NYT Blather

The New York Times says...

These days America finds itself at once uniquely strong and vulnerable, the only superpower and a target of envy, hostility and suspicion around much of the globe. The Bush administration has clearly been tempted to go it alone in this new environment, dodging any international undertakings that the United States does not completely control.

Perhaps the NYT would prefer if we abdicated authority to those with "envy, hostility and suspicion" throughout the world. That our president acts in our interests is a good thing. The Belgians didn't elect him, we did.

President Bush has shown skill in working with Russia and other nations to put together a coalition to fight terrorism. But there are other critical problems in the world, some equally important to our own future and others of pressing concern to the people whose good will we need to fight terror abroad. They include global warming, proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons, fighting infectious diseases like AIDS and malaria and assuring the prosecution of war criminals. The United States does not rule the world, and the administration needs to think more creatively and strategically about how this country works with the rest of the planet. A dash of humility might be a help, too.

Humility for whom, Mr. Raines? You can lecture the US about global warming just as soon as you come clean on the responsibilities of the rest of the world for their own messes. Starting with China would be a good start. Plenty of content there. As for proliferation of nukes and biological weapons: what the hell do you think Bush is doing? Iraq, Iran, North Korea...ring any bells here, morons? AIDS? Not exactly our fault, people, and yet we've raised more money for a cure for this plague than we have for heart disease. Oh, yes- malaria. Three letters: D D T. While the ecopessimists were busy protecting the world from this "scourge", millions throughout the world died from a disease which might have been containable, if not, preventable. Finally, the Europeans can focus their time and energy on the prosecution of war criminals; we're much more interested in winning the war, first.

A vocal segment of Mr. Bush's core right-wing constituency constantly urges the administration to steer clear of international agreements that it sees as a threat to our sovereignty. Its targets range from a still-unratified 1980 agreement protecting women against political and economic discrimination and physical abuse to the brand-new International Criminal Court. Mr. Bush's willingness to listen to this group is likely to grow more pronounced as he positions himself and the Republican Party for the Congressional elections this fall and the presidential campaign in 2004.

"Right-wing","protecting women"," discrimination", "abuse." Boiler plate. And yet..

The president's concerns about international accords are understandable, if not necessarily justified. Some countries take delight in embarrassing America, and when the United States joins in a compact to combat a social malady like racism or sexism, other members may prefer looking for flaws in the superpower's own performance to recognizing egregious violations of human rights by others. The conference on racism last year in South Africa, which degenerated into a food fight over whether to equate Zionism with racism, was a good example of how counterproductive international efforts can be if they fall prey to regional political agendas.

Does that mean we're still the bad guy?

But in all the years during which the United States has taken part in international accords, examples of anti-Americanism run amok are few and far between. The United States does need to protect itself and its citizens from the possibility that smaller nations will gang up on Americans just because they suddenly find they can. But there is a vast space between that kind of reasonable caution and the administration's current attitude.

Anyone in New York disagree with that assessment?

Encouragingly, the White House now appears willing to draw back from its threat to veto further United Nations peacekeeping operations as part of its continuing campaign against the new International Criminal Court. But the administration showed a reckless willingness to jeopardize these valuable missions. Meanwhile, its misguided opposition to the international court continues.

These "valuable missions" were taking place before the ICC came along. It is the ICC and it's insistence upon absolute authority over foreign nationals which has endangered the viability of future and current missions. Not the other way around.

The White House's response to global warming has been thoroughly discouraging. It fears that an international effort to limit greenhouse gases would have an impact on the American economy, which is probably correct. The United States, with just 5 percent of the world's population, emits 25 percent of those gases. Reducing those levels cannot be done without some sacrifice. But the rest of the world is right in demanding that we accept the responsibility and make the effort nonetheless. If the United States wants to be the political and moral leader of the world, it has to comply. The administration has had plenty of time to offer serious alternative proposals for reducing those emissions. Instead, it has simply walked away from the global effort.

First of all, the science is still very much in question on this issue. The degree to which GW is happening, the role of future technology, natural weather cycles, and many other contributing factors are still unknown to us. Advocating a highly intrusive policy without proper consideration of the role the economy will play in solving the dilemma is also foolhardy. Until we know more, holding off on Draconian measures which might devastate our economy is quite sensible.

The administration takes the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons dangers extremely seriously, to the point of threatening pre-emptive military attacks. Yet military action can provide, at best, only a partial answer. Keeping these weapons out of the hands of Iran, Libya or Al Qaeda depends heavily on upholding the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and strengthening the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention, efforts the Bush administration has opposed. The White House is right when it argues that some countries sign treaties and then break their word. The answer is better enforcement, not abstention.

These treaties fool no one anymore. Least of all the rogue nations who violate them. The Times further lecturing us on the need for stronger enforcement is too laughable to address.

Washington has been inexplicably miserly in the global effort to combat H.I.V./AIDS and other infectious diseases. The U.N. is seeking an extra $7 billion to $10 billion annually, of which Washington's fair share would be about $2.5 billion. America's actual contribution is one-tenth that amount.

Fair share? That we find it objectionable to fund the UN in this endeavor is not an indication of our unwillingness to help poor sick African children. We just don't trust the UN to spend money. Given their track record, why should we?

