, and eager to seize the moment and abate the Taliban nuisance.

Rather than being indicators of near-term defeat, the increased Taliban reliance upon IEDs, assassination, and the odd media spectacular points to a loss of confidence within the command echelons of the insurgents. Taliban has lost the initiative in the quotidian conduct of operations; as a comparison between friendly initiated, hostile initiated, and meeting engagements shows, the capacity to control the pace and direction of operations has shifted increasingly in favor of the US and ISAF.

This pleasant reality in no way lessens the underlying reality that the war is not over. The US and its allies are not yet sure of achieving the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing," but the vectors have shifted in that direction. The next six to twelve months will be a long, hard pull in Afghanistan. Marja is not yet fully secured. The Kandahar operation has been delayed. Most importantly, the Afghan national government and forces have not yet shown either the will or the ability to carry their share of the freight.

Right now the major lost opportunity is not military but falls rather in the area of governance. The US and its allies have fallen too far into the trap of believing that the central government of Afghanistan is just that--a government. The US has also allowed itself to believe that success in Afghanistan cannot occur without the existence of a strong, credible, and effective central government.

These twin notions are bogus. For much of its existence, Afghanistan has gotten along quite well without a strong, credible, and effective central government. The Afghan culture states that a person's primary loyalty is to the extended family, secondary loyalty is to the clan, and the tertiary loyalty is to the tribe. This hierarchy allows but does not compel a loyalty to the central regime in Kabul.

This situation implies that Afghans have a high propensity toward and a good capacity for self-organizing. The self-organizing process moves from the most local to the more distant and has the automatic advantage of assuring high group coherence through the necessity for voluntary collaboration in the search for mutual self-interest.

The operational consequence of this orientation within the human terrain of Afghanistan is obvious. The US and its allies should--must, perhaps--put Kabul to the side and deal with the local power structure. The winning political approach is that of empowering the self-organizing capacities of the Afghan villages, the neighborhoods of Marja or Kandahar. Working with and backing the needs of the locals in all aspects of security, governance, and economic development would allow the effective circumvention of the obstructionists of Kabul. Doing things this way would have the additional advantage of cutting off Taliban from any pretense of legitimacy, by denying it the large target of central government corruption, cronyism , and flat out inefficiency.

There is a very high probability that General McChrystal is as aware of the self-organizing and provincial orientation of the Afghan human terrain as he is of the grave inadequacies of the central regime. If his lords and masters inside the Beltway can be brought to see the light, there is a better than good chance that the next few months will see a political success parallel the probable military defeat of Taliban.

There is, of course, only the slimmest of chances that the Obama administration can wake up to the tribal and family realities of Afghanistan so as to give a green light to adding the final ingredient which would well neigh onto guarantee success of an acceptable sort in Afghanistan. And, there is absolutely no chance in hell that the WaPo-NYT Strategic Studies Academy or Geo-Political Genus Ban Ki-Moon will ever get it.

Neck Deep In Nukes

Life is becoming one big Xanax moment. First, there was the Pakistani bomb--and its twin, the Indian bomb. The came the North Korean bomb. And, one must never forget the Iranians and their quest for a Mahdi Bomb. That is a whole bunch of atoms waiting to fission.

Making life more anxiety producing is the basic consideration that all these actual or short-term potential atomic weapons--with one exception--are possessed by governments with a past history of less than responsible conduct. The prospect of "physics packages" in the hands of North Koreans, Iranians, or Pakistanis is one which is not conducive to sound sleep.

Comes now disturbing indications that another country headed by individuals whose commitment to peace, security, human rights, and other good things is at best debatable. The country in question is Burma--or, if you insist, Myanmar. Since the Australian defense analyst and scholar Desmond Ball first mooted the matter a bit over a year ago, more information has come out of the reclusive dictatorship. The skinny has come the usual way, from defectors and other malcontents finally fed up with the repressive regime and its evil effects upon the Burmese population.

As the information has fallen into an ever more complete mosaic, one cannot escape the conclusion that there is a good or better probability that Burma is pursuing an atomic weapons capacity with the assistance of North Korea and the (likely) knowledge and tacit agreement of China. The junta which has been running the Burmese show for over twenty years believes that a nuclear capability would insulate it from further Western meddling as well as provide a sovereign anodyne against any hypothetical future adventure in regime change.

While this view may be considered charitably as paranoid, there is little reason to reject the contention that the junta sees itself as under threat and facing the real possibility of an American led invasion of the Iraq 2003 style. An additional consideration which may be weighing on the minds of the junta members is the possession of an "ambiguous" nuclear capability of the Israeli model would confer real diplomatic advantages in the Southeast Asia Game of Nations.

