What might President Hilary Clinton’s foreign policy have looked like 2017-2020?

……extract from my book “Australia and the World 2040”.

In 2018, an alliance of Arab Academics, leading business people, politicians, and lay people formed a group called “Towards a true Arab Secular Consensus” TTASC. The basis of this organisation was a five year Study by a group of sociologists from Cairo University which looked at Arab societies pre and post the so-called Arab Spring. What they sought to find out was why the so called secularists, and their political parties, had failed so badly in these revolutions. Their conclusions had a profound effect on these people.

Their findings stated that it was not true that secularism had no support in Arab societies – quite the opposite was true. By far the most popular government form was a secular government where constitutions formally separated Church and State. This was of course what all the dictators or Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt claimed to be the case with their dictatorships. But it was not the case at all. In those societies, the governments designated a particular church which favoured their world view, supported them with cash and resources, and squeezed the other ones out. There was never a secular state as such. This arrangement so annoyed the other churches, that when the Arab Spring came they saw it as their chance for revenge, and managed to highjack the democratic agenda through superior organisation and funding from sympathetic petro states before the true secular forces could get focussed and organised. The new TTASC organisation sought to educate, create debate, and form political parties to argue for what they regarded as true secularism. Secretly, Western intelligence services began to fund the TTASC.

Hilary Clinton could see this too, as she sought to find a way through the mess which was Syria. In her inauguration speech of 2017, Clinton went said:

“Unfortunately, we live in a dangerous world. The civil war in Syria has continued on its bloody path now for almost 6 years. The factions are no closer to resolution than they were four years ago, in spite of our military trying to blast then apart with our extraordinarily accurate and skilled strategic bombing from our drones. This is the most dangerous situation in the world right now, and I pledge to work with our Middle Eastern Allies and friends in finding some sort of peace in this troubled country. We must find a way of showing all Syrians that a society can be formed which treats all religions equally, and that Governments are seen to be even-handed in the eyes of all of its citizens”.

It was true that the Syrian Civil War had raged on since 2011, when the so-called Arab Spring showed so much promise of an Arab democratic awakening. Unlike Libya and Tunisia, which settled down fairly quickly to stable but not exactly democratic secular regimes, Syria in 2017 remained a quagmire and Clinton was entitled to some caution. What followed though was some of the most effective US diplomacy in living memory.

Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, made it his mantle when he came to office in the second Barrack Obama term, that he would do everything in his power to obtain an Arab-Israeli settlement. It took him nearly four years, but eventually he had an agreement in June 2016. In exchange of land for peace i.e. in other words, substitute the land taken by the ultra orthodox settler movement on Arab land for land in Israel which presented a corridor between the West-Bank and the Gaza Strip (something the Palestinian had always longed for, and which in many ways made the new Palestinian state viable), and in declaring Jerusalem an international city under collective control of Israel, Palestine and the UN. Both the Palestinian side and the Israeli side now had something they could live with. They had a mutual interest in making it work, but no-one could have predicted the Syrian mess.

By 2016, the Syrian war had been going on for 5 years, locked in a stalemate which would have made World War 1 Generals proud. With so much hope after the historic Arab-Israeli settlement, the region seemed destined to slide back into chaos. They did not bargain on either Clinton’s determination, or Kerry’s skill. Clearly the only way to save this situation was to get the Arabs to resolve the situation themselves.

The incoming Clinton administration knew that there were grave concerns in the Middle East about Obama’s Climate Treaty with Xi JinPing. After all, in the last three years since action on climate change had gathered force, they had seen the oil price drop from $110 per barrel in 2010 to $62 in 2016. This could only be as a result of a migration away from oil to alternative energy sources as the price of carbon started to climb. For this, the Gulf States were in a bind. Much of their wealth when the oil money was rolling-in in the last 50 years had been wasted in extravagant lifestyles of the ruling elites, and flagrant wastage  of energy by the regimes which paid zero notice of modern energy conservation technologies. Further, they had done little to use modern financial devices such as sovereign wealth funds to accumulate cash and invest it for the long term in the interest of their populations as the Norwegian Government had done.

