Poland's EU Presidency and Internal Issues

In the second half of 2011 Poland is due to take over as European Union president. In Poland there seems to be a triumphant attitude due to recent economic success and the privilege to lead the European Union.

I hope the Polish government and people will also take head of some of the financial cons of the Polish economy, but more importantly some of the political events that threaten to undermine the democratic underpinnings of the current government.

As it turns out, one of the largest newspapers, the Rzeczpospolita Polska is owned, in large part (49%), by the ruling party. When a recent editor of the newspaper was asked to leave, questions were raised whether the request was due to the editor's obvious leaning towards the opposition. Unfortunately, I don't think the answer has been answered well enough and changing the editor without more substantial reasoning would be a real affront to a fledging Polish nation.

The Big (Military) Taboo - by Nicholas D. Kristof

I thought this article was good enough to re-post with a couple comments (and I'm feeling lazy):

We face wrenching budget cutting in the years ahead, but there’s one huge area of government spending that Democrats and Republicans alike have so far treated as sacrosanct.

It’s the military/security world, and it’s time to bust that taboo. A few facts:

• The United States spends nearly as much on military power as every other country in the world combined, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It says that we spend more than six times as much as the country with the next highest budget, China.

• The United States maintains troops at more than 560 bases and other sites abroad, many of them a legacy of a world war that ended 65 years ago. Do we fear that if we pull our bases from Germany, Russia might invade?

• The intelligence community is so vast that more people have “top secret” clearance than live in Washington, D.C.

• The U.S. will spend more on the war in Afghanistan this year, adjusting for inflation, than we spent on the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War combined."

The last point I have to say is a bit harder to argue. To me, spending that kind of money helps maintain the protection of a large number of American troops. Instead of going to combat insurgents face-to-face, we're able to send (more expensive) missiles to do the job for us. In turn, American lives are protected. I'd say if we're going to be in a war, we might as well save more American lives instead of caring about the cost.

"This is the one area where elections scarcely matter. President Obama, a Democrat who symbolized new directions, requested about 6 percent more for the military this year than at the peak of the Bush administration.

“Republicans think banging the war drums wins them votes, and Democrats think if they don’t chime in, they’ll lose votes,” said Andrew Bacevich, an ex-military officer who now is a historian at Boston University. He is author of a thoughtful recent book, “Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War.”

The costs of excessive reliance on military force are not just financial, of course, as Professor Bacevich knows well. His son, Andrew Jr., an Army first lieutenant, was killed in Iraq in 2007.

Let me be clear: I’m a believer in a robust military, which is essential for backing up diplomacy. But the implication is that we need a balanced tool chest of diplomatic and military tools alike. Instead, we have a billionaire military and a pauper diplomacy. The U.S. military now has more people in its marching bands than the State Department has in its foreign service — and that’s preposterous. [author's emphasis]

What’s more, if you’re carrying an armload of hammers, every problem looks like a nail. The truth is that military power often isn’t very effective at solving modern problems, like a nuclear North Korea or an Iran that is on the nuclear path. Indeed, in an age of nationalism, our military force is often counterproductive.

After the first gulf war, the United States retained bases in Saudi Arabia on the assumption that they would enhance American security. Instead, they appear to have provoked fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden into attacking the U.S. In other words, hugely expensive bases undermined American security (and we later closed them anyway). Wouldn’t our money have been better spent helping American kids get a college education?

Paradoxically, it’s often people with experience in the military who lead the way in warning against overinvestment in arms. It was President Dwight Eisenhower who gave the strongest warning: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” And in the Obama administration, it is Defense Secretary Robert Gates who has argued that military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny; it is Secretary Gates who has argued most eloquently for more investment in diplomacy and development aid.

American troops in Afghanistan are among the strongest advocates of investing more in schools there because they see firsthand that education fights extremism far more effectively than bombs. And here’s the trade-off: For the cost of one American soldier in Afghanistan for one year, you could build about 20 schools. [read Three Cups of Tea - author's emphasis and comment]

There are a few signs of hope in the air. The Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposes cutting money for armaments, along with other spending. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unveiled a signature project, the quadrennial diplomacy and development review, which calls for more emphasis on aid and diplomacy in foreign policy.

