Readers of this site must surely know by now that I am definitively partisan in my views and opinions. I certainly make no pretence of my leaning. I thought now, virtually a year since I started writing for Commentary, I would tell you just how I became a curmudgeonly old fart in my twenties.

Put simply, it was Karl Marx’s fault. Being a young and impressionable little undergrad political sciences student I was being introduced to all the major political philosophers who matter, from Hobbes, Hegel and Locke to Marx, Mao and Plato. When you’re actually interested by these authors, it makes for great influence upon your own political scruples. But it was Marx who held the most allure above and beyond the rest. Full of wonderful imagery, logical argumentation which I could truly understand together with the ever-so tempting carrot of future utopian life, free of material need or want. Of course I never really expected a Marxist happy land to ever be actualised, but I admired the idea of it all, and thus considered myself an outspoken advocate of Communism. I figured Communist powers around the world should be given credit for at least trying to change our reality drastically enough to actually make a difference.

So for two years I listened teary-eyed to the many comrades who came to UKZN for guest lectures, listened to what the ANC cadres espoused and admired the unity. But then I came into my third year at university, and I woke the hell up. It was ironically those selfsame comrades combined with the introduction of fresher, more-appealing notions of grandiosity from liberal thinkers such as Fukuyama which led me to realise just how foolish I was to think in such absolutist, impossibly ideal, terms. When you realise the comrades are really spouting their trash just to get credit with the ANCYL branch in order to have a nice comfy position waiting after graduation, when you read about the devastation that the scourge of Communism had wrought upon this world, the silky sheen of it all is muddied somewhat.

I learnt two important things from being an ardent Communist for a year and half (aside from me being a total idiot!) First and foremost is that popular thought in such heavily-laden terms as global revolution, emancipation and fighting the bourgeois overlords is dangerous in that it leads to an extremely obstinate view on any opposing doctrine. I had realised, and still adhere to this day, that solid unwavering conviction in a set principle, specifically where politics is involved, is foolish at best. Adopting a more agnostic approach to it all, in that continuous questioning, scrutiny and- ultimately- cynicism often leads to a much purer line of thought. Being open to new and conflicting ideas, while still not adopting them wholeheartedly can quickly refine the extremely rough political stances many adopt. Secondly, conservative schools of thought, while miserable in their outlook, provide a far more solid intellectual and ideological basis upon which pragmatic, real changes could be slowly constructed. Small changes are possible, but the grand overarching predictions of Marx are about as useful in the real world as an udder on a bull. I still admire Marx for his courage to extend such a unique line of thought, but I keep my enthusiasm tightly concealed, where it belongs.

So I went first from being a Communist, to a sort of new-age right-wing liberal (perhaps? I was young!) to something resembling a libertarian, to a conservative. I had gradually thrown away the idealist asshattery that is non-realist thought and slowly became increasingly more cynical, frank and realistic in my expectations of the movement of people, politics and ideas. I have come to believe that, rather than assuming the best of people, I can make a lot more ideological headway if I assume everyone will act like total shitbags. This is why I am so hawkish, so damnably indifferent to the incompetence of George Bush and so condemning of islamofascist tyrannies; I don’t see war as the most evil thing to exist (much like Mill), nor do I uphold Western leaders to absurdly high double-standards while gleefully abandoning all reasonable suspicion of her enemies.

It boils down, in my opinion, to one’s own historical and political awareness, combined with an individual and inherently personal reaction thereof. For example, I’m aware of the evils of the USA, of democratic expansion, of the perils of economic interests. But likewise I am aware of the almost near-animalistic brutality and backward behaviour of many of America’s detractors. Do I condone Iran’s horrendous human rights record and nuclear ambitions simply because the one power capable of combating that evil is America? Should the world have let Saddam Hussein continue to reign terror upon his people unfettered, while France and friends undermine international sanctions, just because America wasn’t just invading because of a moral imperative? I believe not. Because whether or not you hate George Bush, his policies and the failings of the intelligence agencies, Saddam Hussein no longer terrifies Iraq and there now exists, after 5 years of war, a very real and tangible potential for a peaceful future. Of course America is in it for their own interests, but I also now have the realistic understanding that America is this world’s best chance for stability. Not world peace, never that. But the West is this world’s best shot at the future. It’s often as simple as that (although there are always many more issues at stake.) Any half-intelligent citizen of the west is aware of the uncomfortable truth that, no matter how much you despise the USA and their double-standards, their double-standards have the potential to move this world forward. I often get the impression that those timid souls who would make excuses for the likes of Iraq and Iran would prefer a world without America, where we are ruled by either the Soviets or Caliphate. How wonderful that would be! Blind patriotism is dangerous, to be sure, but so too is blind prejudice against the one country that, given its position of power in the world, could be ever so much more malevolent.

