Causes of Terrorism

Middle Eastern Governments and Causes of Terrorism

<SNIP>

Oil, being an extremely valuable commodity, has made the Saudis (and some other Middle East states), exceptionally wealthy. Despite this wealth, or ironically, perhaps because of it, Saudi Arabia is a heavily indebted state (debt load is 115% of GDP) (14), ruled by a chaotic, corrupt oligarchy consisting of the ever expansive Saudi royal family. The family maintains its hold on the kingdom through a combination of religious indoctrination (which aids in the creation of external enemies), ruthless despotism, and the 'generosity' of a bloated, out of control welfare system. Throwing buckets of cash at individuals who never worked a day for it, combined with the lack of an accountable financial system and loose controls, has led to an explosion of funding for the twisted ideology of Wahhabism. Moore is right in exposing the Saudi regime as the dangerous society it has become.

Generally, it appears that a corrupt political society is only reinforced and further distorted by the power thrust upon it through easy wealth [and possibly created from it]. To elaborate further, let's pretend there is no oil in the Middle East, but it's all in Africa. The Middle East, besides Israel, would consists of impoverished warring states that don't have the capability to threaten anyone besides their own citizens and their equally impoverished neighbors. In short, you'd have a situation similar to (certain parts of ) Africa today. But in Africa, you'd still have the constant civil wars, tin cup dictators, rebel leaders, massacres and genocides, but now each state would be bolstered by billion dollar oil revenues. Mirage fighters would replace machetes in Rwanda; cruise missiles would replace militias in the Congo. Tanks would replace horsemen in the Sudan. These regimes would have the funds to import and/or train scientists to develop chemical and biological agents. Powerful countries would succeed in taking over their neighbors. Sound familiar?

In essence, the political systems are not much different in (parts of) Africa and the Middle East. Oil makes the difference appear so glaring by increasing the wealth and power these corrupt despots hold and elevating them from primitive warlords to global power mongers. (20) The national security of the United States [and the free world] become threatened when these regimes gain enough power, through oil, to threaten the stability of a vital economic commodity and, in some cases, become powerful enough to challenge the west militarily - Iraq through direct military confrontation, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and others through the exportation of subversive ideology and terrorism. Is the United States trying to steal oil in order to profit corporations as Moore later indicates? No. US companies are more than willing to pay the market price for it. Is oil intertwined in the problems of the Middle East? Yes. But not in the way Moore and the anti-US crowd overseas believe it is, although I can see how it is tempting to make the correlation. The US [and the free world] would like nothing better than to pay their money for oil and have nothing else to do with the Middle East. Unfortunately, it appears that this hands off policy, coupled with appeasing diplomatic and military alliances and interventions, has failed.

Another theory is that without foreign aid or natural resources, governments are forced to liberalize because it is the only way for them to get tax revenues. In other words, when wealth can only be generated through the naked productivity/ingenuity of it's citizens, the rulers of that country will be most inclined to introduce reforms to accelerate this. Notice some of the strongest economic zones in the world today - Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Switzerland, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea and the (early, eastern) United States - are poor in natural resources. Historically, the British, Dutch, Portuguese and, going way back, Carthageans and Athenians, were all were top world powers without being strong in natural resources. Why was the Spanish Empire, a centrally controlled country drowning in colonial gold, discarded into the ash heap of history so fast? Returning to the Africa analogy, the areas which are richest in natural resources, especially the diamond belt, are suffering the greatest conflict and strife. Taking this into account, Moore and other leftists should wonder why the United States would even want to "take over" any oil...

Egypt, homeland of number two (and probably more influential in operational effectiveness than Osama Bin Laden) Al Qaeda terrorist Dr Ayman Al Zawahiri, is perhaps the second largest supporter (in terms of a sympathizing populace) of Al-Qaeda in the gulf region. Each year Egypt receives about 2 billion dollars in transit from the Suez canal, 2.2 billion in 'aid' from the United States and inflows of money from the 10% of it's population that works or has worked abroad in other gulf states. With this revenue, why should the government worry about the need for a rich or middle class to tax? (111)

We must not minimize the role that the socialistic nature of the Arab governments play in their totalitarianism, aggression, and sponsorship of terrorism. Foreign investment is discouraged because of the government monopolies and political instability (not to mention lack of religious freedom, freedom of expression etc..- foreign investments need foreign workers to manage them; how would you like to move your family to Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia?). Publicly owned factories are not likely to invest in foreign countries. Privately owned Arab companies are hampered by an uneducated workforce, a jumbled legal system, and competition from the huge subsidized public sector, and so are also less likely to invest in foreign countries. The net result is that, besides oil and petro-investments, little trade and interaction exists between (and among) Arab countries and the rest of the world.