“Leading through civilian power saves lives and money,” Mrs. Clinton noted, and she’s exactly right. The review is a great document, but we’ll see if it can be implemented — especially because House Republicans are proposing cuts in the State Department budget.

They should remind themselves that in the 21st century, our government can protect its citizens in many ways: financing research against disease, providing early childhood programs that reduce crime later, boosting support for community colleges, investing in diplomacy that prevents costly wars.

As we cut budgets, let’s remember that these steps would, on balance, do far more for the security of Americans than a military base in Germany."

Lame Ducks, Elephants, and Donkeys

I have long been an opponent of “politics as usual” in Washington and never was this more apparent than the past half-year. Many republicans’ blatant opposition to Obama simply to oppose him has been unwelcomed. This was exemplified by many Senate republicans’ rejection of the new S.T.A.R.T Treaty even when Kissinger and several other conservative aids that lived through the cold-war have agreed on its necessity. I know I’m picking on conservatives here, but after the successful mid-term elections they have, as a collective group, made themselves look rather silly.

One of the first things they did was to hold the lame duck session hostage in order to complete the tax agreement. Conservatives were holding out for tax cuts for the richest while arguing that it would help the economic recovery. Then there was conservative opposition to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the D.R.E.A.M Act and ironically the most recent opposition to the 9/11 First Responders bill…and the “disrespectful” nature of coming back to work after Christmas until the new year. They seem to be squandering some of the support they gained in the mid-term election.

That being said, I am as tired of the fear mongering as I am politics as usual. After the initial fright of political deadlock in the senate, I am glad to see the new tax deal for a few reasons. I am not really in favor of increasing our deficit, and thus our reliance on Chinese credit, but I am happy to see higher expected growth figures. Despite opposition, the Pentagon has all by agreed to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), which has thankfully passed the senate. Even more important was the ratification of the new S.T.A.R.T Treaty with Russia that aims at lowering the number of nuclear warheads and helping keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. In both the DADT and the S.T.A.R.T Treaty conservatives joined democrats in droves despite opposition from conservative Senate and House leadership. Even more encouraging is the unanimous approval for the 9/11 first responders healthcare bill. Given much of the most recent bickering on Capitol Hill, I am happily surprised. Maybe it’s a Christmas miracle?...


Merry Christmas!
(Links used: http://www.economist.com/ , http://www.nytimes.com/ )

West African Trouble

I watched Hotel Rwanda recently and couldn’t help seeing the connection between the movie (and more importantly the facts that the movie is loosely based on) and the current heightened tension in the Ivory Coast. I sense some hypocrisy from my French colleagues when they moan about the global American Empire. I find a striking similarity with French influence in Western Africa.

Much of West Africa was colonized by the French and the Ivory Coast, or Cote d’Ivoire, was one the jewels of those French colonies. After 1960 the Ivory Coast gained independence from their former masters and set themselves on a path of economic and social growth under the leadership Félix Houphouët-Boigny. But the French wouldn’t give up control so easily:

This scene is much like Rwanda where the horrifying genocide in 1994 between Hutus and Tutsis was exacerbated by foreign French troops. To protect their citizens the French paratroopers fought Tutsi rebels that were attempting to oust the government and put an end to the Hutu massacres. This certainly benefitted those carrying out massacres on women and children by the thousands.
(Links used: http://www.economist.com/ , http://www.bbc.co.uk/ )

“Under a benevolent and canny autocrat, Félix Houphouët-Boigny, who ran the show after independence from France in 1960 until he died in 1993, Côte d’Ivoire prospered, albeit with a clutch of Frenchmen pulling strings behind the scenes, often on France’s behalf.”

Whether the French are part of the cause of West Africa’s most recent problem in the Ivory Coast is unknown. Nonetheless, they have left a legacy of bloodshed in their former colonies because of their insistence on meddling in foreign affairs long after the colonial era ended. French nationals have been urged to leave the Ivory Coast, and maybe a select few should not return.

