No Dice: Iraq's Chaos and the Conservative Response
In conservative circles prior to the Iraqi invasion, there was jubilation and excitement over the possibility that the Bush administration, nominally made of conservative idealists, would implement a western style democracy in place of a dictatorship made of equal parts Stalinist repression and fascist policies. Bringing the enlightenment to the land of tyranny was the wet dream of any true-blue westerner. The problem, apparently, in Iraq's failure to this point has been a mix of massive miscalculations by the US administration. At any point in analysis it would be easy to point one mistake that certainly has made it impossible to bring Iraq into the 21st century, but conservatives of all stripes have to come to grips with this failure to move forward. If nothing else, idealist conservatives of all stripes have been the uncynical optimists, putting hope and faith in the democractic model ahead of pragmatic concerns and endlessly putting off an admittance of failure due to the minor wins in an overall downward spiral.
Take for instance the historical comparisons of modern Iraq to WW2 era Japan. At the time, Japan was a global power, unleashing the technological prowess of the west with western methods of conquest and occupation, coupled with a state machinery that had hijacked religion with unholy results. Some western conservatives (myself included) believed that if Japan, a seemingly unwestern nation could be placated and converted to a western economic and democratic powerhouse that would be a shining beacon of hope in the east, Iraq would be a cinch (sort of).
Of course, Japan, believe it or not, was never a valid comparison. Modern Iraq, a modern pandora's box of competing tribal and ethnic rivalries, lacks any of the cohesiveness of Japan. While Japan's leaders could be counted on to lead its people with little coercion in any direction required, Iraq's leadership is a multi-headed Cerberus, requiring a similarly mannered strongman to pull the leash. The US leadership of WW2 was also keenly aware of the Japanese respect for Hirohito, and understood that to take Japan beyond the fascist state, they would need a cooperation of that leadership. Instead of dismantling the state, they simply relied on a top down approach, leaving Showa as the moral authority of the state, and asking him to lead his people away from the past and into a more peaceful future. With a cohesive and homogenous people, with a shared history and interests, there were no insurgent groups ready to resist and bring down an overwhelming US occupation, and certainly no one of consequence or authority to counter Hirohito's edicts.
Modern Iraq, as it is obvious by now, shares few characteristics with WW2 Japan. It's three main ethnic groups are anything but cohesive, and are now farther apart than at any other time in modern history. If anything, Yugoslavia, the USSR, or any other balkanized region would be a more apt comparison. The real question of Iraq is why the west would still want to be the falconer at the center of the ever widening circle of anarchy, still holding out that the falcon will head its call. As Haditha, Abu Ghraib, and the near total incompetence of the US occupation reveal, Iraqis are less inclined to lend an ear.
Dismantling a massive standing army created a parallel, unemployed and heavily armed resistance. Banning Baathists from government decimated the public service (not even the Nazis were totally banned from post-war administration in Germany). Occupying Iraq with the fewest soldier-to-civilian ratio of forces in the history of occupations created power vacuums. The list of historically uninformed decisions goes on and on, and yet the perpetrators of this incompetent affair still occupy their positions. Donald Rumsfeld, learning from experience in the Nixon administration on how to run unpopular wars, still somehow survives at his position.
A changing at the guard will not come for another two years atop the US power structure, and that means that a lame duck president with an unerring tendency towards total loyalty to his inner circle despite any national security or international security concerns means continued disasters in Iraq. Results in the future? Same as the past.
As conservatives, this is a particularly tough reality to deal with. In front of friends, family, bloggers, acquaintances, and others we pledged our belief in the invasion based on a belief in the western ideal of democracy that would free Iraq and a region from tyranny and increase our own security. It wasn't our ideals that were misplaced, but our belief in the current US administration to execute. As a result we find ourselves excusing away horrible abuses like Abu Ghraib, or in some cases torture, or reactionary and trigger happy troops, or any other litany of unexcusable actions by the US troops against a people they were sent to, ideally, free from tyranny.
It stops here. The western ideals of freedom and democracy will never be implemented in Iraq by this administration, and if anything will only be implemented by the bottom up, by a change in the Iraqis themselves who are now only clinging to the US authorities to provide some semblance of order. As soon as possible, the US should negotiate a civil division of the country if need be by the three main factions of Iraq. It is the least best solution and probably the most pragmatic at this point.
It's Go Time: How the Conservatives Can Win
There will be a Conservative government in 2006.
