28 February 2008
Free Trade Agreements and Employment
Do the nation’s citizens have a right to employment? That the state exists to assure employment is a socialist principle. A free market approach concedes that the state should assure certain civic values, such as public order, health and safety, personal privacy, freedom of religion and speech, habeas corpus, etc. However, it is up to each individual to make his own living.
Labor unions exceed their mandate when they step outside the arena of microeconomics, in which they negotiate on behalf of workers with company management. Both union members and their employers are subject to the laws of the state, including its free trade agreements. They are both free to affect to the new rules established by those agreements through their representatives in Congress and to respond to them by adapting the factors of production that they control—capital and labor. If they are not able to respond adequately to satisfy their respective objectives, they can use the means available to them—their votes at the ballot box and their financial support for election campaigns—to secure changes in those agreements.
The complaint being made in 2008 against NAFTA, however, is not one that can be resolved through the American political process. It assumes that it is the responsibility of the state to obviate measures that cause the loss of jobs, even if those measures may result in improving general welfare. The affected workers may demand adjustment assistance in order to achieve that result. But if NAFTA serves the general welfare, including payment of adjustment assistance, then the American government has fulfilled its duty. It should not prevent change just because it makes it necessary for some segments of society to upset their accustomed routine.
Do the nation’s citizens have a right to employment? That the state exists to assure employment is a socialist principle. A free market approach concedes that the state should assure certain civic values, such as public order, health and safety, personal privacy, freedom of religion and speech, habeas corpus, etc. However, it is up to each individual to make his own living.
Labor unions exceed their mandate when they step outside the arena of microeconomics, in which they negotiate on behalf of workers with company management. Both union members and their employers are subject to the laws of the state, including its free trade agreements. They are both free to affect to the new rules established by those agreements through their representatives in Congress and to respond to them by adapting the factors of production that they control—capital and labor. If they are not able to respond adequately to satisfy their respective objectives, they can use the means available to them—their votes at the ballot box and their financial support for election campaigns—to secure changes in those agreements.
The complaint being made in 2008 against NAFTA, however, is not one that can be resolved through the American political process. It assumes that it is the responsibility of the state to obviate measures that cause the loss of jobs, even if those measures may result in improving general welfare. The affected workers may demand adjustment assistance in order to achieve that result. But if NAFTA serves the general welfare, including payment of adjustment assistance, then the American government has fulfilled its duty. It should not prevent change just because it makes it necessary for some segments of society to upset their accustomed routine.
26 February 2008
Considering Sanctions on Bank Markazi
In his front-page article in the February 25, 2008, Wall Street Journal, Glenn R. Simpson speculates on the implications for the effectiveness of U.S. pressure on the Iranian government that Treasury Department sanctions on Bank Markazi, its central bank, would have. On first reading, it appears that Mr. Simpson is advocating those sanctions; however, upon closer examination his words prove to be carefully crafted to present as fact a case that was apparently made to him by officials in Washington. It is they who are laying the groundwork for toughening U.S. policy towards Iran, short of invasion.
Mr. Simpson is a convenient and respected vehicle for signaling an escalation in financial warfare on Iran, probably in order to see what objection may be voiced on Capitol Hill as well as in the capitals of our allies. How reasonable the Bush Administration has become as it nears its finale!
There seem to be influential elements in the government, after all, who wish to retain power after the November election. They believe it is not too late to moderate the manner in which they take measures in pursuit of their political agenda. Whoever moves into the White House next year, we may have come to the end of the era of cowpoke politics in Washington.
In his front-page article in the February 25, 2008, Wall Street Journal, Glenn R. Simpson speculates on the implications for the effectiveness of U.S. pressure on the Iranian government that Treasury Department sanctions on Bank Markazi, its central bank, would have. On first reading, it appears that Mr. Simpson is advocating those sanctions; however, upon closer examination his words prove to be carefully crafted to present as fact a case that was apparently made to him by officials in Washington. It is they who are laying the groundwork for toughening U.S. policy towards Iran, short of invasion.
Mr. Simpson is a convenient and respected vehicle for signaling an escalation in financial warfare on Iran, probably in order to see what objection may be voiced on Capitol Hill as well as in the capitals of our allies. How reasonable the Bush Administration has become as it nears its finale!
There seem to be influential elements in the government, after all, who wish to retain power after the November election. They believe it is not too late to moderate the manner in which they take measures in pursuit of their political agenda. Whoever moves into the White House next year, we may have come to the end of the era of cowpoke politics in Washington.
22 February 2008
A European Solution for Turkey
Multiculturalism is not the European answer to ethnic diversity. The examples of Ireland, Yugoslavia, and now Belgium show that forced blending of cultures under a democratic government is less and less effective.
The Ottoman Empire was a successful venture in ethnic diversity, combining a large number of nationalities and religions under its Sunni Muslim rule. When it was overthrown after its decay from WWI, Kemal Attaturk replaced it with a mono-ethnic secular regime that could afford less tolerance for cultural diversity. Although the infamous genocide alleged by the Armenian diaspora occurred uncharacteristically during the Ottomans' waning years, the new regime’s power has been determinedly maintained through Turkish ascendancy at the expense of its minorities, notably Kurdish.
The real distance between Turkey and the EU is not one of religion—Muslim vs. Christian. It is, rather, the underlying difference in attitudes towards cultural diversity. How will the human rights court of The Hague deal with the suppression of minorities in Turkey that has been essential to its existence for nearly a century? The model that is increasingly being followed in Europe is fragmentation of political states to reflect ethnic diversity. It is hard to believe that Turkey would fit into today’s European Union without the simultaneous admission of Kurdistan.
