re: "Chinese Dragons and Russian Bears"

"Sam Huntington" at Always On Watch ("Semper Vigilans") reviewed strategic issues involving our near-peer competitors.

Money quote(s):

"(A) far more dangerous situation is developing in Asia. No surprise, Americans are not hearing about any of this from the state-run media. Here are a few examples:

· China is claiming island territory within fifty miles of the Philippines.

· Chinese frigates regularly intruded Philippine territorial waters.

· Chinese ships fired upon Philippine fishing boats.

· Chinese naval vessels rammed Vietnamese fishing boats (See Note 1)

· Chinese accost Indian naval vessels operating off the coast of Vietnam, demanding to know why they are operating in Chinese waters.

· Chinese military aircraft intrude into Taiwanese air space.

· China intruded Japanese mainland territorial waters on 14 occasions.

· China intruded Okinawa territorial waters on 10 occasions.

· China created six major incidents with the US Navy at sea.

· Raise your hand if you aren’t aware that North Korea is China’s redheaded stepchild.

Note 1: Vietnam possesses one of the world’s largest armies: (China: 4.5 million, Vietnam: 5.9 million)."

You know the one about amateurs studying tactics and professionals studying logistics?

Well, in terms of international relations, geopolitics, and grand strategy, the professionals are studying China.

"Danger of a regional conflict is real. The consequence to China’s arrogance has been a dramatic increase in military spending among Southeast Asian countries. Australia, Japan, India, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan have all dedicated billions of dollars on new or upgraded military hardware. The United States is upgrading naval facilities in Guam —so much so that Representative Hank Johnson(D-GA) worries the island may capsize. Nevertheless, all of these countries recognize the wisdom of pooling their resources to keep China in check; Japan has taken the lead in establishing mutual defense cooperatives with Australia, South Korea, India, and the United States. Singapore has offered to provide bases for the US Navy."

CAA no longer worries that Guam will become overburdened, over-balanced, and capsize, having received assurances that Guam possesses a sufficiently sturdy keel and gyroscopic stabilizer.

"Owing to the fact that we don’t know what motivates Chinese behavior, the Australian General Staff worries that a mistake could lead to disastrous consequences —particularly when it is likely that China will attempt to use its military to enforce a Chinese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The problem is that while demanding that other nations treat Chinese EEZs as its sovereign territory, China routinely refuses to acknowledge the EEZs of other nations. From the standpoint of international law, EEZs are not sovereign territory. We can therefore see how China might regard the US Navy’s mission to safeguard open sea-lanes as an intolerable trespass —a situation that could lead to deadly confrontation."

It's the old "what's-mine-is-mine-what's-yours-is-negotiable" attitude turned somewhat sideways: China will use existing international norms and fora to its own advantage and ignore those which infringe upon its own interests. That's what one does when one is the center of the Earth, after all.

"Some politicians argue that given China’s dependence on global trade, a deadly confrontation is unlikely. They may have forgotten that economic ties did not hinder German aggression at the beginning of the 20^th Century —a costly mistake for France. ....but here is where we find the real and present danger. Defense cuts may encourage China to challenge allied nations within the region of Southeast Asia —they are that arrogant."

Nor did close economic ties deflect World War I; for that matter, the United States' close economic ties with Saudi Arabia deter the 9/11 attacks.

(Marx notwithstanding, man is not solely, nor even primarily, an economic animal.)

"From Russia’s perspective, there couldn’t be a better time to threaten the United States and NATO with pre-emptive strikes unless we agree to cancel the so-called Missile Defense Shield, designed as a safeguard from Iranian ICBMs."

This seems a little over-the-top; threatening pre-emptive strikes is way more sabre-rattling than is necessary. Russia has far more effective economic and political levers to pull than jacking things up on the defcon meter.

"If one understands international relations, Russia’s timing couldn’t be better. We should anticipate this sort of behavior by an adversary whenever they perceive American leadership as weak, incompetent, ineffective, or confused."

Harsh words, but hardly unwarranted.

The "reset" button must have been like those ones installed near crosswalks: not really wired to anything but they give pedestrians something to do with their hands while waiting for the lights to change.