It has been argued that the United States is the world's best policemen because our citizens own many things of value in countries across the world. Likewise, multitudes of citizens from many, many countries across the world own things of value in the United States (such as businesses that employ our citizens). Therefore, as the wealthiest country in the world, we have the most interest in seeing the world stay free, peaceful, and prosperous in order to protect and increase our own wealth and prosperity. For the United States, a win for us is a win for the world (and vice versa). In the same sense, China's shift from a Communist regime to a Capitalist regime has greatly reduced the threat it poses to it's neighbors. Any hostile actions by the Chinese against, say, Taiwan, would devastate it's economy. Chinese businessmen and workers, the former of which are becoming increasingly influential in the Communist party, would howl and possibly revolt. Chinese aggression is a loosing strategy for China and a loosing situation for the world. In contrast, a hostile action by Saddam Hussein against Kuwait is a win for him and a loss for the world. Socialistic countries are not held back from aggression by business/economic pressures; they see only external prizes that can be easily claimed by 'the state'. It's citizens don't raise a fuss about the need to protect their property because the citizens don't own anything (or very little)! Of course, the term 'Socialistic' as I am using it here does not apply to the Socialistic Scandinavian countries, which consist of private industry (with internal and external foreign investments) burdened by high taxes and regulations. In Arab Socialistic countries there may be some areas of relatively low taxes, but there is little private industry.

Perhaps the most important piece of the puzzle lies in the totalitarian nature of the Arab regimes. None of the 22 countries in the Arab league are democracies compared to 63% of countries throughout the world. In it's 2002 survey Freedom House found only 28% of Middle Eastern countries could be described as 'free' or 'partly free'. Despite having lower per capita incomes and GDP, more than 60% of African countries meet this standard. (111)

Natan Sharansky, a famous Soviet Dissident and Israeli politician writes in 'The Case for Democracy' (a book read and lauded by President Bush), that the motivations of unelected regimes and elected ones are often similar - to stay in power. But the actions taken by the two governments are vastly different. Generally, an unelected regime will expend a great deal of energy on brainwashing, propogandizing, and actively suppressing it's citizens. Sharnaksy argues that a key tool in supplementing this task is creating an external threat. In other words, internal stability is more easily achieved by creating external enemies. In Free Societies this political fearmongering is still attempted (the draft myth) and often directed at opposing political parties, but is limited in scope by the inquires of an independent press and the freedom of public discourse. In Closed Societies, with a controlled media, citizens will often accept the leadership of a regime if they believe an external source is responsible for the dire conditions present in their country, or presents the greater threat. To a lesser degree this can also occur in Free Societies. For example, during both World Wars US citizens accepted rationing and cutbacks in consumer goods with little protest. (154)

Almost every totalitarian regime in history has created these external enemies in order to help maintain power over their people. In the same way that the Soviets funded Communist insurgencies around the world, the Arab states fund religious insurgencies. In fact, Arab terrorism was first funded, trained, and encouraged by the Soviet Union. (155), (156) Just like Hitler and Stalin preached hatred of the Jews, Arab regimes call for the destruction of Israel and broadcast anti-Semitic rhetoric. Saddam Hussein was a great admirer of Stalin and the hyper-controlling, top-down, socialistic economic system has been adopted, to varying degrees, by all the Arab governments. The hated, ever-present religious police of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Taliban are the mirror image of the equally hated and feared expansive network of government informers of Saddam Hussein, Castro, Kim Jung Ill, and the Soviet Union.

In fact, one could even construct scenarios in which Communist regimes are less of a threat to their neighbors than Arab type dictatorial socialistic regimes. Communists regimes historically have, at least initially, mimicked the effects of creating external threats by creating internal threats within the country by inciting violence and hatred of the upper and middle classes. Authoritarian socialistic type countries are not bloodletting their own people to the degree that the Communists are, and thus might be more inclined to create external threat in order to aid in their retaining control over the populace. (155)

This is why such a glaring contradiction exists between the diplomatic friendliness enjoyed between the United States and some Arab countries and the propaganda they force feed their citizens. These regimes are willing to publicly smile (in our media) as they accept our aid, weapons, and petro-dollars in return for 'stability', as they privately suppress dissent via internal suppressions and these artificial external enemies. In reality, this 'stability' we create by supporting these undemocratic regimes has achieved the opposite of it's intention. In other words, the destructiveness resulting from the external instability of these regimes has clearly surpassed any 'gain' achieved by their internal stability. Moore's allegations are, again, 180 degrees from the truth. We didn't go to war for oil - we remained in a hypnotic, fallacious 'peace' for so long because of oil! (154)

This disturbing tendency of Free Societies to appease Closed Societies is not new. Because Free Societies are peaceful societies, they fall prey to 'sound bite diplomacy', and politicians are always keen to avoid any charges of 'warmongering'. Ronald Reagan was denounced as such by his political opponents and the mainstream press as was Barry Goldwater and George W. Bush. All three men, respectively, did, would have, and (hopefully) will, triumph over Closed Societies by bringing clarity to the policies of Free Societies. The difficulty of bringing a Free Society to necessary action is a testament to the polar strengths and weaknesses of a Free Society.

