The EU

According to this article, the EU is going to pressure the US to accept visa-free entry to all member states of the EU; the article notes in passing that many nations are not up to the standards of visa-free entry in the US.

I can't imagine citizens of some nations, such as the thoroughly corrupt Romania, being visa-free members of the bloc.  The Western nations of the EU themselves are hesitant about citizens of some of the new member states traveling in their own countries.  Why should the US act any differently?

I imagine that in a quid pro quo, the Czechs and the Poles will likely be offered visa-free travel in exchange for agreeing to host sites for the US/NATO/Western Civilization Missile Defense System, but it's a nonstarter to believe that realistically the United States will treat every EU country the same, regardless of the mantra Brussels repeats (as much to convince itself as to convince others) that every nation in Europe is to be treated equally. 

The standards are relatively objective; meet them and join the club. If there are objective standards for the Schengen states (and there are, more or less) can be debated within Europe, standards can certainly be debated outside of Europe.

 

 

 

Boris Nikolaeovich Yeltsin, R.I.P.

Boris Yeltsin has died.
Many commentators have written a bit about this, and what I remember about him is somewhat less than charitable. I remember him as a vodka-swilling, red-nosed lush, yanking Gorbachev out of from behind the wheel of the Soviet Union, switching the license plates, and swerving Russia down the road, less like an old Lada, and more like those fearsome Tatra trucks. One could never be too sure whether he was sober enough to drive, or if his hands were even on the wheel, but he never quite wrecked.
To go down the road that Russia had to travel took a man with a visceral understanding of the Russian people, a unimaginable determination, and a great deal of faith in the necessity of his cause. Russia should have completely melted down. That it didn't is a credit to Mr. Yeltsin.

PR and War

According to our friends at the BBC World Service, the wall being built in Baghdad is not being built anymore – Nouri al-Maliki has stopped it.

The peculiar part of the War on Terror is its multimedia aspect. Every war represents the moral neutrality of technology; I remember the 1991 Gulf War being broadcast live on CNN, and no one needs to be reminded of the horrors of technology employed in World War I, and for that matter, World War II.

This is the YouTube war. America will have to adjust to this reality. Our generals and our soldiers will be scrutinized like never before, and every aspect of it, from Abu Ghraib, to Saddam’s execution, to military maneuvers, will be public almost immediately. We got a taste of this in Bosnia. The bombing began as soon as the media got out of there, after they showed the world what was happening at places like Šrebenica. How much more this will happen when everyone is a journalist, (such as your correspondent)!

In a way, the transparency of war will be a welcome victory for humanitarianism, if for no reason than chopping people’s heads off will be rather off-putting to many moderate Muslims. When you demonstrate your viciousness as a virtue, you alienate people. Even the Nazis worked to demonstrate to the International Red Cross that Theresienstadt was a “humane” concentration camp. I truly believe that there is something shocking and appalling in those videos which is the greatest argument for a natural right to life (in that Lockean sense), irrespective of one’s faith. The marketplace of ideas is more accessible than ever before, and that helps our cause.

Nevertheless, it also exposes our cause to more criticism. Expect to see more American soldiers tried (in American courts, for now) for war crimes, as we saw last week with the Marines in Fallujah. This is a political necessity. To win the war, we will need to convince more sceptical Iraqis that we “practice what we preach.” Building a wall would save Iraqi lives, no doubt. But the moral calculus of this is that the short-term gain will be offset by an entrenchment of Sunni-Shiite animosity, and more Iraqis would define themselves as “Shiite” or “Sunni,” rather than “Iraqi.” We want Iraqis, and that’s something the wall won’t help.

Two Frances?

The official unofficial results are in, and Nicholas Sarkozy got 30%, Ségolene Royal (Woy-ah) got 26.2%, and François Bayreu received 18%. This should be fun. Pollsters say Bayreu voters are right-of-center, so that bodes well for the UMP candidate (I should correct the previous post, where I said he was RpR). It is interesting, because Sarkozy spoke about “two visions of France,” and was looking forward to a right-vs.-left debate on the issues. He also portrayed himself as a uniter, not a divider, (Heard that one before?) and appealed to the most vulnerable in society as well as the traditional middle class voters. Le Pen was disappointed with his 13%, and the campaign was careful to distance Sarkozy from these guys even tonight.

It seems that Bayreu has a chance to play kingmaker, but last night he was careful not to commit to either candidate. They all say that Bayreu’s party is a “natural home” with Sarkozy. But in either case, voters will not automatically follow his endorsement. However, if he endorses Sarkozy, the son of Hungarian immigrants will have to commit quite a faux pas to lose. If he backs Royal, it could be very interesting. Never underestimate the French left. They voted down the EU Constitutional Treaty, and shocked Europe.

And don’t harass me about using the expression “faux pas.” Laissez le bons temps rouler!

Elections, etc.

If voting were held today, who would you support?
I'm starting to gravitate towards a couple of people.....
Also, if voting were held today, wouldn't you be confused?