"This situation should once again remind us that American politicians and diplomats seldom learn important lessons of history. America cannot afford another war right now. Neither can we afford the perception of weakness, incompetence, or abject stupidity. We continue to live in a dangerous world"

Diplomats actually aren't slouches when it comes to learning their history lessons; however if you expand your definition of "diplomat" beyond those actually trained and experienced in it to those who practice it on our behalf at the highest levels....

"Rather than facing a deadly and costly regional conflict in Southeast Asia, it would be far less expensive to deter Chinese aggression vis-à-vis a strong military presence along the Pacific Rim. As for the Russian Bear, they understand but one thing: force or its promise."

5/4

re: "If one Eurozone can't work - have Two (or more)"

Charles Crawford at his Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") postulated that be more might better.

Money quote(s):

"The best chance for some sort of orderly outcome is to divide the Eurozone into two new currencies (Euro 1 - based on the deep logic of the old Hanseatic League which did well for 402 years! - and Euro 2), letting those countries which need a devaluation boost join Euro 2. If Germany heads Euro 1 and France Euro 2, the Franco-German axis can have a fine new job."

It reminds me of the Cold War story of some national leader or another saying he liked Germany so much he wanted two of them.

"What do we Europeans basically want? To get richer, live nicely and not fight.

There is no reason why this should not be achieved through a network of several smaller regional European Unions with customised levels of integration and mutually reinforcing basic trading and security relationships. This arrangement would also make further enlargement much easier - Turkey might become the core of a new Regional Union.

All the expensive and annoying central bureaucracy could be scaled back or even abolished - farewell, European Parliament. Legitimacy and public accountability within each Regional Union would soar, as the governing arrangements would be much less remote.

Above all such a scheme would not be brittle, subject to horrible institutional contortions as one sprawling Union tries to accommodate quite different needs, policies and cultures."

8/20

re: "Voodoo Science; Praetorians; borrowing to pay bunny inspectors; missed opportunities; and more."

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook.") dealt with several topics of interest.

Money quote(s):

"(T)the Iron Law of Bureaucracy applies to military and policy organizations, particularly in peace time; it’s not quite so visible or severe because the standards for admission to the organization can and often are kept high, and the Mamelukes and Janissaries and Praetorians do not admit fools and cowards to their brotherhood; but of course that may change in peace time.

We live in a Republic founded by political leaders who were very much aware of Roman history, who had read their Plutarch, who seriously debated the working of the Venetian Republic – in 1787 the longest surviving Republic in the history of mankind, not yet ended by Napoleon and the bayonets of the French Army – and who were quite familiar with the careers of Julius Caesar, Mark Anthony, Octavian, Marius, and Sulla, the Gracchi – most of whom are known to modern Americans from movies."

Iron Law of Bureaucracy?

Oh yeah, that.

Our military is an armed bureaucracy, at least some of the time.

"The French want us to sit on Fritz. The Germans like having Americans spend money in Germany, and not having to have a large Wehrmacht. The troops like it in Europe. The taxpayers have never read George Washington’s advice on entangling alliances and not being involved in overseas territorial disputes. So it goes."

The taxpayers (and their representatives) in the immediate post-WW2 period should, perhaps, be forgiven their understandable desire to not have to come back and settle the Jerries hash, so to speak, for a third time; the second time being perceived as the result of their disengagement after the first time.


"Europe could afford Socialism because they didn’t need to defend their territory against Russia during the Cold war. It’s a tradition."

Likewise, Russia harbors lingering fears about various of its neighbors to the west; that too is tradition and it informs their view of geopolitics even today.


"The Marines acted without thinking of the consequences and must be made to realize that; but I have always believed that far more serious acts take place in every combat action. War is Hell. A rational army would run away. Those men did not run away, and I’d far rather have troops who urinate on the enemy than troops who surrender to get their throats cut while in captivity."

That about sums it up.

_____

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

1/15

re: "Tehran's embassies: Targets of popular rage since 1829"

Uri Friedman at PASSPORT ("A Blog By The Editors of FOREIGN POLICY") put the Iranian attack on the British embassy in its proper historical context.

