The excellent Janet Daley puts into words what I was thinking this morning regarding North Korea's missile test and various leaders condemning this as "unacceptable".
For that matter, what does he propose doing right now about North Korea? There was lots of heavy talk about how unacceptable that country's belligerent tour de force had been in firing what could have been a nuclear-armed missile over Japan – but talk, as they say, is cheap. What might the "punishment" be for such a "violation" of the coming nuclear-free world order? And who would be responsible for administering it?
Exactly. If you find something unacceptable you do something about it - or you tolerate it. Toleration does not imply acceptance, but if you tolerate something long enough it becomes considered acceptable. The fact is, NK's nuclear ambitions (as well as Iran's) may well be unacceptable to the leaders of the world, but the North Koreans know that there isn't a single thing they can do about it (as does Iran).
Their best buddies, the Chinese, will block any attempts to force through any serious UN Security Council resolution. The best they can hope for is slightly toughened sanctions - but as all these do is hurt the average Jong Public in the NK street I don't think the leaders of North Korea will worry too much. Besides, anything they need they can get through China - no questions asked.
They know that any military action will not get UN support - and without that (for some reason) that means there can be no widepsread public support for military intervention. Furthermore, with the US economy in freefall and their military already overstretched there is little the USA can do militarily. Which brings us to the next, excellent point Daley makes.
Post-war Europe has built its comfortable, deeply cushioned, welfare-state social democracy with the money it had once spent on armaments. Beating their swords into benefit payments has worked very nicely for all those peace-loving Europeans who turned their backs on militarism even as the Cold War raged. But it only worked because America was providing the arms and the defence protection that Europe highmindedly disdained.
Comfortable, deeply-cushioned and still completely unaffordable even with the money we once spent on defending ourselves. As Daley points out, Obama now wants that feather bed for his people and the message to Europe is clear - the US are not going to continue to pick up the tab for protecting Europe much longer.
Europe will have to fund its own defence and that is one big reality cheque.
Showing posts with label Sanctions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sanctions. Show all posts
Monday, April 06, 2009
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Limper than week old lettuce
The European Union is considering sanctions against Russia following its recognition of independence for the Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the French foreign minister said today.
Quite what those sanctions are the Independent does not reveal.
Bernard Kouchner, whose country currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU, said the bloc was "trying to draw up a strong text, signifying our unwillingness to accept" Russia's stance.
Unlike Russian gas and oil which they are only too willing to accept. Maybe the Germans are going to stop selling the Russian oligarchy their fleets of BMW's and Merc's? Except, of course, with the perilous state of the German economy that isn't likely either.
France has called EU leaders to a meeting Monday in Brussels to focus on what steps the 27-member bloc will take in response to the fighting between Russia and Georgia. The EU's future relations with Russia will be discussed, and Kouchner said some countries have asked that sanctions be proposed.
Hmmm, I wonder which countries? It wouldn't be those countries that border Russia by any chance would it? And I wonder why those countries just don't go ahead and impose their own sanctions if that is what floats their boat?
"Sanctions are being considered ... and many other means as well," Kouchner said at news conference. He did not elaborate.
I'm not surprised he did not elaborate - what is he going to say? That the EU will hit the Russians with a barrage of strong texts ?- but not so strong that Russia will stop flogging their oil and gas to EU nations.
Kouchner's comments marked a turnaround from his stance Monday, when he said the EU did not envision sanctions against Russia following its brief but intense war against Georgia.
You see, that is the point that is often overlooked in this "war" - that it was intense, but brief. Actual loss of life was pretty limited - yes there were civilian casualties (considerably fewer than in the Balkans), but the action was quick and decisive.
I've compared the Russo-Georgian spat with western action against Serbia because there are distinct parallels, but one area where it differs greatly is in the length of time it took to resolve the issue. The biggest difference being that Russia did not dither and dally before taking decisive action while the west did over Serbia.
By taking swift decisive action almost immediately in response to the Georgian assault on South Ossetia Russia ensured that the Georgian army could not entrench themselves in prepared positions - an army on the move and out in the open is much easier to defeat than an army which has had time to prepare its defences.
As a result, the action was over quickly and loss of life was minimised. How very different from the Balkans where Serbian forces were allowed to establish themselves in key strategic areas and removing those forces took an awful lot longer with significant casualties.
Obeying "international law" might make liberals feel good about themselves, but it has an unfortunately detrimental effect on the people on the front line of such conflicts.
Quite what those sanctions are the Independent does not reveal.
Bernard Kouchner, whose country currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU, said the bloc was "trying to draw up a strong text, signifying our unwillingness to accept" Russia's stance.
