By Dawn's Early Light

The French aid American Interests (Part II)

France, the lead architect of the anti-US position over Iraq, the country willing to divide Europe and America's allies to strike its leadership position as a counterweight to US supremacy, and a nation at the core of European integration, has plunged all of Europe into chaos. 

Apart from the economic considerations, briefly touched on in Part I of this series, there are several geo-political ramifications of the French and coming Dutch vote.  The US is in a stronger position to set the international agenda and form the foundational alliances for the 21st century.  The result of the French vote will cause at minimum a 5- to 10-year period of deep European introspection.  While this introspection will likely be a healthy period for a stronger, more democratic European movement, it nevertheless removes a unified "European voice" from the international stage.  Fence sitting Eurosceptical countries such as the United Kingdom will have the opportunity to play a more active role in leading Europe as the French are now politically damaged because of their rejection of the EU proposed constitution.

From capitals in New Delhi, Brasilia, Jakarta, Tbilisi, Kiev and Baghdad, the vote against the French government and deeper European integration does not invite confidence in the proposals and platitudes of diplomats in the Quai D'Orsay or the politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels.  France has created a European power vacuum such that nations interested in their own security and regional security issues will find America as the only power with the focus, attention, and long-range commitment to its friends and allies to do business with.  France caused the US and Tony Blair a great deal of grief and frustration leading up to the toppling of Saddam's brutal regime.  Much as Kruschev overplayed his hand in 1963 with the US over the Cuban Missile Crisis, Mr. Chirac has overplayed his.

Countries like China, hoping for a strong Europe to counterbalance the US, will find little comfort in the French vote.  Rising Asian powers will focus their energies on reciprocating American gestures towards building better alliances, expanding trade, and cooperating on mutual security concerns.

While Europe looks introspectively, America will continue to successfully prosecute the War on Terror, expanding its hard and soft power as one of several pretenders falters.

What the French "Non" Means (Part I)

Mr. Chirac knew the train wreck was coming.  The opinion polls foretold the outcome.  The French citizens, united from the left and right of the political spectrum, handed their French leader and the EU a decisive "Non" to a deeper political union by rejecting the proposed European Union Constitution by a vote of over 55% against with better than 70% voter participation.

The cynic can point to the several-hundred-page document (219 in English - see page 8 and 9 for the preamble) and 243-word preamble and compare it to the US Constitution that opens with these simple, yet profound words:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

There were apparently too many competing political interests in Brussels during the draft of the European Union Constitution to produce a document that the average European could conceptualize, let alone explain to a neighbor.  It is striking that its potential demise was at the hands of the French rather than the English, who have yet to vote on it and now are unlikely to do so.

As Charlemagne argues in the Economist:

"The fact that the referendum campaigns in both countries have focused so much on the European Union as a whole underlines the dangers of the current debate. A 'double no' would not just signify rejection of the constitution itself. It might also start a backlash against elements of European integration that were already in place before the constitutional debate got going— in particular EU enlargement and the single market. The federalists' gamble would then have gone spectacularly wrong."

The cause of deeper integration may not just be stalled but could actually retreat as the heads of 25 nations must rethink a "more perfect union".  The French failure and likely Dutch government failure to ratify the constitution may have significant political, economic and military implications for the rest of the world.

The French EU Dream

The goal of Mr. Chirac in pushing forward the EU has always been twofold:  First, to leverage up French power by taking a primary lead in the EU to counterbalance the American superpower.  Mr. Chirac said in China:

"It is normal that a group of nations like the EU should wish to have the very closest relations with China, in such a way as to be able to build together the multipolar world which is in the process of being designed for tomorrow."

A multipolar world works by a counterbalancing system of relations.  Since the United States is the world's lone superpower, it is obvious what Mr. Chirac's goals are for the EU:  working in partnership through arms deals and economic arrangements to push forward a world order that constrains the US.

Mr. Chirac's second goal is to protect the French socialist system, which includes 35-hour work weeks and social benefits that are richer than most, if not all, in the EU.  As the Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required) points out:

"Voters in France, where unemployment is at a five-year high of 10.2%, worried that a more tightly knit EU would emphasize free-market reforms along American or British lines over France's traditional social protections. The emphatic 55%-45% 'no' vote warned Mr. Chirac not to go down that path. France's recent move to allow workweeks longer than 35 hours has already helped make his government unpopular."

