However, if our politicians and diplomats had steel in their spines, the aid would be made contingent on genuine cooperation. Don’t cut them off, but dial it back to get their attention. Explain that they will only get, say, half until or unless they get serious about dealing with the terrorist sympathizers in official positions. If they make progress, some of the aid is restored. If they fail to do enough, it is dialed back even further. Right now there is little incentive for the secular authorities to do much because they know that in spite of any condemnations or hot air we will keep playing ball. The prospect of losing billions of dollars ought to serve as a wake up call.

And if that isn’t enough to get them to act, then we know nothing will.

If they decide that attacking a few convoys (or letting it happen) when the money slows down will make us think again . . . well, that’s where the steel comes in. We don’t want to be at war with Pakistan, but if we aren’t willing to back up our words then we need to just shut up and stop griping about what they do with our money. It’s extortion, and the only way to beat it is to be willing to call their bluff. And it is a bluff, because as much as we want to avoid outright war they want it even more. The Islamists may want to fight us on general principle, but the rest know it would be national suicide.

The carrot-and-stick approach may be a cliche, but it’s been around long enough to become one precisely because it works. And it is clear that a carrot-only approach is not working.

©2012 Zero Sheep. All Rights Reserved.

A well-endowed female blogger named Jen McCreight (AKA Blag Hag) took exception to this sexist feat of mental gymnastics, and has organized a ‘protest’ to take place today wherein ladies display as much cleavage as feasible.  The event has drawn hundreds of thousands of responses on Facebook (where there is also a group page for those interested in future events), as well as national and international media interest.

©2012 Zero Sheep. All Rights Reserved.

Do, or do not . . . there is no try.

President Obama’s policies and intentions are arguably aimed at promoting peace, but no one can rationally claim that he has actually done anything yet.  (It is also arguable — with much better evidence– that Obama’s policies and intentions are aimed more at making Obama look good, rather than achieving any kind of concrete goal.)  The committee apparently succumbed to the siren call of amorphous Hope.  Or something.

The committee is made up of five Norwegian politicians.  That’s it.  No renowned thinkers, no experts on world events, just five former members of Norway’s parliament.  Think about that for a minute.  Then think of some of the stellar examplars of international peacemaking that have been previously honored, like Yassar Arafat.

Two of the last three Democrat presidents have now won the prize (Carter and Obama).  The one left out — Bill Clinton — actually did the most of the three in actually promoting peace (see, e.g., the Oslo Accords and subsequent peace process).

Two of the last three Democrats nominated to run for president have also won (Gore and Obama).  Poor Kerry.

Think about Al Gore’s award for a moment.  No matter your opinion of man-made global warming, how in the world does promoting consciousness of it qualify one for a prize that was established to reward:

the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

So why Obama?  My favorite quote so far today:

Essentially, Obama’s award is for the outstanding achievement of “not only not being George W. Bush, but joining the rest of the world in blaming him for everything.”

Others are discussing the appropriateness of the prize, and the potential drawbacks for Obama, but one advantage is that it provides a useful litmus test.  Namely, how one defends the award to Obama pretty clearly separates out the true zombies from those who still have a few functioning brain cells.

UPDATE:

The Washington Post also notes the passing over of Bill Clinton, and reminds me of an example of his work toward peace for which he was more responsible than the Oslo Accords:  Northern Ireland.

©2012 Zero Sheep. All Rights Reserved.

I will warn you in advance that this will be a long and probably dry post with quotes from Honduran law translated by Google Translate (which is used for all translations unless otherwise noted).  Google Translate works fairly well, but it transliterates more than translates, resulting in some incomprehensible sentence fragments.  Keep that in mind in assessing the accuracy of my conclusions.  The Andean Democracy Research Network also has a very brief summary of the constitutional issues (prepared, ironically, by the Carter Foundation, which has come out against the new government).

At the core of the dispute is Article 239 of the Honduran constitution, which states (as translated by Viva Honduras Libre):

Article 239 The citizen that has been the head of the Execute Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again).
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

You can read the constitution in the original Spanish here, or a full translation of it here.  Article 239 clearly makes it illegal for a public official– such as Zelaya here — to even attempt to amend the constitution to allow multiple terms.  And it is not just illegal:

ARTICLE 4 .- The form of government is republican, democratic and representative.  Is exercised by three branches: legislative, executive and judicial, and independent and complementary relationship of subordination.