At first sight the notion of Burma going after the Big Bomb seems more than a tad risible. Where is the complex of industry, research, and development facilities, universities that seem to be a necessary component of getting the bomb? Isn't Burma a backward, primarily agricultural place with little advanced technology, or, at least, very little technology of an indigenous nature?

Yes. Burma is all of that--and less. It has no industrial base worthy of note. It is agricultural. No first rank (or even fourth rank) universities blot its landscape. It isn't even filled with uranium ore.

However, getting your very own atomic bomb is not as difficult as many crack it up to be. For sure, the details can be difficult to master as the North Korean fizzle yield tests show, but, really all that is needed to acquire a personal capacity to plant mushroom clouds is found in three categories.

The first requirement is political will. The regime must be willing and able to run great risks, pay heavy prices in sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and a general bad rep. It must be willing to sacrifice the better interests of its citizens along the way. Even face the prospect of both covert and overt actions aimed at stopping the quest.

The Burmese regime has shown repeatedly over the past decades that it possesses the necessary political will. The members of the junta may be brutal, corrupt, inefficient, and generally incapable of living up to the Boy Scout Oath, but they have political will out the ying-yang.

The second requisite is money. Bombs do not come cheap. Neither does the technology necessary to produce a working nuclear weapon. The fact that Burma would be pursuing the bomb against the restrictions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that is, "illegally," increases the expense.

Fortunately, the junta has massive amounts of money at its disposal. The exploitation of the country's hydrocarbon reserves and the assorted pipelines running across Burma have provided heaps and gobs of the money to the companies responsible as well as to the regime. The exact amount accruing to the junta can not be stated with precision but is in the billions. There have been more than enough billions to date (with more quite literally in the pipeline) to fund an ambitious nuclear acquisition program.

The third necessity is technical assistance from a state having reasonable competence in nuclear activities. Pakistan had help from China. Iran got aid from both Pakistan and North Korea. The North Koreans have been forced to take a more go-it-alone route, but they are good at the long, hard march sort of thing.

Burma has North Korea. A hermit-to-hermit or pariah-to-pariah program. The North Koreans constitute a not inconsiderable resource. They have a demonstrated competence in most of the stages of the nuclear fuel cycle as well as a very high skill level in building hardened facilities far removed from prying eyes (even those of the overhead variety.) Since the North Koreans do not run on an eleemosynary philosophy, their help has not come cheap. Fortunately, the petrodollars provide the junta with the necessary ways and means.

To get from North Korea to Burma requires crossing China. Not that this presents a significant obstacle. The Trolls of Beijing will abide by any UN sanction regime provided it does not hinder their political, diplomatic, or economic interests. Turning a Nelsonian eye to shipments of material and people between Burma and North Korea in no way hurts the interests of China either short- or long-term. Best of all, the well neigh onto impenetrable Chinese cloak of secrecy will do much to assure that no prying outsiders will gain verifiable knowledge of what and whom is going from where to where.

Probably the Burmese regime has to pay handsomely for an understanding Chinese attitude, but, what is money for? It is not beyond the realm of plausibility that the Trolls of Beijing would welcome a UN sanction effort directed against the foreign companies involved in exploiting Burmese hydrocarbon resources, as the forced withdrawal of the French and American companies would be to the benefit of China.

The proliferation of relatively inexpensive and efficient uranium enrichment methods as well as the availability of proven designs of plutonium production reactors go a very long way to easing the task of the Burmese. It is a simple algorithm: The more countries that develop means of making fissionable materials and fabricating even 1950s style bombs of Hiroshima or Nagasaki level yield, the easier it becomes to join the nuclear club.

There is another fact to keep in mind. Not every country, not every public, not every leader of state or opinion has the visceral fear and loathing of nuclear weapons as afflicts most people in the West. The Trolls of Beijing, for example, or the Men of the Kremlin, take a far more measured view of nuclear weapons even in the hands of governments given to acting on ideological True Belief then is the case in most of the West. As a consequence, there is not likely to be a great hue and cry over the possibility of Burma getting the bomb.

Given that both Beijing and Moscow are not all that het up over the looming probability of the Iranians gaining their Mahdi Bomb. this certainly is no surprise. There is another consideration which bears mention.

That consideration is the demonstrable impotence of the US. Even though President Obama swears up and down that he personally is committed to the dream of a world free of nuclear weapons, there is little in practice that the US can do to inhibit proliferation. Iran and North Korea have shown clearly that one can pursue the bomb with impunity regardless of the huffing and puffing emanating from Washington, or London, or Paris. Even a country as small and remote as Burma has found out that sanctions are made to be broken or evaded, and the US is today what Mao said it to have been over forty years ago--a paper tiger.

Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter The UN

The UN has once more failed. In both the Security Council and the Human Rights Council member states have forsworn a course of disinterested commitment to the peace and stability of the global political order or the common rights of all humanity. Rather both entities fell into the possession of demonic passions, passions of pure ideology far surpassing what occurred in the same venue during the most glacial days of the Cold War.

The hatred was palpable in the words of supposedly mature, rational, reasonable representatives of what, by consensus if nothing else, are presumed to be governments capable of playing a responsible role in world affairs. The thundering denunciations of Israel following its legal if arguably quite unwise act of self-defense were based on no knowledge of what transpired before or during the commando raid on the Marmara.

At least the Security Council admitted ignorance. The resolution specifically acknowledged that it and its members had no independent information regarding what happened. The resolution and the vote depended completely upon media reports or quite possibly false and malicious gossip from partisan sources. The reality that the Security Council acted without knowing is borne out by the wording of the resolution condemning Israel in which it was alleged that ten "passengers" on board the Marmara had been killed. While that number had currency in the media, it was wrong as the later figure of nine demonstrates.

None of this bothered the worthies of the Security Council currently with Turkey in the chair. It was with a whoop and a hollar that the resolution went through. In double quick order and to its permanent disgrace and loss of credibility, the Security Council in essence legitimized the intentionally provocative action of Turkey in facilitating the movement of the "aid flotilla" knowing, even hoping, that the Israelis would stop the maritime parade and some good Muslims would attain the martyrdom they were seeking.

The haste of the Security Council's lynching of Israel stands in very sharp contrast to the apparent indifference within the body's membership to the act of aggression committed by North Korea in the Cheonan Incident. Even though weeks have passed, an international investigation undertaken by a credible group including at least one neutral nation, and the finger of culpability firmly pointed at North Korea, the Security Council is in no hurry to render a judgement not even a mild censure directed at Pyongyang.

Given the contrast between the Security Council's action on Israel and inaction on North Korea, it is hard to see how the Council can claim any legitimacy as an arbiter and enforcer of international norms of governmental conduct. This is not to imply that the Council would have been in the right to ignore the Marmara Affair as it has the Cheonan Incident but rather to argue that once the impartial investigation has occurred in either of these unfortunate matters, then it is proper for the Council to condemn or offer condolences. But, unless and until the facts of the matter are known in sufficient detail to meet some form of the "rational person" test, the Council should sit down and shut up.

The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) can never sit down and shut up. Neither can it ever be bothered with finding real, honest-to-gosh, objective facts as opposed to convenient artifacts and anti-facts which meet a particular political (or, to err on the side of accuracy, political-religious) need or desire.

While the rhetoric in the Security Council was rather restrained, polite, civilized even, the oratory over in the HRC was over the top. Epithets were hurled at machinegun speed. These included "piracy," "act of aggression," "brutal massacre," and "war crime." The fast roping Israeli commandos were also held to have committed an act of "terrorism," a "crime against humanity," and a set of "murderous attacks."

The Festival of Insults provided the context for the passage of a Pakistani resolution introduced on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Sudan on behalf of the Arab League. Irony permeates this scene as it does most of what the HRC undertakes. In this case it is furnished by the reality that both the OIC and the Arab League are comprised in the main of states which routinely, systematically, and violently abridge most of the human rights they have committed themselves to upholding in assorted international undertakings.

Not that this sort of logical and ethical disconnect bothers the majority of the states comprising the HRC. As has been the case before, Israel was convicted instantly. Following conviction, the HRC called for a "fact finding" mission which would serve to justify the speedy conviction.

In the past four years, the HRC (and its predecessor) held thirteen special sessions. Of these, ten dealt with country specific issues. Of the ten, six focused on Israel. This is in keeping with another critical index of HRC priorities. The HRC (again including its immediate predecessor) passed fifty-nine country specific resolutions. Twenty-nine of these--that's right, half--named Israel as the target.

It is easy to recall that the HRC was responsible for the Goldstone Panel and its report. The travesty of fact embodied in this report demonstrates in one (admittedly difficult and painful to read) batch of cynical distortions the reality of the politicization of the HRC. Now the HRC is bound and determined to usher "Infamous Prejudice II" into existence despite the presence of the supposedly moderating influence of the US.

President Obama reversed the policy of his predecessor and the US rejoined the HRC. The president as well as Secretary of State Clinton and any number of others in the Obama foreign policy "team" have declared the HRC to be "flawed." This designation is on a par with calling the RMS Titanic "unsinkable."