But I digress! The point of this long ramble is to ultimately soothe those who would call me a mindless bush-loving America-drone. Just because I don’t share your blind hatred for the world’s single-most historically benevolent superpower doesn’t mean I’m unaware of their evils. I just wish you’d do likewise for those tyrants and dictators who you would seek the best intentions from. I admire your sentiment, but I can never, after being there myself, condone it. It’s nice to expect the very best of everyone, but in reality you’ll only end up disappointed. To quote Thomas Sowell: “Liberals seem to assume that, if you don’t believe in their particular political solutions, then you don’t really care about the people that they claim to want to help.” I do care. I’m just not as vapidly unrealistic about it as you.

Given that the entire world’s leaders have foolishly decided to criticise your magnificent election, I shall take it upon myself to congratulate you on a job well done! Goodness knows nobody else will be calling you (assuming the phone lines still work?) with warm wishes.

It has been a hard and tough-fought campaign. The opposition ran a crooked and evil competition, but ultimately the will of the people was truly reflected in your absolutely overwhelming victory at the polls. The people have spoken! They want you! Again…

… you might have run unopposed, but that’s a minor formality in the face of your glorious triumph, placing you at the pinnacle of democratic expression. Those whiner-babies at the MDC could not put a dent in your old-school, down-to-earth style and sheer charisma. Allegations of mass-murder, rape and general tomfoolery by your hired goons are rightfully dismissed as simple diversionary tactics by the opposition.

I can sympathise with your struggle. It’s not easy running a country that has been driven to the dirt by those no good white devils, intent on pillaging our wonderful state with their irrigation techniques, foreign aid infused with genetically-modified poisons and their foreign-inspired notions of ‘good governance’. No, your complete victory at the polls is because of your exemplary leadership, your refusal to allow any manner of foolishness into your economic policies, your stellar adoption of agrarian reform and your fair and just attitude towards democracy would be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, if that award itself weren’t tainted with the hands of Europeans.

So on this, your magnificent democratic triumph I congratulate you. May you reign long, may the people ever enjoy the warmth of your pragmatism and may democracy never die in your fantastically-liberated country. I hope your example truly serves as a beacon for other African leaders who rely on archaic methods of governance handed down to them by their colonial masters.

Hugs, Kisses and a .50 BMG Between the Eyes
John

The next G8 summit shall be taking place in the same prefecture as me in just a few days, and the folks of Hokkaido are fully embracing the ‘ECO CHALLENGE!‘ encouraged by various state and private entities through a variety of mediums. Indeed, by trading in those ring-pulls and bottle caps you can offset carbon emissions and the horrendous waste of disposable chopsticks! Likewise, the police are searching anyone even slightly resembling a foreigner. And just as predictably, the local foreigner population are getting into a frothy liberal rage about it all.

From denouncing the ‘fascists’ to organising drunken left-wing parades through airports to basically stir crap, I have become increasingly embarrassed to be associated with these hooting gibbons. Nonetheless, because I’m so impartial in my opinions (that’s sarcasm for the slow-witted), I did briefly think about the whole affair. Are the Japanese police really being overboard automatons of ‘the man’ in the run-up to the summit, stomping on our civil rights and acting like they own the place? Or are they simply ratcheting up security for a meeting of the world’s most important - and often hated - leaders?