Note that (with only a few outlying exceptions) no two democracies have ever fought a war. The contradictory public statements vs. private actions of Closed Societies can mislead the media and citizens of Free Societies as to the intentions and motives of the Closed Societies. President H.W. Bush was very concerned about the possibility of 'instability' during the break-up of the Soviet Union and even made a (poorly received) speech in the Ukraine advocating against the reckless nationalism of the Soviet Republics. The same mistake has been repeated in the Middle East. For example, US and Israeli politicians celebrated as Palestinian Authority chairman Yassir Arafat shook the hand of Israeli Prime Minister Simon Peres while he was simultaneously encouraging and/or plotting the murder of Israeli civilians. (154)

The constant U.S. media reporting of the 'anger of the Arab Street' is often just regurgitating what is being broadcast on state television in these repressive countries. For some reason there is little speculation whether this 'anger' is directed at the United States because of our support for their unpopular, corrupt governments, rather then our policies towards Israel or Iraq. Why is it that the people under the government that we most openly oppose, the Iranian theocracy, are the most (allegedly) pro-American in the region? (154)

It has been said that Islam itself breeds terrorism. The fact that Mohammad was a conqueror, lived by the sword, and combined Church and State, may have injected an element of violence into the Middle East, but Mohammad also taught peace, justice, and mercy. While it may be possible Islam contributed to some aspects of terrorism, any portrayal of Islam as a root cause of terrorism is misleading. Islamic culture was at one time the most advanced in the world. In recent months Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, elected Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, a former security official running on an anti-terror and anti-corruption platform. In free societies, almost all Muslims reject terror.

What is more probable is that state control over Islam by the despotic governments of the Middle East is one of the causes of terrorism. The BBC reports that in Turkey: Chief Mufti of Istanbul faxes out the sermon, which must be delivered in identical form across the country. (158) The Saudi Royal family appoints and dismisses all imams. Almost all Middle Eastern Governments engage in similar practices. The Mullahs of Iran have managed to overthrow and become the new Tyrants of that country. State and Religion are now the same in Iran. It is true that only a small minority of Muslims corrupt the Islamic religion by engaging in terrorism, but it is also true that a majority of Muslim countries also corrupt the Islamic religion. US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wisely said: "..a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion..."(159) And American revolutionary Thomas Paine stated: "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." (159) To read a bit about our founding and the first separation of Church and State click here.

Moore is right about the pattern of softness the United States government has followed in dealing with the Saudis (and the entire Middle East). His error lies in linking this problem exclusively to the Bush administration. The problem of Saudi and Arab terror funding, including Al Qaeda linkage, has been a bipartisan issue that the United States has refused to face for decades. Saudi and Arab think tanks and lobbyists curry favor with the political elite of both parties, often hiring members of Congress when they retire.

In an under reported June 30th editorial in the Washington Post, Senator Jon Kyl, Chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, offers an explanation why 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi:

But for Saudi nationals, we looked the other way. Because Saudi Arabia is a rich country -- and, perhaps more important, because it is considered a U.S. ally -- before Sept. 11, 2001, the assistant secretary of state for consular affairs at the time, Mary Ryan, had relaxed the visa application rules, even to the point of implementing "Visa Express," an unprecedented program that literally delegated visa processing to travel agents to speed it up. The basic legal requirement that applicants provide accurate and persuasive information was ignored. (78)

Unfortunately, the State Department does not seem to have learned much from the experience. It continues to maintain that its pre-Sept.11 visa policies in Saudi Arabia were reasonable because of a lack of specific intelligence indicating otherwise. (78)

In fact, the Sept. 11 commission found that two other suicide volunteers were turned down because al Qaeda feared they would have trouble, as natives of Yemen, getting visas of their own. (78)

This same money has flooded into Presidential libraries of all past presidents. For example, Conservative columnist Robert Novak notes:

Bill Clinton not only received a $750,000 speaking fee for going to Saudi Arabia in January but came back with a hefty pledge for his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., according to high-ranking Saudis. Estimates range from less than $1 million to $20 million. (53)

Before September 11th a critic can only claim that President Bush perpetuated this pattern of complacency. Since, Bush is the first president that has acted decisively on it and, ironically, is later criticized by Moore for doing so.

On August 5th 2002 a story appeared in the Washington Post and began:

A briefing given last month to a top Pentagon advisory board described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that U.S. officials give it an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the United States. (16)

The story was quickly disavowed by senior Bush administration officials (17) and the murky situation quickly faded from public memory (18). Whether the story was leaked to pressure the Saudis, to gauge public opinion, or just uncovered by a resourceful journalist remains unclear. Whatever the case, it shows that serious options were being discussed. During recent months, a huge spike of Al Qaeda related violence has taken place in Saudi Arabia leading to speculation that there was a cease fire agreement between the Saudis and Al Qaeda. Rumors swirled about payoffs and subtle support given to Al Qaeda by various senior members of the Saudi government. (21) True or not, the present battles indicate that whatever official ties there were between Saudi intelligence and Al Qaeda are now broken. What occurred is certainly worth investigating. It was and probably still is true that Al Qaeda's main source of funding comes from individuals in Saudi Arabia. Even so, contrary to popular belief and past policies, strengthening and/or supporting the Saudi regime will probably not result in the defeat of the support (private or public) that encourages terrorism for the reasons described in the proceeding paragraphs.

In fact, on November 6th 2003, President Bush gave a historic speech calling for democratic reform in the Middle East (15). The President and other member of the Administration have also indicated their hope that a democratic Iraq will aid this spread of freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East.

* In Conclusion, the differences between all of these 'causes of terrorism' may just be a matter of semantics/definitions. Socialism, tyranny, oil, weakness of free societies, and economics pressures are basically all on the same side of the same complementary coin. Change one and the whole coin is likely to flip. Notice that poverty, Islam, US intelligence failures, and 'aggressive' US Middle East policies are not listed among the root causes of terrorism. This was purposely done because they are not. :)

<SNIP>

When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. - Plato

Of further possible interest: 'Israel Palestine Conflict'

See also, 'Gasoline and Government'

Related Articles

In Poorer Nations, Oil Resources Can Be a Curse Upon the People - A Financial Times columnist describes the difficulties developing nations encounter when they have plentiful natural resources.