Alternation in the presidency of the Republic is required.

Violation of this rule constitutes the crime of treason.

That certainly looks to me like any president that manages to serve consecutive terms would be, under the constitution, guilty of treason.

Aside from the fact that the language of Article 239 makes an attempt to change the rule against subsequent terms illegal, the constitution may only be amended with support of two-thirds of the legislature:

ARTICLE 373 .- The reform of this Constitution may be ordered by Congress, in regular session, with two thirds vote of all members.  The decree for that purpose the article or articles to be reformed, should be ratified by the legislature subsequent ordinary equal number of votes to enter into force.

The Google translation is a bit off, but it appears that two-thirds of congress must approve an amendment in two successive legislative sessions before a it becomes effective.

There does not appear to be any constitutional grounds for a plebiscite to amend the constitution, which is what Zelaya was attempting.  Even if it were possible to amend by referendum, or if Zelaya got support of two-thirds of the legislatures, he would still be out of luck:

Article 374 .- It may be reformed, in any case, Article, this Article, the constitutional articles which refer to the form of government, the national territory, the presidential term, the ban to be new President of the Republic The citizen who has played under any title and refers to those who can not be President of the Republic for the subsequent period.

(ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.)

The translation is mangled, which is why I included the original text as well, but what this article says is that the ban on multiple presidential terms may not be changed even by a constitutional amendment.

Zelaya’s attempt to amend the constitution was not only a violation if he succeeded, but, but was a violation just by virtue of making that attempt.  To anyone that has been following this story closely, that should not be news.  The question then is whether the actions taken by the military and other branches of the Honduran government were legal.  That is a much more difficult question, and one that will probably be debated by Honduran legal scholars for years.

My initial criticism of the ‘coup’ was that the legislature should have formally impeached Zelaya before he was arrested, rather than after.  This criticism relies on a faulty premise, namely that there is a method for impeaching Honduran leaders.  There is not.  The legislature was originally given the power to decide if a case could be made against the president, but that provision (Art. 205 § 15) was repealed in 2003.  That leaves only a catchall provision:

Article 205 § 45. Perform any other functions assigned to it in the Constitution and laws.

The judiciary, on the other hand, is explicitly tasked with determining the constitutionality of laws, and its word is final as to what is constitutional and what is not.

ARTICLE 184 .- The law may be declared unconstitutional on grounds of form or content.

The Supreme Court is responsible for understanding and resolution original and exclusive in the matter and shall act with the requirements of the final judgment

It appears, then, that the legislative branch can make any law not otherwise provided for in the constitution, and judicial branch has the final say on whether it is constitutional.

As for the president:

ARTICLE 235 .- The Executive Power is exercised on behalf and for the benefit of the people, the President of the Republic.

It is also instructive to note that although the constitution confers both criminal and civil immunity upon legislators (Article 200), the president has no such protection.

Here is the full text (Google translation again) of a report presented to the legislature on June 25, 2009, regarding Zelaya’s violations of the constitution and law:

SPECIAL REPORT
NATIONAL CONGRESS

“We the undersigned members of the special commission appointed by the president of the National Congress for the necessary investigations into the recent developments that hold a society mired in a crisis of social unrest, legal and political, caused by arbitrary actions of the Executive so settled, confronting the other branches of government and institutions that comprise the rule of law accordingly.

It is public knowledge that these actions by the citizen Mr Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, had generated a climate of uncertainty, confrontation and division in Honduran society, a concern that this Congress has taken up and therefore signed the special commission.

The commission believes that the executive has challenged the implementation of constitutional and legal duties in any way affect the normal development of public administration. To this end we have had in view the documentation:
a) The penalty of not more than 96 decrees and laws submitted to the President in pursuance of the training process of the law.
b) Non-referral of the General Budget of the Republic, according to constitutional mandate should be submitted to Congress no later than September 15 of last year.
c) The decisions by the Administrative Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Administrative Litigation of Tegucigalpa on the illegality of the process of the fourth box and acts related to the survey.
d) Notifications to the Executive Branch of the Attorney General’s Office on the illegality of that survey.
e) European Court of appeal suspended the act complained about the removal of the Chief of Joint Staff of the Armed Forces.
f) Minutes of special confiscation and deposit in the custody of election materials, naming the same depositary Colonel Aviation Vitelio Marco Castillo Brown.
g) Decree issued by the Council of Ministers No. PCM-2009 published in the Official Gazette dated June 25 this year, which ordered the survey of public opinion to call for a National Constituent Assembly and that became operational today.
To the above can also be made by mentioning notorious public knowledge, disseminated through the media, the following: the little attention to substantive problems facing the people of Honduras as a H1N1 flu that has already resulted in human losses, the injured and reconstruction of areas affected by the earthquake, the financial crisis that has caused the loss of over one hundred thousand jobs and the insecurity which is increasing every day and thousands of families mourning and drives away domestic and foreign investment required Honduras as a country fighting for its development, the removal of election materials seized, as well as coping with the operators of justice.
All of which demonstrates that the conduct of the citizen president threatens their loyalty to the Republic, and compliance with the Constitution and the laws that frame the action of any officer, by the precarious state of law, governance and democratic system.

