The Happy Carpenter

MidEast peace through better borders

I've often thought we would have been much better off - all of us - if we'd gone in and partitioned Iraq into Kurd/Sunni/Shiaa thirds.  I understand the reasons for not doing so, but I still disagree with them.  Ralph Peters has taken this concept to its ultimate conclusion:  Don't stop in Iraq, but redraw the whole region.  Behold:

Now:

Then:

Fascinating.  I suggest you look at the maps first, then read Peters' paper.

Thought assignment:  Does the UN as it exists stand to promote this solution or to hinder it?

Could American law make American participation in and/or funding of the UN illegal?

Question for the lawyers out there:

Is there anything in American anti-corruption/bribery or RICO laws which might force us to leave the UN?

If the laws aren't strong enough to compel us to retire from the UN, could they then at least force us to cease all funding for the corrupt body until the AG can certify its cleanliness (which will never happen)?

I'm no constitutional scholar or lawyer, but I suspect the unfortunate answer to my question wo uld be "no" -- treaties would trump domestic law.  But you never know.  All we need is one emanation from one penumbra to go our way...

Systemic economic waste, bank lending practices, political patronage and the survival of a one-party state are inseparably intertwined in China.

Sometimes it takes a while to prove there is no third way.  Nor is there a second way.  There is only Capitalism, and how well you do it.  Apparently, Chinese Communists are not doing it well.  If you've been looking for an investment opportunity, you are hereby strongly reminded investing in semi-reformed Communists is a bad idea:

According to Ernst & Young, the accounting firm, bad loans in the Chinese financial system have reached a staggering $US911 billion ($1.18 trillion), including $US225 billion in potential future NPLs in the four largest state-owned banks.

This equals 40 per cent of gross domestic product and China has already spent the equivalent of 25-30 per cent of GDP in previous bank bail-outs.

The revelation shows that half-hearted reforms have addressed merely the symptoms of China's financial fragility. Poor business practices are blamed for NPLs but the real source is political. As long as the communist party relies on state-controlled banks to maintain an unreformed core of a command economy, Chinese banks will make more bad loans.

Systemic economic waste, bank lending practices, political patronage and the survival of a one-party state are inseparably intertwined in China. ...

The World Bank estimated that in the 1990s about one-third of fixed investments made in China were wasted. The Chinese central bank reported that during 2000-01 politically directed lending accounted for 60 per cent of NPLs. Such disregard for economic efficiency has bred a culture of irresponsibility and unaccountability in Chinese banks....

Banking reform of the past few years has failed to address these flaws. Its five main features - write-off of NPLs, capital injection, flotation in Hong Kong, minority stakes for Western strategic investors and improvement of corporate governance at headquarters - do not alter the defining characteristics of China's capital allocation system.

Nearly all senior bank executives are appointed by the party, which maintains an extensive organisational network within the financial system. That is why an IMF study finds no evidence that these reforms have improved risk management and credit allocation by banks.

I sincerely hope you're not one of those Western strategic investors, but I bet I know one man who is.  In the 80's he helped send a couple billion down "South of the Border" and after that tanked made eloquent arguments about why it was such a good idea.  Yeah, AFTER it tanked he thought it was still smart.  It's a cinch he thinks ChiCom's are golden.

Go and get your Steyn, and be damn grateful you're not Sudanese

Still waiting...

What's the quintessential leftist cause? It's the one you see on a gazillion bumper stickers: Free Tibet. Every college in the US has a Free Tibet society: There's the Indiana University Students for a Free Tibet, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Students for a Free Tibet, and the Students for a Free Tibet University of Michigan Chapter. Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet. Idealism as inertia is the hallmark of the movement.

Iran elected vice chair of UN Disarmament Commission

Yes, that Iran.

<insert long tirade about past UN corruption, incompetence, and irrelevance here, complete with erudite links and heartbreaking quotes and photos of people fleeing genocide in Darfur>

So why are we not only still a member of the UN, but are its major patron?