Distorted Reality: The Other Side of China's Economy

A lot of ink has been spilled about the rise of China and the growth of their economy. The country has managed to overtake Japan as the second largest economy in the world and China has a huge population that is able to bear the brunt of sharp population decline experienced elsewhere in the world. Over the past few years China has grown exponentially and is due to overtake America as the world’s biggest manufacturer in the near future, a title America has held for 110 years.

Investors have taken heed of this near double-digit economic growth. Billions of dollars have been funneled into China to feed the industrial machine. China’s demand for raw goods is insatiable and government backed takeovers of raw material companies are dominating economic periodicals’ headlines. All these positive indicators make it very easy to forget the underlying problems that could destroy the Chinese economy. In all this triumphalism and speak of a new world power that will overtake America, it is important to explore the failures in China’s Social market economy.

The first of which is the method of acquisition of international firms by Chinese ones (obviously supported by party officials). As a recent special-report in The Economist has shown, a great deal of western CEO’s and executives are appalled in the method that the Chinese firms use to negotiate. Many claim that Chinese officials overpay for international companies due to their huge government backing. If the party sees a need for raw materials, for example, the party often allows the Chinese firm to buy at the highest asking price or even asks the international company what it would cost to control the firm. This tactless approach often leads to dangerous bubbles where many Chinese owned foreign companies are bought for much more than they are worth. To make things worse, Chinese officials often fire existing officials in these companies to replace them with Chinese officials, which may be a great deal less efficient. To compound these issues is the fact that many nations are wary of doing business with Chinese owned firms that are backed by the Communist party. Nonetheless, China currently owns around 6% of international companies, while Britain and America owned about 50 – 55% at the peak of their power. China has a long way to go, but continued buying of international companies at highly inflated prices will only be detrimental in the long-term.

Another main issue with China’s economy is their obstinance towards world trade law. In their bid to join the World Trade Organization (WTO), China underwent a number of reforms that sought to fix many of the concerns that existing WTO members had. Most important of these rules was the treatment of intellectual property (IP), where China breached IP rights approximately 90% of the time compared with 40-50% in western Europe and 21% in America (as of 2005). Although they have made strides in fixing the intellectual property issues, they are still lagging behind. But it is not an issue of inability to fix breaches of IP rights; it is a problem of state-sponsored breaches exemplified by the most recent dispute with Japan, Europe, and America about rare earth minerals.

Around 96% of the world’s rare-earth minerals are produced in China. They are used for electric cars, light bulbs, wind turbines and other technology, but China is wielding their monopoly rights on production to promote domestic companies opposed to foreign companies. In fact, China has imposed an export on rare-earth minerals for the past four years, which is illegal by World Trade Organization rules. For example, “Dysprosium, which helps rare earth magnets preserve their magnetism at high temperatures, is mined almost exclusively in southern China and sells for $95 a pound to domestic Chinese firms”, while they sell for an uncompetitive $135 to foreign ones.

The worst part about both the rare-earth mineral dispute and breach of intellectual property rights is the inability for foreign countries to place sanctions on China. While China is a member of the WTO, the dispute settlement process is the only method to resolve such issues. This is actually much more difficult for foreign countries to deal with because many companies that support the government dispute claim are scared to do so for fear of retribution. For example, even if a dispute on intellectual property was won by America with the help of American companies, these companies would lose their business in China almost automatically. It is a Catch-22 where keeping quiet just continues the unbalanced status quo, while speaking out against the unfair policies might lead to a positive result, but will get the company kicked out of China. This unfair advantage over truly free-market economies can’t last forever. Eventually China will relinquish this power, which may leave uncompetitive Chinese firms in trouble in comparison with their international counterparts.

Furthermore, there is a real-estate bubble in China that has been controlled, but authentic figures are always disputed due to the obscure nature of party controlled releases. As the world economic crisis has shown us, real-estate bubbles are enough to cripple nations completely. If you don’t believe me, ask the Irish, Latvian, Spanish or Portuguese. If the real-estate bubble bursts then China’s growth will also suffer as tremendously as many of these other countries. Just because China is growing fast now does not mean it is immune to such ills.

China is no doubt a great place to invest and a rapidly growing economy, but certain underlying problems threaten to undermine the vast economic potential of the rising state. Social issues also raise important questions as political dissidents become more outspoken and further weaken the legitimacy of the one-party system. The Chinese experiment with a free-market under oversight by authorities is new for many theorists. Nobody can say precisely what will happen within the next few years or decades.

