Opportunity to Topple Gaddafi is Passing Quickly

It appears my optimism for a coalition of Western and Arab nations to jointly enforce a Libya no-fly zone was premature.  France and England are strongly urging action before Gaddafi's airstrikes cripple rebel forces and the opportunity to assist Libyans with their revolution is lost.  The Arab League supports the no-fly zone and is requesting that the UN Security Council move swiftly.  So far, movement has been glacial and the Obama administration may be squandering a chance to help Libyans remove a terrorist from leadership of a strategic North African nation, with the approval of virtually the entire Middle East.

The hesitancy from the Obama administration stems from its desire to not act without support from China and Russia, both of which have expressed concern or overt opposition to intervention in Libya.  China in particular is wary of seeing another successful overthrow of an oppressive government, as China seeks to quell any similar uprisings from its own people.

Ultimately the Obama administration will have to choose whether to displease it biggest creditor, China, or the Arab League, an entity with which the President hopes to establish an alliance for diplomatic, strategic, and economic reasons.  Given America's precarious debt situation and China's ability to exploit that to our detriment, it will take an act of courage for the President to defy China's warnings and act to assist Libyan rebels before the window of opportunity closes and Gaddafi crushes the revolutionary spirit of Libyans.

If a Newly Freed Tree Falls in a Formerly Communist Forest and No One Hears it, Does it Still Make a Sound?

Media reports of good news are rare, but today's events in China deserve more attention than Anna Nicole Smith's drug prescriptions, which seem to have captivated the celebrity-obsessed media (I would write 'liberal media' but since Fox News dedicates as much air time and web space to Smith as any other news source, I must be fair and balanced).

In my March 8th post, "America and China Move Steadily in Opposite Directions," I wrote about the irony inherent in Communist China's consideration of legislation to protect private property rights, while America, courtesy of the Kelo V. New London City (CT) Supreme Court decision, is moving in the opposite direction. At the time that post was written, the private property protection legislation in China was undergoing debate and had not yet been voted on, though its creators expressed optimism that it would pass. Activists seeking reform in China frequently exude similar optimism but often meet with rejection of their ideas, and so it was with cautious hope last week that I wrote about their efforts in the area of personal property protection.

Those hopes were rewarded today with the report that China did in fact pass the proposed personal property protection legislation, in what should have been a story that trumped meaningless celebrity "news" stories in today's publications and network news programming. The importance of the newly passed protection law should become more evident as private investors and entrepreneurs flock to China, since their profits, infrastructures, and intellectual property will belong exclusively to them rather than shared or owned outright by the Chinese government. China has been moving steadily toward a true market-based economy, and the lack of the right of ownership was a significant obstacle to private investors wanting to create and profit from their businesses.

The Washington Post report of today's legislative achievement in China described the event, in part, as follows:

legal scholars said it broke ground by establishing new protections for private home and business owners and for farmers with long-term leases on their fields.

These goals had long been sought by the entrepreneurs who now account for more than half of China's production; the swiftly climbing number of urban families who have bought their own apartments; and the millions of farmers whose croplands are increasingly coveted by real estate developers.

"This law speeds up our market economy development," said Chen Shu, a member of the National People's Congress and secretary general of the Guangzhou Lawyer's Association, who participated in drafting the legislation over the last several years.

Jiang Ping, a scholar who advised officials drawing up the law, said it is significant because it helps codify a property law system that has been evolving through regulation in recent years as the country moves away from socialism.

The final sentence in the quotation from the article is truly stunning. There have been monumental ideological battles over the past 90 years between socialism and free market capitalism, and the sincere wish of all who came of age during the Cold War was not that America would be forced to defeat these ideologies through armed conflict (while rightly making certain we could do so if necessary) but rather through friendship, shared economic interest, and internal changes within socialist nations. While this process was slow and often disparaged in the media, it wrought social upheaval in the former Soviet Union and its satellite states.

We are, perhaps, witnessing giant steps toward freedom and economic prosperity in China, and such legislative changes should be publicly recognized, praised, and rewarded by American political and corporate leaders. Momentum is critical to any political or social reform, and China's momentum is currently carrying it in the right direction.