The party line at Foggy Bottom and within the magic circle of the Oval Office is the US can work effectively from the inside to reform the "flawed" HRC. If the action taken by the body regarding the Marmara Affair is any indication--and it most assuredly is--the Obama administration and the president himself have given birth to one more policy failure. The failure of the US to influence in any way the immoderate, prejudicial, dare one write, "antisemitic," resolution shows clearly that the Obama foreign policy is not only bootless but that the US lacks any real diplomatic clout--even in the lesser venue of the HRC.

In a sorry, painful way the lack of real influence in the HRC simply is a shadow of the diminished capacity of the US in the far more critical arena of the Security Council. Perhaps the issue of a resolution of condemnation and sorrow was not considered worth the use of the big gun of a Security Council veto, but the obvious unwillingness of the Obama "team" to use the veto reinforced the already prevalent perception of American weakness of political will.

Not even in the dismal days of Jimmy Carter was the US so widely seen as lacking the intestinal fortitude necessary to exercise influence in the Security Council. The hemorrhaging of American diplomatic influence has little to do with the presumed hatred engendered around the world by the actions and policies of the Bush/Cheney administration as has been alleged to the point of nausea by apologists for the Obama administration.

Rather the loss of that most precious of international commodities--influence--is the direct and immediate result of the Obama policies of appeasement, accommodation, political correctness, and "outreach." None of these have been seen by adverse states as indicative of a creative new approach to foreign relations on the part of the US. Rather, all have been understood as signs of weakness, irresolution, loss of faith in ourselves.

The administration and its media flacks are attempting to rationalize the Obama stance as one of mediation, of counselling of the relationship maintenance sort seeking to restore good relations between two key allies--Turkey and Israel. Not only is this an exercise in squaring the circle, it is arguably doomed to fail simply because Turkey has changed course over the past three years.

The emergence of AKP to power brought politicians rooted in political Islam to power. Not surprisingly the Erdogan government has tilted increasingly to the East, to using its Islamic commonalities not only to creep closer to Iran but to become an ever more leading power within the successor states of the old Ottoman Empire.

Turkey sees no particular advantage to its pursuit of its national interest by keeping allied with either Israel or the US. Erdogan and many others in Turkey today see the future of their country deeply rooted in the past. They see Turkey as once more becoming the seat of the "caliphate."

Reality has slapped the Obama face. Perhaps even this slow learner president can overcome his disinterest in foreign affairs, his mental inertia, and his fixation on outdated ideologies and recognize that Turkey is not an American ally--and will not become one again in the near to mid-term.

While he is at it, perhaps it is possible, at least in principle, for Mr Obama to wake up to the fact that the US is playing a very weak hand in the UN. As a result, thinking the unthinkable becomes attractive. Do we really, really need to be a member of and chief financial backer of a dysfunctional institution in which our influence is nil?

Or, paradoxic as it seems, might we not gain both influence and freedom of action by leaving the UN to stew in its own increasingly anti-West, anti-democratic juices?

Well, it's a thought.

You Did The Right Thing, Israel!

The lengthy drivel filled UN conference regarding updating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has labored and brought forth not a mouse but the fecal product of a mouse. At its conclusion the conference delivered the demand for a conflab intended to bring about a nuclear weapons free zone in the Mideast. The conclave is to occur two years hence.

Israel, the only current and presumptive holder of a nuclear arsenal immediately and flatly declared that it would be a major non-participant in the festivities. In explanation of its move, the government of Israel (GOI) pointed to the biased and prejudicial nature of the UN declaration.

The characterization given by the GOI is dead on. Israel and Israel alone is named in the document. The naming of Israel was, as no doubt intended, pejorative and defamatory. Neither India nor Pakistan, both of which are in possession of nuclear weapons and non-members of the NPT, were named, even though Pakistan can be seen as an honorary member of the Mideast Club.

Nor is any mention made of the non-compliant Iranian elephant in the room. Indeed, it is the status of Iran as a signer of the NPT which has brought it into its current semi-pariah status.

The failure of the conferees to make a definite reference to Iran is particularly reprehensible and underscores the accuracy of GOI's description and the correctness of its decision regarding the demanded conference. The glaring omission of Iran is the basis for the remarkably strong defense of Israel's position offered by National Security Advisor James Jones. Jones is quoted as saying the US "deplores" the wording of the UN document.

Israel's overall position on the question of a nuclear free Middle East has been long established and is well known--even by the Arab and Muslim states which required both the conference and the naming of names, or, at least, one name. GOI is of the view that any agreement to remove nuclear weapons from the region (which implies Israel signing the NPT) must come after two other agreements.

