George Handlery about the week that was. How to end piracy. The erogenous zone of politics. Obama in Prague, Good propaganda, bad policy. Total nuclear disarmament is the rogue states’ opportunity. When cheers replace supportive participation. The implications of the Rasmussen candidacy. Easy practical tests for gauging development.
 
1. The news resonate with the splash Obama made in Prague. In an effective PR action, the address that announced a bad policy turned out to be successful propaganda. The President has hit on an erogenous zone of politics when he suggested that America desires the total elimination of nuclear weapons. There are two contexts in which this might fit. If the statement reflects policy, a problem emerges.
Total nuclear disarmament is much more difficult to enforce and to control than is the partial reduction of such forces. If such an agreement is enforceable in the case of the known, admitted and major nuclear powers, a new problem attains paramount importance. Once the present’s major players have emptied their arsenals, the rogue cheater’s undetected or out Of PC politeness ignored small stash receives a significance. It is comparable to what the US’ three bombs had in 1945. In case of total de-nuclearization, the cheaters are given a nuclear monopoly. This card would be played out in the pursuit of criminal goals by either using these weapons or by threatening to resort to them.
The second possibility is that BHO took what he knows to be an extreme and therefore not implementable position. Has he spoken in order to bolster America’s image and to gain support in the least radical fringes of the camp that is viscerally anti-American? In this case, the approach is practical and fits the foreign policy assumptions under which the electorate made Obama President. Possibly, the do-gooder announcement amounts to shrewd and well-planned policy to impress the naive. Furthermore, the position taken might serve the cause of putting later political pressure on Iran and North Korea. (Iran might react claiming that, in order to participate in nuclear disarmament it must first acquire such weapons. Sounds like a bad joke? We are used to encounter the ridiculous as policy.) In case diplomacy fails, the good intentions marketed in Prague could serve as an argument to blame Iran or Korea for the consequences.
 
2. Obama’s triumphal ride through Europe. Europe, with “Bush” in mind, has demonstrated that it is delighted to cheer Obama. The noisy endorsement is due to projected positions that even BOH has not quite taken. The approval is more an expression of decadent wishes than of actual US policy. It is bad for Europe, freedom, America and BHO that, while clasping, Europe remains reluctant to extend the material support to America that the Continent’s objective interests demand.
 
3. At the NATO summit that celebrated on the 5th the organization’s 60th birthday, a new Secretary General had to be chosen. Given the candidate’s qualification and the nearly unanimous vote, this sounds like a leading item for the list of non-news. Behind the successful outcome, a disturbance is hiding. It endows the routine event with the bright colors of newsworthiness. Turkey, which is a member of NATO but not of the EU, opposed Rasmussen. It is unclear, whether the refusal and then the agreement-in-the-last-moment were a show designed by Ankara. (Take an unreasonable position and then settle for less to get rewards and the reputation of being reasonable.) The purpose might have been to earn brownie points in more fundamentalist Muslim circles than the ones that are now ruling Turkey. Officially, NATO’s only Muslim member state opposed Rasmussen because of the role of the Danish Premier in the “Mohammed cartoon” controversy. At the time, the incident upset the Islamic world to an extent that the lampooning of Moses, Christ or Buddha could not have mobilized their followers. Rasmussen was asked to censor and punish the cartoonist and the paper that printed his work. Being a democracy, Denmark could no do so. Rasmussen explained his position with references to the principle of “freedom of speech”.
The attempt to punish Rasmussen for refusing to handle a Danish matter the Islamic way, is more than a ridiculous spat. The case has a bearing on a pending decision. Turkey’s EU membership is meant. Regardless of the writer’s personal liking of Turks, the Rasmussen’s reluctance should not be abstracted out of the context in which the decision on membership is to be made. In the event that Erdogan, fully appreciating Rasmussen’s role, acted only to keep the shine on his Islamic credentials, the case demonstrates the hold of Islam on Turkish policy. If the objections were more than shadowboxing, the comportment reveals that those running Turkey do not understand how a democracy works. (The implications of an infuriated Erdogan walking out of a panel discussion at the WEF in Davos are relevant and damaging.)
In either case, the controversy has something to say about Turkish membership in an alliance created to defend democracy. This means that the increasingly Islam-driven country presents a new problem for NATO. With EU membership extended, the built-in Islamist influence will only be added a political-economic dimension. Overlooking the problem in the name of PC does not eliminate this organization’s possible paralysis. Currently it seems that, with Turkey in the EU, not modern societies would, with Turkey serving as a “bridge” (BHO), gain influence in the Islamic world. Much rather, the Muslim world will be strengthened by having a representative in the EU. Added to the easily radicalized Islamist “immigrants”, this weight might be sufficient to pull the swimmer under.
 