To be certain, it’s inconvenient being questioned, however politely, about your destination, origin, occupation, age, last bowel movement and so on. It seems pointless and makes an extremely bad impression upon those foreigners living, visiting and passing through Japan. On return from Cambodia I had my pack completely emptied and searched extensively, while the policeman asked where, why and how I went about my holiday. He was incredibly polite, and once I showed him my foreigner’s card he seemed to relax completely, but my heart did skip when they found the malaria pills. It took about 30 minutes, but in the end, by simply being as polite back to them (despite being freaking tired from backpacking across Asia I might add), patient and compliant, I was able to move on afterwards. They even showed me where the train station was. So yes! It’s inconvenient, and when you’re not planning to kill George Bush it’s a pain in the ass. But this kind of extra security targeted against foreigners should only be worrisome to those who really have something to hide.

I have concluded that it’s more indicative of the blind hypocrisy of the far left in that, should something happen, like a bomb blast, assassination attempt or somesuch equivalent disaster, they would be the first to wail about the incompetent security management, the lack of foresight, the flawed policies of the Diet and so on. Personally I would far rather face a plain clothes policeman asking for my ID and reasons for being where I am than witness the death of a president (unless it was Mugabe. That’s ok!) Clearly I am in the minority in my prefecture when it comes to this viewpoint. If the G8 proceeds without a hitch, aside from the hordes of anti-globalisation idiots who flock to these things like lemmings to a cliff, there will still be a flurry of protests on my Hokkaido mailing list on how ‘unnecessary’ the extra security was. As if the extra deterrence had no empirical effect on lessened crime. With the left, it seems, even when you win, you lose.

When the police tazer you in the face for no good reason, when they arrest you and detain you until the summit is finished, when they stop asking questions politely and start wailing on your head with a truncheon, then you can get indignant and start whirling those poi balls and drum circles in protest. Until then, shut the hell up! You’re clogging my inbox with your inanities.

It did not come as a surprise, yesterday, to hear that Morgan Tsvangirai had decided at last to withdraw from Zimbabwe’s fatally flawed presidential run-off election. Only a fool or a masochist would have continued in the face of such brutal violence when the pre-defined outcome was already so heart-breakingly obvious; and Tsvangirai is neither. His decision was made for the sake of his people and it was the right one. I honestly can’t fault him for it.

In the past few weeks alone, over 86 MDC supporters have been murdered and hundreds more have been savagely beaten and tortured by ZANU-PF’s thugs. The injuries sustained by many of the survivors are horrific, evidence of an evil barbarity that would scarcely be believable were it not for the mute testimony of gaping wounds on the dead and the dying across Zimbabwe. Only a week ago, Dadirai Chipiro was caught at her house by three ZANU-PF men looking for her husband, an MDC councillor. They held her down and chopped off one of her hands and both her feet, so that she would be unable to run, and used a petrol bomb to burn her alive inside her home. Words are insufficient tools to describe the depravity of men who could do that to an innocent woman.

The final straw came yesterday morning, when an MDC rally in Harare was attacked by dozens of ZANU-PF militia who proceeded (in full view of assenting policemen) to attack the assembled MDC supporters with such vicious abandon that a party MP now lies in the ICU fighting for his life. It was these conditions that Tsvangirai faced, and which convinced him that even the simple act of voting would be impossible. In fact, he is so uncertain of his own personal safety that he spent last night under the protection of the Dutch embassy.

Whatever happens next, Zimbabwe is going to experience many more dark days of violence in the coming weeks and months. This decision may result in a brief respite, but the assault will not stop until Mugabe believes he has utterly destroyed the MDC and rendered it impotent as a political threat. After all, he has done this before. It was only two years after he took office in 1980 that Mugabe deployed the North Korean-trained and equipped Fifth Brigade into the rural Matabeleland strongholds of ZAPU, the party of his rival Joshua Nkomo. Over several months the Brigade pillaged the countryside, executing and torturing thousands of innocent people in an orgy of violence not dissimilar to that facing Zimbabwe today. By the time Operation Gukurahundi (the rain that washes away the chaff) was finished, an estimated 20 000 Matabele civilians were dead. It was a crime against humanity, an action far worse than anything even Ian Smith’s regime had perpetrated. Yet the world turned a collective blind eye and let Mugabe get away with it

For the sake of Zimbabwe’s people, let’s do all we can to ensure he doesn’t get away with it this time. And whether you’re going to give to a charity, write in to a newspaper or take part in a protest march just do something. You do not want to realise, in five years’ time, that you did absolutely nothing to help those suffering in one of the greatest political and humanitarian disasters of our age.

