zenpundit.com

WHO IS KERRY DONOR HASSAN NEMAZEE ?

A shadowy figure with ties to Teheran who is trying to drive Iranian-American democracy activists out of business.

Hmm, perhaps Atrios, Brad DeLong, Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum can bestir themselves to comment ?

Don’t hold your breath.

THE MADMAN, THE FUTURE AND THE EYE

Important blogroll update ! Three new links to some interesting blogs that I strongly encourage you to check out:

The first is Madman of Chu by a professor of ancient Chinese history, Andrew Meyer. I stumbled upon Madman of Chu via a recommendation by KC Johnson at Cliopatria on HNN. Here’s a sample of Dr. Meyer’s writing on Iraqi Shiites:

“If Shi’a Islam is so intrinsically political, how could anyone predict that Iraq will not become a Shi’ite theocracy? The chief historical example appealed to by predictors of a future “Iraqi theocracy” is that of Iran. In Iran in 1979 the utopian impulses of Shi’a Islam burst forth into violent fruition, resulting in the founding of the world’s first Islamic republic. Given that the Shi’ite clergy of Iran have so clearly blueprinted the political trajectory of a Shi’a revolution, why would anyone doubt that the same thing would happen in Iraq under the right conditions?



The answer is simple. Such “right conditions” will never come, because the very powerful hold of Shi’ite ideology upon Iraqis will always exist in irresoluble tension with the equally powerful hold of Arab nationalism. The nature of Shi’a jurisprudence and the Shi’a ulama preclude the Iraqi Shi’ite community from disaggregating itself from that of Iran. The Shi’a ulama are not a sacramentally sanctioned heirarchy like that of the Roman Catholic Church, they are a consensual community held together by appeal to precedent and tradition. The jurisprudential procedures adhered to by the Shi’a ulama rely upon a broad body of learning, decisions and precedents akin to the Jewish Talmud. Just as with the Jewish Talmud and rabbinate, the expansive community of Shi’a ulama that produced and continues to interpret this ever-widening body of jurisprudential lore does not recognize political boundaries, it flows freely over the national frontier seperating Iraq from Iran. The two great centers of Shi’a learning (which house the institutions that set the standards of training and accreditation for the global “Twelver” Shi’a ulama) are Najaf in Iraq and Qom in Iran. Virtually all Shi’a ulama of any stature have studied in both centers of learning (Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini spent most of his formative years in Najaf, while Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani spent his in Qom). The Iraqi Shi’a ulama are thus all deeply enmeshed in networks of patronage and authority that tie them inexorably and inseperably to their counterparts in Iran (and vice-versa). ”

My second nod goes to Marc Shulman’s The American Future, like Zenpundit, The American Future is centered on foreign policy and politics. Here’s a sample of Marc tackling the reasoning of Senator John Kerry:

“The bottom line is that Kerry is a convinced multilateralist. During the debate, he reiterated his position that he would never let other countries exercise a veto over actions undertaken to safeguard our national security. Iraq was a national security issue; disgreements were over how grave and imminent a threat it represented. This raises a profound question: in a Kerry presidency, how grave and imminent would a threat have to be for him to dispense with his natural multilateralism in favor of unilateral U.S. military intervention?”



An important question that no one is likely to ever see Kerry have to answer unless he consents to be interviewed on FOX or if Bush raises it himself in a subsequent debate.

Last but far from least is the well regarded blog The Glittering Eye by fellow Chicagoan, Dave Schuler whose perceptive observations have been appearing in my comments of late ( I’m still chasing down the psycho-epistemological implications of Diglossia on the Arab-Islamic world). Here is Dave’s take on the shallowness of the recent presidential debate:

“But of all of the omissions the one that bothered me the most was China. China was mentioned only as an appendage to the discussion of the North Korean situation.

China is the most populous nation on earth, a major trading partner and competitor, a major nuclear power, and is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council i.e. they have a veto.

So let me list some of the reasons that China should be getting a lot more attention.



