Bush's legacy on balance more good than bad

As the Bush Presidency enters its final months, it is worthwhile having a dispassionate look at the record so far. Those on the left, or indeed most people you encounter in many Western countries believe the hype that has been self generated that he has been the worst President in recent history. The war in Iraq is seen as clear evidence of this, as it has been expensive and cost many lives both military and civilian, though the overthrow of one of the Middle East's most tyrannical and militaristic dictatorships (and the murder and destruction it wrecked upon its own people and its neighbours is conveniently glossed over) is almost taken for granted. The failure to completely crush the Taliban is pointed at, meanwhile the fact the Taliban regime WAS overthrown, and that it was the most utterly heartless, lifeless, vile form of Islamist barbarism is also ignored - girls in Kabul can go to school now, people can play music - but Bush's critics prefer to ignore that. They ignore that the war on Iraq resulted in Libya's Colonel Gaddafi "giving up" his own weapons of mass destruction, opening up and engaging with the West, instead of pursuing his long history of backing terrorist and murderers on several continents.

Most importantly, there has not been another terrorist attack on the US since 9/11. That should be a cause of celebration - it's difficult to point to the absence of something and say "see what I have done", but in this case it is important. People are still flying, going about their daily business, albeit with much less convenience than they once did.

Bush critics point at failure to achieve peace in Israel, although the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel points to at least one step forward. The isolation of Hamas in Gaza has worked to prevent the entire Palestinian Authority from becoming an Islamist terrorist base. Meanwhile Israel has knocked out a nuclear facility in Syria, something that the so called "anti-nuclear/peace" movement wont ever give credit for. You see to them, it is no worse for a one-party state or Islamist theocracy to hold nuclear weapons, than for a liberal Western democracy to do so. The very same people also claim to support feminism and human rights, when they treat regimes which in practice reject both as being no worse than the USA or the UK.

However I digress. Other criticisms of the Bush administration are around climate change - a reasonable concern, which has become a fad for armageddon like calls for radical intervention in the forms of taxes, subsidies and regulations in Western liberal democracies, whilst rapidly growing developing countries and oil rich states which per capita are as wealthy as Western democracies are expected to do nothing. Meanwhile the rising price of oil, due to demand and tax/regulatory/planning restrictions on supply (of both crude and refined product) have done more to reduce energy use (and in more efficient ways) than any nonsense about subsidising alternatives.

There is criticism on the economy, with some justification, but the current recession is led by the end of a property/credit boom that started well before Bush, as well as oil prices. More could have been done, certainly government spending has ballooned under Bush where it could have been cut back to ease the pressure on credit through the budget deficit.

Where criticism is valid has been in two areas:

1. The erosion of civil liberties as part of the war on terror, whereby wire tapping and interception is now a routinely used power by law enforcement authorities. The ability to use these powers is insufficiently monitored or limited. In short, law enforcement agencies have asked for powers they long dreamt of, because they believed it necessary to fight the war on terror - these requests have sadly not been sufficiently questioned.

2. The use of torture and rendition. In a state of war, it is difficult to determine the line between detaining suspects who are planning and aiding and abetting the waging of war against your country, and when people should be charged and tried for offences in a civilian court. The current situation is a blurring between those. It is important that those who are detained do face trial, and do have the right to defence. The risk of arresting and detaining the innocent is real, as is the risk that being deterred from doing so results in acts of terrorism being undertaken. The balance has been successful in preventing further terrorist acts, but it is important to be seen to be treating suspects fairly and impartially. Of particular concern has been the use of torture to obtain confessions and intelligence. Its efficacy is actually greater than critics make it out to be - those who face severe discomfort and pain are less capable of constructing consistent lies than spilling the truth. However, it's morally repugnant. It is difficult to spread the values of individual rights and liberty when you engage in practices that are milder versions of those you oppose. Fortunately both McCain and Obama reject it.

Some libertarians will see those last two points as self-evident that Bush is no friend of freedom. I disagree. He is a flawed friend of freedom. I have not mentioned his evangelism deliberately, largely because it has been exagerrated by his critics. As an atheist myself, the use of religion in a political context beyond demanding the simple right to freedom of belief appalls me. However, despite the fears of some he hasn't implemented a theocracy in the USA. His use of some theocratic language has been counterproductive, as it feeds the Islamists to talk of crusades, but despite his strong religious beliefs (and don't forget both Al Gore and John Kerry both claimed similar strong faith) it has not significantly undermined the fundamental secular nature of the USA.

