Posted 3:44 pm by BOTE
Where's the good news?

The bad news keeps on coming. In Iraq, US forces are playing a dangerous game of attrition that they cannot win. The longer they remain the more organised and effective those in Iraq willing to use violence to eject them become. The reprisals of embattled US soldiers, demoralised and tired, will only encourage more volunteers. This is exactly the cycle of violence that has left thousands dead in Israel over the past three decades.

In the UK, an ill judged offensive against the BBC and its journalistic sources, has led to the suicide of an innocent scientist. The tragedy has caused simmering resentment against the government to boil over into accusations of dishonesty. There is now a widespread perception that the government lied to the people and to parliament that is likely to hasten the end of the "new labour" project.

In the US, the administration is twisting itself in knots in an attempt to deflect criticism of its pre-war manipulation of intelligence and its strong arming of the CIA. The mainstream media has been unusually aggressive in its search for the truth behind the inclusion of the now infamous Nigerien nuclear materials allegation in the State of the Union speech. The administration is having difficulty fending off the attack.

A string of scapegoats have been trotted out. The CIA, and George Tenet, refused to carry the can and have made it clear that the administration inserted the claim over repeated objections by the CIA. Some junior administration officials have been sacrificed but right now the noose seems to be closing around Condoleeza Rice. Its unlikely to end there though as there is substantial circumstantial evidence pointing to the office of the secretary of defence. Can Don escape? Maybe, but its clear that anyone will be sacrificed to protect the President. This becoming more important as some Democratic presidential candidates (Dr. Dean in particular) are becoming more pointed in their criticism of George W.

On the economic front optimism in the US and UK is inexplicably on the up. Why? most likely because people are fed up feeling bad. Unfortunately wishing things were better is only a short term panacea. Most of mainland Europe is sliding into recession, Japan remains a basket case, and the US and UK economies are struggling to keep their heads above water.

It is true that the corporate sector has worked through much of its near term debt problem. There has been a recent surge in corporate finance activity and investment banks are likely to make serious money this year, this is always a sign that the sector has more money to spend. Unfortunately asbestos and pensions liabilities remain serious impediments to a sustained revival in corporate profitability across large swathes of industry.

Consumers in both countries remain overburdened with debt and are not going to start spending anytime soon. Add to that the startlingly large US trade and budget deficits (well done George), oil prices that remain near recent peaks and the political and terrorism risks that are, if anything, on the increase its hard to see the optimism surviving past the autumn. September is a traditional time for corrections......

So where's the good news? How about this...Tony and George are looking less likely to be re-elected.

Posted 3:38 pm by BOTE
End Justifies the Means?

All the backsliding over the justification for war has stretched revisionism to its limits

coming soon......

Posted 1:32 pm by BOTE
Is US democratic accountability weakening?

Republicans are about to do it again. You have to hand it to them, they have mastered the art of focusing public attention on the appealing and uncontroversial aspects of otherwise radical and egregious legislation. The first target was taxation, next came civil liberties, and now social security.

Legislation is currently working its way through both congress and the senate that would fundamentally alter the character of Medicare, the programme that provides millions of Americans with healthcare security. The bait on this occassion is enhanced prescription benefits for the elderly. Laudable in principle, but as usual there are a number of catches.

The least important but more instructive catch is that the legislation won't make most elderly people much better off. Deductibles and other holes in the proposed coverage will, in many cases, require the elderly to continue paying most of their own drug costs. The $400 billion proposed for the programme is a fraction of the total projected prescription bill for seniors over the next 10 years. This aspect of the legislation fulfils two key aims of the Republicans:

- To demostrate to the electorate that George W. cares about the weaker elements of American society and to deflect criticism that he has spent the last three years pandering to an elite minority.

- To disguise the real intention of the legislation

That real intention is to shift as many beneficiaries as possible out of Medicare and into private provision. Private health insurers will initially be subsidised by the government to allow them to lure people away from Medicare. Then in 2010 Medicare rates will be set by market forces. Private providers are likely to cherry pick the healthiest leaving Medicare with the weak and the sick who would face a substantial hike in the cost of provision. All this, of course won't happen until well after the 2004 election.

How is it that Republicans are still getting away with this? They have pursued a blatantly radical agenda for three years now with virtually no dissent from the media or the American public. Something is not right here.

