UN Carrying the EU’s Security Piss Bucket

But that doesn’t stop them from fooling themselves:

Western analysts take a dim view of UN forces: heavily reliant on Asian and African troops, they are low-tech and do not match visions of twenty-first century warriors.

Yet these are often the only forces available for trouble-spots like Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Darfur. And so they keep on being deployed. The UN's peacekeeping budget has reached $7 billion a year, two-fifths of it paid by EU members.

And the reasons for that are quite clear. Except for the long-term entanglements that France and the UK have taken up in Africa Only the smaller EU member states commit to anything significant outside of Europe. In Afghanistan, they’ve proved more than willing to see The US, Canadians, and Dutch take the hits, and will even make preposterous claims like this:

But the EU's support for the UN is not solely financial. The European Council has mandated a series of ESDP operations to work alongside the UN, ranging from emergency military interventions (such as 2003's Operation Artemis in the eastern Congo) to smaller-scale police training missions. Outside Europe, there is currently not one ESDP operation that is not co-deployed alongside some form of UN presence.

It's hard to imagine ESDP having got anything like as far as it has without the UN as a partner. The UN and EU are the Obelix and Asterix of international security: one handling big, slow missions while the other concentrates on smaller, flexible, operations.

Which is funny that they would be able to know WHO is Asterix and WHO is Obelix, because they are only planning a few things here and there, and as far as anyone can tell the ESDP predecessors, have only made a handful of observation and monitoring style deployments outside of EUFOR in the Balkans.

The article makes them sound like General Washington’s 1st Engineers reminiscing about all of those old campaigns. In reality, it’s a PR send-up to cover for the European yearning for a “peacy” image and have a military that a culturally suicidal pacifist can be proud of, but yet has so far been dependant on forces from Nigeria, Pakistan, India, Brazil, Fiji, and the like.

So ensuring that a European sits at the top of the UN peacekeeping pyramid is not enough. As the UN's leading donor, the EU needs to investigate how to ensure that UN missions get the high-end assets, like helicopters, that it needs in a place like Darfur.

France and Britain recently suggested creating a pool of helicopters for NATO and EU missions – it should be possible to do something similar for the UN, and at lower cost.

They go on to laud the EU as the UN’s leading doner. Hardly – the members are doing up the döners, and the US with 2/3 the population of the EU covers 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget versus 41% covered by the EU states, a sum equal to the “stingy” US by population. All the while these UN deployments in Africa are being depended upon to protect Fortress Europe from the flotsam and jetsam of other people’s conflicts. The US, on the other hand doesn’t derive any such direct benefit from either “Asterix” or “Obelix”.

This Will Hurt Me More than it will Hurt You, Dear...

Didn’t they think of the impact it will have on the collective European sex-life?

The Council of Europe wants to abolish spanking

After all, why would they want to tell these hard-working students how to make a living?

And They Loved their Cherished Victims to Death Too

A study looking at 20 years of data by Keith Marsden, advisor to the World Bank looked at the alleged “greater humanity” there is to be found in the simplistic view that big government can guarantee a safety net and a great society. In fact, the bigger and more socially interventionist a government is, the progressively more poorly it serves those in need.

My study, "Big, Not Better?" (Centre for Policy Studies, 2008), looks at the performance of 20 countries over the past two decades. The first 10 have slimmer governments with revenue and expenditure levels below 40% of GDP. This group includes Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hong Kong, Ireland, South Korea, Latvia, Singapore, the Slovak Republic and the U.S.

I compared their records to the 10 higher-taxed, bigger-government economies: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Both groups cover a representative range of large, medium and small economies measured by their gross national incomes. The average incomes per capita of the two groups are similar ($27,046 and $30,426 respectively in 2005).

Most governments have reduced their top tax rates and spending-to-GDP ratios over the last decade or so, according to data published by the OECD, IMF and World Bank. But slimmer governments have done so at a faster pace, and to significantly lower levels. Their highest tax rate on personal income fell to a group average of 30% in 2006 from 36% in 1996. Top corporate rates were lowered to an average of 22% from 30%. Their average ratio of total government outlays to GDP fell to 31.6% in 2007, from an average peak level during the previous two decades of 40.4%

Oddly enough, the left calls the eternal expansion of that form of failure “progressive”.

Slimmer-government countries also delivered more rapid social progress in some areas. They have, on average, higher annual employment growth rates (1.7% compared to 0.9% from 1995-2005). Their youth unemployment rates have been lower for both males and females since 2000. The discretionary income of households rose faster in the first group. This allowed their real consumption to increase by 4.1% annually from 2000-2005, up from 2.8% in 1990-2000. In the bigger-government group, the growth of household consumption has slowed to a 1.3% average annual rate, from 2.1% during the 1990-2000 period.