Clinton wanted to do a deal. She suggested the Middle Eastern Arab States needed as one to force a regional settlement on Syria, whereby the various ethnic and religious factions were given a district which they could regard as their sovereign territory. This might end up a bit like the former Yugoslavia, but it might be the price that needed to be paid. Further, Clinton advised that she expected the Gulf States to commit to forming a regional military force of 100,000 men to go into Syria after this regional agreement was signed to ensure its transition.

In parallel, the CIA and MI6 funded the emergence of credible educated secularists, and used modern communication techniques to position them as the alternatives to the literally warring factions of Syria. In doing this, the US gave these statesmen a gift in that if they could come to a settlement, all imports of oil in the future into the US would be ordered from the Gulf States (this was hardly a big concession because she knew that oil use in the US was dramatically dropping in favour of alternative energies and the local production of fracking inspired natural gas). It nevertheless gave the Sheiks of the Gulf States something to sell to the populations, and greatly increased the power and prestige of the secularists.

In 2018, after nearly 10 years of war, Clinton had an agreement, and the Arab Military force moved into Syria to keep the peace. It would be another 6 years until their withdrawal, after much more bloody fighting and killing, at the end of which half a dozen mini states were formed in Syria, with secularists heading four of their governments. Many equated it to the portioning of India and Pakistan in the late 1940’s – an apt description.

Clinton had several other urgent foreign affairs issues to address if she was going to keep her promise of progress in the world, not least the Korean Peninsula. North Korea by 2017, had become even more unstable than before. In December, 2016, there appeared to have been a military coup in North Korea. The People’s Radio broadcast on 16th March 2017 that due to Kim Jong-Un’s inability to stand up to the West and the criminal regime in South Korea, VMar Ri Yong Ho, previously head of the Korean People’s Army had taken over as President and Prime Minister. In the broadcast he said the people could no longer tolerate the appeasement of the West and China and the Korean state would do all in its power to stand up to imperialist and appeasers in the interests of the heroic Korean People. China’s reaction was fierce and decisive, in that if they did not get undertakings of peace from the North Koreans in the next three days, they would take decisive action to shore up their position.

Within 24 hours, the North Koreans started shelling the Chinese Province of Shenyang “in retaliation for the Chinese aggression”. China responded by cutting off all food and water supplies to Korea. Within 12 hours, North Korea landed a “dirty” nuclear bomb on Shenyang killing 3500 people in the process. Within two days, an invasion force had amassed on the border and went over on the night of 24th December.

The West was torn. On the one hand it regarded Pyongyang as dangerously unstable, but it was greatly worried that the invasion of another country by China unchallenged by the West might set a dangerous precedent. Clinton’s response was to immediately fly to Beijing for emergency talks with her new friend Xi Jinping. The results were momentous.

In the interests of stability, and the economic and political progress of the Asia region, Xi proposed a settlement. China would force the collapse of the North Korean regime in return for the withdrawal of all US troops on the Peninsula and the US nuclear guarantee for South Korea. Within 12 months, there would be free and fair elections for the whole of the Korean Peninsula overseen by the European Union who has no vested interest in this fight. After that, it would be up to the new Korean Government to define the way forward. In the meantime, a UN military force from all over the world, but specifically excluding US, Chinese, Japanese and Korean troops will be assembled to keep order on both sides of the border, and a UN appointed Administrator will run North Korea in the meantime.

The new united Korea leant much from the German unification process. For starters, they avoided the huge reconstruction costs that the western part of Germany poured into the East by basically allowing the market, in large part, to finance it. This was brought about by having a federation with two currencies, and watch south Korean, Japanese, European, US and Chinese investment money pour into the North until in 50 years time when the north and south economies would become  similarly prosperous, the currency values would converge at which time they would have a united currency. In the meantime the plan was that North Korea would become a huge low cost factory for the south and the rest of Asia, supported by South Korean expertise, money and their huge conglomerates. The subsequent new taxes would largely support the significant infrastructure which would need to be build to get the population out of poverty and into productive work.