The Canadian Liberal party, having lost the confidence of the NDP, and suffering from a freefall in the province of Quebec face certain defeat, and will not maintain the confidence of the house without the support of at least one opposition party. And while the Liberals slide into Ontario's regional powerhouse party, the ascendence of the Conservatives is assured. All the opposition parties have vowed to defeat the Liberals and would lose considerable clout if any were to join a coalition with them.
What the conservatives have to do, of course, is ensure their own relative strength in the coming "anybody but the Liberals" government. Apart from raising huge amounts of cash from their considerable and dedicated membership base, the Conservatives are going to need a game plan.
Here's what they can do....
1. Know your enemy: The Liberals are going to instill fear in Ontario by villainizing the west and will paint the Conservatives as being secretive about health care and socially conservative.
Action: Be open and transparent about your plans. Holding out hasn't worked for the previous elections. Try pulling a George Castanza and go against your failed instincts.
2. Zone out: Just because the Conservatives are conservatives doesn't mean that Canadians won't look to them for policy ideas on the environment or other traditional left wing issues.
Action: Find market alternatives or non-government solutions to government imposed responses to social problems and issues. Kyoto won't work? What's the alternative, Conservatives? Don't concede on these issues where Canadians will want leadership. There is a wealth of international and Canadian intellectual firepower for hitting the electorate with alternative policy options, so utilize it.
3. Forget the Social Conservative BS: Social conservative outbursts have messed up every election for the Reformers, the CA and the new Conservatives. Take a hint.
Action: Your moral stance against the Liberals is the PC social conservativism that sells, and signals to the base where your values are. Articulating positions that explicitly appeal to Bible Thumpers will blow every urban riding.
4. Take on the States: The Conservatives are already too closely aligned with unpopular, pro-American positions. If Harper says that it is the poor US-Canadian relationship (attributed to the Liberals) that has caused the Softwood dispute, he'll find Canadians thinking he is too pro-US.
Action : If the Conservatives are going to represent Canadians and assert our sovereignty, they can rightfully attack the US on Softwood that will show the Cons credibility on our trade files, and an arms-length seperation from a hugely unpopular administration to the south.
5. Act as if....: If you want to lead the country, begin to act like you already are the leader. Power perceived is power acheived.
Action: Harper has to be act like and be perceived as a leader, and not a whiney egghead like in the previous elections' debates. It isn't just the content, but delivery that counts in a debate.
6. Have a *real* response to Adscam: The Conservatives have done a decent job attacking the moral shortcomings of the Liberals, but have not articulated what they would do to prevent a replay once they gain power. Remember-it's not just who is in power, but the controls put in place to prevent manipulation that also count. Canadians remember that Chretien and Mulroney both came into power promising to clean house, only to spiral into corruption.
Action: Promise increased controls on the actions of government, and improved controls for spending and authorization. And for God's sake, deliver.
7. Come out guns blazing: Ya heard me.
Action: Promise something wildly popular to kick off the campaign, like scrapping the GST over the mandate, or tarring and feathering Ben Mulroney.
I hereby kill my last post about the East Vs. the West
UPDATE:
I really didn't like the post about Rural Revolt. When I read it I'm reminded of Orientalism by Edward Said I think that it is based on some very poorly constructed stereotypes about the east and the west.
I really think the ideas we have as Westerners about the East and vice versa should be critiqued and reviewed, but that was not the way to do it...I hereby disavow any opinions cited in my last post:
------------------
Koizumi: Latent Renegade Reformer
In my own personal conversations with many Japanese people over the last year, I asked a few questions over and over again: How many famous Canadians do you know? Answer: um...just Avril Lavigne. Where have you travelled? Answer(s): Australia,Bali, or Los Angeles. What do you think of Junichiro Koizumi? Answer: (Awkward grin and a shake of the head.)
Digging deeper, I found disappointment with Koizumi, a man that rose to prominance on the world stage in 2001 promising reform of the cozy power system that had failed Japan badly after the Nikkei crash of 1989. But the power brokers of industry, government owned business and finance did not relinquish power over the Liberal Democratic Party. With the rise of the long haired rebel, the people of Japan saw a glimpse of renegade who promised to destroy the old order and bring Japan's government into the same century as its futuristic technology sector.