China's Communist Party attempted to minimize media coverage of the debate on this issue, apparently out of fear that additional protections would be demanded too quickly by the Chinese people. The Communist desire to move slowly and pull tightly on the reins predictably resulted in more attention and support for the cause of property rights. According to the Post:

To muffle critics, Communist party censors had barred China's media from covering the disagreements. Gong's petition was ordered off the Internet, for instance, and the Beijing-based magazine Cai Jin was forbidden to distribute last week's issue because it contained discussion of the controversy.

The resulting irony was that the Communist party, having silenced its most faithfully Communist members at home, forced them to turn to foreign journalists to air their views, which then bounced back on foreign-based websites. At his book-lined Beijing University office, Gong was busy through the week receiving foreign television crews and newspaper correspondents.

Once a people tastes the sweet nectar of limited government and economic independence, it will no longer accept anything less. China appears to have recognized this and while seeking to apply controls to the pace of implementation, is allowing economic reality to lead it into what optimists are sure will be a bright future.

America and China Move Steadily in Opposite Directions

America is becoming China, while China is becoming America. As one who came of age during the Cold War and was inspired by Ronald Reagan’s aggressive fight to roll back Communism, I read my opening statement with equal parts dismay and disgust. As I examined an article appearing in today’s online Washington Post, I was struck by the truly remarkable irony in the events the report described.

Maureen Fan’s article, “China Legislature Introduces Property Law” caught my eye as I scanned the Post, and my heart was filled with hope as I read the following excerpts from the article:

In preparation for likely approval, China's legislature on Thursday began examining a much-debated law that helps protect private property in an increasingly well-off society.

Though the Communist Party still believes the state owns all land, the growing economy has meant that private property "has been increasing with each passing day" and the protection of it is the "urgent demand of the people," the draft legislation states.

"As the reform and opening-up and the economy develop, people's living standards have improved in general, and they urgently require effective protection of their own lawful property accumulated through hard work," said Wang Zhaoguo, Deputy Chairman of the National People's Congress, in introducing the latest draft of the measure to the legislature.

Individuals shall own "their lawful incomes, houses, articles for daily use, means of production and raw materials," the legislation states. "Lawful deposits and investments of individual persons and the gains derived from their investments shall be protected by law." Illegally taking possession or destroying any such property is forbidden.

Of course, China has not renounced Communism or state ownership of land, but the significance of this legislation that appears headed for approval should not be underestimated. China’s government according individual ownership rights to personal property, financial accounts, investments, profits, and “means of production and raw materials” would be perhaps the most important move toward human rights it has made in recent memory. The Communist government appears to realize that its economy relies heavily on private investments, and keeping investors happy is critical, even if doing so requires loosening state control over personal property.

According to Fan’s research, it has taken Chinese activists 14 years to move the pending legislation to this point, but they are optimistic that economic reality will secure final approval. Economics wields a powerful influence over property rights policies, and governments tend to be at the mercy of those who create and maintain consistent revenue sources. If granting and protecting personal property rights appeases China’s growing wealthy entrepreneurial class, the Communist government may consider that as a small price to pay to maintain its hold on other aspects of Chinese governance.

It may take another 14 years, but the next step for China’s property rights advocates will focus on land ownership rights which, as America’s Founding Fathers understood, establish true freedom for individual citizens who could not be removed from their dwellings or livelihood by government. China’s property rights activists recognize that they have made great strides with the personal property legislation, but the fundamental right to the land itself is the ultimate goal:

“As long as the problem of land ownership is not solved, conflicts on unfair land seizure cannot be avoided. Since land is in the hand of the government, a developer can bribe an official and make the official claim that the land is seized for public use," said Liu Xiaobo, a leading political dissident and literary critic. "If the developer could get the approval from the official, he is legally entitled to seize the land."

Still, Liu said the legislation had benefits. "This is the first law in our country for property protection. The public can at least cite a specific law when their property rights are violated," he said.

Though China's Constitution states that "lawful private property is inviolable," farmers and even city dwellers are routinely forced from their homes when developers and local officials decide the property is more profitable as an apartment block, government building or major shopping mall.

As I read the quoted paragraphs above, my initial excitement at witnessing China moving, albeit slowly, in the direction of increasing individual property rights was dampened by the contrasting direction in which America is heading when it comes to this same issue of property rights. As China prepares to approve extended rights, America, the great champion of human rights and liberty, is experiencing a steady increase in seizures of privately owned land by local governments, only to see that same land given to developers who promise huge increases in tax revenue from profitable commercial developments or high density residential housing.