(Links used: http://www.economist.com/ , http://www.nytimes.com/ , The Economist print edition)

My Eyes are Bleeding: Travel Woes

Yesterday I had the displeasure of spending my entire day (and according to my departure location much of another) in transit. Whether it was on the airplane or in the airport, many of my precious hours were spent en route between Krakow, Poland and my home in San Antonio. I would say that I am really not looking forward to returning to Switzerland in mid-January, but it may actually not be that bad. The reason is the horrifying level of over-weight and obese people in America, which not only irritated me, but disgusted me for a large portion of my travel.

I nearly froze to death in Poland when I carried my bags to catch a ride to the airport. My flight was delayed an hour to Munich so my plane to America was held so that I (and a few others) could be rushed through security. I spent over ten hours sitting in the same spot with a rather annoying child in front of me. I survived Chicago O’Hare airport, and in particular the ever-demonized TSA. I wouldn’t have even minded the “random” search that officials may choose to do on me on account of my complexion. What stood out and pained me the most was the stark contrast between beautiful, fit, and well-groomed women of Poland and the obesity of flabby-land America.

One reads statistics about the state of America’s overweight and obese all the time. It isn’t news, but seeing the clear difference in the flesh (too much flesh) between Poland and America was even more mind-boggling. I’ve seen it before, but every time I fly from Europe to America I am struck by this difference.

The worst part is that it isn’t a personal problem. I can’t console myself by saying that these obese and overweight Americans are simply using their freedom to do whatever they want with their body (no matter how detrimental and repulsive it may be). No, Americans have to realize that these overweight and obese people cost us all a lot of money and heartache. Our deficit is dominated by social security and Medicare / Medicaid. Is it any coincidence America spends so much money on healthcare when such a large part of the population is unhealthy? I think not.

America is being suffocated by the overweight and obese. Perhaps I sound harsh, but the only way to reverse this trend is to educate people on the ills of unhealthy eating habits and to not allow this phenomenon to become socially acceptable. I don’t mean go out and ridicule the overweight, but I think you know what I mean….

An Issue of Immigration

After I read this article from Sabrina Tavernise at the New York Times, I couldn’t help but feel encouraged. Not just for the cities in my own backyard, such as Austin, Texas, where “the recession has had less of an effect”, but because I see immigration increases into the United States to be generally positive. I can’t also help but wonder about the steady rate of unemployment despite the addition to the workforce… but that is another issue.

As a Texan, I am at the forefront of the immigration debate. Now, I firmly believe that illegal immigration is illegal immigration no matter which way one looks at it. That being said, I think one can reasonably say that young children who come with their parents illegally to the United States have little choice and are therefore largely absolved from guilt. Our legal code stipulates that human beings born in America are automatically granted American citizenship. As the logic goes, if an illegal alien comes to the United States and has a baby, that baby should not be held responsible for the acts of the parent. I would suggest, the same theory applies to children. That is the cornerstone of the new D.R.E.A.M Act that has recently been stalled in congress.

Opponents of the act cry “amnesty” regarding illegal citizens in the United States. And as we know, amnesty has become the eighth deadly sin within the immigration discussion. They also claim that this type of act encourages illegal immigrants to enter the United States, allow their children to gain membership through the act, and then have themselves sponsored by their children. This fear is unfounded given the clear application only if “the alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act.” I’m no fan of creating porous borders in some sort of hippy world-sharing scheme, but inspection of the bill reveals a rather fair, if not rigorous, path to citizenship for approximately 2.5 million people.

Neither are the reasons simply humanitarian. Many of these people will be able to find work anyway so the American government is simply losing millions of dollars in tax funds. Added to this is the fact that many of these candidates for citizenship have finished high school in good standing and are unable to further their education due to their illegal status. In a world where innovation clearly matters, I think most people would agree this as a horrible waste of talent and potential.

Still, I can understand how the D.R.E.A.M Act is controversial. Many would argue that these children of illegal immigrants, while surely talented, do not warrant places in state institutions in front of American citizens at a time when state schools are packed as it is. This argument certainly holds some credibility.