That is what we can report on it, duly documented.
Done in the city of Tegucigalpa, M.D.C. to twenty-five days of June two thousand nine years.
RICARDO RODRIGUEZ CASTILLO Rigoberta CHANG
TORIBIO AGUILERA JOSE ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ
WILFREDO Bustillo CASTELLANOS.

This special report was apparently the basis for the supreme court’s decision to order Zelaya’s arrest by the military.  As reported by Hondura’s La Prensa (translation by Fausta’s Blog), “An official statement of the Supreme Court of Justice explained that the Armed Forces acted under lawful grounds when detaining the President of the Republic, and by decommissioning the materials to be used on the illegal poll which aimed to bring forth Executive Power against a judicial order.”

I would recommend perusing the linked post at Fausta’s Blog for a detailed timeline of events.

After Zelaya’s arrest on June 28, 2009, the legislature passed the following, which removed Zelaya as president, and appointed his successor, Roberto Micheleti:

Legislative Decree

WHEREAS: The conduct of the president has led the Honduran people in a climate of confrontation, division and fear, to the extent of putting in imminent danger of breaking the rule of law and governance.
WHEREAS in accordance with Articles 245 paragraph 1), 321 and 322 of the Constitution, it is the duty of the citizen president be faithful to the Republic, execute and enforce the Constitution and laws, treaties and conventions and other laws.
WHEREAS: It is the power of Congress to ensure, to approve or reject the conduct of the constituted authorities and other institutions.
WHEREAS: State servers have no powers other than those expressly conferred by law, to perform any act outside the law is null and implies responsibility, that trustees are officers of the authority responsible for their official conduct, subject to the law and never above it.
WHEREAS: It is the apparent misconduct of President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales citizen to repeatedly violate the faithfulness to the Republic and the legal administration of our country, putting at risk the imminent rule of law and democratic system of government that the sovereign will of the Honduran people have chosen and thus the Congress is called to observe and enforce.
- 2 –
WHEREAS the activities of Mr. José Manuel Zelaya Rosales is sufficient reason for this Congress to appropriate blame his behavior, regardless of the surrender brought the office to which he was elected.
WHEREAS pursuant to Article 242 of the Constitution of the Republic, in absence of the President and Vice President, the Executive shall be exercised by the President of Congress.
Therefore.
DECREES.
Article 1. Congress pursuant to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 40 paragraph 4), 205 para 20) and 218 paragraph 3), 242, 321.322 and 323 of the Constitution of the Republic agrees:
A. Reject the conduct of President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales citizen at the repeated violations of the Constitution and laws and lack of orders and judgments of the courts.
B. Separate citizen José Manuel Zelaya Rosales of the office of President of the Republic of Honduras.
- 3 –
Article 2. Constitutional name Citizens ROBERTO MICHELETI BAIN current president of the National Congress, served as President of the Republic for the remainder to complete the constitutional period and ends on January 27 2010.
Article 3. This decree shall enter into force after its approval by two thirds vote of the members that make up the National Congress and it is immediately enforceable.
Done in the city of Tegucigalpa, Central District Municipality, the Chamber of Congress for twenty-eight days of June, two thousand nine.
JUAN RAMON
VELASQUEZ NAZARE
PRESIDENT
JOSE ALFREDO SAAVEDRA PAZ SECRETARY
GUZMAN WELCOMES MARY F.
SECRETARIAT

Experts on Honduran constitutional law — which I certainly am not — could (and probably will) write literally volumes on this constitutional crisis.  And that is what it was:  a constitutional crisis.  Not a coup.