With 10.2% unemployment in France and a projected growth rate of just slightly over 1% for 2005, compared to the US projection of 3.6% growth, the impact the "No" vote will have on the rest of Europe and the goal of political integration will be played out in the coming months and years.  Some of the effects likely will include:

• Investment uncertainties in Europe for all large companies (this will reduce investments)
• A move towards the dollar away from the euro.  This is especially important for the Chinese, who may continue to finance a large portion of US debt through the purchase of Treasuries
• Left-leaning governments in Europe (a majority of Western Europe) moving away from structural reforms to placate workers.  The lower income French workers and unemployed voted overwhelmingly against the EU (see WSJ article above)
• A slow-down of national legislation that increases interstate EU cooperation
• Stalled efforts on military integration that will continue to lead other friendly nations into joining American security arrangements
• A power struggle for the "driver's seat" of political leadership within Europe
• Less influence for European nations in world affairs, including possibly relations with the Middle East and Asia

However, the effect of the French vote will likely have some major implications for other powers.  I will address these in a follow-up post tomorrow.

Memorial Day Weekend

I, like most of my fellow citizens, am a proud American.  As my wife and I get closer to the arrival of our daughter and first child, my mind reflects on the blessing of liberty my family enjoys.  With great sacrifice we enjoy these freedoms.  This freedom was paid for at great cost by men and women who believed they were creating something larger than themselves.  From our nation's birth through the Civil War, America's involvement in two great wars and wars in Asia and the Middle East, good men and women have laid down their lives that others may enjoy what we here at home most treasure.  In memory of the fine individuals who have given the ultimate sacrifice, I would like to reprint the Gettysburg Address, given November 19, 1863.  President Lincoln's words are applicable today.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.  We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that the nation might live.  It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.  It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.  It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

May God bless our veterans, the families of the fallen, our nation and our friends of liberty.

Update: Chicago Boyz has an excellent post on "Honor the Dead, Help and Support the Living".  Join them in adding to their $1,000 contribution to the Wounded Warriors Project.  (May 31, 2005)

US Foreign Policy Successes

I have posted a good deal on Dawn's Early Light regarding the US goal of containing China and building strong relationships with Asian countries.  Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick recently returned from a 6-nation tour of Asia.  Evelyn Goh of the Asia Times has this fascinating article that praises Mr. Zoellick's efforts.

"For those who have been wondering what the second George W. Bush administration has in store for Southeast Asia, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick's recent eight-day visit to the region was encouraging. Above all, it was a significant display of the kind of diplomacy that too many have ceased to expect from the United States after Bush's first term. Following Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visits to Northeast and South Asia in March, the deputy secretary's visit reassured Southeast Asia that it remains on Washington's radar screen. Symbolically, Zoellick observed the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in the Asian theater, at Corrigedor in the Philippines.

In terms of style, Zoellick was impressive. At various stops, he stated his interest in 'consulting with our [Southeast Asian] partners, sharing some ideas and listening to their thoughts about the direction for the next four years'. The emphasis on consultation and listening regarding issues of common concern was accompanied by material aid in the form of a substantial post-tsunami reconstruction package for Indonesia and promises of help with economic liberalization in Vietnam. When he publicly discussed thorny issues, such as Myanmar's upcoming chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) [See DEL prior comments here and here] and religious freedom in Vietnam, Zoellick was diplomatic: he appeared firm but not overbearing or hectoring. More important, in terms of substance, the deputy secretary made all the right noises about issues most important to the region while taking a broader and more consultative approach to the key issue for the US - terrorism."

The article requires little commentary yet I would like to highlight several key goals attained by the US with various countries in the region.  Mr. Zoellick is an impressive representative of US foreign policy because of his background.

"The emphasis on economic issues during Zoellick's trip was particularly appreciated in a region that has labored under the US foreign-policy banner of the "second front" in the war against terrorism since 2002. As a former US trade representative (2001-2005) responsible for negotiating a wide range of trade agreements, including the US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement and the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Zoellick is familiar with the economic and developmental imperative in Southeast Asia."