Andrew Roberts in the Daily Telegraph believes that history will judge Bush well. It is frankly too early to say for sure, six months is a very long time in politics (New Zealand had three Prime Ministers in that time in 1990). He says:

"The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.

While of course every individual death is a tragedy to the bereaved families, these great achievements have been won at a cost in human life a fraction the size of any past world-historical struggle of this magnitude.

The number of American troops killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan is equivalent to the losses they endured - for a nation only a little over half the size in the mid-Forties - capturing a single island from the Japanese in the Pacific War."

Iraq has not become Vietnam.

So ask yourself this, what would have been different under Al Gore or John Kerry? 9/11 would still have happened, but would Al Gore have overthrown the Taliban? Who knows. Certainly Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq, does anyone really believe he would have just peacefully gone about oppressing his people and not tried again to wage war? Does anyone believe he wouldn't have tried to find common cause with Islamists (as the nominally secular Syria has done) to continue to wage war against Israel, the West and his neighbours to the south? Does anyone believe that Gaddafi would have surrendered?

Do you think there would have been any difference to global warming had Al Gore signed Kyoto? Remembering that Russia, India, China and the Middle East wouldn't have changed behaviour one iota (yes Russia is part of Kyoto but then you can be when your population is in freefall decline). Think that pouring loads of US taxpayers money (money they have spent themselves on other things) into subsidising biofuels more or electric cars would have made any difference at all? You think that a Presidency that sought approval from the likes of China and Russia to act (through the UN Security Council) would have been a deterrence to further attacks like 9/11? You think Hamas would have stopped shelling Israel had Israel been told to compromise more with it?

Of course, "what ifs" can never be proven - but one thing is sure. Since 9/11 there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil. Given the scale and seriousness of that one event, that is worth acknowledging. The only ones who wouldn't acknowledge that are those that cheered it on, like Annette Sykes or Barack Obama's former pastor, or those that cobble together fragments to consider it was all a conspiracy.

The USA couldn't organise a successful assassination against Castro, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Ayatollah Khomeini after all.

So when you vote Labour will it include him?

Many of us wont forget Labour list MP Ashraf Choudhary having been quoted as saying that it is ok for gay people to be stoned to death in other countries (not New Zealand) according to the Koran. According to the New Zealand Herald, three years ago:

*

"Mr Choudhary was asked: "Are you saying the Koran is wrong to recommend that gays in certain circumstances be stoned to death?" He replied: " No, no. Certainly what the Koran says is correct. "In those societies, not here in New Zealand," he added. "

*

It would be worth asking what his view is today. If he wont address it or change it, then you'll find that voting Labour for your party vote endorses Ashraf Choudhary being in Parliament. I might wonder if Rainbow Labour members like having in the Labour caucus an MP who wont condemn the murder of gay people in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia?

*

Voters deserve clarification from Mr Choudhary - it isn't Islamophobia, it isn't racism, it is whether this man actually believes in what are fundamental values of a liberal Western democracy. If not, Labour should expel him from its list, and if Labour wont, it doesn't deserve a single vote from a gay person or anyone who is appalled by the treatment of gay people in some predominantly Islamic states. Even the Family Party wouldn't be this callous.

A coalition between a murderer and his victims?

South African President Thabo Mbeki, who in his twilight years wont be remembered as much for his lunatic beliefs on HIV, which undoubtedly led indirectly to more deaths in his country as a result, but for his treatment of Robert Mugabe. Appeasement is being a simpering weakling in front of evil, he was never that - he stands side by side Mugabe, shaking his hand and facilitating, funding, supplying power and succuour to the man who has destroyed an economy, murdered and tortured his people and beaten them into starving submission while he and his lackeys enjoy lavish trips to shop and spend their ill gotten booty.

Some years ago another African leader, a socialist of the same political persuasion as Mbeki, saw the murder and tyranny occurring in a neighbouring state. Rivers with bodies in them, a regime running riot over its people. The country was Uganda under Idi Amin. Amin's army had started minor incursions into Tanzania, annexing a small piece of land. Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere didn't simply fight to retain that land, he invaded repelled the Ugandan army from Tanzania and kept going. Within a few months it had taken Entebbe airport and then Kampala. Even with Libyan troops supporting Amin (oh yes Gaddafi has been quite a character), there was only modest resistance. Amin fled to Libya, and Tanzania installed a replacement government. Nyerere overthrew one of Africa's most brutal tyrants. The Organisation of African murders and thieves Unity of course condemned Nyerere's actions, after all most of the leaders of African countries were despotic kleptocrats who suppressed political opposition and pillaged their countries' wealth for shopping trips to Paris and London for themselves and their cronies. Africa was being as exploited by its "liberators" as it had been by the imperial powers.