Unlike Russian gas and oil which they are only too willing to accept. Maybe the Germans are going to stop selling the Russian oligarchy their fleets of BMW's and Merc's? Except, of course, with the perilous state of the German economy that isn't likely either.
France has called EU leaders to a meeting Monday in Brussels to focus on what steps the 27-member bloc will take in response to the fighting between Russia and Georgia. The EU's future relations with Russia will be discussed, and Kouchner said some countries have asked that sanctions be proposed.
Hmmm, I wonder which countries? It wouldn't be those countries that border Russia by any chance would it? And I wonder why those countries just don't go ahead and impose their own sanctions if that is what floats their boat?
"Sanctions are being considered ... and many other means as well," Kouchner said at news conference. He did not elaborate.
I'm not surprised he did not elaborate - what is he going to say? That the EU will hit the Russians with a barrage of strong texts ?- but not so strong that Russia will stop flogging their oil and gas to EU nations.
Kouchner's comments marked a turnaround from his stance Monday, when he said the EU did not envision sanctions against Russia following its brief but intense war against Georgia.
You see, that is the point that is often overlooked in this "war" - that it was intense, but brief. Actual loss of life was pretty limited - yes there were civilian casualties (considerably fewer than in the Balkans), but the action was quick and decisive.
I've compared the Russo-Georgian spat with western action against Serbia because there are distinct parallels, but one area where it differs greatly is in the length of time it took to resolve the issue. The biggest difference being that Russia did not dither and dally before taking decisive action while the west did over Serbia.
By taking swift decisive action almost immediately in response to the Georgian assault on South Ossetia Russia ensured that the Georgian army could not entrench themselves in prepared positions - an army on the move and out in the open is much easier to defeat than an army which has had time to prepare its defences.
As a result, the action was over quickly and loss of life was minimised. How very different from the Balkans where Serbian forces were allowed to establish themselves in key strategic areas and removing those forces took an awful lot longer with significant casualties.
Obeying "international law" might make liberals feel good about themselves, but it has an unfortunately detrimental effect on the people on the front line of such conflicts.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
With friends like these ....
Courtesy of ATW, it appears that the EU's "solidarity" in support for the return of Britain's kidnapped servicemen does not extend to anything other than mouthing platitudes.
EU foreign ministers meeting in Germany called for the sailors to be freed but RULED OUT any tightening of lucrative export credit rules. The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner. British officials are understood to have taken soundings on economic sanctions before the meeting but found few takers. France, Iran’s second-largest EU trading partner, cautioned that further confrontation should be avoided. The Dutch said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.
Why we bother with this useless bunch - the same can be said of the UN, too - is beyond me. If ever there was an instance when the EU could prove it's worth to the British people, it was now. But they don't - and the reason why?
Because the EU has never been about anything other than protecting the interests of France and Germany.
EU foreign ministers meeting in Germany called for the sailors to be freed but RULED OUT any tightening of lucrative export credit rules. The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner. British officials are understood to have taken soundings on economic sanctions before the meeting but found few takers. France, Iran’s second-largest EU trading partner, cautioned that further confrontation should be avoided. The Dutch said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.
Why we bother with this useless bunch - the same can be said of the UN, too - is beyond me. If ever there was an instance when the EU could prove it's worth to the British people, it was now. But they don't - and the reason why?
Because the EU has never been about anything other than protecting the interests of France and Germany.
Monday, March 26, 2007
What should we do about Zimbabwe?
Rampant inflation, unemployment running at around 80%, a lunatic thug in charge of the brutal ruling party and an opposition that is regularly -and literally - beaten into submission. Life expectancy now hovers around the mid thirties and the former bread basket of Africa is incapable of feeding itself.
Zimbabwe is a mess. I don't think anyone can argue with that. The question is; what can we do about it?
I see so many people discussing this on blogs, news comment sites and so on - but I still don't know what it is that these people expect to happen.
The first thing we have to consider, I suppose, is whether we should do anything about it? Do we have any responsibility to Zimbabwe which acts as a justification to intervene?
Zimbabwe is, after all, an independent country, on a different continent and there is no geographical relationship between us. There is a historical and colonial link - but that was long ago and it was their choice to break that link. There is no direct threat to Britain from Zimbabwe, either - although you could argue that the situation there exacerbates the asylum and immigration problems faced by Britain creating more pressure on our public services and housing stock.
What about a moral responsibility? Well, personally, I believe that we all, as individuals, have a moral responsibility to act in ways that improve the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves through charities - by volunteering or donating or both - and I believe that for the vast majority of situations, this is is the course to take.
By the way, let me point out that what I have just said does not mean I approve of passing that responsibility on to the state. I don't. In fact, I think that is one of the most damaging aspects of socialism with too many people believing that paying taxes is a better way to help the poor and disadvantaged. It isn't. It is the worst way and guarantees that the genuinely needy will remain needy.
