Never mind all the talk of a V- or even a U- shaped recession: what's in store for the U.S. is a protracted period of economic stagnation and decline. In an article entitled "Recession 'shape' points down", W. Joseph Stroupe, editor of GlobalEventsMagazine.com, calls this an "L-shaped" recession and his logic is compelling. He believes that America (and Britain too) are currently engaged in the futile process of trying to re-ignite the asset bubbles that have led us to our present, pitiful state. He doubts--as do I--that their efforts will succede, but even if they do, they will only succede in creating a still worse crash down the road.
His own magazine is available by subscription only, but this particular article can be read free of charge at Asia Times Online:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KE22Dj02.html
(Asia Times Online, by the way, is probably one of the best sources on the web for in-depth analysis of economic and geopolitical events. I highly recommend it.)
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
I Stand Vindicated!
Pursuant to my May 5th post ("Back From the Dead: Karl Marx"--see below), I found an excellent article in Asia Times Online by distinguished economist and finance specialist Henry C. K. Liu (http://www.henryckliu.com/) which essentially supports my view of US economic policy over the last thirty years:
Inflation is deemed benign as long as wages rise at a slower pace than asset prices. The monetarist iron law of wages worked in the industrial age, with the resultant excess capacity absorbed by conspicuous consumption of the moneyed class, although it eventually heralded in the age of revolutions. But the iron law of wages no longer works in the post-industrial age, in which growth can only come from demand management because overcapacity has grown beyond the ability of conspicuous consumption of a few to absorb in an economic democracy.That has been the basic problem of the global economy for the past three decades. Low wages have landed the world in its current sorry state of overcapacity masked by unsustainable demand created by a debt bubble that finally imploded in July 2007. The whole world is now producing goods and services made by low-wage workers who cannot afford to buy what they make except by taking on debt on which they eventually will default.
If you're not afraid of a little jargon here and there, the article can be read in its entirety at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KE06Dj03.html.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Back From the Dead: Karl Marx
Of all the nonsense about the economic crisis being peddled today, perhaps no statement is more noxious than the one that this is just a ‘financial’ or a ‘liquidity’ crisis. It is not: this is a full-blown economic crisis which is inevitable and has long-term causes.
For the first twenty years or so after WWII, the U.S. basically had the (free) world economy to itself. All of our major competitors had either been completely destroyed (Germany, Japan) or badly damaged (Britain, France) during the war and the communist countries, of course, declined to compete with us at all. By the late 60’s though, this period was over: Europe and Japan had recovered and now we faced competition.
For a time, the principal effect of this was hidden from us by stagflation. The chronic overspending of the U.S. Government and then the Arab oil embargo of the mid-seventies caused a ruinous mix of unemployment and price inflation which eventually spread to a number of other countries too. Monetary policy was eventually effective in bringing prices back under control, but American industry—and especially her workers—never really recovered. Real incomes there never again reached the level they were at in 1973. Before industry in the U.S. even had a chance to properly recover, the imports hit in full force. In the 70’s and 80’s, it was Japan; then in the 90’s came China. European industry, of course, never went away, so world production capacity surged to historic heights, while wages in America did not. What was going on?
The short answer—the one given long ago by Karl Marx—was the crisis of overproduction. Briefly summarized: ever-expanding production capacity would eventually create unavoidable deflationary pressures, as workers would not be able to naturally afford all that was produced. For a time, he allowed, credit might be able to square the circle, but eventually the bust would hit home with a vengeance. One natural response to this (on the part of the competitors in the system) would be to try to gain relative advantage over the others by the introduction of productivity-enhancing technologies; but in the end, that would only aggravate the problem by lowering wages even further (more productive technologies, by definition, create more goods with fewer workers) and concentrating ever more wealth in ever fewer hands.
And what did Uncle Sam do in response to this? He helped to create one asset bubble after the next to disguise the problem! The Chinese were allowed to buy unlimited amounts of U.S. bonds, which simultaneously financed our debt-binge while keeping the yuan artificially weak. What was going on? Why would the rulers of America allow such a thing to happen?