Faster economic growth in the first group also generated a more rapid increase in government revenue, despite (or rather, because of, supply-siders suggest) lower overall tax burdens.

Slimmer-government countries seem to have made better use of their smaller health resources. Total spending on health programs reached 9.5% of GDP in the bigger government group in 2004, 1.6 percentage points above the average in the slimmer-government group. Yet slimmer-government countries have raised their average life expectancy at birth at a faster pacer since 1990, reaching an average level of 78 years in 2005, just one year below the average for bigger spenders. Average life expectancy is now 80 years in Singapore, although government and private health programs combined cost only 3.7% of its GDP.

Finally, spending by bigger governments on social benefits (such as unemployment and disability benefits, housing allowances and state pensions) was higher (20.3% of GDP in 2006) than that of slimmer governments (9.6%). But these transfers do not appear to have resulted in greater equality in the distribution of income. The Gini index measuring income distribution is similar for both groups.

The irony of the left’s world view is that the model required taxing the poor rather heavily, and the actual handouts amount to sums of very little value when you consider all of the was the framework itself scares the very people who would employ and provide affordable services to the lowest earners off of their shores.

Same Thing, Really

It looks like they really miss the good old days... Of heroic, monumental sculptures of Lenin, the lone Red Army soldier, and the Collective Farmer...

Constructing a Plain of Chaos

Writing in The American Thinker, Soren Kern reflects on Ireland’s Lisbon Treaty vote and the motives behind EUvium in general:

One of the main objectives of the virtually unreadable treaty is to turn the EU into a "global geopolitical actor" that can counterbalance the United States on the world stage. To achieve this, European elites say the EU needs to speak with "one voice" in international affairs. In this context, the new treaty is designed to create the job position of (an unelected) European president as well as a powerful European foreign minister. It would also establish a European diplomatic corps with European embassies and a European army.

As many observers of European politics know, democracy does not come easy on a continent where European elites view themselves as an aristocracy entitled to rule over the ignorant masses. Indeed, the entire European social welfare state has been built upon the unspoken quid pro quo of "bread and circuses" (ie, the cradle-to-grave nanny state) for the general populace, in exchange for their loyal submission to the political and intellectual classes.

It’s not that they shouldn’t be a super-state, it’s that they aren’t by any means prepared or disposed to the meaning and responsibilities of it. Case in point is the very forced looking nature of all of the stage-managed “historic steps,” conferences, and such, each named in a near Soviet manner for one city or another as if the continent were already a coherent realm or huge metropolitan plain. It isn’t – the EU’s disposition is akin to a thousand unexploded bomblets of unwanted public opinion about the overly complex, indirect, and bureaucratic to the point of always seeming to be hiding something.

Thus it should come as no big surprise that the word ‘No' does not exist in the European political lexicon. After voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution (of which the Lisbon Treaty is an almost exact replica) in 2005, European elites famously advised the miscreants to keep voting until they come up with the right answer.\

I take these rejections for what they are: rather than fearful rejection people wanting clear rights and transparency.

We’re Still Teaching the Dorks Something after 219 Years

The EU doesn’t seem to have the population believing that there is a need for separation of powers, or limits to centralized power. Must be an old instinct of theirs’, but the Irish, Dutch, and French “Nyet” votes all shared one message: everything that way too X, Y, or Z about the notion of the EU has to do with the loss of control over too many features of their daily lives, and displayed a sort of disproportionality in what powers really need to be über-national.

Limiting the scope of Brussels’ power, i.e. Justice, Defense, International Policy, Borders, interstate trade, money supply..., and an absolute separation of those supernational functions from those of the states are the basis around which people can develop a sense of trust for the European project. But the very idea of something that simple and elegant – a kind of Confederation seems impossible for them to accept. It could be a kind of closeted megalomania that can’t understand why EVERTHING isn’t standardized and centralized, it could be that the imbalance in the size of populations of the members states makes it uninviting, or it just could seem too “new world”.

Rightly, the majorities in these referenda did not appear to trust in the integrity of those to whom their sovereignty was to be evolved up to. I wouldn’t trust them either.

Take it away, Nosemonkey.

That old bogeyman of “the United States of Europe” is still all too often based on a misunderstanding. Working together but independent, independent but united is not an impossible dream - it has been done before. The flaw of the European project has always been in attempting to create - artificially and on too short a timescale - something that in America evolved more organically. And not just in America - almost all countries with a history of more than a couple of hundred years were once divided,

France Reluctant to Expose Themselves in Southern Afghanistan

Exerpt: 16-JUN-2008 - By Adrien Jaulmes, Le Figaro’s special correspondent in Kabul

Three days after the daring attack on the prison in Kandahar by the Taliban, which released last Friday over 1 000 prisoners, 400 of them, Afghan units stationed in the Kabul area were put on alert. They should be transported by air to Kandahar, to reinforce the Afghan troops and contingents from NATO that give hunting escaped in provinces near open rebellion against the central government.

