By Dawn's Early Light

French Riots - A Debate on Reasons

Dawn's Early Light has taken the position the French riots are largely a result of French domestic policies which have contributed to a long-term high unemployment rate [Prior DEL posts here and here].  While religion is a portion of the issue of the riots, it is, in DEL's opinion, a small one at this point, though the news stories like to phrase it with religious overtones.  Fellow SCBA blogger Mr. Gillmartin at Sheep's Crib believes religion is the primary reason and that the riots will spread in Europe.

The larger question that is emerging, as Mr. Gillmartin notes above, is "Will the riots spread to other European nations with large Muslim populations?"  These countries include Holland, Spain and Germany.

Dawn's Early Light's position is that it is not likely because I hold the position it is a fundamental problem with France's economic structure, and while the issue could morph into a religious uprising, it is not its genesis.  The International Herald Tribune has an article that explores this question with respect to Germany.  German officials are cautiously optimistic that they will not experience the same riots as France.  Here are the reasons given, plus bonus DEL suggestions:

• Germany, in its immigrant communities, lacks the high-rise, crime-infested housing projects like where the riots broke out in France.
• Germany, unlike the French government, has had more interaction with its Muslim communities in discussing issues.
• DEL suggestion 1 - The economic conditions in Germany are less dire than France
• DEL suggestion 2 - There are a greater number of Turkish Muslims in Germany compared to the Algerian Muslims in France.  Turkey has a much greater history of stability than Algeria, and therefore the immigrant communities can assimilate better in Germany than France.
• DEL suggestion 3 - As much as state boundaries (ie., nationalism) has decreased in Europe compared to other parts of the world, including North America and Asia, the cause belli for the riots in France was the death of two teenagers perceived running from French police.  This is not a readily exportable anger.

While the IHT article does mention a few car burnings in Berlin, the riots have not spread by any large or even medium scale at this point to other nations in Europe.  Der Spiegel subscribes mainly to the DEL position, along with most German media outlets:

"As the rioting in Paris enters into its eleventh day, commentators in Germany look to neighboring France in dismay. Fortunately, there is no talk of a clash of civilizations, an unbridgeable religious divide or other nonsense. Most papers see it for what it is: a classic clash between the haves and have nots."

Time will tell who is right in this debate, but the reasons for the riots appear more akin to the Rodney King/Los Angeles riots of 1992 than the "Arab street" rising up in France. 

DEL Bonus Prediction

One bonus prediction Dawn's Early Light will make today is that Turkey's prospects of joining the EU, while in jeopardy before, are most likely damaged beyond repair as Europeans will increasingly wish to exclude Muslims from their economic union, no matter how broken in some portions of Europe.

Update: DEL has asked his SCBA fellow bloggers to chime in on where they stand on the source of the French Riots.  Here are the following reactions and blog posts based on position.

Supportive of the DEL Position it is mainly about Economics:

• Rick Moore of Holy Coast has this post summarizing the DEL position, "He's probably right..." (Nov. 7, 2005)
• Chirol and Curzon of Coming Anarchy agree with DEL and have two post regarding here and here.  "[S]ocieties that do not properly integrate minorities and immigrants socially and economically will result in the disenfranchised resenting the society they live in. They will lash out, often in bursts of coordinated violence. Europe has a serious problem on its hand that it must figure out by itself." From the second link - "The looting in New Oreans had nothing to do with Christianity just as the LA riots were equally secular."
• Cheat Seeking Missiles has an excellent, well sourced piece that lays a large portion of the blame on the broken French system that needs to be "rethought".  However, he does note the strong religious undertones of the have nots versus the haves.  [DEL: readers may differ with my opinion of which side of the debate to put this post on, but I believe the main vein is the broken model over the religious aspects, but they are nevertheless intertwined.]
• Okie on the Lam writes from a personal comparative analysis of the French riots compared to the 1992 Los Angeles riots.  It seems his conclusion so far is that it is economic, but religion could play a larger role and the decisions the French need to make will not be easy.  Okie has two more posts on the topic as well, one a touching letter from a lady in France from The Anchoress and the other a post on an email dialogue between the two of us on the 1992 LA Riots.
• 21st Century Reformation comes down on the side of economics and the failed French welfare state with this post: "The reality is not that these riots are a result of a failed “integration” policy but a failed government welfare policy. The French have built subsidized government housing for their unemployed immigrant population."

