A few EU tidbits.
I am working on a longer post, but here are a few smaller EU items to fill in until I am done:

EU Headquarters:Eurocrats in Brussels found themselves in the hot seat- literally- after news came out that two saunas have been installed in the EU HQ despite budget issues:

The European Commission was in a sweat on Tuesday after it emerged that two saunas -- one for the exclusive use of the 25 Commissioners -- had been installed in its renovated Brussels headquarters.

[snip]

The Commission moved back into the refurbished star-shaped Berlaymont building last year after being forced to evacuate the landmark in 1991 when it was found to be riddled with asbestos.

The renovation by the EU's Belgian hosts ran years behind schedule and tens of millions of euros over budget.

So why did they do it? They were "simply trying to make staff from Sweden and Finland feel at home" after they joined the EU. Now where are those prostitutes from the Netherlands?

The UK:
A British prisoner has filed suit to regain the right to vote, and the BBC has run a comparative piece on the suffrage of prisoners in the EU and the world:

The UK, it seems, has plenty of company in denying prisoners the vote. A total of eight European states - mainly from the former Eastern Bloc - have a similar blanket ban, according to the Prison Reform Trust.

In addition, five more countries have no provisions to allow prisoners to vote.

As this case could have an impact on EU common law it is not unreasonable to examine how other EU countries deal with the incarcerated and voting. Those scallywags at the BBC just couldn't resist this though:

Conviction rates among ethnic minorities in the US are much higher than rates among white people. As a result, a much higher proportion of black and Hispanic people are excluded from the vote.

This has prompted criticism and even several lawsuits claiming racial discrimination - particularly in Florida, where it is estimated almost one-third of black people are denied the vote.

The state was crucial in deciding the 2000 presidential election in favour of George W Bush and his Republican Party. Many in the defeated Democrat Party blamed the disqualification of ethnic minorities - traditional Democrat voters - for their loss.

Journalism at it's finest. Truly a shining moment for the Beeb.

FRANCE:
Faced with an ever increasing spread between the cost of labor and profitabilty one French firm has struck upon a novel solution: don't just send the jobs to Romania- send the employees too. One catch- those who relocate would be paid Romanian scale salaries:

A company in eastern France has sparked outrage by suggesting to nine workers who were made redundant that they accept jobs in Romania for a monthly wage of EUR 110 (USD 140), officials said.

[snip]

Local union leader Alain Brignon called the proposal "scandalous" but noted: "110 euros a month is still 30 euros more than Romania's minimum wage."

In France, minimum wage stands at about EUR 1,300 for a 35-hour week.

Not suprisingly none of the nine accepted- of course the unemployment benefits aren't too bad, in fact they beat the hell out of working in Romania!

I realize that everyday equally odd stories make it into the news in the US, but sometimes after a hard day in the salt mines of US-EU diplomacy I just need to chuckle at my counterparts and I just had to share those with you.

More to come tonight, hopefully.

(End of post).

Read the rest of this post!

4/28/2005 01:08:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |

Compare and Contrast
Today marks the 90th anniversary of the invasion at Gallipoli in World War One- according to this report:

The landings, which infamously saw coastal waters stained red with the blood of dead soldiers, were intended to open a passage through the Dardanelle Straits separating Europe from Asia to provide a relief route to allied Russia via the Black Sea. Instead, the expedition ended in retreat and failure after eight months of what Helen Clark, the New Zealand prime minister, described as "hell".

Among those who suffered the greatest losses were the Anzacs, the Australian and New Zealand army corps, who made the first landings, swept by an unexpected current to a narrow cove rather than the planned wide beaches.

Many Australians and New Zealanders view this battle as a watershed moment for their nation, and approximately 11,000 of them gathered in Gallipoli to remember those who lost their lives in the ill fated campaign nearly a century ago.

Compare that to Germany where survivors of the Holocaust and the forces that fought in the battles to liberate Europe from Nazism are gathering for the 60th anniversary of the end of the war. 50% of the German youth cannot correctly identify what the Holocaust was:

One young German in two does not know what the Holocaust was, according to the results of a survey released Friday. Although about 80 percent of Germans were able to identify the Holocaust as the Nazi extermination campaign against European Jews, the figure was only 51.4 percent among Germans under the age of 24. The poll on German history by independent research institute Forschungsgruppe Wahlen for public broadcaster ZDF and the newspaper Die Welt showed that in every age group, women (21.3 percent) were twice as likely not to recognize the term "Holocaust" than men (9.9 percent). The telephone survey was conducted in March among 1,087 Germans with a margin of error of 3.1 percent. The editor for contemporary and cultural history at Die Welt, Sven Felix Kellerhoff, told AFP that the results were alarming. "We are kidding ourselves if we think we can lean back and be satisfied with our knowledge of German history, particularly in light of the terrible results on the Holocaust question," he said. "We all have our work cut out for us."

Is it any wonder which that the Aussies and Kiwis support the war on terror and the Germans oppose all action? We are talking about a battle that took place 90 years ago and an event from which survivors (and perpatrators) are still alive. The Holocaust and WWII are still living history. How can it even be remotely possible that German kids do not know what the term means? Where are the German counterparts to this young man:

"I had to make a pilgrimage here," said 22-year-old Ben Hutchinson, who wrapped himself in an Australian flag. Gallipoli "was the first real bonding of Australia as a country. It's something that formed our identity."

I am not of the opinion that all Germans alive today share the blame for the atrocities committed by the Nazis. But WWII and the cold-blooded , calculated murder of millions of men, women and children in addition to tens of millions who died as a direct result of the war are occured in the much too recent past to be forgotten- let alone possibly repeated. Our German "friends" could use a history lesson- perhaps the folks from down under can give them a hand- I seem to recall the Germans had some involvement in World War One as well. Both of those wars certainly had something to do with the forming of German identity.

To our friends from Australia and New Zealand, and all of the allied nations who lost men at Gallipoli, we join you in remembering them.

And now every April I sit on my porch

And I watch the parade pass before me

And I watch my old comrades, how proudly they march

Reliving old dreams of past glory

And the old men march slowly, all bent, stiff and sore

The forgotten heroes from a forgotten war

And the young people ask, "What are they marching for?"

And I ask myself the same question

And the band plays Waltzing Matilda

And the old men answer to the call

But year after year their numbers get fewer

Some day no one will march there at all
Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda

Who'll come a waltzing Matilda with me

And their ghosts may be heard as you pass the Billabong

Who'll come-a-waltzing Matilda with me

Read the rest of this post!

4/26/2005 04:06:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |

“we support the fight against malaria, but…”

Last Friday was Earth Day, and I am willing to bet that very few, if any, of the “celebrations” that marked the day touched on today- Africa Malaria Day. Malaria is the single largest cause of death in Africa- ahead of aids, even:

'Malaria kills one child every thirty seconds, about 3000 children every day, one in the five of the 4.6 million deaths in Africa each year is attributed to malaria and over one million people die of malaria each year, the report states in part. Also, more than 900,000 children under five years of age in Sub-Sahara Africa die of malaria.

As a heavy disease burden, an estimated 300-600 million people suffer from malaria each year, and the number of fever cases requiring treatment for malaria in children is much higher at an estimated 1-2 billion. The data from the same report indicates that more than 40% of the world population lives in malaria-risk areas, and 'it is more damaging to pregnant women, their unborn children, and this result into maternal anemia and low birth weight. Malaria in pregnancy kills up to 200,000 newborn babies each year'.