Of course, part of consumer/voter satisfaction with any good or leader is partly based on expectations. Those in customer service are told to "under" promise and "over" deliver to set low customer expectations and then blow those expectations out of the water with (theoretically) outstanding service. Koizumi, for his part, believed at some point he could take on the huge ship of state that is Japan and muscle it to a brighter future. And like any idealist who achieves power, things began to look very different from the top looking down. Simple solutions to simple problems become simply unworkable, or in some cases not immediately available.
Koizumi decided to start small with reform and began setting low maximum bad debt allowances for the banks in an effort to rid their balance sheets of the "Zombie" companies that have plagued Japan since time began. These poorly run construction and public works entities subsist on a neverending supply of loans from the huge Japanese banks (who were usually coerced by the government into issuing the financing). The zombies could get away with getting more cash with the ever shrewd Enron tactic that goes like this "If you cut off our cash, you won't see a dime of your other loans again". Under the new administration the banks were pressure to start calling in the loans or writing them off-But this is hardly the stuff of revolutions.
No politician gets a great headline out of "New Bank Regulations Put Thousands Out of Work". And even worse, the tangible results of his efforts were hidden because one lender was still (and continues) propping up the zombie companies. One lender was still financing the massive infrastructure programs in Nara Prefecture that saw millions wasted on expensive and redundant public rail lines soaring 20 Meters above the rural towns. The world's largest lender was still crowding out investment in package delivery, finance, banking, and insurance.
The Post Office.
With
wide public support, Koizumi has found an issue to shake out the old guard of his party into
open insubordination and rebellion: The privatization of Japan's Post Office. And with the old guard vowing to hold a last stand to protect the institution, those rebels have found themselves politically isolated from their party and the Japanese electorate.
Freed of the internal party albatross, Koizumi will be able to finally shake off the inertia that has kept Japan's financial reform in park for 15 years. From the outset it was a gamble by both sides: Koizumi and the old guard. The entrenched conservative leadership believed they would survive by promoting the appearance of reform by hoisting Koizumi on their shoulders, while Koizumi believed he could turn the tables on those who brought him to power. Koizumi, having come out on top, will now have an opportunity to overhaul the stagnant economy and a powerful mandate for reform and rejuvination of the Japanese islands.
--------
Crossposted @
Shamrocks!
Call And Response: Softwood Retaliation
Above the 49th parallel, the rhetoric from (surprisingly) both sides of the political aisle has become heated in response to the American intransigence over softwood imports. The US, having told a meeting of first ministers (via their ambassador) that Canada should quiet down and negotiate, has been relaxed and unconcerned about possible trade ramifications. While Canadians fret over the end of North American treaties and a deterioration of trust in joint declarations with the US, the US has carried on with a business-as-usual attitude.
The problem facing Canada is: What next?
What is the appropriate response to the actions of a larger opponent who neither sees you as a threat, nor seems to notice your existence?
One suggested response to the softwood dispute sees Canada tacking huge tariffs on California wines headed for the northern border. This idea seems plausible, given the mulitude of wines stocking Canadian shelves and the wide range of substitutes and replacements for the Cali wine. The problem is that the US government is not under pressure from California saw mills to apply softwood tariffs, and it is not sensitive to the demands of Californians, regardless. California, on a federal level, is Democrat country, and the administration knows it. President Bush has never even visited San Francisco in either of his presidential terms, and has no plans to do so. Striking at the heart of the Napa Valley with tariffs might put a dent in the bottom line of the extras from "Of Mice And Men", but that mosquito bite will not register in the Red States that Republicans are banking on to re-elect them next year in the senate.
A more interesting retaliation tactic has Canada "embarrassing" the administration through a New York Times advertising assault: A propaganda campaign designed to humiliate the administration into submission. The logic is that Americans are simply unaware of their governments' actions, and that a full fledged expose' would start a media avalanche that ends in the dropping of Softwood tariffs. The problem is that a media campaign with a target market of people already disillusioned with the Bush administration will have minimal impact. If these same readers failed to stop their own country from going to war, would they think their efforts on behalf of Canada would succeed? Probably not. They would check their schedules and see that lounge singer they love is playing at that quaint cafe in the Village the same night as the "Save Canadian Lubmer" protest.
Then there is the nuclear option: Oil. Canada has it. The US wants it. For our federal government, oil has never been off the table in terms of trade leverage and in public communications and in trade negotiations, it never should be. Oil, whether special interest groups like it or not, is a threat that has the power to unhinge the US from its negotiating positions. In today's markets, we may not have the ability (politically or logistically) to direct all of our imports away from the US or impose massive tariffs, but we can take actions that will compromise the US' energy supply from Canada while keeping our oil exports expanding. The answers to our problem? The subcontinent and China. The CIA has only recently recognized that Alberta has the second biggest oil reserves behind only Saudi Arabia and the huge oil fields of the coast of British Columbia are money in the bank.