And so it proved to be. Today, in 2040, North Koreans have about twice the average income as the Chinese in 2015, most of the population are now out of poverty, there is no starvation and the Koreans are on track to converge their currencies in 2050. With a population of about 70 million and growing at about 1% per annum, they are on track to have an economy about the same size as Japan by 2075. Japan’s population contracted from 125m to 85 million from 2010 to 2040, and is expected to be less than the unified Korea by 2075.

In 2017, Clinton and Kerry jumped at this new Korean opportunity. This was an historic chance to rid the world of yet another rogue nuclear state. Just as in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, the British and French were less than enthusiastic about a united Germany, the second and third most powerful states in Asia, Japan and India, had similar reservations about Korea. The new right wing government in Japan was particularly upset about being excluded in an arena they regarded as their “back yard”, but for the sake of peace, they acquiesced. So eventually did the Indians in return for US support in their continuing conflicts with Pakistan.

Clinton had achieved one more of her dominos for the sake of world peace. Very soon another would emerge which may have a greater long term impact than any of the others.

In 2014, ex-cricketer Imran Khan became the new President of Pakistan. Cambridge educated Khan, playboy extraordinaire from his life in London, had returned to Pakistan to enter politics. His ticket was pro-Islam, but not terrorism, but he very much disagreed with Barrack Obama’s policy of drone strikes in border areas of north western Pakistan near the border of Afghanistan. Khan argued that there are the “good” Taliban and the “bad” Taliban. He promised in his election manifesto that if he could get the Americans to cease their drone attacks that he could get the “good” to control the “bad”. In other words, cease the terrorist attacks on troops in Afghanistan stemming from Pakistan, and set up an Islamist government without the extremes i.e. no education for girls, be-heading or cutting off of hands, or female circumcision. They would still have Sharia law and strict adherence to Islamic beliefs.

He also undertook to send in a dozen divisions of Pakistani troops into those provinces to rid them of extremist under the guidance of the “good”. He knew this may be just a ruse to settle old scores but thought it worth the risk. In return for this clean up, the US would finance a security wall (not unlike that seen in East Germany) along the Afghanistan border to keep the factions apart. This Clinton agreed to.

Beyond that, Khan wanted to transition a fundamental change in the way the sub-continent functioned. He was very much aware of the historic enmity between Pakistan and India, which had poisoned progress since partition in 1947. For instance in 2012, the total trade between the two countries was $2.4 billion. This compared to trade between Pakistan (population 182m) and China (population 1300m) for the same period of $12billion when Pakistan and India (population 1200m) live next door to one another. Or to look at it another way, neighbours Australia (population 23m) and New Zealand (population 5m) had overall two-way trade in 2012 of $21b. Pakistan was nowhere near maximizing their economic and trade ties with India or vice versa.

Khan was very much aware of the lack of economic activity on the sub-continent, and saw fixing that as a means of lifting a lot of his population out of the grinding poverty that so many of them lived in. As part of the resolution of the border disputes and bringing the Taliban under control, he advised Clinton that he would propose an economic union between the major countries of the sub-continent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka), if she would sponsor that trading block into the Asia-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

This finally came about in mid 2018, and in 2038 India and Pakistan did a total of $158billion in total trade.

What Could China look like in the year 2040? A perspective for the next 30 years

from my book “Australia and the World in 2040“. Complete copies available in February 2018

In the early part of the 21st century, China was the fastest growing economy in the world and overtook the US in GDP terms in 2015. It also had the greatest foreign surplus in the world, and was the largest lender to the US, the biggest foreign debtor nation in the world.