Multiculturalism is not the European answer to ethnic diversity. The examples of Ireland, Yugoslavia, and now Belgium show that forced blending of cultures under a democratic government is less and less effective.
The Ottoman Empire was a successful venture in ethnic diversity, combining a large number of nationalities and religions under its Sunni Muslim rule. When it was overthrown after its decay from WWI, Kemal Attaturk replaced it with a mono-ethnic secular regime that could afford less tolerance for cultural diversity. Although the infamous genocide alleged by the Armenian diaspora occurred uncharacteristically during the Ottomans' waning years, the new regime’s power has been determinedly maintained through Turkish ascendancy at the expense of its minorities, notably Kurdish.
The real distance between Turkey and the EU is not one of religion—Muslim vs. Christian. It is, rather, the underlying difference in attitudes towards cultural diversity. How will the human rights court of The Hague deal with the suppression of minorities in Turkey that has been essential to its existence for nearly a century? The model that is increasingly being followed in Europe is fragmentation of political states to reflect ethnic diversity. It is hard to believe that Turkey would fit into today’s European Union without the simultaneous admission of Kurdistan.
21 February 2008
Islam at the Ballot Box
If radical Islamists wished to use elections to achieve their aims they would have turned out in droves for the votes in Pakistan, Malaysia, Gaza, Algeria, and other countries that Amir Taheri wrote about in his OpEd article in the February 21, 2008 Wall Street Journal. Instead, they are implored by their leaders to reject elections as orthodoxy for governance. The methods they are taught are not rational, but spiritual. Those tactics must be fought on the level of persuasive inspiration, not by means of the use of logic or force.
It is only misguided minorities of Islamists who contest elections. They even participate in the same weak percentages in sham elections under authoritarian regimes like Egypt, Bahrain, and Oman, as if going to the polls has any hope of turning a fundamentalist religious culture into a Western liberal republic.
Holding elections will not defuse the nihilism of Islamic radicalism. The West will protect its security better by energetically communicating its human values to these societies and investing in enabling their members to exercise responsible self-governance.
If radical Islamists wished to use elections to achieve their aims they would have turned out in droves for the votes in Pakistan, Malaysia, Gaza, Algeria, and other countries that Amir Taheri wrote about in his OpEd article in the February 21, 2008 Wall Street Journal. Instead, they are implored by their leaders to reject elections as orthodoxy for governance. The methods they are taught are not rational, but spiritual. Those tactics must be fought on the level of persuasive inspiration, not by means of the use of logic or force.
It is only misguided minorities of Islamists who contest elections. They even participate in the same weak percentages in sham elections under authoritarian regimes like Egypt, Bahrain, and Oman, as if going to the polls has any hope of turning a fundamentalist religious culture into a Western liberal republic.
Holding elections will not defuse the nihilism of Islamic radicalism. The West will protect its security better by energetically communicating its human values to these societies and investing in enabling their members to exercise responsible self-governance.
08 February 2008
Is That Why We Were in Vietnam?
The OpEd by Arthur Herman in the February 6, 2008 Wall Street Journal, “The Lies of Tet,” leads one to the conclusion that if the American military had been allowed to stay in Vietnam indefinitely, the world would have avoided tragedies like the killing fields of Cambodia (and probably the genocide in Rwanda, not to mention others). His analysis reflects the confusion that conflates successful military campaigns with enlightened public policy. For example, Nadia Schadlow (in her OpEd in the February 7, 2008 Wall Street Journal, “From the Jaws of Victory”) misses the wrongheadedness of the Iraq Invasion when criticizing the possible transfer of General Petraeus to NATO headquarters on the basis that it could only be justified in “peacetime.” After all, were the U.S. not to find itself suppressing resistance by a fratricidal population to occupation by our military, Iraqis would still be experiencing peace, if not liberty, in their land.
We have often scapegoated our military leaders for failing to win victories in impossible circumstances. When they are able, like General Petraeus, to isolate the range of their responsibilities from horrendous failures of judgment by our political leaders, their military successes should not be allowed retroactively to rationalize a military adventure that only brings shame on a peace-loving superpower.
The OpEd by Arthur Herman in the February 6, 2008 Wall Street Journal, “The Lies of Tet,” leads one to the conclusion that if the American military had been allowed to stay in Vietnam indefinitely, the world would have avoided tragedies like the killing fields of Cambodia (and probably the genocide in Rwanda, not to mention others). His analysis reflects the confusion that conflates successful military campaigns with enlightened public policy. For example, Nadia Schadlow (in her OpEd in the February 7, 2008 Wall Street Journal, “From the Jaws of Victory”) misses the wrongheadedness of the Iraq Invasion when criticizing the possible transfer of General Petraeus to NATO headquarters on the basis that it could only be justified in “peacetime.” After all, were the U.S. not to find itself suppressing resistance by a fratricidal population to occupation by our military, Iraqis would still be experiencing peace, if not liberty, in their land.
We have often scapegoated our military leaders for failing to win victories in impossible circumstances. When they are able, like General Petraeus, to isolate the range of their responsibilities from horrendous failures of judgment by our political leaders, their military successes should not be allowed retroactively to rationalize a military adventure that only brings shame on a peace-loving superpower.