The United States donates $19 billion a year in foreign aid, yet millions of children are dying as a result of mosquito bites. Why? Because the environmental lobby in America and the rest of the world won the battle over DDT in the 1970’s:

The EPA held seven months of hearings in 1971-1972, with scientists giving evidence both for and against the use of DDT. At the end of the hearings, the hearing examiner, Edmund Sweeney, ruled that the scientific evidence provided no basis for banning DDT. In the summer of 1972 Ruckelshaus reviewed evidence collected during the agency's hearings as well as reports prepared by two DDT study groups (the Hilton and Mrak Commissions) that had both come to the opposite conclusion. He did not actually attend any of the EPA commission's hearings however, and according to his aides did not read any transcripts of it. Ruckelshaus overturned Sweeny's ruling and announced a ban on virtually all uses of DDT in the U.S., where it was classified in EPA Toxicity Class II. Ruckelshaus argued that the pesticide was "a warning that man may be exposing himself to a substance that may ultimately have a serious effect on his health." (Tren & Bate, 2004)(Milloy, 1999).

The left has their Silent Spring legacy- as Al Gore said in his preface to the 1994 edition:

Without this book, the environmental movement might have been long delayed or never have developed at all," declared then-Vice President Albert Gore in his introduction to the 1994 edition. The foreword to the 25th anniversary edition accurately declared, "It led to environmental legislation at every level of government."

As a result of that legislation no American diplomat is making the case for the renewed use of DDT in Africa or any other malaria stricken region, regardless of the veracity of the science. So called “liberal” nations like those found in the EU are willing to see countless children die of malaria- and even threaten the existence of those who manage to survive if they do so through the use of DDT:

The chief of the EU mission in Uganda, Sigurd Illing, said there could be dire consequences for outgoing trade with Europe -- which accounts for more than 30 percent of Uganda's total exports -- if DDT was detected in such goods.

"We support the fight against malaria ... but we wanted to make a general warning that all considerations should be made before the spraying," she told AFP by phone

And there it is: “we support the fight against malaria, but…” Never mind the dead children, or the $347,000,000 Uganda spends treating malaria. That is nearly 10% of the GDP of the entire nation., and that is just one nation in Africa.

Stopping malaria in Africa is easy. Admitting that science- liberal approved science in any case, might be wrong is hard. And so we have Kyoto at all costs, euthanization of children, and of course prohibitions against DDT.

While the Al Gore's of the world celebrate Earth Day and bask in the warm fuzzy they get from saving birds while children die needlessly, the mothers and fathers of countless dead children in Africa have their own legacy of the lessons learned from the book that launched the modern environmentalist movement. They would glady take the infinitesmal risk posed by DDT to have their children alive.

Read the rest of this post!

4/25/2005 05:11:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |

Bono to Canada: Give us more fish!

Frequent readers of the Demarche know that we seldom pass up an opportunity to take a poke at Canada- I mean it is so easy, and even if you do feel a bit tawdry after slugging softballs over the northern border it just has to be done occasionally. At the same time, liberal “stars” that use their entertainment platform to berate the rest of the world drive me batty, too. So in the case of Bono v. Martin it is hard for me to take sides. Both of the key figures are an annoyance to me.

Per The National Post:
Bono 'bewildered, disappointed' by Martin's performance on foreign aidAdd Irish rock star Bono to the list of people Paul Martin has frustrated. In an interview with the CBC yesterday, the U2 front man said he was "bewildered" and "disappointed" by the Prime Minister's decision not to raise Canada's foreign aid goal to 0.7% of the country's gross domestic product by 2015. "This is no time to just turn inward," he told radio host Anthony Germain. "I know there's problems here at home but ... don't lose your focus, Prime Minister, on how history will remember this moment." In a telephone interview from Vancouver, Bono blasted Canada for not living up to its capability, particularly at a time when the country is enjoying a surplus. Bono recited Mr. Martin's telephone number on the air, encouraging Canadians to call and complain.

I find this phenomenon both amusing, and annoying. The last time I checked Bono was Irish. It just seems a little odd to me that an Irish pop star is berating the Prime Minister of any nation other than Ireland about their foreign aid. Critics of foreign aid levels given by “rich” nations to “poor” nations love to use the .7% of GDP yard stick to push for ever increasing levels of aid. While that would be a handy tool if we lived in the perfectly socialist world that many if these critics dream of, the simple fact is that this is an arbitrary target- Ireland gave .39% in 2004 and Canada gave .26%- in actual useful terms that means Ireland gave just over half a billion U.S. dollars, while Canada gave $2.5 U.S. (the United States- always a target for the .16% given rang in at $19 billion)(click here to see the data behind those numbers). I like to refer to this direct aid as the giving of fish- as in "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Of course to entertain this argument one has to believe that foreign aid, in the form of direct cash infusions, actually works. It is my opinion, as expressed on this blog in the past that this type of aid outside of emergency action (such as the tsunami aid) does not work. As The Economist put it in 1998:

Reviewing earlier research and drawing on new work for this book, Messrs Dollar and Pritchett establish, first, that the raw correlation between aid and growth is near zero: more aid does not mean more growth. Perhaps other factors mask an underlying link, they concede; perhaps aid is deliberately given to countries growing very slowly (creating a misleading negative correlation between aid and growth, and biasing the numbers). On closer study of such complications, however, the result holds. No correlation: aid does not promote growth.
[snip]
The waste revealed by these figures is the result of a pattern of aid that is almost exactly the opposite of what effective reduction of poverty requires. Countries with good policies should get more aid than countries with bad policies. Actually they get less. This would be justified if aid encouraged countries to improve their policies, but on the whole it does not. For every case where aid has promoted reform there is a case where it has retarded it. Aid can keep bad governments in business; and promises to improve policy, made when the aid is first offered, are often forgotten once it has been delivered. The effort to encourage policy reform—if that is what today’s pattern of aid describes—has been made at an enormous cost in terms of unrelieved poverty.

Polling data indicates that most Americans support the idea of combining aid with the development of the receiving countries' economy- in a Program on International Policy Attitudes poll "71% agreed that, "It is important to help poor countries develop their economies so that they can become more self-sufficient." If you accept the idea that policy change and aid must be combined to draw a nation out of poverty the logical question is: where can we look to find an example of aid combined with good policies that has shown results? The suprising answer: Bono’s homeland of Ireland.

After the country hit economic bottom in the 1950s, the government stopped banning foreign investment, cut corporate taxes, made grants to modernize industry and lowered tariffs. More significantly, Ireland joined the European Union (then known as the European Economic Community) in 1974 and began receiving billions of dollars in subsidies and development funds. “The most important impact has been access to the European market that [membership] provides, which in turn has been a major attraction for foreign investment,” says Tony Fahey, a professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin. “The real driver of our prosperity is investment by American companies”—nearly 600 at last count, which have invested nearly $35 billion and hired more than 90,000 people—“that wanted to get into the European market,”

Now I realize that Ireland is not Uganda and that there existed even in the worst economic times in Ireland vast differences in the “poverty” there and that found in much of the third world. But this combination of aid and good policy did much more than just relieve poverty in Ireland:

Beginning in the late 1980s, an economic boom known as the Celtic Tiger and fueled mainly by foreign investment propelled the country from an agricultural to a high-tech economy, altogether bypassing any heavy industrialization stage. In what The Economist called “one of the most remarkable economic transformations of recent times,” the country catapulted from one of the poorest in the European Union, on a par with Greece and Portugal, to the sixth-highest, ahead of Germany.

Wikipedia offers an excellent readout of what that means in real terms:

-Disposable income soared to record levels enabling a huge rise in consumer spending. It became a common sight to see expensive cars and designer labels around the nation's towns and cities.
- Unemployment fell from 18% in the late 1980s to 4.2% in 2005 and average industrial wages grew at one of the highest rates in Europe.
- Inflation regularly brushed 5% per annum, pushing Irish prices up to match those of the Nordic Europe. Groceries were particularly hard hit, prices in chain stores in the Republic of Ireland were sometimes up to twice those in Northern Ireland
- Public debt was dramatically cut (it stood at about 34% of GDP by the end of 2001) to become one of Europe's lowest, enabling public spending to double without any significant increase in taxation levels.

Bono may well have missed the Celtic Tiger years- after all that period coincided with U2’s heyday- in 2001 alone the group earned nearly $62 million. One would imagine than that they have donated extremely large sums of money to the cause of reducing global poverty- not billions, of course, but certainly millions upon millions. Perhaps they have- but if so it has been done quietly. A Google search revealed a recent donation of €50,000 and an older donation of €40,000- and note that not all of this was for fighting global poverty.