Commenter Viva Honduras Libre, in response to my previous post and referencing an article from La Prensa, explained the reasoning behind their actions thus:

They are saying that Zelaya, by his actions placed himself against the Honduran Constitution and more importantly according to the Congress, the Honduran Justice Ministry, and the Honduran Supreme Court, outside all the laws of Honduras.

If he had obeyed the initial orders to cease and desist last week, parliamentary procedure would have been used to bring charges against him in the legislature under constitutional protections. However, when he called his supporters into the streets in direct violation of Honduran law and as a direct challenge to the soveriegn authority of the Honduran state he demonstrated his willingness to challenge the very foundations of the democratic state and thus by blatantly disregarding those laws and his duty to respect those laws he effectively forfeited his rights as President and put himself outside the legal protections of the nation. The only recourse left to them at that point was immediate arrest.

Whether immediate arrest was necessary is easy to debate in hindsight.  It must be remembered that the Honduran authorities were facing an unprecedented constitutional crisis due to the illegal and unconstitutional acts committed by Zelaya, with no clearly constitutional way to remove him from power.  We in the U.S. — and most other countries — are used to having the luxury of constitutionally defined methods of dealing with malfeasance by elected officials, not to mention decades or even centuries of jurisprudence.  The officials in the Honduran military, legislature, and judiciary did not have this luxury.  What they had was a situation that was potentially deadly to their young democracy, and they acted in the way they thought best to defend it.

I believe that the arrest and removal of Zelaya probably should have been handled differently, for appearances’ sake if nothing else.  If the legislature had acted to remove him before the military arrested him, there would be much less international criticism.  That said, once you appreciate the magnitude of the constitutional crisis facing Honduras, it is hard to fault the Honduran leadership for acting when and how they did.

UPDATE:

Donald Sensing of Sense of Events points out a significant article in the Honduran constitution that I missed (in my defense, he can apparently read Spanish):

Article 272:

The Armed Forces of Honduras are … established to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, keep the peace, public order and the rule of the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage and alternation in the presidency of the Republic.

Constitutionally, it is the military that is charged, in concert with civilian organs of government, to ensure that the one-term limit of the presidency is enforced. It is the military that is constitutionally charged with ensuring the integrity of national elections.

(Emphasis in original.)

UPDATE (merely to clarify):

In its most concise form, here are the relevant points:

1. The president is limited to one term, and even attempting to try for a second results in immediate suspension from office (Article 239);
2. There is no constitutional mechanism for removing elected officials comparable to our impeachment process in the U.S, so the Honduran officials have had to ‘wing it;’ and
3. The Honduran military is specifically tasked under the constitution with enforcing the one-term limit (Article 272).

A “coup d’etat” is defined, according to Websters, as ” a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; esp:  the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.”

I suppose you could shoehorn what happened in Honduras into this definition, but you have to sacrifice all common sense in order to do so.

©2012 Zero Sheep. All Rights Reserved.

Everything else has been moved past the jump.

“ABOVE THE FOLD” UPDATE:

According to commenter Viva Honduras Libre, the Honduran constitution provides that anyone who even proposes changing the one-term limit for executives immediately “ceases in their functions.”  The original and translation, as provided by Viva Honduras Libre:

ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado.
El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos, y quedarán inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.

TRANSLATION Article 239 The citizen that has been the head of the Execute Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again).
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

If this article means that a president who attempts to amend the constitution to change the term limit provision is automatically, by operation of law, removed from office, then there was no ‘coup’ in any sense.  The actions of the Honduran supreme court certainly indicate that this is the accepted interpretation of Article 239, but without knowing Honduran law better, I hesitate to say this is correct.  Based on what I know of the law (and not just as an “Ugly American;” I have some experience with international law and the laws of various members of the EU as well) it seems likely that there is a specific method for removing an executive beyond Article 239, which may only operate to ‘suspend’ an officeholder in some sense.  At the least, a formal impeachment proceeding provides continuity and due process that is not available where removal from office is automatic and immediate.  Until Viva Honduras Libre provides more information on Honduran law, I cannot know whether the removal of Zelaya was handled properly or not.  I will update again at that time, but for now (and solely for the sake of making my life easier), I will assume that my points remain valid, albeit with an even bigger caveat than previously.

ORIGINAL POST:

Earlier this week, the democratically elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was taken into custody by the military and removed from the country.  The international community — most especially Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, but joined by Obama, the EU, and others — yelled, “Coup! Coup!”