Freedom squelches terrorist violence - Harvard Gazette reports on a study that squashes the myth that terrorism is caused by poverty.

Islam vs the World - New York Post columnist Amir Taheri helps dispel the myth that Islam is at the root of terror.

Incitement to Violence - The Israeli government has compiled a list of cited statements by Palestinian Authority figures.

Syria Struggles to Stay afloat - Strategy Page reports Syria may be the first of the Arab regimes to fall after the invasion of Iraq. A reverse Domino effect?

Jordan to Introduce Democratic Reform - 1/26/04 Associated Press describes how Jordan is encouraging Iraqis in Jordan to vote in Iraq's elections and is expanding elections in Jordan for Jordanians.

No Arab Alternative to US Plan - Al-Jazeera reports that a 'reform' meeting attended by Arab governments achieved nothing. Notice the 'external enemies' attacked by the Arab league Secretary General.

The other Arab crisis: The economy - MSNBC details the socialistic suffocation of the Arab economies and the general state of the Arab world. The blame for these conditions, along with how they govern their countries, is directed at Israel.

In Pursuit of Arab Reform - Extensive coverage and links centralized at Al-Jazeera for the in-depth reader.

A Democratic World Is No Neocon Folly
LA Times - Max Boot gives a historical lesson in Freedom and Democracy, "The facts are in: Freedom is better."

Posted 9/13/06 (By Travis)

Oil's Dark Secret (Required Reading)

8/10/06 The Economist

One factor that does not seem to be a prerequisite to success for a national oil company is having a lot of oil. Petrobras, for one, began life as a refiner and distributor. It used its profits from those businesses to fund new ventures in exploration and production. Abundant, inalienable oil, on the other hand, seems to do most state-run firms more harm than good.

Posted 11/2/05

The U.N. finally discovers property rights

10/29/05 Union Leader The UN has appointed Hernando De Soto as a co-chair (the other one, unfortunately, being Madeline Albright), of a commission entitled: 'High Level Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor'. Now, normally we would expect such a commission at the United Nations to go about doing their best to hurt the poor in the name of helping them by criticizing wealthy nations for debt relief (giving money to criminals), more aid, or some other socialist wealth distribution scheme. However, who is Hernando De Soto?

Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto is the recipient of the Cato Institute's [Libertarian Think Tank] 2004 Friedman Prize for his work exploring the link between poverty and property rights in underdeveloped states. World leaders, academics, and journalists have praised his book The Mystery of Capital, which describes the extralegal systems of economic transaction created by citizens in countries without a strong system of property rights. De Soto's think tank the Institute for Liberty and Democracy seeks to implement reforms that give citizens of poor countries the ability to operate in a free enterprise system. The Economist has praised the ILD [Institute for Liberty and Democracy] as one of the most important think tanks in the world, and the institute has implemented reforms throughout the former Soviet Union, as well as in Egypt and Peru.

Strong property rights means that the governments of these countries will not be able to steal from their citizens as blatantly as before. In capitalist economies, De Soto notes, business transactions are made possible by widely accepted rules governing legally defined property. Such concepts often don’t exist in the developing world, where existing legal systems (or the lack thereof) may not recognize the assets and transactions of some 70 percent of the population.

This same problem occurs on our Native American Indian reservations and those in Canada, with 'tribal ownership', everybody, but in reality, nobody, owns any given piece of property on the reservation and so cannot leverage it in a mortgage to a bank or raise any capital with it.

Reforms, whereby property protection is enshrined in law, sometimes don't exist because such concepts are foreign to people, but other times are opposed because it facilitates conditions where important activities take place outside the realm of government. Since the poorer countries of the world are run by corrupt thieves worried most about holding onto power, 'important things happening outside their control' is initially a bit discerning to them. But here is the kicker, and the reason I love this article:

The reform program he developed for his native Peru resulted in the legalization of an estimated 300,000 enterprises that previously operated off-the-books. When political leaders in other countries saw how the Peruvian reforms moved some 560,000 workers from the underground economy to the legal economy and generated some $300 million a year in new tax revenues, they started to understand.

Alert readers will remember that in 'Middle Eastern Governments and Causes of Terrorism', I wrote:

Another theory is that without foreign aid or natural resources, governments are forced to liberalize because it is the only way for them to get tax revenues. In other words, when wealth can only be generated through the naked productivity/ingenuity of it's citizens, the rulers of that country will be most inclined to introduce reforms to accelerate this. Notice some of the strongest economic zones in the world today - Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Switzerland, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea and the (early, eastern) United States - are poor in natural resources. Historically, the British, Dutch, Portuguese and, going way back, Carthageans and Athenians, were all were top world powers without being strong in natural resources. Why was the Spanish Empire, a centrally controlled country drowning in colonial gold, discarded into the ash heap of history so fast? Returning to the Africa analogy, the areas which are richest in natural resources, especially the diamond belt, are suffering the greatest conflict and strife.