Neither of those are petty amounts by the average person’s standard to be sure. But is Bono really an average guy? Not only is he taking on the PM of Canada, Bono wants the U.S to pony up another $1 billion to fight aids and what do average people think of his views on how their tax dollars should be spent?

I was wondering if Bono thinks that the money should be taken orally or by injection to cure HIV/AIDS? The US has for years been giving to MS without curing it. Cancer? Yes all the donated money has also cured it, DOH!. Seems that everyone thinks that nothing can ever be accomplished without massive amounts of money being "Given" to them. Research is research..... there is no magic monetary multiplier that will make things happen. But if you can do nothing else, you can always extend out a hand and ask the US for money to fund the project. I believe that, if checked, that the US is at present one of, if not THE largest contributor to AIDS research. Maybe Bono should check the facts before making silly comments made basically to inflame and put the Bono name in the news. Bono is an AIDS research scientist, right? Foanheart, USA

I disagree with bono because as a person who pays a lot of tax every and work hard to earn my pay its ticks me off when St. Bono comes along and comes up with a new idea of taking more cash from heavily taxed Americans, Irish, French or whoever and he doesn't plan to donate any of his own money. So if bono donates half of his fortune maybe then governments should donate some money. What do all the AIDS charities do with the cash they get? Ronan O'D. dublin,Rep of Ireland

I realize that those quote might not have contributed much to the post, but I found them really amusing and so there they are. My point in all of this is that infusions of cash do not work (and the public does not support them)- if they did we would have seen massive decreases in global poverty that to my knowledge has not taken place. The U.N agrees:

The number of people below the international poverty line declined by a mere 1 per cent per year between 1990-99; decreasing from 1.3 billion people to 1.1 billion people respectively. Furthermore, poverty trends for most regions showed little or no progress (diagram 1). The incidence of income-poverty remained largely unchanged in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and in the Middle East and North Africa(MENA. Actually, the number of income-poor in these three regions combined increased by about 7 million people each year between 1990 and 1999. Regional trends show that the decline in global poverty was driven by East Asia (EA) between 1993-96 and by South Asia (SA) in 1996-99. China and India in particular are responsible for the apparent decline in global poverty.

Of course the U.N., Bono and the rest of the liberal “give me your fish to feed this poor man” crowd refuse to ask why India and China, with their massive, and still growing, populations are able to decrease the poverty in their respective nations. I’ll give them a hint: call your software company’s support line and ask the tech who answers where he or she is located, and while you are on hold look at the “Made In” labels of the items within your reach. Poverty was not decreased in India or China by direct foreign aid- investment and development are the keys to success in Ireland, India, China and even Uganda. It is time to stop throwing dollars into the poorest countries on Earth and time to start giving fishing lessons. As for Bono, he can either sing or cut bait for all I care.

Read the rest of this post!

4/24/2005 03:28:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |

Visas and Immigration- my 2 cents.
Over the last few days Smiley has produced a three part tour de force on matters immigration. By and large I agree with everything he had to say, but have a few matters I’d like add to, counter or perhaps disagree with.

In his first post Smiley offers a few pointers as to what State can do to further enhance the fine work done by consular officers around the world. He offers more, and more advanced training along with better access to federal agency data bases as rooms for improvement, and he is correct in both accounts. To that I would add the need for increased education at home and abroad for consumers of visa services, and the setting of expectations when it comes to immigration services. I remember well my days in a visa mill (pre- 9/11) when officers were routinely expected to “interview” 250-300 applicants per day, a few minutes for each case, tops. Many of our applicants were rejected for lack of proof that they would return home. The smarter among them had someone in the US who would write to a Congressman or Senator who would then send a letter to us. With the enormous caseload and unwillingness to buck Congress we would most often simply overturn the denial and issue a visa.

This practice is so common you can read about it on mail order bride web sites. I wonder what American voters would think about their congressmen doing this. One more than one occasion I was tempted to annotate a visa: Issued after three denials due to Congressman XXXX’s interest in the matter. While we do make every effort abroad to educate the public on visas- visit any Embassy’s website and you’ll see what I mean, it is often to no avail whatsoever. The mythology of the American visa and the visa system is a powerful thing in the poorer parts of the world.

In part two Smiley addressed “Supply and Demand”:

In my mind, the problems facing our customs, immigration, and consular personnel can be distilled to a rather simple form: supply and demand. The demand for entry into the US, both legal and illegal, far outstrips the supply of people and resources we have to handle it. This is the main reason that we have long waits and lines at consulates and embassies around the world and masses of people illicitly traversing our borders daily. Unfortunately, the finding a solution to this problem is more complex than simply hiring more people and allocating more funds.

He is correct again that the supply does indeed outstrip the demand and that is the reason for long lines and waiting periods to even have an appointment. But I take issue with the idea that S&D of visas is why we have “masses of people illicitly traversing our borders daily.” It is supply and demand of an entirely different reason that causes this- the supply of jobs that are offered to illegal immigrants creates the demand for workers. Nearly all illegal immigrants enter the U.S, to work- dry up the supply of jobs and they’ll stop coming in droves. Our failure to curb illegal hiring in the U.S. makes a mockery of the entire immigration system. The number of people in the U.S. who have over stayed their visa and entry period is enormous- millions of people have entered legally and then simply remained to work.

Smiley offers some possible solutions to the imbalance between supply and demand in post two as well:

Clearly, posts like this need more bodies to handle their visa loads. In order to accommodate the additional personnel, posts would need to upgrade their infrastructure, create more space, hire more guards to handle the increased inflow of people, and possibly hire more local staff. All of this is difficult, but not impossible. The main question, however, is where to get the additional US-based adjudicators.

That is indeed one answer. Another is to reduce the number of applicants for non-immigrant visas. How might one do that? By simply imposing a waiting period for re-application after a denial- say 90 days after the first, 120 after the second and 180 after the third and each subsequent. As the non-immigrant system stands now any applicant can (and often does) re-apply as soon as they can secure an appointment. It is not uncommon at some visa mills to open an applicant’s passport and see the "Application Received" stamp (the sign of a previous denial) four, five or even six times. While most of these applicants with more than three denials are summarily rejected (that is not to say that everyone who is rejected once is rejected for life- but there are many chronic applicants) they have still taken a place in line and extended the wait for an interview. At $100 per interview that adds up for the applicant and for the Department- although to be fair those funds are earmarked to support Consular services. So why has such an enforced waiting period not been put in place? I was never able to get a good answer- it is simply not discussed.

Smiley also offers this solution to the problem:

Another possibility is to hire visa adjudication specialists, similar to the financial management, information technology, and general services specialists that the Department already employs. These specialists would, as their name implies, specialize in handling visa cases, and could be sent around the world as needed to fill staffing gaps.

I have heard this from a few sources- sort of the equivalent of an NCO corps in Consular Affairs, and it has potential. More than one type of visa adjudicator (beyond FSO) already exists:

... CA has creatively arranged a variety of support personnel beyond straight line consular officers to manage the crush of visas and U.S. citizenship services. There has been an innovative medley of resources to fill gaps, including professional associates (hired family members); consular associates, who are equivalent to consular officers; Civil Service visa adjudicators, notably in Mexico; foreign language fellows (individuals who receive federal educational assistance and have a commensurate service commitment); foreign affairs specialists; retired annuitants; and Civil Service excursion tours. While some of these measures have a stopgap quality, CA argues, quite credibly, that it's better to have these options available than not to.

The Civil Service adjudicators are probably most analogous to Smiley’s proposal, at the Mexican border posts where these folks are employed (they live on the U.S. side) they are managed by an FSO (who lives on the Mexico side of the border). They are skilled, proficient and professional. Could enough of them be fielded, with the requisite language skills, to serve world wide? I have no idea, but it is worth considering.