The prospect of interrupting oil supplies also rears its head in the far north, where the US is planning the drilling of Alaskan oil to alleviate American dependence on foreign oil. The problem for the Americans is that all of the proposed pipelines go through Canadian soil and that means leverage at the bargaining table. While the government has struck deals with the Natives of the Mackenzie River Delta, it could simply hold up building the pipeline until softwood tariffs are dropped. This could be a hot button issue in the House this fall as there is scheduled to be a vote on the proposed drilling. Canada might use this opportunity to draw attention to softwood while Republicans face a potential huge political loss going into an election year.
One viable option is: Canada should begin to trim future participation of the US in investment deals on the oil patch where all else being equal, India and/or China present a competitive bid.
The expansion of Canada's 44B oil and gas industry and an expanding market in the east present an interesting prospect for the Canadian economy. If Canada can expand its oil and gas exports to the east, it could begin to build profitable trade relationships building on that one industry. Valuable trade relationships could be forged, preferable with India, a country with a shared history and a similar value system to Canada. And with human capital in British Columbia providing a valuable link to both nations, Canada has only to push open the door to expanded trade with both nations.
In the long run, Canada should see that the problem lies not only in the US' lack of honour in trade agreements, but also our dependence on the US. While Canada manages to keep a low but positive profile on the world stage, it has failed to turn that into a commercial advantage and suffers from a lack of diverse trading partners. While most countries would cringe at a 85% single source export market, Canada has sat on its trade laurels since NAFTA's inception, signing few trade deals of significance. As a result, Canada has been vulnerable to change in US government policy-policy from a country that has strong protectionist impulses at the best of times.
The solution is mult-faceted and complex, but we need to become part of other trading blocs. One key bloc that is maturing and growing in the most dynamic region of the world is ASEAN. Canada's own Westcoast has numerous ties with the Far East, and would make a natural fit a Pacific trade partner to this expanding group. Opening southeast Asia to Canadian trade would mean vast resources of markets and people for Canada, and a reciprocal market for those in Asia. The next trading bloc that Canada needs to make inroads with is the European Union. Again, Canada has numerous ties to Europe (and is frequently lumped in with Western Europe on all kinds of issues) but has failed to turn those ties into trading relationships. While it would be unrealistic to think in terms of acceptance into the EU, a strong trade treaty would see Canada as trading partner with access to both North American and European markets.
In the short term however, Canada has to be ready and able to anihilate American resistance to abiding to international law with concentrated action in direct retaliation with a shot across the bow to set the tone for future Northwest Passage talks (which incidently would be the loophole in a Canadian decision to block a oil pipeline from Northern Alaska). In the long run, Canada has to start diversifying its trade away from the US, and into growth markets with oil and gas markets initially, and later with comprehensive trade agreements.
African Debt Relief: Moral Hazard and Internal Politics
The G8 is considering massive debt relief for African nations that are breaking under disease, interest payments, AIDS, periodic mass slaughters and other calamities that unfortunately and predictably plague the dark continent. A reasonable person might be forced to ask "Well, if debt relief was all it took to help these nations, why haven't the West dropped the debt before now?". A quick review of the state of the G8 might reveal that the inertia on this issue is not simply a case of neglecting a poor neighbour. On the contrary, aide to Africa has been one of President George W. Bush's pet projects, upping per year aide to the continent to the tune of $15B. In fact, there are two key stumbling blocks that keep the G8 and other countries from eliminating African debt: moral hazard and the internal politics of the G8 nations.
The fact is that several of the G8 nations are stumbling with their own debt, making massive relief of African debt, or "foreign" debt, a non-starter. Both France and Germany are running huge deficits, breaking the European Union's stability pact. This is a big political worry for Schroeder, as he approaches an almost certain loss in the elections later this year, and for Chirac, who has already suffered a loss on the EU constitution. For its part, the US is grappling with a rapidly expanding debt due to the double deficits, and a 5% budget deficit. Italy's Berlusconi will also have a tough time selling foreign debt relief when Italy is struggling with a debt load of over 100% of the GDP. Japan, while being extremely generous with cash for poorer nations, is in a similar bind with a debt load approaching 150% of GDP. As much as the G8 nations would like to drop the debt, their own political situations complicate this.