So, by educating the corrupt thieving rulers of poor countries that there will be more loot for them to steal if they let their people become prosperous and respect property rights, De Soto has a great plan to really help the poorest of the poor.
"In most countries, including my own, the idea is we the government will tell you what is good for you. In this case, the responsibility of carrying out the administration has been thrown at the people themselves. That trust in people is essentially what characterizes Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries going from being elite-led nations to those of nations that have grass-root economies."

- Hernando De Soto.

BUSH TO SYRIA: SCRAM (posted 3/4/05)

3/4/05 The New York Post interviews President Bush who says of Syrian troop withdrawal from Lebanon: 'This is non-negotiable. It is time to get out'. This is in response to massive demonstrations after the assassination of anti-Syrian Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. ABC news reports: With shouts of "Syria out!" 25,000 protesters massed outside Parliament in a dramatic display of defiance Monday that forced out Lebanon's pro-Syrian prime minister and Cabinet. <..> It is the first victory, but it will not be the last," opposition leader and former information minister Ghazi al-Areedh told the crowd in a scene broadcast live around the Arab world.

Even more amazing, an Israeli paper reports: Lebanese opposition members have asked Israel to encourage the United States to pressure Syria into withdrawing its troops from Lebanon. <..> Lebanese figures contacted Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz's advisor, Uri Lubrani, among other officials in Jerusalem, and indicated they were determined to keep struggling against the Syrian presence in Lebanon but need American support. An Arab nation asking for Israel's help for the first time in modern history for the purpose of securing the only real pressure that can protect the demonstrators and actually force Syria out: pressure from the United States of America! This is reminiscent of the recent Ukraine protestors, who, again backed by the United States, overthrew the corrupt establishment after a rigged election.

In other news, President Bush's push for freedom across the Middle East continues to jolt, albeit slowly, tyrants into action. The autocratic dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt recently gave a speech Touting "freedom and democracy," Mubarak told an audience at Menoufia University, north of Cairo, that he asked parliament and the consultative Shura Council to amend the constitution's Article 76 on presidential elections <..> and said multiple candidates could run in the nation's presidential elections, a scenario Mubarak hasn't faced since taking power in 1981. This (2/26/05) article, especially it's headline, is biased because Mubarak really isn't changing anything because of restrictive stipulations around who can run. Laughably, Ayman Nour, who is one of the strongest proponents of an open election and who was arrested by Egyptian police last month, praised Mubarak's announcement in a statement from jail. Nour called it "an important and courageous move" toward "comprehensive constitutional reform," in a statement read by his wife, Gamila Ismael. Horray!

In Libya (3/2/05), Dictator Muammar Gaddafi blathered: let "freedoms blossom" "The people power and the direct democracy in Libya came to give an alternative to the worsening political crisis in the world where everywhere outside Libya dictatorship rules," he declared. <..> Gaddafi said the people of the United States, Britain and Italy were living "under the yoke of dictatorships" and invited their politicians, scholars and intellectuals to visit Libya to learn how "the only genuine democracy works".

At least they are running scared. :)

China Rejects Japan's demand for an Apology (Posted 4/19/05)

4/17/05 Associated Press. If you'll recall in 'Arab Governments and Causes of Terrorism' I discuss how authoritarian regimes create 'external' enemies in order to keep pressure off authoritarianism at home. This same pattern is now unfolding in China where a series of violent anti-Japanese protests have rocked Chinese cities in the past few weeks. China, aided by a helpful media, seems to have created an impression at home and abroad that this anti-Japanese sentiment is coming directly from the Chinese people, with the authorities unable to prevent it. However, in a country which has a history of brutally crushing any large scale anti-government activity and imprisons and executes thousands of political prisoners, this is not to be believed. In fact, by carefully examining news reports, it is more then clear that these protests were carefully orchestrated by the Chinese government. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing instead complained that Japan has "hurt the feelings" of Chinese on a series of issues, including relations with rival Taiwan and "the subject of history" - a reference to new Japanese textbooks that critics say minimize Japan's wartime offenses.

AP: Shanghai's government blamed Japan for the violence, saying the demonstrations were prompted by "Japan's wrong attitudes and actions on a series of issues such as its history of aggression," the official Xinhua News Agency said, citing city government spokeswoman Jiao Yang.

AP Premier Wen Jiabao cited the protests Wednesday when he said during a visit to India that Tokyo wasn't ready for a Security Council seat until it faced up to its history of aggression. <.> Some suggested Beijing permitted the protests last weekend to support a campaign to block Tokyo's Security Council bid. <.> In Shanghai, police didn't try to stop the protest, though state newspapers said no one had received permission to hold one. At one point, police posted a sign saying "March route this way."

In conclusion, these protests should be viewed as a sign of Chinese desperation. In pursuing capitalistic policies that have transformed China from a starving Communist country, into a growing (although still impoverished) economic powerhouse, the government has given it's people a taste of freedom they will not forget and a yearning the government cannot suppress. The Guardian reports: In driving off more than 1,000 riot police at the start of the week, Huankantou village in Zhejiang province is at the crest of a wave of anarchy that has seen millions of impoverished farmers block roads and launch protests against official corruption, environmental destruction and the growing gap between urban wealth and rural poverty. China's media have been forbidden to report on the government's loss of control, but word is spreading quickly to nearby towns and cities. Tens of thousands of sightseers and wellwishers are flocking every day to see the village that beat the police. "Aren't these villagers brave? They are so tough it's unbelievable," said a taxi driver from Yiwu, the nearest city. "Everybody wants to come and see this place. We really admire them." (emphasis = possible Guardian editorializing) :)

The Epoch times reports: The upper levels of government are taking notice as the number of withdrawals from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rapidly approaches the one million mark. <.> Chinese people are burning CCP items and memorabilia publicly in order to rid themselves of all vestiges of its grip. <.> As the resignations continue unabated it is reported that party officials have even gone so far as to force invalids and sick individuals to step forward and reaffirm their loyalty.