I hope you all found Smiley’s three posts as interesting as I did, and that this post has enhanced those by my colleague. I imagine we will get off the immigration horse for a while after this, but I had to throw in my two cents.

Read the rest of this post!

4/21/2005 03:11:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |

Submit and Convert.
Before I begin this post let me put one last call out for posts for The China Project- I am planning this weekend to consolidate everything into an archive and put a permanent link up for it in the side bar. There is some great stuff in there- and even more over at Winds of Change on the same topic. Thanks again to everyone who contributed, feel free to keep sending stuff in to us.

Now onto the new post:

First the radical element of Islam (who we are assured over and over is a small subset) threatened to block elections in Iraq, while many of the unable-to-play-nice-with-others chose to boycott.

Now as our British friends gear up for their forthcoming elections those who envision the translation of Islam as “Submit…or else” are doing their best to suborn the moderate Islamists in Londonstan. As the Muslim Council of Britain was holding a press conference to launch a guide for voters a group of young men stormed the area and completely disrupted the proceedings. According to the Guardian:

The protesters, who believe it is unIslamic to vote, pushed past a solitary security guard to disrupt the event at the Regent's Park mosque in central London, before denouncing the council as a "mouthpiece" for Tony Blair.

[snip]

The council represents 600 groups and is avowedly moderate. It has been courted by Mr Blair, with the group's leaders having access to ministers to press their concerns.

Yesterday's incident was a vivid demonstration of the pressures on the council. It has to tread a fine line, trying to keep its credibility with British Muslim communities while influencing decision makers, and being a public face of Islam to white Britain instead of militants who are seen to give the religion a bad name.

Last year the council sent a delegation to Iraq to plead for the life of British hostage Ken Bigley. It was credited with softening the backlash against UK Muslims when he was murdered, but it was a move condemned by yesterday's protesters.

The Scotsman gives a slightly different account:

A group of chanting militants stormed a Muslim Council of Britain press conference today, condemning the organisation as “a mouthpiece” of Tony Blair and claiming that voting in the General Election goes against Islam.

There were chaotic scenes as a group of more than a dozen men, two of them masked, broke down the door of the library in the Central London Mosque in Regents Park.
[snip]

The men who burst in said they represented the Saviour Sect, believed to contain former members of the disbanded al-Muhajiroun group and be headed by firebrand cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed.

As the group streamed into the meeting, one of the masked men shouted: “Kaffirs. MCB are dirty kaffirs.”

Another man yelled: “The MCB are a mouthpiece of the British Government of Tony Blair and George Bush.

“They don’t represent Islam. They don’t represent British Muslims.”

I had to look up the word kaffir, and this is what I found:

Q: Why are non-muslims referred as Kaffirs?

A: Kafir means one who rejects. ‘Kafir’ is derived from the word ‘kufr’, which means to conceal or to reject. In Islamic terminology, ‘Kafir’ means one who conceals or rejects the truth of Islam and a person who rejects Islam is in English called a ‘non-Muslim’.

If non-Muslims are hurt - they should accept Islam. If any non-Muslim considers the word ‘Kafir’ i.e. ‘non-Muslim’ as an abuse, he may choose to accept Islam and then we will stop referring to him as or call him a kafir i.e. a non-Muslim

That is it in a nut shell. Don’t want to be called a kaffir? Submit and convert. Don’t want to be stabbed to death in the street for your views? Submit and convert. Don’t want to be killed in the airplane you are flying in or have it slam into your workplace? Submit and convert. This is the only message the “radicals” have, and Eurabia may be starting to listen, at least some of it; but luckily, not all of it.

This is London, an amazingly wide ranging web site, is running a great piece today; they are not afraid to call the kettle black, the article is titled simply and directly “Fanatics want to convert entire world”’ here is am excerpt, but I highly recommend reading the whole article:

Banned in Germany and across the Middle East, Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation, is one of the most controversial - and also the strongest - Islamic groups in Britain today.

Hizb rejects the "corrupt society" of Britain and the West and, as George Galloway learned last night, even the most impeccable anti-war credentials are not enough to win its approval.

Its central belief is for a single Islamic state - a caliphate - which should start by uniting all Muslim countries, then embrace the entire world, including non-Islamic parts.

As Hizb's own website says: "The work of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to ... change the situation of the corrupt society so that it is transformed into an Islamic society."

Hizb "aims to bring back the Islamic guidance for mankind and to lead the Ummah (the Muslim community) into a struggle with Kufr (non-believing), its systems and its thoughts so that Islam encapsulates the world."

Hizb "aims to bring back the Islamic guidance for mankind and to lead the Ummah (the Muslim community) into a struggle with Kufr (non-believing), its systems and its thoughts so that Islam encapsulates the world."

There it is, in the open: protected speech & freedom of religion. The Mormons send people all over the world to preach their version of the Gospel. Let a Jehovah’s Witness into your living room and they might never leave (or so it seems). Not to mention the ubiquitous Moonies. Of course none of those groups has committed atrocious acts of international terrorism (but that Moonie chant is pretty damn annoying). So what is a civil society to do? That is the question that our British friends are going to have to answer, right quick. As if the above mentioned incident were not enough Expat Yank has a post about a fatwa in London.

Even more disturbing is the idea that some of the British politicians might be courting these groups as the “new oppressed.” From the indispensable MEMRI we get this tidbit:

Arab League Ambassador to Britain in Talk to Conservative MPs: 9/11 Was Not a Good Justification For Enmity Towards Arabs and Muslims; Israel's Hand in the Matter is Clear

The Ambassador, in this piece, hits the nail of British guilt squarely on the head in this speech, the first allusion to the Balfour Declaration I have seen in a long time, and oh so cleverly veiled:

"Had Britain encouraged education and the development of a true liberal democratic process in the Arab region, instead of combating any independence of thought, the Arab region would have today become an extension of the west, and things would have been very different today.

Britain and the rest of Europe are going to have to carefully monitor the groups that are operating within their borders. If there truly exists a moderate majority within Islam that believes in democracy, liberty and modernization of their religion they must find the will to take back their religion, and those politicians in power should do all they can to assist. The leaders of radical Islam have declared war, their goals are clear; they have no reservations in their tactics. From slamming planes into office buildings to voter intimidation they will not be stopped easily. Submit and convert. That is all they want- for the entire world.

Or else.

Read the rest of this post!

4/20/2005 03:40:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |

Secretary Rice so far- one FSO's opinion.
Thanks to everyone who left us such kind words yesterday, and to all who suggested a topic for us to post on. Gordon Daugherty was the first to suggest a topic (actually two topics, at least):

From time to time I'd like to know the inside take on how the new Sec of State is doing and, more broadly, what changes (if any) are evolving in the DoS since 9/11.

Since Smiley is working on a post addressing the Department (or at least portions thereof) in the post 9-11 world, I offer you my opinion of SecState Rice so far.

In one of his first posts on this blog Smiley offered us his "thoughts on Dr. Rice":

To me it appears that, at least from a policy perspective, Rice will be good for the State Department, for American foreign policy, and by extension, for the country. It is fair to say that she has the trust of the President. The President has said that he intends to pursue a variety of multilateral foreign policy initiatives in his second term, notably the Middle East Peace Process (or Road Map, if you're nasty), bringing more countries on board in terms of Iraq reconstruction, and repairing the transatlantic relationship. It seems evident to me that by putting a close confidant in charge of our country's foreign policy, the President is effectively putting his money where his mouth is.

I seconded that opinion then- that Dr. Rice would be good from a policy perspective- and still do now. She is a well known policy "wonk", and her career up to her appointment as SecState had been largely in the policy realm. But being Secretary of State means much more than just policy, and those non-policy areas of filling the role are of interest to me today.

First among these areas is personal gravitas. Smiley provided a link to the Council on Foreign Relations where James Lindsay offered this quote:

Dr. Rice brings to the State Department something that every secretary of state wants to have: a reputation for having the ear of the president. That is immensely helpful to a secretary of state. When such secretaries walk into a room and talk to a head of state or a foreign minister, the understanding is that when they speak, they speak for the president. It often seemed that Secretary [of State Colin] Powell didn't have that kind of credibility. I would expect Dr. Rice to be a very powerful and credible secretary of state.