Bloggers who believe it is a Muslim/religious issue at is core:

• Mr. Gillmartin's original post can be found here.  He lays out 3 points: 1) he thinks there is reason to believe the riots will spill out over Europe 2) "this is neither an economic or race issue... this is a spiritual and cultural one." 3) Europe has provided a lot of assistance to their immigrants and that Muslim nations do not have a history of providing jobs in their own lands.
• John Schroeder of Blogotional sent DEL an email asking these questions: "If they are economic in origin, why have we not seen the same elsewhere with similar economic policy?  Why are other ethnicities, in similar economic situations in France [not] acting in this fashion?"  DEL's reply to the first question is there were over 74,000 riots and protests in China last year, a Communist (ie., comparable in some ways to a Socialist) government [See DEL post here].  I think the motivations are largely comparable.  The other ethnicities in France did not suffer the death of two teenagers from their community.  (Nov. 7, 2005) Further Update: John couldn't stay away from joining the fray and does so with this extensive, stratfor quoting post making an argument about the differences of cultural and national identity between the US and Europe. 

Also, see The Redhunter's comments below for another great commentary below.

NATO Joins Relief Effort

NATO, in a wise move today, announced from Brussels that they would send between 500 to 1,000 soldiers, including medical, engineering and troops, to Pakistan to help the victims of the Kashmir region who have suffered the loss of over 51,000 of their neighbors.

The IHT reports:

"NATO officials said up to 1,000 troops would go, led by engineers from Spain, Italy and Poland who will seek to clear roads blocked by the quake and subsequent mudslides so aid can reach stricken areas over land.

In addition, NATO will set up a field hospital, a mobile field headquarters to help coordinate operations with the UN, and send three Lithuanian water purification units.

NATO officials said the alliance would also fly four heavy-lift helicopters from Germany, which has already sent two big cargo choppers. Officials pointed out that individual allies have sent about 40 helicopters to Pakistan, with the United States taking a lead role.

De Hoop Scheffer also announced NATO was speeding up the airlift to Pakistan with 12 flights by giant C-17 cargo planes provided by Britain and the United States to carry aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in the next few days.

In Pakistan, the Turkish prime minister made a record pledge Friday to a faltering relief effort for the 3.3 million people who have been left homeless as survivors in distant mountains scrambled for aid before the harsh Himalayan winter closes in.

The prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, offered $150 million in cash and aid, making Turkey the biggest single donor nation. On Thursday, the UN warned that it had so far funded only about a quarter of its urgent appeal for aid.

Central to the NATO plan is the deployment of engineers and commanders from the alliance's elite NATO Response Force. NATO officials said it would mark the largest operation for the force, which has been used to help protect elections last year in Afghanistan, guard the Athens Olympics and coordinate an airlift of European aid to the United States after Hurricane Katrina.

NATO is running an airlift of aid to UN High Commissioner for Refugees in the next few days."

Turkey, by its generosity, is setting a good example to lead the Europeans in helping out, which should bode well for their EU ambitions that are being hotly debated in Europe.  The Financial Times is reporting the NATO decision came after Jan Egeland from the United Nations made a personal request for more assistance.  A long winter is approaching, and many more victims may die if more help into the remote areas is not forthcoming.

However, the same article points to a problem NATO has that demonstrates the poor socialist planning on defense spending of many European nations:

"However, Nato continues to experience problems in supplying helicopters to distribute aid to those most in need. Forty of the 100 Pakistani and foreign helicopters in the country are from Nato. Efforts to secure more have resulted only in commitments from Germany for four more."

If the governments that supply NATO cannot find working helicopters and the heavy-lift equipment to transport them, it doesn't speak well for nations that depend on European guarantees for their protection.

Update: IntelliBriefs questions the ability of the Pakistanis to use the relief wisely here.  While I agree that corruption in Pakistan is a major issue, worse than India's that DEL wrote about in the post prior, cancelling weapons systems is not the answer.  Nations need to provide for their defense to a reasonable level.  I would think that Pakistan moving towards democratic rule would reduce corruption and increase its economic ability to deal with this disaster. 