Might China suffer a similar fate to that of the Soviet Union, which disintegrated under Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost (economic openess)? The words the Chinese Government truly fears are already being uttered: "The communists are even worse than the Japanese," said one man.

In Iran, a PhD means... Pizza Hut Delivery work (Posted 6/1/05)

5/31/05 ME Times Added to 'Arab Governments and the Causes of Terrorism'. The Islamic republic, home to some of the most qualified young people in the Middle East, has been exporting its brainpower at an alarming rate - with an estimated 150,000 frustrated graduates taking flight every year. Many, over a million, have come to the US, where they become prosperous and free, and a few have setup satellite broadcastings (privately funded by Iranian expatriates), which illegally beam into Iran and which were recently blocked by Iran's buddy Cuba. You see, it isn't just the so-called 'American Culture', which is exported abroad, but the culture of any group that comes here and prospers and then returns or influences their homeland. The reason? As emphasized over and over on this site - the Iranians that come here are free to create wealth and keep the wealth they accumulate with their own labor - free from government intervention and with equal protection under the law. With our burdensome tax rate here (if you add up all the sales, income, SS, Medicaid, phone taxes etc..), it tells you how bad things really are in some of these other countries. So what's government like in Iran? "The government needs to prepare the ground for private sector growth to absorb the workforce, but the problem is that 80 percent of the economy is controlled by the government. The government is the biggest rival of the private sector."

Israeli Police Baffled by Local neo-Nazi Ring (Posted 5/31/05)

5/31/05 Daily Maariv A little lesson in freedom from the Israelis:

Israeli police have discovered a ring of about 20 local neo-Nazis, young emigrants from the former Soviet Union, but are uncertain how to proceed against them as Israel has no specific laws against supporting Nazi beliefs, the Israeli daily Maariv reported Tuesday.

Why is this a lesson in freedom? Here is a country in which a majority of citizens belong to the same religious group that suffered 6 million deaths at the hands of the Nazi ideology. In fact, many of those who founded the state of Israel were survivors of this atrocity. These same people have enough respect for Freedom to allow this pathetic group of neo-Nazis to espouse their views freely. Meanwhile, if you venture outside of Israel, you can be killed for 'desecrating' a Koran, running for political office, criticizing the government, preaching, and in some cases (Saudi Arabia), practicing, another religion. The difference is so stark and so stunning that it is beyond comprehension that the media and international opinion is always against Israel. The Arab countries that sided with Germany during World War II and have engaged in a conventional and unconventional war with Israel for the last 50 years have the gall to fund news organizations that put out stories like this one from:

Israel accused of Nazi tactics

5/10/04 Al Jazeera Again, precisely the opposite is true. Mufti Al Husseini corroborated with Hitler and spread the ideology of Nazism and Fascism throughout the Middle East. Arafat continued where Husseini left off, doing Moscow's bidding. The Bathist parties of Syria and Iraq have Nazi roots as did the 'great Arab Nationalist', Egypt's Nasser. Socialism and Tyranny now rule the Middle East - see 'Arab Governments and Causes of Terrorism' for more.

This double standard applied to Israel is also consistently applied to the United States. Can you believe this question Terry Moran of ABC asked President Bush in a press conference today??!!:

"Mr. President, recently Amnesty International said that you have established a, quote, 'new gulag of prisons around the world beyond the reach of the law and decency.' I'd like your reaction to that, and also your assessment of how it came to this, that this is a view not just held by extremists and anti-Americans, but by groups that have allied themselves from the US government in the past, and what the strategic impact is that in many places in the world the United States these days under your leadership is no longer seen as the good guy?"

President Bush rightly called the Amnesty report 'absurd' and Vice President Cheney said, "I don't take them [Amnesty] seriously."

I don't take the mainstream press of this country serious either.

Returning to Israel, I think it was best said by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld:

Q [Palestinian Official]: Mr. Secretary, You talked about countries that were trying to produce weapons of mass destruction. You talked about Iraq and you talked about Iran and North Korea. I have a question, a direct question to you. What are you doing with Israel? As far as Israel is concerned, Israel has more atomic weapons in the region than any other country. Why do you remain silent in regard to Israel? I think it’s important to answer this question because this has to do with the world, the strategy that we are pursuing today. I think that if the position towards Israel were different then the situation would be different in the Near East, and this is a great problem.

Rumsfeld: You know the answer before I give it, I’m sure. The world knows the answer. We take the world like you find it; and Israel is a small state with a small population. It’s a democracy and it exists in a neighborhood that in many -- over a period of time has opined from time to time that they’d prefer it not be there and they’d like it to be put in the sea. And Israel has opined that it would prefer not to get put in the sea, and as a result, over a period of decades, it has arranged itself so it hasn’t been put in the sea.