When Xi Jinping came to power in 2011, the per annum growth of China’s economy was beginning to slow from the heady 10-15% rates for most of the 25 years to 2012 to a more modest 6-8%. Although still very high by world standards, slow growth in China meant a lessening of the Communist Party’s legitimacy (at least that was the fear in the minds of its leaders). Much of the high growth in that 25 year period had come from the rapid industrialisation brought about by Deng Zou Ping’s reforms at the 1979 plenum which turned the country into a market economy, at least for manufacturing products.

This resulted in about 400m people migrating from the country sides into cities where they manned the new factories, often in very primitive conditions. It nevertheless saw most of those 400m people go from rural poverty to earning a living wage – an unheard of event anywhere in the world up until that time. By 2010, though, much of China’s advantages in basic manufacturing were eroding with higher wages, higher costs and a higher exchange rate. Many factories were moving to lower cost countries such as Vietnam, the Middle East and Africa.

China now faced new reform challenges, which would see itself move up the “food chain” from low skill manufacturing, to high tech, innovative design and manufacturing. It also needed to rapidly develop its services sector such as education, finance, medical, bio-technology.

They also needed to rapidly reform agriculture where there was no private ownership of land (it was largely controlled by regional party chiefs), so there had been nothing like to development of rural land under private ownership equivalent to what had happened with city dwellings. As a consequence, Chinese agriculture was low tech, low productivity, and the peasants had little incentive to develop their land.

They also singularly lacked what most western countries took for granted, and which China’s rapidly growing and well educated middle class were demanding: rule of law, modern government services such as a social security safety net, modern hospitals, pensions, consumer laws, environmental laws. Most of all though, what Chinese people most wanted was a society free of corruption, especially by part bosses.

At the historic plenum in 2013, Xi Jinping discussed and flagged a number of reforms which in many ways exceeded Deng Zou Ping initiative in the early 1980s. For the first time, the Plenum’s official document committed  for markets to play a “decisive” role in the allocation of resources in the economy. In the coming years this lead to the role of state own enterprises being considerably diminished, with many of them being privatised or closed (if they were too inefficient).

The SOEs, which in 2013 represented over 50% of economic output, were also expected to stand on their own merits in terms of funding, and banks were liberalised and skilled in terms of their commercial lending activities in order for this to be brought about. These reforms resulted in a number of enterprises going to the wall (bankruptcies in SOE’s were allowed for the first time in 2016), but it also resulted in a number of them becoming internationally competitive, and a number of them grew into major global corporations. In 2014, there were 2 Chinese companies in the top 1000 companies (outside the US) by capitalisation. By 2030, there were 55, all growing out of reformed SOEs of 2014, and all public companies floated on the Hong Kong and Shanghai Stock exchanges

To support the 2013 reforms, financial institutions were up-skilled in money market operations as the Party announced that as of the end of 2014 there would be a partial float of the Yuan and a full float by 2016 when it would become the single Chinese currency, both domestic and international, and would be fully convertible. When this came about in January 2016, the currency rose by 25% against the US dollar. Interest rates became market determined by the beginning of 2015, the Chinese Central Bank was made independent of day to day government directive, but was required to work within parameters determined by the government to achieve certain economic outcomes such as exchange rate bands, inflation and unemployment had to be kept within certain bands. Between 2015 and 2020, the government also spent $250m in computerizing their services, particularly to online services, and in boosting the activities and sophistication of the Chinese Bureau of Statistics.

All these changes were primarily designed to make the economy more transparent, less corrupt,  and oriented to moving away from growth coming from investment in export industries to growth coming from productivity improvements and rapidly expanding consumer demand at home. The reforms included:

  1. key economic reforms such as liberalising the setting of interest rates (ie to the market), incentivising innovation, loosening the grip of competition-stifling state-owned enterprises (SOEs) on vital areas of the economy;
  2. allowing private ownership of rural land, and removing the ban on rural residents buying land in cities, which would allow peasants to cash in on the value of the land they work, and thus bring them up to the status of their urban equivalents. It was also hoped that this would unleash a flood of new investment in rural areas, modernising agriculture, and unleashing a further round of rapid growth, It is also seen as a key way to unleash pent up spending from rural areas which would become a major area of growth in consumer spending. This is exactly what happened from about 2018 onwards; and
  3. setting up an independent judiciary at local, regional, and national levels