One of the biggest problems is the way Americans get their information. For the most part Americans learn about the world around them through television. During the last three years slick network news channels like Fox, CNN and ABC have been among the most popular sources for news. They have also been surprisingly uncritical of the domestic agenda of the Bush administration preferring instead to provide minute by minute coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Half truths and lies have gone unchallenged.

A fundamental part of any well functioning democracy is a system of checks and balances that prevent any one arm of the government from holding and exercising too much power. In recent years voters have usually achieved this by giving the Senate, Congress and Presidency to different parties but now Republicans control all three. The media is the next line of defence. They must be the eyes and ears of the electorate and raise the alarm when abuses of power are in progress.

It is no accident that in recent years one of the few news sources that has consistently performed this role is the New York Times. Editorial decisions there are not subject to the implicit supervision of a large parent company that may find it uncomfortable to offend the Bush administration. Whatever the reason, many of the most popular news sources in the US are not doing their job and in the end the American people will be worse off as a result.

Posted 3:57 pm by BOTE
An update on the invasions effect on global security. It seems that because of delays and mistakes by US troops in securing sites known to contain radioactive material 200 250kg containers containing "yellow-cake" uranium, cesium, and cobalt have gone missing. An article from the New Republic goes on to point out that the last two of these can be used to make dirty bombs. Efforts to recover the materials to date have failed, and on the whole appear entirely inadequate given the risks involved. Another nail in the coffin of the "World is better off" thesis.

Posted 12:36 pm by BOTE
Is the Bush administration going after Iran?

coming soon.

Posted 12:35 pm by BOTE
The NY times runs an article today about a report that the EPA will publish on the state of the environment. Despite a consensus in the scientific community that the preponderance of evidence suggests that global warming exists and human activity is a significant contributer to the problem, the Bush administration has intervened to all but remove any reference to the problem. Could the administrations links to industry and George W.'s need to fund his re-election campaign have anything to do with the intervention? You decide...

Posted 12:28 pm by BOTE
There can be no argument with the fact that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. He maintained his grip on power in a fractious Iraq by brutally supressing anyone he perceived as a rival. The demise of his regime is not a matter for regret. The question of whether the world is better off now that he is gone is more complicated.

The end justifies the means is probably an accurate characterisation of the approach the US administration has taken to ousting Saddam. This time worn phrase captures the essence of the Bush political philosophy. A decision was made to take out Saddams regime and the administration did everything in its power to realise that goal. Everything included riding roughshot over world opinion and the UN security council and there is evidence to suggest everything also included lying to the American people (omission of facts and self-serving manipulation of evidence can be considered lying. Republicans have all too recently been strong advocates of this view).

The magnitude of damage to the global stability as a result of the cavalier disregard for world opinion is a matter for debate, but damage there is. Global resentment of the US and its policies is the highest for a generation. Even close allies and neighbours refused to support the war against Saddam. America's moral authority and its position as a beign beacon of freedom and prosperity have been undermined. Terrorist groups have been handed a powerful new tool to recruit disenfranchised youth the world over. The imperialist Americans have shown their true colours, the Jihad is the only way to punish this offence against Allah...etc etc. Had the US shown a little more restraint and forced Saddam to accept intrusive arms inspections then perhaps this outcome could have been avoided. The war for hearts and minds across the globe is more important than ousting one two-bit dictator.

The US has committed almost half its military strength to taking and now holding Iraq. This presence is likely to become increasingly unwelcome as competing local groups organise and begin to press more effectively for power. The inability of US forces to restore conditions for ordinary Iraqis to something approaching their prewar level will lead to increasing resentment as time passes. 'At least we had x before the Americans came' will resonate more and more as time passes. Recent attacks on American troops and demonstrations bear witness to the growing frustration of Iraqis.

If Afghanistan is an example of the Bush administrations approach to nation building then it is unlikely that the necessary resources to stabilise Iraq and to give it a fighting chance of a prosperous future will be forthcoming. Iraq would then become another source of instability in a region that scarcely needs more problems.

Then there is the collateral damage. Relations between the EU and The US are strained. Don Rumsfelds references to 'Old' and 'New' Europe were not appreciated in the capitals of Europe, nor was the effort to divide European foreign policy position using Eastern European countries. The new distance between Europe and America is likely to lead to intractability across a range of issues that will lead to a diminution in prosperity for everyone. Trade protectionism, for example, is already on the increase in the US and a harsh European response is now more likely.

Is the world better off without Saddam? Its not clear yet, but the omens are not good.