A Name to Watch in Germany

Angela Merkel is a name you may not have heard but you are likely to hear a good deal about in the near future.  Ms. Merkel was nominated to head the German Christian Democratic Alliance (CDU and CSU parties) for the September 18th election against current chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.  She is from East Germany, has a science background, is the daughter of a Protestant minister (which is in contrast to most of her party's Catholic members) and is known for being shrewd.

Mr. Schroeder, much like his counterpart Mr. Chirac in France, is unpopular.  With a growth rate of an anemic 1.1% and unemployment near 12% (source: Economist), German and French citizens have much in common to bemoan about their current leadership.

Ms. Merkel is important to the future of Europe and the future of US-European relations for many reasons if she wins election.  To win the support of Germans, she is focusing on jobs and fears about Turkey joining the EU.  As the San Diego Union Tribune points out:

"Merkel also called for 'a truly honest discussion of Turkish membership in the European Union.' Merkel, in contrast with Schroeder, says the largely Muslim country would overstretch the 25-nation EU and should instead be offered a vaguely defined 'privileged partnership.'"

Her election would move Germany closer to the British in European politics and away from France.  This would also alleviate many of the tensions between the US and Germany stemming from Mr. Shroeder's decision to use Iraq as an election issue and strain relations.  As the Economist explains, Ms. Merkel will lead from a conservative position:

"[W]itness her long list of planned reforms, which are quite radical in the German context: simplifying tax, overhauling pensions, reducing job protection and curbing the trade unions. In some ways, she resembles another single-minded lady, who rose from modest low-church origins and a scientific training to take her country by the horns and shift it in a rightward direction—Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps that explains why she also prefers the current British prime minister to Nicolas Sarkozy, who may well be her opposite number in Paris if he becomes president of France." 

Her election in Germany, which is likely, will further minimize France and be yet another democratic rejection of the unaffordable socialist policies of Western Europe.  Her election would also benefit Prime Minister Tony Blair as he begins his 6-month presidency of the EU in the fallout of the French and Dutch revolt on the proposed constitution. 

France could be further isolated not only internationally but also within Europe.  The policies Europe undertakes by the main powers and its attitude towards Turkish integration, which appears to be on a long-term holding pattern, will have a major impact on European foreign policy towards America and the Middle East.

The likely rejection of EU membership to Turkey will assist US-Turkish ties, which is likely why Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick explained today in in Washington:

"My hope is that as Turkey looks to its own future, the connections that it has with Europe, which are very important, need to be complemented by a global perspective, and that's why I think the partnership with the United States becomes particularly valuable.  The US is still a unique country in terms of its global reach."

Ms. Merkel's election would be a win for the Germans and a win for the US on multiple diplomatic fronts from US-German relations to US-EU relations and including US-Turkish relations.

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)

Balance of Forces in the Taiwan Strait

To better understand the Taiwan issue between China, Taiwan, Japan and the United States, it is helpful to understand the military capabilities of the principal players. A critical component of this analysis is the naval one.  There are growing questions and conflicting information about China's ability to launch a successful attack against Taiwan.  China's goal would be keeping the United States at bay long enough to overwhelm Taiwan's defenses and take control of the island. 

Strategic Importance of Taiwan to China

There are strategic reasons that directly affect China's regional security and economic interests in controlling Taiwan.  Former Taiwan National Security Council Member Antonio Chiang, in a Taipei Times editorial, explains:

"China has a formidable land-based military force, but in order to become a regional superpower, it must also possess sea power. As China becomes more dependent on oil imports, naval strength is required to maintain its energy and maritime security. But China's navy cannot move beyond the boundaries of the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea, and is locked in by a chain of islands which keeps it from exerting influence in the Pacific. Therefore, control over Taiwan is of strategic military importance to China, in its goal of projecting power in the region.

If Beijing does gain control over Taiwan, its submarines will be given a berth in Ilan County in Eastern Taiwan, making the Taiwan Strait domestic Chinese waters and instantly making it a dominant Pacific nation, placing the South China Sea within range of China's military."

Beyond nationalistic reasons, China has a significant interest in projecting its growing power farther into the Pacific.  As the Japanese felt threatened prior to World War II by the United States Navy's ability to restrict its oil, China too has very real concerns.