The concluding paragraph of Fan’s article, as quoted above, ironically described precisely what is currently occurring in China and America. The difference lies in the fact that China is moving slowly away from such land seizures, while America, compliments of the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London (CT), is moving steadily in the opposite direction.

In July 2005, popular radio and TV personality Larry Elder wrote a powerful commentary for World Net Daily in which he provides examples of eminent domain land seizures and how, despite nearly unanimous public opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the pace of seizures by local governments is increasing as they seek to secure a larger tax revenue base in their communities. Lest one think that these seizures only happen to owners of “blighted” or “deteriorating” properties, Elder included the example of the Gamble family in Norwood, OH, whose home for 35 years was anything but blighted:

I interviewed Joy and Carl Gamble on my nationally syndicated radio program:

Joy: Six months after we retired, we opened up the newspaper and found out this developer ... wants our neighborhood. We had a nice home and a lovely neighborhood ... we were not a slum. We were not a threat to the health and welfare of Norwood.

Larry: The City Council said your neighborhood is deteriorating and blighted.

Joy: "Deteriorating" is so broad. ... Everybody's home is deteriorating. And now by this ruling by the Supreme Court, we are all renters. Nobody owns their home. ... Matter of fact, we're worse than renters – we're serfs.

Larry: Higher tax base, more revenue for the city, so the heck with Joy and Carl Gamble.

Joy: That's correct, and we lost our home. ... We had to flee or be evicted.

Larry: Did they offer you fair market value?

Carl: Yes ... but we haven't touched the money.

Larry: You don't want the money. ... You weren't going down to Florida and retire. You want to stay in your home.

Carl: That's what we told them.

Larry: They're offering you twice, three times, what they first offered you, Joy, and you're not taking it?

Joy: It's not a question of money. It's our home ... money does not buy everything.

Yet money was the prevailing factor that led to the city’s seizure of the Gamble’s home. The city reportedly was seeking an annual $2 million tax revenue increase in order to balance the city’s budget.

The Gamble’s were evicted, moved to Kentucky, but continued their legal battle. In 2006 the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Gamble’s as co-plaintiffs, but it was too little too late to save their neighborhood, as reported by USA Today: the 3 plaintiffs’ houses were “the only houses left in what used to be a neighborhood of about 70 middle-class homes.” Residents in other states have lost similar battles. Remarkably, the ACLU, NAACP, and the AARP have all filed briefs on behalf of threatened land owners, yet the seizures nationwide continue at an ever increasing rate.

Government attempts to seize private land on behalf of private developers were already increasing prior to the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision. As Elder wrote:

Most Americans, no doubt, assume that this rarely happens. But according to the Institute for Justice, it occurs far more often than we think. From 1998 to 2002, government, at all levels, used eminent domain to acquire, or attempt to acquire, private property for private purposes on over 10,000 occasions.

As I reread Elder’s WND commentary, the contrasting influence of economics, positive in China and negative in America, was troubling. While Chinese activists struggle to acquire property rights America once held inviolable, America’s local governments are slapping long-time residents and even churches with eviction notices and eminent domain condemnation declarations. The city of Sand Springs, OK, set its sights on a local church that serves the local black community. The church building, only 7 years old and reportedly in good condition, stood in the way of a proposed commercial development anchored by a Home Depot. Churches are particularly endangered by eminent domain seizures because the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision established that economic improvement was sufficient justification. Churches are tax exempt and thus produce no revenue for cities. In the minds of many city councils, nearly any tax revenue producing enterprise would be of more value than a church.

Although I disagreed with many legal decisions made by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I applauded her dissent in the Kelo decision. She understood the incredible danger inherent in the court’s decision, and in her forceful dissent, warned Americans that:

The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. . . .

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

America and China appear to be passing each other on the property rights highway, heading in opposite directions, both motivated by the desire for money. Unless the trend in America is reversed, in coming years my Cold War generation may witness the advent of greater property rights in Communist China than in the “land of the free."

Ehud Barak: Fighting Terror Like Fighting Malaria: Kill Mosquitoes and Drain the Swamp

In a talk given to the World Leaders Lecture Forum hosted by the University of Utah yesterday, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak addressed serious Middle Eastern issues but also provided some entertaining one-liners and sound bites.