China and oil



China is a major consumer of oil. As their economy grows so does their need for oil. Although China does produce oil domestically most of the increase in their consumption is derived from imports. more than half of China’s imported oil is from the Middle East. Most of China’s imported oil comes through the Malacca Straits. U. S. naval domination of the South China Sea is a potential threat to that oil supply. The increase in world oil prices is less due to unrest in the Middle East and other oil-producing areas than to increases in Chinese consumption (hat tip: Steven Taylor).



Chinese monetary policy and banking



Chinese monetary policy while deft is increasingly fragile. Chinese banks have recently had to write off a significant amount in bad debts. With China’s increasing economic influence as a world trader monetary or banking problems in China could have worldwide impact.



China trade and Mexico



The enormous increase in imports into the U. S. from China over the last few years has large come at the expense of Mexico and other Latin American countries. This has resulted in a deteriorating economic situation in Mexico and increased immigration (legal and illegal) from Mexico into the United States.



China and North Korea



North Korea is basically a Chinese client state. Without Chinese support Kim Jong-Il’s government would be unlikely to endure for long. And so long as Chinese support continues Kim Jong-Il is in a strong bargaining position with the United States. No talks with North Korea that don’t include China are worth conducting.



China and U. S. debt



China is one of the largest foreign holders of U. S. debt. The Chinese are, in effect, recycling their trade surplus into U. S. Treasury bonds. If China were to stop doing this due to domestic eonomic instability or to dump their Treasury holdings for any reason whatsoever it could have a notable effect on interest rates in the United States. This is a major concern especially with the current deficit position of the U. S. government.



“One Child Policy” and social stability



The double whammy of China’s “One Child Policy” and the traditional value of male children in the society has resulted in the abortion of millions of female babies. The imbalance between males and females that has resulted is likely to be a substantial source of social unrest in China as the 21st century unfolds. Historically such imbalances have resulted in higher crime rates, greater societal violence, and militarism.



China and Taiwan



Recent Chinese saber-rattling with respect to Taiwan is troubling. Defense of Taiwan in case of Chinese invasion has been U. S. policy for more than 50 years. Is it still? Human rights, industrial policy, environmental issues. The list goes on and on. Why isn’t anyone asking questions about China? “



Dave’s post constitutes weighty evidence that if we threw out the celebrity airhead anchormen and replaced them as moderators in the presidential debates with a panel of quality bloggers, the country would be better informed – and probably more entertained as well.

Welcome aboard !

THE MOST INTERESTING SPECULATION ON NORTH KOREA I’VE READ IN SOME TIME

In the lead up to the Iraq war when Jacques Chirac was being flamboyantly obstructive to American diplomatic efforts in the UN and in Europe, Richard Perle let drop a stinging comment that was also a mini-analysis, that the United States would have to consider how to ” contain France”. It was a quip and not a completely unserious one that raised hackles but it also started people thinking.

Along those lines I’ve just read in the Chicago Tribune an improbable but ominously possible thesis on Korean unification by Colonel E. W. Chamberlain III, an incisive military analyst with excellent DoD connections. Even if his speculation is 10-20 % on the mark it would have considerable implications for the East Asian region:

“But there may be another way the U.S. could “lose” South Korea. Recent events in South and North Korea are too coincidental for my liking.



South Korea announces after decades of silence and denial that it actually did have some rogue scientists conducting work that could lead to the development of nuclear weapons. Within a matter of hours, North Korea declares that its nuclear weapons work was in response to South Korea’s program.



A few days later, on Sept. 9, the 56th anniversary of the founding of North Korea, a huge explosion is detected, followed by a mushroom cloud. The North Koreans initially refused to say anything. Then, they say that the explosion was merely work on a hydroelectric project.Sept. 9 is a huge national holiday, with everybody in the “workers’ paradise” released from work except, apparently, those poor hydroelectric workers.



Shortly thereafter, the South Korean minister for reunification publicly apologizes for South Korea’s nuclear work but does not condemn or comment on the detonation in North Korea.You need to note here that South Korea has a minister for reunification. His job is to work on all the issues necessary to reunify North and South Korea in a coherent manner, and as the Koreans used to tell me, in a “non-German” fashion.