*

Now Nyerere was no angel, his socialist economic policies sent Tanzania backwards from being a food exporter to being an importer, but although somewhat authoritarian he was not a murderer like Mugabe.

*

However consider Thabo Mbeki. Zimbabwe's rigged, biased Presidential election was Mugabe beaten by Morgan Tsvangarai. Only by the rigged result did he fail to get a majority. So a run off election is being held, whilst Mugabe's butchering "war heroes" (if you consider a hero someone who bashes babies against tree trunks) torture and kill supporters of the opposition, while the opposition is prohibited from holding election rallies or from getting any coverage on the state monopoly broadcasting services and newspapers. It is an election that is one step away from the Soviet variety in that there IS a second candidate, but supporting such a candidate risks your life.

*

The election is an unbelievable farce, Mugabe and his Zanu-PF thugs with the military hand in hand have essentially overridden the Zimbabwean constitution, and are murdering all those in its way. Mbeki doesn't condem the murders, doesn't damn the violence led by Mugabe, he calls for the run-off election to be suspended and for a "unity government" according to the Daily Telegraph.

*

It is scandalous and despicable.

*

Imagine if there had been a call for a "unity government" in Cambodia between the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese backed forces that overthrew it, or between the Nazis and liberals.

*

As Ayn Rand once said "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

*

Mbeki deserves to be shunned at international fora, he is a cowardly craven fool with blood on his hands, the blood of black Africans, those he purports to support, whilst his pig ignorant blind loyalty to a tyrant keeps that tyrant fed, powered and slaughtering, starving and torturing his own.

*

If your neighbour was torturing, abusing and starving his wife and children, had promised to leave if the family agreed he should go, but tortured the kids into being loyal, and kept locking his wife away and abusing her - would you tell the wife that the two of them should stay together and work things out while the kids and her are still being abused?

*

That's Mbeki, friend of a murderer, a pathetic pointless man who should resign and stop pouring more disgrace on South Africa - a country that supports tyranny and then lets its citizens torture and murder those who flee from it.

*

oh and didn't notice all those protests like there were against apartheid, but I guess black Africans murdering and torturing their own isn't quite as important to some on the left as white Africans is it? No, once the Africans are running their own affairs, time to move on.

Slow blogging

Apologies for having a few days off, quite simply I've been away home for a while and preferred to spend the weekend with my girlfriend, having human company rather than spending more than short periods in front of this infernal thing. I'll be back at full tilt tomorrow though.

*

There is much to say about fuel prices, taxes and subsidies, David Davis and 42 days detention without trial, Bush's last trip as President to Europe, the emergence of further new technologies that could replace crude oil with oil generated by bacterium, and the tragic ongoing debacle of Zimbabwe. I am about to fly back to the Middle East. May Lufthansa treat me well (my experience is that it's ok, it's better than airlines from the US, but isn't as good as BA or Air NZ), and I'll have ample time to blog there in the evenings. Not a lot is too interesting about NZ at the moment, except for some reason I've noticed Libertarianz spokespeople appearing in mainstream media more often than in the past - maybe something is happening putting Libz in the top tier of parties outside Parliament.

*

The Green left is almost joyful over fuel and food prices, a new armageddon that means we "have to change", amid nonsensical calls to stop building roads and to all return to growing our own food. Meanwhile, spare a moment for those in Zimbabwe - they are about to have a sham election, terrorised into voting Zanu-PF, whilst the beloved ANC run South Africa appeases the blood dripping despot at its gates. South Africa can now join the ranks of China for providing succuour to murderous dictators - but don't expect those who rightfully campaigned against apartheid to campaign against the ANC, you see black Africans murdering other black Africans isn't racist, so it doesn't quite get the left as upset as racist violence. South Africans murdering and attacking the refugees from Zimbabwe, refugees because of Mugabe's filthy violence loving mates in the ANC giving him a continued lifeline of money and fuel - it makes me wonder how much longer African regimes can continue to give cover for this vile dictatorship.