However, many blogs and editorial pages (most conservative, but not all) noted that what looked like a standard-issue Central American coup was a bit more complex than it seemed on the surface.  Most main-stream news sources neglected the background, which showed that Zelaya was a Chavez protege hellbent on turning Honduras into an oil-poor version of Venezuela’s leftist dictatorship.  His actions were declared illegal by the country’s supreme court, which issued the order for the military arrest, and most politicians across the political spectrum supported the Zelaya ouster.  For further background see this excellent editorial by Glenn Garvin in the Miami Herald, and this article by Toby Westerman in the Canada Free Press.

Many, if not most, of the larger conservative blogs have criticized Obama’s reaction to the events in Honduras, comparing that reaction to his hesitancy in Iran and calling for support of the ‘coup’ on the grounds that it was to prevent a leftist dictatorship, not to impose a military one.  (See, for example, Hot Air here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here; Ace of Spades; Jawa Report; TownHall; Gateway Pundit; etc.)  RedState is even pushing a telephone campaign to pressure Congress into supporting the new government.

I think the complaint vis a vis Obama’s reaction to Iran is valid, but with regard to the proper response to the ‘coup’ itself I disagree with both the administration and its critics.  I would like to start by pointing out that I have not read the constitution of Honduras, nor have I studied Honduran law, so I will be making various assumptions that may turn out to be incorrect.  In my defense, I do not believe that anyone else who is commenting on this, from Obama on down, has done so either.  My primary assumptions are that (1) Zelaya’s actions were impeachable offenses in addition to unconstitutional (as held by the Honduran supreme court), (2) the Honduran constitution stipulates a process for impeachment of a sitting president, and (3) military arrest of the president prior to any impeachment proceedings is counter to the Honduran constitution.  I believe that these are all pretty reasonable assumptions, but they are based only on my familiarity with U.S. law, so may be flawed.

What the Hondurans should have done was attempt to remove Zelaya through the constitutional impeachment proceedings.  If necessary, the military could have stepped in to prevent the illegal referendum, but Zelaya himself should have at least nominally been left in office until properly removed.  I understand that the courts, legislature, and military all felt that there was a crisis that needed to be resolved immediately, but based on the public information there does not seem to have been such an emergency that the proper forms could not be followed.  At least in the American system, the courts have the authority to order law enforcement to carry out their orders, but they do not have the authority to summarily remove members of the legislature or executive.  Even though the Honduran legislature subsequently ratified the actions of the supreme court, the court and military exceeded their authority.  Therefore, the transfer of power truly was a coup, and the failure to stay within the law should be condemned.  For self-interest though, if for no other reason, it is not surprising that existing governments have opposed the extralegal removal of an executive.

On the other hand, everyone involved in deposing Zelaya appears to have acted to save democracy in Honduras from the imposition of a Chavez-style dictatorship.  It is this motive that leads commentators to support the transfer of power and rebuke the harsh response of the U.S. and others.  They argue that the coup should be looked at as a fait accompli, and the results are more important than the methods.

I believe that both approaches are wrong, and that they are both right.  The coup should in fact be condemned, but that condemnation needs to be tempered by an acknowledgment of the purpose and effect of the actions taken by an apparently unanimous Honduran establishment.  Leaving aside the hypocrisy of speaking quickly on the Honduran situation after trying to ignore the Iranian protests for as long as possible, I believe President Obama should have said something to the effect of:  “The Honduran constitution must be respected by both sides, and the U.S. does not condone extralegal activity.  It appears the Honduran courts and military acted illegally, but so too did Zelaya.  We are withholding judgment on whether to recognize the new government or continue to recognize Zelaya until we have had an opportunity to review the facts in more detail.”

Obama’s reactions to the recent international crises — tempered response to Iran and quick condemnation of Honduras — should have been reversed.

But I believe those calling for unequivocal support of Honduras are wrong as well.  The illegality of moving against the president with force rather than through the constitutional procedures should not be ignored.  Sometimes it is necessary to take the law in one’s own hands, but those times are rare indeed, and one must be prepared to suffer the consequences.  This does not appear to have been one of those times.  Further, while noble intentions are all well and good, there is a reason they are considered the paving stones on the road to hell:  specfically, most people believe they are acting for the right reasons, whether they are or not.  Few if any people believe that they are evil, and even a psychotic madman like Hitler acted like he did because, in his warped worldview, it was right.