While at the same time as bringing these economic reforms into being, Xi signalled there would be no political liberalisation following the Plenum in 2013. In fact he considerably strengthened the state security apparatus, doubling its budget between 2013 and 2020. Real political reform would not come until Xi successor came to power in 2023. Over Xi’s time in office, political reforms did take place mostly in the countryside, starting with the election of party officials on local councils. To stand you had to be a member of the communist party, but there were real secret ballot elections as early as 2015 in a number of rural areas. This soon spread to provincial governments by 2020, and the party then formalised its already existing factions of conservative, moderates, modernisers and liberals. If a citizen wanted to vote or stand, you had to be a member of the party. This meant that by the time the President and polit-bureau was elected by all party members in 2028, the party itself had grown from 40m members in 2013 to 750m members. 85% of these members voted in the 2028 elections.

China had always thouight of itself as a great power, it is just that western countries had not allowed it to take what regarded as its rightful place in world affairs. Since 2015, when it became the biggest economy in the world, it began to re-assert itself in the manner of a great power: by 2018, it had 4 million men under arms, 30 nuclear powered submarines and 5 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and over 5000 supersonic strike fighters which many in the west regard as superior to the US F35 Joint Strike Fighter. It also had a global network of weapon carrying drones controlled out of Hong Kong, and a formidable international spy network.  As a great-power, it had considerable reach, but saw its primacy as being in the AsiaPacific region. The Americans also thought of themselves as an AsiaPacific power, particularly since Barrack Obama refocused them away from Europe and onto Asia in about 2010. Since then, the Pacific became the primary battleground. Interestingly though, it was not the Pacific but the Indian Ocean where tensions initially first came to boiling point between the world’s two superpowers.

Being the largest trading nation in the world, China in 2015 had built its navy into a significant blue water force, although it was still some way behind the US and even India, whose navy was by far its most significant military force. China was determined to make sure all its sea-lanes were kept open, and that trade could flow in and out of China without interference.  In 2015, the most significant of these was not in the Pacific, but in the Indian Ocean. Or, more specifically, the Arabian Sea. This had been for a century or more, one of the busiest sea highways in the world, and was critical for China in particular as the Persian Gulf was its major source of oil and gas. Since the early 1990’s, there has been a great deal of lawlessness around such states as Somalia, Yemen, and the Sudan, in many ways failed states. Somalia also played host to a network of pirates who specialised in boarding western (and sometimes Chinese) freighters, taking their crews and passengers hostage, and then demanding and getting tens of millions of dollars in ransoms.

By 2015, China had just about enough of this. In spite of a large of navies – British, French, German, Italian, American, Australian, Indian, Scandinavian and Japanese – patrolling the Arabian Sea, these hijackings persisted, and were even becoming more daring. China decided to act. First, in the face of mounting international criticism, they sent several divisions of para-troops into Somalia and effectively destroyed the pirate’s operating bases, and killed many of them. Secondly, they put pressure on world banks to freeze their assets. And thirdly, they captured and banished their leader, Jacda Bashire, to the international court in the Hague to be tried (ironic, since they were not a party to the treaty which set the Court up, and did not recognise it as a legitimate legal entity which could preside over its citizens – the same as the US). This effectively ended the pirate operations, at least for some time.

There still remained a core group of criminals who had a organisational structure, and significant wealth through ransoms. On June 5, 2017, one of China’s increasing number of cruise ships was streaming through the South China Sea 2000 kilometres south of Hong Kong and 1000 km east of Vietnam. I was 5.13am. There was an explosion. All 4232 people on board perished, 96% of them being mainland Chinese.

…..to be continued

Why Muslin Demonstrations are Different

It is very disturbing and very disappointing to see the over-reaction of Muslim youth in many countries to what was an incredibly stupid movie posted online about the Prophet. As a firm non-believer, it is difficult for me to understand such religious fervour , but what I can say is I can appreciate the reasons for the revulsion of the general population to such violent demonstrations, when such revulsions are not as apparent in other religions’ over reaction in to slights on their beliefs.

