This week has had an interesting news cycle. From the recent nuclear announcement with Iran, Obama’s affordable care act issues, the long delayed attempt to remove 1500 radioactive rods from the Fukuhshima plant to the Chinese proclamation about air rights over the disputed Senkaku/Daiyou islands.
What I find most interesting about international events is how low the barrier to entry is when it comes to having an opinion about what is going on around the world. Anyone with a pulse make sweeping generalized statements while having little direct knowledge about the region in question. For the record I am not saying I am the expert but what many posit as fact should be more accurately defined as opinion. I would further hazard to say that many of these opinions are not only flawed but dangerously broken.
My father often told me to question another persons information source. Not in an aggressive manner but rather to determine where the so called facts were coming from. Once you get a grasp on someone’s knowledge base you can better interpret their conclusions. James Rickards is clearly a brilliant writer with extensive knowledge of gold and finances but his position towards the middle east is cloudy at best. Its not a snap decision on my part just simply connecting the dots from watching and reading what he says. So if he talks about finance or gold I am all ears, but when he discusses regional politics in the middle east especially Israel I choose to ignore much of what he says.
This goes to the heart of what I wanted to discuss. If you need an accountant or lawyer or even a doctor, you seek someone who is competent to take care of your needs. They provide a service and we hopefully benefit from their experience. Yet politics has no such barrier to entry. Everyone has an opinion about politics based on facts that are flawed in the best of times. Yet governmental policy is such a vitriolic issue that it often causes bitter feelings between the participants. Pointing out weak points seems to exacerbate the issue rather than clarify it. This is because people are wed to their beliefs and it often has little to do with the overriding mutually agreed upon facts of common ground.
Its a sad state of affairs.
So rather than try to poke holes in other people’s beliefs perhaps its best to ask questions about why they have come to those conclusions. In this way we can better understand each other.
Lets start with Iran shall we ?
So firstly we should agree that US foreign policy when it comes to Iran is sordid at best. The US government supported a counter-revolution and installed the Shah who had a pro US position. It was an extension of Kennan’s containment policy and in hindsight was quite effective in limiting soviet influence in the region. If someone doesn’t know these facts than their opinion on Iran has no value because they don’t understand the situation. Now that we agree that Iran is of vital interest to the US and that US foreign policy is geared towards keeping Iran within US influence it was only a question of time before events moved them towards detente.
You may not like this or support its undertaking but it has very little to do with the facts of the situation. The region is now in flux, but it has always been this way and it will continue to remain in this condition going forward. It is not a political zero sum game. The choice is NOT one of Israel or Iran, nor is it Saudi Arabia or Iran. It can be both. Yet many are making statements as if both is not a viable alternative. This is pure folly and is foolish to do so unless you conclude that the solution to the situation is to attack Iran because there is no other choice.
Since I don’t believe that anything positive can come about from attacking Iran the alternative which include negotiations are preferable. Maybe history will prove me wrong but if I have to choose between an Israeli airstrike or detente I choose the later. Finally since Israel has not signed the non proliferation treaty they are not in a position to dictate to anyone about the details of the treaty. Perhaps they should re-evaluate their position and sign the treaty ?
Healthcare is either a right or a privilege. How you answer that question will quite likely determine ones position on the issue. What I find amusing is the argument that somehow people of limited means shouldn’t have healthcare. Either you have it or you don’t. Its something everyone wants as well. The young and healthy perhaps don’t want it but they certainly need it if and when someone happens to them.
Currently the US system is broken. Americans pay more than other countries for health yet don’t have coverage for everyone. We can choose either to fix it or not.
Where was the outrage about healthcare from the right before Obama tried to pass the Affordable care act ? Where was the debate from the Tea Party when Bush passed the Medicare expansion program ? These are not fixing the problem they are only treating the symptoms. Why do liberals accept a less than adequate system of coverage ?
It certainly is a vexing issue, yet those who want the ACA to fail or want to go back to the good old days simply do not understand the problem. Follow the logic; Poor and working class people get sick, they don’t have healthcare so they delay seeing a doctor, eventually the problem gets worse so they go to the emergency room to get treatment, the bill is either picked up by the state or taxpayers anyway or is eaten by the hospital which in turn increases costs. You and I are paying for it anyway. Got it ?
You and I cannot escape from paying for other peoples care. Its really as simple as that. If you prefer a system where you don’t pay for other people I suggest you spend some time in urban India where poverty is so pervasive that people die on the streets because that is what we are going to get in the US with a no government coverage policy. Its the same flawed subjective thinking that concludes that all government is bad, yet we enjoy police, fire, road, passport and a variety of social services courtesy of our collective tax dollars.
Can government be smaller ? You bet it can, but lets cut fat not bone or muscle.
Its a broken system. There are no good old days, and hampering people’s access to healthcare makes the problem more expensive. MORE expensive not less. Yet we hear very little about solutions from either side. A pathetic situation self inflicted situation with both parties to blame which is bound to get worse.
Fukushima is a situation I have written about before that I prefer to not cover right now but there are problems with the cleanup that I will address at another time.
Last but certainly not least is the East China Sea. Warning this is more of a rant but clearly the current structure is not capable of handling the demands being put upon it. Chinese, Korean and Japanese politicians are addressing their collective domestic audiences without much regard to the region nor the consequences from conducting poor policies.
Some would suggest that this issue is about energy, yet if it were really about energy why aren’t the Japanese or any other power trying to tap into the area ? Perhaps there isn’t as much “energy” as is being claimed because if there were it would be tapped and flowing into the market by now. If it is Japanese as Mr Abe claims then go ahead and unilaterally begin mining it. Yet I see no action or discussion about doing so.
In my opinion the issue is not about energy it is about influence in the region. Energy is a strawman that everyone buys into because it appears to explain the problem. This is coming from someone who has been closely watching the region situation for a decade. You may disagree with my position but how much time have you spent on studying it and what is your information source. Pulling it out of your butt is not a viable argument either.
China has taken the next step in the escalation of words by proclaiming that the air space above the disputed area are now subject to Beijing’s rules. They have imposed a domestically legal aircraft registration system that will classify all aircraft as either legitimate or “registered” or illegal or “not registered”. The Japanese have objected yet they already have such a system in existence and use it to label Chinese entry as incursions.
Which side is right ? I can’ t say but looking at the region I would conclude that Japan might be better served by trying to work with the Chinese rather than against them on this issue. Its the same broken zero sum game mindset that belongs to a forgotten age or flawed mindset that views uninhabited islands as owned by far of regional powers. Where is the harm is collectively developing the area, registering both air recognition systems and working towards common goals ?
Its absent, but if I were going to put chips on the table I would most likely go with China. They are a rising power, soon to be the biggest market in the world and it would suit Japan’s future generations to seek common ground with such an empire rather than to squabble over crumbs. Yes that’s right, I just qualified the islands as crumbs. Compared to the domestic auto industry in China the energy from the area is a relatively small market. Yet the Japanese opt out of being a major part of that market by adhering to a broken foreign policy that gains very little at the expense of longer term benefits.
Sending in marines or threatening to do so does not improve the situation it simple pushes both sides towards escalation. If that is the goal then both parties are doing a fabulous job of it.