Contrast that with this quote from Foreign Policy magazine:

One top State Department official who worked very closely with Powell suggests that the secretary of state's popularity also complicated his relationship with the outside world, in that Powell became perceived as the voice of reason who could rein in the administration's transformative impulses. "A lot of people look at Colin Powell and they see the Colin Powell GI Joe doll action figure," he notes. "And they want to dress him up in their own clothes." At the 2003 World Economic Forum in Davos before the war [in Iraq] " he actually was forced to get pretty explicit with the Europeans and say, "I'm not the man you think I am. I'm not fighting your case in the American government. I think differently than you. I think we have to deal with Iraq. I think the president will decide if we have to do that militarily or not. But you guys have to understand, I am not the European spokesman inside the administration.""

I can promise you that there is no one in Europe who thinks that Sec. Rice is a "European spokesman inside the administration." Europe's heads of state know for a fact that when Sec. Rice speaks to them she is doing so with the full backing of the President, and that when they speak to her they are not just delivering a message, they are dealing with one of the top advisors in the administration. The difference in the field is amazing. My working relationship with my local counterparts has changed tremendously since the start of Sec. Rice's tenure.

While Sec. Powell was frequently criticized for not traveling enough, Sec. Rice has made it clear she will spend much more time on the road. She made that point quickly and clearly when she passed out pocket atlases to the press corps on her first trip abroad as Secretary of State. More than a few of our Foreign Service posts have never been visited by a Secretary of State- a visit of this level can go a long way towards improving or strengthening relations between nations (although it might put a lot of strain on some of smaller posts).

But what about at home in Foggy Bottom? Secretary Rice is faced with some big shoes to fill after the departure of Secretary Powell, and I am not talking about her boots. Sec. Powell made it his mission to improve morale and working conditions around the world for "the troops" as he liked to call us all (annoying the heck out of many a leftist in the Department). Sec. Powell inherited a somewhat dysfunctional, technologically backwards department (no Internet on most desktops until 2002!) and presented us with his leadership doctrine. Leadership within the department was, until that point, a topic no one discussed. Powell made promises and kept them. He focused on leadership, and is widely recognized for the actions he took to repair and reinvigorate the Department of State, with the two most prominent being:

Training To his displeasure, Powell discovered that many career officials had little to no management or leadership training, says Ambassador Katherine Peterson, the director of the Foreign Service Institute, State's training arm. Senior staff had taken only a two-week seminar that focused mainly on administrative issues. "This is ridiculous," Peterson recalls Powell saying. Employees were thrust into managerial positions with no formal preparation. Powell thought leadership courses would benefit everyone. Even Foreign Service officers who weren't managers might lead a staff at an embassy. Now, those officers must take at least six weeks of management and leadership training. Courses focus on team building, but also contain crisis simulations that teach how to respond, for example, to an airplane crash or a coup d'etat. After 2006, such courses will be a prerequisite for promotion.

Information Technology In 2001, only 2 percent of State Department computers were connected to the Internet. A 2001 report by a task force headed by former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci found that 92 percent of overseas posts had "obsolete classified networks, some of which have no classified connectivity with the rest of the U.S. government." Powell, who checks his own e-mail every day, made technology upgrades another pillar in his reform plan. By January 2003, 81 percent of all desktop computers were connected to the Internet. Today, 100 percent of the computers are connected, Powell says, and every post is connected to the department's classified information network."I want to get information out to every mission in the department instantaneously - not [in] 12 hours, 18 hours . . . instantaneously," Powell says.

To date Sec. Rice has not addressed many of these issues, and it is possible that she might not do so. Of course there are many top positions to be filled at State still, Assistant and Under Secretaries to be named, as well as Ambassadors, so it is possible that focus may once again turn within. In my opinion the dose of reality that the Secretary has injected into global diplomacy with her close relationship to the President and frequent travel is a welcome turn from the days when Newt Gingrich was attacking Sec. Powell and rumors of discord between State and the White House were rampant. The Secretary, and every Secretary that follows her, however, will have to face up to the Powell legacy within state. The idea that leadership matters and that development of personnel is the key to good policy development and practice can't be lost.

All that said, I rate the current SecState very highly so far on all matters policy- whether or not she can become the leader that State sorely needs, or indeed is even inclined to do so, remains to be seen. If she can strike a balance between policy and leadership Secretary Rice will be formidable indeed.

Read the rest of this post!

4/18/2005 03:59:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |

6 months and 200,000 hits later...
Just over six months ago I launched this blog, inspired by the now defunct and sorely missed Diplomad- not long after that Smiley joined me in this adventure in blogging. I think if anyone had told us at the time that we would last this long and attract any readers, let alone average about 1,800 hits per day we would have asked them to pass the bottle. We are having a lot of fun doing this, and don't plan to stop anytime soon, so please don't take this as a swan song- just a stroll down memory lane.

Over the last six months we've had some fun with group blog projects- I especially enjoyed the "What if We Had Never Invaded Iraq" scenario and replies. That was the most fun I think I have had with the blog- and that is really saying something. We launched a blog for folks who have no blog of their own (to less than stellar success, but still fun), and hosted some great guest pieces- often inspiring excellent exchanges in the comments sections.

Smiley and I have made some great blogosphere friends along the way, blogs we admire and owe a debt of gratitude too (I hope I didn't miss anyone). In addition we have a great core group of commenters, Tina, Dan M, Peter Rice, USMC_Vet, Toni, LB, Consul-at-Arms, Soldier-Diplomat (and I am sure more whom I have left off this list) that can always be counted on to get the comments going. To balance that we've garnered some less than pleased reactions from readers to a few posts (oddly enough usually by e-mail): while the Manolo post got nothing but good comments a few e-mailers felt it did not belong on this site, and more than a few readers did not like the "Hello, Congress?" post. To them I can only say thanks for taking the time to write in and to read the blog, but sometimes we just want to go off topic and blow off steam.

So where is this linkfest going you might ask? Nowhere, really. I was just perusing the archives and hit meter and got a little verklempt as Linda Richman might say.

Thanks to all who read, comment and e-mail. While Smiley and I would still probably fire these posts off into the ether even if no one was responding, you all make it infinitely more fun. Having said that, anyone have any requests for topics? Sometimes it gets a little hard to find something original to write about within the scope of this blog, and that is when we seem to get into trouble (and produce our own flashback pieces like this)!

Cheers, Dr. D

(End of Post)

Read the rest of this post!

4/17/2005 10:40:00 AM posted by Dr. Demarche |

Refugees Part II
Now for the slightly delayed Part II of the Refugees in America mini-series. As usual, several of the astute comments that were left for that piece feed nicely into this follow up.

Toni touched briefly on immigration issues, and the problems many of these groups have assimilating into America as a rule of law nation. This is, unfortunately, a very broad subject off the topic of this post, but one which bears examining.

LB of Adventures in Bureaucracy has a short post of his own on this matter, in addition to the excellent comment he left. Here is the bulk of that comment:

The success of various refugee communities varies, with some having a difficult time adjusting to life in the United States, while others thrive here. The problem with expecting refugees to go home as friends of the United States is that many never return to their countries of origin. Look at places like Sudan, Somalia, Haiti or Kosovo - we've taken refugees from all these places, but they're still basket cases, and the initial reason for the refugee status is probably still there. Vietnam sent its wave of refugees thirty years ago, and not many are willing to go back to live under the regime. The Iranian revolution was in 1979. Are we supposed to send that wave of refugees back now? The risk of persecution for them is still real.