One of the necessary precursor undertakings would eliminate all categories of weapons of mass destruction from the region. The other, the vastly more important and infinitely harder to achieve agreement, would be one which establishes a verifiable and enforceable comprehensive Mideast peace.

Given the ongoing superiority in manpower and potential conventional armed force in the possession of the several Arab "frontline" states and the even greater reserves within other Arab and Muslim countries, Israel must retain its nuclear option. It is the great equalizer as well as the best peacekeeper in the area. By rejecting membership in the NPT and adopting the policy of nuclear ambiguity GOI has kept the region free of conventional, high intensity war since the ending of the Yom Kippur War thirty-seven years ago.

True, this has not meant peace broke out or that hostilities have been absent, but it has meant that the severity and duration of war has been constrained significantly. For this, the Arab states should be as happy as the Israelis. Except for the poorly planned and worse executed adventure into Lebanon a few years back, the killing has been on the retail level rather than the wholesale bloodletting which would have occurred had Israel not possessed its ambiguous deterrent.

The problem, the ultimate challenge to a comprehensive peace treaty which,in the estimate not only of GOI but any objective observer, must precede any agreement to denuclearize the Mideast is the matter of how a comprehensive peace treaty would be both verified and enforced. If the years 1933-1945 taught Jews anything, it is simply this: When push comes to shove there is no one we can count on for our defense other than ourselves.

This reality, a reality which cannot be erased by the reassurances of an American president or his minions, governs all Israeli calculations as it must. Can any sane, prudent Israeli trust some other country, some international institution, when the existence of the Jewish state is threatened?

Considering the historical record right on down to the present day, the answer is both blunt and obvious: No. A hundred times, a thousand times, no!

The Jews of Germany and German dominated Europe were left out in the international cold in the years prior to the outbreak of war. To put it simply, no country--including the US--wanted to take in the threatened Jews. Not even the children.

In more recent times, the UN has been singularly insensitive to the unique position of Israel as a country threatened repeatedly with both attack and potential oblivion. The Arab states, with the cooperation of some Great Powers, have repeatedly hijacked the UN to serve their purposes and place Israel under one disadvantage after another.

Even though no country has been a more consistent supporter of Israel than the US following the Eisenhower administration, all US policy is subject to the winds of political change. The change in the direction and force of the political winds in the US has been made quite apparent to GOI in the past year and a half. So there is no good basis for a realistic belief within Israel that come what may Uncle Sam is there to help and protect.

The long and the short of reality is there is no mechanism for enforcing a comprehensive Mideast peace treaty, and, without such a credible mechanism, any hypothetical treaty is just so much ink on paper bound between fancy covers. Without the accomplishment of both comprehensive treaty and credible enforcement guarantees, there is no reason to think any GOI would be so eager for risk, so willing to embrace potential national suicide as to either join the NPT or abandon its nuclear arsenal.

(One caveat: It would be possible in principle but unlikely in practice given the current state of global political play for Israel to sign the NPT under terms and conditions identical to those agreed to by the original declared nuclear powers: the US, the USSR, the UK, Britain, France, and China. This would leave Israel with its bombs and bomb fabricating capability but commit it to the eventual removal of these.)

Israel may need to join the NPT so that it can acquire electrical power producing nuclear reactors, perhaps in conjunction with Jordan or Egypt. The need for more electricity without using more expensive fossil fuels may provide an impetus to accede to the treaty but only under terms such as those extended to the initial Big Six.

As a result, the only conclusion which can be offered regarding this latest UN exercise in the appealingly absurd call for a Make-the-Mideast-Nukeless in 2012 is that it is a call for way too much, way too soon. The Arab countries showing their usual maladroit practice of diplomacy made the decision to make propaganda hay while laying salt in the fields of true progress toward a desirable goal.

Mr Netanyahu, you are doing OK this time around. Even better, it looks as if for once President Obama is as well.

Obama And "Point 31"

Hidden under the plethora of ink and electrons generated by Ahmedinejad at the UN and (fortunately) inept Pakistani makers of VBIEDs, there are some real foreign policy and national security matters. This is not to deprecate the potential for major bloodletting had Faisal Shahzad been less incompetent. Nor is to minimize the dangers lurking behind the hyperbolic rhetoric and warped history purveyed by Iran's Orator-in-Chief at the UN.

Both represent clear and present harm to American national security and interests.

Still, there are times when the largest of future harms resides in cool text buried away in tedious documents read by few and acted upon by still fewer. Such is the case with a draft document currently being circulated by this year's capo of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Egypt, for the guidance of the one hundred or so countries holding membership in NAM. Deep in the bowels of this paper is Point 31.