*

Oh and I haven't forgot Camp 22. Others have. Amnesty International prefers to focus on Guantanamo Bay, and almost ignores North Korea. You might ask them why, you might ask why the Green Party campaigns about China and Burma, but ignores the far far more murderous and repulsive North Korea. Ignorance is hardly an excuse. So think that this morning when you woke up, tens of thousands of North Koreans were woken at dawn, in prison, men, women and children - to work till dusk, non stop, receiving starvation food rations, being physically and sexually abused. Those women with Chinese fathers having compulsory abortions, as part of North Korea's own eugenics programme against "contamination".

*

and if you think I'm exagerrating, read this book and this book and ask yourself whether these prison camps for entire families would still exist if the world united behind a message of abolishing them? Ask yourself why children should be allowed to live in this Orwellian nightmare? Ask yourself why more get agitated about whether you recycle, drive to work or fly on holiday, than the daily murder, torture and hell so many North Koreans go through in gulags - it will tell you what value many put on human life compared to the cult of ecology.

So be grateful for those who fought for our freedom, be grateful for where you are not, and it will give you some perspective.

Ireland offers chance to look at future of EU

The resounding "No" vote for the Lisbon Treaty in the Republic of Ireland is bringing out the very worst in what so many Europeans loathe about the European Union - the complete contempt that those running it have for their opinions.

*

Reports of the likes of Gordon Brown, Sarkozy and the EU Commission president all saying that"ratification" will continue, flies in the face of the fundamental point that without all 27 EU member states ratifying it, the Lisbon Treaty is not meant to proceed.

*

With the exception of Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, most of the EU political establishment is calling for things to continue as usual, as if Ireland is some small irrelevancy - exactly what so many Irish voters no doubt fear.

*

So what IS it that European voters fear? Much has been made of how Ireland has benefited from the EU. It has to some extent, on the one hand for some years Ireland received millions of Euro in subsidies for infrastructure projects as one of the "poor" countries of the 12 of the time, it also had a new open market for its products and services. However, it helped immensely that Ireland cut taxes, especially company tax, and sought to be business friendly. This was not an approach that some EU members (e.g. France, Belgium, Italy) have taken.

*

Irish voters may ask "why" the Lisbon treaty is important. Talk about it making the EU more efficient sounds rather peculiar. However more clear is the removal of the national veto for more issues, in other words evolving the EU from an association of 27 more or less equal member states to one of double majorities. It is very clear that Lisbon Treaty advocates have failed to sell the advantages, if any, of the Treaty.

*

Opposition to the Lisbon Treaty is sometimes seen to be opposition to the EU, opposition to globalisation by those on the left, and a resurgent old fashioned nationalism by those on the right. At the skindeep level I don't particularly mind this, but I embrace globalisation and find nationalism largely knuckle dragging.

*

I like the EU on one level. Let's not forget what it has done. In a generation, countries that were once at war shared open borders, within two generations former Soviet Republics were integrated into a customs union including Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus, Sweden and Germany. The prospect of war among EU member states is unthinkable, which considering the history of Europe is remarkable. A similar union in Latin America or Asia, is difficult to envisage, although Australia and New Zealand (and USA/Canada) could be in such a pairing, albeit both examples would be highly unbalanced.

*

The opening up of borders to trade, investment and movement of people among EU member states is unprecedented on any other continent. It is more liberal than CER between Australia and NZ, especially between Schengen countries. It has undoubtedly contributed to the growth in wealth, diversity and prosperity for member states. However, you could argue the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) which today still exists, incorporating Norway, Iceland and Switzerland (none of which are EU members), could have delivered this liberalism.

*

Beyond free trade an argument can be made for the EU harmonising some basic laws of business and creating a customs union. Common approaches to contract law, company law, conflicts of law, land law, personal property law and commercial law can make some sense. Mutual recognition of all sorts of basic licences like driving licences, vehicle roadworthiness and the like makes sense too. Finally, a customs union - so that the EU negotiates as a whole for trade access, also has great advantages. Whether something enters in Sofia, Shannon or Stockholm, it should move freely throughout the EU.

*

As a project for liberalisation of trade in goods and services, it has done wonders. It has forced member states to open up transport, telecommunications, broadcasting, energy and postal markets. However, the EU has become far more than this, it has sought to become another layer of government, bureaucracy and rule-making.