And this is where the secretary may get lucky.Some predictions.I believe that North and South Korea are actually secretly close to reunification.



When I served in South Korea in the early 1990s, I was aware through my sources that serious talks were ongoing then.That was a decade ago. I think much progress has been made in this regard. South Korea is modernized and has a tremendous industrial base but a shortage of workers. North Korea, although possessing a large and well-equipped army, has no peaceful industrial base and has an abundance of workers.A unified Korea could easily outstrip and overshadow the industrial and economic capacity of Japan in a few short years. That alone provides great impetus for reunification.



The Koreans hate the Japanese well beyond how much they may hate each other.It is patently obvious to all who care to look that the 21st Century will witness the rise of Asia as the locus for the dominant economic power of the world.A unified Korea would exceed Japan in economic power and could garner significant market share from China. If China remains communist and disjointed in its economic policies and reforms, Korea may even exceed China in economic power.



I think the explosion was a nuclear test.



We have the capability and the technology to confirm or deny the North Korean claim. I have seen no indications or reports that we have done so. I further believe that South Korea was aware of the testing. If this had not been the case, the South Koreans would have gone into a defensive crouch as they have done in the past whenever North Korea did something unexpectedly.Instead, the minister for reunification made a bland statement in the South Korean parliament.



I believe all this is being orchestrated. South Korea by joining with a nuclear weapons-capable North Korea automatically joins the world’s exclusive nuclear weapons club.They will do so without censure. The United Nations and the rest of the world will readily accept a unified Korea that is a nuclear power because North Korea will no longer exist as a rogue state that operates outside the pale of normal human endeavor.One more nuclear power is a small price to pay for stability in the region. “



I disagree with Colonel Chamberlain’s presumption that this kind of unification would result in a benign ending. Barring an East German style implosion or a DPRK invasion, a negotiated ” fusion ” unification of the two Koreas could leave a single, united, illiberal, authoritarian and militantly nationalistic state with nuclear arms that provokes Japan into full-scale rearmament – forcing China, then India and Pakistan into a dangerous arms race. Kim Jong-Il is not going to negotiate himself out of existence or for a Pinochet style retirement – he will insist on an equal, if not domineering role in a united Korea.

For Seoul to accomodate Pyongyang’s paranoid demands and force this brand of unification on older South Koreans it will perforce have to restrict civil liberties and clamp down on opposition, as it did to earlier, anti-communist opponents of Kim Dae Jung’s ” Sunshine policy ” fantasy.

CIA and DIA analysts need to take a harder look at the committment to democratic rule in South Korea among South Korean elites – particularly left politicians and their financial backers.

POSTS WILL BE UP LATER TODAY

They would be up now except I am hauling heavy furniture up a damn flight of stairs. Oh, and books are wonderful until they are filling up packing boxes.

UNDEBATABLE !

I found the debate to be a little tedious. Not only was it not Lincoln-Douglas, it wasn’t even Kennedy-Nixon.

My analysis:

The candidates spoke primarily to their own bases to strengthen and soldify existing support by getting in the treasured zingers against the other guy. Little or no attempt to peel off support from the other side was made. My impression was that between the candidates exists a feeling of mutual disdain but no real heat or personal animosity. Major gaffes, or even minor ones, were avoided as they played it safe.

Bush’s level of eloquence is what it is – he is a known quantity and performed slightly better than usual in extemporaneous settings but no where near his best speech to the Congress, given after September 11. Of the president, the voters minds are already made up for good or ill.

John Kerry was not a known quantity to most of the public before last night’s debate and he blew his chance for a dramatic introduction though he has two more chances to improve the impression. He comes across on TV as the slightly repellent Dean of Students from your days in High School or the chairman of an Undertaker’s Association in a small New England State.

The Democratic Party has decided to run for the presidency a scolding, gloomy, Ichabod Crane of elite liberalism.