How does one deal with Iran? Follow a dogged diplomatic track at the expense of any potential military option that might be available and risk having a nuclear-armed Iran at the end of it, or do you use military force as a bargaining tool with every intention to use it?

The Washington Institute’s featured article covers this thorny issue. At present, they wholeheartedly endorse a diplomatic approach, until the political and public perceptions of America change. When it comes to Iran, timing matters. Strike too early and the USA risks world support rallying around Iran, seen as the victim. Strike too late, and a nuclear-armed Iran becomes a much trickier target. One would effectively going to war against a nuclear power. Of course, strike early and there will be the inevitable and predictable outrage at America’s bullying of the world, disregard for due process and dotting the i’s, replete with shaggy-haired Berkley students dangling themselves from trees in protest of ‘the machine of war’. Timing is truly important when it comes to Iran.

That’s the part that interests me the most with regards to Iran. How long must one wait before military intervention becomes viable? When there’s a “smoking gun”, the option no longer becomes available at all? The dangers of waiting for a nuclear armed Iran are self-evident. Do you really want to wait for the silo’s to start steaming in pre-launch operations before the idea of military intervention becomes palatable to the public eye?

The timing is utterly dependent on the context, which the Institute stress quite vehemently. A military intervention has to be ’sold’ to public opinion just as much as any other war since modernity. A tough information campaign is one potential solution to this, as the authors noted. It’s crucial to smooth over the media bumps before the bombs drop, otherwise US credibility shall take a huge knock. Lessons which should seem self-evident after the Iraq War’s jus ad bellum. Put simply, an intervention has to be portrayed as a strike against the leadership, not the people.

And just where those bombs drop aren’t as obvious as one would imagine. There exists several strategic options for war planners should military intervention begin. Iran’s ports of export for their oil - some 80% of their annual revenue - are extremely limited and vulnerable. A strike to these would cripple Iran after their reserves run out, as well as presenting the real cost of nuclear proliferation and Ahmadinejad’s foreign policy to the people. It might very feasibly mean significant global economic consequences, but the Institute rightly highlight that this is not the greater of the two evils. If the price of a litre of petrol prevents the world from doing what’s necessary, than all pretense of moral superiority over these despots is lost.

So, in sum, military intervention in Iran shouldn’t be considered unfeasible at the expense of dealing with a nuclear-armed radical state. It is feasible if treated with some adequate strategic thought (certainly possible with the new military leadership in the USA.) Secondly, it would need to be marketed right. Sounds horrible, but to pretend that military action isn’t buffed to a shiny PR gleam would be irresponsible. Thirdly, the timing and context is everything. Too soon and the aggressors, be they the USA or Israel, are vilified. Too late, and attacking a nuclear-armed Iran becomes all the more dangerous. The strategic possibility of a strike is shown to be certainly feasible. What remains is the climate in which that intervention might be executed.

… lest someone still consider there to be any shred of political freedom in Zimbabwe, there truly isn’t. I sometimes get the impression that politicians and general public seem to evaluate each outrageous crime Mugabe commits as a kind of vindication that, yes, there is a tyrant at work. A sort of “See what he did there!?!” The truth of the matter has long ago been decided. Make no mistake, Zimbabwe is a dictatorship. The MDC is bravely battling onwards, despite these setbacks, but I highly doubt they’ll ever be allowed into office while Muggo still has a say about it.

I could say that this is a prime failure for our foreign affairs department, for our President, for the international community (excepting perhaps Britain) and for the AU, but we know this already. There is precious little about Zimbabwe nowadays that isn’t painfully obvious to see. This is a tyrant swiftly destroying his people in order to retain his grip on power.

Many call for more sanctions and embargoes, but these are ineffectual in a country that already has nothing. Laurence’s earlier article highlighting the justice of a military invasion is sound. According to virtually all the old-school conditions for a just military intervention, invading Zimbabwe fits the bill. I know the world dislikes military intervention to the point of idiocy, but come on. This is a cancer of a man that needs to be pulled out by force.