(Posted 6/21/05)

Karoubi alleges Iranian election was 'rigged'
6/18/05 Reuters This is the new fad amongst corrupt and tyrannical regimes, have fake elections and then watch the western media breathlessly report them like they're legitimate. I've think I've documented this happening in Egypt in a previous post (also in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, and Zimbabwe). But here in Iran, we appear to have an case of a rigged election being double rigged! Gotta make sure it's really rigged! But the most disturbing thing in how this story is written is the first line: Iranian reformist presidential election contender Mehdi Karoubi alleged that the vote had been "rigged" by powerful hardliners supporting Tehran's right-wing Mayor Mahmood Ahmadinejad. This labeling of 'right-wing' again skewers one of the most underreported ideas about the middle east. As seen from a previous story: "The government needs to prepare the ground for private sector growth to absorb the workforce, but the problem is that 80 percent of the economy is controlled by the government. The government is the biggest rival of the private sector. Iran is socialist theocracy! Mahmood Ahmadinejad is a socialist left wing hardliner! But, as Ronald Reagan said:
Today we are told we must choose between a left and right or, as others suggest, a third alternative, a kind of safe middle ground. I suggest to you there is no left or right, only an up or down. Up to the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism; and regardless of their humanitarian purpose those who would sacrifice freedom for security have, whether they know it or not, chosen this downward path.

Posted 9/4/05

Lessons of Smaller States

9/4/05 Washington Times Why is this cold, rainy land with its stark volcanic landscape, without much in the way of natural resources, one of the wealthiest places on Earth? Small states, in the past, were most often poorer on a per capital income basis than large states, but in the last half-century many have become much richer then their large neighbors. Among the wealthiest places on the planet, in addition to the United States, we now find Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Denmark and Ireland, none with many natural resources.

Former Iceland Prime Minister and current Foreign Minister David Oddsson detailed how he took a typical, economically stagnate, Scandinavian socialist welfare state and turned it into an economic tiger by privatizing state industries, freeing labor markets, and reforming the financial structure. Iceland has been engaged in a massive tax reduction (for instance, the corporate tax rate has been cut from 50 to only 18 percent, and the inheritance tax to a maximum 5 percent). Yet government revenues have steadily increased because of the resulting economic dynamism, and the national debt has fallen from 50 percent of gross domestic product to only 15 percent.

Posted 1/17/06

Understanding the basics of economics would change many world views. Here is an excerpt from the 'Rumsfeld quote page'. This Al Jazeera journalist was dropping hostile questions about how the US wants to control the world's oil. Similar to the charges flung around by many of the left in this country:

Rumsfeld: There is no master plan. We don't run around the world trying to figure out how other people ought to live. What we want is a peaceful region.

You used the word black gold. I've seen the same kinds of articles and suggestions that that's the case.

You know, I've been around economics long enough to know that if somebody owns oil they're going to want to sell it. If they want to sell it, it's going to end up in the market. And it doesn't matter if they sell it to Country A or Country B. If they sell it, it's going to be in the market and that's going to affect the world price. Money is fungible and oil is fungible. This is not about oil, and anyone who thinks it is, is badly misunderstanding the situation.

Al Jazeera: But it depends on who controls the oil.

Rumsfeld: Anyone who controls it wants to sell it. It doesn't matter. That is not a problem. If you own -- If a bad person owns the oil and a good person owns the oil -- different oil -- and the bad person doesn't want to sell it to you but the good person is willing to, it doesn't matter because then the good person sells it to you. You're not going to be buying this person's oil but this person's going to be selling it to somebody else. And the world price will be the same. Everyone will have the oil they need. They aren't going to horde it, they're not going to keep it in the ground. They need the money from the oil. So it's not a problem.

Contrast this exchange with:

World can't afford to lose Iran's oil: US EIA chief

1/17/05 Reuters

WASHINGTON - A disruption in Iran's crude oil exports because of a dispute over that country's nuclear program would affect an already tight global oil market and lead to higher petroleum prices, the head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration warned on Tuesday.

"The market is so tightly balanced, clearly, we can't afford to lose a large supply of crude to the market," EIA chief Guy Caruso told Reuters in an interview.

Even though the United States does not directly import Iranian crude, Caruso said a cutoff of Iran's oil would affect the U.S. market because other countries that buy Iranian crude would compete with America to find new supplies.

"It's a fungible world oil market, and any disruption in supply affects everyone, because the price would go up for everyone," he said.

And, this is not withstanding that actual ownership of natural resources may do more harm than good. From 'Middle Eastern Governments and the Causes of Terrorism':

Posted 11/30/06 (By Travis)

Two stories on the criminal government of Saudi Arabia:

Halt enquiry or we cancel Eurofighters
12/1/06 Telegraph

Saudi Arabia has given Britain 10 days to halt a fraud investigation into the country's arms trade - or lose a £10 billion Eurofighter contract.

The contract supports up to 50,000 British jobs and there are now fears that the deal may go to France.

The Saudi government is on the verge of cancelling the contract - an extension of one brokered by Margaret Thatcher 20 year ago - because of a Serious Fraud Office investigation into allegations of a slush fund for members of the Saudi royal family, according to authoritative sources.

The Saudis are said to be "outraged" by the probe into the activities of companies linked to BAE Systems. The investigation concerns alleged illegal payments made to members of the Saudi royal family and their agents.