The law exists in order to provide objective criteria for right and wrong.  If everyone is free to act based solely on their own conscience, that is anarchy.  The ends justify the means in only the most extraordinary circumstances.

I believe that Honduras is better off with out Zelaya in power, but I also believe that the rule of law — necessary for a functioning democracy — was severely damaged by the coup.

©2012 Zero Sheep. All Rights Reserved.

PD90, Sun 14 Jun 12:19 via web
Going out to join the croud, with my mother guiding me. I will fill you in on the details soon! Sit tight! #iranElection

What makes this particularly poignant (and why he mentions being guided) is that PD90 is blind.

Whatever else Twitter is or may become, right now it is an incomparable tool to look into the lives and thoughts of people around the globe who are not not just witnessing history, but experiencing it.

For those interested in following the events on Twitter a they unfold, you can search on Twitter via the hashtag #IranElection; Twazzup.com (a Twitter aggregator site) also has a handy Iran page that is a bit easier to keep up with.  I would recommend the latter.

Another Iranian twitterer (tweeter?), from a bit earlier:

Change_for_Iran, Sun 14 Jun 11:34 via TwitterFox
Students & people fighting back a large group of police & Basij right now at university of physics! I’m going to join them. #iranelection

UPDATE:

PD tweeted again at 12:53, so is apparently okay (at least for now):

Went out and chanted along with everyone else. They were amazed at having a blind chanting with them. Gunshots are heard. #IranElection

UPDATE:

Change_for_Iran is well also, as of 13:21:

tired & beaten. we couldn’t break through their wall, they were too many & we were no match for an entire army of special forces

UPDATE:

Ominous:

StopAhmad, Sun 14 Jun 14:52 via Seesmic
WTF! They’re bringing tanks on the streets in Tehran

UPDATE (6/16):

Edited PD90′s name and corresponding links to eliminate his real name and match with his new, anonymous Twitter ID.

©2012 Zero Sheep. All Rights Reserved.

(Does it make me a terrible cynic to think Sotomayor’s nomination was announced when it was precisely to let Obama regain control of the news cycle?  I would not even be surprised if she was chosen merely because she was the easiest choice to make quickly.)

While our president enjoyed a round of golf, and then warned of (the possibility of)  a sternly-worded memo from the UN Security Council, North Korea has declared that it no longer considers itself bound by the ceasefire that ended the Korean War in 1953. 

Although the conventional wisdom is that Dear Leader is merely playing for more interational respect and aid goodies, DrewM over at AoSHQ makes the excellent point that such conventional wisdom could lead to disastrous results.  When a madman threatens violence, the only rational response is to prepare for and try to prevent that violence — even if he has repeatedely made the same threat before and never followed through.

While increasing our military presence in the area and imposing tougher sanctions on North Korea may work, they may also serve to simply trigger action by Kim.  One interesting option that has been floated by Charles Krauthammer is to give Japan nuclear weapons.  The rationale is that such an act would act as a deterrent, but even more importantly, it would get China’s attention.  That is important because without Chinese support North Korea simply could not exist (see, e.g., this Gordon Chang colum on Forbes.com (h/t Hot Air Headlines)).  Therefore, the theory goes, if China is worried about a nuclear Japan, it will work to reign in Kim’s crazier plans.

My problem with simply dumping nukes in the lap of the Japanese is that it (1) makes them more of a target both as to North Korea and China, and (2) taking such a serious action with nothing more than a hope that it kicks something loose — in a positive way — is negligent at best.  When one of the possible outcomes is war between or among three nuclear-armed countries, only one of which can be counted on to act rationally from our point of view, it is best to proceed cautiously.

Instead of giving Japan nuclear capability, my proposal would be to work toward it.  In other words, do not just put the bombs out there and hope for the best; play a high-stakes game of chicken with China instead.  We would have to be willing and able to actually follow through on delivering the nukes in order to maintain credibility, but the focus should be on diplomacy with China.  Something like:  “We really don’t want to introduce more nuclear weapons to this region, but Japan is our friend and ally.  With your bastard stepchild Kim acting all crazy, we feel like we need to do something to make sure he doesn’t cross the line.  Or, if he does, lets Japan kick him back where it hurts.  Now — and I’m just talking here, just throwing out ideas — if someone were to whisper in Kim’s ear and explain what a terrible idea it woud be to keep kicking sand in our faces . . . maybe even twist his arm a little bit, to let him know they were serious . . . why, then, Japan wouldn’t need these nukes.”