Here are the highlights by country, according to Ms. Goh, of his recent trip:

Singapore

• Mr. Zoellick spoke of working out a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the two countries and contrasted the opportunity against Chinese efforts: "he was also careful to explain that US FTAs take a longer time to negotiate as they are more comprehensive than agreements offered by other countries such as China."
• The US has invited the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to Washington DC within the next two months.  This invitation was also extended to Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai and Indonesia's leader, Yudhoyono (See Marvin's piece here)

Malaysia

• Mr. Zoellick made efforts to establishing an FTA.
• He expanded cultural ties to Malaysia in a sensitive way: "He spent time in Malaysia talking to Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi about Islam hadhari, or 'civilizational Islam', and consulting with scholars and members of religious parties and human-rights groups, suggesting that the country held lessons for Iraq and Palestine."
• Not reported in the article, but nevertheless extremely important, was the agreement to allow the US navy to patrol the oil sensitive Malacca Strait.

Indonesia

• Mr. Zoellick attempted to build upon America's goodwill generated after the devastating December 2004 Tsunami.  America's efforts stand in contrast to China's as noted: "He duly traveled to Aceh, where he signed an agreement to build a US$245 million road along the devastated province's western coast. The deputy secretary also pledged a broader economic development assistance package for Indonesia, committing $73.7 million over the next five years. This offer by the US comes on the heels of China's recent pledge of $5 million in assistance and $300 million in low-interest loans for reconstruction in Indonesia's disaster zones."
• He pressed for Indonesia to revive its lead role in ASEAN, especially given the possibility that Myanmar (formerly Burma) is set to take the rotating lead role, which is an issue to the US given their horrific human rights abuses.  As Ms. Goh states: "This is because of the confluence of three factors conducive to American interests: the desire to support democratically elected President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono; the recognized importance of Indonesia as the world's largest, and relatively moderate, Muslim country; and Jakarta's support for an open, inclusive Asian regionalism that will not exclude the US."
• The door for a possible resumption of US-Indonesian military ties were likely discussed though no agreements were announced.

Thailand

• Mr. Zoellick lent credibility and stature to Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Sihinawatra's efforts to play a positive mediator role in the US-ASEAN concerns regarding Myanmar.
• Mr. Zoellick made efforts to establishing an FTA.

The United States, through its use of deft soft-power politics, a readily world-apparent view of its hard power on display internationally, and the able efforts of Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, has made good progress in expanding on relations in an extremely important region.  Ms. Goh's final comments explain the opportunities and success the US has in Southeast Asia and what it translates to regarding China.

"By demonstrating that Washington recognizes the economic imperative of the region, that it would rather peacefully compete with Chinese economic influence in Southeast Asia, and that it can address more sensitively top US strategic priorities that are shared by these nations but subject to domestic constraints and sensitivities, Zoellick has performed a significant service in boosting US relations with the region.

Certainly, Southeast Asia will keep a sharp eye out for concrete results, especially regarding the progress of FTA negotiations with Thailand and Malaysia and the resumption of military ties between the US and Indonesia. For now, however, if the renewed diplomacy demonstrated by Zoellick reflects the Bush administration's attitude toward the region, we may be looking forward to fruitful US-ASEAN relations for the next four years."

While the Mainstream Media focuses on the Koran and the NYT editorializes about the failed US policy towards China, real diplomacy is producing results and laying the important groundwork for the US to retain its central role in promoting personal and economic freedoms in an important part of the world.

US Efforts Diversify Oil Supplies

Dating back to 1994, the US government, along with a consortium of British, American and European oil concerns, put forward an ambitious project to build an oil pipeline that would span over 1,040 miles (1,770 km) and link the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea from Azerbaijan through Georgia on to Turkey.  What is crucial about the pipeline is threefold:

1. It will increase production from 300,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) to 1,000,000 bbl/d by 2008 from Azerbaijan, or 1% of the world's oil supply
2. It doesn't flow through the volatile Middle East or the democratically regressing Russia, while enriching two important states in Russia's "near abroad".
3. The world will benefit from the increase in world oil supplies.

President Ahmet Necdet Sezer of Turkey, President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia, US Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan were joined by Lord Browne, the chief executive UK BP for the opening of the pipeline yesterday.

Azerbaijan went into an economic decline after the breakup of the Soviet Union with a GDP that contracted 60% in the first half of the 1990s.  With a current GDP of roughly $30 billion in Azerbaijan, the oil pipeline, which cost over $3.6 billion to build, will contribute a substantial gain to the country's fortunes and help bring stability to a former Soviet state while increasing Georgia's wealth as well.  The country has somewhere between 7 to 17 billion barrels of potential oil reserves, and the pipeline has the capacity to move 10 bbl/d of high quality crude oil.

