Friday, January 31, 2003
[posted by jaed at 8:19 AM]For the perplexed
Cinderella Bloggerfeller offers Moq's Guide to Central Asia:
The Kazakhs are the Americans of Central Asia. They like wide open spaces, big slabs of meat, crude oil, horses, whoopin' an' a-hollerin'. They are divided into three groups - The Great Horde in the East, which is dominant; the Little Horde in the West, which is innovative and has the natural resources; and the Middle Horde, which sits in the middle of wheat fields and gets jeered at by the rest.
There's more. Much more. Heh.
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
[posted by jaed at 8:58 PM]Multilateralism as a moral imperative
Another "coming into focus" moment, provoked by this week's Stratfor email freebie analysis [side note: is it just me, or is Stratfor getting good again?]. The email analyzes the reasons for European attachment to multilateralism:
Multilateralism -- the creation of multinational institutions and a multinational mode of thought -- is the Europeans' response to their history. It has become a moral category. The United States, however, has a very different history and a very different set of fears. The United States has no historical reason for fearing its own nationalism, but it does have reason to fear inaction.
[...]
There is an ethical imperative here. The view is that nationalism is the problem that drove the world to catastrophe in two world wars -- and that multinational organizations are more than simply useful contrivances that serve the interests of various nations; they are moral enterprises whose very existence helps save the world from conflict.
[...]
For European leaders, multilateralism is a moral category, designed to restrain the brutal consequences of nationalism.
Interesting. As an American, I tend to view European cries of "unilateralism! Bad! Bad!" as simple whines to the effect of "You're disobeying us!" (Especially when the US has plenty of allies and friends - just not the ones screaming "Unilateralism!") The complaint comes across as both hypocritical and self-interested. But if "multilateralism" means, not "paying attention to the needs of other countries, especially friends" - which is how Americans tend to interpret it - and instead means something like "submitting one's country to institutions that were designed to prevent another lethal outbreak of European triumphalist nationalism", it makes more sense.
(Still not much sense, mind. I somehow don't see the US wanting an empire. But the concept that Europeans are seeing the ghosts of their past in the US unwillingness to be tied down by the UN - it ties together much European reaction for me, from the complaints about "unilateralism" to Pilger's bizarre complaint that the US is actually Nazi Germany.)
[posted by jaed at 7:34 PM]
The idea has been rattling around vaguely in my head that we're headed into a new cold war, one with a German/French-dominated EU. This bit in NR "The Corner" brought some focus to me:
The French "appeasement" of Iraq is now a means to an end, a leverage point from which to challenge American power. [...] I�m not sure that allowing a given brute or tyrant to flourish, so long as it serves your interests [...] should really qualify as appeasement.
It occurs to me that this was somewhat our strategy during the Cold War. The US cuddled up to many disgusting dictators, either because they were anti-Soviet, or because the alternative rulers would have taken their countries into the Soviet orbit, or simply because the State Department wanted to avoid the dreaded "instability" (in a MAD world, not an unreasonable boas to have). We allowed "brutes and tyrants to flourish" because (as the foreign policy of the time saw it, at least), we had to do that in order to win against our enemy, not being strong enough (see MAD) to fight directly.
The comparison isn't precise, of course. But I find it a sobering thought anyway.
Monday, January 27, 2003
[posted by jaed at 6:29 PM]Not just a river in Egypt
Just heard on Channel 10 local news: "Weapons inspectors tell the UN that Saddam is in denial." Say what?
(And here I was thinking that "therapeutic sentimentality" was too snarky a phrase to have used just now....)
[posted by jaed at 6:16 PM]
Still opposed to fighting Iraq and deposing its governance? Take five minutes out of your day and read this. This is not news to Iraqis, in Iraq or not. It is news to too many Americans, however, and it's something Americans need to understand before they can speak and think clearly about whether the US should fight Iraq or ignore it.
If you can get through it and still think Saddam Hussein should be retained in power by any means necessary - even at the risk of an attack on an American city with gas or a nuke - well, if you can make that case in a way that satisfies your conscience, more power to you.
But if you've been protesting because "Dubya is more dangerous than Saddam!", or because it will help the Democratic Party, or because you have a kindly if slightly fuzzy sense that war is always bad (if the US is the country making it), take a look. Read. And think about this:
If you oppose this war for such reasons - domestic political factionalism, or therapeutic sentimentality, or simple neglect to find out what's actually going on in the world - and you ever meet any actual Iraqis, how are you going to look them in the eye?
Saturday, January 25, 2003
[posted by jaed at 12:31 PM]Warmongering American Cowboys versus Euro Small Sausages - Can This Marriage Be Saved?
Anti-Europeanism in America, written by a British academic. Interesting both for the source - you might say a British academic stands between the two sides - and for the sense one gets that he's bending over backward to comprehend this surprising phenomenon.
(Yes, I am being sarcastic. But the article is well worth reading, even though the attitudes it describes aren't at all news to an American.)
Friday, January 24, 2003
[posted by jaed at 11:56 AM]Perfidious Gaul
In the NYT, Safire outlines the German/French strategy to gain control of the EU (and, not incidentally, split it off from Britain and the US).
The desire to maintain lucrative Iraq oil contracts is only part of it and only the shortest-term goal. But it does nicely explain why France decided to chop Colin Powell off at the knees Monday.
Thursday, January 23, 2003
[posted by jaed at 9:18 PM]Take a moment to remember
Instapundit reminds us that Danny Pearl was kidnapped a year ago today.
I have a copy of the propaganda videotape that was made of his murder. I still haven't been able to bring myself to watch it.
[posted by jaed at 1:41 PM]
Genetic Savings & Clone. (Found via One Hand Clapping.)
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
[posted by jaed at 8:08 PM]DVDs and Directors
Slate copyright article (with, parenthetically, a delphic title: "Bowdlerizing for Columbine"? What does that even mean?) on several companies that provide "skip-the-sex-scenes" DVDs and Hollywood's attempt to put a stop to this on what are essentially moral-rights grounds ("the director has the right to prevent the movie from being seen other than as he intended it to be seen"). Some of the companies actually make a copy with certain parts deleted (though they buy a separate copy for each modified one they sell), others use a special DVD player with blocking software for each movie.
The legal reasoning has implications for a number of matters, from DVD mods to allow the viewer to fast-forward through the ads (currently illegal under the DMCA) to the perennial argument by some web designers that turning off stylesheets, image downloads, and so on interferes with their artistic integrity [ed: snort.]. The case will be worth watching.