Global leadership requires more than visionary statements and forceful American actions. Washington needs to be a leader, not a spoiler, in efforts to build international cooperation.

Memo from NY Times Editorial Staff to US: Quit fighting the efforts of outside interests to contain us. Go along, get along. We don't deserve what we have.

'State' of Disarray

World Tribune is reporting that a US State Department investigation of itself has resulted in the firing of it's most senior career diplomat. Apparently US visas were sold to over 70 Middle Eastern nationals, including some connected to the 9/11 attacks, for upwards of $10,000 each.

ABC News identified one State Department employee as a U.S. citizen and the other as a Jordanian national. The television network reported that one of those who bribed the two embassy employees was Rasmi Al Shannaq, a Jordanian national who is believed to have roomed with two of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers and was arrested on June 24.

This scandal doesn't point to a need for stricter legislation, new criminal penalties, additional congressional oversight, or new Oracle software. People need to be fired and prosecuted. The message must be delivered that apathetic and selective enforcement of the executive mandate will no longer be tolerated from this department. That means you, staffers. Powell may not be responsible for this problem, originally--most of these bureaucrats were here before his arrival--but it's his to deal with now. Damn the feelings of these people, Colin. We've got a war to win.

And the 'Shoe-Phone' for best penetration of an enemy database goes to...

Safire hands out his "Spook Awards", based on unnamed sources in the intel community.

George Will nails it with this piece about the ICC.

Although the ICC is supposed to advance the rule of law around the world, it is potentially -- even inherently -- inimical to the rule of law. And it is retrograde -- premodern, actually -- because it affronts the principle that every institution wielding power over others should be accountable to someone.

Granola update

The Economist has an excellent piece on the global environment(It's in several parts, click the link at the bottom of each page to advance). Thanks to Erik Langner for pointing it out. It seems they have encapsulated the two trains of thought in terms of optimism vs. pessimism, too...

WHAT is the true state of the planet? It depends from which side you are peering at it. “Things are really looking up,” comes the cry from one corner (usually overflowing with economists and technologists), pointing to a set of rosy statistics. “Disaster is nigh,” shouts the other corner (usually full of ecologists and environmental lobbyists), holding up a rival set of troubling indicators.

A recurrent theme throughout this survey is the need for more and better information on the environment. Responsibility at a local level and consideration of economic impact are also deemed essential factors in dealing with the issue. Most of all, they recognize that..

“NOTHING endures but change.” That observation by Heraclitus often seems lost on modern environmental thinkers. Many invoke scary scenarios assuming that resources—both natural ones, like oil, and man-made ones, like knowledge—are fixed. Yet in real life man and nature are entwined in a dynamic dance of development, scarcity, degradation, innovation and substitution. The nightmare about China turning into a resource-guzzling America raises two questions: will the world run out of resources? And even if it does not, could the growing affluence of developing nations lead to global environmental disaster?
The first fear is the easier to refute; indeed, history has done so time and again. Malthus, Ricardo and Mill all worried that scarcity of resources would snuff out growth. It did not. A few decades ago, the limits-to-growth camp raised worries that the world might soon run out of oil, and that it might not be able to feed the world's exploding population. Yet there are now more proven reserves of petroleum than three decades ago; there is more food produced than ever; and the past decade has seen history's greatest economic boom.
What made these miracles possible? Fears of oil scarcity prompted investment that led to better ways of producing oil, and to more efficient engines. In food production, technological advances have sharply reduced the amount of land required to feed a person in the past 50 years. Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University calculates that if in the next 60 to 70 years the world's average farmer reaches the yield of today's average (not best) American maize grower, then feeding 10 billion people will require just half of today's cropland. All farmers need to do is maintain the 2%-a-year productivity gain that has been the global norm since 1960.
“Scarcity and Growth”, a book published by Resources for the Future, sums it up brilliantly: “Decades ago Vermont granite was only building and tombstone material; now it is a potential fuel, each ton of which has a usable energy content (uranium) equal to 150 tons of coal. The notion of an absolute limit to natural resource availability is untenable when the definition of resources changes drastically and unpredictably over time.” Those words were written by Harold Barnett and Chandler Morse in 1963, long before the limits-to-growth bandwagon got rolling.

Dispassionate science, here we come!

You're not a pet owner, you're a pet "guardian". So says the Los Angeles Animal Services Commission in today's LA Times(front page, no less).

Thousands of pets across Los Angeles might soon find themselves no longer straining under the yoke of "owners." Denouncing the word as demeaning to pets, animal-rights activists are urging the City Council to strike the term from local codes and replace it with "guardian." Prodded by In Defense of Animals, a rights group based in Mill Valley, Calif., the Los Angeles Animal Services Commission last month unanimously voted to replace the term in its documents and conversations. On July 22, the three members of the commission will consider whether to urge the City Council to make the policy citywide.

How long before the Taco Bell chihuahua testifies at hearings?

A PICTURE'S WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS

Daschle's London desk is to be commended for this plug. In the talking point memo, er, article, Financial Times does eventually state, in the last sentence ...

Documents obtained by the Centre for Public Integrity, a watchdog, said the SEC found in 1991 that Mr Bush had insufficient knowledge of Harken's losses to have traded improperly on the information when he sold his stock.

Yeah, but, great headshot Tom.