US diplomatic support to Azerbaijan as noted on the State Department's website reveals:

"The United States has been actively engaged in international efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The U.S. has played a leading role in the Minsk Group, which was created in 1992 by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe--now the OSCE--to encourage a peaceful, negotiated resolution to the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. In early 1997, the U.S. heightened its role by becoming a Co-Chair, along with Russia and France, of the Minsk Group.

The U.S. supports American investment in Azerbaijan. U.S. companies are involved in three offshore oil development projects with Azerbaijan, and U.S. companies in other fields such as telecommunications have been exploring the emerging investment opportunities in Azerbaijan.

The United States is committed to aiding Azerbaijan in its transition to democracy and formation of an open market economy."

The US is actively involved in solving ethnic and border disputes, promoting long-term stable economic investment and economic development to ultimately produce a more stable democratic nation that is over 90% Muslim. 

Such diplomatic and capitalist triumphs are important to take note of for they demonstrate models of constructive multi-country engagement and economic improvement that support long-term democratic change.

Note: An excellent source of maps, oil and economic information on the pipeline can be found from the US Department of Energy (DOE) here.

UPDATE: The Economist has an article worth reviewing on the pipeline out today.  One of its key quotes:

"The BTC pipeline, though the most expensive option for exporting Caspian oil, was backed by America because it avoided Russia, thereby reducing the dependence of the Caucasus and Central Asia on Russian pipelines. The pipeline also provided an opportunity to bolster regional economies that the West is courting, especially those of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, a NATO ally, and build support for America in the region. Georgia’s location gives it a 'strategic importance far beyond its size', according to America’s State Department.

Upgrading an alternative route through Georgia to Supsa on the Black Sea would have made for a far shorter (and cheaper) pipeline. But Turkey complained that it would lead to an unsustainable level of shipping passing through the Bosporus Strait that bisects Istanbul. At Washington’s urging, the BTC pipeline wended its complex way through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey."

(May 27, 2005)

Rising Nationalism Will Be China's Undoing

I read with interest "Sino-Japanese relations slip into deep freeze" in the Financial Times today.  China's Vice Premier Wu Yi was to meet with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi yesterday, however he snubbed the Japanese leader at the last minute.  This particular row was in response to Mr. Koizumi's annual visit to a Japanese shrine of war dead including war criminals. 

Relations between China and Japan are at their lowest in recent memory.  Japan's desire for a UN Security Council seat may be the catalyst for China's toughening stance with Japan, from the anti-Japanese protests and rallies in China against Japan last month to diplomatic snubs. 

China is building up a nationalistic response internally to Japan within their country, stirring memories of the Second World War.  All of this seems confusing, given that Japan on the whole is a rather pacifist society.  Given that China has had double digit growth in defense spending for the past decade and, according to a recent RAND study, spends an estimated $65 billion plus on defense, one would think they would be concerned what their well-heeled neighbors think of their growth. 

Japan is a pacifist country by any international standard, in stark contrast to its early 20th century role from 1905-1945.  If the RAND study above puts Chinese defense spending at 2.8% of GDP (a conservative figure in my opinion), then Japan's recent 1.0% of GDP on defense is a significantly smaller burden.  Stoking internal radical anti-Japanese expressions in China may only fuel a Japanese reciprocal response to become more nationalistic and thereby more defense spending driven.  Given China's desire to reach some form of parity in the region and to expand its perceived power, encouraging Japan to spend more on high-end naval, missile and air force capability seems foolish.

Japan expanded upon its security agreement with the US to include the defense of Taiwan recently, as Willy Lam of the Jamestown Foundation writes:

"The U.S.-Japan statement referred to the looming threat of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and, most irksome for Beijing, it cited for the first time the maintenance of peace in the Taiwan Strait as a 'common strategic objective' of the allies.. '[The] meeting may mark the end of the extended Beijing-Washington honeymoon which came about because of 9/11,' the source said. 'Even now, of course, Washington requires Chinese help or acquiescence in its dealings with countries, including Iran and North Korea. But Bush seems to have picked up his pre-9/11 agenda of containing China, or at least slowing down its progress toward quasi-superpower status.'  And the Chinese are well aware that Rice, who had advised President George H.W. Bush on ways to sink the Soviet Empire, was instrumental in shaping then-presidential candidate Bush's relatively hostile posture toward China."