4. North Korea has launched a satellite. The belated sputnik is accused to be broadcasting marching songs praising the Kims. Well, not quite. Except for the “Democratic Republic” and its phantasm-driven “Göbbels service”, no one can find the satellite. What we have is debris is in the Pacific. The bit about the marching songs broadcast from the missing artificial moon is a proper subject for jesters. While jokes are spun, the indirect consequences here on earth are serious. The UN has found itself as unable to react to the missile test that ignored its recommendations as was Kim incapable to reach outer space or the US’ West Coast. Thanks are due for the UN’s paralysis to Russia and China and three further SecCouncil members. The cool reaction to the hot matter tells little about the launch’s actual risk to peace. On the other hand, it reveals a lot regarding the self-induced impotence of the United Nations and its worth as a guarantor of security. The stalemate is a victory of those that are willing to have their brain shut off if it hurts America. It is telling that Chavez supports Kim. He also approves of the submissive UN-reaction to the provocation.
 
5. Tips follow to aid you in discovering whether a failing or a successful society is being constructed.
(A) Investigate whether the “natives” regard the lawful achievers in their midst as threatening thugs or as examples to be emulated. Are they inclined to repress them as parasites, or are they prone to create conditions that made the successful flourish?
(B) Small things can tell much about a lot. Eric Hofer had suggested – well before the issue became fashionable – that there is a quick way to assess the chances of an underdeveloped society. Just enter a public building and open the door of the cubicle where the janitorial supplies are kept.. The conditions you discover will provide you with an excellent basis for a snap prognosis.
( C) When faced by difficulties, is the observed entity inclined to blame “conditions”? Is there a sense of pride tackling trouble and finding a collective purpose to overcome it? Alternatively, is the general reaction to reverses that one has again become the victim of a malign this or that?
 
6. A matching subject comes to mind. It helps to assess the degree of the developmental lag. The test’s core is the meaning of time. Punctuality is related to reliability and to the local weight of formal and informal contractual obligations. Let us assume, you are told that something which is also in the ultimate interest of the provider, will happen tomorrow at 8 a.m. Let us begin with the most preferred alternative. If it happens at the agreed upon time, you know that you are conducting the wrong inquiry: the test does not match the local level of development. Things are close to optimal if the promised action takes place at nine. Less good, but still promising is if the action happens in the afternoon. The clouds are dark above places where “it” occurs the next day but at 8 p.m. If, by itself, nothing happens and it takes three pleas before you get some performance, the case is hopeless. A nuance can be added to improve the diagnosis. It concentrates on the reaction of the provider of the action. Is there an apology – even if unconvincing – for the delay? Alternatively, are you told that you are to feel lucky to have your problem handled? Is there irritation in case you reveal that you are peeved by the delay? Is the reaction to your complaint – in case you dare to voice it – lack of understanding, such as in “why is that clown getting so excited”?
 
7. Piracy. This risks upsetting some readers because it suggests a solution that will not have the approval of the pirates. Declare around Somalia a generously drawn zone beyond the twelve-mile limit to be a fisheries zone. Declare everything beyond that to be a war zone. In fact, it already is one. Patrol it also with the help of aircraft. Sink anything that looks like a pirate. There will be an outcry complaining about due process. It will peter out. As will piracy.