Contrast this to places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Ethiopia. There's hope for brighter futures there, and many refugees and other immigrants have gone back to help make things better, opening businesses and trying to rebuild their political systems. Their time - and their relative success - in the United States allows them to make contributions back home, and it also shows them the benefits of things like rule of law from first-hand experience. Isn't this ultimately what we as a country want? Let the Public Diplomacy folks advocate the United States. Let the returned refugees push for stability, openness and democracy back home because they've enjoyed the benefits here in America.

Commenter Walter E. Wallis left this comment before LB left his, but it is an excellent rebuttal to LB:

Refugees should be repatriated as soon as conditions permit.

I think this is the key to LB's comments. Obviously we cannot "send back" refugees to Iran or Viet Nam, and Sudan and Somalia may not yet be ready to be rebuilt. As for places like Haiti and Kosovo- why can't some of these refugees work in the region? There are international organizations hard at work in these regions that could benefit greatly from the cultural and linguistic knowledge refugees possess. We should be helping refugees to help themselves in preparation for the day they can return to help rebuild their shattered nations. LB's comments on Afghanistan and Iraq make my point for me to a certain extent- but I propose specific training in lieu of direct monetary aid to refugees as part of this larger idea that their stay in America is not permanent. Skills they can use to survive in America should translate to skills that will aid in reparing these often war torn countries.

I ended my first post on this subject with the following questions:

Why are we not doing our best by these unfortunates and prepping them to return home someday, educated in the ways of America, democracy and freedom? Who could better serve as a representative to the world about the promise of America? Where are the Muslim refugees of Bosnia in our fight against Islamo-fascism, why are they not refuting the "great Satan" mythos? This is the planned theme for tomorrow- does our refugee program work not just for individual families, but for America (and should it) and to what end?

I stand by these questions. Where LB says "Let the Public Diplomacy folks advocate the United States. Let the returned refugees push for stability, openness and democracy back home" I have to ask: what is the difference? When we act as advocates for America we are in a very large part promoting the idea of America: a land of freedom, liberty, democracy, law and stablility. We should be promoting that idea to those who seek asylum here- they will pick up on consumerism and pop-culture quickly enough on their own.

We have in America vast pools of recent of refugees. Why are we not tapping into these pools for the best and brightest, those who learned a skill in America that can be of use in their homeland and asking them to help? We can not force them, at this point in time we may not even be able to expect many to return as LB points out. It is not, and perhaps should not be a condition of asylum that asylees train to return home to work for their homeland. Yet I think many of these folks would rather return home to help save the country of their birth. Perhaps in this I am naive- could there really be something I am not overly cynical about?

I continue to believe that our assistance to refugees is a good thing, that we are indeed helping many individuals and families. At the same time, I don't believe this is the answer to any problem. If we can equip refugees with the skills they need to return home and help solve the problems that plague their countries I believe we will be doing them, America and the world a much larger favor. The time has come for those we have tried to make strong to take the lessons they have learned in America and apply them to whence they came.

Read the rest of this post!

4/16/2005 02:59:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |

Bolton Boosters, Inc.
Just a few minutes to blog tonight before I have to report in for an official function, so I figured why not touch on a topic that will surely be front and center over cocktails tonight: the Bolton for U.N. Ambassador nomination.

Much has been written in the MSM about people opposing the nomination (my personal favorite proposes Michael Bolton, instead), and his confirmation vote has been delayed so that more negative testimony can be dredged up. Not surprisingly there has not been much coverage of those who support the nomination. Even less surprising is that this story has gotten almost no coverage:

WASHINGTON - Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, ex-CIA Director James Woolsey and 64 other retired arms control specialists and diplomats are lined up in support of John R. Bolton, whose nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has stirred controversy.

In a letter being delivered Monday to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, other committee members and congressional leaders, they said the attack on Bolton is really an attack on President Bush's policies.

Were we not still in the "underground" you could add two more names to this letter. Here is the text of the letter for your reading pleasure:


4 April 2005

Hon. Richard G. Lugar
Chairman,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
450 Senate Dirksen Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In the next few days, the Foreign Relations Committee will be considering the nomination of the individual that the President has chosen to represent him and serve the interests of the United States at the United Nations. We write urging early and favorable consideration of the President’s nominee, the Honorable John R. Bolton.

John Bolton has distinguished himself throughout a long and multifaceted career in public service and in the private sector. In particular, his tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations during the administration of George H.W. Bush and as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security during this presidency have honed Mr. Bolton’s indisputably impressive intellect and robust diplomatic skills in ways that will serve the nation well at the UN.

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has observed, Mr. Bolton will bring these attributes to bear in the tradition of two of the most outstanding of America’s ambassadors at the United Nations: Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick. To be sure, the sort of assertive representation of U.S. interests that has been the hallmark of such appointees sometimes discomfits other diplomats. History suggests, however, that it can be indispensable to catalyzing constructive change of the kind virtually everyone agrees is needed at the UN.

Some retired diplomats suggest that Secretary Bolton’s positions on various controversial arms control treaties should disqualify him from serving at the UN. Their criticism is misdirected. Mr. Bolton’s views about each of these accords are identical to those of President Bush. While the signatories are certainly free to oppose the Administration’s positions, their differences seem to be with a man twice elected by the American people to design and execute security policies, rather than with one of his most effective and articulate officials in advancing those policies.

We believe, moreover, that the Bush Administration’s stances on such treaties reflect a clear-eyed assessment of the real limits of diplomacy with nations that do not honor their commitments, that deliberately conceal their activities so as to defeat verification and that seek to use bilateral and multilateral agreements as instruments of asymmetric warfare against nations like the United States that abide by their treaty obligations. Far from being a disqualifier, this view is an eminently sensible and responsible one in light of past experience.

In short, Secretary Bolton’s formidable grasp of the issues of the day, his exemplary previous service to our country and the confidence President Bush reposes in him will make him an outstanding and highly effective representative to the United Nations.

We request that you share this assessment of Secretary Bolton with your colleagues and ensure that it is reflected in the record of the Foreign Relations Committee’s deliberations on his nomination.

Sincerely,


William P. Clark, former National Security Advisor; former Deputy Secretary of State

Frank Ruddy, former U.S. Ambassador to Equatorial Guinea

Christopher DeMuth, former Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Designate); former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy

Phyllis Kaminsky, former Director, United Nations Information Center

Major General Paul E. Vallely, USA (Ret.), former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army, Pacific

Dr. Daniel Goure, former Director, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

John F. Lehman, Jr., former Secretary of the Navy; Member of 9/11 Commission

Barbara J. Comstock, former Director of Public Affairs, Department of Justice

Caspar W. Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense; former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare; former Director of the Office of Management and Budget

Christopher D. Lay, former Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Dr. Kathleen C. Bailey, former Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State

Dr. Robert B. Barker, former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy

Dr. William Schneider, Jr., former Under Secretary of State; Chairman, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control & Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Becky Norton Dunlop, former Special Assistant to the President for Cabinet Affairs; former Assistant Secretary of Interior

Lieutenant General Thomas G. McInerney USAF (Ret.), former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force

Harvey Feldman, former Ambassador to Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands; founding Director of the American Institute in Taiwan; Alternate Representative to the United Nations

Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy

Edwin Meese, former Counselor to the President; former Attorney General

Jose S. Sorzano, former Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations

J. William Middendorf, former Secretary of the Navy; former Ambassador to: the Netherlands, the European Union and the Organization of American States

Jed L. Babbin, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

Dennis Hays, former Ambassador to Suriname

Michael Skol, former Ambassador to Venezuela; former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs

Kim Flower, former Director for Latin America, National Security Council

Vice Admiral Robert R. Monroe USN (Ret.), former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency; former Director, Navy Research and Development

Roger W. Robinson, Jr., former Senior Director for International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Otto J. Reich, former Special Envoy for Western Hemisphere Initiatives; former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; former Ambassador to Venezuela

James T. Hackett, former Associate Director of the U.S. Information Agency; former Acting Director of the Arms Control & Disarmament Agency

Abraham D. Sofaer, former Legal Advisor, Department of State

Tidal W. McCoy, former Acting Secretary of the Air Force; former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

Dr. Curtin Winsor, Jr., former Ambassador to Costa Rica

Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, former Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Planning and Resources; Assistant Under Secretary of Defense, Policy and Resources

Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

M.D.B. Carlisle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense of Legislative Affairs

James B. Longley, Jr., former Member, U.S. House of Representatives

Lieutenant General Edward L. Rowny, USA (Ret.), former Chief U.S. Negotiator for the START Negotiations; Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State; JCS Representative to the SALT II Negotiations

Michael A. Ledeen, former Special Advisor to the Secretary of State

Morris J. Amitay, Foreign Service Officer (Ret.)