The next problem is known as the moral hazard of forgiving the debt of dictatorships and military juntas, whose borrowed cash ended up in the pockets of the ruled rather than the hands of the needy. To forgive the debt would be a de facto forgiveness of the actions of those horrible leaders. Uganda, for example, is now a shining beacon of light for sub-Saharan Africa. After years of slaughter, the country seems back on track for the most part. But even under the careful guidance of Museveni (does that rhyme with "Mousolini"?), over $100M/year of the budget is diverted from general revenue to kickback schemes and mismanagement. While in Canada, this might be sniffed at as the yearly shenanigans of a Liberal government, in Uganda this a proportionately huge number. And the donors that contribute one half of the budget revenues are getting nervous. Just as problematic has been the revelation that for Africa as a whole, over $148B/year goes down the drain in corruption related activity.
What's the solution to this corruption and the problem of selling debt relief on countries with their own debt problems?
Corruption, of course, is not an easily solved puzzle. But a culture and history of corruption aren't the death knell of reform. Most corruption centres around monetary payoffs, so the cynic might conclude that the only way to combat a monetary incentive of graft, is to outbid it by a monetary incentive of reform. What can achieve this? Set stringent targets for the creation of democratic and healthy nations (free press, civil rights, multiparty elections, etc) and working capital markets (foreign investment targets, strong central banks). If targets are met, then more debt relief will be given. Start off with low benchmarks and make them progressively harder to reach. A smarter approach would not be to limit these benchmarks to one issue or another, but eventually have graduated debt relief (or aid) for a variety of problem areas for Africa. In a nutshell, the idea is to make the eradication of every awful vice that plagues an African nation a potential windfall for their people.
For donor nations, the small, initial amount of debt relief will be an easy sell, while larger, more substantial debt relief will be down the road. The idea is that by the time the continent has cleaned up its act, the West's electorates will be used to the idea of graduated debt relief, while their leaders will have their own books in order.
A more constructive idea, is to get money past the NGO's, the unproductive UN, the ghastly governments and the do-gooder Christian missionaries (more intent on conversion than relief), is to drop the trade barriers to African agricultural products. Currently, the West spends over $300B subsidizing the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU and the Midwestern US farmers who recieve on average almost $160,000/year. Japan, for its part, stops imports cold with massive tariffs on outside food making its way to Japan's shores. In conjunction with graduated debt relief, the West could make tariff relief a prerequisite.
If there were a common, comprehensive initiative amongst the G8 to push for the relief of debt (over the long haul) and tariffs, Africans might see a real improvement in their standard of living. For the time being, Africans will need to wait for a healthier economic west, more willing and able to help than its present form, more intent on pleasing a home electorate.
Top Ten Things I Learned In Japan
My days in the Land of the Rising Sun are coming to an end, so I'm running down some simple lessons I have taken in:
10. In Japan, a customer at any pub/restaurant is required to first declare "Itadakimasu!" as word of thanks before eating and then eat every last grain of rice left in any given bowl. To accomplish this task given only chopsticks, hold the bowl sideways while pressing the chopsticks flat against the inner surface of the bowl and scrape the rice out.
I don't speak Japanese, but I can sure eat Japanese.
9. Liberally apply social grease in any social interaction. Being polite and deferrential goes a long way towards harmony. There's your moment of zen.
8. Bowing is cooler than shaking hands. A cool combination of the two methods is even better. If you can work in a smile and "pounds out", then you're the man.
7. Green space is important. You never really appreciate it until you don't have it anymore...They paved paradise, to put up a Paschinko parlour.
6. Be patient... except if you are wearing a different country's logos and gear.. Then by all means go to town..."Damn those Norwegians. So impatient!"
5. If you ever think minorities are overly sensitive about their status or tribulations, just try living as one for a while.
Know what I'm sayin', J-Roc?
4. Never try to 'wing it' from Kansai Airport to your 'hood. If it should only take 90 minutes, it could damn near take 8 hours and a sore back if you don't know what you are doing.
3. Acoustic guitars are more awe-inducing than any other instrument....just don't bother trying to take one through the Osaka subway system during rush hour.
2. Get out of your comfort zone and stay outside it--that's my submission for a "No Fear" t-shirt slogan, anyway.
1. Gambatte! Attempting to do your best will determine success more than natural ability, or aptitude. "Gambatte" translated into Canadian is roughly:
"Go hard 'r go home, eh?"