Money quote(s):

"The storming of the British embassy in Tehran on Tuesday capped a week of diplomatic wrangling over the United Kingdom's decision to slap new sanctions on Iran in response to its nuclear program."

Just in case anyone actually believes this was the unsanctioned action of a "spontaneous mob," here's a link to some information that bears on that subject.

(Of course, if you equate, as I do, the term "spontaneous mob" to "state-sponsored assault team," then only the "unsanctioned" part of the above should be any bother.)

"(E)mbassy storming is a recurring phenomenon in Tehran, though Iran certainly isn't the only country to experience such attacks. The most infamous incident, of course, involves young Islamic revolutionaries seizing the U.S. embassy in 1979 and taking 63 Americans hostage for 444 days to demand that the United States hand over the recently ousted Shah. But there are other examples."

In addition to some post-Revolutionary examples, there's also this:

"Tehran also witnessed what may be the earliest instance of an embassy assault (if an earlier example comes to mind, please share it with us). In January 1829, Alexander Griboyedov, a famous Russian playwright tasked with imposing a humiliating peace treaty on the Persians, was murdered along with nearly his entire staff when a furious mob stormed the Russian embassy in Tehran following a series of disputes between Griboyedov and the Shah."

In addition to Britain closing its Tehran embassy and order Iran's diplomats out of London, France's mission will also be going on some sort of Ordered Departure.

11/29

re "Are The French Backing Down On Military Action In Libya?"

DrewM. at Ace of Spades HQ made an interesting prediction.

Money quote(s):

"So after going to war (yes, that's what it is) because France badgered us into it, we might get left holding the bag? Who could have seen that coming?

I'd say that the odds are better than 50/50 that before this is all over France surrenders to Libya and cedes some territory to it."

Qadhaf senior: dead. Qadhafi juniors: dead or imprisoned. Still, this story has chapters more to go.


7/ 11

re: "Prodding a Sleeping Giant"

Andrew Stuttaford at The Corner ("a web-leading source of real-time conservative opinion") had this to say about the European bailout situation.

Money quote(s):

"Greece is falling into the abyss, and we already know that the new rescue package will not be big enough either to bail out Athens or to halt the contagion that is spreading rapidly elsewhere. Meanwhile, Germany’s political class appears to have declared war on its own people."

Calling it "war" would be a stretch but calling it 'ignoring popular sentiment' would be sugar-coating it.

"Germany’s regulators should at least be insisting that its banks are (truly) well capitalized enough to cope with any storm that may come. That might encourage the French to do what they have to do with their banks too…"

This gets into that area known as "moral hazard." Major banks in all the country's mentioned above (and our own) hold a lot of paper assets issued by polities without the economic wherewithal to ever make them real. So they're looking for a bailout package that doesn't make them write them off or down. It's that "too big to fail" syndrome again. We know how well that turns out. Unfortunately for European bankers, when their own "Occupy" movement gets started "Over There," it's not likely to be as (relatively) well-behaved as ours has been.

10/2

re: "Greece's Dangerous Gamble"

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") looked at the Greek financial crisis.

Money quote(s):

"As much as the Germans and French resent having to bail out profligate Greece, the Greeks resent having their core political decisions dictated from Paris and Berlin even more."

Likewise for Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Iceland. To name a few.

"European integration has been achieved through stealth and technocratic maneuvering on the part of elites, quite frequently bypassing the clear preferences of the ostensibly democratic populations in various countries. The passing of so much authority to the European Central Bank and to appointed officials in Brussels has been inexorable, with little input from the European publics and often against the expressed wishes demonstrated via referenda."

This is not a bug in the European experiment: it's a feature.

11/1

re: "The ‘First Fruits’ Of Our Support Of The Arab Spring Endeavor In Libya"

John Bernard, 1st Sgt. USMC (ret.), at Big Peace doubts that Libya's Arab Spring will amount to an improvement.

Money quote(s):

"(B)oth the United States and France have reached out to the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) and predictably, the NTC turned it’s back on those very same nations that came to their rescue.