Some of these battalions, or Kandaks, are supervised by French detachments. Called OMLTs (acronym for Operational Mentoring & Liaison Teams), these detachments provide advise, tactics, logistical support, and liaison, particularly with the air support of the coalition. They participate in operations conducted by the Afghan army against the Taliban. Last April, the French as OMLT stakeholders launched an operation against insurgents in the Alasay valley in the province of Kapissa, north-east of Kabul.

Yesterday, the 1st Kandak, the 201st Corps of the Afghan army was deployed without notice to Kandahar. His OMLT, composed of some fifty officers and NCOs of the Foreign Legion, should logically be deployed with the unit in Afghanistan that it supports.

But this sudden departure takes Paris court. While some logistical issues remain unresolved, especially on armored vehicles, which must be transported by road, the hesitation is mainly political. Deploying the French Kandahar OMLT means joining one of the most deadly theater of conflict which is one that looks increasingly to a stalemate without a foreseeable end.

The french commitment in Afghanistan has long been considered somewhat ambiguous by some allies of NATO. Present in the Kabul area since 2002, the French battalion has always remained confined in a relatively clear mission: to ensure the safety of the capital and its environs, [in order] to enable the Afghan government to gradually take up control of the country.

The European World View Finds another Enemy

Populist movements are a threat not because they raise the issue of direct democracy, but because they advocate nationalist mobilisation based on xenophobia, writes Antony Todorov. Given the failure of the leftist projects of the twentieth century, it is telling that far-right populism is more anti-democratic in the new democracies of central and eastern Europe than in western Europe. Is populism identical to the crisis of democracy or rather a symptom of it?

It’s a specious argument that assumes that people left uncrushed will show themselves to be nothing but wife-beaters, racists, and chainsaw-wielding embarrassments to them in diplomatic dinner parties while chatting with the Burmese, Zimbabwean, or Venezuelan 3rd Secretary.

That enemy is “direct democracy” which is code for “actually paying attention to the public.” Couched in a miasma of people discrediting each other with the broad-brush of populism and anti-populism, it’s been reduced to this in the zeitgeist: they are so far gone and simplistic, that democracy itself has become a left-right issue with the left, after all this time trying to conceal (or at least obscure) it’s proclivities for central planning and control.

Above all, populism is defined as a strategy that gives priority to the need for direct contact between the elite and the people, without the mediation of institutions. This implies that populist strategies question one of the main characteristics of modern democracy, or at least of modern democracy as defined by Tocqueville. Tocqueville speaks of the "intermediary bodies" (the aristocracy in Europe, political associations in America) that serve as a mediator between the citizens and the government, ultimately keeping the power of the executive within acceptable limits and preventing it from becoming tyrannical.

This school of thought seemes to prefer the unelected corporate-shakedown, bribe and donation-driven entities in the form of NGOs and lobbyists, over the actual institutional pillars of democracy: in the case of the US, that’s the Supreme Court and the Legislature.

Sorry, but they have NOT come a long way, Baby...

More interesting yet, is that the article referenced came before the Irish No vote on the Lisbon Treaty, because it supports the view that entertained later by the yak-arati about the Irish being some kind of simple yet charming cave dwelling people. In fact a personal inventory needs to be taken by that same humorless class of critics, because what they were after was the same sort of popular mandate that the likes of those Todorov cites argue against for what seems like no reason other than the kind of yearning for politesse.

Putting the Government Into America's Living Rooms (and Bedrooms and Bathrooms and Toilets and…)

(Thank ya, Val)

A Hard to Note Omission

So just who was it who committed torture? AP wants you to play Where’s Waldo? Elsewhere EUROSOC notes that extra special laziness that j-school types call “reflection”.

We know times are hard at the Independent, but we didn't think they'd be passing off month-old blog postings as front page stories.
Today's Indie boasts an interview with singer Tom Waits, conducted by Waits himself. It's very entertaining; Waits is always good value. Except that this interview has been on Tom Waits' own website since May 20.

They’re Generally Toasted by Lunchtime

Funny, doesn’t poaching them release heat into the atmosphere?

Football: France Vs. Italy

Yesterday, France's national soccer team fought Italy's football champions.

The Tao of Lefty

Mr Obama’s approach will be popular in Europe

No shit, Sherlock.