Nobody has the balls in government to do this of course. And the international community really has little or no incentive to do it themselves. They’ll just send some peace keepers later when civil war breaks out. SA is the only country that has the very real and present need to remove Mugabe from power. The benefits of such a course are self-evident.

Regardless, there should be absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind whatsoever that Zimbabwe is officially a dictatorship ruled by one insane little disease of a man. The daily news articles being published which shock readers about their actions shouldn’t act as a form of ‘proof of intent’ anymore. This is obvious. It should act more as testament to the grim legacy of Mugabe’s reign of terror.

This kind of puts the Oscar Pistorius debate in perspective. There are very few sports in which the only factors at play are “natural” ones:

It can take years to develop a new swimsuit material from scratch for competitive swimmers, but with just weeks to go before the Olympics, Japanese manufacturers are trying to do just that. They have been forced to try to come up with something after the Nottingham, UK-based firm Speedo developed a new bodysuit, LZR Racer, which has sent world records tumbling. The new suit has helped swimmers around the world break 30 world records in three months. It sucks the muscles into the perfect shape to swim. Lighter than others, it repels water, reducing drag. In Japan they fear it is unbeatable, and the Japanese firms contracted to supply the Olympic team make nothing like it.

Those poor disadvantaged Japanese. Throughout this article, I kept on wondering “if Speedo swimsuits are so great, why don’t the Japanese just use them?”

Some have already accused Speedo of beginning a “swimming arms race”. The company dominates this sport, so Japan and others who do not have a contract with the firm face a stark choice. Either they can innovate, or they can capitulate and let their swimmers leave their country’s own brands at home, and compete in British swimwear.

–
EDIT:

Common sense has prevailed, and the Japanese have decided to “capitulate” and suffer the ignominity of wearing another country’s swimsuits. Which makes about as much sense as saying that swimmers from other countries “capitulate” if they drive a Japanese car. Different countries have different comparative advantages; you would think the Japanese would remember this, since that’s how they became an economic superpower in the first palce.

Life in the corporate world is rough. Despite its unpleasantries though it hasn’t destroyed my belief that free enterprise in a lawful environment is still better at creating sustainable wealth than any grand central government engineered projects or thinking. If anything my belief’s been oddly reinforced, both because I’ve grown older and wiser and, more importantly, due to one of the limitations of people and human behaviour I’ve noticed.

I dislike insipid and vacuous attempts at ‘caring’ at the best of times, but it’s becoming depressingly apparent that the internet has resulted in a new breed of insincere sincerity: Facebook humanism. Believe it or not, this isn’t a piece on Facebook itself. So before you navigate away from here, let me explain this striking phenomenon with an example.

Ron Paul’s economic advisor, Don Luskin, has left to join the McCain campaign. I don’t know much about Luskin, except that Paul Krugman once accused him of stalking, and he seems to share Ron Paul’s gold bug tendencies, which makes me nervous. However, the merit of Luskin’s economic views is irrelevant here. What interests me is the reaction from Ron Paul supporters. There are currently 284 comments discussing the issue on Paul’s website, and almost all of them are apoplectic. A small sample:

“GOOD…He was def not part of the Revolution anyways!!!”

“HE’S A FLIP FLOPPER, A LIAR, A TRAITOR, A CHARLATAN, LIKE MCCAIN. BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLY TOGETHER.”

“You couldn’t write a script any better than this. It almost makes me want to laugh. Almost. Ron Paul all the way”

“Every revolution has its traitors, its Benedict Arnolds. This is ours. Better to get rid of dead weight early as possible.”

“On the Ballot or not, I am voting Dr. Paul in primary and in Nov. b.c. guys like this traitor have made me ashamed to call myself a Republican. Now they will pay by losing my VOTE……………FIGHT UNTIL THE END and NEVER QUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! F them all! I will not cave in and vote for anyone else NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!”

“Luskin is a fool and typical traitor who needs to be lined up with the rest and exicuted for treason”

I really don’t understand this mentality. You would assume that the spread of Paulite thinking to other Republican campaigns would be a good thing. Surely even the most ardent Ron Paul supporters have realised that Paul now has no chance of being elected president? (McCain’s likelihood of winning in November is a matter for debate, but suffice to say it’s substantially higher than Ron Paul’s.) They should be happy that someone from Ron Paul’s camp will be in a position where they might be able to influence policy. Instead they want to have him “exicuted for treason (sic)”.