R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence

Dr. Mark Albrecht, former Executive Secretary, National Space Council

Vice Admiral N. Ronald Thunman USN (Ret.), Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Submarine Warfare

Peter Robinson, Speechwriter and Special Assistant to President Reagan

Vice Admiral William D. Houser, USN (Ret.), former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare

Admiral Ronald J. Hays USN (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific; former Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Robert Pastorino, former Ambassador to the Dominican Republic; former member of the National Security Council staff

William Kristol, former Chief of Staff to the Vice President
David Frum, former Speechwriter and Special Assistant to the President
William L. Ball III, former Secretary of the Navy

Dr. Dominic J. Monetta, former Assistant Secretary of Energy (designate), Office of New Production Reactors; former Director of Science and Technology, Office of the Secretary of Defense

John C. Wobensmith, Senior Executive Service (Ret.), Department of Defense

Dr. John Lenczowski, former Director of Europe and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council

Dr. Norman A. Bailey, former Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; former Director of International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Andrew C. McCarthy, former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York

Amoretta M. Hoeber, former Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for Research and Engineering

Richard Schifter, former Deputy Representative to the UN Security Council; former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

Max M. Kampelman, Counselor to the Department of State; former Ambassador and Head of Delegation to the U.S.-Soviet START and Defense and Space Negotiations

Charles M. Kupperman, former Special Assistant to the President; former Deputy Director of the Office of Administration, the White House; former Executive Director, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Herbert Romerstein, former Director, Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation, United States Information Agency

Edward V. Badolato, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Emergencies; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Security Affairs

Dr. Alan L. Keyes, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs; former Representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Council

David J. Trachtenberg, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy

Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia

Victoria Toensing, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

Robert L. Livingston, former Member of Congress; former Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee

Stephen D. Bryen, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense; former Director, Defense Technology Security Administration

William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education; former Director, National Office of Drug Control Policy

Dr. William R. Graham, former Chairman, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; former Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; former Science Advisor to the President

Major General Larry Taylor, USMCR (Ret.), former Commanding General, 4th
Marine Aircraft Wing

Dr. William R. Van Cleave, former Member, Delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks; former Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Strategic Policy and Planning

Clark S. Judge, former Special Assistant and Speechwriter to the President

Lieutenant General Charles A. May Jr., USAF (Ret.), former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives

Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (Ret.), former Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Admiral Leon A. Edney, USN (Ret.), former Commander, U.S. Atlantic Command; Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic

George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State; former Secretary of Treasury; former Secretary of Labor; former Director, Office of Management and Budget

Everett Briggs, former Ambassador to Honduras; former Ambassador to Panama; former Ambassador to Portugal

C. Boyden Gray, former Counsel to the President

Lieutenant General Paul G. Cerjan, USA (Ret.), former President, National Defense University

Robert Turner, former Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs (Acting)

Joshua Gilder, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights

Douglas R. Graham, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Senate Affairs; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy

Tom Boyatt, former Ambassador to Colombia; former Ambassador to Upper Volta

Richard W. Carlson, former Ambassador to the Seychelles

Gerald P. Carmen, former Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Geneva

Read the rest of this post!

4/14/2005 12:20:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |

Busy day = more China.
I had planned tonight to continue the refugee post, but circumstances today did not allow me to organize that as well as I would have liked, so it might be Friday before I get to it. In the meantime here are some blog-bits for you:

The China Project is rolling along still:

A Guy in Pajamas has his first post on the matter up and refers us back to an older post on this subject with more to come. You have got to read these, the first one has John Wayne, opium, Mitsubishi Zeros, Tom Cruise and more. It might be a bit tongue in cheek.

Mad Minerva has a new post on China-Taiwan and kindly pointed Bruce of the two blogs Naruwan Famosa and the, ahem, far ranging Between Worlds in our direction, great additions to the project.

Meanwhile the regions continues to find new reasons to tense up. Newsday has a great piece today on what it can mean when the victors write the history books- and then make sure there are no dissenting voices- (from Newsday):

Some things you won't find in Chinese history textbooks: the 1989 democracy movement, the millions who died in a famine caused by misguided communist policies or China's military attacks on India and Vietnam. As China criticizes Japan for new textbooks that critics say minimize wartime abuses like the Japanese military forcing Asian women into sexual slavery, Beijing's own schoolbooks have significant omissions about the communist system's own history and relations with its neighbors.

"With rising Chinese nationalism, the efforts to rewrite history, to reinterpret history according to the demands of nationalism have become a major national pastime," said Maochun Yu, a history professor at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

...An eighth-grade history book used in Shanghai, China's most cosmopolitan city, repeatedly refers to Japanese by an insulting phrase that roughly translates as "Jap bandits."

That is most likely not going to go over well in Tokyo (but that's ok, China has a new friend). China, India and Japan will continue to be a topic in the MSM, the blogosphere in general and here at the Demarche for some time. It seems from reading the news and the blogs linked to here that many of our fellow writers are spot on in their analyses. Pollution, population, human rights, expansionist leanings, economic development and resource usage will be the themes of Chinas near future, and will continue to impact on the region and the world. China/Taiwan has the potential to become to the new Israel/Palestine. The list goes on and on.

So what is a country to do when the world is looking upon it unfavorably? First, deny any problem and then try to shift the focus towards America, of course, even if obliquely. But that's ok, we'll show them! If they keep making cheap knock-off products we'll just send William Lash to China to rip them up with bare hands. I love this quote from Lash:

"The minister of culture told me the problem has been solved, so I guess I must have been shopping around the wrong city," Lash said.

Intellectual property rights are a big part of what many Foreign Service missions do- so I should not make fun of it too much, but sometimes it does crack me up- there is a near legendary (apocryphal ?) story of the Econ officer who spent an entire tour debating whether or not Yoda was "human" under the legal definition in the country he was in, and thus protected from illegal reproduction of likeness. And most Deputy Secretaries of any Department are not as funny as Lash appears to be anyway.

Finally, on to a non-China topic for a little humor (and a good poke at the UN to boot) check out this post at Expat Yank on what celebs in the UK would do if they were Prime Minister. My favorite:

Howard Marks- Former Drug Dealer & Writer: If I were Prime Minister: 'I would legalise all recreational drugs, convert the House of Lords to a perpetual clubland, give Wales its independence, and attempt to expel the United States of America from the United Nations.'

Robert follows that with a response that sums up why I am such a fan of his blog:

Leaving aside the first three as exclusively British concerns, on that expelling the U.S. from the UN -- one question: Aside from the fact that quite a few Americans would love to see the U.S. tossed out of the UN (it would save Americans the terrible difficulty of trying either to leave the UN themselves, or asking it to leave New York), without U.S. membership one wonders who will cough up the extra $3 billion annually the U.S. currently contributes to that august organization? China? France? Independent Wales?

Gosh, you'd think a "Former Drug Dealer" would have a better grasp of money issues.

OK all, hopefully I'll be able to get back on track tomorrow, but it might be Friday- duty calls tomorrow night. Now were are my striped pants?

Read the rest of this post!

4/13/2005 02:46:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |

Refugees in America- Part One
Reading some of the State Department output today I had an inspiration to combine three of my favorite topics on the Demarche- immigration, public diplomacy and foreign aid. We’ve covered all of them on many occasions here, generally as distinct issues. I have referred to the remittances sent back to native countries by immigrants both legal and illegal, but never touched on tonight’s topic: refugees. This is the first of at least two posts on refugees, tonight I am focusing more on the background of the U.S. refugee program, tomorrow I’ll get into how this affects U.S. foreign policy.