Wow, man. You’re so Progressive

When not beating dead horses, "radicalism" means nothing, if not kicking the dead in the nuts.

Elsewhere: the New York Crank channels my ex-girlfriend.

The Same Answer to Everything

Even with potential for starvation in the third world, they parrot the same old lame fake terroirism that props up “state champion” industries.

France has launched a political campaign to restore food protectionism at the heart of Europe’s agriculture policy as food riots erupt in poor countries and global leaders give warning of the dire consequences of soaring grain prices.

At a high-level EU agriculture meeting in Luxembourg, Michel Barnier, the French Agriculture Minister, called on Europe to establish a food security plan and to resist further cuts in Europe’s agriculture budget.

Mr Barnier said that the EU should not bow to pressure from the World Trade Organisation to reduce further its agricultural subsidies but instead should increase aid to farmers in developing countries.

I don’t know how someone could say that with a straight face.

Diplomatic sources in Brussels said that the Commission believed higher food prices would stimulate farming output.

“Our policy is to liberate production,” said one Commission source.

So liberate it, already! Stop trying to set prices. The only way you’d ever be prompted to say something like that in the face of high world market prices is if you were engaging in de-facto controlling of output, subsidies and prices in a fashion reminiscent of the soviets.

Elsewhere “standards” are invoked to keep trying to tax the likes of Apple, Google, and Microsoft (but not SAP, SAGE, Dassault Systems, or Business Objects) honest from competing on their patch.

The crime in there eyes is, of course, not enough creativity in couching your trade barriers from view.

Priorities Established

If the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers were a Junta, what country would they be running?

In a move that has left many Netherlanders wondering what the government is smoking, coffee shops are being lumped together with restaurants, bars and cafes, which are being forced to lose the ashtrays. Ironically, customers will still be able to buy hash or pot, roll it and smoke it at more than 700 approved shops. But starting the first of next month, those joints must contain pure marijuana only. People wishing to mix tobacco in, as is the continental custom, must go outside.

And to think that they won’t even respect what’s left of their cultural traditions.

They paved the terroir, and put up a parking lot.

InBev: All You Brewskis are Belong to Us

Belgican über-corporate brewer InBev tried to buy out Budweiser. Bud teases them for a while. Budweiser then tries to make itself into a poison pill by bidding on Mexican brewer Modelo. A mega-corp from a continent that has anti-corporatism as a universal home truth gets the kind of $70/share Dirty Sanchez they take such delight in seeing their big corporate behemoths give to any foreign entity, so long as any feature of that country’s culture wouldn’t make it on the cover of National Geographic. In other words “fashionably poor” and immediately recognizable as pitiable wogs of one kind or another.

Since Le Monde cartoonists and various other overgrown adolescents on the people-powered anti-corporate continent take such great joy in their own monopolistic instincts “taking over” American assets, I though this would be a good time to wish them: have a nice day!

Forever Young Adolescent

Middle aged Euro-men should stick to cow tipping, don’t you think?

Plantu Prefers Terrorists

Caption: Ongoing torture at Guantanamo

Detainee being forced to watch President Bush on TV: Stop! I can’t take it anymore!

His “Americans”, stunned: “Oh! It looks like he only has a few months left”

With the usual arrogance, he wants to believe that Americans don’t know when the President’s term ends, and that his presidency it is entirely bound-up with “Le Gitmo” of Plantu’s wet dreams. In reality, they’re having a hard time getting rid of these detainees. The European citizens among them are not wanted, and the US is unwilling to release most of the remainder because they would go to states that actually torture prisoners, and do it indiscriminately.

Finally, One of Them Who Will Look You in the Eye

And actually put your change in your hand instead of dropping it on the grocery bagging trough. Meet one supermarket cashier with an actual work ethic, who “tells all” in a society where the customers of common, daily goods are such that customer service is generally pointless and thankless.

But there is precious little return for these efforts. Many customers treat la caissière as though she was not there, staring past her and failing to say hello back, according to Mrs Sam. When they do speak, it is often with condescension or anger. “It's not a majority who are impolite but it's not far off,” Mrs Sam said. “They are often very vulgar. They are fed up with being there and they take it out on us.” Insults fly as staff refuse people with 11 items at the ten-items-or-less checkout.

Then there are the mothers who point at the checkout worker and say to their child: “You see, darling, if you don't work hard at school, you'll become a caissière like the lady.” Mrs Sam tells them that she had five years of university education.

I know you’ve probably heard the gripe about Americans having as one of their interminable list of flaws the terrible sine of “being too friendly”. Try asking Mrs. Sam if that’s such a bad thing.

Oh, and she blogs too. Give it up for your hard-working cashiers, folks!