Point 31 calls for all signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to refrain from transferring or allowing the transfer of any and all materials, equipment, and knowledge related to nuclear research and engineering to Israel unless and until that country joins the NPT. Point 31 also calls upon all signatories to the NPT (which, of course, includes the US) to disclose all information in their possession regarding the Israeli nuclear program including but not limited to a full release of all information relevant to previous transfers of equipment, technology, materials, and knowledge to the Jewish state. The Egyptian position paper is unclear if this requirement would be rendered null in the event Israel signs the NPT.

Egypt is, as it has been for many years now, plumping for the nuclear disarmament of Israel under the beguiling guise of creating a nuclear weapons free Mideast. The Egyptians are not motivated in this so far bootless quest by high minded desires to see the Mideast as an idyllic place in which heavy atoms eager to fission or light atoms equally happy to fuse are conspicuous by their absence.

The government and military command of Egypt like their counterparts throughout the Arab majority region recognize perfectly that Israel's nuclear capacity is the ultimate guarantor of Israel's existence, of Israel's capacity to defeat any hypothetical combination of adversaries, even one equipped with overwhelming superiority in the most technologically advanced warlike stores and munitions. This realization has a universal deterrent effect upon even the most zealous advocate of wiping the Zionist entity off the map.

Mark this well. It is the Israeli possession of nuclear weapons which assures Israel's survival and not any promises on the part of any and every American administration. History has proven to the satisfaction of the Israelis (at least) that the promises of an outside Great Power are not sufficient to deter a resolute and motivated enemy. They, in apparent contrast to President Obama and others in his administration, learned the single greatest lesson of World War II. That lesson is contained in the failure of the Anglo-French guarantees to Poland.

Sure, the agreement was signed. It was publicly declared to be the guiding light of national policy in both London and Paris. Yet, Hitler unleashed the panzers anyway. He was unimpressed by either the political will or material capacity of the French and British to intervene effectively on Poland's behalf.

Hitler was proven wrong. It took nearly six years and millions of dead. And, what good did Poland receive in the process? Ask the corpses of Katyn forest.

The government and people of Israel mean no disrespect to the US when they aver or imply that a country must look to its own resources to protect its own interests, chief among which is national survival. It is not so much that the Israelis do not believe the good intentions of the many American presidents (including Mr Obama) when they announce the linkage between Israel and the US, but rather, they know that reality may prove different when push comes to shove.

In this the government of Israel is no different from that of France under Charles de Gaulle. The Great Charles irked the US no end when he went his independent way with the creation of an all-French nuclear force. Small to be sure, but existing solely to protect French interests.

France was easily accepted as a nuclear power, a member of the NPT committed in theory to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. In that status France is equal to the earlier developers of nuclear arms, the US, the UK, the USSR, and China. All of these members of the "Official" Nuclear Club are equally committed to the goal of a "nuclear free"world.

Whether the same can be said of the members of the "Unofficial" Nuclear Club, those countries which have nuclear weapons but are not subscribers to the NPT is arguable. India, Pakistan, and (in an intentionally ambiguous way) Israel constitute the "Unofficial" bunch. On a purely realpolitik basis it is quite unlikely that any are in favor of proliferation. But, none are legally committed to this which puts them at inherent odds with the five big guys of the "Official" club.

It is of more than simply passing interest that the Egyptian Point 31 mentions only Israel by name. Arguably there is not even an implication that the same strictures should apply to NPT signatories with respect to the other two members of the "Unofficial" group. Perhaps this is due to an Egyptian capacity to sleep soundly given that (a) Pakistan is a fellow Islamic country and (b) India is too preoccupied with either or both Pakistan and China to spare any bombs for Egypt.

More probably the Egyptian care in labeling is based on practical politics. Cairo has no desire to annoy fellow NAM heavyweight India or its colleague in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC,) Pakistan. Assuring the full compliance of the juggernaut of the NAM or the slightly smaller bloc of the OIC means not ruffling any of the easily displaced diplomatic feathers of the highly nationalistic governments of India and Pakistan.

Point 31 does represent a diplomatic tarbaby for the Obama bunch. By so eagerly and publicly embracing the chimera of a "nuclear free" globe as well as a similar status for the Mideast, the Nice Young Man From Chicago has created a very pretty problem for himself.

Linking the threat presented by Iran with a reduction in nuclear weapons has boxed Obama quite well. It will be far, far more difficult to isolate Iran sufficiently at the current NPT review conference without giving some measure of support to the Egyptian position. At the same time, any support for Cairo's cleverly worded Point 31 will result in further intransigence on the part of Israel.