Crudely put, they decided that it was cheaper to let the Chinese into the club than to fight to keep them out, so America became—voluntarily!—the world’s designated importer, not only for China, but also for Europe and the rest of Asia too. Both our major trading partners and also our political vassal-states (like those of the Persian Gulf) were expected to plow at least a percentage of their profits right back into the U.S, mostly on Wall Street. The Street, in turn, experienced the longest and greatest bull market ever: the Dow went from just over 2,000 in 1992 to about 14,000 a few years ago. Investment banks poured money all over real-estate backed securities, enabling a dangerous housing bubble. And yet, still, median incomes hardly budged; adjusted for inflation, in fact, many Americans' incomes actually declined slightly. In time, the inevitable happened: a lot of those sub-prime borrowers defaulted on their mortgages and all those elaborate debt-instruments were revealed as so many worthless scraps of paper.
The troubling thing about the crisis of overproduction is that it is a defect—a time bomb, in fact—that is completely intrinsic to the capitalist system. It is not a case of capitalism failing; this is naturally what happens when it succeeds! That means: even if we disregard (or somehow eliminate) all externalities that plague the system, such as environmental problems, political instability, etc., we still cannot preserve the system without destroying it.
In fact, temporarily destroying it (think World War II) might actually be the only way of prolonging it… a rather depressing thought.
For the first twenty years or so after WWII, the U.S. basically had the (free) world economy to itself. All of our major competitors had either been completely destroyed (Germany, Japan) or badly damaged (Britain, France) during the war and the communist countries, of course, declined to compete with us at all. By the late 60’s though, this period was over: Europe and Japan had recovered and now we faced competition.
For a time, the principal effect of this was hidden from us by stagflation. The chronic overspending of the U.S. Government and then the Arab oil embargo of the mid-seventies caused a ruinous mix of unemployment and price inflation which eventually spread to a number of other countries too. Monetary policy was eventually effective in bringing prices back under control, but American industry—and especially her workers—never really recovered. Real incomes there never again reached the level they were at in 1973. Before industry in the U.S. even had a chance to properly recover, the imports hit in full force. In the 70’s and 80’s, it was Japan; then in the 90’s came China. European industry, of course, never went away, so world production capacity surged to historic heights, while wages in America did not. What was going on?
The short answer—the one given long ago by Karl Marx—was the crisis of overproduction. Briefly summarized: ever-expanding production capacity would eventually create unavoidable deflationary pressures, as workers would not be able to naturally afford all that was produced. For a time, he allowed, credit might be able to square the circle, but eventually the bust would hit home with a vengeance. One natural response to this (on the part of the competitors in the system) would be to try to gain relative advantage over the others by the introduction of productivity-enhancing technologies; but in the end, that would only aggravate the problem by lowering wages even further (more productive technologies, by definition, create more goods with fewer workers) and concentrating ever more wealth in ever fewer hands.
And what did Uncle Sam do in response to this? He helped to create one asset bubble after the next to disguise the problem! The Chinese were allowed to buy unlimited amounts of U.S. bonds, which simultaneously financed our debt-binge while keeping the yuan artificially weak. What was going on? Why would the rulers of America allow such a thing to happen?
Crudely put, they decided that it was cheaper to let the Chinese into the club than to fight to keep them out, so America became—voluntarily!—the world’s designated importer, not only for China, but also for Europe and the rest of Asia too. Both our major trading partners and also our political vassal-states (like those of the Persian Gulf) were expected to plow at least a percentage of their profits right back into the U.S, mostly on Wall Street. The Street, in turn, experienced the longest and greatest bull market ever: the Dow went from just over 2,000 in 1992 to about 14,000 a few years ago. Investment banks poured money all over real-estate backed securities, enabling a dangerous housing bubble. And yet, still, median incomes hardly budged; adjusted for inflation, in fact, many Americans' incomes actually declined slightly. In time, the inevitable happened: a lot of those sub-prime borrowers defaulted on their mortgages and all those elaborate debt-instruments were revealed as so many worthless scraps of paper.
The troubling thing about the crisis of overproduction is that it is a defect—a time bomb, in fact—that is completely intrinsic to the capitalist system. It is not a case of capitalism failing; this is naturally what happens when it succeeds! That means: even if we disregard (or somehow eliminate) all externalities that plague the system, such as environmental problems, political instability, etc., we still cannot preserve the system without destroying it.