Stop the money

It's well past time the United States should stop funding the UN.  Fox News:

UNITED NATIONS — How bad is the still expanding scandal in the United Nations' multi-billion-dollar procurement division? Based on a still-secret internal investigation, the answer is: for the U.N., it is just as bad as the gigantic Oil-for-Food debacle — or maybe worse.

The focus of the current scandal is U.N. peacekeeping, a function that consumes 85 percent of the U.N.'s procurement budget — a cost that could reach $2 billion in 2005. Like many of the U.N.'s financial dealings, it is shrouded in secrecy. And like the multi-billion-dollar Oil-for-Food scandal, it is wrapped in what the U.N.'s own investigators now call "systematic abuse," "a pattern of corrupt practices," and "a culture of impunity."

In all, U.N. investigators have charged that nearly one-third of the $1 billion in major U.N. procurement contracts that they examined involved waste, corruption or other irregularities — $298 million in all. And that total covered slightly less than one-third of the $3.2 billion in major supply contracts that the U.N. has signed in the past five years.

What good is the UN?  What are we waiting for?  Why should we tolerate this kind of crap?

Absolutely fantastic article about The Wealth of Nations -- WHY some are wealthier than others

This is really an outstanding article, written by Ronald Bailey in Reason.  It's very pithy, and begins thus:

For the average American living in the United States is like having more than half a million dollars in wealth. So says a new study from the World Bank, Where is the Wealth of Nations?: Measuring Capital for the 21st Century, which makes estimates of the contribution of natural, produced, and intangible capital to the aggregate wealth of 120 countries.

Why are Americans so well off? It's not just because of America's fruited plains and its alabaster cities. In fact, it turns out that such natural and man-made resources comprise a relatively small percentage of our wealth....

As noted above, 90 percent of intangible capital is accounted for by years of schooling and the rule of law. On average, the rule of law explains 57 percent of countries' intangible capital while schooling accounts for 36 percent. The World Bank has devised a rule-of-law index that measures the extent to which people have confidence in and abide by the rules of their society. An economy with a very efficient judicial system, clear property rights, and an effective government will produce higher total wealth.

On the World Bank's rule-of-law index, the United States scores 92 out of a possible 100. The Swiss are even more law-abiding, achieving a score of 99 out of 100. By contrast, Nigeria's rule-of-law index score is a pitiful 4.8; Burundi's 4.3; and Ethiopia's 16.4. The OECD's average score is 90, while sub-Saharan Africa's is 28....

By all means, read the whole thing.  While you're at it, ponder Mr. Bailey's final paragraph:

Where is the Wealth of Nations? convincingly shows what countries need to do to create wealth and lift billions of people out of abject poverty. Establish the rule of law and educate people. The big question that the World Bank researchers don't answer is : How can the people of the developing world rid themselves of the kleptocrats who loot their countries and keep them poor?

The answer is, of course, obvious.  The kleptocrats can be removed by force, and only by force, by us, and rather easily.  Don't believe me?  Just ask Saddam Hussein.

I've yet to meet a Lefty who gets this.

From National Review:

...The nations that wrap themselves most tightly in international law are actually those responsible for turning that law, and its aspirations for the world, into a dead letter. As in the case of Iraq, by refusing to join the U.S. in effective non-military collective action against Iran, Europe is making military action or an Iranian victory inevitable....

Perhaps it is pointless to appeal to European sympathies for Israel when these same nations won't even defend themselves. Most bizarre, however, is that Europe, by refusing to impose draconian sanctions on Iran, is guaranteeing either a huge victory for the terror network or military action by the US or Israel. In other words, under the cloak of international law, Europe is bringing either the aggression of its enemies or unilateralist defensive actions of exactly the sort it claims to most want to prevent....

I think the Euro's would be the same way even if they didn't have the USA and Israel to carry the load.  They would rather have a radioactive cloud over one of their cities courtesy of an Iranian nuke than give up their belief that talk can solve -- no, talk does solve -- every problem.  The delicious irony is that the only world leaders whose actions could keep the UN relevant are Major, Blaire, and Bush.