Earlier this month the Department released a series of papers on refugee programs in the United States, breaking down refugee admissions programs from the various global regions. In addition the report included a fact sheet on the Refugee Reception and Placement Program. This sparse fact sheet is made up almost entirely of the following paragraphs:

Each refugee case approved for admission to the United States is sponsored by one of ten voluntary agencies participating in the Reception & Placement (R&P) program under a cooperative agreement with the Department of State. The sponsoring agency is responsible for placing the refugees included in a case with one of its affiliated offices in an appropriate location in the United States and for providing initial services, which include housing, essential furnishings, food, clothing, community orientation and referral to other social and employment services, for the refugees’ first 30-90 days in the U.S. The R&P program is a public-private partnership, which anticipates that voluntary agencies will contribute significant cash and/or in-kind resources to supplement U.S. Government per capita grants.

Although refugees receive public assistance when they first arrive, the U.S. Government emphasizes early economic self-sufficiency to speed their integration into American society. During the refugees’ initial transition period, programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services/Office of Refugee Resettlement and administered by the states provide cash and medical assistance, employment, training and other support services. After 12 months of residency, refugees are required to return to DHS "for inspection and examination for admission to the United States as an immigrant…" After five years in the U.S., refugees may apply for citizenship.

Run by the small Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, a unit which receives very little press, America’s refugee program is operates almost entirely without fanfare or public attention. About the only time most Americans think of refugees in America, I’d wager, is if a rfugee commits a publicized crime. This, I think, is a shame- America’s willingness to take in refugees from around the globe demonstrates all that is best and brightest about our country.

I first really took notice of the program myself in 2001 when I read “The Long Road From Sudan to America” which opens with this memorable paragraph:

One evening late in January, a 21-year-old named Peter Dut led his two teenage brothers through the brightly lighted corridors of the Minneapolis airport, trying to mask his confusion. Two days before, they had encountered their first light switch and tried their first set of stairs. An aid worker in Nairobi had demonstrated the flush toilet to them -- also the seat belt, the shoelace, the fork. And now they found themselves alone in Minneapolis, three bone-thin African boys confronted by a swirling river of white faces and rolling suitcases, blinking television screens and telephones that rang, inexplicably, from the inside of people's pockets. Here they were, uncertain of even the rug beneath their feet, looking for this place called Gate C31.

Now, I am no stranger to culture shock, and have even had a twinge or two of it when returning to the U.S. after a long absence. While posted abroad for the first time I found that I could pick out an English language conversation from a very great distance, as I was in a place where very few people spoke English. I was out with friends in a crowded pub on the day I returned to the U.S. after being gone for quite some time and found myself unable to “block out” the myriad English conversations going on around me- it was an hour or so before I was able to do so. That was really weird. I can only imagine what a Sudanese teenager must feel. “The lost boys of Sudan” have in many ways become synonymous with refugees in the U.S., a movie has been made about them (which I have not seen), the BBC has followed up on them, and countless T.V. programs have run depicting their lives.

These young men, however, are a far cry from being all of the refugees in America. Cubans, Hmong, Iraqi, Kurdish, Iranians, Haitian, Salvadoran, Bosnian, the list goes on and on. You might ask why are they here, how do they get here and where do they come form? A very informative Q&A on refugees can be found here. A few of representative pieces:

Q: What is the difference between a refugee and an immigrant?
A: Immigrants leave their homes for economic opportunity, education and other reasons. Refugees flee their homes because of fear of persecution and require special protection because at the root of their exile is a serious human rights violation.

Q: How does the US decide which refugees to admit?
A: The U.S. State Department and U.S. Justice Department conduct background checks and interviews with each refugee before they are admitted. Refugees also are given medical tests to determine if they have any contagious diseases such as tuberculosis. They are tested again when they arrive in the U.S. to guard against fraudulent or false results.

Q: Who decides how many refugees can come into the US?
A: Each year, the President sets a ceiling for refugee admissions. He bases his on recommendations from world refugee relief organizations, including the United Nations, and in consultation with Congress as well as federal officials who oversee refugee services. Since 2002, the ceiling has been set at 70,000.

You might also ask, “Why should I care?” That is a more difficult question. These refugees, many without money or skills, often devoid of hope until they land in America, are settling in among us. They are learning about America in a way that almost no foreigner has in the last 50 years- arriving in the same condition as many of our forefathers. Bereft, but determined to make a better future. And we are ignoring them, by and large.

Why are we not doing our best by these unfortunates and prepping them to return home someday, educated in the ways of America, democracy and freedom? Who could better serve as a representative to the world about the promise of America? Where are the Muslim refugees of Bosnia in our fight agains Islamo-fascism, why are they not refuting the "great Satan" mythos? This is the planned theme for tomorrow- does our refugee program work not just for individual families, but for America (and should it) and to what end?

As always, I am looking forward to comments and questions.

Read the rest of this post!

4/12/2005 02:58:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |

Odds and Ends- corrected.
Time to catch up on a few things since the last post:

First, a great big Daily Demarche DOH!

We owe a BIG apology to Dave at The Glittering Eye, I somehow failed to link to his first installment on the China Project- a great piece on the ticking time bombs developing in China right now, with the promise of follow on pieces to come. For any of you who might not have seen this piece on the first go around I highly reccomend it. Dave- sorry again. [Of course I would forget to link to the one blogger who said it appeared that I put this project together "without breaking a sweat."]

The China Project continues to roll along- it has taken on a life of it's own now! Here is the latest batch of links, sorry for the delay in getting some of these out:

TigerHawk brings us "Crouching Tiger, Swimming Dragon" - in which he touches on the oft referred to (in our comments section) China/India issue.

Heavy Handed Politics has a few pieces involving China and the region up now, here, here and here.

Total Information Awareness also has his China, Part II post up.

A Guy in Pajamas is still working on his post, but provides a great link to Riding Sun, another Yankee expat in the Land of the Rising Sun offering insights on Sino-Japanese relations- especially these three posts: Textbook example, Japan's past vs. China's present and Taiwanese politicians getting the picture.

Finally, Mad Minerva has an updated piece on China's inability to win new Japanese friends.

Solomon sent me a link to this crazy posting regarding the comparative work habits of American and French diplomats in Germany in the closing years of the 1930's:

I shall never forget the amused contempt a Frenchman expressed about the habits of American diplomats. He pointed out that in his Embassy in Berlin, the entire staff had to be in the office at nine in the morning or before, compile a complete survey of the morning press, and be ready at nine-thirty for a conference with the Ambassador who himself was at work at nine. When my father first came to Berlin, long in the habit of regular hours and conscientious work, he went to the office every day at nine o'clock. After a month or two he gave up, because not one of his staff members could be located in the building.

All I have to say is that either the French diplo's were not very good reporting officers, or nobody was bothering to read what they wrote. (See Paris, 1943 for details.)

Speaking of Germany, Heard Here has a great piece up from the weekend:

I think it is time to get out. Lock, stock and barrel. Iraq? No, Germany. We spend millions of dollars in the German economy because of our presence there with military and support troops. Originally the troops were there to help protect the Allied countries against the possibility of Soviet aggression. We spent thousand of lives destroying the Nazi war machine, freeing most of Europe from occupation and then untold billions rebuilding Germany and Europe after the devastation of that war. Because of our past actions in the Cold War, the Berlin Wall came down and Germany was re-united and many Eastern Block countries are now democratic, with more becoming so.

While I don't expect the Germans to make a field trip to France anytime soon they will at least be able to continue to come to America via the visa waiver program once biometric passport requirements take effect- not something many of their neighbors can say.

That completes the round up, thanks for all the e-mails over the weekend and to all the participants and commenters on the China pieces. (End of post)

Read the rest of this post!

4/11/2005 01:45:00 PM posted by Dr. Demarche |