The Scandal of US Saudi Relations

11/29/06 National Interest

When it comes to the Saudi-American relationship, the White House should be called the ‘White Tent.'" - Mohammed Al-Khilewi, a Saudi diplomat who defected to the United States

The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, helpfully hinted at an answer in a statement boasting of his success cultivating powerful Americans. "If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office", Bandar once observed, "you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."[35] This effective admission of bribery goes far to explain why the usual laws, regulations and rights do not apply when Saudi Arabia is involved. <.>

Several surveys of the post-government careers of ex-U.S. ambassadors to Riyadh all raise eyebrows. Steven Emerson characterizes their behavior as "visceral, overt self-interested sycophancy."[37] National Review finds that the number of them "who now push a pro-Saudi line is startling" and concludes that "no other posting pays such rich dividends once one has left it, provided one is willing to become a public and private advocate of Saudi interests."[38] A National Post analysis looked at five former ambassadors and found that "they have carved out a fine living insulting their own countrymen while shilling for one of the most corrupt regimes on Earth." If you closed your eyes while listening to their apologies, "you would think the person talking held a Saudi passport."[39]

A Washington Post account gives some idea of the nature of the "rich dividends" reaped by former officials:

Americans who have worked with the Saudis in official capacities often remain connected to them when they leave public office, from former president George H.W. Bush, who has given speeches for cash in Saudi Arabia since leaving office, to many previous ambassadors and military officers stationed in the Kingdom. In some cases, these connections have been lucrative. Walter Cutler, who served two tours as the U.S. ambassador in Saudi Arabia, now runs Meridian International Center in Washington, an organization that promotes international understanding through education and exchanges. Saudi donors have been "very supportive" of the center, Cutler said. [Edward] Walker, the former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, is president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, which promotes understanding with the Arab world. Its board chairman is former senator Wyche Fowler, ambassador to Riyadh in the second Clinton administration. Saudi contributions covered $200,000 of the institute's $1.5 million budget last year, Walker said.[40]

Nor is this a new problem. Many ex-Washington hands have been paid off by the Kingdom, including not only a bevy of former ambassadors but also such figures as Spiro T. Agnew, Jimmy Carter, Clark Clifford, John B. Connally and William E. Simon.[41]

Posted 12/23/07 (By Travis)

Big Venezuela refinery crippled by parts shortage

12/14/07 Reuters
Years of shoddy maintenance and mounting shortages of spare parts have left Venezuela's second-largest oil refinery barely capable of functioning, three sources at the refinery told Reuters.

State oil company PDVSA's 300,000 barrels per day Cardon refinery is currently operating at minimal rates because four of its six steam boilers are out of service, leaving the facility without enough steam to keep units functioning, the three sources said.

"They don't have the equipment. There are no spare parts, and they don't have them because they are not experienced enough to get them," said one of the refinery sources, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.

This year alone there have been 12 major outages, almost half of which have been blamed on power failures. At least nine workers have been hurt in refinery accidents in 2007.

PDVSA has struggled with operational problems at its refineries since hundreds of refinery workers and engineers were fired after they joined an anti-government strike meant to force President Hugo Chavez from power in December 2002.

Chavez purged the company of his political opponents in 2003 and turned it into the financial engine of a social development campaign that has built up his political support.

Is this right out of Atlas Shrugged or what? This is the result of the state kicking out private companies and further politicizing the state owned companies.

In other news, Venezuelans voted to deny Chavez dictatorial rights a few weeks ago. Democracy is a flawed system, but it appears to safeguard certain rights, even while trampling on the rights of the individual and placing the minority under sway of the majority. Has the oil boom helped Venezuela? Their economy is tanking.

Speaking of oil:

God is Brazilian?

5/12/07 EnergyBulletin.net

This title of this article stems from Brazilian president Lula da Silva invoking the almighty in thanks for the discovery of massive oil deposits off the coast of Brazil. But, if history is any guide, this discovery will surely prove to be a pox upon the people of Brazil. The feedback loops of freedom and capitalism and revenues to the voracious government will become unbalanced with this new influx of money and it is likely socialism and tyranny will expand and freedom retreat.

This project will be a technological challenge to Brazil's lethargic state owned company :

About 70 percent of Petrobras' oil production comes from deep-water wells, making it the world's biggest oil producer at such depths. But the Tupi deposit is deeper than Petrobras has ever drilled — under 7,000 feet of ocean water and more than 16,000 feet of rock, sand and salt, including a 1.2-mile-thick layer of rock-hard salt.

What if it were left to the private sector?

In 2005, U.S.-based Chevron and its partners drilled the deepest offshore oil and gas well in history at 34,189 feet below sea level in the Gulf of Mexico, according to Transocean, the world's largest offshore drilling contractor, which completed the well. The deepest onshore well, at 37,016 feet, was completed earlier this year on Sakhalin Island, off the Russian coast, for ExxonMobil.

Additionally, we see the same pattern with Brazil's state owned oil companies as Venezuela's. The article concludes:

"This discovery... proves that God is Brazilian," Mum's the word as far as God goes, but here on Earth it is apparent that Petrobras may struggle to meet their 2011 production target, let alone their goal for 2015.

My Saudi Sojurn

June 2007 AEI

Kill Us Too, We are Also Americans

8/12/2006