Even if one doesn’t agree with the D.R.E.A.M Act, I think many can agree a type of immigration reform is necessary. As trends in Japan and Europe show, populations are on the decline. In fact, following current trends, Japan will have the same population in 2050 as it did in 1950 after it was devastated by years of war. This will inevitably lead to a shrink in Japan’s economy unless the Japanese can increase their GDP to match (which most can agree is highly unlikely). This is one of the world’s worst cases of population decline, but European figures are similarly bleak.

America, on the other hand, now has a choice. We can follow the nativist path that our forefathers may have surely shunned, or we can encourage the world’s best and brightest to our nation. The British government has propsed and enacted some new immigration caps and they are now realizing:

“[The British immigration cap] is disliked by businessmen, an especially important constituency for a government trying to sustain an economic recovery while slashing the public sector. Companies complain that it hampers recruitment and growth. That argument is especially plausible because unskilled immigration from outside Europe has in effect already been stopped, meaning that the cap hits only highly skilled and skilled workers, such as bankers, accountants and scientists.”

Due to the free movement of goods and services throughout Europe, much of the unskilled labor demand is fulfilled through EU member states (such as Poland in the case of Britain). As the article states, that means Britain’s cap on immigration is targeting some of the highest skilled workers. Now, I love our brother’s across the Atlantic, but our chance to poach these skilled immigrants is only here for a short period of time.

Without talking too specifically about American immigration policy, there are a few goals I hope we can achieve. The first is easing restrictions on visa requirements and citizenship while taking a closer look at the laws that enable family members to join naturalized citizens in America. IT professionals from India are begging to come to America in droves. They work hard, they are intelligent, and they accept far lower wages and benefits than most others.

This brings me to my next point: with these droves of immigrants comes a demand for housing. It just so happens that the construction bubble has taken a key role in crippling our economy (most notably in California and Florida, hint, hint).

“The market's biggest problem is the surprisingly simple fact that we have too many houses and not enough households. Over the past 10 years, a lot of new houses were built. And, from 2000 to 2005, we had the household growth to match.

More recently, however, household growth has slowed dramatically, leaving us with as many as three million fewer new households than prior growth rates created. The main explanation for this drop in household growth, in fact, is slowing immigration. The resulting disparity left us with three million additional vacant housing units.

Where does this leave us in terms of stabilizing house prices? As anyone taking Economics 101 learns, prices are determined by supply and demand. To make house prices higher, you have to either decrease supply or increase demand.”

For decades America, and our education system in particular, has been enticing the world’s best to settle on our shores. On the other side of the immigration spectrum, Hispanic immigrants from our southern neighbors have helped build our country with their blood, sweat, and tears. Facilitating immigration of skilled labor and allowing the D.R.E.A.M Act to pass through congress would be as equally beneficial to them as it would to America.

(Links used : http://www.economist.com/ , http://www.nytimes.com/ , www.philly.com/inquirer )

Corruption in India

Corruption comes in many forms for a plethora of reasons and a vast majority of these have been on display in India. From the embarrassing debacle at the Commonwealth games to the telecommunications 2G scandal that has cost the Indian government approximately $40 billion, the world is seeing some of the worst corruption on the subcontinent. As someone with Indian ancestry I can’t help but wonder if nationalism has played a role in this.

I realize America is one of the most developed nations in the world and comparing it to the relatively new democracy of India is difficult (Less than a hundred years after independence Americans were killing themselves in the civil war). Nonetheless, America is known for being one of the most nationalistic states in the world. A poll asking respondents if they would lay down their life for their country revealed Americans would, second only to Palestinians. So how is the corruption in America? Well, it isn’t perfect, but in many cases corruption in the United States is far less than much of the world. The sheer size of America’s economy means that corruption usually comes in the form of billions of dollars, but these Enron type catastrophe’s are usually fewer and far between. On the other side of the spectrum Warren Buffet, an extremely rich and successful businessman, has prompted American billionaires to join “the giving pledge”. Despite being only 26 years old Mark Zuckerberg has already signed and dedicated $1 million to New Jersey schools. There is no real stipulation where the money must go, just that the money must go to help someone else in need. Fifty-seven billionaires have lined up to give their hard fought fortunes, but how many of them were Indian? Not enough. So why is it that India’s billionaires, where 66 of the top tycoons operate approximately 1/5 of India’s GDP, cannot give back to the community in larger numbers? When approximately 800 million people live on less than $2.00 a day it should come as a no-brainer to help bring these people out of poverty.