Obviously there are individual actions we can take to apply pressure on Zimbabwe, but the situation there is such that individual acts are not enough. Instead it is a situation where a nation needs to act collectively - and that means through the government. Obviously a government has no moral obligation to any people other than the people it governs, so, in that respect, there is no moral obligation for this government to act on Zimbabwe - unless the people of this country expressed that as their will.
If there is a responsibility - or any other justification to act, what should that action be?
The preferred way for many is sanctions, but do they really work? Don't sanctions and economic embargoes just end up hurting the people you're supposed to be trying to help? Other sanctions - such as sporting boycotts - are unlikely to have any real effect either. They might make us feel a bit better, but I can't see Mugabe being forced to climb down just because Zimbabwe are kicked out of the cricket world cup. It's not as if they were likely to win the damn thing and gain some sort of propaganda coup from that!
As far as I can see, the only action that would have any chance of forcing Mugabe out is military action, but that, like sanctions, has serious implications for the people you're supposed to be helping. On the positive side, military action would be considerably quicker than sanctions, but the "pain" for the populous of Zimbabwe would be that much more intense. Is the swift traumatic death of war better or worse than the slow lingering, but equally certain death of sanctions, starvation and misery?
Even if we did kick out Mugabe through military action - what then? Another despot and the same problem again 20 years down the line? I listen to people talking about the "success" of South Africa - just as they talked about the "success" of Zimbabwe 20 odd years ago when that was the "rainbow nation" and the model for all Africa. South Africa will be the new Zimbabwe in 20 years time - ruled by a despot, no effective opposition (it has none now), a collapsed economy, raging unemployment and riddled with crime (it already is).
So, what should we do? What can we do? I'd really like to know.
Zimbabwe is a mess. I don't think anyone can argue with that. The question is; what can we do about it?
I see so many people discussing this on blogs, news comment sites and so on - but I still don't know what it is that these people expect to happen.
The first thing we have to consider, I suppose, is whether we should do anything about it? Do we have any responsibility to Zimbabwe which acts as a justification to intervene?
Zimbabwe is, after all, an independent country, on a different continent and there is no geographical relationship between us. There is a historical and colonial link - but that was long ago and it was their choice to break that link. There is no direct threat to Britain from Zimbabwe, either - although you could argue that the situation there exacerbates the asylum and immigration problems faced by Britain creating more pressure on our public services and housing stock.
What about a moral responsibility? Well, personally, I believe that we all, as individuals, have a moral responsibility to act in ways that improve the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves through charities - by volunteering or donating or both - and I believe that for the vast majority of situations, this is is the course to take.
By the way, let me point out that what I have just said does not mean I approve of passing that responsibility on to the state. I don't. In fact, I think that is one of the most damaging aspects of socialism with too many people believing that paying taxes is a better way to help the poor and disadvantaged. It isn't. It is the worst way and guarantees that the genuinely needy will remain needy.
Obviously there are individual actions we can take to apply pressure on Zimbabwe, but the situation there is such that individual acts are not enough. Instead it is a situation where a nation needs to act collectively - and that means through the government. Obviously a government has no moral obligation to any people other than the people it governs, so, in that respect, there is no moral obligation for this government to act on Zimbabwe - unless the people of this country expressed that as their will.
If there is a responsibility - or any other justification to act, what should that action be?
The preferred way for many is sanctions, but do they really work? Don't sanctions and economic embargoes just end up hurting the people you're supposed to be trying to help? Other sanctions - such as sporting boycotts - are unlikely to have any real effect either. They might make us feel a bit better, but I can't see Mugabe being forced to climb down just because Zimbabwe are kicked out of the cricket world cup. It's not as if they were likely to win the damn thing and gain some sort of propaganda coup from that!
As far as I can see, the only action that would have any chance of forcing Mugabe out is military action, but that, like sanctions, has serious implications for the people you're supposed to be helping. On the positive side, military action would be considerably quicker than sanctions, but the "pain" for the populous of Zimbabwe would be that much more intense. Is the swift traumatic death of war better or worse than the slow lingering, but equally certain death of sanctions, starvation and misery?
Even if we did kick out Mugabe through military action - what then? Another despot and the same problem again 20 years down the line? I listen to people talking about the "success" of South Africa - just as they talked about the "success" of Zimbabwe 20 odd years ago when that was the "rainbow nation" and the model for all Africa. South Africa will be the new Zimbabwe in 20 years time - ruled by a despot, no effective opposition (it has none now), a collapsed economy, raging unemployment and riddled with crime (it already is).
So, what should we do? What can we do? I'd really like to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)