2 May 2001.

 - WORLD -


The Israelis & the Palestinians are coming to terms with the new power structure of the Bush USA.  It appears that the Israelis can keep responding to Palestinian terrorism with force for as long as the Palestinians choose terrorism.

The Economist, 2 May 2001 is of the opinion:  In other words, Mr. Arafat probably feels greater pressure to pursue the uprising than to try to stop it.  After seeing their economy wrecked, some 400 of their compatriots killed and many more wounded, Palestinians are naturally reluctant to end their uprising with nothing to show for it.
SPIN believes that the Palestinians are rational, and that as the new reality becomes apparent the majority of Palestinians will force the minority of activists to cease terrorism before more of the gains made during the Clinton presidency are revoked.  After all, when terrorism produces a win, why not continue terrorism?  On the other hand, if terrorism produces loss, then perhaps it is time to desist.


China will take longer to come to terms.  The Chinese government is, by it's totalitarian nature, elitist.  Coming from the bottom to rule absolutely, the inclination is to believe that the qualities and abilities that oneself has are the next step in evolution.  Clinton knew that feeling, and easily identified with the Chinese leadership.

Bush is different.  The difference can be exemplified in their attitudes to government taxes.  Clinton believes that the US people should be taxed to pay for the cure of AIDS in Africa.  Bush believes that people should retain their money, and presumably give it charitably if they are so inclined.  The point is, it is their money, and, no matter how noble the cause, it is their decision where it falls.

Despite elitism, the Chinese leaders know that they must retain the "mandate of heaven".  This is how their culture expresses the confidence of the people.   Therefore they must deliver an increasing range of consumer goods to the people, and that requires communications technology, and communications technology has it's own dangers as outlined by Rupert Murdoch before he fell from favor (which he has since regained.)  SPIN estimates about a decade, unless another "incident" occurs.


The Australian economy continues to slide, and the fault lies with the new (GST) tax system.  At least, so think the IMF & the OECD.  Our weighty opposition leader salivates at the prospect of the funds flowing from the new tax system.  He has begun to downplay the likelihood that he will "rollback" the GST immediately.  As a reason he quotes the worsening economic outlook in Australia.  If this situation persists, SPIN believes that One Nation could well hold the balance of power in the lower house, if leader Pauline Hanson promises to attempt repeal of the GST.


From Australia it looks as though the revolution against the corruption of the Suharto regime has been dissipated.  The honest Cleric is to be brought before the people's assembly (ha ha, isn't it elected 30% by the army?) to be tried for corruption.  If there are Indonesians who love liberty, then this must not happen.  Indonesia was for centuries under the colonial control of the Dutch.  The Dutch were one of the most enlightened colonial powers, and would have instilled an understanding of liberty.  The Indonesian people understand the issues.  If the Timor people were brave enough to suffer huge loss of human life to throw off the yoke of invaders, can the Indonesian people do any any less to rid themselves of a corrupt military overclass?

Or do they accept the panacea of peace with the grinding corruption of an oligarchy?


Bush is good for the Greens.  Right now, the Californians are suffering brownouts because of Clinton's bankrupt policy of exporting pollution away from California (aka getting power from the mountain states).  Bush has acted to reduce power cost long term (by opening Alaska & the bay of mexico to oil drilling) and stopped the enforced taxation of power producing mountain states to the benefit of California.

According to "The Economist", Kyoto was killed by the US senate, not Bush.  Carbon Dioxide emissions (subject of the Kyoto talks) could be reduced 3% by restoring lead to petrol.  (because leaded petrol is more efficient than ULP, so a car requires about 3% less petrol to do the same distance.)  Or we can do it the hard way, accept Kyoto and cut fuel to farmers or airlines or shipping or air conditioning or hospitals or factories or ... what?  Probably the end result would be increased fuel prices, which would mean (among other problems) much lower grain surpluses, so the US, Australia & Canada wouldn't have the surplus wheat to feed the Chinese (or the Indians or the Nigerians etc.) next time they had a famine.  (So maybe the people who proposed the carbon controls at Kyoto are even more dispassionate about population control than the Chinese?  Nah, they haven't got the brains to plan population control that deviously)

And anyhow, what is the carbon fuss about?  Worst case scenario is (1) a rise in the sea level of 1 meter, (2) a change in the weather patterns and (3) a thinning of the ozone layer.  None of those is not likely to cause as much grief as the Kyoto accord.

  1. If the sea level rises 1 meter over 100 years, then a few million people will resettle.  So what? Resettlement is not new.
  2. No one has said whether a change in weather patterns might not result in an overall improvement.  Maybe deserts will bloom?
  3. A recent discovery implies that the ozone hole allows through ultraviolet rays that break down smog pollution and reduce asthma.
Wouldn't more carbon dioxide promote the growth of the green part of the biosphere (i.e. plants?)   Wouldn't that be good?  Isn't food the most important commodity?    If ultraviolet light stops smog, maybe we should encourage the use of CFC's?  If the world became warmer maybe England & Canada would become habitable?

The single certainty is, the Greenpeace management elite will be on a champagne diet for the next 4 - 8 years, and should send their thanks to "dubya" c/- the White House.  If it were possible to purchase a place as a paid director of Greenpeace I would suggest "buy".


email here