Japan also is making major moves with India in concert with the US, including $4 billion in economic assistance.  Even Singapore and Malaysia recently reversed their positions and are now allowing the US navy to patrol the Malacca Strait, where 25% of the world's oil passes through, and a good portion of China's fuel. 

China's radicalism and its stoking the embers of nationalism can only scare neighboring countries.  China's recent moves, including the threatening of "non-peaceful means" to reunify Taiwan, can only be seen with a sense of wariness in Tokyo, New Delhi, Canberra and Seoul.  All of these democratic nations can afford and are expanding their military capabilities.  China would be well advised to walk with a softer footprint.

The question then is "Why is China making poor long-term diplomatic choices?" The answer I believe is to keep domestic pressure away from the current government and focused elsewhere. 

Dawn's Early Light Challenge: I invite readers to speculate on your thoughts as to China's diplomatic goals both short and long term in the comment section below.

tdaxp on Quality - A Worth Read

Dawn's Early Light challenged tdaxp to share his thoughts on an Economist article on a European version of American Idol and what 12 years of the contest shows about England, France and other nations because it removes politics and money from consideration.  The challenge is in the post below:

"Posting a challenge for systems and network expert Daniel Abbot of tdaxp.  This Economist article entitled "Musical Chairs: Musically, Britain is Europhile and France Europhobe" has a very interesting approach of following a Euro contest similar to American Idol to determine which countries' citizens are most in step with the heart of Europe based on voting patterns.  DEL is curious of Dan's take on the study and if it matches at all with some of his modeling on Europe.  I will update this post with Dan's comments."

Dan of tdaxp wrote a brilliant response that argues the underlying study is faulty because of its views on "Quality".

You may appreciate "Quality" but have never given the idea much thought.  That would have been my perspective prior to the post.  However, Dan creatively takes Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and uses it along with 17th century philosophy to deconstruct the main point of the article.  DEL will reflect a bit more on Dan's post and return to it tonight.

In the meantime, please join me in enjoying an amazingly well conceived post.

Global Blog Survey

Thought I would point readers to some topics of interest from around the world. 

North America

• Justin Blackburn has an interesting and witty piece on ID theft and the importing and exporting of vehicles across the US-Canadian border and what the Green Party is doing (not doing) about it.
• Pastor Tod Bolsinger has a painful to read article about the practice of youth "cutting" themselves to relieve emotional pain.  He links this post to his series on church division.  I was not aware this was a problem among today's youth.  It is a good post.

Global War on Terror

• Bill Roggio follows up on Linda Foley's crazy comments with a PowerPoint presentation terrorists use in Iraq that calls for the targeting slaying of journalists in a combat zone.
• John Schroeder comments on Hugh Hewitt's Friday radio program with a post on how the MSM is putting soldiers at risk.

Asia

• The Acorn has two very interesting posts, the first on how China and India differ with respect to the blogosphere and the second on the different world support Japan and India have for a UNSC seat.
• Justin Blackburn also has an excellent piece on revolts or "unrest" in rural China.

Europe

• Adventures of Chester has a must read post on some very strange connections to the Spanish government on their 3/11 train explosion.
• Posting a challenge for systems and network expert Daniel Abbot of tdaxp.  This Economist article entitled "Musical Chairs: Musically, Britain is Europhile and France Europhobe" has a very interesting approach of following a Euro contest similar to American Idol to determine which countries' citizens are most in step with the heart of Europe based on voting patterns.  DEL is curious of Dan's take on the study and if it matches at all with some of his modeling on Europe.  I will update this post with Dan's comments.
• Why do Americans work 5 or 6 weeks more than their European counterparts?  The Economist argues peer pressure.  I can't say I agree, but find the article on the whole fascinating with a good deal of interesting facts.
• The Redhunter has a fascinating post on a British court that is holding the Saudi government liable for wrongful imprisonment and torture of three men.

It was a wonderful day in South Orange county today.  My wife and I enjoyed brunch at our local pier watching the surfers ride some rather tall waves.  I hope everyone else around the world enjoys their weekend, even if you are in Europe and work less to rest from. (just kidding).  Enjoy!