In fact, temporarily destroying it (think World War II) might actually be the only way of prolonging it… a rather depressing thought.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Barack HUSSEIN Obama
Many opponents of Obama who are Christian have been making a certain argument against him that represents a radical departure from the Christian teaching. Simply put: they question whether Barack is a Christian at all on account of the fact that his father was a (nominal) Muslim. They claim that his conversion wasn't real and that he is some sort of "stealth Muslim." (Mark Danner, in the New York Review of Books, recently recounted an example of this objection: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22017#danner)
People who hold this view though, are at odds with Christian theology. Basically, they're disparaging the rites of baptism and conversion--the central rites of the Christian religion! In their view, a person isn't a 'real' Christian unless his daddy was too. In other words: free will, the personal relationship with Christ and individual choice are irrelavant to being saved. They make it seem as though salvation were some sort of genetic or heriditary condition that is passed down from father to son through the blood. Effectively, this means that conversion is impossible and that baptism is only an empty ritual. Now given the fact that the anscestor of all Christians, if you trace their lineage back far enough, had to convert from some other religion (be it Judaism, Paganism or some other belief), that would call into question whether the Christian religion can even be said to exist!
Furthermore, such people should be aware that what they are saying could undermine the effectiveness of Christian missionaries and evangelists working abroad. What is the message they are sending those non-Christians who are considering converting? That they will never be accepted as 'true' Christians simply because of who their parents are? That's a great way to scare off potential converts.
Of course, they have a First Amendment right to believe any old thing they like, but those who advance this view should be aware of the implications of what they are saying: basically, they're founding a new religion!
People who hold this view though, are at odds with Christian theology. Basically, they're disparaging the rites of baptism and conversion--the central rites of the Christian religion! In their view, a person isn't a 'real' Christian unless his daddy was too. In other words: free will, the personal relationship with Christ and individual choice are irrelavant to being saved. They make it seem as though salvation were some sort of genetic or heriditary condition that is passed down from father to son through the blood. Effectively, this means that conversion is impossible and that baptism is only an empty ritual. Now given the fact that the anscestor of all Christians, if you trace their lineage back far enough, had to convert from some other religion (be it Judaism, Paganism or some other belief), that would call into question whether the Christian religion can even be said to exist!
Furthermore, such people should be aware that what they are saying could undermine the effectiveness of Christian missionaries and evangelists working abroad. What is the message they are sending those non-Christians who are considering converting? That they will never be accepted as 'true' Christians simply because of who their parents are? That's a great way to scare off potential converts.
Of course, they have a First Amendment right to believe any old thing they like, but those who advance this view should be aware of the implications of what they are saying: basically, they're founding a new religion!
Not Your Daddy's Republican Party
Here we are with only two and a half weeks to go before the election and it seems that, for the first time ever, our country will elect a black man to be president. What an amazing turn of events!
Even more amazing though, is what has happened to the GOP. A failed foreign policy, an economy in free-fall and widespread corruption and incompetence are the hallmarks of today's Republican Party. Those old enough to remember an earlier era are scarcely able to believe what they are seeing.
There was once a time, not so long ago, when Republicans were widely regarded as competent and reliable, if a bit boring. They were a party of stolid old-fashioned types who took the business of managing the country seriously. After abandoning laissez-faire ideology in the wake of the Great Depression, they directed their efforts at running the economy (and the budget) more efficiently, rather than trying to reverse the New Deal.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford--the quintessential men in grey flannel suits. Their very lack of star-power, however, was part of their appeal. This was especially true after the Democratic Party flew off the rails at the '68 convention. By then, the country had enough of the Democrats' antics and decided to switch over to the party that represented order and stability. The Republicans of that era tended to eschew anything even vaguely radical--a tendency that was reinforced by Goldwater's crushing defeat in 1964. Unlike the Democrats, they were the responsible party, concerned with boring, uninspiring, grown-up stuff like balanced budgets and balance of power. They were, in short, just what the country needed.
Then something happened: fiscal prudence was jettisoned in favor of supply-side ideology, while the "silent majority" gradually gave way to an evermore deranged Christian radicalism. Ayn Rand meets Jim Jones! George H. W. Bush (also known as '41') was the last of his breed; after him came the flood.
I first noticed something was wrong when they swept Congress in the '94 mid-terms. Newt Gingrich struck me as a grand-standing buffoon, who combined a gift for rabble-rousing with a taste for utopian schemes (the two often go together). Still, he was mild compared with what was coming.