The problem with the public face of Islam is it is almost always predominantly male, young and thuggish. The other religious demonstrations, for instance, the Christian reaction to “The Life of Brian” , which was in many ways equally insulting to Christ, but the reaction was peaceful, predominantly female, and middle aged. It also saw the humour in it, which these young thugs singularly lack.

It is reasonable to ask what is it in Islamic upbringing that does not allow a significant portion of their flock to bush these “insults” off as the stupidity they are? The fact that they can’t, or won’t, both scares and alarms large sections of the Australian population, and creates a backlash against a religion which when practiced in its mainstream is civilising, gentle and inclusive.

The elders of the Muslim faith urgently need to look at their education system, their practices and the way they bring up their children to ensure these extremes are marginalised and such behaviour is shunned universally, by both Muslims and non-Muslims.

A Deadly Raid

Comment on the Economist article (31 May 2010) “A Deadly Raid”

Until both sides realise that incidents like this will continue until there is a peace deal, this situation is unavoidable. Israel continues to believe that a country with a population of 5 million can use military force to suppress 100m plus around its borders.

The only solution is to stop the settlements, withdraw to the pre 1967 borders, and make peace with the whole of the Arab world. Then have this supported by a million plus troops from UN peace keepers paid for largely by petro dollars, and allow Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank) to develop peacefully into a low cost economic haven right in the middle of the middle eastern powers.

Heaven forbid, Israel may well get on with their neighbours very well, share a common prosperity, even eventually participate in a middel eastern common market. The region could then become a force for good in the world rather than be the reason for most of the world’s conflicts between islam and the West.

Wall of Suspicion

Comment in response to the blogs about the Economist article (March 26. 2010) “Wall of Suspicion”

Stefanek, if you are going to accuse others of not getting their facts straight, then how about it yourself.
Quote from you: “Tiny Israel has one of the ten biggest economies in the world without any natural resources except brain power”.
According to the UN for 2009 (no doubt you would regard this as an anti Israeli conspiracy as well), the top fifty economies in the world by GDP were:
1 US; 2 China; 3 Japan; 4 Germany; 5 France; 6 United Kingdom; 7 Italy; 8 Russia; 9. Spain; 10 Brazil; 11 Canada; 12 India; 13 Mexico; 14 Australia; 15 South Korea; 16. Netherlands; 17. Turkey; 18. Poland; 19. Indonesia; 20. Belgium; 21.Switzerland22. Sweden; 23. Saudi Arabia; 24. Norway; 25. Austria; 26. Taiwan; 27. Greece; 28. Denmark; 29. Iran; 30. Argentina; 31. Venezuela; 32. South Africa; 33 Thailand; 34. Finland; 35. Ireland; 36. UAE; 37. Portugal; 38. Columbia; 39 Malaysia; 40 Czech Republic; 41. Nigeria; 42.Israel; 43. Romania; 44. Singapore; 45. Ukraine; 46 Chile; 47. Phillipines; 48. Pakistan; 49. Egypt; 50. Algeria
No doubt some of this order has change as a result of the GFC, but not by much and this puts Israel 42nd, far from the top ten as you claim. There is no need to exaggerate Israel’s importance or achievements, but if you are going to tell others to get their facts straight, how about you do the same?

Wall of Suspicion

Comment in response to Economist article (March 26. 2010) “Wall of Suspicion”

Good on you Obama. It is about time the US started standing up for its own interests and those of the Western World in the Middle East. This is the only hope that there will be an historic settlement in that region, and a wider one between the Western world and the Islamic world.

The cancer that is the right wing of Israel’s body politic’s hold on Israeli policy means that without American intervention, the renegade behaviour of the Israeli government will continue indefinitely leading to increasing dispair and violence from
Palestinian extremists. It also leaves the moderates within the Palestinian factions nowhere else to go but join the extremists. Obama’s strength now gives everyone hope that there may be a breakthough, from which moderates from both sides can negotiate a compromise.