This is symptomatic of a larger problem with libertarianism: libertarians have good ideas, but they often seem more interested in maintaining ideological purity than actually translating their ideas into public policy. This probably stems from frustration over the compromises that libertarians, as representatives of a minority position, must inevitably make when they get involved in politics. Why compromise when you can retreat into insular ideological movements, create libertarian parties, and set up Paulville gated communities.

This is a pity. Politics in liberal democracies is not a struggle in which you can achieve a final victory; a reality than Paulites, with their “revolution” rhetoric, seem to miss entirely. Democratic politics is a protracted series of small battles that allows for, at best, incremental progress towards a more desirable situation. Fighting these battles can be exhausting and demoralising, but it is also important and necessary. Everyone loses when libertarians walk off the battlefield.

64 years ago today the Allied forces began their invasion of Axis-controlled Europe; by running through the mine-laden beaches of Normandy in the face of heavy German fire. The events of that day are well-known to anyone with even a passing interest in history, but needless to say, the courage of those brave troops involved in finally taking the fight to Europe and making those first steps upon French soil should never be forgotten.

Perusing the Fin24 website for some fairly recent articles on property price forecasts reveals two partly amusing and somewhat sad statements:

Property near “bottom of cycle”

House prices in for soft landing

Who knows though, perhaps FNB and Standard Bank are right? I just find such comments hard to reconcile though against the most recent release from the latter on the property market. On the other hand I could actually grant the individuals who made the first two statements the grace of courage in spite of their errors, if only their identities weren’t obscured by the large institutions they work for.

Regular readers of Commentary will know that I make reference to Michael Yon a lot. This is not out of laziness on my part, or a reluctance to use other sources of information, but rather for the simple reason that he is able to provide the kind of sober perspective on the war that is difficult to find elsewhere. As a freelance writer and photographer, Yon has embedded himself in Iraq for several years now, following various commanders and grunt soldiers on the ground, from the fire team up to General Petraeus himself, he has seen it all. So it’s with no undue respect that I highly recommend anyone with even a passing interest in the war to read his new book, Moment of Truth in Iraq.

Speculation and controversy are wonderful ways for the press to sell papers. But contrary to popular opinion and populist chatter Tito Mboweni is not an idiot. It may be vogue to scorn the man, but all the rage aimed at him and the interest rate increases is grounded less in rational economics and more in emotion born of peoples own circumstance.

The sudden flurry of economic commentators on financial website comments sections and printed letter columns in particular highlight the middle class’ own version of this distress, much like the recent xenophobic riots did for the poor. It’s true too that some ills can be attributed to globalisation, other economies recklessness’, vested local interest groups actions and poor local leadership. Yet making these elements solely responsible wrongly absolves the better off of responsibility for their own financial affairs and part in this difficult time.

Michael Gerson is far from being my favourite conservative writer, but this article on South African foreign policy is succinct and accurate.

This has been a terrible week for economic news. Yesterday we found out that the South African economy is growing at a sluggish 2.1%. Today we found out that consumer inflation has reached 10.4%. Independently, slow growth and high inflation would be bad, but to have both at the same time is disastrous.

Some of this is due to factors we can’t control, like oil prices and global financial problems. Some of it is due to unforeseen (well, not really) factors, like power cuts. The biggest problem, however, is our macroeconomic policy. Until now, the government has grown the economy by stimulating consumer demand. It has used BEE to create a large black middle-class, regulated wages to keep them artificially high, cut income taxes, and kept interest rates low. This encouraged people to borrow and spend, which sent property prices soaring, and led to rapid growth in the retail sector and the car industry, among others.