As long as the North Korean danger is aimed at South Korea, Japan and the U.S., China has no real incentive to pressure Kim.  Whatever its own interests may be, it has nothing to lose by watching us squirm.  If there is a serious and credible threat that North Korea’s actions will result in something viewed by China as a threat to its own interests, however, it would be much more likely to act to rein in Kim.  The threat of giving nukes to Japan may serve to give China the needed incentive.

The problem with this whole scenario, however, is that it would be a very sensitive, intricate, and difficult diplomatic dance.  The trick would lie in making it clear from the start that the nukes were aimed at North Korea, not China, but at the same time feeding on Chinese fear of a nuclear Japan.  It would also require strong and decisive U.S.  leadership to make and stick with what would likely be a very controversial and unpopular decision.

For our intelligent and capable chief diplomat, though, we have Secretary of State “Over-Charge Button” Clinton, and as our resolute leader we have President “I’m So Sorry America Exists” Obama.  Under the circumstances, the best action with regard to North Korea is probably no action.

©2012 Zero Sheep. All Rights Reserved.

A sample from the article:

We are fast approaching the point of no return. The only way out of this calamitous descent is “shock and awe” on a global scale, and even that may not be enough.

There are, of course, serious problems in the financial markets.  Most of these were self-inflicted, notwithstanding Democratic insistence in the US on loans to unqualified home buyers.  However, the crisis, the ‘emergency,’ is directly traceable to all of these idiots shouting “Fire!” in the global financial theater.

Let’s pause for a moment, too, and enjoy a moment of our own schadenfreude.  The panicked Euro-elite were, not long ago, delighting in the problems in the US markets and pointing to them as evidence of the failure of laissez-faire capitalism.  Oops.

In my opinion, the biggest problem we are facing is that the scaremongers have made it effectively impossible for market mechanisms to correct the problem naturally, by imposing an artificial time crunch.  Is government intervention necessary?  Probably, but what will be done will almost definitely not be what is needed.  Would government intervention have eventually been necessary in any case?  Possibly.  Eventually.  But, at worst, there would have been time for a reasoned and measured response that would have more likelihood of addressing the underlying problems and less likelihood of making the problem worse and/or having side effects far worse than the existing problems (whether governments are capable of such a response is another subject entirely).

©2012 Zero Sheep. All Rights Reserved.

Oil rich and hungry for glory, Russia’s invasion of Georgia was a naked grab to reclaim influence over its closest neighbors (directly, through military might, or indirectly by destabilizing the region).  In hindsight, it is clear that the Russian invasion force was staged and ready before Georgia attacked (or fired back at) forces in South Ossetia.  The large force that rushed into Georgia was clearly not comprised of ‘peacekeepers,’ nor is it credible that its presence in the region was merely coincidence.

I think that the outrage of the international community caught Russia, and Putin, somewhat by surprise.  Russia has had a contentious relationship with its neighbors since the break up of the Soviet Union, often involving military force to one degree or another.  This was the first time, however, that Russia had blatantly resorted to military might against a target that was supported by the West.  The United States had even advocated for Georgia’s inclusion in NATO — which is likely one explanation of the timing of the attack, as a now-or-never opportunity.

With most of the important members of the international community becoming distrustful or even hostile toward Russia in varying degrees, diplomatic means of attaining greater influence became much less likely.  Even China, approached to recognize the independence of the break-away Georgian regions, rebuffed Russia.

So now we see the worrisome sight of Putin meeting with Hugo Chavez, agreeing to sell Venezuela arms, aid it with its ‘civilian’ nuclear program, and vowing that Russia will assert itself in South America.  This is clearly a direct response to the West’s ‘meddling’ in the Georgia crisis.  What else might Russia do to ‘teach us a lesson’ for this interference?  Putin is already reluctant to allow further talk of UN sanction against Iran.  There does not seem to be any love lost between Iran and Russia, but Putin will not hesitate to use Iran against the US if the situation were to arise.

It is pathetic, but genuinely frightening, that Putin — in his quest to recapture the glory and might of the USSR — has been reduced to courting the bullies and outcasts of the world.  That sort do not need even encouragement.  If they have the active support of a Russia flush with oil money, there is no hope of diplomatic pressure dissuading them from their extreme agendas.

©2012 Zero Sheep. All Rights Reserved.