*

The ugliness of the Common Agricultural Policy is perhaps one of the most well known examples of this. The CAP sucks the biggest part of the EU's budget from net contributors such as Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, to prop up inefficient farmers in France, Finland, Belgium and the like, it also pays some farmers to not produce, it uses the customs union to ban imports of some commodities from some countries, impose quotas on others (like dairy products from NZ) and tariffs on yet others, then it subsidises inefficient farmers to dump their goods on world markets. On top of that it isn't ever fair across the EU, as the 12 newest member states only get subsidies at one-third the level of the others, so undoubtedly the most impoverish farmers in the EU, the Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Slovak and Baltic ones don't get anywhere near the support of France's inefficient farmers. This monstrosity in itself should give pause for thought about the EU, but it is only part of it.

*

The EU also treats all member state Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) as common EU ocean space for fishing, all very well if it weren't for the overfishing subsidised and protected by the EU - one reason why major fishing nations Norway and Iceland have resisted EU membership. It imposes a requirement for a MINIMUM level of fuel tax for all member states - tough if you don't want one. It pursues projects of absurdity, such as the horrendously expensive Galileo satellite navigation system, a competitor for GPS and Glonass (Russia's version), except GPS and Glonass are free for users. It is costing EU taxpayers 3.4 billion euros, but the EU doesn't really care - it just sucks the money from member states.

*

You see it is spending 116 billion Euro in the current (soon to be ended) financial year. Shared among 497 million people that is 233 Euro per man/woman and child. Yes, those in Bulgaria are unlikely to have contributed as much as those from Luxembourg, but you can see the cost per family of the EU - and that doesn't include the compliance costs of business, or the cost to taxpayers for their bureaucracies to service the EU.

*

You see the EU is a synthesis of liberalisation and collectivisation. It has at once been a project of opening up the economies of member states to each other, and at the same time somewhat closing them to the outside world, whilst building up a new top layer of government, over central and local (and provincial) governments. Socialists in Europe have seen the EU become a repositary for funding regional development, in the form of massive infrastructure projects, cultural projects and others that no libertarian would see as a fit reason for the EU. Some have sought the EU having powers to interfere with tax powers of member states, to avoid the inconvenience of competing with the likes of Slovakia, which has a flat rate of income tax.

*

This tension has built within in a kind of arrogance in Brussels, that it represents what people in 27 member states want (and after all its expansion surely shows how great the EU is, doesn't it?), it is what is GOOD for them, and the attitude so many politicians have had to the Irish vote is telling indeed. It has on the one hand the kind of big power dismissive attitude that Ireland is small and shouldn't hold up the "great project", the same attitude that those people would accuse of the USA. Since none of the other member states have been willing to hold referenda on the Lisbon Treaty, it speaks volumes of the fear the EU holds for them politically with the public.

*

So while the Euroskeptics who want to throw away the EU are wrong, so are the EU adventurers who see the project as being an ever greater integration - one which is wholly unnecessary and not advantageous to Europeans. The EU should be a project of liberalisation, open up economies and markets, and letting nation states compete freely, and look outwards. Member states should be free to shrink their governments as they wish, and cut taxes, and cut regulations as they see fit - not be required to regulate because Brussels says so. Some in the east believed this is what it was - a chance to be part of a market larger than the USA (and to be fair, some money to build infrastructure wracked by decades of Soviet imperialism). Some in the west, such as France, see it as a way of cauterising liberalisation by forcing all member states to operate according to similar rules.

So it is time to have a debate - an open and honest one. Not one characterised by the EU aristocracy sighing and bemoaning critics as being narrow minded nationalists or ignorant, but also not one of shouting and EU bashing, justified though some may be. It is one about the role of the state, and what that means for the EU members. It will challenge the conservative right and the statist left to think differently - it offers the EU the chance to have the dynamism of the USA, and set its people free to develop, grow and embrace. As the EU observes Russia grow on the back of oil, the Middle East and Asia grow as economic powerhouses in their own rights, and the USA, despite current setbacks, continuing to be the world's economic superpower for the next decade or so, it might wonder whether its people can hold their own, or whether it should tie itself up in more and more little knots, called for by special interests, who see their main job being seeking favours paid for by other Europeans. Let any dabbling with socialism be a national project, than an EU member state can engage in at its peril - not one that strangles so many countries that spent over 40 years fighting to be unshackled from statist control.