Lessons of Eason Jordan Still Not Learned

Bill Roggio over at Winds of Change has a post that calls readily to mind Eason Jordan’s comments about the US military targeting journalists intentionally.  Bill's post follows up on excellent work by This isn’t writing, it’s typing and BLACKFIVE.  Linda Foley, the national president of the Newspaper Guild, which is part of the Communications Worker of America union, has made a recent similar charge to Mr. Jordan's.  This piece from Editor & Publisher quotes Ms. Foley from May 13, before the National Conference for Media Reform in St. Louis, as saying:

"Journalists are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. And what outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal."

Like Mr. Jordan, her comments are recorded, though Mr. Jordan's never became available from Davos.  Her charges are a disservice to the men and woman of the United States military risking their lives for a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan.  Her comments are a disgrace to the journalists she represents.  Her comments also lack concrete claims.

Her statements led me to do some research into her prior public comments on the US military.  What I found was quite interesting.  This is not the first time Ms. Foley has made these types of accusations.  However, what is most telling is Ms. Foley's lack of concern for the truth in retelling a story.  Capturing tone and meaning when quoting an individual is extremely important.  Taking words and phrases out of context from another individual to attack that individual is disgraceful journalism.  Ms. Foley has apparently done just that in the past, which further calls into question her credibility on this issue.

Linda Foley wrote "Looking ahead: DoD news flash: war is dangerous" on April 18, 2003 as president of her union to the Newspaper Guild faithful.  Let us start with what she factually gets right in her article:

"At least a dozen journalists have died in Iraq since the conflict began on March 20, including two Americans: Washington Post columnist and former Guild member Michael Kelly, who died in a Humvee accident, and David Bloom of NBC News, who succumbed to a pulmonary embolism. Both were embedded with U.S. troops at the time of their deaths. Both, tragically, left behind families with young children and many admiring friends and colleagues.

Several other journalists were killed in the midst of combat or as victims of suicide bombings and other violence. Even after the fall of Baghdad to U.S. troops, seven journalists were beaten, robbed and narrowly escaped lynching at the hands of Iraqi militia in the central city. Before the Iraqi government crumbled, Iraqi officials expelled several journalists from Baghdad, including the CNN crew; armed militia kidnapped two Newsday reporters and a freelance U.S. photographer, who eventually escaped to Syria; and Iraqi troops attacked an entourage of Polish journalists."

Then she begins her list of acts committed by the US military against journalists covering the war:

"But the deaths caused by U.S. air strikes on the Baghdad offices of the Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi television networks and by a U.S. tank’s shelling of the Palestine Hotel, unofficial headquarters of journalists stationed in Baghdad, raised heightened worldwide alarm over the safety of journalists covering the war.

Taraq Ayyoub of Al-Jazeera was killed on April 8 as U.S. bombs severely damaged the Baghdad office of his Qatar-based network. Cameraman Zouhair al-Iraqi was critically injured in the blast. That same morning, another U.S. air strike damaged the nearby offices of Abu Dhabi TV, trapping 30 journalists for nearly a day. The U.S. military denied that its 'smart bombs' had been aimed at the networks’ offices.

Also killed on April 8 in the Palestine Hotel were Taras Protsyuk of Reuters and Jose Couso of Spain’s Telecinco. Several other journalists also were wounded in that attack. U.S. officials said a tank was responding to what appeared to be sniper fire coming from the hotel, although journalists on the scene disputed the claim.

These weren’t the only questionable journalistic casualties involving U.S. troops in Iraq. During the first week of the war, ITN British journalist and NBC News contributor Terry Lloyd and members of his crew were reportedly killed by 'friendly fire.' And, following the ferocious late March sandstorm, two Israeli journalists and a Portuguese television reporter were allegedly beaten by U.S. troops and detained for 48 hours before they were shipped to Kuwait and let go."

The United States military and the Bush administration allowed reporters to choose to embed with coalition forces, rather than shutting them out of the war, like during the 1991 Gulf War.  Over 500 journalists chose to embed with US forces.  Journalists who chose to enter the war zone without knowledge of the US military had every right to make that choice.  However, blaming the US military for journalists dying in Iraq in the middle of a combat zone during the height of fighting is clearly unfair. 

Ms. Foley, along with Amnesty International and 6 other journalist unions, called on the US to launch an independent investigation.  In closing she states:

"So far, the only word from the Pentagon in response has been an admonition from spokeswoman Victoria Clarke that journalists should remember 'war is dangerous business.'

I’ll say."