The US State Department reached out to our “new friends” in Libya, hoping to retrieve Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the mastermind behind the 1988 Lockerbie airline bombing and the NTC said no. The no was neither tentative nor was it contingent on some prerequisite understanding or action. They said no with emphasis. The NTC spokesman said; ” [We] will not give any Libyan citizen to the West…”. So much for thanks, the spirit of cooperation, any understanding of right and wrong or any semblance of a common understanding of human rights, just; no."

Followed by a mention of disappointment regarding France's expections about Libyan oil production.

(One begins to suspect that "no blood for oil" doesn't parse well into French.)

"For those who choose to immediately dismiss these as the “growing pains” of a new regime protecting it’s interests, let me say that this continued naïveté toward the Islamic mind and their collective vision of the west and all non-compliant nations, is delusional! These are not the actions of righteous people whose vision includes a belief that all men are created equal. These are the actions of a people who deem all men are either submitted to Allah or they are not; and there are consequences for non compliance.

Naïve or not, the United States and our NATO friends, embarked on a mission to help secure freedom for the Libyan people, as though freedom is a universally understood concept. The US Constitution generally defines freedom as every individual’s God given inalienable right to self determination."

What about the Libyans' definition?

"What the Koran teaches is anathema to any constructive understanding of personal freedom. Rather it teaches submission and it’s adherents, to propagate, by the sword if necessary.

This is not a new revelation, this is an age old truth as defined in the Koran, the Hadith and the very words of the Islamic Scholars. So what continues to give hope to our western minded “leadership” that what these various rebellions are seeking is indeed, freedom? And what gives them the idea that supporting their efforts will in the end support our unilateral interests to defend these shores, and our Constitution?"

Change is not always for the better. And some do not see their interests, even while in national office, as being unilateral.

"Let me be clear; the world will be no worse off with Ghadaffi’s head on a pike but supporting a gaggle of 7th century thugs who would have Al Qaida in their number never mind in a position of leadership, will set us all back two decades."

1st Sgt Bernard is specific in just what kind of U.S. leadership there was two decades ago, and cites an example in U.S.-Libyan relations to make his point.

re: "Guns or butter? Saving food stamps at expense of national defense"

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") lays out some facts about cutting defense spending.

Money quote(s):

"(T)here’s a whole lot of military spending going on in the world, and we do most of it.

But we’ve known that for decades. What the chart doesn’t tell you, for instance, is how much China’s spending has increased. China’s defense budget for the past few years has seen double digit jumps, with the only year in single digits being 2010 when it only increased the budget by 7.5%. This year, it’s back in double digits at 12.7%. So that wedge you see in this static chart is a rapidly growing wedge. As China’s economy has heated up over the years, so has China’s military spending.

Russia too is increasing its spending on defense. It plans on spending $650 billion on its armed forces over the next 10 years.

France, on the other hand, has been cutting its level of military spending consistently over the years since 1988. But a country that isn’t cutting its spending and which now spends more of its GDP on the military than does France, is Iran.

The point, of course, is that while it is evident that we spend an inordinately larger amount than any other country on defense, we’ve done that because we’ve assumed an international role that others can’t fill or we don’t want them to fill.

And that’s an important point. One reason that we’ve generally seen a peaceful 50 or so years (with most wars being of the regional, not world wide, type) is because we’ve been the country which has shouldered the burden of keeping the peace. Peace through strength.

Obviously there is certainly an argument that can be made that we shouldn’t have to shoulder that burden and it’s time we gave it up. But as soon as you say something like that, you have to ask, “but who will fill the role”?

Certainly not the Third World Debating society known as the UN. They’re inept, corrupt and incompetent. And certainly not NATO – as Libya has proven, they can’t get out of their own way.

So who keeps Russia in its place and stands up to China as that country flexes its newly developed muscle? What about Iran? Or North Korea?

That’s the problem with being about the only country standing of any size after a world war. So we have to ask ourselves, is it in our best interest to back out of our pretty dominant role and cut back drastically in our spending in that area? If we answer yes, we have to ask who we trust to pick up that slack. I know my answer to that – no one. But rest assured that power vacuum will indeed be filled. A dilemma for sure."

One of the fun facts about Russia is that the millions of dollars we've given them in aid to clean up, secure, and demilitarize their older nuclear force freed them to spend their defense budget (remember: money is fungible!) on modernizing and upgrading their new nuclear forces.