One reason could be nationalism, which is a phenomenon that seems to be lacking in India. That isn’t to say Indians are not proud to be Indians; quite the contrary. However, if one knows anything about how diverse India is ethnically, linguistically, and culturally one can easily see where the problem lies. Travelling from state to state usually yields not only different languages, but different scripts altogether. Imagine the difference between Latin to Cyrillic scripts between American states and one can easily see why nationalism has yet to flourish completely. Not only that, but these ethnic groups have been fostering their individual identity and culture for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Only a few hundred years ago separate Indian states were begging the British to help defeat the princely state next to them.

A very intelligent British minister of European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, discussed how a lack of nationalism in Nigeria was affecting the collection of taxes and other concessions to the government. He said:

“The territory is so large, the tribal identities so dominant, the institutions so remote, that no one feels any loyalty to the state. “If you love your country, pay your taxes”, says a plaintive sign in Kinshasa. No one does…. Herman Van Rompuy recently attacked patriotism as likely to lead to war. Mr Van Rompuy, I wish you had spent the past two days with me. Perhaps then you’d understand how people behave in countries where there is no patriotism whatever.”

A personal example of this nationalism came last weekend when a few friends sent me to the local shop to buy some wine. In order to make the famous Polish spiced wine, I was told to buy the cheapest bottle. Instead I saw a slightly more expensive bottle of wine from America, which I gladly shoveled a couple extra dollars to buy. Demand for American goods helps the country I love.

Perhaps I am wrong about this. Perhaps the lack of nationalism stems from a combination of these regional differences and the lack of faith people have in such corrupt officials. It would make sense for the common Indian worker, who labors endlessly to provide for his family, to be distraught at the sight of officials siphoning off millions of dollars. Still, I am hopeful. The telecommunications minister, Andimuthu Raja, quit in November, arrests have been made in the botched Commonwealth games fiasco, and many of the local corruption scandals have been brought to light. The Bharatiya Janata Party, currently in opposition to the Congress Party, has locked the Lok Sabha (lower house of congress) until an inquiry into the telecom scandal begins. Corruption in India has taken a step backwards, but a vigorous economy is yielding an ever-growing middle class which is poised to demand change within the political system. Andras, Tamils, Punjabis, Muslims, Hindus, and Christians need to come together as Indians to defeat this monster.

(Links credit: http://www.economist.com/ , http://www.hindustantimes.com/ , http://www.thehindu.com/ , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ )

"Collateral Murder", WikiLeaks, Cablegate...

I've had a lot of ideas floating in my mind for a long time, so please bear with me as I post a great number of these ideas. The first thing I’d like to discuss is the most recent leak of U.S department diplomatic cables. Now, it is obviously a popular topic considering every news media outlet known to man has decided to publish articles on the subject. I will try to limit my posts…key word: try.

I’ll start with a personal comment. I honestly despise Julian Assange. Now, I realize he is just the face of the whole operation, but that doesn’t change how I feel about him. And if charges stick for his sexual transgressions, I’ll despise him even more.

But back to WikiLeaks and the impact on the U.S government and our foreign policy. The first thing that WikiLeaks gained notoriety for was the releasing of “Collateral Murder”. After seeing this I was baffled as to what WikiLeaks’ founders thought they were proving. In fact, I had an argument with a French colleague about the contents of the video. For those who haven’t seen the video and do not have the time, I’ll give a brief summary. A helicopter gunship spots a group of men with what appear to be weapons in their hands. The pilots ask up the chain of command whether they have authorization to fire upon the “hostiles”. They receive authorization, fire on the men and kill all, but one. The wounded man is crawling away when a van pulls up to rescue him. Presuming the van is full of hostile insurgents, the gunship receives permission to fire, which kills a further group of people. When ground troops arrive on the scene they find that the men were holding cameras and children were wounded. They can be seen hurriedly taking the wounded children to receive medical attention.