Voting IS being held today in France. That oughta be interesting. I think that Sarkozy will make the runoff, but will poll less strongly than anyone thinks.  This is because there will be quite a few people who, in the privacy of the voting booth, will vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen, but who have claimed to be supporting Sarkozy in the polls.  I think Segolene Royal will make it into the second round; if the centrist candidate, Francois Bayreu makes it, look for him to pick up all of Sego's supporters, which might be enough to put him in the president's chair.
Voting in France is a strategic process.  If it can be compared to the American system, it's as though everyone votes in everyone else's primary, then there's a run-off between the top two votegetters. (This is a very imperfect analogy, I know.)  In either case, the Socialist candidate traditionally runs off against the RpR (Rally for the Republic) candidate.  In 2002, Chirac (RpR) handily beat the far-right candidate (Le Pen), because the French for some reason were appalled at the idea of the first fascist in the Elysee Palace since the Second World War. The French have written two constitutions since then, so it must have been a long time ago.
One aspect of the French system is that it mobilizes "primary" (energetic) voters, who then usually vote "lesser of two evils" in the second round.  The trick is to get your guy (or girl, this year) into the second round.  This is why candidates like Le Pen tend to be over-represented in the first round.  While voter turnout and GOTV drives are less common in Europe, I wouldn't be surprised to see this phenomenon in future elections in France. 

Sarkozy's base seems to be quite energized, as well as Sego's, which bodes well for them.  I think that voters scared of Sarkozy (he's not known for his cheeriness and warmth, a bit like the media portrayal of Dick Cheney) will eventually calculate that either way, Royal or Bayreu (who is running as a "none of the above" candidate) will end up in the second round, and will vote for either of them.  In either case, if Bayreu can make the first cut, he has a very good chance of winning the second round. It will depend of course on the campaign.  If he runs against Royal, Sarkozy will need to play a little to the right, but not so much to alienate centrist voters who voted for Bayreu.  If Bayreu wins, expect more of Sarkozy as a hard-line, law-and-order candidate, since the socialists and the centrists will likely support Bayreu.

The wild card is Le Pen. If the Left and Center cancel each other out, Le Pen could sneak through again. I doubt this will happen this time though; the "protest vote" contingent can vote Bayreu, who is a more platable alternative.  In the end, I think we see a Sego-Sarko matchup, which will strongly affect the direction of the EU, and US-French relations.  Royal has inserted a fair amount of populist anti-American rhetoric into her campaign, and Sarkozy has been more of a supporter of le liberalisme.  I personally think that France will be better off and ultimately more peaceful with Sarkozy, but in France, "socialism" is not a dirty word.  I don't doubt that Sarkozy is an heir of RfR and de Gaulle, and would hardly be a "Bush stooge."  But it would be a shame for France and the US if a candidate running on a ticket of anti-Americanism and anti-market-economics were to become its next president.
France, like it or not, is an important nation for the US. And it is in America's interst, as well as France's, that its economy is strong, dynamic, and oriented to the future.

The BBC

One thing about the BBC is that it gives a great deal of attention to two things: English soccer (which I couldn’t care less about), and world news. One thing that dawned on me is that it is giving more attention to the Nigerian election than the French one. I’m starting to believe that there might be something to this in terms of world significance, even for the US. The French election will have a great deal of influence on the construction of the EU – I think that Segolene Royal and Francois Bayreuth (spelling?) are far more interested in building a socialist, derigiste Europe than Sarkozy, which would continue the tragedy of European decline, but we can anticipate the general direction of France either way. It will still be punching above its weight in the international arena, still completely baffled over its diminished lack of influence in the world, and still inclined to build walls of agricultural subsidies and other protectionist measures, though Sarkozy is more open to reform these.

The election in Nigeria is quite another matter. Nigeria is a regional power, and its elections are characterized by slightly less stability than France’s are. While we know that there is one of three candidates who will win, we also are fairly certain that no ballot boxes will be stolen, nor will the election be boycotted. France will still be 300 kinds of cheese, to use de Gaulle’s expression. Nigeria, however, may be a complicated mess. It has been a regional power, and the smaller African nations around it have had peacekeepers from Nigeria (sometimes doing a decent job.) It has huge oil reserves, and everybody wants a hand in where those go. The Chinese are already starting to develop closer ties with African nations in general because it is considered (by everyone) to be the last place to really develop an economy. In the long term, America should pay attention to some of Africa’s developments, and prepare ways to curb Chinese and Arab influence in that part of the world.

The ICC

http://launch.praguemonitor.com/en/63/czech_national_news/4731/

The Czech Republic is the only country in the European Union which has not ratified the treaty agreeing to be subject to the International Criminal Court. The EU considers this court to be a bedrock principle of its foreign policy. It would have jurisdication over "war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity." This is a clear attempt to get around the idea of independent foreign policies of the member states of the EU. Already Belgian and German courts, which claim worldwide jurisdiction in such matters, have attempted to indict Americans such as Don Rumsfeld and General Wojdekowski, and the judges in the ICC have hinted at doing the same. Threats from the ICC would cripple Czech ability to conduct foreign policy without a go-ahead from Brussels (since it's the same people, believing the same orthodoxy in the Hague. ) The Czech government should be commended, rather than ashamed, for standing up for its own interests.

The New York Times...

has a delightfully Keynesomarxist editorial today.