I have a good deal of respect for Ms. Clarke and thought she handled her tenure as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs with class and competence.  I found it hard to believe she would be so callous about journalists dying in a war zone, even if they were not a part of the DoD's embed program.

Here is what Ms. Clarke did say on April 14, 2003 during a press briefing:

"War is also hazardous for journalists, as we know. At great personal risk, many of them have reported the conflict first-hand. We salute these professionals and offer our condolences to their families.

(Pause while list of names of journalist casualties is shown.)" The list of the 10 names of journalists, both the 2 embedded and 8 non-embedded can be found here.

Ms. Clarke did not say "war is dangerous business", she said "War is also hazardous for journalists, as we know" and then saluted the "professionals" offering sympathy to their families.  In fact, Google has only one result that reports quotes "war is dangerous business". Who do you think said it, Ms. Clarke?  No, it is Linda Foley's article, misquoting Ms. Clarke to make a political point against the men and women of the US armed forces. 

Knowing that Ms. Foley is willing to take a statement of condolence and turn it 180 degrees 2 years ago makes me take her recent claims with a great deal of skepticism and wonder how she came to head a union of journalists that are supposed to seek out truth and accuracy by their profession.

Pelosi on China

There are probably few domestic issues I agree with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA San Francisco) on, but her frankness and consistency on China is refreshing and appears in earnest. (For a list of her Congressional statements see here).  Marvin Hutchens referred me to this article “Washington’s China policy a ‘total failure’”.

At first blush, I would have to disagree with the headline, since Secretary of State Rice and Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick have each made 6 trips apiece to Asian nations.  They have succeeded in building stronger alliances with allies such as Japan and making bold attempts to forge new alliances with Asian countries such as India, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam with countering a growing China directly in mind.

However, Congresswoman Pelosi is speaking about America’s declining influence in advancing human rights in China due to our ever growing trade imbalance with China.  Here are some of her key statements:

“There has never been any good faith on the part of the Chinese to act in a way that is fair, that honors the opportunity that we give them to grow their economy by using our markets for that growth. As a result, much sensitive technology, some of it related to weapons of mass destruction, was exported from China to unsafe countries…

"The trade deficit has soared, and religious repression continues, and we are up the creek…

"The China policy of the United States -- Democrats' and Republicans' alike -- has been a total failure…

"Going back 15 years when it was two to three billion dollars in a year, I thought it gave us tremendous leverage to stop the Chinese government's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to stop their unfair trade practices, and to stop their human rights violations," she said.

"Today the trade deficit with China is two to three billion a week -- not a year, a week….

"Today they rule the roost. They have over 150 dollar billion trade deficit a year with us. ... If they decided, for a day or two, to think about whether they were going to purchase our bonds, we would have a problem in our economy."

Pelosi had particular words of scorn for "all those geniuses who told us that if we just continue to engage in the same trade relationship with China that there would be freedom in China, and it would stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and they would stop engaging in unfair trade practices.

"The United States had much more leverage early on with the Chinese ... before we gave them Most Favored Nation status permanently with nothing on their side .... before we smoothed the way for them to go into the WTO.

"Our leverage is greatly diminished because of those decisions.  I don't know if you can turn back on it.”

Ms. Pelosi has a strong record of speaking out against Chinese trade practices and more notably its human rights abuses and has publicly taken to task both Republican and Democratic administrations for their Chinese policies, especially regarding trade.

Ironically, her comments came as the US Treasury Department promoted Olin Wethington, a close aide to Sec. John Snow, to be a currency envoy to China in order to persuade the government to allow its yuan to rise against the dollar, hopefully making an impact on the vast trade deficit the Chinese now enjoy.

“John Snow, Treasury secretary, made clear when he released the department's twice-yearly report to Congress on exchange rates and trade this week that China was likely to be named a currency manipulator if it did not revalue the currency within six months.”

As Ms. Pelosi, congressional representatives and senators of both parties become increasingly ill at ease regarding Chinese trade, its decade long double-digit annual military growth and human rights record, the Bush Administration is being forced to act more proactively on all fronts, diplomatically, economically and militarily, in addressing China. 

How US and Chinese foreign policy plays out over the next decade will have an enormous impact on the outcome of the 21st century and the security of America as well as our friends in Asia and beyond.  In the midst of this important War on Terror, it is vital to look ahead and work to secure a direction that will promote peace, stability and ultimately security in the Pacific as new, potentially rival powers grow in influence.