Building a Blue Water Navy

China, in recent years, has done a great deal to increase its naval power.  This has manifested itself in several blue-water exercises demonstrating the growing power of her navy, the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).  According to a Chinese source in 2002:

"Other PLA naval vessels have, during their 15 goodwill voyages overseas in recent years, called at more than 30 ports in over 20 countries, including the United States, Russia, Canada and Australia. They reached the continent of Africa in 2000 and Europe in 2001."

China spends roughly $60 billion a year on defense, well above Taiwan's $8 billion, yet a far second to the United States' $466 (see DEL here).  However, China has only one primary strategic objective, the reunification, "by non peaceful means", of Taiwan with the mainland (see DEL here), compared to the United States' global military position.

The Balance of Power in the Strait of Taiwan

Dr. Bernard D. Cole, who spent 30 years in the US Navy and teaches at the National War College in Washington, DC, has an excellent analysis of the balance of forces between China and Taiwan.  His paper "Shifting Balance of Power in the Taiwan Strait" describes an increasingly difficult position for Taiwan:

"The PLAN during the past decade has added two Luhu-class and one Luhai-class DDG, four Jiangwei-class guided-missile frigates (FFG), and purchased two Sovremenny-class DDGs from Russia. Another four Sovremennys are on order and three to four Luhai follow-on DDGs are under construction in Chinese shipyards. These ships are equipped with combat direction centers, integrated sensor and weapons systems, and very capable surface-to-surface (SSM) cruise missiles. Especially potent are the Sovremenny's SS-N-22 SSMs, against which Taiwan has no reliably effective defense."

Taiwan's strategic position grows increasingly precarious as it falls behind an economically expanding China that continues double-digit defense increases annually for the past decade.  Dr. Cole continues his comparison:

"Taiwan's submarine force is particularly weak, with only four boats, two of which date from World War II and are good for little but shallow water training exercises. The United States agreed to sell eight conventionally powered submarines to Taiwan as part of the path-breaking 2001 arms agreement, but neither Taipei nor Washington has been able to identify a source for these boats.

The PLAN, on the other hand, deploys at least thirty modern conventionally powered submarines and five unreliable nuclear powered attack boats as well as one ballistic missile-launching submarine. The most significant ships in China's undersea fleet, the indigenously produced Song-class and the Kilos being purchased from Russia, may be capable of launching anti-ship cruise missiles while submerged, a very dangerous threat. [DEL Note: For an in-depth report on China's submarine fleet, see "Undersea Warfare", Winter 2004]

The PLAN, as noted above, has been the recipient of a slow but steady stream of improved surface ships and submarines. China is both building combatants in its own modernized shipyards and buying warships from Russia. These ships do suffer from a common weakness, however: They lack long-range, area-capable air defense systems. This leads to another area in which the mainland appears to be outstripping Taiwan in modernizing capability--maritime air power. To a great extent, in the twenty-first century "sea power" is really "air power." That is, he who commands the air commands the sea under it. "

Taiwan's air defense is in two parts, the first being fighter aircraft and the second being anti-submarine air power.  Without dominating the skies against the Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), Taiwan's ability to attack PLAN submarines is extremely weakened.

"Apart from a very capable force of ship-borne and shore-based helicopters, Taiwan's naval air power is limited to twenty-one anti-submarine warfare (ASW) S2F aircraft, eleven of which are considered to be operational. Even these aircraft suffer from old age and maintenance problems. These aircraft rarely operate because they are very old and poorly maintained."

"Over the past decade, Taiwan has completed fielding its 'new' air force, composed of 160 U.S.-designed F-16 fighters, sixty French-designed Mirage 2000 fighter-bombers, and approximately 250 indigenously designed fighters (IDFs) that are a much-improved version of the old U.S.-designed F-5 aircraft. There currently are no active aircraft acquisition programs for the Taiwan military, unless Taipei finally agrees to purchase the P-3C aircraft offered by Washington three years ago.

However, China has significantly closed the gap in aircraft with the Taiwanese.

Across the strait, the People's Liberation Army-Air Force (PLAAF) is in the midst of an extensive, ongoing modernization program. The purchase of Su-27 fighters from Russia has progressed to the point where China is assembling kits of these very capable aircraft, which now number approximately 200 in the PLAAF. The Su-30 fighter/attack aircraft [see DEL COPE India article on SU-30 vs. F-15s here] is also rapidly being acquired by China, and more than seventy-five are currently in its air force. Some of these aircraft are assigned to the navy, and the PLAAF in general in recent years has increased its training in maritime attack missions.