"We lead the world in spending but do not have the largest military – not by a long shot. In fact, our entire military is just a bit smaller than the Chinese Army alone. Looking at that, and considering the spending chart, what would it tell you?

It would tell me we spend the majority of our money on technology. It costs money – and a lot of it – to maintain our level of superiority. We spend it on things like 5th generation fighters, state-of-the-art naval vessels, and the like. Programs that are designed not only to give us the technological edge on the battlefield, but also to deter would-be enemies from even trying, given their inability to match our capabilities. It is obviously an intangible – we can’t really measure how much this has saved us from brutal and even more costly wars – but with the budget battles and the fiscal crisis, we’re in a position where we certainly have to clearly state our priorities."

One can place domestic politics and policies, re-election concerns, and "transforming America" at the top of one's "to do" list, but that doesn't make the rest of the world go away.

"Defense spending is 4.7% of GDP and it is approximately 20% of the federal budget."

Just keep that part in mind. It's an important fact. Hmmm. If defense spending is twenty percent of the federal budget, what's the other eighty percent? Foreign aid? Not too likely, considering non-Defense "discretionary" spending is only nineteen percent of the federal budget.

(And according to the pie charts at Blackfive, Medicare & Medicaid are 23%, Social Security is 20%, other "mandatory" spending is 12%, and interest on federal debt is 6%.)

"And we’ve so overspent that we’re spending 6% on interest alone. So 62% of the budget – as designed by those brilliant legislators we’ve elected decade after decade – is untouchable by law. That leaves 39% that these yahoos want to “balance the budget” on. The elephant in the room is ignored to go after the dog. And only part of the dog." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"(U)ntouchable by law" means untouchable-until-the-law-is-changed. Entitlements and mandatory spending are labels used by politicians to convince the public that transfer-of-wealth payments used to redistribute income are God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

(And they ain't.)

"Is it a core commitment of the government of the United States to protect and defend the citizens of the country as outlined in the Constitution of the United States, or is it a core commitment to take other people’s money and redistribute it?

Because that’s the choice we’re talking about here. Make the commitment to national security and, within reason, the cost that entails, or (snip) throw it under the bus in favor of redistribution of income instead." (Bold typeface in original text. - CAA.)

Bastille Day

Having recently read Ann Coulter's "Demonic," I have a new perspective on Bastille Day.

Still, props to France for not yet throwing away America's having come to your rescue you once and then liberated you a generation later.

re: "Why Republicans really want a louder Obama"

Joshua Keating at PASSPORT ("A Blog By The Editors Of Foreign Policy") is usually smarter than this.

Quote(s):

"This doesn't really make any sense. Bachman (sic) thinks the Libya intervention is a disastrously misguided mission, but America should be taking a more prominent role in it? ("We may be going straight to hell but damned if we're going to let the French get there first!")"

Actually, that's not what she said, as Mr. Keating's excerpt makes clear:

"Our policy in Libya is substantially flawed. It's interesting. President Obama's own people said that he was leading from behind. The United States doesn't lead from behind. As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind.

We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That's all we need to know. The president was not leading when it came to Libya."

What Mr. Keating missed here is the decision-making aspect of leadership. France has taken the lead with respect to what can laughingly be referred to as NATO's "Libya policy." Not the U.S. Rep. Bachmann said nothing about the U.S. taking a more prominent role in the Libyan intervention. In fact, she seems to be implying that that U.S. leadership might have headed off there being any intervention there at all.

Sadly, this sort of thing was predicted by diploblogging legend Diplomad just yesterday:

"(T)he liberal elite attacks on her will be unrelenting; any minor flub, slip, or inconsistency will be headline news and fodder for the dopey late night "comics." The libs will go through her life with a microscope. This will get ugly. She is going to be abused, maligned, and "Palined" because she does not fit the mould the liberal elite and their MSM pets have decreed for politically savvy and smart women politicians. She is a conservative, a real one, and that's something the libs just cannot abide. To make matters worse, she fights back, and doesn't apologize for being conservative. Women, blacks, Hispanics, and Jews are supposed to be liberal, if they're not, it's OK to call them anything you want: Misogyny or racism in the service of liberalism is just free speech or funny."

re: "The march of Ruritania"

Richard at EU Referendum ("To discuss issues related to the UK's position in Europe and the world") relayed some Royal Wedding-related commentary.