Unfortunately, there’s a limit to what can be achieved with increased consumer spending. Eventually there either has to be a corresponding increase in production, or the economy will start to experience a yawning trade deficit and rising inflation. This is exactly what has happened in South Africa. It has been evident for several years that the free-and-easy strategy of high-debt, consumer-driven economic growth is no longer feasible. We’re increasingly seeing a situation where money going into the demand side of the economy creates virtually no stimulus at all, and is simply converted directly into inflation. Yet the government’s macroeconomic policies have hardly changed. The Reserve Bank has shifted its monetary strategy from demand-side stimulus to inflation-fighting; thankfully, we have not bought into Cosatu’s (and Robert Mugabe’s) suicidal idea that inflation doesn’t matter. Yet the government as a whole has been in disarray, unable to accept that the old strategy no longer works.

The only solution to this dilemma is to stimulate the supply side of the economy. Simply put, South Africa needs to produce more stuff. This in turn requires structural reforms to improve productivity, bring more people into the formal workforce, alleviate the skills shortage, create a better work ethic and harness technology more effectively. In principle this may seem uncontroversial, but in practice many of the constraints on supply-side growth were created by the government, and removing them will be politically unpalatable. Necessary reforms include lowering the tax burden on companies, removing the current regulatory red tape (including racial quotas), and ensuring that businesses have a reliable energy supply. Most importantly, it is necessary to remove the labour regulations that are good for the currently-employed, but have trapped vast numbers of workers in the informal sector. There is no excuse for getting this wrong: the Asian Tigers, Brazil, Turkey, China and India have already created a successful model for developing countries to emulate. We know what the right policies are; we just need the political will to implement them.

Alternatively, we could deal with the impending economic crisis the same way we’ve dealt with the energy crisis, rising xenophobia, and the political crisis in Zimbabwe: ignore the problem until it becomes catastrophic, and then adopt a series of belated half-measures.

Last week’s Economist included an interesting article on the new wave of thinking within diplomatic circles on the topic of forceful humanitarian intervention. With the disasters of difference machinations arising in Zimbabwe and Myanmar recently, the question has never been more pertinent.

The gist of the argument rests on the premise that, in special circumstance, forcing military and humanitarian assistance upon a state can be more important than that state’s own wishes. The classic case would be the Kosovo War, which was never sanctioned by the UN’s Security Council, but was carried out by NATO anyway, with great strategic success. The question, then, is whether states should be obligated to intervene in similar circumstances of dire humanitarian crises, like Genocide and Civil War, regardless of what that state’s own opinions are?

I’m slightly conflicted about this. The realist in me screams that violating a state’s authority by using the brute collective force of the UN is akin to schoolyard bullying. Hell it doesn’t even prescribe to the old-school methods of state sovereignty. I don’t think Hobbes ever envisioned an entire global military force impeding upon a single state. On the other hand, the idea is sound from a humanitarian perspective. Forcing horrid little Communist fiefdoms and dictatorships to be subjected to international intervention can create a lot of good in the world for obvious reasons. I don’t think anyone would agree that Zimbabwe would be better off without a UN presence.

But there are two major problems to this argument of prying open the closed doors of insular yet chaos-ridden states. Firstly, and perhaps less importantly, is the question of just where do we draw the line? The Iraq War was justified under similar criteria, yet was hardly a clear-cut case at the best of times. That’s not to say it wasn’t justifed. Saddam Hussein’s self-imposed genocide upon his own people should - in the right context - be cause enough for international intervention. Kosovo was a success story for NATO, and provides impetus for the case of intervention, while Iraq is perhaps pushing the line.

I believe the criteria can be identified by the UN, and that it should be recognised. I just have no idea on what few points those will be, knowing full well that the general assembly and SC will prune away any and all important factors demanding intervention.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the problem that that world just isn’t ready to walk the walk. For all the bleating about human rights and sanctity of life and law and such rosy and warm rhetoric, the international community and the UN is neither capable nor prepared in any moral or physical capacity to actually enforce the values they preach down upon other nations. It’s America and Britain, ironically, who are the only ones who actually act on some semblance of moral imperative while the rest of the world wails about the illegitimacy of their actions and the lack of due process.

The UN isn’t ready to take so much responsibility into their hands, nor do I think they will ever be. The international community is too weak-willed to put their money where their mouth is, and the best we can hope for is a quasi-benevolent unilateral interventionist state or states who will act on their behalf. A UN-mandated obligation to pro-actively countermand the sovereignty of states in times of dire crisis is a great sentiment, but will remain just that. Much, I believe, like most of the UN’s policies.