With these aircraft, China is acquiring long range, "fire and forget" air-to-air missiles to match the U.S.-produced AMRAAMs sold to Taiwan. The current balance of power in the air over the Strait is probably about even, but the superiority claimed by Taiwan's senior air force commanders in 2000 is fading. Indeed, the balance may well shift to the mainland by the end of 2005, as the PLAAF continues to acquire modern tactical aircraft while Taiwan's air force stands pat."

Dr. Cole lists 4 "Balance of Power" factors that favor the Chinese over Taiwan.

1. "The PLAN is able to operate from numerous bases on the Chinese coast and islands; the Taiwan navy is extremely limited in this respect, with its primary base at Tsoying, located on the island's southwestern coast directly across from the mainland. In the event of war, the first task of the Taiwanese navy is likely to be to abandon its primary support base, hardly a harbinger of success."
2. Initiative will be with the PLAN and PLAAF.  Surprise is on the Chinese side.
3. The Taiwan navy must plan to defend on multiple avenues of attack in a defensive mode.
4. Geography favors China over Taiwan

His prescription for Taiwan is to acquire weapons that have been approved for sale by the US over three years ago but have not been acted upon by the Taiwanese government.

"What can Taiwan do to at least maintain a naval balance in this theater, if not to reestablish Taiwanese superiority? First, of course, the intervention of the U.S. military would quickly overwhelm the PLAN (and PLAAF). Second and more important is for Taipei to begin taking advantage of the weapons made available for sale by President Bush in the spring of 2001. The almost complete inaction of the past three years has not been fatal to Taiwan's naval strength, but every passing month during which the government fails to allocate the financial resources and adopt necessary personnel and other support measures puts the navy deeper into a position of inferiority."

However, a crisis flaring up in the Middle East or over North Korea for the Americans would create a situation of further spreading thin the United States.  This is all the more reason why the renegotiation of the US-Japanese Alliance was so vital for the defense of Taiwan and to restrain China (see DEL here).

Defending Taiwan - A Prescription for Taiwan's Allies

Taiwan needs to demonstrate an increased commitment to their own defense.  Protest marches, while inspiring, do not constitute a solid defense.  Deterrence of China will happen from a Taiwanese populous dedicated in word and finance to their own defense.

The European Union needs to keep the arms embargo in place against China as the Bush Administration hopes.  Since the EU will likely make lofty platitudes and send no military forces for the defense of Taiwan, it should keep its weapons far away from China.  China's belligerent tone and growing hostility to Japan and the US should not be rewarded with French, German and British arms.  Defending against wholesale technology transfers from Russia is concerning enough.

Australia has a role to play and hopefully it will be as supportive as the Japanese.  In this American Enterprise Institute (AEI) publication on the "anti-succession bill", Australia's defense commitment to American interests is addressed:

"If the Australians are not yet quite as forward-leaning as the Japanese on Taiwan, they are equally devoted to their alliance with the United States and to an ambitious defense agenda. Indeed, under the leadership of Prime Minister John Howard, Canberra’s security strategy has shifted since the September 11 attacks away from continental defense toward power projection in partnership with Washington. And in February 2004, Prime Minister Howard’s government literally doubled its defense budget for the next decade -- powerful proof of how serious Australia is about matching its military means to its strategic ends."

It would be helpful if the Australians would put forward more diplomatic pressure on China concerning Taiwan. 

The United States should be wary of overarching commitments that will tax the US Navy or decrease its carrier fleet from 12 active aircraft carriers.  A recent proposal would retire the USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67), and the decision to not proceed with its planned overhaul adds to this likelihood.  Keeping 12 aircraft carriers is important as this excellent study from Rand points out:

"Why a 12-ship fleet? Currently, carrier force structure is based primarily on support of the commanders in chief of U.S. forces in the Western Pacific Ocean, Europe/Mediterranean Sea, and Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf. Maintaining a continuous carrier presence in each of these three areas would require approximately 15 ships—the rationale for the Cold War policy. This 5-to-1 ratio allows for maintenance, training and predeployment exercises, and personnel time in home port, and it accounts for transit time to operational areas from the West Coast of the United States. In the post–Cold War era, limited gaps in carrier presence are deemed acceptable, so current national security objectives are regarded as satisfied with 12 aircraft carriers."