Obama has overlooked or willfully ignored the ground truth here. Without its ambiguous nuclear policy, Israel is a small, stationary target for all attackers from the suicide bomber to the combined conventional forces of the Arab "frontline states."

Obama has overlooked or willfully ignored the necessary corollary. No state can rely upon the promises of another when existential matters are involved. As Le grande Charles put it, "Is it believable that the US will put New York or even Chicago at risk to protect Paris or Lyon?"

Even if much lower stakes are involved, can any responsible government hand over the guarantee of existence to an outside power? Particularly one whose support for Israel seems to be evanescent to a degree previously unthought?

So far Iran has done a commendable job in enlisting the support of members of NAM as well as other "small" non-nuclear states with the contention that the West generally and the US in particular constitute an oppressive minority practicing the most hypocritical of policies with respect to nuclear energy. The addition of Egypt's Point 31 goes a long, long way to firm this pro-Iranian tilt at the UN.

Much of President Obama's approach deserves (cautious) commendation. But, his stance on a nuclear free world generally and a Mideast similarly lacking in nuclear weapons is misguided and counterproductive. If nothing else, Mr Obama, Ms Clinton, and others need to get a grip on the reality that pressuring Israel to join the NPT and relinquish its nuclear guarantee of national survival is as wrong as a cat barking.

Mr Obama, Ms Clinton, and the other high minded idealists of the administration also need to take a very firm grip on another reality. The opponent right now in the Mideast/Persian Gulf region is not Israel. It is Iran. And, on the diplomatic front as well as the practical one of developing a breakout capacity, Iran is winning.

This means, we--and the rest of the civilized world--are losing. Thank you, President Obama. Will you ever learn that vaporous words and invoking the shade of Saul Alinsky won't hack it in international politics? Before it is too late?

A Force Powerful And Terrible

The most powerful force abroad in the world today is not that of atoms splitting. Nor is the result of atoms joining. It has nothing to do with matters nuclear. Rather it comes solely from human nature, the fears of humans, their deep-in-the-back-of-the-brain need for membership in the herd.

The name of the force is nationalism. Its power is great; well neigh unbeatable. Its effects can be magnificent. Or terrible.

Years ago the outstanding American diplomat and historian, George Kennan, warned that the hypergolic spread of nationalism during the great wave of decolonization was producing any number of pseudo-states ill equipped in all respects for effective use of their new, unlimited sovereignty. How right he was. And is.

The collapse of empires is always messy. Whether far back in the deepest mist of antiquity, as with the empire of Rome, or closer in time, yet still distant enough to provide a full view of the consequences as with the ending of the Ottoman Empire or that of the Dual Monarchy, the results were both tumultuous and long lived. Indeed, the world is still dealing with the echo effects of the fall of the Ottomans ninety years ago.

It is small wonder that the implosion of the British, French, Portuguese, and, most recently, the Soviet Russian empires have spread so much bloody chaos in their wake. Beyond the immediate chaos, the prompt bloodshed, the result has been the creation of states without a nation at their core or nations transformed into states not by organic forces but by the legerdemain performed by desperate politicians seeking to quickly end unpleasant sorts of status quo.

To put it bluntly and in terms with which Mr Kennan would not disagree: Most of the nearly two hundred states currently represented in the UN are not equipped to exercise sovereignty responsibly. They are not equipped by experience, by social cohesion, by political stability, by economic security, by inherent tradition to act in ways which promote a stable global political order, or to join in collective efforts to creatively address regional or global problems. The nature of the problems--economic, environmental, human rights, security, stability--does not matter, there are simply too many pseudo-states cluttering the global landscape to do other than impede the securing of mutually beneficial solutions to problems great and small.

Further complicating the establishment and maintenance of a global political system competent to address effectively the great and growing problems confronting all of us with a belly button is the phenomenon of regression which has afflicted many once flourishing and effective states. The rise to power--by election or by violence--of governments driven by ideological True Belief has forced once competent international actors to regress to pseudo-states.

While never described as "failed" or "failing" states, countries such as Iran, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia have become international juvenile delinquents. If these were individuals rather than "states," their conduct would brand them as people in need of care, custody, and supervision.

Other countries, Pakistan comes to mind, have behaved and continue to behave in ways which are not conducive to regional stability. On occasion at least, Pakistan has been characterized as a "failed" or "failing" state. This designation is not fair. Nor is it accurate.

Like many other nations transformed overnight into "states," Pakistan was and is long, very long in basic national identifiers, most importantly the Islamic religion. It has been and is short, very short on the structures and attitudes which provide for effective international conduct as a sovereign state.