In the course of the video one can clearly hear the soldiers saying rather distasteful things, but this is neither surprising nor scandalous. Are people so naïve to believe that soldiers do not talk poorly toward those they believe have been shooting at them and their friends? The video shows a tragic, but unavoidable part of any war. To claim otherwise is to really make a mountain out of a molehill.

Moving on to the leak of military diaries in Afghanistan and Iraq; hundreds of thousands of documents have been posted by WikiLeaks that contain information detrimental to service members and informants alike. Perhaps some names have been omitted, but anecdotal evidence, locations, and dates make finding names very easy.

The release of diplomatic cables was the most recent affront to the U.S government and people. I’d like to sum up my thoughts with a few quotes from various articles.

From The Economist “Democracy in America” columnist:

“Diplomatic cables are something entirely different. It's part of the nature of human communication that one doesn't always say the same thing to every audience. There are perfectly good reasons why you don't always tell the same story to your boss as you do to your spouse. There are things Washington needs to tell Riyadh to explain what it's just told Jerusalem and things Washington needs to tell Jerusalem to explain what it's just told Riyadh, and these cables shouldn't be crossed. There's nothing wrong with this. It's inevitable. And it wouldn't make the world a better place if Washington were unable to say anything to Jerusalem without its being heard by Riyadh, any more than it would if you were unable to tell your spouse anything without its being heard by your boss.

At this point, what WikiLeaks is doing seems like tattling: telling Sally what Billy said to Jane. It's sometimes possible that Sally really ought to know what Billy said to Jane, if Billy were engaged in some morally culpable deception. But in general, we frown on gossips."

And another from the same blog:

“But could we please pause for a moment amidst all of our technological triumphalism to reflect on the potential downside to all of this antinomian empowerment of the individual? The libertarian imagination, amply furnished with metaphors of invisible hands and spontaneously generated order, is thrilled by such technological empowerment. What could be better than giving every human being on the planet the capacity to subvert all established authorities and institutions, private or public, tyrannical or meritocratic? What would be better, I submit, is lucid self-awareness about how much our liberty depends on the existence of stable, functioning institutions to protect it against those who long to extinguish it in the name of sundry anti-liberal theological and ideological projects.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I realize that the modern era will make it impossible to restrict all form of leaks. It used to take hundreds of pieces of paper and a lot of time to reveal government secrets, while anyone with knowledge of a computer and a USB-drive can now do it in a fraction of the time.

As much as I am wary of such self-righteous movements, I believe there is a “bad way” of providing all these documents and a “worse way”. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a certain amount of transparency in the diplomatic relations business, but the manner one goes about “uncovering” truths is important. It would be one thing for Assange and company to have supplied media outlets with all the information (the “bad way”). It is quite another to display the documents for everyone to see if it may endanger people’s lives and diplomatic relations (the “worse way”). I’m glad the leaks showed most U.S government officials in a good light, but that doesn’t change the fact that we may never know how many lives WikiLeaks has ruined. Not only the direct deaths and/or losses of jobs, but the indirect damage caused when informants are scared to indulge information. Hopefully it will not be many, but I can’t keep my fingers crossed…

(Links credit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ , http://www.nytimes.com/ , http://www.economist.com/ , www.theatlantic.com )

My Aim

Hello readers,

As I read articles I apply my own knowledge of history, economics, and political thought to form opinions on the subjects. I typically have no one to share these opinions with, so I have decided to discuss some thoughts on the web (hopefully they will not be lost to cyberspace). It is partially for myself to let off steam or develop my thoughts in writing, but I hope others will find it a stimulating experience with a plethora of reading material. Here goes...

Best regards, Mansal

My name is Mansal Denton. I am originally from the U.S.A and San Antonio, Texas more specifically. I am currently a student at Franklin College Switzerland (located in Lugano, Switzerland) studying history. I studied for one semester in Krakow, Poland at the famous Uniwersytet Jagielloński. I am the author of the book "Battle for Narva, 1944" as well as a contributor in numerous others. I am also a writer for the World War II Database project.