Money quote(s):

" "The Edwardian braid and sashes worn by Princes and Dukes emphasised that our Armed Forces are shrunken remnants – lots of big hats, not many planes, ships or soldiers", writes Peter Hitchens. "Never have they looked so laughably Ruritanian".

And more or less the same point is made by Booker as he writes of politicians hiding their plans to put French jets on Royal Navy carriers. The Royal Navy won't be flying Anglo-US Joint Strike Fighters, but providing a platform for French Rafales as part of an EU force, he tells us."

I remarked to the Madame-at-Arms, when we watched some of the wedding pageantry (CAA is partial to all things protocol-y), that the two princes in their honorary colonels get-up looked like kids wearing their great-uncle's uniforms.

(Which is unfair to both of the gentlemen, being qualified and serving officers in their own rights.)

"Thus does Booker write that the magnificent military pageantry of the royal wedding coincided, sadly, with yet another humiliating instance of the precipitate decline in Britain's military power. Soon, all we will have is lots of big hats, as we hand over operational control over our few remaining assets to an Anglo-French consortium, where the one operational carrier that we will have will be used as a platform for French aircraft.

The point that must be emphasised again and again is that this has always been the plan, ever since 1996, under the last Tory government. The carriers have always been earmarked for a joint Anglo-French project. Their purpose has been to serve as the main Anglo-French contribution to the European Rapid Reaction Force, as agreed by Tony Blair at Helsinki in 1999.

That is what makes our pageantry and the military splendour a hollow charade. It had some meaning when it was a reflection of our power and status, but when we have more admirals than ships, more generals than battalions, and our sad little navee goes to sea with iPods and EU flags, earmarked to further EU grandiosity, then the splendour takes on a Ruritanian character. It is all show and no substance.

That is what it has come down to. That is why there can be no pride in watching a celebration of something that no longer exists - just overwhelming sadness. We have sold the substance of Great Britain on the altar of European integration."

Color me Euro-skeptical. And I like Europe. I've served there in and out of uniform as both soldier and diplomat. But I've always felt that the EU was a bit of a put-on, for show, and not really serious. Unfortunately, lots of European governments seem to feel the same way about NATO and defense in general.

re: "Obama's Meglomania: What He Should Say Tonight About Libya"

Peter Schweizer at Big Peace thinks the Europeans have our number.

Money quote(s):

"I suggest instead.... that he tell the truth: He got played. Obama got maneuvered into getting involved in Libya because the Europeans, particularly the French and Italians, were concerned about their access to oil and a refugee crisis. And as much as Obama wants to believe that he can “hand over” the Libyan operation to the Europeans, the Colin Powell Rule in International Affairs still applies: ”If you break it, you fix it.” The United States can’t just bomb Libya and then walk away.

The Europeans played Obama so easily because they appealed to his guilt instincts. Obama sincerely believes that under Bush the United States was a Cowboy Empire, insensitive to the sophisticates in Europe. He has been all to eager to demonstrate that he’s different and willing to allow them to lead. What Obama failed to take into account is that Europe has a history of wanting the fruits of military power without actually having military power. It’s the same with Libya. If things go awry, you can bet that the French will gripe and blame the Americans, cajoling the White House to get more firmly involved.

The Europeans no doubt played on Obama’s meglomania and presented this as an opportunity for him to appear both strong and selfless. Strong because he could use military power! ”Selfless” because there are exactly no American interests at stake.

Our enemies and allies are both very shrewd at figuring out what personal qualities they can manipulate in our leaders and using them to their advantage. Sarkozy played Obama perfectly."

As fond as I am of Sec. Powell, I'm less enthused about the "Pottery Barn" rule about owning the things you break, at least when it comes to warfare. There are such things as punitive expeditions, after all, where the whole point is to break things (and leave without paying).

JO - Haiti, I'm really, really sorry!

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer


Haiti, I'm really, really sorry!