Once Bush '43 took office, it was all over. A more spectacular failure would be hard to imagine, and I doubt that posterity will judge him any more kindly than we do. What ever became of Dad's Republican Party? After eight years of Bush (and six years of Tom DeLay), we now have the largest Federal debt in history, and as for corruption, Jack Abramoff could give Tammany Hall lessons!
In addition to all the practical problems Bush and Co. have caused, there has also been a distinct change in tone during campaigns that I find disturbing. Again, I think it actually began with Gingrich, but it has really taken over completely under Bush, with the help of Karl Rove. Nowadays, Republican campaigns are filled with this whiney, bone-headed populism that is so shrill and hysterical that it almost makes me ashamed to be a white man. I can remember when it was the Democrats pushing this angry, anti-government nonsense and I didn't like it then any more than I do now. I find identity politics inherently contemptible no matter whose identity is being toyed with. Bush, of course, was very good at this stuff, whereas McCain can't seem to do it without visibly squirming; but either way, I think it's a bad idea to substitute grievance politics for workable policies--and it's not a pleasure to watch either.
I am first and foremost a Realist; I am under no illusion that this sort of campaigning is ever going to vanish completely. This temper-tantrum populism has been with us since Andrew Jackson and has been an on-again-off-feature of American politics ever since. And so long as it does not interfere with the serious business of governing, I can tolerate it. But a when a party's campaign rhetoric starts to undermine its ability to rule, and when the peddlers of utopian schemes and paranoid dellusions starts to believe their own rhetoric, the inevitable result is trouble.
And that's why I'm pulling for Obama this year.
Even more amazing though, is what has happened to the GOP. A failed foreign policy, an economy in free-fall and widespread corruption and incompetence are the hallmarks of today's Republican Party. Those old enough to remember an earlier era are scarcely able to believe what they are seeing.
There was once a time, not so long ago, when Republicans were widely regarded as competent and reliable, if a bit boring. They were a party of stolid old-fashioned types who took the business of managing the country seriously. After abandoning laissez-faire ideology in the wake of the Great Depression, they directed their efforts at running the economy (and the budget) more efficiently, rather than trying to reverse the New Deal.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford--the quintessential men in grey flannel suits. Their very lack of star-power, however, was part of their appeal. This was especially true after the Democratic Party flew off the rails at the '68 convention. By then, the country had enough of the Democrats' antics and decided to switch over to the party that represented order and stability. The Republicans of that era tended to eschew anything even vaguely radical--a tendency that was reinforced by Goldwater's crushing defeat in 1964. Unlike the Democrats, they were the responsible party, concerned with boring, uninspiring, grown-up stuff like balanced budgets and balance of power. They were, in short, just what the country needed.
Then something happened: fiscal prudence was jettisoned in favor of supply-side ideology, while the "silent majority" gradually gave way to an evermore deranged Christian radicalism. Ayn Rand meets Jim Jones! George H. W. Bush (also known as '41') was the last of his breed; after him came the flood.
I first noticed something was wrong when they swept Congress in the '94 mid-terms. Newt Gingrich struck me as a grand-standing buffoon, who combined a gift for rabble-rousing with a taste for utopian schemes (the two often go together). Still, he was mild compared with what was coming.
Once Bush '43 took office, it was all over. A more spectacular failure would be hard to imagine, and I doubt that posterity will judge him any more kindly than we do. What ever became of Dad's Republican Party? After eight years of Bush (and six years of Tom DeLay), we now have the largest Federal debt in history, and as for corruption, Jack Abramoff could give Tammany Hall lessons!
In addition to all the practical problems Bush and Co. have caused, there has also been a distinct change in tone during campaigns that I find disturbing. Again, I think it actually began with Gingrich, but it has really taken over completely under Bush, with the help of Karl Rove. Nowadays, Republican campaigns are filled with this whiney, bone-headed populism that is so shrill and hysterical that it almost makes me ashamed to be a white man. I can remember when it was the Democrats pushing this angry, anti-government nonsense and I didn't like it then any more than I do now. I find identity politics inherently contemptible no matter whose identity is being toyed with. Bush, of course, was very good at this stuff, whereas McCain can't seem to do it without visibly squirming; but either way, I think it's a bad idea to substitute grievance politics for workable policies--and it's not a pleasure to watch either.