Fifteen aircraft carriers would be a better fit for US global objectives, but at $5 billion apiece for the current Nimitz class and untold billions for the next generation CVX carriers, this is extremely unlikely.

The US Air Force will be called upon as well for the defense of Taiwan, from bases in Japan and Guam.  Having adequate forces to counter the Chinese Su-30MK is important.  The F-22 could play an important role in continuing US air superiority.

It is DEL's hope that China will become a democracy and the potential for war will be completely avoided.  However, in the interim, it is best to lead and deter by having military strength and a developed foreign policy that will proactively avert a military crisis in the Taiwan Strait.  The failure to provide a peaceful solution to a building crisis will be devastating in terms of human life, economic development and national pride.

Qadhafi Speaks

Thanks to Austin Bay, I have found the enlightened wisdom of Libya's leader, Col. Muammar Qadhafi, in the form of a blog.  To save you spending the time enjoying the fine commentary, let me give you a few choice nuggets:

• On Turkey and the EU: "It is in Turkey's economic interest to be part of Europe. It is also in the interest of the Muslim world that an Islamic nation such as Turkey is within the European Union, as a Trojan horse. On the other hand, it is in the interest of Europe that Turkey is part of NATO only as a military colony and a military base for the Alliance, but it is not in its interest that Turkey be part of the European Union. Turkey is a tree, which roots are in Asia, and only its branch that touches Europe."
• On North Korea: "Hence any attempt to unify the two Koreas internally or externally by force, or the threat to use force and terror, is a failure and should be eliminated. The Koreans ought to consider the matter seriously to assess losses of secession, the price of war and gloating of the enemies, alongside the much benefit of unity morally and maternally. Friends in the North should be more restrained and avoid some provocative behavior. The two parts should be united so as to guarantee the stopping of Nuclear programme in the North in return of withdrawing American troops from the South. When unity is achieved, the North does not need nuclear weapon any longer. No does the South need the American Army."

I would direct you to more of the site, but I think you get the idea.  I wonder if Col. Qadhafi has read Hugh Hewitt's book "Blog"?  No matter what you think about the Libyan strongman, you have to give him credit for being on the forefront of a new communication medium (and in three languages too).  Other than drawing attention to himself and his ideas, I wonder why he had it created?

Blog Pool - Handling Turkey

Secretary Rice spent yesterday in Ankara, Turkey, an important NATO ally that links Europe and the Middle East.  Turkey refused to allow the US Army (4th Infantry Division) access to Iraq during the Second Gulf War, which damaged relations.

However, Turkey is a democratic nation that the US has long supported by encouraging the EU to allow it into its ranks.  The US also defended Turkey against Russian encroachment during the Cold War.

Here are some of the key public comments made by Secretary Rice and Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul:

Dr. Rice: "...We had an opportunity to talk about our hopes for the broader Middle East: a Middle East of reform and opportunity, a Middle East in which democracy flourishes and which there are transparent governments. We talked about the special role that Turkey can play in that initiative, and our joint desires for a Middle East in which all people live in freedom and liberty and prosperity. "

Foreign Minister Gul: "Turkey and the United States are two allies for quite a very long time, and they are not only allies in military issues, but they are also allies in cultural and commercial issues as well. Our relationship is based on common values, and one important common value for the two countries is democracy. Of course, the two allies will always be cooperating and will be in close collaboration in the fields of peace and prosperity, economic development, and the struggle against terrorism.

And I would just say to the countries of the Middle East that we recognize, and President Bush recognized when he was at Whitehall in Great Britain, that for too many years administrations, Democratic and Republican, were not sufficiently attentive to the aspirations of the people of the Middle East to live in freedom and liberty."

Secretary Rice, in her comments is encouraging not only democratic reform but "transparent governments."  It may be that Ms. Rice's comments were aimed at Turkey's refusal to create an independent anti-corruption unit, as recommended by the EU, while Turkey has been making other types of overtures to placate the Europeans.

The Foreign Minister of Turkey has a good point at the end, that the United States (and Europe, for that matter) has not always stressed strongly enough the value of personal liberty and freedom in the Middle East. The Bush administration is changing that and forcefully so.