I repeat: This is exactly what B-2's are for.

Next stop on the Axis of Evil Express -- Iran.

Believe it or not, we can thank International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Chairman Muhammad El Baradei for finally confirming what AT has been telling our readers for over a year.  In a report in today’s Jerusalem Post, El Baradei,

…confirmed Israel’s assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb..

John at The Officers Club has a pithy summary of the niceties involved in dealing with Iran's nukes.  Read the whole thing.  Perhaps the most important to America right now is this:

Now that the U.S. controls Iraqi airspace, the Israelis would have to seek permission from Washington to move on the Iranians. American authorization would be seen as American complicity in the attack. I suspect that if Washington did give the go-ahead for airstrikes, their attitude may be "we're going to get blamed anyway, we may as well join them."

Indeed.  Our only other choice is to try to live with a nuclear Iran, and while we might be able to contain Iran, could we contain a nuclear missile war between Iran and Israel?  And why should we want to?  The stated policy of the President of Iran is to wipe Israel off the map.  The stated policy of Israel is to use preemptive strikes to keep Iran from going nuclear, as the Israelis did to Iraq in 1981. 

The Europeans have been carrying the ball on this one for years, but since they don't use their hands in their brand of football, it should come as no surprise they've dropped it.  It's been obvious to everyone -- including to the Euro's? -- that the Iranians have been stringing them out, playing for time to complete their work.  And now the UN's Atomic Agency has confirmed that Iran is but months away from The Bomb.  Great work, Europe, as usual.

Can we count on Europe's help to explosively disarm the nuclear facilities of Iran?  Right.  Just how long do you think France would insist we sit around a few tables and talk talk talk about it before they pitched in.  I'd predict just long enough for their customers, Iran, to complete the bomb.  Here's a sample of tyical Euro-think from TigerHawk:

First, understand what is happening in Iran. This is much easier for Europeans than Americans. We have embassies there. We do business there. We can travel there. As senior American officials freely admit, there is no country in the world they have less contact with.

So there's a particular obligation on us Europeans to go there, to look and listen and then to share our findings with our American friends....

If Europe and America split over Iran, as we did over Iraq, we have not a snowball's chance in hell of achieving our common goals. ... Today's nuclear diplomacy around Iran shows us we already live in a multipolar world. Without the cooperation of Russia and China, little can be achieved. [emphasis added]

Now that Europe's diplomatic failure is almost complete, into whose lap does the problem fall?  Ours, as usual.

There are only two options I see that avoid the unacceptable risk of nuclear war between Iran and Israel:

1. Help the Israelis bomb Iran.
2. Bomb Iran ourselves, without Israel's help.

TigerHawk points to a third option, but IMHO it's much too late for that, and it ultimately didn't work anyway.

And isn't that what B-2's are for?   Quoting John again:

Another major problem -one that is rarely mentioned- is that Israel does not have the single most important element in warfare at its advantage: surprise. The Iranians are expecting an attack, and are preparing accordingly. There will be Iranian army units near all of these facilities in case of commando incursions, a heavy blanket of surface-to-air missiles (sophisticated ones) around each possible target, and Iranian Air Force fighters nearby to intercept any IAF F-15s and F-16s. Couple this with the fact that Israel has to hit triple the targets than they did in 1981, at twice the range, you begin to understand the magnitude of the obstacles to such an operation.

The consequences of leaving it to the Europeans, which is the same as doing nothing, might be catastrophic.  The consequences of bombing Iran ourselves would be dire.  I'll take dire.

Nuts & bolts of the UN internet power grab attempt

In case you were doubtful or wondering about the details of just how the UN wants to tax, allocate and censor the internet, Mr. Capitalist Lion will tell you.

It goes without saying that this is about the worst idea of all time.  I can't wait for the Democrats to speak on it -- if they oppose it, why oppose it?  Doesn't it fit with all their, err, ideas?  And if they're for it, then say so.