Obama may prove to be a GREAT President yet. Other posts here comparing him to Jimmy Carter just indicate how out of touch the US Right has become. Also, how silly and cynical the Jewish lobby is in the US: the fact that they thought that the Israeli Government could cheer the US right on and Obama not know about it just smacks of hubris, and then exacerbate it by insulting the vice president in Israel and then again at the national US jewish lobby convention and expect no come back really does show how they have under estimated this President. All power to his future success….

More Than Just a Chirade

in response to the Economist article “More Than Just a Chirade”

NorthLost, you live in a fatasy land if you believe a greater Israel with Jews, Muslims and Christians living in harmony will emerge out of this mess as equal partners. The Jews will never give up the primacy of the Jewish homeland and the dominance of Jews in that homeland.

More likely, this intransigence and outrageous treatment of the US will see the region descend into even greater chaos, with the most likely winner being a nuclear armed Iran, supported by the Arabs (remarkable when you consider the Persians and Arabs are historical enemies and rivals) because they no longer can rely on the US and they basically have nowhere else to go.

If this accured, over time the Israeli state will be doomed by its own intransigence and stupidity, and by the overwhelming demographics of the region. They only have themselves to blame. Is the radical settler movement really worth this cost?

More Than Just a Chirade

in response to the Economist article “More Than Just a Chirade”

How the apologists for Israel can bare-faced say Israel wants peace when this sort of behavior is not only tolerated but encouraged is beyond me. Why doesn’t the US use the undoubted economic muscle over the Israeli state to extract more acceptable behavior. Obama must surely now see that his softly softly approach has not worked in Health care, in climate change, on Iran or on Afganastan.

Nor will it work on a middle east settlement. Sure the Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill will bluster and carry on, but Obama at the moment on a lot of these issues seems to be expending political capital for very little political gain. Better to be decisive and accept you will cause a melt down with the vested interests, at least you will then be seen as being decisive, as well as right on your side in standing up to those who wish to thumb their noses at the US to America’s and the Administration’s considerable cost.

Reasonableness will not work with either side in the Middle East. The attitudes are too well entrenched, and the behaviors too extreme. Strong decisive action backed up with the full use of political and economic power is the only way to achieve a breakthrough. And all sides need the understand that this sort of outrageous behavior as outlined in this article will not be tolerated and will have consequences for those who perpetrate it.

The US would not tolerate this sort of “two figures in the air” to it from ANYONE else. They should not from Israel, otherwise others will decide they can do what they like to the world’s superpower with considerable cost to American power and prestige, and indeed to the safety of the entire Western world.

Does Mossad really make Israel safer?

Comment in response to Economist article “Does Mossad Really Make Israel Safer?

Oh and by the way Tzatz, the so called Clinton solution for the Middle East settlement was no solution at all. The Arabs could simply not accept such an arrangement where it was so biased towards Israel, kept a lot of the settlements in place, and had no real solution to the dilemma about Jerusalem. If that is what you call a comprehensive settlement, then you really are condemning yourself to continuing hostilities.

A Deadly Raid

Comment on Economist artcle (31 May, 2010) “A Deadly Raid”

Until both sides realise that incidents like this will continue until there is a peace deal, this situation is unavoidable. Israel continues to believe that a country with a population of 5 million can use military force to suppress 100m plus around its borders.

The only solution is to stop the settlements, withdraw to the pre 1967 borders, and make peace with the whole of the Arab world. Then have this supported by a million plus troops from UN peace keepers paid for largely by petro dollars, and allow Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank) to develop peacefully into a low cost economic haven right in the middle of the middle eastern powers.

Heaven forbid, Israel may well get on with their neighbours very well, share a common prosperity, even eventually participate in a middel eastern common market. The region could then become a force for good in the world rather than be the reason for most of the world’s conflicts between islam and the West.