I am first and foremost a Realist; I am under no illusion that this sort of campaigning is ever going to vanish completely. This temper-tantrum populism has been with us since Andrew Jackson and has been an on-again-off-feature of American politics ever since. And so long as it does not interfere with the serious business of governing, I can tolerate it. But a when a party's campaign rhetoric starts to undermine its ability to rule, and when the peddlers of utopian schemes and paranoid dellusions starts to believe their own rhetoric, the inevitable result is trouble.
And that's why I'm pulling for Obama this year.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Reply to 'Spengler': Why Biden Rather Than Clinton
In today's Asia Times Online, 'Spengler' once again comes down on Obama, critcizing his Vice-presidential pick, Joe Biden. In "How Obama lost the election" (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JI03Aa02.html), he faults Obama especially for passing over Hillary Clinton. I personally never thought there was any chance Hillary would be the Vice-presidential nominee, but I have to admit that I too was at first a bit puzzled by the pick of Biden.
But first, more on Clinton. The reason Obama didn't pick her is quite simple: she doesn't want to be anybody's VP. Hillary has already done her eight years in White House, patiently waiting her turn; she doesn't want to go through that again.
Moreover, she seems sincerely to believe that Obama will lose in November and that would put her in an even stronger position to run again in 2012. She could then go to the voters and say, essentially, 'I told you so'. But if she had to wait a whole eight years, there is every chance voters would lose interest or simply find her too old for the job by then.
How do I know she doesn't want to be Obama's VP? From the way she behaved during the primaries. If she had wanted the number-two job, the thing to do was to cut a deal with Obama sometime back in February or March, dropping out of the race in exchange for being his running mate. Instead, she continued to run long after it was effectively impossible for her to win, in a way that weakened Obama's candidacy without ever really strengthening hers. But four years from now, she could still go back and say to those who voted against her: "I tried to warn you, but you wouldn't listen." So much for Hillary. Now, on to Biden...
I must confess that I myself was a bit puzzled by the pick of Biden--the loquacious, professional Senator from Delaware with all the pizzaz of meatloaf. But just then I realized exactly why Obama picked him. The first rule of choosing a VP, is: "Above all, do no harm." No one votes for a Vice President. The only important thing about the pick is what it says about the Presidential candidate. Biden really has no weaknesses, no skeletons in the closet and he most certainly will not overshadow Obama in terms of personality, so what this says to the voters about Obama is: "I am reliable, I am safe." The very conventionality--the very boringness, if you will--of the Biden pick is meant to reassure those who think he might be unreliable due to inexperience. That's exactly the image Obama needs to cultivate if he is to reassure nervous voters--especially nervous white voters. As a black man, Obama cannot afford to look too radical. He must be more Bill Cosby than Huey Newton if he is to win over Middle America.
And then again, after eight years of erratic (at times, even reckless) leadership in the White House, a bit of stolidness and level-headedness would indeed constitute a noticeable 'change', wouldn't it?
I don't pretend that he's got the election in the bag; I'm sure it will be a close one, definitely too close to call at this point. But I think the Biden pick shows something about Obama that has helped to bring him this far in American politics, and may yet take him to the finishline: his amazing talent for seeming so reassuring and unthreatening--definitely unprecedented in a black politician.
But first, more on Clinton. The reason Obama didn't pick her is quite simple: she doesn't want to be anybody's VP. Hillary has already done her eight years in White House, patiently waiting her turn; she doesn't want to go through that again.
Moreover, she seems sincerely to believe that Obama will lose in November and that would put her in an even stronger position to run again in 2012. She could then go to the voters and say, essentially, 'I told you so'. But if she had to wait a whole eight years, there is every chance voters would lose interest or simply find her too old for the job by then.
How do I know she doesn't want to be Obama's VP? From the way she behaved during the primaries. If she had wanted the number-two job, the thing to do was to cut a deal with Obama sometime back in February or March, dropping out of the race in exchange for being his running mate. Instead, she continued to run long after it was effectively impossible for her to win, in a way that weakened Obama's candidacy without ever really strengthening hers. But four years from now, she could still go back and say to those who voted against her: "I tried to warn you, but you wouldn't listen." So much for Hillary. Now, on to Biden...