The nationalism which forced the splitting of the British Raj into the sovereign states of Pakistan and India had immediate and profound effects which impaired the capacity of both to function as effective and responsible actors in international affairs. The bloody border between the two which was not made any less bloody by the several wars between them had the effect of stunting the growth of both, but particularly Pakistan, as states ready and able to play constructive roles in international politics.

Events of the past several years indicate India has gone a long way to overcoming the extremes of nationalism which colored its earlier existence. Its actions on the international scene show India to be both a cunning and able pursuer of national interest and an effective, responsible international actor.

The same cannot be said of Pakistan. However, Pakistan is not alone in the category of being a nation in search of statedom. There are many, many others. There are, for example, the tribal, semi-feudal, Islam hagridden oil "states" of the Persian Gulf. There are as well any number of African countries which are so tribal as to not be nations let alone states.

The colonization of Africa by assorted European Powers aborted any indigenous process of forming nations and from them states. The natural propensity of people to assume the status quo would never change went a very long way to assuring that the African properties would be denied the chance to form the national identity and institutions which are the sine qua non of statehood. That historical reality can neither be denied nor speedily rectified.

This admission of reality does not give license for the preposterous notion that tribal assemblages kitted out as "states" should have a sovereign equality with the genuine article as is the current case in all international fora including but not limited to the UN. The UN and all similar entities were founded on a pair of unsupportable notions.

The very well meaning representatives of genuine nation-states who came together in San Francisco at the end of WW II confounded the idea "nation" with that of "state." That notion, specious as it was, paled into insignificance with the second wrong idea: Groups of tribes surrounded by discrete lines on a map, constituted self-conscious "nations" bound together by common language, culture, history, and defining mythology.

A similar distortion of reality came with the assumption that feudal societies founded on religious identity and ruled by autocrats more or less hereditary in nature were also competent nation-states capable and willing to act on a basis of equality with the complexly organized states of Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The specious nature of this tender-hearted assumption has been demonstrated amply by the conduct of the Arab sheikdoms over the past sixty plus years with regard to Israel and the Palestinians.

The only justification--and it is a powerful one--is the recognition back in the glory days of the UN's founding of the potency and prevalence of nationalism. Nationalism was and remains a force, the force which is not to be denied.

The truth of that contention as well as the inevitable centripetal effects of nationalism rises to high visibility in much of the world today. Russia is seeking--so far without demonstrable success--to reconquer ethnic and religious groups on its margins. Religiously reinforced tribal antipathies threaten more than one African country. The same dynamic works is bloody way in China and a few other Asian mainland states. And, the emergence to power of Los Indios or the quest for such has ripped across the South American landscape.

Offshoots or products of nationalism have popped up across both Europe and the US. The use of derogatory terms--xenophobia, nativism, Islamophobia--conceal but do not alter the reality that nationalism is not a force confined to distant, lesser developed or politically challenged countries.

Humans evolved as herd animals. That is a cliche of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. There was--and is--safety in the midst of the herd. It is the outriders and outliers who run the risk of losing in the race for survival.

And, what is the "herd?"

Simple, bucko, the preferred herd is a group of people who are closest to us and most like us. It is not simply the group closest to us in geography. It is also those who are most alike in color and shape, most alike in beliefs and values, most alike in the back of the brain: the shared mythology which is the potent but typically uncredited source of collective identity.

Mere geographic propinquity is reinforced by the epoxy of language, the glue of religion, the cement of a shared sense of having been victimized, exploited, marginalized, denied a full sense and reality of losing control of one's personhood to the will of an external "Other." The necessary result is the demand to gain full, unfettered control of a given territory and the people who live there. Usually this demand is accompanied by a shrill cry that all who are not-like-us leave our territory instantly if not sooner.

So comes "ethnic cleansing" in all its manifold expressions.

It is, of course, far easier to diagnose and describe nationalism and its consequences than it is to creatively and effectively deal with them--particularly the consequences. However, unless the reality of nationalism and the universality of the phenomenon are acknowledged, there is no possibility of coming to grips with the ills that come in its wake.

Many within the American hoi oligoi sincerely believe that we live in a post-national world, that the world is or should be seen not as a hodgepodge of entities but a single globe holding a single race. They hold an authentic and strong belief in multi-culturalism, cultural relativism, and the legitimacy as well as the necessity of international institutions.

The unpleasant ground truth is that these folk live alone in the post-national environment. The rest of the people, the assorted non-elites of the world live elsewhere. They live in a world where nationalism is the ultimate force.

And, that, bucko, is the other truth on which we must all get a grip. Only then can we have any hope of getting out of the mess created by our well-intended, well-meaning but out-to-lunch progenitors in San Francisco and so many other places.