As reported in the Deseret Morning News, in describing Israel’s current posture in its dealings with Palestinians and neighboring terror sponsoring states, Barak bluntly remarked that:

Israel has one hand stretched out in peace and the other hand very close to the trigger. . . . That’s the only way to survive in the Middle East, where there is no mercy for the weak.

He later added this quippy gem:

The Mideast is not the Midwest. We would love to have the Canadians as our neighbors, but you got them.

Given Israel’s neighbors, Barak’s quip is understandable, but perhaps Canada is not quite as peaceful and benign as he implies. Canada’s radical Islamic population is increasing at a rapid pace, and anti-Americanism, along with a strong anti-Semitism, are thriving, particularly in Montreal-Quebec. Courtesy of IDF Israel, this is what Mr. Barak wishes for on his borders in exchange for what Israel currently faces:


This should provide some perspective if Barak would love to have such people as depicted in these photos as his neighbors. He considers the U.S. lucky to have Canada as a neighbor, and despite Canada’s covetous anti-Americanism, I suppose we are fortunate in our geographical location in the modern world. Of course we also have a neighbor to our south that hates us more than Canada . . . but I digress.

Barak made some interesting remarks about U.S. strategy in the war on terror, including our efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. According to Barak, the U.S. will need to compromise with China on human rights issues and Russia on self-determination for Chechnya to secure the cooperation of these nations in confronting Iran.

Human rights advocates will oppose such compromise, of course, and on the surface it is humbling to step back from previously stated demands made of China and Russia, but as I wrote about our strategy in Iraq in yesterday’s post, sometimes it is necessary to make unpleasant deals with unsavory characters or nations in order to achieve a more critical goal. We did so with Stalin in WWII, and it appears necessary now, as Russia and China are arming Iran and providing Ahmadinejad with the equipment to enrich uranium. Of course we are concerned with the human rights of the oppressed citizens of China, and we are similarly in favor of liberty and self-government for Chechnya, but neither of those issues currently imperils the existence of America and its allies. A nuclear Iran does. If we are intent on pursuing diplomatic pressure to convince Iran to change course, we must enlist Russia and China to intervene decisively in the interest of global security.

Mr. Barak seemed also to discount the importance of establishing a democracy in Iraq. According to Barak:

In the Middle East, the right to vote isn't the main issue. I'd prefer to look at the four freedoms outlined by President Franklin D. Roosevelt: expression, worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Americans would do better to insist on universal, mandatory education for women rather than the right to vote.

This statement raises important questions. In my post yesterday addressing the question of whether the Iraq War is really a mess, I called attention to several tactics we failed to utilize that would have helped secure the services and cooperation of local tribal leaders and the disbanded Iraqi army in suppressing the insurgency. I quoted author Robert Kaplan’s summary of a conversation he had with an Iraqi sheik as described in Imperial Grunts: On the Ground with the American Military, and Mr. Barak's speech yesterday confirmed much of what that sheik described to Kaplan as the root problem faced by the America military: democracy, or democratic elections, was merely an intangible result of the American overthrow of Saddam’s regime. The Iraqi people wanted (and are still hoping for) more tangible offerings to improve their physical situation, and Barak echoes this sentiment by identifying the four Roosevelt freedoms as issues of more importance than elections in securing allies for America in the Middle East.

Barak assigns minimal significance to the right to vote in comparison to education for women. At first glance this appears contradictory, in that education would seem useless without the right to vote and participate in decision making. However, Mr. Barak makes an important point that others in alternative media have discussed: reform of Islam will never occur unless Muslim women are permitted to receive education and training, and gradually exercise more influence on Islamic culture. Women tend to soften extremism and provide wise counsel in public discourse. Barak is no chauvinist here. Israeli women serve mandatory tours of duty in the Israeli Defense Force and the contribution of women is critical to Israeli strength in the field and perhaps more importantly on the home front.

Few people in the world have the depth of experience with and knowledge of Arab culture that Barak has acquired over a lifetime of military, intelligence, and political service, and it should be significant to U.S. strategic planners that a former Prime Minister of the original Middle Eastern democracy would urge America to place higher priority on humanitarian and security concerns than on democracy as the key tools for winning the War on Terror. Based on his assessment, it appears we have killed many “mosquitoes” in the War on Terror, and hopefully the troop surge will contribute more to “draining the swamp” by securing Iraqi cities so Iraqis can receive Roosevelt’s four freedoms.