I must confess that I myself was a bit puzzled by the pick of Biden--the loquacious, professional Senator from Delaware with all the pizzaz of meatloaf. But just then I realized exactly why Obama picked him. The first rule of choosing a VP, is: "Above all, do no harm." No one votes for a Vice President. The only important thing about the pick is what it says about the Presidential candidate. Biden really has no weaknesses, no skeletons in the closet and he most certainly will not overshadow Obama in terms of personality, so what this says to the voters about Obama is: "I am reliable, I am safe." The very conventionality--the very boringness, if you will--of the Biden pick is meant to reassure those who think he might be unreliable due to inexperience. That's exactly the image Obama needs to cultivate if he is to reassure nervous voters--especially nervous white voters. As a black man, Obama cannot afford to look too radical. He must be more Bill Cosby than Huey Newton if he is to win over Middle America.
And then again, after eight years of erratic (at times, even reckless) leadership in the White House, a bit of stolidness and level-headedness would indeed constitute a noticeable 'change', wouldn't it?
I don't pretend that he's got the election in the bag; I'm sure it will be a close one, definitely too close to call at this point. But I think the Biden pick shows something about Obama that has helped to bring him this far in American politics, and may yet take him to the finishline: his amazing talent for seeming so reassuring and unthreatening--definitely unprecedented in a black politician.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
From Kosovo to Abkhazia
Over the past few weeks, the Russians have used America's reccent actions in Kosovo again and again as a precedent for their own recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia this past Monday. (In February of this year, the U.S. recognized Kosovo as an independent state over the objections of Serbia, to which Kosovo had belonged until then.)
As insistent as the Russians have been in pushing the Kosovo analogy, however, I happen to think they are still selling their own case short. In Kosovo, afterall, the U.S. had no compelling national interest whatsoever. This little country is nowhere near our border, its citizens do not hold U.S. passports, and neighboring Serbia did not constitute anything even vaguely resembling a threat to our security. (On that last point, however, the reverse is definitely not true: we bombed Serbia in 1999, even though there was no clear-cut evidence of any Serb-on-Kosovar ethnic cleansing--as Washington claimed. How could there be? The Kosovar Serbs were outnumbered by the ethnic Albanians nearly ten to one!)
But consider now Russia's predicament in the Caucuses:
As insistent as the Russians have been in pushing the Kosovo analogy, however, I happen to think they are still selling their own case short. In Kosovo, afterall, the U.S. had no compelling national interest whatsoever. This little country is nowhere near our border, its citizens do not hold U.S. passports, and neighboring Serbia did not constitute anything even vaguely resembling a threat to our security. (On that last point, however, the reverse is definitely not true: we bombed Serbia in 1999, even though there was no clear-cut evidence of any Serb-on-Kosovar ethnic cleansing--as Washington claimed. How could there be? The Kosovar Serbs were outnumbered by the ethnic Albanians nearly ten to one!)
But consider now Russia's predicament in the Caucuses:
- The expansion of NATO right up to Russia's very borders would indeed constitute a direct threat to their national security. And even if you are of the opinion the we can be trusted not to abuse our "forward-leaning" position there at some point in the future (by, say, stationing ABM's in Georgia, as we just did in Poland after unilaterally abandoning the Nixon-era ABM treaty), why should Russia trust us? Years ago, would we ever have tolerated any attempt on Russia's part to expand the Warwaw Pact to include Mexico or Canada? I know it's a stretch to imagine such a thing, since neither Mexico nor Canada would ever have wanted to go along with this. But supposing the Soviets could have engineered some sort of coup or revolution in Mexico which brought a far left-wing regime to power there? Well, that's exactly what happened in Cuba, wasn't it? And you know how we responded there. Even before there was any talk of putting missles on the island, we tried to overthrow Castro during the failed Bay of Pigs landing. I'm with the sceptics on this one: expanding NATO eastward was and remains a dangerously provocative policy.
- And what about the rights and national aspirations of the South Ossetians and the Abkhazians? Are they any less deserving of independence and personal security than the Kosovar Albanians? Even if the Russians are being cynical is raising the point (and I'm sure they are), that doesn't prove them wrong. What, afterall, were our motives in Kosovo? I have just made the point that it surely couldn't have been about our national security, since neither Kosovo nor Serbia are anywhere near our border. Could our actions there, perhaps, have had something to do with our desire to make permanent our military presence in the Balkans to act as a way-station for all of our activities in the Middle East and the Caucuses? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel)
I think the Russians would help their case much more if they asked questions like these, rather than going on about U.S. election conspiracy theories, as Putin did earlier today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/28/georgia.russia2).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)