Thursday, January 21, 2010

The anthem by Trinidad's David Rudder -- Haiti, I'm sorry -- aptly sums up the feeling of the entire human race as befuddled Haiti yesterday experienced yet another major quake.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The embarrassment of losing Haiti to a slave revolt over 200 years ago has haunted the French and remained a dark cloud over that Caribbean country from that moment on. The sordid intervention of the United States in subsequent years ensured that Haiti could never rise but for a few brief moments."

"Importantly, the approach by the United States and France have clearly signalled their own willingness to start over with Haiti. US president, Mr Barack Obama took the lead in offering substantial aid to Haiti in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake last week Tuesday."

&

"France, we gather from news reports, has offered to forgive Haiti's debts. This is critical, because it is widely held that the French were the original architects of Haiti's grinding poverty, for demanding a high percentage of its annual budget as reparation for losses suffered during the slave takeover of French-ruled Haiti."

S&S - Security is tight in Strasbourg for NATO summit. Strasbourg tightly regulates access during NATO event.

Stars and Stripes

Security is tight in Strasbourg for NATO summit


Strasbourg tightly regulates access during NATO event


By Kevin Dougherty, Stars and Stripes

Mideast edition, Saturday, April 4, 2009

Michael Abrams/Stars and Stripes
Police line the route that the motorcades of U.S. President Barack Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France traveled down following their meeting in Strasbourg on Friday morning. Much of the eastern French city was blocked off for security reasons, and parking on many of the city streets has been forbidden since Monday. On Saturday NATO leaders are to meet in the city.


Michael Abrams/Stars and Stripes
A worker helps raise the U.S. flag in front of the Palais de la Musique et des Congres in Strasbourg, France, where the North Atlantic Council meeting will take place Saturday.

Michael Abrams/Stars and Stripes
The kitchen staff looks out the windows of the 15th-century Maison Kammerzell on Strasbourg, France's cathedral square, hoping to catch a glimpse of U.S. President Barack Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, following their meeting at the Rohan Palace on Friday morning. The crowd lining the square only got to see the presidents' motorcades roll by.

STRASBOURG, France — For the last day or so, the city center of the Alsatian capital in northeastern France has been, to borrow a military term, in lockdown mode.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Since the summit is occurring in two countries — France and Germany — the staging of the event has been, in the words of a State Department spokesperson, "a logistical nightmare." Aside from the ever-present worry of a terrorist attack, both European hosts have acted in concert to keep anarchists somewhat in check.

Following the G-20 summit in London, President Barack Obama arrived Friday in Strasbourg for discussions with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and a town hall meeting afterward. Obama then met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and later, NATO leaders gathered in nearby Baden-Baden, Germany, for a working dinner."

S&S - Danish leader chosen for top NATO post

Stars and Stripes



Danish leader chosen for top NATO post


By Kevin Dougherty, Stars and Stripes

Mideast edition, Sunday, April 5, 2009


STRASBOURG, France — As summits go, this weekend’s gathering of NATO members seemed especially productive, with the alliance addressing a number of issues, from Afghanistan to the selection of a new secretary general.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The annual North Atlantic Treaty Organization meeting of heads of state tapped Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to lead the alliance. He will succeed Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in August."

&

"Turkish officials were said to have been against his appointment for his alleged refusal to rebuke the 2005 publication of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, which many Muslims found offensive. In response to a question about the supposed controversy, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Rasmussen "a democrat" and said there was "no reason for pre-conceived notions" about the Dane and his views toward Muslims or their revered prophet. "

Some consular history

The consular function is one of the oldest parts of the Department of State; the first U.S. Consul (to France), William Palfrey of Massachusetts, was appointed on Nov. 4, 1780.

The first U.S. consular post was established in Bordeaux, France in March 1778. It was closed in 1996.

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution authorized the President to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls." The Consular Service, which was primarily responsible for promoting American commerce and assisting distressed American sailors, was separate from the Diplomatic Service, which staffed U.S. Legations and Embassies, from 1789 until 1924.

In 1781 there were 3 consular posts and 4 diplomatic ones. Today there are over 260, more than 70 of which are consular posts.